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