City Council Regular Meeting

Monday, November 7, 2016

7:00 PM · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way

Topics tracked across meetings:

Amendments to Title 16: Stormwater Manual & Floodplain Code ID 1144 ›››› 4/5

City Council Committee of the Whole · Jun 13, 2016 → Planning Policy Commission · Aug 11, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 6, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 7, 2016 → Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Jun 7, 2022

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 6, 2016 View full lifecycle → Next: Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Jun 7, 2022 ▶

9th Major Amendment to the Issaquah Highlands Two Party Development Agreement - Polygon Northwest Requesting Major Modification for Transfer of Development Rights AB 7215 ››› 1/4

City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 7, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Jan 17, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Feb 21, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 19, 2017

View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Jan 17, 2017 ▶

2016 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments AB 7270 ›››› 4/5

Planning Policy Commission · Jan 28, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 7, 2016 → Planning Policy Commission · Oct 13, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 7, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 20, 2017

◀ Prev: Planning Policy Commission · Oct 13, 2016 View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 20, 2017 ▶

First Amendment to South Cove/Greenwood Point Assumption Interlocal Agreement with Bellevue AB 7269 › 1/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 7, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 5, 2016

View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 5, 2016 ▶

Interfund Loan: Fleet Services Fund to Street Improvement Fund AB 7281 › 1/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 7, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 21, 2016

View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 21, 2016 ▶

Property Tax Levy Increase AB 7277 › 1/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 7, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 21, 2016

View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 21, 2016 ▶

2017 State Legislative Agenda AB 7247 › 1/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 7, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 21, 2016

View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 21, 2016 ▶

Professional Services Agreement for a Traffic Safety Camera System Do Not Authorize AB 7076 ›› 3/3

City Council Regular Meeting · May 2, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 6, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 7, 2016

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 6, 2016 View full lifecycle →

Automated Traffic Safety Camera Revenue AB 7248 › 2/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 6, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 7, 2016

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 6, 2016 View full lifecycle →

Initiate Traffic Study for Red Light Cameras AB 7257 › 2/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 3, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 7, 2016

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 3, 2016 View full lifecycle →

Temporary Moratorium Related to Certain Permit Applications AB 7258 › 2/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 17, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 7, 2016

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 17, 2016 View full lifecycle →

3. SPECIAL BUSINESS

Entrepreneurship Education Week Proclamation Hear Presentation AB 7274

packet pp.5–7

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Executive Department:

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll, Nov. 7

Carried 6-0

Approve · packet pp.2016

Topics: Budget

Open packet at p.2016 ↗

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Minutes: Council Budget Work Session, Oct. 12, 2016

Carried 6-0

Approve · packet pp.9

Topics: Budget

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR b) 10-12-16 Council Committee Work Session Minutes Page 7828

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, Oct. 17, 2016

Carried 6-0

Approve · packet pp.11–15

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR c) 10-17-16 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7829

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Minutes: Council Budget Work Session, Oct. 18, 2016

Carried 6-0

Approve · packet pp.17

Topics: Budget

Open packet at p.17 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR d) 10-18-16 Council Committee Work Session Minutes Page 7834

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

9th Major Amendment to the Issaquah Highlands Two Party Development Agreement - Polygon Northwest Requesting Major Modification for Transfer of Development Rights AB 7215

Carried 6-0

Refer to Urban Village Development · packet pp.19–28

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.19 ↗

Staff report:

NEW CITY COUNCIL AB 7215 - AGENDA BILL Consent City Council Regular Meeting - 07 Nov 2016 Calendar

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

2017 State Legislative Agenda AB 7247

Carried 6-0

Refer to Council Committee Work Session · packet pp.29–34

Open packet at p.29 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Executive Department:

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

First Amendment to South Cove/Greenwood Point Assumption Interlocal Agreement with Bellevue AB 7269

Carried 6-0

Refer to Council Infrastructure Committee · packet pp.35–64

Open packet at p.35 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Engineering Department:

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

2016 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments AB 7270

Carried 6-0

Refer to Council Land & Shore Committee · packet pp.65–161

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jan 28, 2016 City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 7, 2016 Planning Policy Commission · Oct 13, 2016

Open packet at p.65 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Development Services Department:

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Interfund Loan: Fleet Services Fund to Street Improvement Fund AB 7281

Carried 6-0

Refer to Council Services & Safety · packet pp.163–166

Topics: TransportationPublic SafetyBudget

Open packet at p.163 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Finance Department:

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

8. PUBLIC HEARING

2017 Revenue Sources AB 7242

Conduct Public Hearing; Direct · packet pp.167–173

Open packet at p.167 ↗

Staff report:

Page 167 of 322 PUBLIC HEARING a)

9. REGULAR BUSINESS

Professional Services Agreement for a Traffic Safety Camera System Do Not Authorize AB 7076

Carried 6-0

packet pp.175–194

Topics: TransportationPublic Safety

Open packet at p.175 ↗

Staff report:

UPDATED CITY COUNCIL AB 7076 - AGENDA BILL Regular City Council Regular Meeting - 07 Nov 2016 Business

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by RAMOS

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Automated Traffic Safety Camera Revenue AB 7248

Carried 6-0

Authorize · packet pp.195–196

Topics: TransportationPublic Safety

Open packet at p.195 ↗

Staff report:

focused on the fact that this proposal would direct safety camera revenue towards capital projects, not just transportation projects. The negative impacts on the General Fund from redirecting this revenue were also stated and discussed. The Committee recommended authorizing the allocation of revenue to capital projects as proposed in AB 7248 and placement of this item under Regular Business at the Nov. 7, 2016 Council meeting.

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by GOODMAN

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Initiate Traffic Study for Red Light Cameras AB 7257

Carried 5-1

Authorize · packet pp.197–202

Topics: Transportation

Open packet at p.197 ↗

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by GOODMAN

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Paul Winterstein

Opposed: Ramos

Amendments to Stormwater Management Regulations within Municipal Code and Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards AB 7122

Carried 6-0

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.203–297

Topics: Land UseWater

Previously discussed: City Council Committee of the Whole · Jun 13, 2016 Planning Policy Commission · Aug 11, 2016

Open packet at p.203 ↗

Staff report:

The Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (Permit) issued by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) regulates many aspects of development permitting for both private and public projects to mitigate impacts of stormwater runoff on Waters of the State. Previously these regulations were largely limited to development standards as specified in the adopted Stormwater Design Manual.

Roll call:

Moved by PAULY · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Temporary Moratorium Related to Certain Permit Applications AB 7258

Carried 6-0

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.299–322

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.299 ↗

Staff report:

UPDATED CITY COUNCIL AB 7258 - AGENDA BILL Regular City Council Regular Meeting - 07 Nov 2016 Business

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

2346 segments

1:05 ↗ I'll call to order the November 7th, 2016 regular council meeting and

1:11 ↗ ask those in the audience who would like to join the city council and myself

1:16 ↗ in the Pledge of Allegiance to please stand. I pledge

1:21 ↗ allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic

1:27 ↗ for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty

1:33 ↗ and justice for all.

1:45 ↗ First item under special business is agenda bill 7274,

1:52 ↗ Entrepreneurial Education Week Proclamation. And I would ask

1:59 ↗ the DECA students and their teacher to please join me at

2:05 ↗ the Ross Room.

2:24 ↗ So this is a proclamation and as in all proclamations there are

2:30 ↗ a number of whereases and the whereases really are

2:36 ↗ the reason why we're doing this and it's also an opportunity to publicize

2:42 ↗ certain good things going on in our community. So

2:48 ↗ whereas through entrepreneurship education young people including those with disabilities

2:54 ↗ Learn organizational skills including time management, leadership

3:00 ↗ development, and interpersonal skills, all of which are highly transferable

3:06 ↗ skills sought by employees. And whereas the Partnership for 21st

3:12 ↗ Century Skills identifies entrepreneurial skills as one of

3:18 ↗ the content areas critical to success. And whereas

3:24 ↗ programs such as DECA in schools prepare emerging leaders and

3:29 ↗ entrepreneurs in marketing, finance, hospitality, and management

3:35 ↗ to allow them to pursue their goals and reach their full potential.

3:41 ↗ And whereas self-employment provides people with disabilities and their

3:47 ↗ families with the potential to create and manage businesses in which

3:53 ↗ they function as the employer or boss rather than merely being

3:59 ↗ an employee. And whereas entrepreneurs drive America's

4:05 ↗ economy, accounting for the majority of our nation's new job creation and

4:10 ↗ innovations. Across the globe, Americans are known for their ingenuity and

4:16 ↗ for their entrepreneurial spirit because entrepreneurship is the

4:22 ↗ essence of the American dream, and whereas Washington state is one of the top

4:28 ↗ states for entrepreneurship and startup businesses, and

4:33 ↗ whereas during this special week, the city of Issaquah encourages citizens and students to

4:39 ↗ embrace their heritage as thinkers and leaders of industry. Now

4:45 ↗ therefore, I, Fred Butler, mayor of the city of Issaquah, do hereby proclaim the week

4:51 ↗ of November 16th through 22nd, 2016 to be

4:56 ↗ Entrepreneurship Education Week in the city of Issacua and I encourage all citizens

5:02 ↗ to join me in this special observance and all students to participate in entrepreneurial

5:08 ↗ activities over the course of the week. And it's a real pleasure for me to

5:14 ↗ present this proclamation to each of you

5:20 ↗ and hope that the week of February the 16th through

5:26 ↗ 22nd provides you an opportunity to do all of the wonderful things that I just

5:32 ↗ talked about. So who is going to accept this proclamation? Well, you can all

5:38 ↗ put your hands on it if you want. Would any of you like to make

5:44 ↗ a few short comments or would you just like to get out of here with

5:48 ↗ your proclamation? Yeah, thanks. Well come right up here.

5:55 ↗ Thank you so much for supporting the Isquadeka chapter. It means a lot to have

5:58 ↗ a supportive community around us so we can learn more about business and prepare for

6:04 ↗ college and our future careers. Very nicely said. Thank you.

6:10 ↗ Again, congratulations. Congratulations. Congratulations.

6:27 ↗ Our next item, special business, whoops, next item,

6:33 ↗ audience comments. Just a reminder,

6:39 ↗ Citizen comments are an important part of the public process. We take them seriously and

6:43 ↗ factor them into the decisions that we make. Anyone from the public who wishes to

6:49 ↗ comment will have the opportunity to do so. Please direct your comments to the whole

6:55 ↗ council and not individuals. While this is not a question and answer session,

7:04 ↗ we will contact you to follow up if needed. If you did not have the

7:08 ↗ opportunity to include your email address on the sign-in sheet, you may

7:14 ↗ leave that information on the clipboard at the front table after speaking.

7:21 ↗ When recognized, please come to the lectern, state your name, address, and any relationship to

7:27 ↗ the city, limit your comments to five minutes, submit any written comments to the city

7:33 ↗ clerk. Visual timer has been placed on the lectern when it turns yellow you are

7:38 ↗ within the last minute of your comment period If you use the full five minutes

7:44 ↗ the timer will sound to indicate the end of your allotted comment time Just a

7:50 ↗ reminder personal attacks obscene language derogatory remarks and disruptive behavior will not be

7:56 ↗ permitted again citizen comments written and verbal and are an important

8:02 ↗ aspect of the public process. We take them seriously and we thank members of the

8:07 ↗ public for taking the time to address us during our meetings. And with that, I

8:13 ↗ would ask the clerk, has anyone signed up to speak? Yes, Ivana Halverson.

8:25 ↗ Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Ivana Halverson. Do

8:31 ↗ you need me to spell that? Okay, you need my address? Yes. 18215

8:37 ↗ 72nd Avenue South, Kent, Washington 98032. I am

8:43 ↗ here on behalf of Jackson's food stores to discuss agenda bill 7258 regarding the

8:48 ↗ moratorium on development and the central Issaquah development standards.

8:55 ↗ I wasn't able to attend the previous public hearing so I'm commenting now. I apologize

9:00 ↗ for my absence then. Specifically I'd like to talk about the

9:06 ↗ non vested thresholds for small development. In the,

9:14 ↗ excuse me, throughout agenda bill 7258, development is talked about

9:20 ↗ as a development site area or development area and I was to clarify if the

9:25 ↗ council intends the area description to be a building area, not site development

9:31 ↗ area. Because 3,000 square feet is a very small footprint for a building and certainly

9:37 ↗ for any site development work. The other comment I have is that

9:43 ↗ the threshold of 3,000 square feet feels very arbitrary and also again very tiny. While

9:49 ↗ I recognize that there is a smallness factor to go along with the non-vested projects.

9:56 ↗ The Central Issaquah Design Development Standards has levels of review that start at equal

10:02 ↗ to or less than 4,000 square feet and that's a level zero review. Whereas the

10:07 ↗ arbitrary threshold for small development of the non-vested projects for non-residential

10:13 ↗ is 3,000 square feet. So I'd like clarification as to why the 3,000 instead of

10:17 ↗ the 4,000. Lastly, there's no

10:23 ↗ differentiation in agenda bill 7258 for

10:29 ↗ redevelopment versus new development. And I think that's an important distinction to make.

10:35 ↗ When you're talking about new development, that's a brand new impact to the city traffic,

10:42 ↗ infrastructure, and so forth. When you're talking about redevelopment, again, whether the threshold is 3,000

10:47 ↗ or 4,000, I think that the new portion of that redevelopment should be considered only,

10:53 ↗ not the overall size. The reason I'm bringing this up, for example, is the,

10:59 ↗ again, the Gilman-Jackson Shell Redevelopment Project, which is identified in the bill as project number

11:04 ↗ 16 on the non-vested list. It's identified as construction of a 3,500

11:11 ↗ square foot convenience store. That's a net floor area amount. What it doesn't take into

11:16 ↗ account is that there is an existing convenience store on the site that's 1,860 square

11:21 ↗ feet. There's an existing car wash on the site. Those will both be removed. And

11:26 ↗ overall, it'll be replaced with a gross square footage of 4,285

11:32 ↗ square foot building. So the net increase there is only 2,200, or excuse me, 2,440

11:38 ↗ square feet. Again, under the 3,000 threshold, but. I still think

11:44 ↗ the 3,000 threshold is a little small and a little arbitrary. So I request that

11:49 ↗ the city consider in their adoption of the ordinance to modify

11:56 ↗ the moratorium that they increase the square footage to 4,000 and also change the

12:02 ↗ language to consider added or new for redevelopment or remodeling and change the

12:09 ↗ description from non-residential development to non-residential floor area or building area.

12:16 ↗ And I have a memorandum that articulates my statement. I'll answer

12:22 ↗ any questions if you have them. Thank you very, very much. And if you could

12:26 ↗ provide the clerk with your memorandum, that would be very helpful to us.

12:34 ↗ Next we have Mark Anderson.

12:52 ↗ Mayor, City Council, do the recent moratorium on.

12:58 ↗ Sir, if you would state your name. Oh, sorry. Every address and relationship to the

13:03 ↗ city that would be helpful. Mark Anderson. My address is 22500

13:08 ↗ Southeast 56th Street. And I'm

13:15 ↗ kind of like want to talk about the what you guys did with the

13:22 ↗ Roadways, Front Street, and East Lake Sammamish, beautiful job. I really

13:27 ↗ appreciate the way East Lake was reconstructed

13:34 ↗ and traffic flow is a lot better than what it was a year ago. Though

13:40 ↗ I think traffic patterns have changed. In the Issaquah Press, there was

13:48 ↗ a report that Issaquale wants to put in some

13:54 ↗ red light cameras on certain areas. Certain areas

14:00 ↗ that I think you should have them is over on Front Street and Sunset Way.

14:07 ↗ The people going south has always have plugged that intersection up for years. Also,

14:16 ↗ The intersection of Northwest Gilman and Front Street,

14:23 ↗ it is always plugged up when people want to make a left turn

14:31 ↗ onto Front Street to go towards the highway. It is always plugged up and all

14:35 ↗ those people go up onto the highlands. So that needs to be looked at.

14:42 ↗ It's gotten better, but I think it can be improved. The last one is down

14:48 ↗ by my part of town, Southeast 56th and

14:54 ↗ East Lake Sammamish Parkway. I have come real close to being hit by

14:59 ↗ someone making a right turn from Southeast 56th onto East Lake Sammamish

15:05 ↗ Parkway when I was attempting to make a left turn with the green arrow,

15:11 ↗ of course, and come real close to someone hitting me or I hitting them.

15:19 ↗ That needs to be looked at to see if we can just have that red

15:22 ↗ light, no turn on red on 56th. That would probably

15:28 ↗ help a lot with arguments on who has a right away. So

15:34 ↗ I wanna thank you for your time. Thank you, sir.

15:41 ↗ Next is Terry Fellin.

15:52 ↗ Good evening, Mayor and members of the council. My name's Terri Phelan. I live at

15:58 ↗ 380 Newport Way Northwest. And

16:04 ↗ I am a small property owner and small business owner here in the city.

16:10 ↗ My husband and I moved here from Seattle in 1994 and we bought our small

16:16 ↗ home on Newport and Dogwood in 2005. soon after buying my architectural firm's

16:22 ↗ business location in a converted house next door. Our plan was to keep the small

16:29 ↗ homes and add some other buildings to create a live work

16:34 ↗ cluster in the character of Gilman Village actually. And the city was very supportive.

16:40 ↗ We were really excited. And then the economy shifted and we had to table the

16:45 ↗ project and wait. In 2010, we learned that our property

16:51 ↗ was to be highly impacted with the roundabout. At some nebulous date,

16:58 ↗ just some time in the future, the project would actually take about a third

17:04 ↗ of our property. And at that point, we reached out to the mayor and city

17:09 ↗ council, Mayor Frisinger and the council, to explore

17:15 ↗ an opportunity for the city to buy it. since they were buying some other homes

17:19 ↗ in the area for conversions. But sadly, there were no funds at that time. And

17:24 ↗ we'd have to wait again. Nobody else wanted to buy it either because of the

17:30 ↗ unknown timeframe. And it was the only

17:36 ↗ single family residence between Sunset and Maple on Newport Way that has not been converted

17:41 ↗ to business or torn down and replaced with apartments. In 2015,

17:48 ↗ five years, five years, we began again working with the city planning department regarding a

17:53 ↗ change of use on our property, this time just keeping the house and converting it

17:59 ↗ to professional office use with a future addition. Our proposal kept the

18:04 ↗ classic old home and refitted it for business use, honoring the character and style of

18:09 ↗ the old town area. A change of use was seen as a win-win for the

18:14 ↗ city and ourselves. The planned roundabout would actually make the home much less desirable, but

18:19 ↗ it was perfect for a business. Access to the new parking area would be shared

18:24 ↗ with the adjacent business, so not to impact traffic at the proposed circle, and would

18:29 ↗ allow the city to purchase just a portion of the property for the street improvements

18:34 ↗ rather than the entire lot at a savings of close to $300,000.

18:41 ↗ Um, ironically, some city staff still suggested we wait some more to get more money

18:47 ↗ from the city, but at this point we couldn't afford to wait.

18:53 ↗ Then came the emergency moratorium. I've heard the term

18:58 ↗ unintended circumstance used for us small property owners outside the CIP area caught in the

19:04 ↗ net of the moratorium. which I believe is intended to reassess the CIP

19:10 ↗ performance compared with its goals. The timing of this unintended circumstance of

19:16 ↗ the emergency moratorium actually created an emergency for us. We're finally under a

19:22 ↗ purchase and sale agreement with a business that planned to implement our design when the

19:26 ↗ moratorium was enacted and we lost the sale. We're now under a

19:32 ↗ more tenuous purchase and sale agreement with a contingency that if it does not fall

19:37 ↗ under an exemption to the moratorium by the 21st of this month, the purchase price

19:42 ↗ drops by 8%, $50,000, which is a

19:48 ↗ significant amount that will greatly impact our small household budget. We are so

19:54 ↗ tired of waiting, as you can imagine, with this moratorium on top of the

19:59 ↗ Phantom Roundabout that has kept us hanging in limbo for the past several years.

20:06 ↗ I beg you, please don't make us wait any longer. I urge you to vote

20:11 ↗ tonight to approve the administration's recommendation to exempt small projects.

20:18 ↗ We have another small home on Issaquah Creek's East Fork that's just waiting for us

20:23 ↗ to remodel into our forever home. And after all this time, are looking forward to

20:28 ↗ actually getting something past the planning stage. Thank you for listening

20:34 ↗ and please vote tonight. Thank you very much. Next,

20:40 ↗ please. Next is Brian Weinstein.

20:47 ↗ Good evening. My name is Brian Weinstein. My address is on file. I am the

20:52 ↗ spokesperson for the official No on Issaquah Traffic Bond Committee as appointed by the Mayor

20:57 ↗ and City Council. And I'm here tonight to thank everyone in the City of Issaquah

21:02 ↗ who has gotten involved in the discussion and the debate about this important issue. both

21:08 ↗ pro and con. I feel that it's really brought out the best of the people

21:13 ↗ in Issaquah. And so I'd like to just say thank you to everybody in that

21:18 ↗ regard. A different subject. I'm especially glad that the

21:23 ↗ mayor declared next week being entrepreneurial week. As you know, Mayor Butler, as we have

21:29 ↗ done this together a few times, I go to Issaquah High School and I am

21:34 ↗ a consultant for the business sales and marketing class the DECA group. I've been doing

21:39 ↗ that for almost five years now and I teach them all kinds of important lessons

21:44 ↗ about business accounting, economics, finance, strategic decision making, organizational behavior,

21:50 ↗ all that good stuff. And it's particularly timely because I know we're going through budget

21:55 ↗ discussions right now and one of the things that's being looked at is Central Park

22:00 ↗ up in the Highlands. Now we voted several years ago for a $10 million park

22:06 ↗ bond and included in that was $1,550,000 for artificial turf and lights.

22:12 ↗ And I know that you're going through discussions right now to look at that and

22:18 ↗ somehow in the planning for that has appeared parking spaces

22:24 ↗ and an 8,000 square foot building. And that wasn't anywhere in the bond that we

22:29 ↗ voted on several years ago. One of the things I talked to the DECA class

22:34 ↗ and the sales and marketing people about is the importance of a strategic plan. Because

22:39 ↗ if you don't have a strategic plan and you make a decision in business, you're

22:42 ↗ basically making a guess. And businesses that continue to make guess after guess without a

22:48 ↗ strategic plan, eventually they don't survive. They're not around very much longer.

22:54 ↗ The other thing in looking at this proposal that I've heard and seen going through

23:00 ↗ budget discussions is there's money in the park mitigation fund that can be used to

23:05 ↗ pay for these different items that were not originally part of the bond, which brings

23:10 ↗ up, of course, the fourth cardinal rule of finance, which is use other people's money.

23:17 ↗ So this is a good example of using park mitigation fund, which is money that

23:21 ↗ developers have set aside for future Issaquah residents, except Now that money will be used

23:26 ↗ for current Issaquah residents, which brings me to one of my favorite,

23:32 ↗ most instrumental people involved in the business world in the history of the world, Charles

23:37 ↗ Ponzi, who of course created the infamous Ponzi scheme, where you take investors' money from

23:43 ↗ future investors and use it to pay for current investors' return, which is

23:48 ↗ essentially what is being proposed with, as I understand it, this lack of strategic

23:54 ↗ plan for what's going on in Central Park. What is curious to me as I

24:00 ↗ think about this is that my students at Issaquah High School and DECA know these

24:05 ↗ things. They know how to act ethically and make decisions properly.

24:11 ↗ I hope that you do so as well in considering that issue. Thank you very

24:17 ↗ much. Thank you.

24:30 ↗ Hi, my name's Connie Marsh. I have a store at 1175 Northwest

24:36 ↗ Gilman Boulevard, Suite B11. I am an entrepreneur. Anyway, small.

24:45 ↗ The Central Park, I went walking up in Central Park the other day after looking

24:50 ↗ at the plans again. And so many questions came to mind. One was, why aren't

24:56 ↗ we using the maintenance shop for interim parking? instead of creating extra

25:02 ↗ parking. Why don't we have an agreement with the school district for using their parking

25:07 ↗ lot that's just a few feet away. People might have to walk, but it is

25:10 ↗ a park after all. As I was there at 9 a.m. in the morning, which

25:14 ↗ is prime time for people to drive to the school, I was amazed to see

25:20 ↗ the cars coming out of the upper levels of Issaquah Highlands at about 40 miles

25:24 ↗ an hour to deliver their kids to the school. yet we are looking at widening

25:29 ↗ that street, which we have learned achingly through the last year and a half that

25:35 ↗ wider streets mean faster cars. And I'm pretty sure we don't want cars going fast

25:41 ↗ through the park. So why would we widen the streets in this

25:47 ↗ situation? So I looked at the BPA and there's a map

25:52 ↗ showing parking in the BPA in two different places. And I go, you know what?

25:57 ↗ We're taking a park and making parking and we are trying to create a city

26:02 ↗ that is getting rid of parking or is at least doing structured parking and we're

26:06 ↗ trying to change from being suburban to urban and this is an urban village zoning.

26:13 ↗ So what are we doing creating a very very suburban structure in

26:18 ↗ Central Park. And then I look at the funding structure for this and I look

26:24 ↗ in our budget and I see that what we're going to have under $2,000 left

26:29 ↗ in our parks mitigation fund if we fund Central Park in this way.

26:37 ↗ That's nothing. We're just creating the gateway with the park where we have the land

26:41 ↗ but we have no funding to do anything with the land. We're low on maintenance

26:46 ↗ in our parks department not that you can use the mitigation fund for that. We

26:51 ↗ have so many things to do with parks. Can we really strip our mitigation funding

26:57 ↗ to that low of a level just for Central Park? So you do have wisely

27:03 ↗ I think this pro plan coming through. So I would ask in this budget that

27:09 ↗ you not allocate funding to Central Park and that you wait until the

27:14 ↗ pro-strategic plan is done so then you can make this decision not in a

27:20 ↗ void or a vacuum but holistically considering all of town and all of the

27:26 ↗ needs throughout our park system which are huge and make wiser decisions. So please

27:32 ↗ remove that funding from the budget. Thank you. Thank you.

27:39 ↗ Next is Ken

27:40 ↗ Lyons.

27:50 ↗ Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Ken Lyons with Boardwalk Real Estate.

27:53 ↗ I'm here on behalf of two Issaquah homeowners, Donna and Nancy McFerrin at 375

28:00 ↗ Minehill Road Southwest and Colleen Peterson at 345 Minehill Road Southwest.

28:08 ↗ Thank you for this opportunity to make comments. We did submit some comments in advance

28:12 ↗ at the public hearing and then in advance of tonight we also did forward an

28:16 ↗ email as well. And our request is to narrow the moratorium

28:22 ↗ such that single family developments outside of the central Issaquah plan area that have applied

28:27 ↗ for pre-application meetings, that they be accepted from the moratorium. Certainly

28:33 ↗ it caught us all by surprise and certainly we had had several Feasibility meetings with

28:39 ↗ staff, there was a lot of work that went into the plans. The goal was

28:43 ↗ to work with, and they could have sold the property certainly to others, but decided

28:48 ↗ not to because they wanted to have a really cool project that they could actually

28:51 ↗ live in after the project was over, which is rare for development. And so, and

28:56 ↗ I'm looking over at Don McFerrin since he's here and he'll be testifying hopefully next,

28:59 ↗ but it really, what really caught us by surprise that this happened. And

29:05 ↗ it really is causing a significant hardship. Colleen Peterson is an elderly lady. Her

29:11 ↗ family's been on the property since 1932. Her father, her grandfather, her

29:17 ↗ uncles were all coal miners, certainly in the Issaquah area. And this is a significant

29:23 ↗ financial hardship. And just like the previous person testified about people walking away

29:29 ↗ from purchase and sale transactions, this is the exact kind of situation that these property

29:35 ↗ owners were in when the moratorium was enacted. We do believe that there's a way

29:40 ↗ to narrow the Moore's Tram very narrowly so it does not create the type of

29:44 ↗ additional development activity that the city is concerned about, both in the central Issaquah plant

29:49 ↗ and also with projects that have not yet been formed. And obviously one of the

29:53 ↗ challenges with this moratorium is that it's so long. It's a very long moratorium. Originally

29:57 ↗ it was envisioned to be a six month moratorium. At least that's what the emergency

30:01 ↗ ordinance contemplated. And now we're talking about 12 to 15 months, potentially longer depending on

30:07 ↗ how long it takes to go through that process.

30:14 ↗ I guess that is a general request. We just ask and we plead with you

30:18 ↗ to please consider narrowing the moratorium. We're talking about two property owners. They're still small

30:23 ↗ property owners. They're trying to work together. They would like to have a project that's

30:29 ↗ larger than the short plat that was perhaps envisioned at the last meeting. And

30:35 ↗ so we just request your consideration of that and appreciate your time listening to us.

30:39 ↗ Thank you. Thank you. Next is Don McFerrin.

30:49 ↗ Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, City Council. My name is Don McFerrin. I have property

30:53 ↗ at 375 Minehill Road Southwest. And I've owned the property since 2007.

31:00 ↗ My wife and I fell in love with the property. It's on two acres, but

31:04 ↗ that's a big chunk of land. And I have my neighbor Colleen Peterson who lives

31:08 ↗ next to us at 345 Minehill Road Southwest. Couldn't make it this evening because she's

31:12 ↗ not feeling well. It's fascinating to live next to her because Bush Street

31:18 ↗ in Issaquah is her mother's side that homesteaded here and was one of the first

31:23 ↗ families. And Darce Street is her father's side. So they've been here since before

31:29 ↗ Issaquah. I, on the other hand, I'm pretty new here. We have been working together

31:35 ↗ since probably 2009 to sell our back property. We have a stream that bisects our

31:40 ↗ property. So I have two acres, one in front, and one in back. And what

31:44 ↗ we wanted to do is do some kind of cottage housing or something that would

31:48 ↗ be really, really sweet. And if you've ever been up Mine Hill Road, most of

31:52 ↗ the houses there are still the mine cabins. They're 800 square feet, 900 square feet.

31:57 ↗ Some of them are set on the road. It feels kind of like a beach

32:00 ↗ community, but it's in the woods. It's also neat that it's a block off front

32:04 ↗ street and yet when I mow the lawn I have to pick up bear poop

32:07 ↗ because we've got a black bear living back in the woods who I haven't seen

32:10 ↗ yet but the neighbors have. So it's a really special piece of property and there's

32:14 ↗ a stream there and my wife and I plan on living there if we ever

32:17 ↗ can someday but we haven't sold the property because we wanted something good to happen

32:23 ↗ with the back because we will be the neighbors. Colleen doesn't want to move. I

32:27 ↗ don't want to sell the house in front. The goal was like I said, some

32:32 ↗ kind of nice property. We've had a buyer that was going to buy it and

32:36 ↗ they backed out waiting for this moratorium. So I guess that whole background story is

32:41 ↗ to ask you to consider shortening the moratorium if you can because it's a pretty

32:46 ↗ big financial hit to have all this time and money and research invested because with

32:50 ↗ the stream we've got stream studies and tree studies and arborist studies and wetland studies

32:55 ↗ and slope studies and the mine hill hazard studies. really been an eye opener to

33:01 ↗ me for how much it costs just to sell a piece of property. I just

33:05 ↗ thought it would be like, well, I'll just sell a piece of property. So I

33:08 ↗ thank you for considering maybe shortening the moratorium and allowing me to talk tonight. Thank

33:13 ↗ you. Thank you.

33:19 ↗ Next is Dave Wagner.

33:34 ↗ Good evening, Mayor and Council. Dave Wegg, 360 Northwest Dogwood Street, Apartment K204.

33:42 ↗ I'm gonna let Tish do the slides. It's gonna be easier for me to do

33:45 ↗ this. It's the third quarter. We're up by 11 points, so I'm gonna get

33:51 ↗ the heck outta here, okay? Veterans Day. You know, I hear all

33:57 ↗ this about moratorium and all the stuff about

34:03 ↗ everything that's wonderful about this city, and we fight for what we believe in. Well,

34:09 ↗ the reason we can do that is these ladies and gentlemen right here. These are

34:14 ↗ all World War II vets. As you know, I went on an honor flight in

34:19 ↗ May, and we took 56 of them back. The beauty this year is we've taken

34:25 ↗ 220 vets back all year.

34:31 ↗ This is at the World War II Memorial in Washington, DC.

34:37 ↗ And guess what? Two weeks ago this Wednesday, so two weeks ago,

34:43 ↗ I was invited to Alaska Airlines, and they dedicated this wonderful jet

34:49 ↗ airplane, which is a 737-990ER, extended range.

34:55 ↗ We will use this from now on for every one of our honor flights that

35:00 ↗ go to Washington, DC. And if you look at the top of it, you'll see

35:04 ↗ honoring those who serve. And that's all generations,

35:10 ↗ those who serve. Thank you, Alaska Airlines, for doing such a wonderful

35:16 ↗ thing as being able to dedicate this airplane.

35:24 ↗ Just one quick personal note, you'll notice I got a picture right by the

35:30 ↗ wingtip, and that's the new style wingtip to cut down

35:36 ↗ drag. And one last thing, Tish, I

35:42 ↗ may need your help on this. There it is.

35:51 ↗ So this Friday, there's gonna be two services one up in the Highlands at nine

35:55 ↗ o'clock, which will be a service to honor veterans, and then we'll have one here.

36:02 ↗ I promise that the speaker for the affair will be quite well known, and

36:09 ↗ she's told me it's gonna be a good little talk, so I'm excited about that.

36:14 ↗ We will do a Veterans Day ceremony here at the Eagle Room.

36:20 ↗ It's gonna be crowded, we've been there before, And those first come,

36:26 ↗ first serve will get seats. And we will honor lots of veterans who come that

36:32 ↗ day. And we will, for the 10th year, present flags to

36:38 ↗ the city on behalf of men and women in uniform who serve our country.

36:46 ↗ City of Issaquah you have not had to buy flags for ten years because our

36:50 ↗ VFW post make sure that you have flags to fly on your flagpole One last

36:56 ↗ thing if you'll indulge me and I would like to read a real neat email

37:01 ↗ that I got this afternoon Our September flight

37:08 ↗ we had a 92 year old his name Mr. Matheson

37:15 ↗ And he was on our September flight and he just passed away.

37:22 ↗ I'd like to read you a quick note from his daughter. Dearest Renee,

37:28 ↗ Renee is one of the board members with me. I wanted you to know that

37:33 ↗ dad passed away on Wednesday evening. Instead of flowers, I am asking for donations to

37:38 ↗ Puget Sound Honor Flight Program. He would want that. It was such a great experience,

37:45 ↗ and we made many new friends that I am still in contact with. Thank you

37:50 ↗ for giving me the time of my life with my dad. I wish everyone

37:56 ↗ could experience that, what we did, and all that we saw. I will

38:02 ↗ be eternally grateful for all you did for us and the many other veterans you

38:07 ↗ have helped. God bless you all. Veterans Day, 11 o'clock. 11th day of the

38:13 ↗ 11th month, 11th hour. Thank you. Thank you. Has anyone else signed up to

38:19 ↗ speak? No one further has signed up. Is there anyone who has not signed up

38:23 ↗ desiring to speak? Mrs. Lynch.

38:34 ↗ My name is Mary Lynch and I reside at 2690 Northwest Oak Crest Drive, Issaquah,

38:38 ↗ Washington. I want to first just say I want to thank a person that I

38:43 ↗ found out was leaving the city or left the city last week and I think

38:47 ↗ has received very little appreciation for what he's done, especially with the mine property. I

38:53 ↗ know he's helped out a lot and that's Peter Rosen who has left the city.

38:59 ↗ I think good development person or staff person that really took to heart the

39:05 ↗ wetlands, the creeks and our streamlines and understood the need for protection.

39:11 ↗ And I think he did stand up for those and also tried to get the

39:17 ↗ developers to do what was best based upon the codes. Unfortunately, a lot of times

39:21 ↗ the codes are written so I don't think there is much stream and wetlands friendly.

39:26 ↗ They could be, they're more development friendly, but I think Peter provided a good balance

39:31 ↗ the best he could. And I am just so sorry to see him leave because

39:35 ↗ I think he's a valuable asset. And I would just say that I would hope

39:39 ↗ with that, with all the projects that we have going on that are involving wetlands,

39:45 ↗ the streams, and stormwater runoff and that, and SEPA reviews, that

39:51 ↗ the city does not wait to replace him. or fill his vacancy,

39:57 ↗ that they move forward with that quickly and find someone with his talents and his

40:04 ↗ desire to protect that they can because it's going to be a big loss to

40:08 ↗ the city and he has done a lot over the years to help. I just

40:13 ↗ want to make sure that people know that he did leave and move on to

40:16 ↗ other pastors. That being said, I also have been spending some time

40:21 ↗ looking at the budget And I'm a little bit disappointed about the transparency of the

40:26 ↗ budget that's being presented and the ability to go through and see what's happening. But

40:30 ↗ one of the things I consistently am finding, especially when it comes to parks, is

40:35 ↗ there all these other things that are related to it. You've already discovered the skate

40:40 ↗ park and the need to upgrade that intersection one more time at S900

40:46 ↗ Newport Way. And that's not identified yet as cost. when walking and reading through the

40:52 ↗ central area plan there's also now the desire from the city to upgrade park and

41:00 ↗ do another study up there I heard thrown out $250,000 for a study on park

41:06 ↗ for traffic might be coming that doesn't say the changes that are going to have

41:10 ↗ to happen to Park Avenue in the Highlands because of Central Park and what is

41:15 ↗ being done and the expansions up there. Where is this money coming from? Well, we

41:19 ↗ already identified that we don't have enough to fund our other streets. And I would

41:25 ↗ like for some of these to really see a full plan for projects for the

41:31 ↗ parks, for development and the true impact on the areas and have traffic studies that

41:37 ↗ do actually are reviewed by the traffic manager and have them reviewed with a report

41:43 ↗ attached for mobility for pedestrians and bicycles. I have not seen a study yet that

41:49 ↗ has come from a developer that really looks at those in the real light. It

41:54 ↗ is still all through traffic oriented. So those are just some changes and questions

42:00 ↗ I'd have. The last thing I'd like to say is thank you for posting all

42:04 ↗ the no truck signs today, but guess which street didn't get any.

42:10 ↗ We were promised that Newport Way would have no truck route signs. We're the only

42:15 ↗ street I found so far that didn't get the no truck route signs, and we

42:19 ↗ didn't get the truck route signs that are on Newport Way at South 54th taken

42:24 ↗ down. I would hope that that is an error, an omation that will be

42:30 ↗ corrected soon. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who has

42:36 ↗ not signed up desiring to speak? Anyone else? Third and

42:42 ↗ final call. Yes, sir.

42:49 ↗ Terry James, J.Rec Construction and the owner at 300 Southeast Star Street. I just

42:55 ↗ wanted to come back and thank the council again for listening to the

43:01 ↗ owners and the small residents here and the local impact that the moratorium was having

43:07 ↗ on them. I know it's trying to balance the needs of the growth and development

43:12 ↗ of the entire community, but also the needs of the families that have been impacted

43:16 ↗ here, the small short plat guys, the small developers here that have been working hard

43:21 ↗ with the city. So I want to thank you guys for listening and hearing concerns

43:25 ↗ as well and taking that into your decision making process. I know it's a big

43:29 ↗ decision you guys have to make, but I know I've talked to a number of

43:32 ↗ other residents as well I appreciate the time you guys have taken and

43:38 ↗ integrating our concerns also into your decision making process. That's all. Thank you.

43:44 ↗ Anyone else desiring to speak? Second call. Third and final call.

43:50 ↗ Seeing no one desiring to speak, audience comments are closed. And we'll move now to

43:56 ↗ committee and regional reports, starting with Council Member Batiste.

44:03 ↗ Thank you, Mr. Mayor. No report this evening. Council Member Ramos.

44:09 ↗ Yes, the Regional Transit Committee met on October 19th.

44:15 ↗ We met in a workshop format rather than a regular meeting at the council chambers

44:19 ↗ and met in Kirkland City Hall to work on continuing to develop a long range

44:25 ↗ plan. And the most difficult issue we're trying to sort through there is connecting that

44:28 ↗ strategic plan with the long range plan and service guidelines and make sure they work

44:33 ↗ together and how they take precedence. This Thursday the 10th from one to three, we'll

44:39 ↗ be again meeting in Bellevue City Hall to continue that work. And I'm not sure

44:44 ↗ the ETP is scheduled to meet on Friday the 11th, but I haven't heard anything

44:49 ↗ so I think that's holiday and they're probably not gonna meet. But I haven't heard

44:51 ↗ anything official on that. Okay, and that concludes my report. Thank you, Council Member Weinstein.

45:02 ↗ Chair Greg Musilkamp- Council Member Winterstein. Chair Greg Musilkamp- Oh, yes. Chair Greg Musilkamp- I

45:06 ↗ sure hope Brian is not here to hear that, but I'm sure he will

45:12 ↗ hear about it, Paul. My apologies.

45:20 ↗ The council infrastructure meeting hasn't met since the last council meeting and our next meeting

45:24 ↗ is scheduled for November 17th at 630 right here in council chambers and also via

45:30 ↗ ICT TV channel 21. In addition to the regular status updates on major

45:36 ↗ infrastructure projects, one topic covered will be the agenda bill 7269,

45:42 ↗ first amendment to South Cove Green One Point Assumption Interlocal Agreement with Bellevue which

45:48 ↗ with passage of tonight's consent agenda, we'll consider that at that meeting, at that next

45:54 ↗ meeting of the infrastructure. The Eastside Fire and Rescue Board

46:01 ↗ also has not met since our last council meeting, though our next meeting is this

46:05 ↗ Thursday, November 10th at 4 p.m. at EFRA headquarters on Newport Way. The agenda was

46:10 ↗ just published late this afternoon, so I don't have an update on that. And last,

46:16 ↗ I'm also the council representative on the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. Now that's not a

46:21 ↗ council committee, it's one of our citizen committee and boards, also known

46:27 ↗ as LTAC. We met last November 2nd at City Hall Northwest. The good news is,

46:33 ↗ is that we have selected a vendor for the events recruitment.

46:39 ↗ Bad news is, they changed their mind and turned down the offer. So we're still

46:45 ↗ without, after two attempts, we have not yet identified a firm to do events recruitment

46:51 ↗ in the area. And so the committee then

46:57 ↗ made a motion and urged economic development, Andrea

47:03 ↗ Snyder from that group, to go ahead and hurry and get that resubmitted. There's a

47:07 ↗ few changes, very minor to the RFQ, but that will be resubmitted by the first

47:11 ↗ of the year. And then we also talked about there's a budget. So

47:18 ↗ within our council deliberations on the 2017 budget, we haven't looked at LTAC. But we

47:23 ↗ now did make a formal recommendation. And so I'll just, there's some money in

47:29 ↗ there for branding and also money in there for way finding.

47:35 ↗ And we'll go over all of those details at our next budget

47:41 ↗ deliberation. We haven't reviewed that yet. But basically the bottom line is

47:47 ↗ those numbers really quickly are next year for $135,000 for event recruitment

47:53 ↗ plus some related marketing, $40,000 for branding. That's actually linked

47:59 ↗ with something from the communication departments out of the general fund. and $85,000

48:05 ↗ for wayfinding and I'll explain all these more at our next council meeting. So that

48:10 ↗ based upon expected beginning fund balance and revenues, we

48:15 ↗ should still end the year around $250,000 in that budget. So

48:21 ↗ that's LTCH and that concludes my report. Thank you, council member Winterstein.

48:29 ↗ Councilmember Martz. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Issaquah City Council Services and Safety Committee met

48:35 ↗ on Thursday, October 27th at 530 in the Eagle Room. We had a number of

48:40 ↗ issues that we took action on. Agenda Bill 7257, initiate traffic study for red light

48:46 ↗ cameras. We move forward two to one for, and it's on this evening's regular

48:52 ↗ business. Agenda Bill 7265, nonprofit funding. We suggested

48:59 ↗ several changes to the administration's recommendation. It's sort of a

49:04 ↗ complicated action moving forward. We basically had one vote for moving forward with the agenda

49:09 ↗ bill recommended by staff, two votes moving forward for one vote for an increase to

49:15 ↗ one of the grantees and council should see that at the November 21st regular business.

49:20 ↗ Agenda Bill 7253, Human Services Grant Recommendations will also go back to the

49:26 ↗ November 21st regular business. We had a comprehensive trails map update

49:32 ↗ and a City of Issachlore Technology Application Roadmap. So that is services

49:38 ↗ and safety. The Sound Cities Association Public Issues Committee will meet on Wednesday.

49:44 ↗ We will be electing a 2017 pick chair and vice chair. My understanding is that

49:50 ↗ there's only one person running for pick chair and that would be me. So unless

49:55 ↗ there's a floor challenge, which you never know, pick isn't really known for that sort

49:59 ↗ of excitement, but never say never. We'll see how that goes. Regional board and committee

50:03 ↗ assignments will also be presented and the nominating committee is actually meeting immediately before the

50:09 ↗ pick. And I believe there is still, they are actually still

50:14 ↗ looking for folks to be on EMAC, which is King County Emergency Management Advisory Council.

50:20 ↗ So I was actually on it previously, and I really enjoyed being on it, but

50:25 ↗ I just can't continue doing it with, assumably, being BIC chair. So if anyone is

50:30 ↗ interested in King County Emergency Services, which is actually a very interesting topic, please see

50:35 ↗ me after the meeting, and you might want to get a hold of Deanna if

50:38 ↗ you're interested in that. We're gonna get a presentation on land conservation and preservation work

50:43 ↗ plan, which is which is a county thing that cities have some interest in. We're

50:47 ↗ gonna talk about the Veterans and Human Services Levy. We're going to get a presentation

50:52 ↗ on Cascadia Rising. This will be, of course, the day after the election, so we're

50:57 ↗ gonna get an update on what happened in terms of levies and ballot measures and

51:02 ↗ try to parse what the voters told us and then go through potential upcoming SCA

51:08 ↗ issues. Then King County Growth Management Policy Council, GMPC, will next hold a meeting on

51:13 ↗ Wednesday, November, 30th at 4 p.m. in PSRC chambers, and it'll be the annual panel

51:19 ↗ on housing issues, hopefully specifically around affordable housing. And then finally, the regional E911

51:25 ↗ strategic plan scoping leadership group will actually next meet on Thursday, January 19th, which is

51:30 ↗ quite a ways away, one day before the inauguration of some lucky individual who will

51:35 ↗ get to be the president of the United States, and about two weeks before the

51:39 ↗ Super Bowl, which one would assume the Seahawks will be in.

51:46 ↗ This concludes my report. CHRIS JERRAMS. Thank you. Council Member Pawley. KEN HOWARD KINGLEMANN, Thank

51:49 ↗ you, Mr. Mayor. The City Council Land and Shore Committee met last Thursday, November 3rd,

51:55 ↗ and we had three items to go through. The first is a general standing item

51:58 ↗ now, which is moratorium, either a staff update or comments from the public. The

52:04 ↗ one item of significance there is that a developer did speak

52:10 ↗ at committee about proposing a development agreement within the central Issaquah area for a

52:16 ↗ project called Issaquah Lofts. And I bring this up because development agreements are still permissible

52:22 ↗ even in the central Issaquah area during the moratorium. So that information was shared with

52:27 ↗ us at that meeting. Second item. was an agenda bill on the

52:33 ↗ wetland rating system. And this was referred unanimously to council consent agenda. And it's not

52:38 ↗ on this evening. I think it's coming later in November. The third item was a

52:43 ↗ review of a draft development agreement for the Silverado project. And the item of

52:49 ↗ significance for the council this evening is that the development agreement is allowed, but the

52:54 ↗ actual plotting would not be able to proceed because of the number of lots. And

52:58 ↗ so this development agreement language will have an ask from the developer in it for

53:03 ↗ a moratorium exemption. I'd also wanted to bring that to your attention. That's it. Thank

53:07 ↗ you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, council president. No report, thank you.

53:13 ↗ Thank you. You'll notice that council member Barbara is not here this evening. She's

53:19 ↗ in excused absence. There will be an executive session this evening to discuss

53:26 ↗ legal risk with our city council

53:33 ↗ under the provisions of RCW 42.30.110 paren 1

53:38 ↗ paren I. No action will be taken on that item. but we will also be

53:44 ↗ discussing in executive session the acquisition of real estate for RCW 42.30.110

53:54 ↗ paren 1 paren B. For that action, it's expected to take 10

53:59 ↗ minutes and action is anticipated in open session.

54:06 ↗ The first item I mentioned is expected to take about 10 minutes also.

54:13 ↗ Issaquah hosted our fourth annual Brokers Forum on October the 20th. Staff

54:19 ↗ presented the results of our 2016 Business Community Survey and provided an

54:24 ↗ update on Issaquah's moratorium as well as our transportation projects and initiatives.

54:32 ↗ That forum was well attended by brokers in the area.

54:39 ↗ I attended the October 26th Cascade Water Alliance Board meeting where the 2017-18

54:46 ↗ Cascade budget was adopted. We established the 2017 rates

54:52 ↗ and charges and established the capital, regional capital facilities charge at the

54:58 ↗ same level as last year which is $6,005.

55:04 ↗ The PSRC Executive Board adopted the 2017

55:12 ↗ to 2020 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan on October the 27th.

55:19 ↗ And finally, on November 3rd, Deputy Council President Polly and I attended a joint meeting

55:25 ↗ of the Cascade Water Alliance's Resource Management and Finance and Management Committees

55:31 ↗ and received a presentation on the feasibility of hydropower production at

55:37 ↗ Lake Taps. This was a briefing by the consultant that did the feasibility study.

55:43 ↗ There will be additional discussion on what steps

55:49 ↗ forward. I'll just point out that they're under certain conditions that is

55:54 ↗ economically viable but that decision would be a long way away.

56:01 ↗ And that concludes the Mayor's Report. Moving now to the consent

56:07 ↗ calendar, I'd ask if the payables and payroll for November 7th, 2016

56:13 ↗ have been reviewed. We have. Thank you. And now I would ask the clerk to

56:18 ↗ read into the record the consent calendar. The consent calendar was distributed to Council in

56:23 ↗ advance for study. If authorized, Council action will occur by single motion regarding the following

56:28 ↗ items. Item A seeks approval of the accounts payables and payroll of November 7th. Items

56:33 ↗ B through D seeks approval of the minutes of the Council budget work session of

56:37 ↗ October 12th and 18th and the City Council regular meeting of October 17th. Item E,

56:43 ↗ AB7215, ninth major amendment to the Issaquah Highlands two-party development agreement,

56:48 ↗ Polygon Northwest requesting major modification for transfer of development rights, seeks referral

56:54 ↗ to the Urban Village Development Commission and Council Land and Shore Committee. Item F, AB7247,

57:00 ↗ 2017 State Legislative Agenda, seeks referral to Council Committee Work

57:06 ↗ Session. Item G, AB7269, First Amendment to South Cove Greenwood Point Assumption,

57:12 ↗ Interlocal Agreement with Bellevue, seeks referral to Council Infrastructure Committee. Item H, AB7270, 2016 Comprehensive

57:16 ↗ Plan, and Zoning

57:22 ↗ Map Amendments seeks referral to Council Land and Shore Committee. Item I, AB7281

57:27 ↗ Interfund Loan Fleet Services Fund to Street Improvement Fund seeks referral to Council Services and

57:33 ↗ Safety Committee. This concludes the reading. Thank you. Does any council member desire to

57:39 ↗ remove any item from the consent calendar for additional consideration?

57:50 ↗ Council President Goodman. Thank you. I move to adopt the consent calendar as presented. Second.

57:57 ↗ Moved and seconded. All those in favor of approving the consent calendar as submitted signify

58:01 ↗ by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, that carries unanimously.

58:08 ↗ Moving now to public hearing. Agenda bill 7242, 2017

58:16 ↗ revenue sources. The The instructions for audience

58:22 ↗ comments previously covered at that part of the agenda still

58:28 ↗ apply. And I would like to turn to our finance director,

58:35 ↗ Jennifer Olson, for the staff report. Jennifer, welcome.

58:45 ↗ Thank you, Mayor Butler. Good evening City Council members. Tonight pursuant to Washington state

58:51 ↗ law, cities are required to host a public hearing to take

58:57 ↗ public testimony on the revenue sources that have been identified for the upcoming budget year.

59:03 ↗ I have a presentation that I'll briefly walk through the various revenue

59:09 ↗ sources and then certainly be available for any questions but

59:15 ↗ also then to accept that public comment after the presentation.

59:22 ↗ So for 2017 revenues, the forecast remains conservative

59:29 ↗ respective of economic volatility. Certainly our economic conditions have stabled

59:35 ↗ and so that has been addressed within the forecast of revenues. The city receives a

59:40 ↗ variety of revenue sources across all of their funds. Those sources include taxes,

59:47 ↗ for an example property taxes, sales taxes and B&O taxes. Permits and licenses,

59:53 ↗ those are business licenses, building permits, and other various permits and licenses.

59:59 ↗ Charges for services are things like fines and fees, development related services,

1:00:05 ↗ recreation services and charges, and of course utility rates in the enterprise funds.

1:00:11 ↗ Intergovernmental revenues or shared revenues come from federal, state, and local grants. They

1:00:17 ↗ also come from liquor profits and criminal justice monies that come from

1:00:24 ↗ other intergovernmental agencies. Revenues also include impact

1:00:29 ↗ fees, and those examples are fees that are collected for traffic parks and things like

1:00:35 ↗ mobility through development. So for all city funds

1:00:41 ↗ proposed for 2017, we have $126,513,390

1:00:49 ↗ for all funds. And this pie chart depicts the different types of revenues that are

1:00:55 ↗ intended to be collected with the largest type of revenue coming from charges and services

1:01:01 ↗ at 31% and then we have taxes at 29%. The miscellaneous category of

1:01:07 ↗ revenues largely includes things like rents and lease, sale of properties if that's the case,

1:01:12 ↗ contributions from private sources, and interest income.

1:01:18 ↗ Specifically now the general fund which is the major operating fund for the city There

1:01:24 ↗ are a number of revenue sources that are very important and I want to highlight

1:01:28 ↗ those so for 2017 the general fund revenue is projected to generate

1:01:34 ↗ about 41 million four hundred thirty thousand in all types of revenues. This is a

1:01:40 ↗ revenue forecast of about $942,000 lower than the 2016

1:01:46 ↗ budget and this is primarily due to the sale of a large piece of property

1:01:51 ↗ and a reduction in forecasted the building and development fees. The decline of these revenue

1:01:57 ↗ sources in the general fund budget is offset by an increase in sales tax.

1:02:05 ↗ This is a pie chart now of. Council member Goodman. Can I ask a question

1:02:11 ↗ please? The second bullet, revenue

1:02:17 ↗ forecast is $942,000 lower. I don't understand the part about due to the

1:02:23 ↗ sale of a property. I don't understand how that. In the, anybody else knows.

1:02:30 ↗ In the 2016 budget, there is a revenue line item for sale of fixed assets

1:02:35 ↗ at a million dollars. and in the 2017 budget it is zero. So

1:02:41 ↗ that is from just a revenue line item there's a difference of a million dollars.

1:02:47 ↗ We also have then the building and development fee line items. Those revenues are also

1:02:52 ↗ proposed to go down in 2017 from 16. So those two,

1:02:58 ↗ those decreases are offset then by a proposed increase in sales tax revenue.

1:03:06 ↗ And so the difference then or the net decrease or decline in revenues is $942,000.

1:03:10 ↗ Thank

1:03:17 ↗ you. Councilmember Bartz. So would it be accurate to say are partially offset by the

1:03:21 ↗ increase in sales tax? If they're offset by the increase in sales tax, I would

1:03:25 ↗ expect there not to be a reduction in revenues. Certainly you could use the word

1:03:29 ↗ partially. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

1:03:36 ↗ pie chart then depicts the different types of revenue as you can see the majority

1:03:41 ↗ of the revenue sources coming into the general fund are from taxes the

1:03:47 ↗ next segment of revenues that come in for the general fund come from charges

1:03:53 ↗ for services

1:03:59 ↗ this pie chart then breaks down even further the taxes so 70 percent of the

1:04:04 ↗ general fund revenues come from taxes so that breakout then shows that we receive

1:04:10 ↗ or are intending to receive sales tax at 40% and property tax at 29%.

1:04:17 ↗ So we do have a fairly nice blend of the types of revenue. However, sales

1:04:23 ↗ tax being an elastic tax and very volatile, it is our major source of revenue.

1:04:28 ↗ And the major components of that sales tax are from the retail trade sales and

1:04:34 ↗ from construction activities.

1:04:41 ↗ Sales tax for 2017 continues to come from an upward trend.

1:04:47 ↗ In 2009, this was the low mark of about 6.7 million in

1:04:53 ↗ actual sales tax revenues. The chart below is intended to give some history on the

1:04:59 ↗ actual sales tax that we've received and the estimated 2016. So you can see in

1:05:03 ↗ 2015, certainly had a significant boost in actual

1:05:10 ↗ sales tax revenues. We estimate that to continue to increase in 2016 and then reflected

1:05:15 ↗ in the forecasted 2017 budget to go up as well.

1:05:22 ↗ For property taxes in the general fund, the property tax levy is proposed to increase

1:05:27 ↗ the limited 1% increase that is through state law. This

1:05:32 ↗ increase equates to about $81,000 for the general levy

1:05:39 ↗ the proposed regular general levy then amount is estimated at 8.4 million

1:05:45 ↗ dollars keeping in mind that there is an excess debt levy debt levy that was

1:05:50 ↗ voter approved at about 1.6 million dollars so those combinations then make up the

1:05:56 ↗ total levy this is all based off of the king county assessor's preliminary

1:06:02 ↗ assessed valuation and this is a was a large number and I always have to

1:06:06 ↗ pause before I say that 8 billion 816 million 814 thousand

1:06:12 ↗ five hundred ten dollars another way to look at property tax

1:06:19 ↗ is the equated tax levy rate in 2016 the tax

1:06:25 ↗ levy rate was about a dollar per thousand of assessed valuation for

1:06:31 ↗ a property tax or a property owner in the city of Issaquah. Based on

1:06:37 ↗ the proposed levy amount of $8.4 million, the property tax rate is expected

1:06:42 ↗ to go down to about 98 cents per thousand of assessed valuation. Also

1:06:48 ↗ keeping in mind then the tax rate for the excess levy is about 18 cents

1:06:54 ↗ per thousand of assessed valuation. The decline in

1:07:00 ↗ tax rate then is coming from assessed valuation changes. And so you can see

1:07:06 ↗ over the last three years we've had some significant assessed values increase. For 2017

1:07:13 ↗ the valuation is increasing about 6.5%. And so that is largely what's

1:07:19 ↗ driving the decrease in the actual levy rate.

1:07:27 ↗ Another way to take a look at the property tax is to look at the

1:07:31 ↗ combined tax rate that a property tax owner pays. And that in 2016 was a

1:07:37 ↗ little over $10 per thousand of assessed valuation. And the total tax rate

1:07:43 ↗ is made up of other taxing jurisdictions as well as the city of issaquah and

1:07:48 ↗ so you can see in 2016 the total tax rate was about a dollar 17.

1:07:53 ↗ so that's that combination of the general levy rate and the excess levy rate and

1:07:59 ↗ you can see that there are other taxing jurisdictions that have rates

1:08:05 ↗ that are certainly higher in in this depiction of this table it shows that we

1:08:09 ↗ have about 62 percent of every property tax dollar going to schools

1:08:19 ↗ tax bill then. A property tax owner receives a bill and this example is just

1:08:23 ↗ to demonstrate that an average valued home of about 548,000 pays a

1:08:30 ↗ tax bill of approximately $5,500. And so based on those

1:08:36 ↗ same taxing jurisdictions and the rates that they levy for taxes in each year. The

1:08:41 ↗ city of Issaquah for 2016 received about $640

1:08:48 ↗ of that property tax bill.

1:08:55 ↗ So moving on from property taxes then, just wanted to provide some background on our

1:09:00 ↗ B&O taxes. This tax was increased back in April of 2015.

1:09:06 ↗ And you can see that our revenues then obviously changed based on the 2015

1:09:13 ↗ We estimate that for 2016 we'll continue to collect additional B&O

1:09:19 ↗ taxes and for the 2017 forecast we see that it will just slightly plateau

1:09:26 ↗ or stay the same. Certainly this is dependent on economic conditions.

1:09:34 ↗ 2017 utility taxes, this is a fairly stable source of revenue for the city of

1:09:39 ↗ Issaquah. We're seeing a slight boost in 2016 estimate and then again

1:09:46 ↗ just a stable forecast for utility taxes in 2017.

1:09:54 ↗ REIT taxes, another fairly stable source of revenue for the city.

1:10:00 ↗ Again, the 2015-16 years have been very positive for the city of Issaquah.

1:10:06 ↗ And again, we do see a stable source. With regards to REIT taxes, what's

1:10:11 ↗ hard to predict is sale of properties. And in 2015, there was a very large

1:10:17 ↗ sale of property. And so that impacted the total sources in REIT that the city

1:10:21 ↗ did collect. Grants are another source and

1:10:27 ↗ certainly from 2013 and 14, 2015 we did see a

1:10:33 ↗ significant amount of funding come from other sources and so this is a

1:10:38 ↗ positive outlook that we would see more grants come in for

1:10:44 ↗ projects and for programs that are determined by the

1:10:50 ↗ City Council on an ongoing basis. Development services, this is

1:10:56 ↗ some history with regards to the revenue and the proposed estimates for 2016

1:11:02 ↗ and 17. You'll see the top line is building permits. Some of the greens got

1:11:07 ↗ a little bit, there's actually different colors, but for the slide purposes, they look about

1:11:11 ↗ the same. The top line that arches over and then comes down is the building

1:11:15 ↗ permits. You see engineering and inspection fees, that has essentially stabilized since 2014.

1:11:24 ↗ The 2017 budget does identify a reduction in building permit and

1:11:30 ↗ other development services fees. And then the

1:11:35 ↗ enterprise funds, these are largely the utility funds for water and sewer and stormwater. 97%

1:11:42 ↗ of revenues that come in to these funds are generated by rate payers.

1:11:48 ↗ The King County monthly metro sewage rate treatment rate is increasing for 2017

1:11:55 ↗ and the city of issaquah elevated its rates and that was effective back in 2015

1:12:01 ↗ for a long-term adjustment of rates so the total proposed revenues

1:12:07 ↗ in the utility funds for water are about 8.3 million sewer of 9 million and

1:12:13 ↗ stormwater of about 4.7 And with that, that concludes my

1:12:19 ↗ brief overview and I would be happy to answer any questions or next step

1:12:25 ↗ would be then public testimony. So does anyone have any questions at this time

1:12:31 ↗ before I open the public hearing? Seeing none then, I'll open the public hearing

1:12:37 ↗ at 814 and remind

1:12:43 ↗ those who are here are wishing to speak that the same rules under audience comments

1:12:49 ↗ previously stated at the beginning of the meeting still apply and with that I would

1:12:55 ↗ ask if anyone has signed up to speak yes Amanda Sherry

1:13:03 ↗ hello and thank you mayor and City Council members my name is Amanda Sherry 319

1:13:08 ↗ 102nd Avenue Southeast I 17, Bellevue 98004. The address on the form is our main

1:13:14 ↗ office address out in Kirkland. I work for Imagine Housing and as you know, we

1:13:18 ↗ have four affordable housing properties out here in Issaquah. Thank you for your past support

1:13:23 ↗ and we ask that you continue supporting the valuable work that we do with Issaquah

1:13:26 ↗ residents. Each month we provide community events, classes and meals, resource referrals and

1:13:32 ↗ basic needs with our human services funding. Thank you for your continued support. Thank you.

1:13:40 ↗ Next is Brennan Bailey Lewis.

1:13:52 ↗ My name is Brennan Bailey Lewis. Thank you, Mayor and Council, Councilmen and Women.

1:13:59 ↗ The address is PO Box 2765, Issaquah. I am the director of a transitional

1:14:05 ↗ housing program here in Issaquah. And one of the issues, one of the biggest

1:14:10 ↗ issues that we face when our residents are leaving our transitional housing program, which

1:14:16 ↗ is a two year program, is trying to find affordable housing, especially when they have

1:14:21 ↗ already stabilize their family and have their children in school here in

1:14:27 ↗ Issaquah, have jobs here in Issaquah. Being able to stay in this community

1:14:33 ↗ is very, very difficult for them. And as we all know that rents and home

1:14:39 ↗ prices have risen and become sometimes out of sight for

1:14:45 ↗ most people. Specifically here in Issaquah, In 1998

1:14:51 ↗ when the Arch Parity goals were created, the goal of the Eastside Housing Trust Fund

1:14:56 ↗ was to produce $1 to $2 million each year for affordable housing. At

1:15:02 ↗ that time, the average rent in Issaquah was only $849. Today, the average

1:15:08 ↗ price in Issaquah is $2,446.

1:15:16 ↗ out of sight for most people who work in the community. And for them

1:15:22 ↗ to be able to live here too is very difficult. What we'd like to see

1:15:27 ↗ is for working people to be able to afford housing where they work, for their

1:15:33 ↗ children to be able to stay in the schools and not have to be

1:15:39 ↗ out of the community where they've been living, specifically for our residents for the last

1:15:45 ↗ two years. They should all have the opportunity to live in a safe and healthy,

1:15:51 ↗ affordable home, which Issaquah is great in that it is a very safe

1:15:57 ↗ community, a very caring community, and most of the people would like to

1:16:02 ↗ stay here. The children deserve a chance to succeed in school and in life, which

1:16:08 ↗ all begins with their family being able to afford a decent place to live.

1:16:15 ↗ One of the solutions that we have for this problem could be in light of

1:16:20 ↗ the enormous level of need in our community and the dramatically changed economic context of

1:16:25 ↗ our region. Housing Development Consortium and other East Side

1:16:31 ↗ nonprofits and housing advocates have requested that the Arch Executive Committee triple the

1:16:37 ↗ parity goals for the East Side as a whole. And I support this position and

1:16:42 ↗ ask that you choose to set this higher standard for our city's contribution. I

1:16:48 ↗ know that many cities are pursuing legislative strategies that would give them additional local funding

1:16:54 ↗ authority, and I applaud this work. But the need is immense, and homeless and unstably

1:17:00 ↗ housed members of your community cannot wait. I support the increase in general fund

1:17:06 ↗ contributions that HDC and other Eastside groups have proposed, and please take the opportunity before

1:17:11 ↗ you now to demonstrate your commitment to addressing our region's housing crisis by making

1:17:18 ↗ that increase in the city's budget. Thank you very much. Thank you.

1:17:25 ↗ Next is Lauren Tierney.

1:17:38 ↗ Good evening, Council and Mayor. My name is Lauren Tierney. I'm the Member Services Director

1:17:43 ↗ of the Housing Development Consortium, Seattle King County. I'm a Shoreline resident, but speaking on

1:17:48 ↗ behalf of HTC. We are the nonprofit member association

1:17:54 ↗ for 130 plus nonprofit, for-profit, and public partners working across King

1:17:59 ↗ County on affordable housing. And we are dedicated to the idea that everyone should live

1:18:04 ↗ with dignity and safe, healthy and affordable homes within communities of opportunity. That's

1:18:10 ↗ why we're joining with eight other Eastside nonprofits and service providers such as HopeLink, Imagine

1:18:16 ↗ Housing, YWCA, thank you Compassion House, to urge a tripling of the Eastside Housing

1:18:21 ↗ Trust Fund for this 2017-2018 budget cycle. When the East Side

1:18:28 ↗ Cities created the Arch Housing Trust Fund, they did so with the goal of working

1:18:31 ↗ collaboratively in order to ensure that their communities would be places where seniors and peoples

1:18:37 ↗ with special needs and families of all incomes could live affordably. This vision

1:18:43 ↗ resulted in a unique partnership which over the last 25 years has created thousands of

1:18:48 ↗ affordable homes that would not exist today without the Housing Trust Fund. However,

1:18:54 ↗ the guidelines that Eastside cities used in the 1990s to set goals for their contributions

1:18:59 ↗ to the funds are now nearly 20 years out of date. We've submitted a letter

1:19:04 ↗ to the Arch Executive Board requesting an update to these parity goals. As rents, home

1:19:09 ↗ prices, and the cost of building affordable homes on the Eastside have increased, the Eastside

1:19:13 ↗ Housing Trust Fund has remained essentially stagnant. Meanwhile, the need for

1:19:19 ↗ affordable homes in our region has become more urgent and we see increase in the

1:19:23 ↗ number of people being priced out of the east side as well as an increase

1:19:27 ↗ in overall homelessness. When our county declared a state of emergency related to

1:19:33 ↗ affordable homes last winter, we collectively acknowledged a reality that many low income residents

1:19:39 ↗ of our communities have long known to be true. We are in the midst of

1:19:44 ↗ a housing crisis. A crisis like this requires a response that acknowledges its urgency.

1:19:51 ↗ Your proposed 2017 Eastside Housing Trust Fund contribution of $50,000 is $5,000

1:19:58 ↗ shy of the parity goals established in 1998 and is below pre-recession

1:20:04 ↗ level funding. Over the 2007-2008 biennium, you contributed $250,000.

1:20:11 ↗ We urge you to return to at least pre-recession levels and aspire towards the tripled

1:20:17 ↗ goal of $165,000. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

1:20:26 ↗ Next is Mitra

1:20:27 ↗ Mohandasi.

1:20:33 ↗ Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Mitra Mohandasi.

1:20:41 ↗ My address is 15912-250 Second Avenue Southeast.

1:20:47 ↗ I live in Miramont, just a few miles south of here. I am a volunteer

1:20:53 ↗ with Imagine Housing and I'm here as several others are here

1:20:59 ↗ to talk about the ARCH, increasing in ARCH

1:21:05 ↗ funding. As it was mentioned, earlier in 1998,

1:21:12 ↗ the arch parity goals were set to produce one to two million. And at that

1:21:18 ↗ time, the average rent was in the east side about $850,

1:21:25 ↗ and it is now about, today that's about $1,800 as a matter of

1:21:31 ↗ fact. In Issaquah, rent for a two bedroom,

1:21:37 ↗ the median cost would be about $2,400.

1:21:42 ↗ And this increase in rent and housing costs

1:21:48 ↗ is forcing many of our east side families and

1:21:54 ↗ members outside of their communities.

1:22:00 ↗ And these include teachers, administrative workers, and young people

1:22:05 ↗ starting a new life and new careers. According to

1:22:12 ↗ data, over 30,000 Eastside residents pay more than 50%

1:22:19 ↗ of their income for housing, which leaves them very close to $50,000.

1:22:28 ↗ losing their homes if a crisis hits their families. And

1:22:35 ↗ the increase in cost of housing affects everyone. In the East Side, 1,200

1:22:42 ↗ students in the year, school year 2014-15, were

1:22:48 ↗ identified as homeless. And 109 of those lived in

1:22:54 ↗ Issaquah. They were from Issaquah. So that would be maybe children

1:23:00 ↗ of people we know or work with or see at the grocery store.

1:23:07 ↗ And also I wanted to add that with this rapid growth, the

1:23:13 ↗ funding that was set in 1998 does not work anymore for

1:23:19 ↗ our developing communities. And That's why it's so important to

1:23:26 ↗ revisit that and apply new numbers. One of the

1:23:32 ↗ solutions that we are suggesting as

1:23:38 ↗ has been mentioned by a couple of other public speakers

1:23:44 ↗ tonight is to triple the arch parity goals.

1:23:51 ↗ They used to, they have been set at 50,000 and we would like them to

1:23:56 ↗ be raised to be a range of 165

1:24:02 ↗ to $405,000. And this would be closer

1:24:08 ↗ to the needs of our housing. And

1:24:14 ↗ also to add, I would also

1:24:20 ↗ like to say that it is important for our children to have a

1:24:26 ↗ chance at school and that starts with having a safe home and a place to

1:24:31 ↗ live. And with that, I thank you for your time.

1:24:37 ↗ Thank you. No one further has signed up to speak.

1:24:44 ↗ Is there anyone who has not signed up desiring to speak this evening? Anyone

1:24:50 ↗ else desiring to speak? Third and final call, anyone else desiring to speak?

1:24:56 ↗ With that then audience comments are closed at 8.26.

1:25:06 ↗ And with that, we will begin council

1:25:12 ↗ discussion and deliberation. Council President Goodman. Thank you. I think

1:25:18 ↗ I'll start it off by moving to direct the administration to prepare the necessary documents,

1:25:22 ↗ ordinance, and resolution, setting the amount of taxes to be collected in 2017 to include

1:25:27 ↗ a 1% base increase for adoption at the November 21, 2016 council meeting. Second.

1:25:34 ↗ Moved and seconded. Discussion?

1:25:42 ↗ Council Member Winterstein. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Appreciate the

1:25:47 ↗ presentation we got earlier. I mean, I think there's a lot there and

1:25:54 ↗ the real meat of this motion and the resolution and the ordinance that we have

1:25:59 ↗ in the packet tonight really have to do with the property tax element. We heard

1:26:03 ↗ a lot about the utility, we heard about sales tax. Of course, sales tax rates

1:26:09 ↗ are collected and eventually distributed back to us, but we're not talking about changing

1:26:15 ↗ any of those rates. All we're talking about here is property tax, and we saw

1:26:21 ↗ that in 2016, we charged $1,000,000.

1:26:28 ↗ the rate was 1.005 and based upon state law,

1:26:35 ↗ based upon the assessed value of the property and the estimate from the assessor's office,

1:26:45 ↗ if we did take no action, we would lower that rate to 0.97.

1:26:53 ↗ which would really be an effective rate decrease of 3.5%. But the

1:26:58 ↗ administration has proposed that we take the 1% that's available to

1:27:04 ↗ us and asking us to consider a rate of 0.98% as was

1:27:10 ↗ presented. So that which is basically 2.5% less than what we, a rate

1:27:17 ↗ that we charged for property tax in 2016. So

1:27:23 ↗ just for, just so what does that mean? And we saw the numbers, we saw

1:27:26 ↗ it meant $81,000 in total revenue to us as a city.

1:27:32 ↗ Since I've done this in years past, I'll do it again. For me, that 1%

1:27:38 ↗ means an extra $7 for me, for my home based upon his 2017

1:27:45 ↗ assessed value. So based on that, I think that's a good thing. If we did

1:27:50 ↗ not adopt the 1%, I'd pay $635. If we do adopt the 1%, I'll pay

1:27:55 ↗ $642. So that's a 7% increase, or $7

1:28:00 ↗ increase. So I mean, just putting it in those terms, I just think that's very

1:28:06 ↗ important. And also, I know this whole topic

1:28:12 ↗ of levy rates, is confusing. It took me about four years to figure it out

1:28:16 ↗ here on the council, so we can certainly discuss it. But I think that that,

1:28:23 ↗ Definitely, I think the budget that we've seen so far. And we had a couple

1:28:26 ↗ speakers who talked about from representatives from Imagine Housing and the Housing Development

1:28:32 ↗ Consortium, which were all on kind of the spending side of our budget. This bill

1:28:37 ↗ tonight is just on the revenue side of the budget. But we certainly heard arguments

1:28:43 ↗ for what to do with our revenue. And we'll be talking about that and

1:28:48 ↗ finalizing that in future deliberations, but not this evening. So anyway, just wanted to give

1:28:54 ↗ that background. I will be supporting the measure this evening to adopt the 1% increase.

1:29:00 ↗ Thank you. Council President Goodman. Thank you. And to clarify, make sure we all understand,

1:29:05 ↗ this is to direct the administration to prepare the ordinance to bring it back for

1:29:09 ↗ deliberation on the 21st. So this isn't an adoption. This is just preparation to bring

1:29:14 ↗ it back. next regular meeting and then we will deliberate about and vote on whether

1:29:19 ↗ to adopt that 1% increase. Thank you for that explanation.

1:29:25 ↗ Any additional discussion? Seeing none then, all those in favor of

1:29:31 ↗ directing the administration to prepare the necessary documents for an ordinance and resolution

1:29:37 ↗ setting the amount of taxes to be collected in 2017 to include a 1%

1:29:43 ↗ base increase for adoption at the November 21, 2016

1:29:49 ↗ council meeting signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That

1:29:55 ↗ carries unanimously. Moving now to regular business items.

1:30:01 ↗ Agenda Bill 7076, Professional Services

1:30:07 ↗ Agreement for a Traffic Safety AMRA system. And this

1:30:13 ↗ is coming back from the Services and Safety Committee.

1:30:20 ↗ Council Member Martz. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In 2009, an

1:30:27 ↗ automated traffic enforcement program was implemented. I just want to make sure that I've got,

1:30:32 ↗ I've got three bills tonight, so I just want to make sure I'm on the

1:30:34 ↗ right one before I get too far into it. And they're all somewhat related to

1:30:37 ↗ each other. was implemented by the city to create a safer

1:30:43 ↗ environment within 20 mile per hour school zones. Currently, Issaquah's school zone speed system monitors

1:30:48 ↗ traffic in both directions within the 500 block of 2nd Avenue Southeast. This location was

1:30:53 ↗ identified to increase the safety for children walking to and from Clark Elementary, Issaquah High,

1:30:58 ↗ Issaquah Middle, and Tiger Mountain High Schools. The system, which was installed in April 2009,

1:31:03 ↗ operates 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. during the active school year, excluding weekends, holidays, and

1:31:08 ↗ designated breaks. Since implementation, the rate of violations per 1,000 trips has been reduced by

1:31:14 ↗ 31%. The agenda bill proposes expanding automated traffic safety cameras to all

1:31:20 ↗ school zones within the city limits at Isquivalli Elementary within the 500 block of Newport

1:31:25 ↗ Way Northwest, Randridge Elementary within the 1700 block of Northeast Park Drive. A

1:31:31 ↗ recent speed study concluded within 20 mile per hour speed zones captured 1,175

1:31:39 ↗ violators at Issaquah Valley Elementary traveling 26 plus miles per hour, 30% of which were

1:31:44 ↗ traveling over 31 miles per hour. 886 violators at Grand Ridge Elementary

1:31:50 ↗ traveling 26 miles per hour or more, 23% of which were traveling over 31 miles

1:31:55 ↗ per hour. This recommendation is supported by state law which authorizes the use of automated

1:32:01 ↗ traffic safety cameras by jurisdictions for certain traffic enforcement. In addition, automated traffic safety

1:32:07 ↗ camera systems was one tool mentioned in the city's 2015 pedestrian crossing

1:32:13 ↗ study. So an update on this. Let's see

1:32:19 ↗ here, sorry, one second.

1:32:27 ↗ On September 22nd, 2016, the Council Services and Safety Committee met to review Agenda Bill

1:32:32 ↗ 7076. Staff presented the engineering design of Newport Way Northwest and Northeast

1:32:38 ↗ Park Drive and explained the city's plans to install a red light signalized intersection at

1:32:42 ↗ Northeast Park Drive, as well as a roundabout at the Newport Way Northwest and Juniper

1:32:46 ↗ Street intersection. Due to these projects and anticipated impacts to traffic behavior, the committee recommended

1:32:51 ↗ council delay consideration of additional school zone safety cameras until after improvements are completed. The

1:32:57 ↗ committee recommended placement of the item under regular business on the November 21st council meeting.

1:33:03 ↗ So with that, I would like to move to

1:33:09 ↗ not authorize the mayor to enter and execute a new agreement with American Traffic

1:33:15 ↗ Safety, sorry, American Traffic Systems at this time. Second. MR. Moved and seconded.

1:33:22 ↗ Discussion? Commander Porter, do you have any additional comments

1:33:29 ↗ or are you here to respond to questions? MR. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm

1:33:32 ↗ here to answer any questions that anyone might have. Council Member Marks clearly

1:33:38 ↗ explained originally when we did bring this to full council,

1:33:44 ↗ the landscape had changed because when we initiated the speed

1:33:50 ↗ camera school zone speed camera study, we weren't aware of the city's future engineering

1:33:56 ↗ projects in those school zones. And since what he just said, there's

1:34:02 ↗ plans in each one. And so that does have an impact on the

1:34:08 ↗ agenda bill itself. So I'm here to answer any questions that you all might have.

1:34:12 ↗ Thank you. Discussion or questions? Councilmember Pawley. I had a

1:34:19 ↗ couple of questions. I'm not sure, Tola, if you got to see them. I emailed

1:34:22 ↗ them today. They're a little late. One was, since we don't have

1:34:28 ↗ updated capital facilities plan or a list of complete street projects to work off of,

1:34:35 ↗ what year does the stoplight at Central Park and the roundabout on Newport Way get

1:34:39 ↗ built? And the reason I ask the question is if we've identified a speeding issue

1:34:44 ↗ and these projects are years and years out, why wouldn't we have pursued

1:34:50 ↗ So my understanding was that, and I would love to have the administration correct

1:34:56 ↗ me if I'm wrong, that at the very least the study of putting in a

1:35:00 ↗ stoplight in that intersection is intended to occur in 2017. And that was one of

1:35:05 ↗ the criteria that the committee listed as sort of a supposition of our support

1:35:11 ↗ for ending this bill at this time. for the study, but the

1:35:17 ↗ actual construction of the light, not next year. I would like to ask the administration

1:35:22 ↗ if they can answer on the subject of when it would actually get built.

1:35:30 ↗ Sheldon Lynn, Director of Public Works Engineering. Thank you, Mayor.

1:35:37 ↗ Council Member Pauly, you're correct. It's the design study that would be for 2017 with

1:35:41 ↗ construction in 2018, but that The discussion in the

1:35:47 ↗ committee was you guys wanted to consider doing that in 2017, the

1:35:54 ↗ study to move it forward. And then I think. Moving the study or the construction

1:36:00 ↗ forward? Well, it was to move the project forward. There wasn't specificity related

1:36:06 ↗ to whether it was just design or design and construction. But the police department was

1:36:11 ↗ talking about a five year contract. And as I understand it, the five-year contract came

1:36:17 ↗ with a lot of caveats associated with having to remove it or something like that

1:36:21 ↗ in the revenues. And I think Bob can explain that better than I. So the

1:36:26 ↗ two-year window would have, you know. So the committee did direct the administration to

1:36:32 ↗ prepare a line item for consideration, I believe, in budget for

1:36:38 ↗ this. And what is the content of that line item?

1:36:44 ↗ Right, and I believe on the 14th you're gonna have deliberations on that design cost

1:36:50 ↗ for 2017. So it would be consideration of going

1:36:56 ↗ through design in 2017 with a supposition that we would find monies

1:37:03 ↗ for actually putting it up in 2018, is that what you said? Yes. And

1:37:10 ↗ is the money for design already in the budget we're looking at? No. And then

1:37:14 ↗ what about the roundabout? The roundabout at Juniper should be installed in 2017 by the

1:37:19 ↗ developer.

1:37:25 ↗ Other questions or discussion? Just for clarification, I heard the word

1:37:31 ↗ construction used in multiple contexts. So you were talking about design of the the

1:37:37 ↗ lighted intersection on Park Drive in 17 with construction in 18. It had nothing to

1:37:42 ↗ do with the installation or the original plan for the speed cameras.

1:37:48 ↗ Nothing to, you weren't referring to those at all. Just for clarification. Right,

1:37:54 ↗ all I was talking about was the signal and the crossing study implementations at Park

1:37:58 ↗ Drive and that intersection associated with the improvements for the park. Okay.

1:38:05 ↗ That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure that that was clear. I wanted to

1:38:08 ↗ ask it again for clarity. Thank you. Thank you. Additional discussion or

1:38:14 ↗ questions? Seeing none then, all? Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. I'm sorry.

1:38:20 ↗ Go ahead. So, I guess the

1:38:26 ↗ assumption, and maybe it says it in here, the assumption is if there's a roundabout

1:38:31 ↗ at Juniper, that will result in just a slower,

1:38:37 ↗ a fewer number of speeding infractions on Newport. With a light on Park Drive,

1:38:43 ↗ that will result in significantly fewer speeding

1:38:49 ↗ infractions in front of the school zone there. Is that the assumption we're working under?

1:38:55 ↗ It's the assumption. It's hard to predict the traffic impacts. It's hard to predict them

1:39:01 ↗ from my standpoint. They will be constructed and implemented,

1:39:07 ↗ but this is a five year agreement that you're being asked to consider implementing.

1:39:13 ↗ And so if you put this in four or five years and these city

1:39:19 ↗ projects get implemented, we don't know the full

1:39:26 ↗ results or impacts of the traffic engineering.

1:39:33 ↗ Council member Ramos. To elaborate a little more on the committee's discussion on this is

1:39:39 ↗ basically we don't know what change is will happen when you put a roundabout, when

1:39:43 ↗ you put a traffic light. We don't know how that's gonna really change the situation

1:39:46 ↗ and that's gonna happen in the next year or two and you're looking at a

1:39:50 ↗ five year contract. So to commit to something where you know there's gonna be immediate

1:39:54 ↗ change didn't seem appropriate to us. and that's where we said let's hold off, let's

1:39:59 ↗ let the changes happen, then we will see what happens. We don't need to predict

1:40:04 ↗ it, we'll know after the construction. Additional

1:40:10 ↗ discussion or questions? Again, just to be clear, so

1:40:17 ↗ the police department is still in favor of this? And it was the committee that

1:40:23 ↗ said wait because of these changes? trying to understand where everybody is.

1:40:29 ↗ We did propose this. When we proposed this, we did not know of the city's

1:40:34 ↗ plans about the engineering design in those school zone areas. And that's why originally we

1:40:39 ↗ went to full council. It had changed by then. So we went back and consulted

1:40:45 ↗ with engineering to provide you guys with more information. And so you

1:40:51 ↗ are, are you withdrawing this proposal or? We

1:40:56 ↗ are recommending not to proceed with the five-year contract. We're proposing

1:41:02 ↗ not to enter into a new five-year contract. Thank you. Council Member

1:41:08 ↗ Martz. So I just want to be clear what happened in committee. The

1:41:14 ↗ agenda bill came forward to stop moving forward with these

1:41:20 ↗ additional cameras based on the fact that there was going to be work

1:41:25 ↗ pretty much known on Newport and projected to be at some point

1:41:33 ↗ up in the Highlands by the park. And what we said coming out of committee

1:41:36 ↗ was we heard the community, we heard the community concerns around that intersection. And that's

1:41:41 ↗ why we said, okay, let's move forward with this, but let's also make sure we

1:41:44 ↗ put something in front of the full council to consider accelerating what we do at

1:41:48 ↗ that intersection. So that on the 14th, when we as a council will look at

1:41:53 ↗ the budget, it is the hope of the services committee that we, it's the strong

1:41:58 ↗ hope of the services committee that we look very carefully at potentially accelerating the development

1:42:03 ↗ of the light on park. Thank you. Thank you.

1:42:10 ↗ Councilmember Pauly. Just one last question. So then this was identified as a

1:42:16 ↗ safety need and a community concern and the cameras was one option for dealing with

1:42:21 ↗ it. And then construction is another option for dealing with it. So if we have

1:42:26 ↗ to wait for construction for a year or a year and a half, What else

1:42:30 ↗ can we do to improve the safety during that time? We respond to

1:42:36 ↗ citizen requests for traffic enforcement if there are concerns. If there are concerns of speeding,

1:42:41 ↗ collisions. We do what the police department does best is that we respond to your

1:42:46 ↗ needs for traffic safety. And so there's engineering, there's enforcement,

1:42:53 ↗ and there's education. So we work hand in hand with We

1:42:59 ↗ also work hand in hand with the city communications office to deliver public safety messages.

1:43:04 ↗ We work with the schools. If there's a traffic concern that we want to push

1:43:08 ↗ out to the school district, community groups, there's education there.

1:43:14 ↗ But a big part of it from our perspective is traffic enforcement. So if there

1:43:18 ↗ is a concern, we respond and evaluate the concern and we determine whether it's, is

1:43:23 ↗ it really a concern? We'll evaluate it and work with the public police officers and

1:43:29 ↗ traffic officers to do speed enforcement and or work with Sheldon's office for

1:43:35 ↗ engineering to discuss how to better address these issues if they are really valid concerns.

1:43:40 ↗ If it is a concern now have we budgeted anything for increased enforcement up there

1:43:45 ↗ because we're not putting in cameras and because we're not constructing it in 2017? We

1:43:49 ↗ have not. We have not budgeted any additional funds for traffic enforcement but

1:43:55 ↗ it's a balances of services And that's what we, again, that's what we do best.

1:44:00 ↗ If there is a need for traffic safety or traffic enforcement, speed enforcement, we

1:44:06 ↗ can shift our manpower, we can shift our personnel to address those needs while still

1:44:11 ↗ accommodating the rest of the city at the same time. I would just point out

1:44:17 ↗ that we've been in close coordination with the, uh, uh, uh, Sequoia Highlands and, uh,

1:44:25 ↗ Most of the speeding up there is neighborhood speedings. And we're beginning an education

1:44:30 ↗ process to reach out to the neighborhoods and highlight the

1:44:36 ↗ concerns that we have heard and trying to, that's

1:44:41 ↗ part of the education component. And as Bob said, certainly enforcement also.

1:44:51 ↗ Additional questions or discussion on this agenda bill? Seeing none

1:44:57 ↗ then, all those in favor of not authorizing the mayor to enter into and execute

1:45:03 ↗ a new agreement with American Traffic Systems at this time signify by saying aye. Aye.

1:45:09 ↗ Opposed? That carries unanimously. Moving now to

1:45:15 ↗ automated traffic safety Revenue,

1:45:21 ↗ camera revenue, Jennifer Olson, our director of finance is

1:45:28 ↗ back for the staff report. And do you have any, this is coming back from

1:45:33 ↗ services and safety also, do you have any introductory comments? Yeah, it is, I'll kick

1:45:37 ↗ it off and then have a good segue over to Steph. The purpose of the

1:45:41 ↗ agenda bill is to consider allocating net revenue generated from automatic automatic traffic safety

1:45:47 ↗ cameras into the capital fund beginning January 1st. More on that later. Current cameras, the

1:45:53 ↗ city currently operates school zone speed cameras located near several schools, as we discussed in

1:45:57 ↗ the last bill. including Issaquah High, Issaquah Middle and Clark Elementary at the 500 block

1:46:03 ↗ of Second Avenue Southeast. The current contract expires in 2018 with a monthly fee of

1:46:07 ↗ $4,864. The annual expenditure equals $58,368.

1:46:13 ↗ Automatic traffic safety cameras revenue is currently located in the general fund. Total annual

1:46:19 ↗ revenue for 2016 is projected to be approximately $720,000. In order to calculate the net

1:46:24 ↗ revenue, other operating costs would need to be included such as staffing, mailing, and fraction

1:46:28 ↗ notices et cetera, in addition to the contract costs. Council Services and Safety Committee

1:46:34 ↗ did review the bill. So the administration's recommendation here has changed, so I'll just

1:46:40 ↗ say what it is now. It wasn't this exactly when it came before committee, and

1:46:44 ↗ I'll let staff explain it when I finish. Direct the allocation of gross revenue generated

1:46:48 ↗ and relating operating costs associated with the automatic traffic safety cameras into a special revenue

1:46:53 ↗ fund beginning January 1st, 2017, and designate the net proceeds be reserved according to finance

1:46:59 ↗ policy. So on September 22nd, 2016, Council Service and Safety

1:47:05 ↗ Committee met and reviewed agenda bill 7246 48 sorry committee discussion focused on committee

1:47:11 ↗ discussion focused on the fact that this proposal would directly safety camera revenue towards capital

1:47:16 ↗ projects, not just transportation projects. The negative impacts on the general fund from redirecting this

1:47:22 ↗ revenue were also stated and discussed. The committee recommended authorizing the allocation of revenue to

1:47:27 ↗ capital projects as proposed in agenda bill 7284 and placement of this item under regular

1:47:32 ↗ business on the November 7th, 2016 council meeting. So there we now

1:47:38 ↗ have a sort of an amended move to, I will and then I'll move it

1:47:43 ↗ and then I'll ask staff to explain the change in where the revenues would go.

1:47:48 ↗ I move to authorize allocation of gross revenue generated and related operating costs associated with

1:47:54 ↗ the automated traffic safety cameras into a special reserve fund beginning January 1st, 2017

1:48:00 ↗ and designate the net proceeds to be reserved according to financial policy.

1:48:06 ↗ Second. Moved and seconded. Do you have any

1:48:12 ↗ introductory remarks at this time, Jennifer? I do. Thank you, Mayor Butler. Thank you.

1:48:19 ↗ The purpose of this agenda item was to bring back the recommendation from the committee

1:48:26 ↗ with regards to how to track essentially the net proceeds coming from the

1:48:31 ↗ revenues that come in from the cameras against the costs associated with delivering

1:48:37 ↗ the program. The 2017 budget currently includes a transfer

1:48:43 ↗ of what has been identified as net sources from the general fund

1:48:49 ↗ to the Special Capital Projects Fund. After a review of

1:48:55 ↗ this information and the tracking necessary for this particular program, the

1:49:02 ↗ alternative recommendation essentially identifies the need for establishing a

1:49:08 ↗ separate special revenue fund to set aside these revenues as well as

1:49:14 ↗ the actual cost associated with delivering the camera program. So it's essentially still

1:49:20 ↗ shifting out dollars that are currently received into the general fund and those

1:49:26 ↗ expenditures are in the general fund. So it's shifting it to track it specifically for

1:49:32 ↗ safety purposes in a new fund so this is

1:49:38 ↗ information about the 2017 proposed budget the five hundred and

1:49:44 ↗ ten thousand three hundred dollars is proposed to be transferred from the general

1:49:50 ↗ fund to this the special capital project fund and this is to be earmarked for

1:49:56 ↗ future traffic safety projects determined by the City Council

1:50:02 ↗ So, and I have to just make it clear that this, the exact accounting of

1:50:07 ↗ this and the mechanism we're talking about here has not actually come before services. Although

1:50:13 ↗ the general concept had. I'm wondering if the revenue is expected to be $720,000

1:50:19 ↗ and the operating cost is something on the order of $60,000, why isn't the net

1:50:24 ↗ revenues something on the order of $660,000? instead of $510,000?

1:50:30 ↗ Those details, the $510,000 is an estimated amount of net resources

1:50:36 ↗ that come from that program. And so what I wanted to provide for you is

1:50:42 ↗ some information about how a new fund would look because the $510,000 was an

1:50:48 ↗ estimated number based on the current revenues that come in versus the current

1:50:55 ↗ expenditures and so that's where the five hundred and ten thousand came from okay well

1:50:59 ↗ the problem is the bill is pretty specific about the projected revenues that would come

1:51:04 ↗ in that the gross would be on the order of 720 so I'm a little

1:51:08 ↗ concerned why there's a discrepancy between what we're seeing here and what's in the bill

1:51:12 ↗ that's why the recommendation is it has been revised to set aside the gross revenues

1:51:17 ↗ into a fund so that we would have a clearer accounting and more transparent of

1:51:22 ↗ what's happening with these revenues and the associated and matching

1:51:25 ↗ expenditure. So if I may, there was, if you

1:51:31 ↗ recall, the conversation was around not just the fixed costs affiliated with the camera, but

1:51:36 ↗ also the staff time, so the court time and the police time in reviewing those.

1:51:40 ↗ So there were staff costs involved that was the result of that balancing. So the

1:51:44 ↗ 60, the fixed, was the fixed number affiliated with the camera. So there's another 140

1:51:50 ↗ associated with administering of the system? Yep, and I think what the finance director here

1:51:54 ↗ is saying is that if that ends up being 120 or 110 or 180, it's

1:52:00 ↗ a much more transparent way to show it by having a separate fund set up

1:52:04 ↗ and just much cleaner to account for that. My question really wasn't around whether it

1:52:09 ↗ was a good idea or a bad idea to generate a separate fund. It was

1:52:12 ↗ really just where that 140 discrepancy was and you've answered it. Thank you.

1:52:15 ↗ Sure. Does that wrap up?

1:52:21 ↗ I'd like to give a snapshot of what that new fund would look like. Thank

1:52:25 ↗ you. Go ahead. Council Member Ramos. I want to follow up on your question a

1:52:30 ↗ little bit because I'm a little confused because this isn't a way to discuss the

1:52:33 ↗ committee. So things are coming. So in previous

1:52:39 ↗ discussions about cameras and so forth and the one we just decided not to do,

1:52:44 ↗ it was stated by the police that wasn't worried that there was no increased police

1:52:49 ↗ time needed to do these, that they would just take care of those in the

1:52:52 ↗ normal course of business. And there was a lot of those costs were just kind

1:52:56 ↗ of, just kind of gonna be assumed and it was, and one of the ways

1:53:01 ↗ that things were explained. So now we get here and I wonder why all of

1:53:05 ↗ a sudden now those costs that were talked about being assumed were now all

1:53:10 ↗ of a sudden turning into $140,000. So that's. So they, so when they were, when

1:53:16 ↗ you're saying assumed, so the revenue came into the general fund and then the costs

1:53:21 ↗ were in the general fund. And so what we would have done before was netted

1:53:25 ↗ those in the general fund and then done a transfer of the net from the,

1:53:31 ↗ general fund into the CIP fund. What the finance director is suggesting is

1:53:37 ↗ that all those costs and all those revenues would go into a special fund and

1:53:41 ↗ it'd be much more transparent to have it there And then if we did a

1:53:45 ↗ transfer out on the expense side to the capital fund or the traffic safety fund

1:53:50 ↗ or wherever that is, or just charge those costs directly to that special revenue fund,

1:53:55 ↗ it would be a much cleaner way, which I think the council had initially intended,

1:53:59 ↗ to show that those revenues were being used for traffic mitigation and traffic enforcement. So

1:54:06 ↗ I think the previous finance director didn't, like to create several

1:54:12 ↗ special revenue funds and special. And I think what the current finance director saying is

1:54:17 ↗ it's a much cleaner, much more transparent method to account for those things. And so

1:54:22 ↗ I think that's what she's proposing in front of us today. And I think we

1:54:25 ↗ would have, the executive office would agree this is a much cleaner way to do

1:54:29 ↗ it. Council member Goodman. Are

1:54:35 ↗ you talking about the agenda bill, it says finance department update following services and safety

1:54:40 ↗ committee. It sounds like the recommendation here is based on a recommendation

1:54:46 ↗ from the state auditor's office and how to track. That's what the agenda bill says.

1:54:51 ↗ Is that what the recommendation is based on? My recommendation is based on

1:54:57 ↗ guidance that comes from the state auditor's office. And so that is

1:55:03 ↗ related to the establishment or the use of special revenue funds. And so after my

1:55:09 ↗ review and with the need to make this transparent and to identify

1:55:15 ↗ all of the revenues and all of the costs associated with the program, that's where

1:55:19 ↗ the alternative recommendation came is to start with a special revenue fund in 2017.

1:55:26 ↗ versus a net transfer of some resources from the general fund to the special

1:55:32 ↗ capital fund. So it's really still tracking these revenue sources associated with this

1:55:37 ↗ program. It's just in a different manner and from my perspective a cleaner way to

1:55:42 ↗ look at it. Yes and that's what I read and that's what I understood. Thank

1:55:47 ↗ you. Thank you. Any additional questions before she proceeds?

1:55:57 ↗ Thank you, Mayor. So the reasons and the challenges for my alternative recommendation came from

1:56:03 ↗ a deficit that was created in the general fund. And in the current budget, it

1:56:07 ↗ is proposed to be backfilled by sales tax. The actual year and transfer would need

1:56:13 ↗ to be reconciled. So the estimated $510,000 transfer

1:56:19 ↗ would certainly have to be trued up at the end of the year anyways. This

1:56:23 ↗ is and could be confusing, and as we've talked about, there's a potentially better transparent

1:56:29 ↗ way to track this program. And that is with the use of a special revenue

1:56:35 ↗ fund because there's a significant amount of resources with regards to this program. The way

1:56:40 ↗ that we would handle the expenditure side of things, it would be through the cost

1:56:44 ↗ allocation plan. So essentially this new special revenue fund would pay the general fund for

1:56:49 ↗ those costs associated through courts and with the police department. And so through a

1:56:55 ↗ special revenue fund, we would then have a known reserves that would be committed to

1:56:59 ↗ traffic safety programs or other initiatives that the council would decide. This

1:57:05 ↗ slide is a snapshot of what a proposed new fund might look like for 2017.

1:57:12 ↗ This is taking into consideration the fines and forfeitures that are related to the camera

1:57:17 ↗ program but also because there is a proposal to increase the number of cameras and

1:57:22 ↗ that is the five cameras so the estimated gross revenues for 2017 is

1:57:28 ↗ about 922,000 the in the revenues that are estimated in 2016

1:57:34 ↗ it's my understanding are estimated to be around 720,000 that's 2016 and

1:57:41 ↗ So the 2017 with additional cameras are looking like we'd have about the 922

1:57:47 ↗ in revenues. So that's on the revenue side. On the expenditure side, then with those

1:57:52 ↗ five cameras, the actual cost of the two ATS

1:57:58 ↗ would be about $291,000. So that would be a direct expense that would be paid

1:58:04 ↗ for out of the special revenue fund. Then we have the cost allocation charges.

1:58:09 ↗ approximately $140,000 that has been identified by the courts as being

1:58:15 ↗ expenditures that are directly associated with this program, as well as an identified

1:58:21 ↗ approximately $18,000 that have been identified as costs from the police

1:58:27 ↗ department. Those total expenditures are forecasted to be about $449,000,

1:58:34 ↗ leaving then a budget increase or essentially a fund balance number of about 473 223

1:58:43 ↗ dollars so essentially this would be a new fund it would start with a zero

1:58:47 ↗ beginning fund balance the increase because of revenues over expenditures then would

1:58:53 ↗ leave an ending balance of 473 000. so this is a snapshot of what that

1:58:59 ↗ fund might look like instead of doing an inner fund transfer

1:59:07 ↗ And the next slide. Just a second. Councilmember Martz. Could you please go back to

1:59:12 ↗ the last slide? So explain again $291,840.

1:59:18 ↗ That is the cost for five cameras, meaning this would be the costs

1:59:24 ↗ before we decided to not do the additional cameras? Yes, this

1:59:30 ↗ is because we have a number of topics regarding the camera program. This is

1:59:36 ↗ essentially the identified amount of that contract should the council decide to go

1:59:42 ↗ through with those five cameras. And this is the for those five. But we decided

1:59:47 ↗ not to. Correct. Okay. I think she just took the report. I'm sorry. I think

1:59:52 ↗ she just took the report. had previously been submitted to Council and wanted to create

1:59:56 ↗ an example of what that looked like and the data within that. But obviously the

2:00:00 ↗ Council just chose not to authorize three of those cameras, so it's not going to

2:00:04 ↗ look like that. But for the numbers aren't going to look like that. But the

2:00:08 ↗ framework of how it's structured, so those cost allocations and fines for interest income and

2:00:14 ↗ other on the revenue side and then professional services and then the two cost allocation

2:00:18 ↗ charges would be line items within that fund. Do we have an idea of what

2:00:22 ↗ the magnitudes would be with just the existing cameras, what the magnitude of the ending

2:00:26 ↗ fund balance would be? It's that 510. So it would be 7.

2:00:34 ↗ have it in front of you but it's the number you you gave before 760

2:00:38 ↗ less the 200 approximately thousand for that balance of five hundred ten thousand would be

2:00:43 ↗ the but it couldn't be that with two with two cameras we make more money

2:00:47 ↗ than with five cameras that doesn't it is it I mean that well yes like

2:00:52 ↗ we would make more money with in the end with five cameras and we would

2:00:55 ↗ with two cameras the reason was the two cameras that are being used on second

2:01:00 ↗ are operating under an existing contract and the

2:01:05 ↗ change would have required us to go to their new contract format and they do

2:01:11 ↗ it on a percentage basis now and then they would have gone to a fixed

2:01:14 ↗ amount, a fixed annual cost per year. So actually we would have lost some money

2:01:21 ↗ from a revenue side by changing that contract on an annual basis. Thank you for

2:01:26 ↗ that Byzantine but good explanation.

2:01:33 ↗ As part of the next budget work sessions for the council, based on your decisions

2:01:38 ↗ that have happened tonight, we bring back a new snapshot of what that new fund

2:01:43 ↗ would look like. Certainly, there are some moving pieces here. What I wanted to do

2:01:48 ↗ was to share with you what it would look like to separate this out identify

2:01:52 ↗ the revenues, gross revenues, identify the charges or the costs that are matched to this

2:01:58 ↗ program and then so that you would have a clearer understanding of what those reserve

2:02:03 ↗ dollars might look like.

2:02:09 ↗ And then finally, what I wanted to share with you and knowing that there are

2:02:13 ↗ some moving parts to the 2017 budget, what this would do

2:02:19 ↗ in the current state, prior to the council's approval is that there would have

2:02:25 ↗ been essentially that net change in the ending fund balance or the impact on

2:02:31 ↗ the general fund ending fund balance and so as you can see there we've we've

2:02:36 ↗ identified the revenue amounts in the fines and forfeiture revenue line item

2:02:42 ↗ that we would be reducing so we'd certainly still have some revenues coming into the

2:02:46 ↗ general fund this also anticipated that backfilling of sales tax you can see that sales

2:02:52 ↗ tax number would stay the same unless council changes the amount of allocation of

2:02:58 ↗ sales tax. And then we have the courts, the professional services amount that had been

2:03:03 ↗ budgeted in the current 2017 budget that would change to a net. So the impact

2:03:10 ↗ based on the snapshot fund would have been only about $464,000

2:03:18 ↗ improvement essentially to the ending fund balance for 2017.

2:03:24 ↗ So with that, all of these numbers will change and at next budget work sessions

2:03:30 ↗ we can provide some more updated numbers. Council

2:03:36 ↗ member Martz. I have a question for city administrator Harrison, which is the next bill

2:03:41 ↗ we're going to talk about is a traffic study for red light cameras. Are red

2:03:45 ↗ light cameras going to be considered ATSC's for the city and then would revenue from,

2:03:50 ↗ if and we're not looking to put in red light cameras anytime soon, we're just

2:03:55 ↗ considering a study, but if down the road we put in traffic cameras, is the

2:03:58 ↗ idea that they would go into this fund as well? Yeah, certainly that would make

2:04:04 ↗ logical sense, because the goal was to, what we've heard previously from the council was

2:04:08 ↗ to try and tie in those revenue sources and clearly connect the expense of those

2:04:14 ↗ to traffic. Good, thank you.

2:04:25 ↗ So that concludes the staff report.

2:04:32 ↗ Is there a motion? There is. And it was seconded. It was. So we can

2:04:35 ↗ move to additional discussion or questions. Council Member Martz. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well, I

2:04:41 ↗ really like this. I think that the issue here that I really like is

2:04:47 ↗ something actually that Council Member Ramos touched on, which is this question about how much

2:04:52 ↗ does it cost to do some of these programs. I've been a little bit enlightened

2:04:56 ↗ this evening even on what these costs. So I think putting it into a special

2:05:00 ↗ fund as we consider additional speed cameras, as we consider red light cameras, I

2:05:06 ↗ think it'll be to the public and to the council's benefit to have that sort

2:05:09 ↗ of separated accounting. So I'm very much in favor of this measure.

2:05:15 ↗ Councilmember Pauli. Just a question on the resolution which says the last part of it

2:05:21 ↗ and designate the net proceeds to be reserved according to financial policy. Is there a

2:05:26 ↗ current financial policy drafted in our budget document or is that going to come with

2:05:31 ↗ the recommendation? That it would be planned to come. Essentially the reserves for

2:05:38 ↗ this particular type of fund would be designated as committed to a specific purpose.

2:05:44 ↗ That's been, that was defined in the committee? Yeah. That'll be defined in the budget

2:05:49 ↗ sessions? That's the expectation as it would.

2:05:56 ↗ Additional questions or discussion?

2:06:02 ↗ Council member Ramos followed by Council President Goodman. So since this is new

2:06:08 ↗ wording to me, I'm trying to see compared to what we talked about in committee.

2:06:13 ↗ the wording says into a special revenue fund and you

2:06:19 ↗ just mentioned about financial policy. To me that's just really general and I would think

2:06:24 ↗ that this was very specific what we talked about in committee that we would name

2:06:29 ↗ that special reserve fund and have that be revenue from

2:06:35 ↗ automated traffic enforcement, something versus just a special revenue Sounds like I don't know

2:06:41 ↗ where that's really going. I don't think I could vote clearly on that. And also

2:06:47 ↗ to say we don't have the financial policy, how to spend that. And I guess

2:06:49 ↗ we talked about in committee, it would be for capital. We did talk about that,

2:06:55 ↗ but that's about all. So I'm not, the wording here just leaves me

2:07:00 ↗ unclear and direct. I have the concept, I'm okay with what we're trying to do,

2:07:05 ↗ but I'm not sure we have the wording right. Thank

2:07:11 ↗ you. Bob, could you be more clear about when the financial policy is supposed to

2:07:15 ↗ come forward? Because I think that's the question that people are concerned about. And this

2:07:20 ↗ just sets up a fund separately. We would adopt a policy. So can you elaborate

2:07:24 ↗ on that, please? Sure. The council will be adopting a budget for 2017,

2:07:31 ↗ and so what we will have to do is work to make those amendments into

2:07:34 ↗ the budget and have them in front of you for deliberations on what those estimated

2:07:38 ↗ amounts would be, because right now they're sitting in these variant funds. Yeah, so what

2:07:42 ↗ we'll do when we true up the final budget and we'll have a, like just

2:07:47 ↗ now, there's a whole bunch of special revenue funds. Remember, they get their own page

2:07:51 ↗ in the budget. What you'll see in the budget is a special revenue fund that

2:07:54 ↗ looks like this, and we would make that amendment as part of the 2017 budget

2:07:59 ↗ and that has a purpose statement within the special revenue fund and that would reflect

2:08:04 ↗ how the revenue and expenses would be spent. I think it's the use of those

2:08:09 ↗ funds that's of a concern. Would it be mentioned in the special revenue fund, the

2:08:13 ↗ pages, or would it be mentioned in the budget financial policies? Would we adopt an

2:08:17 ↗ amendment to the financial policies? Yeah, so each page in the that has a special

2:08:22 ↗ revenue fund, has a purpose statement on what it can be used for, so it

2:08:25 ↗ would be incorporated in there, and then I think, if I remember right, there may

2:08:29 ↗ be a statement about special revenue funds within the financial policies, and then there's kind

2:08:33 ↗ of a general policy on that. If I remember. There's general policy in the financial

2:08:37 ↗ policies. In this proposed authorization, if you look at the words net,

2:08:44 ↗ proceeds to be reserved and so that would be the reserve section of the financial

2:08:49 ↗ policy and that is something that in in 2017 it's

2:08:55 ↗ expected to have a discussion with the council on reserve policy specifically so reserve policy

2:09:00 ↗ will mean all funds and what the council's wishes are for

2:09:06 ↗ establishing fund ending fund balance designations And there are four,

2:09:12 ↗ unassigned, committed, and restricted. And so for this special revenue fund, it would be

2:09:18 ↗ anticipated that those reserves would be committed to a special purpose.

2:09:22 ↗ Does that

2:09:26 ↗ answer the

2:09:32 ↗ question? No. Other questions? Yeah, the

2:09:38 ↗ logistics of this are a little bit murky still. I think that at

2:09:44 ↗ a future budget deliberation meeting, we're gonna get a more complete proposal that's also

2:09:50 ↗ gonna maybe name this fund, rather than because special revenue is just a category,

2:09:56 ↗ right? And it'll have this description and we'll have the, and so we're not seeing

2:10:02 ↗ that name tonight, we're not seeing the, the

2:10:07 ↗ restrictions on the use of these revenues. We're not seeing that language tonight. That's gonna

2:10:11 ↗ come. And the associated policy, we're not seeing that tonight. That's gonna come. So tonight

2:10:17 ↗ what we're really doing is saying structurally set this up, prepare it for us, and

2:10:21 ↗ bring the whole package back to budget deliberations. Exactly. That's correct.

2:10:28 ↗ We don't usually work this way. It's kind of interesting, but okay. I mean, I

2:10:31 ↗ get it. I can see a pathway to get where we wanna be. Thank you.

2:10:37 ↗ Council member Ramos followed by?

2:10:43 ↗ Goodman. So then my question is why are we doing this tonight? It sounds like

2:10:48 ↗ we should wait and do this later when we have that more detailed information.

2:10:54 ↗ There's no rush to do this tonight. We don't have the wording that's clear. We're

2:10:58 ↗ gonna do it in the budget. Why don't we just do it in the budget?

2:11:03 ↗ Council member Martz. Oh, excuse me, council member Goodman by Martz.

2:11:08 ↗ Council, my request. I think because partially until this evening the

2:11:14 ↗ administration didn't have a sense of the body and it might be that the three

2:11:17 ↗ of us wanted to do things a certain way but in preparing the budget I

2:11:22 ↗ agree with Councilmember Winterstein this is a different way of doing this but I don't

2:11:26 ↗ have any concerns that the administration doesn't understand right now if we move forward with

2:11:30 ↗ this bill what we want to see in the budget so

2:11:37 ↗ But just coming out of services, it might have been that you and Eileen and

2:11:41 ↗ I felt one way and the other four council members wanted to keep it just

2:11:44 ↗ the way it was, right? So they didn't know until they talked to us this

2:11:47 ↗ evening. I don't recall in the five

2:11:53 ↗ years or so that I've been on council that we've set up a fund. So

2:11:56 ↗ I don't know that this is an abnormal way of doing it. We just haven't

2:12:00 ↗ done this before. I'm a little bit concerned about timing. I very much support this.

2:12:06 ↗ I know a couple of years ago, I think Paul and I saw that Seattle

2:12:11 ↗ was doing this and I became very much interested in it at that time making

2:12:16 ↗ sure that the money that was coming in from school safety zone cameras

2:12:21 ↗ had some sort of a nexus to how they were being used and with regard

2:12:27 ↗ to traffic safety, whatever you want to have that purpose to be. So we are

2:12:30 ↗ now The next budget meeting is the middle of November. We are supposed to adopt

2:12:35 ↗ a budget at the end of December. And I'm a little bit concerned about timing.

2:12:40 ↗ I too don't have any concern about, all this does is say, normally yes, let's

2:12:44 ↗ go ahead and set up a special fund. And then we have further deliberations on

2:12:51 ↗ how the rest of it gets set up, the policy and the use of it.

2:12:54 ↗ So I'll be supporting this tonight. I just don't have any heartburn over what's gonna

2:13:00 ↗ happen the next few weeks. I'm a little bit concerned about the timing. We're getting

2:13:03 ↗ tight. Other questions or discussion? I just had one

2:13:09 ↗ question, Fred, if that's okay. In glancing at the budget, I see that there's a

2:13:14 ↗ line item called total fines and forfeitures. And the numbers in there are slightly different

2:13:20 ↗ than the ones that you're talking about tonight. But it already shows a decrease of,

2:13:25 ↗ $500 and some thousand dollars in there. Is there a corresponding line item somewhere else

2:13:31 ↗ in the budget that shows us that that money was going towards a special fund?

2:13:35 ↗ That corresponding line item of $510,300 is in the special

2:13:41 ↗ capital fund. The exact amount is, it's equates. Thanks.

2:13:51 ↗ Seeing no additional questions, are you ready to act?

2:13:57 ↗ All those in favor of authorizing allocation of gross revenue generated and

2:14:02 ↗ related operating costs associated with the automated traffic safety cameras into a special

2:14:08 ↗ revenue fund beginning January 1st, 2017 and designate the net

2:14:14 ↗ proceeds to be reserved according to financial policy signify by saying aye.

2:14:20 ↗ Aye. Those opposed? That carries unanimously. Moving

2:14:26 ↗ now to, this is,

2:14:35 ↗ speed and camera, red light night it looks like.

2:14:42 ↗ Agenda bill 7257, initiate traffic study for red light cameras. This

2:14:48 ↗ is coming back from services and safety and,

2:14:54 ↗ We have prepared a staff presentation after your introduction. Council member Barnes. I'm getting a

2:15:00 ↗ vocal workout today. It's a good thing I was in theater before I got into

2:15:03 ↗ engineering. This agenda bill proposes that the City of Issaquah, in partnership with American Traffic

2:15:08 ↗ Safety Solutions, initiate a traffic study to determine the potential viability of adding red light

2:15:13 ↗ cameras at one or more of the locations proposed below. These locations have been identified

2:15:18 ↗ as having the highest incidence of red light violations causing collisions. State law allows for

2:15:23 ↗ municipal jurisdictions to use automated traffic safety to monitor stoplights, railroad crossings, or school speed

2:15:29 ↗ zones, or for other described speed violations. However, prior to implementing automatic traffic safety cameras

2:15:35 ↗ at locations in the city, the same law requires that there be an analysis of

2:15:39 ↗ the locations where cameras are proposed to be located. The relevant statue, RCW 46.63.170,

2:15:46 ↗ automated traffic safety cameras, is attached as Exhibit A. In 2009, the city entered into

2:15:51 ↗ a partnership with American Traffic solutions to implement an automated traffic enforcement program for the

2:15:56 ↗ 2nd Avenue Southeast School Zone. In addition to automated speed cameras, ATS also offered a

2:16:00 ↗ program to monitor traffic signals in an attempt to deter individuals from running red lights

2:16:04 ↗ and enforce the Washington state laws governing vehicle actions at a traffic signal. To comply

2:16:09 ↗ with state law, ATS offers viability studies for any intersections identified by the police department.

2:16:15 ↗ These intersection studies are offered without cost to the city. In 2007, the city contracted

2:16:20 ↗ with ATS to conduct a red light camera traffic analysis on multiple intersections in the

2:16:25 ↗ city. The study showed that only one intersection, SR900 at Newport Way, had enough violations

2:16:31 ↗ to warrant the installation of cameras. The city did not pursue installation of a red

2:16:35 ↗ light camera at that time. The study is now nine years old and an update

2:16:38 ↗ is needed. In order to identify potential intersections where red light cameras could be installed,

2:16:43 ↗ IPD, personnel performed a brief study of side impact collisions. The study

2:16:49 ↗ focused on collisions that occurred in the city between January 1st, 2012 and August 1st,

2:16:53 ↗ 2016, where it appeared that the collision was caused by an individual running a red

2:16:57 ↗ light. The following six intersections, which were identified as having the highest incidence of red

2:17:01 ↗ light violations causing collisions, will be the focus of the proposed traffic study. Highlands Drive

2:17:05 ↗ Northeast at Northeast Park Drive, Highlands Drive Northeast at Northeast High Street, Southeast Issaquah Falls

2:17:11 ↗ City Road at Southeast Black Nugget Road, SR900 at Newport Way Northwest, SR900 at

2:17:17 ↗ Maple Street Northwest, and finally Newport Way Northwest at West Sunset Way. The study will

2:17:22 ↗ identify each location's physical viability for camera placement along with an analysis of the traffic

2:17:27 ↗ flow of the intersections. Using analytics and data derived from similar intersections across the country,

2:17:32 ↗ this data will then be used by ATS to extrapolate the number of potential violators

2:17:36 ↗ 18 months before and after the potential installation of a red light. The study results

2:17:41 ↗ will allow the IPD to determine the viability of installing red light cameras at these

2:17:45 ↗ intersections. This traffic study, primarily conducted by ATS, is performed in conjunction with the police

2:17:50 ↗ department. It is foreseeable that some contact between an IPD representative and ATS will occur

2:17:55 ↗ over the course of the study. However, the contact is likely to be minimal and

2:17:58 ↗ the study does not appear to have a significant need for departmental resources. I'll say

2:18:03 ↗ again, ATS offers this traffic study at no cost to the city. It is anticipated

2:18:08 ↗ that the study would be completed within one month after installation. Upon conclusion and review

2:18:12 ↗ of the study, the administration may return to council with a separate agenda bill to

2:18:16 ↗ propose implementation of a red light traffic camera program. So,

2:18:25 ↗ On October 27th, 2016, the Council Services and Safety Committee met and reviewed Agenda Bill

2:18:30 ↗ 7257. After a staff presentation and discussion, the committee recommended two to one, authorizing the

2:18:35 ↗ traffic study and placement of this item under regular business at the November 7th, 2016

2:18:41 ↗ Council meeting with a staff presentation. So I move to authorize initiation of a traffic

2:18:46 ↗ study with American Traffic Solutions to determine the viability of adding a red light camera

2:18:50 ↗ program. Second. Moved and seconded,

2:18:58 ↗ Interim Patrol Commander Ryan Rollerson for the staff presentation, you're on. Thank

2:19:04 ↗ you, Mayor. Good evening, Council. The introduction covered most of what I prepared to

2:19:10 ↗ say, so that's okay. Seems to be an overriding theme tonight

2:19:15 ↗ with the traffic cameras. This study,

2:19:22 ↗ the genesis of this study came out of a council meeting in June when there

2:19:27 ↗ was a larger discussion about traffic safety issues and the council directed the police department

2:19:31 ↗ to kind of look at every avenue including red light cameras in an attempt to

2:19:35 ↗ address some of our ongoing transportation issues. So we reached out to

2:19:41 ↗ ATS, who runs the traffic safety camera on 2nd Avenue Southeast, they also

2:19:47 ↗ provide red light camera programs. We reached out to that company since we already have

2:19:52 ↗ a relationship with them. And they indicated that they provide these studies, as Councilmember Martz

2:19:58 ↗ indicated, for free of cost. some of the

2:20:04 ↗ issues that have come up and just wanted to kind of answer some questions. And

2:20:07 ↗ although we are simply just asking at this point in time to initiate a study

2:20:11 ↗ to even to see the viability of red light cameras, I wanted to give a

2:20:16 ↗ little bit of a little piece of information about how red light cameras actually work.

2:20:22 ↗ If in fact the study showed that there was viability for a red light camera

2:20:26 ↗ and we came back to the council with another agenda bill and someday down the

2:20:30 ↗ road a camera was installed. How they end up doing that is they end up

2:20:33 ↗ placing sensors inside the roadway at the stop bar which detect traffic movement up into

2:20:39 ↗ the stop bar. So when an individual runs a red light you get a few

2:20:43 ↗ pieces of information. They drive over the sensors in the roadway while the light is

2:20:47 ↗ red and then the information you get back from the company with the infraction is

2:20:52 ↗ you get two photos, you get a photo of the before it crosses the stop

2:20:57 ↗ bar so that you can see both the light and the vehicle prior before the

2:21:01 ↗ stop bar and then you get a picture of the vehicle inside the intersection after

2:21:05 ↗ it has crossed over the stop bar against the red light and then you get

2:21:09 ↗ the video portion that we get with the speed camera as well. At that point

2:21:13 ↗ in time, all that information is reviewed by a police officer sent back to the

2:21:17 ↗ company and then the infraction is mailed out. There is a second method that they

2:21:21 ↗ use and it has to do more with the radar system than with the

2:21:27 ↗ detection zone system and that's used in areas where the detection zone or the sensors

2:21:32 ↗ aren't viable and the radar system basically measures the approach of vehicles to the stop

2:21:38 ↗ bar and then it makes an assumption about whether or not the vehicle can actually

2:21:42 ↗ stop and if the system believes the vehicle is not going to stop it will

2:21:46 ↗ take a photo and in that situation there are times when the vehicle actually makes

2:21:51 ↗ the stop and you just my understanding is you get a photo of a blank

2:21:54 ↗ intersection in that circumstance So you get the same two pieces of information with the

2:21:58 ↗ radar system as well. A couple of other points about red

2:22:04 ↗ light cameras and how the camera works and how the

2:22:10 ↗ infractions work. Basically, a couple of the concerns with the cameras and kind of identified

2:22:16 ↗ here who is not caught by the camera. Individuals who come to a complete stop

2:22:20 ↗ at a stop bar and then make a free ride on a red light if

2:22:25 ↗ that's allowed at the intersection, would not be ticketed by the camera. And then individuals

2:22:30 ↗ who enter an intersection against a green light and then end up inside the intersection

2:22:35 ↗ as the light turns red, so-called block the box, the camera would not catch that

2:22:40 ↗ individual as well. The red light tickets go through our municipal court. They're a municipal

2:22:46 ↗ code violation and they are akin to parking tickets so they don't go on the

2:22:52 ↗ driver's driving record. Mr. Mayor? Yeah. So can I, I guess if

2:22:58 ↗ you could go back for a second, point out this issue about individuals enter an

2:23:01 ↗ intersection on a green and get caught in the box, that's really important for a

2:23:05 ↗ couple of reasons. One is that, and I didn't know when it came before committee,

2:23:09 ↗ you know, I thought, well, what if somebody misjudges, they enter in a yellow, but

2:23:13 ↗ this isn't, A, this isn't somebody who misjudges and gets caught in the intersection when

2:23:19 ↗ it's a red. This is somebody that it's red before they even enter the intersection.

2:23:24 ↗ And then secondly, what that means is that we had some public comment tonight about

2:23:28 ↗ intersections that get jammed up. And correct me if I'm wrong, but that really won't

2:23:31 ↗ solve that. If somebody is in the middle, if they unwisely choose to enter the

2:23:36 ↗ intersection while it's still green or even yellow, and the traffic is just not moving,

2:23:40 ↗ and they're in the middle of the intersection, and the light turns red, it's not

2:23:45 ↗ gonna resolve that issue, right? Correct, it won't address the blocking the box issue. That

2:23:50 ↗ would have to be done by specialized enforcement at another time.

2:23:57 ↗ So in order to look at which intersections we felt might have some viability for

2:24:03 ↗ red light cameras, we did a traffic study of collisions that have occurred inside the

2:24:08 ↗ city. In a five year window, we found 86 collisions at 33 different intersections inside

2:24:14 ↗ the city that were caused by individuals running, directly caused by individuals running red lights.

2:24:19 ↗ So that's again an average of 17 collisions per year and roughly about 3% of

2:24:23 ↗ the collisions that we respond to in the course of a given year.

2:24:29 ↗ Nearly 50% of those collisions occurred at these five intersections, or these six intersections, I'm

2:24:34 ↗ sorry. When we looked at this study,

2:24:40 ↗ ATS obviously didn't want to look at just one intersection. They wanted to look at

2:24:44 ↗ more than one intersection, and they said looking at multiple intersections would give us a

2:24:49 ↗ broader look at what was going on. Taking these six intersections where 50% of our

2:24:56 ↗ collisions have occurred where the red light has been the proximate cause. Can I

2:25:02 ↗ ask a question? Sure. Thank you. Can you go back to the slide before? So

2:25:11 ↗ why do we draw the line at the nearly 50%? So how do we know

2:25:15 ↗ that number seven intersection shouldn't be studied as well? And we don't know that. It

2:25:20 ↗ was simply just the numbers It was just looking at the numbers and when the

2:25:25 ↗ numbers, after these six collisions, the numbers started to really tail off where we'd have,

2:25:29 ↗ or these six intersections, I'm sorry, the numbers really started to tail off where you'd

2:25:32 ↗ have one or two, whereas some of these had eight or 10 or 12 collisions.

2:25:38 ↗ So I just looked at which intersections had the highest incidence. That doesn't necessarily mean

2:25:43 ↗ that there wouldn't be people running red lights at other intersections as well. It's just

2:25:48 ↗ simply that these were the highest incidents where individuals caused collisions.

2:25:56 ↗ I think it's important to look at what's next. If the council approves the study

2:26:00 ↗ and we have the study done and we take a look at the results, I

2:26:04 ↗ don't think that's the end, I think that's just the beginning. At that point in

2:26:07 ↗ time, I think that the police department needs to take a really granular look at

2:26:12 ↗ the collision data in each of these intersections or the intersections identified by ATS as

2:26:16 ↗ having viability And we need to overlay our data with the data that we get

2:26:22 ↗ from ATS to take a closer look at what is actually causing collisions at those

2:26:26 ↗ intersections and are there other viable options for controlling and mitigating individuals running red lights

2:26:32 ↗ at those intersections. And in that we'll work closely with engineering to ensure that we

2:26:37 ↗ look again at every viable option for controlling collisions. Kind of a good anecdote to

2:26:42 ↗ that, when the light was first put in at Highlands and Discovery, we were noticing

2:26:48 ↗ that it seemed as people were going through the yellow light going from Highlands onto

2:26:51 ↗ Discovery towards the hospital, the traffic coming the other direction on what would be ninth

2:26:57 ↗ to Highlands was starting to enter the intersection as people were still clearing it. And

2:27:02 ↗ as it turned out because that's such a long turn, the traffic, the signal time

2:27:07 ↗ from yellow to red wasn't quite long enough and they were, and engineering was able

2:27:10 ↗ to adjust the signal time and compensate for that problem without having to go further

2:27:16 ↗ with enforcement or other acts.

2:27:22 ↗ And then obviously we have to consider departmental operational impact if

2:27:28 ↗ the traffic study shows viability for a red light camera and we move forward.

2:27:35 ↗ Questions or discussion? So

2:27:41 ↗ we have collision data only. we don't have our own

2:27:48 ↗ estimate of actual red light violations. So this is a study to actually

2:27:54 ↗ give us an estimate of how many violations are occurring at these six

2:27:59 ↗ intersections. Correct, and how the study works, and I should have introduced this better, ATS

2:28:05 ↗ comes in and they'll take a look at each of these six intersections for straight

2:28:10 ↗ up physical viability for a camera, whether there's buildings in place that would block camera

2:28:14 ↗ view, or whatever might prohibit the ability to put a camera

2:28:20 ↗ up and for it to actually see the intersection. Then they'll perform a traffic flow

2:28:23 ↗ study. They'll take that information and then provide an estimate of what they believe to

2:28:29 ↗ be individuals running that red light for the first 18 months of the program and

2:28:33 ↗ then after 18 months of the program.

2:28:42 ↗ I think, and I'll want to have, obviously as committee chair, I'm going to want

2:28:45 ↗ to have Council Member Ramos speak to this because he was the dissenting vote as

2:28:49 ↗ it came out of committee. But I personally, the combination of the fact that this

2:28:54 ↗ is not a cost to the city does not commit us to taking a particular

2:28:59 ↗ action, particular policy action yet. I think that there's a lot of

2:29:05 ↗ analysis of data to be done when the data comes in. We've already heard from

2:29:08 ↗ some members of the community that have questions or concerns around data. But I think

2:29:13 ↗ going out and getting the data is not a bad idea. Towards the eventual idea

2:29:17 ↗ philosophically, if this is a good idea or not, I've often spoken in council in

2:29:23 ↗ the push and pull between individual rights and the rights of the collective to enforce

2:29:28 ↗ policies. To me, this is an obvious case. The fact that it has to be

2:29:33 ↗ read when you're entering the intersection, I mean, I feel morally culpable if the light

2:29:38 ↗ turns red as I'm clearing the intersection, which I believe is how the law states

2:29:43 ↗ that if an officer were to be watching somebody going through that intersection. So this

2:29:48 ↗ is a level removed from that, right? This is somebody who is really, really either

2:29:53 ↗ misjudged or intentionally ignored the light system. And so down the road, if we

2:29:58 ↗ decide that this is an effective mechanism, I will sleep well at night supporting it.

2:30:03 ↗ Council member Ramos, I think, I introduced you. Yes. He did.

2:30:11 ↗ I guess I'm looking at these things a little differently. And I look at when

2:30:15 ↗ we start to have a problem, you kind of know it in your gut. You

2:30:18 ↗ intuit that there's a problem. And I know there is a concern about speeding in

2:30:23 ↗ Issaquah. That's there. That's no question to me. But I've never felt from

2:30:28 ↗ anyone, from engineering, from police, from citizens, of a concern of red light

2:30:34 ↗ issues. So I'm not feeling that.

2:30:40 ↗ And with the data they're saying that we're averaging in six intersections, slightly over

2:30:47 ↗ one infraction per year. Collision. Collision with infraction. That has

2:30:53 ↗ something that's very,

2:31:00 ↗ So I'm kind of asking that question. The next one comes up in my mind

2:31:04 ↗ is you're asking a vendor whose sole purpose is to get a contract to do

2:31:08 ↗ a required study for you and the main purpose of them is to determine which

2:31:14 ↗ intersections are viable to put cameras to get a contract. So I think there's a

2:31:18 ↗ conflict of interest in what you're doing there. I think there's a lot of issues

2:31:21 ↗ at at Heart, we talked about them at committee, you just mentioned some. There's engineering,

2:31:26 ↗ there's all sorts of other reasons for why those things could be happening or not

2:31:31 ↗ that need to be looked at, not just as a camera. I was at a

2:31:36 ↗ meeting at the Highlands just last week with the community officer

2:31:42 ↗ and his statement was, which is I believe is the whole thing, everything's about education.

2:31:47 ↗ That's what, almost all police contact is about. And

2:31:53 ↗ I believe that. And when someone gets a moving violation and they get a ticket

2:31:58 ↗ and they're pulled over to the side of the road and they're getting education from

2:32:01 ↗ the police officer, everybody who drives by is getting education from that incident occurring,

2:32:07 ↗ it's what I want to have happen. And they get a moving violation for what

2:32:12 ↗ they did. And I believe, well you said about entering,

2:32:17 ↗ standards here are the same for a police officer also, you get a red, it's

2:32:22 ↗ an infraction when you enter at a red light, not when you're halfway through and

2:32:26 ↗ it turns red. So I think this is the same. But I want that

2:32:31 ↗ education to happen and I want the moving violation to happen versus three or four

2:32:36 ↗ weeks after the fact, you get a ticket in the mail, which doesn't bring in

2:32:40 ↗ education, doesn't bring in all those other things. And also it turns a moving violation

2:32:45 ↗ into a parking ticket. which to me changes the whole structure of it. It becomes

2:32:51 ↗ a fine which is simply payable by those who have the means to pay it.

2:32:57 ↗ The other thing that strikes me and the agenda tonight really shows

2:33:03 ↗ that, we like to be called Trailhead City, a number of great names. I don't

2:33:09 ↗ want to be known as Issaquah, the city of automated traffic enforcement city.

2:33:16 ↗ because we're talking about lots of cameras, lots of places, and that's just to me

2:33:20 ↗ heading the wrong direction for a town of this size. We're looking at a lot

2:33:26 ↗ of things that I don't see us going this way. So I think we can

2:33:30 ↗ look at those kinds of things. And the other side of the issues that

2:33:37 ↗ engineering and police staff can look at, I don't think we need to go ahead

2:33:41 ↗ with this.

2:33:48 ↗ A couple of questions. I guess based on what Bill is saying, is this supplemental

2:33:52 ↗ to what you do or replacing what you do? Are you still going to be

2:33:55 ↗ giving tickets to red light violations and this is supplemental meaning additional to?

2:34:01 ↗ Sure, I would say this would be supplemental to. I mean the police department, we're

2:34:05 ↗ about looking for any avenue and tactics and other means

2:34:10 ↗ of addressing traffic safety issues. And so I think this is something that would be

2:34:14 ↗ supplemental to enforcement. just as our traffic safety camera on Second Avenue

2:34:20 ↗ Southeast is supplemental to our traffic, to our speed enforcement efforts. The second question was

2:34:24 ↗ we were talking about speed cameras in an agenda bill earlier in the year and

2:34:28 ↗ there was some data provided about the reduction in speeding that occurred that was

2:34:34 ↗ based on some data. So if this private vendor is doing a study for us

2:34:39 ↗ and whether or not these are good locations for cameras and

2:34:45 ↗ do they also predict the, where do we start collecting data on actually how many

2:34:52 ↗ potential red light violations we might be not having? You don't get that until you

2:34:56 ↗ actually install the cameras and start giving out tickets? So in part of that, the

2:35:00 ↗ Institute for, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety did a study in 2014. Now they

2:35:04 ↗ studied larger cities such as Seattle, that type of city, and they found that

2:35:11 ↗ installation of cameras caused a reduction of, a 21% reduction in their fatal collisions.

2:35:17 ↗ And then a 14% reduction in any type of collisions in the intersections. So there

2:35:22 ↗ is some data to suggest that red light cameras, that red light cameras do reduce

2:35:26 ↗ the incidence of running red light, running red lights. I'm not sure that we would

2:35:30 ↗ see the results of that until we see the study data from

2:35:37 ↗ the company. Okay, thanks. Thanks.

2:35:43 ↗ So just to be clear, this agenda bill talks about a study. It does not

2:35:47 ↗ talk about installing any cameras. And as you mentioned, Mary Lou, earlier

2:35:52 ↗ tonight we had an agenda bill about two other cameras. And so we decided to

2:35:57 ↗ not pursue those two cameras at other locations. So we currently have one camera.

2:36:03 ↗ So I think it would be a long time before we were known as a,

2:36:08 ↗ But I'm, I support the study because I would like to make decisions based on

2:36:12 ↗ data. And we get information back from ATS that

2:36:19 ↗ has us concerned about cameras, then we can ask questions then. We'll have a lot

2:36:23 ↗ of questions. You know, there are a lot of questions before we install any cameras

2:36:27 ↗ because it is a big, it would be a big change and it would be

2:36:30 ↗ a big policy decision. But I support the going forward with the study.

2:36:40 ↗ My memory serves me correctly this issue came up because we were concerned about

2:36:48 ↗ Actually intersects intersections being blocked and high congestion time and is one of the

2:36:54 ↗ strategies to help improve flow Across

2:37:00 ↗ intersections. I mean that you guys are shaking your heads. I know that was a

2:37:03 ↗ car I was part of some of those kind of conversations earlier on so Obviously,

2:37:09 ↗ there's maybe multiple reasons. And so I was kind of, it is a little bit

2:37:14 ↗ disappointing to see that this is not about someone who

2:37:20 ↗ breaks a red light law. I mean, that they actually get caught in the box.

2:37:25 ↗ I mean, that's illegal. So it's disappointing to see that that's not there because that's

2:37:31 ↗ part of it as, to me, that's proper and safe. of your vehicle

2:37:37 ↗ includes knowing when to enter and when not. So I'm just, my point is that

2:37:42 ↗ that's unfortunate. And so this really isn't gonna,

2:37:49 ↗ as I was maybe hoping at first, one of those incremental small little potential remedies

2:37:54 ↗ to help just overall flow at high congestion times. So that's just a comment.

2:38:00 ↗ But like we said earlier, It's about collecting data

2:38:07 ↗ and I'm gonna support this and I'm making zero commitment to what I'm gonna do

2:38:11 ↗ next time when we get the data back. I might like it, I might not.

2:38:15 ↗ I might support something, I may not. It's just about collecting data and we'll see.

2:38:21 ↗ I think you're a good point. There is a little bit of a, the people

2:38:23 ↗ who potentially could win by this are the ones collecting the data and I will

2:38:27 ↗ filter those results knowing that as well. Just for

2:38:32 ↗ clarification, I had said earlier that I thought that you had to clear the intersection

2:38:37 ↗ before it turns red. The reason I thought that is because I knew a guy

2:38:40 ↗ who in 1985 failed his first driver license test because although he

2:38:46 ↗ entered the intersection, it was yellow. His instructor told him that he had to clear

2:38:50 ↗ the intersection before it turned red and thus he had to come back later and

2:38:53 ↗ his mom was unhappy and da-da-da-da-da. So can you clarify what it is for Washington

2:38:57 ↗ State? The way that I've done it personally is I've allowed, if you've

2:39:03 ↗ made it into the intersection while it's been yellow, I've allowed the vehicle to proceed.

2:39:09 ↗ In that situation, I don't think there's a clear, you run the red. If you

2:39:13 ↗ cross the stop bar when the light's yellow, it's gonna be really difficult, I think,

2:39:17 ↗ to try and tell the individual that they entered the intersection while the light was

2:39:21 ↗ red. Additional,

2:39:29 ↗ Council Member Batiste. Thank you. I would be supporting this

2:39:35 ↗ bill tonight. I think that having the capability to look at the study for

2:39:40 ↗ zero cost and collecting the data and then being able to make an informed decision

2:39:45 ↗ as we go forward and something that focus on safety in the city I

2:39:51 ↗ think is important. So again, I'm not, I hear what everyone is saying and

2:39:57 ↗ And taking all of that into consideration and but I think gathering the data and

2:40:04 ↗ moving forward would be a good idea. I think the committee asked

2:40:10 ↗ that we would also like to know the severity if we can if we can

2:40:13 ↗ get a sense of the severity of these accidents that occur in these intersections to

2:40:18 ↗ understand how severe they are on average. So

2:40:24 ↗ haven't had a chance to take a look at some of those collisions in question.

2:40:27 ↗ Most of the collisions ended with minor injuries. A couple ended up with individuals going

2:40:31 ↗ to the hospital. In the collected data, there were no fatality collisions. Thank

2:40:38 ↗ you. So I just wanted, so Paul, when you said you were recalling when this

2:40:43 ↗ came up and about people blocking intersections, I recall talking about this early in the

2:40:47 ↗ summer when I had a list of thoughts related to

2:40:54 ↗ our transportation traffic issues. And I had mentioned cameras and red light cameras. And

2:41:00 ↗ I was speaking at the time about, and not knowing what

2:41:06 ↗ red light cameras are for, just talked about the blocking of the intersections. And talked

2:41:12 ↗ about how dangerous that is. And this red light cameras may be

2:41:18 ↗ potentially a way to make that safer.

2:41:24 ↗ I'm learning along with everybody else, but that's my recollection. I mean, that's when I

2:41:27 ↗ spoke publicly about it earlier in the summer.

2:41:35 ↗ Council member Ramos. So just to clarify, if we were talking about that ability to

2:41:40 ↗ deal with blocked intersections, I think that's a very serious problem and it does create

2:41:43 ↗ things. This doesn't, it's very clear, this doesn't deal with that. But that is an

2:41:48 ↗ issue that people are concerned about and does cause quite a bit of problems, but

2:41:51 ↗ this isn't. to help us there at all. So that's one of the things I'm

2:41:56 ↗ looking at. So are you ready to act?

2:42:03 ↗ All those in favor of authorizing the initiation of a traffic study with

2:42:10 ↗ American Traffic Solutions to determine the viability of adding a red light camera

2:42:15 ↗ program signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? No.

2:42:21 ↗ Motion carries with council member Ramos voting not to

2:42:27 ↗ proceed. We're gonna take a

2:42:35 ↗ seven minute break. So please come back at 10 till.

2:42:51 ↗ Yeah sure.

2:50:13 ↗ We are back in regular session at 9.51

2:50:19 ↗ and with that moving now to our next regular business item, amendments to storm

2:50:25 ↗ water management regulations within municipal code and central Issaquah development and design

2:50:31 ↗ standards, agenda bill 7122. We'll kick this off with a staff

2:50:36 ↗ presentation from Sheldon Lynn, our director of public works engineering. Thank you,

2:50:42 ↗ Mayor Butler. Council, Agenda Bill 7122 was referred to the Land and Shore Committee

2:50:48 ↗ for review and recommendation on some modified changes to the Stormwater Code and the Land

2:50:54 ↗ Use Codes to ensure compliance with the NPDES permit that

2:51:00 ↗ Ecology has issued to the city. And this

2:51:06 ↗ agenda bill is now coming back after Land and Shore has reviewed the draft code

2:51:10 ↗ changes at their September as well as their October meetings.

2:51:17 ↗ In a brief summary of it, the code changes are required by

2:51:23 ↗ the NPDES phase two permit issued by Ecology to adopt a new manual. That

2:51:28 ↗ manual is expecting to have consistency between the land use code and the storm water

2:51:34 ↗ code and have requirements in it for requiring low impact development techniques to be

2:51:40 ↗ used first and foremost for addressing stormwater runoff from development sites.

2:51:46 ↗ It also requires that a feasibility analysis be done on each site as part of

2:51:52 ↗ the process to ensure that when it is feasible, low impact development techniques are utilized.

2:52:00 ↗ In any case though, the stormwater runoff requirements to be

2:52:06 ↗ met either through low impact development techniques or through the traditional techniques that are typically

2:52:12 ↗ used today. There's also another component that is embedded in the code changes that is

2:52:17 ↗ also identified in the NPDES permit, and that's what's known as overriding

2:52:22 ↗ considerations. That's where, for instance, if there are land use issues or other things that

2:52:28 ↗ come into play that while the Soil and geology and the site conditions may

2:52:34 ↗ say it's feasible. Other things may come about where it becomes an overriding

2:52:40 ↗ consideration such as the city's visions for certain land uses to occur in certain areas

2:52:45 ↗ and things like that that may supersede the requirement for the use of LID, but

2:52:52 ↗ it still would require that the storm water runoff be controlled and treated

2:52:58 ↗ in accordance with the standards. just using a different technique other than LID.

2:53:04 ↗ The other component of the code changes are the enforcement components of it. And

2:53:10 ↗ in the enforcement end of things, the penalties and fines were amended and actually

2:53:16 ↗ are increased over what they are today and are a little bit clearer to actually

2:53:22 ↗ administer as well. They've been simplified, but yet they've become a little bit more stringent

2:53:26 ↗ than what we currently have. So just for

2:53:33 ↗ information purposes, I know the committee was interested in this and I thought the city

2:53:36 ↗ council may as well be interested in it is this map shows a hashed area.

2:53:42 ↗ That hashed area is the area in which the code identifies that that is where

2:53:48 ↗ the overriding considerations would be allowed to be utilized. Everywhere else in the

2:53:54 ↗ city overriding considerations would not be allowed. This hashed area is also known as your

2:53:59 ↗ central Issaquah plan area. The dots that are on there, the blue and the yellow

2:54:05 ↗ dots, the blue dots are where low impact development techniques are currently being utilized.

2:54:11 ↗ They've actually been studied and utilized and the yellow dots are areas where currently they're

2:54:17 ↗ in process of evaluating it. Our code today encourages the use of LID but

2:54:23 ↗ doesn't require it. This new code would require it first and foremost to be utilized.

2:54:29 ↗ And in summary, those are just really in brief the policy elements embedded within the

2:54:35 ↗ code. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Before

2:54:40 ↗ questions, Councilmember Pawley, Chair of Land and Shore,

2:54:49 ↗ for comments and introduction. Actually, I think I'll move it first and then

2:54:55 ↗ Sheldon did a very good job of explaining it and we'll see, I believe at

2:54:59 ↗ least four of the council members have been attending Land and Shore at different times

2:55:04 ↗ and got a lot of this background already. Okay. I'll move to adopt ordinance number.

2:55:09 ↗ 2783. Mending the Issaquah Municipal Code and the Central Issaquah Development and

2:55:14 ↗ Design Standards regarding provisions to support implementation of the State Environmental Protection Agency's National

2:55:22 ↗ Discharge Elimination System Phase II Stormwater Permit. Second.

2:55:28 ↗ Moved and seconded. Discussion or questions?

2:55:42 ↗ Seeing none then, all those in favor of adopting Ordinance 2783 amending the Issaquah Municipal

2:55:48 ↗ Code and the central Issacar development and design standards regarding provisions to support

2:55:54 ↗ implementation of the state environmental protection agencies, national pollutant

2:56:00 ↗ discharge elimination system phase two signify permit

2:56:06 ↗ stormwater permits signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That carries

2:56:11 ↗ unanimously. Moving now to our.

2:56:26 ↗ Final agenda bill under regular business, agenda bill 7258,

2:56:32 ↗ temporary moratorium related to certain permit applications. Keith

2:56:38 ↗ Niven, Director of Development Services Division and Economic Development

2:56:45 ↗ for the staff presentation. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, City Council. I want to take a

2:56:51 ↗ second to thank all the residents, property owners, and agents here that have

2:56:57 ↗ weathered this meeting to listen to this agenda item, knowing that it impacts them

2:57:04 ↗ greatly. So thank you for all the time spent. So the Council enacted

2:57:11 ↗ a temporary development moratorium a little bit more than two months ago on the 6th

2:57:15 ↗ of September. Um... started to think about what have we been doing for the

2:57:21 ↗ past two months. Although the time has flown, we have done an actual quite a

2:57:27 ↗ bit. And it really, I want to kind of separate it into two pieces. One

2:57:32 ↗ is the council identified six items that were concerning for them related to

2:57:38 ↗ recent development in the city. And so the first thing that we started working on

2:57:43 ↗ is basically a work plan for those six items. And so you'll find this

2:57:50 ↗ It's actually page 322 of your agenda packet. No, it's not. Yes, it is.

2:57:58 ↗ And what it is, it's also labeled Exhibit A to the draft ordinance.

2:58:03 ↗ that's part of the agenda bill. So what we did was we basically took each

2:58:08 ↗ of the six items, and you can see them as rows one through six on

2:58:13 ↗ this chart, and we started to work out how we would actually put together a

2:58:19 ↗ work program for each one of those six items that would kind of get us

2:58:24 ↗ to some code at the end that would potentially get us some

2:58:34 ↗ a remedy to what was concerning for the City Council with the recent development that

2:58:39 ↗ we've seen in the city. And so each one of these things is broken out

2:58:43 ↗ into different touch points by the City Council, different touch points

2:58:49 ↗ by different commissions, where you see DC, that's Development Commission, PPC's

2:58:55 ↗ Planning Policy Commission, and so on. So part of what we've been working on is

2:59:00 ↗ putting together this work plan proposed work plan and one of the things that I

2:59:06 ↗ heard from the City Council on the 26th, which was the last time that we

2:59:10 ↗ talked about this, was not to crunch this work program down at the

2:59:16 ↗ expense of community outreach. And so what you'll see is some fairly, and I'm not

2:59:21 ↗ even sure what color that is, it's kind of green or whatever this color is,

2:59:26 ↗ that basically represents those times where we're out talking to different property owners

2:59:32 ↗ or developers or commissions and getting information to help guide

2:59:38 ↗ drafting the new language.

2:59:45 ↗ Besides working on the work plan, the other piece of what we've been doing for

2:59:50 ↗ the past two months has been listening to both testimony and public comment. You

2:59:55 ↗ guys heard some additional public comment this evening. And

3:00:02 ↗ what you asked from the administration was for us to put together a recommendation on

3:00:07 ↗ whether or not the moratorium should be amended. That is what is in the agenda

3:00:13 ↗ bill that you have in front of you this evening. After listening to

3:00:20 ↗ the public testimony, public comments and your conversation at the

3:00:26 ↗ budget workshop on the 26th, the administration is putting forward a recommendation to

3:00:34 ↗ you to allow for short plats and small residential

3:00:39 ↗ development less than 3,000 square feet to be able to move forward. There's Councilmember Polly.

3:00:44 ↗ I thought she disappeared.

3:00:50 ↗ So that is so after kind of putting through

3:00:58 ↗ all the alternatives that we talked about on the 26th, That is what the

3:01:03 ↗ administration is coming forward with the recommendation to you this evening. So with that,

3:01:09 ↗ that's the extent of what I wanted to lead off with and thought that you

3:01:14 ↗ all probably would have some questions or comments. And I would be more than happy

3:01:19 ↗ to try to field those for you this evening.

3:01:25 ↗ Question or comments? Mary Lou followed by Tola. I

3:01:31 ↗ wonder if you can address the comments we heard tonight from the public, in particular

3:01:36 ↗ with the central Issaquah area and level zero review pertaining to 4,000

3:01:42 ↗ square foot projects and whether or not net increases in square footage should be

3:01:48 ↗ made an exception or not. That was about five questions there.

3:01:55 ↗ Good. Sorry. So let me start. If I lost track of one of the bouncing

3:01:58 ↗ balls, let me know. So let's start with the

3:02:04 ↗ net, the net versus new. So the issues

3:02:10 ↗ that you heard this evening from public comment related to things like traffic,

3:02:17 ↗ and as we all know, traffic is a an issue for us, but it's not

3:02:22 ↗ one of the six things that were identified in the moratorium. You know, the things

3:02:26 ↗ that you identified were things like architectural fit and parking, the

3:02:32 ↗ amount of surface parking and the adequacy of the number of parking spaces, the urban

3:02:37 ↗ design issues that may or may not need to be adjusted to get the quality

3:02:42 ↗ of development that we're looking for. That net conversation, I think, is really

3:02:49 ↗ relevant to those issues. I mean, because basically what we're talking about is that new

3:02:54 ↗ building and how big that new building is and what that impact is on the

3:02:59 ↗ community. Because if you were taking down something, you know, you could go to the

3:03:04 ↗ Atlas Project. They took down a lot of square footage of, you know, retail space.

3:03:10 ↗ And that really wasn't the issue. It was the issue of what came afterwards and

3:03:16 ↗ how that affected the community. So I don't I guess I'm not inclined to consider

3:03:22 ↗ it as net. I think it's about replacement. So if you're building a new

3:03:28 ↗ project and currently we set the bar at 3,000 square feet and I can talk

3:03:32 ↗ about that in a second, that would be the trigger. So why

3:03:38 ↗ the 3,000 square feet and not 4,000 square feet or 2,000 square feet or thousand

3:03:43 ↗ square feet. So I mentioned this I think last time that three thousand square foot

3:03:49 ↗ is an arbitrary number that we've chosen. And really it gets to

3:03:56 ↗ I think it relates more to the comments that we've heard from a number of

3:04:02 ↗ people that were looking to take basically a house and turn it into an office.

3:04:08 ↗ There were more than one instances where those folks got caught. And

3:04:14 ↗ if you think about the size of, and I hate to use the word normal

3:04:18 ↗ size house, because I don't think that there really is a normal size house, but

3:04:22 ↗ if you think about a normal size house, somewhere 2,500 to 3,000 square feet, turning

3:04:28 ↗ that into an office is what is intended by this. If you think about a

3:04:33 ↗ 3,000 square foot footprint, single story, it's actually fairly big space.

3:04:40 ↗ And so I would not be inclined to increase it beyond 3,000, but

3:04:46 ↗ like I said, it was arbitrary. There was, I think, one that the 4,000

3:04:53 ↗ square feet that's in Central Issaquah should be the number that we would use. I

3:04:59 ↗ guess one of the things that I'm feeling as a

3:05:04 ↗ result of Central Issaquah and the standards are that maybe too

3:05:10 ↗ much has been made administrative. And so I think using

3:05:16 ↗ that as a barometer is probably a bad post for us at this point. I

3:05:21 ↗ think until we get through the work plan and see if there's any other things

3:05:25 ↗ that the council might want to add in terms of conversation points to central Issaquah.

3:05:30 ↗ I think part of central Issaquah from a processing standpoint was attempting to streamline it

3:05:35 ↗ and make it more decisions administrative and have less outreach and I

3:05:41 ↗ think we're sensing some of this is that's not right and so I would not

3:05:46 ↗ be supportive of the 4,000 square feet I think that's too big of a number.

3:05:54 ↗ Thanks. As for clarification you said 3,000 square foot footprint so if you had a

3:05:58 ↗ two level home that was 3,200 square feet and had a 1,600 square foot footprint

3:06:03 ↗ is that what you meant? No, so well, it's kind of what I said, but

3:06:07 ↗ not what I meant. So let me clarify. So what I was

3:06:13 ↗ trying to say is if you had a single story, 3,000 square foot footprint, that's

3:06:18 ↗ a pretty big non-residential space. But what we're trying to do is

3:06:24 ↗ allow for, because right now, if you wanted to do a change of use and

3:06:28 ↗ take an existing house and turn it into an office space, and even if it

3:06:32 ↗ was a 1,600 square foot two-story or 1,500 square foot two-story that would still be

3:06:38 ↗ 3,000 square feet that requires a land use permit and right now they're stuck by

3:06:43 ↗ the moratorium so the 3,000 square feet it could be three

3:06:48 ↗ stories 1,000 it could be any combination thereof thank you yes councilmember Ramos

3:07:01 ↗ So the only place I was a little confused in some of this was item

3:07:06 ↗ five and six when the wording wasn't clear to

3:07:12 ↗ me on what was intended. I understand the four

3:07:18 ↗ lots and four units and 3,000 square feet, but one I think was trying to

3:07:22 ↗ say the ones that are on the list already versus any ones that come from

3:07:28 ↗ this point out, but that's not quite, it said it in five and six, so

3:07:32 ↗ I got a little confused on what you're intending there.

3:07:45 ↗ So let me reread this.

3:08:01 ↗ five said allow small projects to move forward and six said limit small projects to

3:08:05 ↗ those impacted by the September action. But the bottom of six it said allow those

3:08:11 ↗ with an exception and do not limit the number of those projects to the 10

3:08:15 ↗ currently. So I kind of had, I got confused. You're right, so

3:08:37 ↗ I think you are trying to give us two options there. The intent is

3:08:43 ↗ that these are the two that we talked about on the 26th.

3:08:50 ↗ One of them is the distinction here could be that the Council and this was

3:08:56 ↗ a question that Council President Goodman asked and that was is the intent

3:09:02 ↗ that we are allowing so we've identified a list of vested and non vested projects

3:09:07 ↗ right and and those were the ones that kind of got caught on

3:09:13 ↗ September 6th and based on that had come in for pre-absor

3:09:19 ↗ had conversations with city staff. And so we have a very finite list of projects

3:09:25 ↗ if we choose that September 6th date as the date by which we're going to

3:09:32 ↗ maybe allow a one-time passing for small projects. And

3:09:38 ↗ that's so that's one choice. And the other choice is you just let small projects

3:09:41 ↗ go. And part of the conversation that we had 26th

3:09:48 ↗ was that those type of projects really have

3:09:54 ↗ happened in the city forever. They have always been

3:10:00 ↗ the kind of development that small scale kind of change of use and infill that

3:10:06 ↗ the city kind of just has always had and part of I think you know

3:10:13 ↗ addressing the issue of some of the recent projects in central Issaquah is this scale

3:10:18 ↗ issue of, you know, we've got projects where instead of maybe an apartment

3:10:24 ↗ complex that might be, you know, 50 units, we now have ones that are 350

3:10:30 ↗ and 500 units. And so the reason why I think there's two

3:10:35 ↗ choices at that small level is because I think both of them are pretty de

3:10:41 ↗ minimis in terms of their impacts on the community, but very important I think to

3:10:48 ↗ some of the folks that are sitting in the audience and have provided comments previously.

3:10:54 ↗ And that's what I was looking at trying to get one that said those known

3:10:58 ↗ ones move forward. opening the door for any projects there because

3:11:05 ↗ when you have everything closed but one door opening then what's gonna happen with that

3:11:10 ↗ one place is really not known and could be not clear

3:11:16 ↗ the intent. But with those projects that are known now on that list, I feel

3:11:21 ↗ very comfortable with those. But I'm not sure I want that door wide open. I'm

3:11:26 ↗ not sure which one of those would be saying, but we know what we're talking

3:11:29 ↗ about here. So the recommendation in the agenda bill is to allow short

3:11:35 ↗ platts and the small residential period.

3:11:47 ↗ So back talking about five and six again that Councilmember Ramos brought up.

3:11:54 ↗ So the recommendation is to exclude the small projects. And the recommendation further is to

3:12:00 ↗ not limit it to those projects that are on the list. And to the best

3:12:04 ↗ of your ability, you tried to predict what could happen if we excluded not just

3:12:09 ↗ those projects, but we allowed any small projects that are coming forward. And that would

3:12:14 ↗ be, the moratorium lasts for a year. There was an estimate that it could be

3:12:18 ↗ likely to be 15 to 24 units, single family

3:12:24 ↗ homes. And at the outside, 30 or 40. I think the recommendation was

3:12:31 ↗ to go ahead and allow small projects because that would have really a

3:12:37 ↗ minimal de minimis effect on the concerns that we had regarding the reasons underlying

3:12:43 ↗ the moratorium. Is that accurate? That is accurate. Thank you.

3:12:51 ↗ Keith, could you speak a little bit to number seven the development

3:12:57 ↗ agreements and the recommendation from administration sure so

3:13:03 ↗ so right now the way that the moratorium ordinance

3:13:09 ↗ is written it does not preclude the city from entering into a new

3:13:15 ↗ development agreement and one of the issues that

3:13:22 ↗ We would want to consider, so for those who don't know, a development agreement is

3:13:27 ↗ like a contract between the city and a developer where you can negotiate different pieces

3:13:33 ↗ including potentially kind of development

3:13:39 ↗ criteria and so one of the so the reason why the recommendation at the end

3:13:43 ↗ says allow the city to enter into new development agreements, but do not vest them

3:13:48 ↗ to Any standards that might be changing with the work plan

3:13:54 ↗ is because you know that would not be in our best interest right and so

3:13:59 ↗ typically When we do when we elect to do a development agreement with a property

3:14:04 ↗ owner it's because there's a win-win outcome. The city gets something

3:14:10 ↗ and the property owner gets something and so it's a collaboration and a partnership towards

3:14:15 ↗ a better outcome. And if one of the things, so one of the things that

3:14:20 ↗ a development agreement does is it vests you to the standards that are in place

3:14:25 ↗ at the time that the development agreement is approved. And so one of the things

3:14:29 ↗ that we would want to do would be if we were to enter into a

3:14:32 ↗ development agreement with a new party would be to be be cautious on vesting

3:14:38 ↗ them to any standards that we think might be changed by the work plan.

3:14:44 ↗ Thank you. Other questions

3:14:50 ↗ or discussion? Well, I'll follow that up a little bit because I get a little

3:14:55 ↗ confused. I know we can do that now, but how much can you get in

3:14:59 ↗ a development agreement if you can't use, if you don't know what any kind of

3:15:03 ↗ standards are because to be changing, so how much can you really get

3:15:09 ↗ agreement on, I guess, is some of that. Well, so I guess what I would

3:15:13 ↗ say is obviously there's some different scenarios that could play out.

3:15:19 ↗ Some that might be really dramatically different, like for example, if there was

3:15:25 ↗ a property owner in a particular district or neighborhood within Central Issaquah that wanted

3:15:31 ↗ a development agreement, We weren't quite sure we understood that the vision for that neighborhood

3:15:37 ↗ was set quite right. It seems like entering into a development agreement with that party

3:15:43 ↗ before we had some sense of where that ball was going to land might be

3:15:47 ↗ premature. But if we were wanting to enter into a development agreement with a party

3:15:51 ↗ where Maybe they were already proposing to do a number of the

3:15:57 ↗ things that are on this list in terms of mixed use and structured parking and

3:16:02 ↗ all those kind of things. Well then the question is, okay, what variables are there

3:16:07 ↗ that we might not want to vest them to? architectural fit is clearly one

3:16:13 ↗ because we don't know where that ball is going to I don't know where that

3:16:15 ↗ ball is going to land and so so but that's that's a hard thing and

3:16:20 ↗ and so we would have to like I said if we were going to enter

3:16:23 ↗ into a development agreement with someone we would want to do it cautiously And you

3:16:28 ↗ know until you know what the scope of that development agreement is I don't know

3:16:32 ↗ that I could Answer the question in terms of would it be in the city's

3:16:36 ↗ best interest or not to move forward? But it's an option, it's a tool in

3:16:41 ↗ our toolbox and I think we have the ability to use it if we want

3:16:45 ↗ to. But we get to make that decision. That's what I guess I'm saying is

3:16:50 ↗ you don't have to then. You can definitely say we don't have enough information to

3:16:53 ↗ get enough things to agree on to do anything. Absolutely.

3:17:01 ↗ Can any group, any developer or anyone who wants to develop their

3:17:06 ↗ property come forward development agreement or is there certain criteria, size,

3:17:12 ↗ scope that goes along with entering into a development agreement? So I'll maybe defer

3:17:18 ↗ to my legal counsel. What I'll say is we have certain

3:17:24 ↗ size, so there's a couple of different triggers that we have in our city code

3:17:30 ↗ right now for development agreements. One is if you want to do a clustered housing

3:17:34 ↗ project. So if you want to, and we have a couple of those in the

3:17:37 ↗ pipeline right now, one Silverado and the other is Bergsma, where they want to basically

3:17:41 ↗ cluster their lots on their property and that requires a development agreement.

3:17:52 ↗ Our urban village zone requires a development agreement. It does have a minimum

3:17:57 ↗ size of 15 acres. And that takes a rezone and a

3:18:03 ↗ comp plan amendment for the council because, yeah. So besides

3:18:09 ↗ those, I think we can enter into development agreements.

3:18:14 ↗ I'll leave the rest of that answer to the guy to my right. Yeah,

3:18:20 ↗ there are no restrictions in state law on the size of properties that they don't

3:18:24 ↗ have to be a minimum size or a maximum size in order to be part

3:18:28 ↗ of a development agreement under state law. So any size limitations that are imposed

3:18:34 ↗ are a matter of city code. Okay, thank you. Heath, could you just

3:18:39 ↗ follow up and talk about what the typical are for that so the first step

3:18:43 ↗ is for an agenda bill to come forward? So the process that we followed in

3:18:48 ↗ the past has been to have a property owner

3:18:54 ↗ submit a letter requesting a development agreement to the administration. The administration then

3:19:01 ↗ if it feels like it has an understanding of what

3:19:07 ↗ that is. So because I'm picking my words very carefully because we actually have a

3:19:13 ↗ request for a development agreement from a property owner that we basically not forwarded to

3:19:19 ↗ the city council for consideration because it has not been well defined in terms of

3:19:24 ↗ what the property owner is asking for. But we do have one. So there is

3:19:29 ↗ an and so right now there'll be an agenda bill at the Council meeting on

3:19:34 ↗ the 21st because we have had a request for a development agreement as Councilmember Polly

3:19:40 ↗ mentioned from Gilman Lofts. And so that's

3:19:46 ↗ being brought forward to the council. The council will then decide whether they want the

3:19:50 ↗ administration to spend the time and resources to kind of unpack that development agreement and

3:19:55 ↗ put some shape to it. And then if we get to a point where the

3:20:00 ↗ administration and the property owner, and typically we route those through

3:20:06 ↗ like a council committee like land and shore, it would then come back to the

3:20:10 ↗ full council for

3:20:19 ↗ Yeah in the Paragraph

3:20:27 ↗ I'm finding number five section In the findings and the ordinance There's

3:20:35 ↗ there's the language there's the the the J Adds J

3:20:41 ↗ or yeah, amended to add the following to list of exclusions of the moratorium. J,

3:20:46 ↗ small projects consisting of four or fewer residential units. I'm just

3:20:52 ↗ gonna parse it a little bit right there. We've often described this as someone who

3:20:57 ↗ might want to like divide subplot their property. So that's

3:21:06 ↗ this language. So, so, intent that that would include

3:21:13 ↗ a subplot. A short plat, yes. A short plat, excuse me. Yes. So short plat

3:21:18 ↗ right now by code is four lots or less. Okay, thank you for that clarification.

3:21:24 ↗ And then I agree with the comment that we got earlier from public comments that

3:21:28 ↗ the next part that says or 3,000 or fewer

3:21:35 ↗ square feet of non-residential development.

3:21:41 ↗ I agree, development is ambiguous.

3:21:47 ↗ And I do appreciate that being brought up as

3:21:53 ↗ maybe, are we talking about floor area? Rose floor area? Are we talking about

3:22:01 ↗ floor area plus parking? What are we talking about? I mean,

3:22:07 ↗ what is, what is, your intent with this language? Just floor area.

3:22:13 ↗ So it would be building square footage.

3:22:23 ↗ So it's a structure of 3,000 square feet for non-residential purposes.

3:22:30 ↗ So and you're talking about and this is intended just to be the total and

3:22:36 ↗ okay so it could say 3,000 or fewer square feet of floor area

3:22:42 ↗ of non-residential development? It could. And also,

3:22:49 ↗ it doesn't make a distinction between like new

3:22:55 ↗ or maybe a remodel or reconstruction. It does

3:23:01 ↗ not. So it doesn't. So I'm curious to hear what my other colleagues on the

3:23:06 ↗ council think about that.

3:23:13 ↗ The idea, so this could be something that's, this would allow something that's zero today

3:23:19 ↗ to go up to 3,000. Yes. Right. And it would also allow a 3,000 square

3:23:24 ↗ foot house to be turned into a 3,000 square foot office.

3:23:30 ↗ But it wouldn't allow a, I don't know,

3:23:39 ↗ 1,800 square foot non-residential place to be turned into a 4,000 foot

3:23:45 ↗ square foot. That's the intent, the way it's written. Is that your understanding? Yeah, that's

3:23:50 ↗ my understanding. Okay.

3:23:59 ↗ Other? I guess I'll speak to that. I guess I see the argument for

3:24:06 ↗ continuing to leave it as the net, you know, the final result square footage because

3:24:12 ↗ it's really about what's the impact of the change on the community and whether it's

3:24:16 ↗ going from a smaller, you know, from 1,500 to 3,500 square feet or

3:24:22 ↗ just to 3,000. In the end, you're going to have something different that's, you know,

3:24:26 ↗ above a certain size. And to me that's, in the end,

3:24:32 ↗ I look at a thing and whether there was a house originally there before it,

3:24:36 ↗ it's a certain size in the end and it's gonna have a certain impact in

3:24:39 ↗ the end. And that impact can be, you have to gauge it by something and

3:24:44 ↗ gauging it by the net square footage seems reasonable to me. I still struggle a

3:24:49 ↗ little bit with the 3,000 versus 4,000. Understanding that it may be that the administration

3:24:55 ↗ likes the idea of time moving to a smaller number. But I wonder how,

3:25:01 ↗ since Paul asked our fellow council members a question, I'll ask a question. How do

3:25:05 ↗ other people feel about that? It seems like we chose 3,000 as an arbitrary number,

3:25:10 ↗ but I mean the only number in that general ballpark that we have existing is

3:25:14 ↗ 4,000 square feet. Any reaction to

3:25:22 ↗ Council Member Martz's Anyone want to comment? Well, I

3:25:28 ↗ just read I'm trying to remember what Keith said and it was persuasive. It was

3:25:35 ↗ I think I wrote it down somewhere. I think

3:25:42 ↗ what it was is that the review levels within the central school plan themselves and

3:25:46 ↗ their triggers might be reviewed. to allow for more, it may be a different process,

3:25:52 ↗ maybe a more public engaged process. So that 4,000 number could change in the future

3:25:57 ↗ back down to something smaller. That seemed to make sense to me too. I thought

3:26:01 ↗ that was very compelling reason for not going to 4,000.

3:26:05 ↗ Okay.

3:26:13 ↗ Thank you. Stacey and then Bill.

3:26:19 ↗ I do think that J, the section that Paul was talking about, needs to be

3:26:25 ↗ clear. And

3:26:32 ↗ I think what Keith said was small projects consisting of four or fewer residential units

3:26:37 ↗ or 3,000 or fewer square feet of, insert here, floor area

3:26:43 ↗ of non-residential development. I'm still not sure that that

3:26:48 ↗ captures. So, you know, I

3:26:54 ↗ think it needs to say, I think what you're trying to say is that the

3:26:58 ↗ building, whether it's redevelopment, new development, redevelopment, whatever it is, the building or area of

3:27:04 ↗ the building doesn't exceed 3,000 square feet. Is that what you're trying to say? Yes.

3:27:13 ↗ Yes. Is there an edit in there? I'm working on it.

3:27:29 ↗ Yes. Not to member almost. I got distracted. Maybe we just need new in there.

3:27:34 ↗ Three thousand square feet or fewer of new. How about or resulting in

3:27:40 ↗ three thousand. Well then it becomes three thousand or more

3:27:46 ↗ square feet. Right. No, that's not the intent.

3:28:00 ↗ How about new before non-residential? 2,000 or fewer square feet of new non-residential

3:28:06 ↗ development. I think that takes it to a net and I don't think that's where

3:28:09 ↗ we're going. It wasn't, if somebody already had 2,000 square feet, it wasn't meant to

3:28:15 ↗ give them another 3,000. Right. what new 3000 would do would add to it.

3:28:21 ↗ So can we put resulting in, I'm going to stick with resulting, in

3:28:27 ↗ kind of closer towards floor area? So, so 3000,

3:28:33 ↗ so small projects consisting of four or fewer residential units or 3000

3:28:40 ↗ or fewer square feet of resulting non-residential floor area of development. No?

3:28:54 ↗ non-residential development not to exceed 3,000 square feet of

3:29:01 ↗ total floor area. That sounded good to me. Did you get that Jim?

3:29:09 ↗ Jim is writing and so is Tisha. Yeah.

3:29:25 ↗ or non-residential development not to exceed 3,000 square feet of total floor area?

3:29:52 ↗ Well, this is, this could be a test. Keith, read what you have. Ask me

3:29:58 ↗ to read. And we'll ask you to read what she has and hopefully, and then

3:30:03 ↗ Jim, you let us know whether we have agreed on some language.

3:30:11 ↗ And then Stacy, you let me know. I have it. That's the intent. Sure.

3:30:17 ↗ Yeah, I'm up. You're up. Great. So small projects consisting of four

3:30:24 ↗ or fewer residential units or non-residential development not to exceed 3,000 square

3:30:30 ↗ feet of floor area. Total. Total floor area.

3:30:38 ↗ That's what I have.

3:30:39 ↗ Commissioner,

3:30:45 ↗ do you have that? Does that capture the?

3:30:51 ↗ But I still think people can fight about it.

3:30:57 ↗ Right? It works? Somebody's not, okay.

3:31:03 ↗ Okay. Just, I have my question I haven't gotten to yet. But then the way

3:31:09 ↗ this is written to me, so someone has 2,000 square feet, they want to put

3:31:12 ↗ a 2,000 square foot addition on, that would be okay? Because you're not, they're adding

3:31:18 ↗ 2,000 square feet. They have four. changing the four, that's my

3:31:24 ↗ question. If they have a 4,000 square foot building, you're gonna put 2,000

3:31:31 ↗ square feet next to it, they're not touching the existing building, they could put 2,000

3:31:36 ↗ more square feet. I think the total's intended to represent resulting. I'm

3:31:42 ↗ back at resulting, sorry. That's my question.

3:31:49 ↗ is a cause and effect word. I think what you're talking about is, and Bill

3:31:53 ↗ raises the issue I'm concerned about, and that is that what we want is, but

3:31:59 ↗ it's all said and done, we don't want that building to exceed 3,000 square feet.

3:32:02 ↗ Right, exactly. So maybe we should add.

3:32:08 ↗ Not to exceed. Of the building at the end. Or something.

3:32:22 ↗ like sausage don't we Fred? Yes we do. Mr. Mayor, doesn't net cover this? Just

3:32:28 ↗ a second. I don't understand why net doesn't

3:32:33 ↗ cover it. Read what you have

3:32:39 ↗ and then we'll get to Tola's question. So small

3:32:45 ↗ projects consisting of four or fewer residential units

3:32:51 ↗ non-residential development not to exceed 3,000 square feet of net

3:32:57 ↗ floor area.

3:33:06 ↗ That has very specific meaning in the engineering world and in the end how much

3:33:10 ↗ is there after all is said and done that's what net means. I don't know

3:33:14 ↗ if it means the same thing in the legal world as it does in the

3:33:16 ↗ engineering world, but it seems very clear on the engineering side. It's often used with

3:33:20 ↗ that. Not being a lawyer, but being an engineer.

3:33:31 ↗ I guess I'm still struggling a little bit with the, when you say

3:33:37 ↗ net, are you talking about total afterwards or just the net of what

3:33:43 ↗ is added? That is the concern. Engineering, that's net means all of it in

3:33:49 ↗ the end. It's synonymous with when all is said and done, the total.

3:33:58 ↗ Forgive me if that's not what it means in a legal context. I'm not sure

3:34:02 ↗ it has a specific meaning in the legal world. I'd say it's ambiguous

3:34:08 ↗ in the legal world. But your intent is to

3:34:14 ↗ is to have it be the total area after At the end

3:34:20 ↗ that's your intent Stacy one

3:34:23 ↗ second

3:34:37 ↗ How about no Non-residential development shall exceed 3,000 square feet.

3:34:52 ↗ So you ready for another suggestion? So small projects

3:34:58 ↗ consisting of four or fewer residential units or non-residential development

3:35:04 ↗ in parens, including existing and new, paren not to exceed 3,000

3:35:11 ↗ square feet of total building area. That's good.

3:35:24 ↗ You can't read that. So non-residential development, including existing and new

3:35:33 ↗ existing and new not to exceed 3,000 square feet.

3:35:50 ↗ Saw a couple of heads nodding over here and I don't

3:35:56 ↗ hear any negative reaction to that wording.

3:36:03 ↗ Do we have a motion? Not yet. Not yet.

3:36:09 ↗ So I know we don't have a motion yet, but as we're talking about those

3:36:12 ↗ two back and forth, I guess I just wanted to, the one that is there

3:36:17 ↗ that will be read is just an open window for this exact description that we've

3:36:22 ↗ just gotten, right? Sorry, yeah, I didn't understand that. Okay, the

3:36:27 ↗ motion that will probably be coming is for an open window for these exact things

3:36:33 ↗ no matter what comes in versus five and six that said just the ones on

3:36:38 ↗ our list at this time versus anything that comes from here on out of this

3:36:42 ↗ description. So I'm. So I would suggest you look at the language of the ordinance.

3:36:48 ↗ That's what we're gonna be voting on. We're working on specific language for the ordinance.

3:36:53 ↗ So it's not that five and six. I made specific reference to the ordinance, okay.

3:36:57 ↗ Right, and that's what I'm saying. That's saying that and what I wanted to get

3:37:02 ↗ to was discussion of that line between door wide open to all projects of this

3:37:07 ↗ size versus the known projects of this size currently on our list. That's the discussion

3:37:12 ↗ I want to bring up because I'm leaning more towards that part being versus opening

3:37:17 ↗ that door wide for everything. I'm waiting to hear from my fellow council members. Well

3:37:22 ↗ let me ask a, I believe that there's, as far as item J

3:37:28 ↗ of the ordinance, that there is an agreement around the wording

3:37:35 ↗ the adjustment of the wording that is in the existing ordinance that's in your packet.

3:37:39 ↗ Is that correct? No, we haven't heard it

3:37:44 ↗ yet. We should have a motion. So Jim, you wanna, what do we have?

3:37:50 ↗ Let's make the motion. Yeah, we will. Well, what we have right now is

3:37:55 ↗ subsection J would read small projects consisting of four or fewer residential units

3:38:02 ↗ or non-residential development including existing in new and perenn not to exceed 3,000

3:38:08 ↗ square feet of total building area.

3:38:19 ↗ Before we do the motion, I just wanted to clarify one thing. And we've been

3:38:22 ↗ discussing this in work sessions and in Land & Shore. And I had made a

3:38:27 ↗ statement in the past that because I'm currently, my family is developing a property in

3:38:32 ↗ town that I wasn't sure whether or not I was eligible to vote

3:38:38 ↗ on this. And I spoke with the city's council this evening. And because this is

3:38:43 ↗ not a quasi-judicial matter or entering into a contract, in this

3:38:49 ↗ instance I will be able to vote since it's a legislative matter. Just wanted to

3:38:54 ↗ get on the record that I will be voting on this this evening. OK. Stacey?

3:39:01 ↗ I was going to make a motion to move things forward. I would move to

3:39:05 ↗ adopt ordinance number 2784. 2784,

3:39:11 ↗ adopting findings amending section 4 of ordinance number 2778 in order to add

3:39:17 ↗ an exclusion for certain small projects from the moratorium established by said ordinance, adopting a

3:39:23 ↗ 12th work plan and scheduling a public hearing on extension of the moratorium established by

3:39:28 ↗ ordinance number 2778. Second. Moved and

3:39:34 ↗ seconded. Discussion or questions?

3:39:40 ↗ So I like the way this is worded.

3:39:48 ↗ The idea that someone's on a list or not on a list based upon timing

3:39:53 ↗ is not something I've ever been comfortable with. I thought the language we put in

3:39:57 ↗ the moratorium, it was very specific to what was vested or not. I think that

3:40:02 ↗ was smart. I think that was a good thing to do. And this idea now

3:40:06 ↗ that based upon timing of where you were in the process prior to that

3:40:12 ↗ vesting, I don't want to go there. I like this one. It just says there's

3:40:16 ↗ these criteria, it's this size, and now all projects, those we know about now and

3:40:21 ↗ those that may come later on are exempted from the moratorium. So

3:40:28 ↗ that was what I wanted to get to when we first started talking about this

3:40:34 ↗ exemption and this is the way it reads and that's what I'm gonna support. Questions

3:40:39 ↗ or discussion? Mary Lou? Is the motion required, Mr. Mayor, to amend the language in

3:40:44 ↗ the ordinance? Or did you say amended in your motion? She read the... As amended?

3:40:50 ↗ Awesome. Okay. Yeah, let's review the amendment.

3:41:09 ↗ I'm also going to support this. I want to, Keith, thank you for the analysis

3:41:15 ↗ that you did. I appreciate that. It was

3:41:22 ↗ very helpful to have each of the issues separated and to have you do the

3:41:28 ↗ analysis and I really, really appreciate that was helpful. One of the items that we

3:41:32 ↗ haven't really talked about tonight is in the ordinance and that is that it would

3:41:36 ↗ establish a public hearing in February for consideration of extension for another six months

3:41:42 ↗ which would, and one of the reasons to have that in February and not

3:41:48 ↗ coming up soon is because we will know more after the first of the year

3:41:52 ↗ and how we are progressing on the work plan.

3:41:58 ↗ Polo followed by Mariah. Thanks director Niven, if the administration

3:42:04 ↗ has a position or thoughts on this question of grandfathering versus just having a uniform

3:42:09 ↗ standard that doesn't involve grandfathering.

3:42:16 ↗ It's late and so like I went into some kind of esoteric thought process so

3:42:21 ↗ let me try and pull it back in. So on grandfathering just related to the

3:42:26 ↗ comments that Council Member Winterstein said earlier about this kind of surprise moment and

3:42:34 ↗ working off the vested list versus kind of opening it up to a small scale

3:42:37 ↗ overall. I think part of it is the reason

3:42:46 ↗ we've heard from a number and you can see from the list that is in

3:42:52 ↗ the packet It's on page 312 of your packet. So there was actually

3:42:57 ↗ even four people that showed up after the sixth. And so it's this feeling of

3:43:03 ↗ like you just weren't in line at the right time. And that's a really hard

3:43:07 ↗ thing when you're dealing with really small projects and people who have their livelihood

3:43:13 ↗ wrapped up in something and we're hoping to maybe move on to a better life

3:43:18 ↗ whether that was here in Issaquah or somewhere else. And so I think because of

3:43:23 ↗ the scope of the number of projects that might happen in the next year and

3:43:28 ↗ I think we're hoping that we can be successful with the work plan and get

3:43:32 ↗ it done in a year that hopefully a year from now we'll be talking about

3:43:36 ↗ lifting the moratorium and so the number of residential units and the amount of square

3:43:42 ↗ footage that we will see through potentially this amendment to the

3:43:47 ↗ moratorium is just it seems small insignificant to us and the

3:43:53 ↗ community but very significant to the folks that are sitting over here and then the

3:43:58 ↗ people that will be coming in after them. So that was a long way of

3:44:02 ↗ saying I'm not in that I don't think the administration is in favor of grandfathering

3:44:08 ↗ to the 6th of September and just letting that group through.

3:44:14 ↗ Thank you. Sorry.

3:44:21 ↗ So Keith, I also wanted to say thank you for the further analysis because that

3:44:26 ↗ was very helpful to read through and help think through these issues. And I

3:44:32 ↗ wanted to say I will be supporting this tonight. been very sensitive throughout as we've

3:44:38 ↗ been talking about the moratorium, about the financial impact and the hardship

3:44:45 ↗ that the moratorium may cause. And certainly not a decision that I've

3:44:51 ↗ entered into without a great amount of thought. But I think the projects that we're

3:44:55 ↗ talking about, the smaller projects, are modest changes, light impact,

3:45:01 ↗ and not necessarily a part of the scale and fit

3:45:09 ↗ that the moratorium surrounded, that the concerns of the moratorium had. And I think that

3:45:16 ↗ if we're moving forward with the small projects, I think that that should apply going

3:45:22 ↗ forward for other groups that might be coming, or

3:45:28 ↗ individuals that might be coming forward and trying to develop that same size property.

3:45:40 ↗ wanted to make one other comment since this is televised and for folks who might

3:45:45 ↗ be watching but not necessarily reading the materials is the other recommendation that came from

3:45:50 ↗ the administration is to not reduce the size. So to not reduce it, the size

3:45:55 ↗ of the moratorium to like for example just central Issaquah area. So I wanted to

3:45:59 ↗ make sure that people watching knew that. So all those

3:46:08 ↗ in favor of adopting ordinance number 2784 as amended, adopting findings and amending

3:46:14 ↗ section four of ordinance number 2778 in order to add an exclusion for certain small

3:46:19 ↗ projects from the moratorium established by said ordinance adopting a 12 month work plan and

3:46:25 ↗ scheduling a public hearing on extension of the moratorium

3:46:30 ↗ established by ordinance number 2778. Those in

3:46:36 ↗ favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, that carries unanimously.

3:46:43 ↗ That concludes our regular, that concludes our regular

3:46:49 ↗ business. We will now move into executive session.

3:46:55 ↗ As announced previously, there will be an executive session this evening for

3:47:01 ↗ the purpose of discussion. discussing acquisition of real estate and

3:47:07 ↗ two, discuss legal risk with

3:47:14 ↗ our council. So we are moving into executive

3:47:20 ↗ session at 10. Oh heck yeah. And 20, 30, 49.

4:00:31 ↗ of this is the discussed property acquisition.

4:06:16 ↗ We are back in regular session at 1113.

4:06:25 ↗ Council President Goodman. Thank you. I move to exercise the city's option on the Nuremberg

4:06:30 ↗ property and to authorize the mayor to execute the required purchase and sale agreement. Second.

4:06:36 ↗ Moved and seconded. Any discussion? None then, all

4:06:42 ↗ those in favor of the motion to move to exercise the city's option on the

4:06:47 ↗ Nuremberg property and to authorize the mayor to enter into the required purchase

4:06:53 ↗ and sale agreement signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed?

4:06:59 ↗ Anything for good of the order this evening? Oh. He did all the talking.

4:07:07 ↗ This better be really, really good. Some of you may know that

4:07:13 ↗ over the last few months I've had opportunities to talk with some of our

4:07:19 ↗ nearby cities and representatives from Forterra about

4:07:25 ↗ just, well something Forterra used to do when we were forming the

4:07:31 ↗ Central Issaquah Plan, that whole policy development, representatives that were here attending our

4:07:36 ↗ meetings and doing public outreach and education and we had conversations about how that's completely

4:07:44 ↗ died off. There really is nobody out there who like was providing that and we've

4:07:49 ↗ come together and are talking about maybe you know

4:07:55 ↗ helping jurisdictions that are dealing with growth by doing the some type of educational

4:08:01 ↗ program both for electeds and for our constituents.

4:08:07 ↗ And so this is just a heads up that in budget deliberations I'm gonna introduce

4:08:13 ↗ another line item to discuss which is Issaquah's portion of

4:08:19 ↗ funding some of the research that Forterra would do in helping developing those growth management

4:08:25 ↗ programs for electeds and for the citizenry. just a heads up

4:08:31 ↗ that that's been going on and that's gonna, we're gonna talk, learn more about it

4:08:36 ↗ in budget and the cities of Bellevue, Redmond and Kirkland are also involved. And just

4:08:42 ↗ as a heads up, Forterra will be doing a special report to the council

4:08:48 ↗ at our December, one of our December meetings, December the 7th.

4:08:59 ↗ else for good of the order being none then we are adjourned

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (6)

Mariah Bettise

Stacy Goodman

Tola Marts

Mary Lou Pauly

Bill Ramos

Paul Winterstein

Excused

Eileen Barber

Motions and votes (8)

Direct Administration to prepare the necessary documents (ordinance and resolution) setting the amount of taxes to be collected in 2017 to include a 1% base increase for adoption at the Nov. 21, 2016 Council meeting. . 11-07-16 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7840

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 6-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Do not Authorize the Mayor to enter into and execute a new agreement with American Traffic Systems at this time. . b)

Moved by MARTS · seconded by RAMOS

Carried 6-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Authorize allocation of gross revenue generated and related operating costs associated with the automated traffic safety cameras into a Special Revenue Fund beginning January 1, 2017, and designate the net proceeds to be reserved according to Financial Policy. . c)

Moved by MARTS · seconded by GOODMAN

Carried 6-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Authorize initiation of a traffic study with American Traffic Solutions to determine the viability of adding a red light camera program. . (Ramos dissenting.) d)

Moved by MARTS · seconded by GOODMAN

Carried 5-1

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Paul Winterstein

Opposed: Ramos

Adopt Ordinance No. 2783, amending the Issaquah Municipal Code and the Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards regarding provisions to support implementation of the State Environmental Protection Agency’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Phase II Stormwater Permit. . 11-07-1…

Moved by PAULY · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 6-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Adopt Ordinance No. 2784 as amended, adopting findings; amending Section 4 of Ordinance No. 2778 in order to add an exclusion for certain small projects from the moratorium established by said ordinance; adopting a twelve-month work plan; and scheduling a public hearing on extension of the moratoriu…

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 6-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Exercise the City's option on the Nierenberg Property and authorize the Mayor to execute the required purchase and sale agreement as discussed in

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. a) Accounts: Payables and Payroll, Nov. 7, 2016; Approved $ 2,783,503.02. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK NUMBERS AMOUNT Accounts Replacement Check 164562 to 164295 83,476.26 Accounts Payable Checks 164570 to 164561 1,554,954.85 Accounts Payable Check Voided 157870 to…

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

Carried 6-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein