City Council Regular Meeting · Monday, December 19, 2016 · City Council Digest

3. SPECIAL BUSINESS

Proclamation Honoring Retiring City Attorney Wayne Tanaka Hear Presentation AB 7303

packet pp.5–6

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Executive Department:

State of the County Address Hear Presentation AB 7302

packet pp.7

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Executive Department:

Water Update Hear Presentation AB 7299

packet pp.9–174

Topics: Water

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Engineering Department:

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll, Dec. 19

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.2016

Topics: Budget

Open packet at p.2016 ↗

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

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

Minutes: Council Budget Work Session, Nov. 29, 2016

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.175–176

Topics: Budget

Open packet at p.175 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR b) 11-29-16 Council Committee Work Session Minutes Page 7855

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

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

Minutes: Council Budget Work Session, Dec. 3, 2016

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.177

Topics: Budget

Open packet at p.177 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR c) 12-03-16 Council Committee Work Session Minutes Page 7857

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

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

Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, Dec. 5, 2016

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.179–185

Open packet at p.179 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR d) 12-05-16 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7858

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

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

Amendments to IMC 18.10 Wetland Rating System AB 7001

Carried 7-0

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.187–214

Topics: Land UseCritical Areas

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Apr 23, 2015

Open packet at p.187 ↗

Staff report:

UPDATED CITY COUNCIL AB 7001 - AGENDA BILL Consent City Council Regular Meeting - 19 Dec 2016 Calendar

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

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

8. PUBLIC HEARING

2017 Budget AB 7243

Conduct Public Hearing; Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.215–235

Topics: Land UseBudget

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 3, 2016

Open packet at p.215 ↗

Staff report:

City Council / Stacy Goodman, Council President:

9. REGULAR BUSINESS

2017 Arts Grant Recommendations AB 7293

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.237–245

Topics: Arts & Culture

Open packet at p.237 ↗

Staff report:

Council Services & Safety Committee / Tola Marts, Chair:

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

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

Silverado Development Agreement AB 7196

Carried 7-0

Approve Resolution · packet pp.247–296

Previously discussed: Development Commission · Jul 20, 2016

Open packet at p.247 ↗

Staff report:

UPDATED CITY COUNCIL AB 7196 - AGENDA BILL Regular City Council Regular Meeting - 19 Dec 2016 Business

Roll call:

Moved by PAULY · seconded by GOODMAN

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

Election of Council President and Deputy Council President for 2017 Temporarily Suspend Rules; Conduct Election of Positions AB 7272

Carried 7-0

packet pp.297–298

Topics: Elections

Open packet at p.297 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / City Clerk's Office:

Roll call:

Moved by WINTERSTEIN · seconded by RAMOS

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

1674 segments

0:19 ↗ I'll call the December 19th, 2016 regular council meeting

0:25 ↗ to order and ask those in the audience who

0:31 ↗ would like to join the council and me in

0:37 ↗ the Pledge of Allegiance to please stand. I pledge

0:42 ↗ allegiance to the flag of the United States of

0:48 ↗ America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one

0:54 ↗ nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

1:00 ↗ We have a number of items under special business this

1:05 ↗ evening, the first of which is agenda bill 7203, a

1:11 ↗ proclamation honoring retiring city attorney Wayne Tanaka. And so Wayne,

1:17 ↗ if you would join me at the mic, please.

1:34 ↗ So this is a proclamation. Like most proclamations, there are a lot

1:40 ↗ of whereases in it. And I asked Wayne to check this over

1:46 ↗ earlier to see if there was anything in here that was not

1:52 ↗ true and to get the best legal advice that I could. So

1:58 ↗ Wayne has signed off on this, and so I will proceed.

2:04 ↗ Whereas Wayne Tanaka is a lead attorney for Ogden Murphy Wallace

2:09 ↗ and has served as Issaquah City Attorney since August the 15th,

2:15 ↗ 1983. And whereas during Mr. Tanaka's tenure, the city

2:21 ↗ of Issaquah grew from a small rural town of approximately

2:26 ↗ 6,000 residents to one of the fastest growing cities in

2:32 ↗ Washington with a current population of 34,592. Whereas over

2:38 ↗ the last 33 years, Mr. Tanaka has provided legal advice to the

2:43 ↗ city and assisted with open space acquisition and preservation, the development of

2:49 ↗ two urban villages, the creation of the central Issaquah plan and hundreds

2:55 ↗ of infrastructure projects. And whereas Mr. Tanaka graduated

3:01 ↗ cum laude from Harvard University in 1972 and

3:07 ↗ received his law degree from the University of

3:13 ↗ Washington in 1975, And whereas Mr. Tanaka has been

3:19 ↗ president and was on the board of the Washington State Association

3:24 ↗ of Municipal Attorneys, the statewide organization of municipal attorneys, and whereas

3:30 ↗ Mr. Tanaka is active in the Issaquah community and has sponsored

3:36 ↗ countless concerts on the green shows, which are beloved by

3:42 ↗ Issaquah citizens and whereas the city of Issaquah will

3:47 ↗ miss Mr. Tanaka, especially his trademark response of, "It

3:53 ↗ all depends the questions asked by the staff." Now

3:58 ↗ therefore I, Fred Butler, Mayor of the City of

4:04 ↗ Issaquah, do hereby proclaim December 19th, 2016 to be

4:10 ↗ Wayne Tanaka Day in the City of Issaquah and I call upon

4:16 ↗ the citizens of Issaquah to join in recognizing and expressing their appreciation

4:21 ↗ for the dedication and service by Mr. Wayne Tanaka to our city.

4:27 ↗ In witness whereof I hereunto set by hand and seal of the

4:33 ↗ City of Issaquah this 19th day of December 2016. Thank you, Fred.

4:48 ↗ And so Wayne, thank you very, very much. If you have a couple

4:53 ↗ of words you would like to say, as long as it's short, and

4:59 ↗ as long as it's... Five minutes. No, thank you, Mr. Mayor. And it's

5:04 ↗ really a deep honor and a privilege to have served as your city

5:10 ↗ attorney for these last years. It means a lot to me to have

5:16 ↗ seen the city grow up and to have a small part in helping it do

5:21 ↗ so. So to the mayor and to the council and to other mayors and past

5:27 ↗ councils, I want to thank you for the opportunity and wish you all the best

5:33 ↗ of luck in the future. Thank you. We wish you the best of luck, Wayne.

5:38 ↗ Good luck and Godspeed.

5:52 ↗ Our next order of business is agenda bill 7320

5:58 ↗ State of the County address and I noticed that Kathy

6:04 ↗ Lambert King County Council member for District 3 is in

6:10 ↗ the back row and I would invite Kathy to the

6:15 ↗ to the microphone the rostrum to provide us an update

6:21 ↗ on what's going on in the county and Wow You

6:27 ↗ should come more often, Kathy. I store it up.

6:33 ↗ Some people have little checkbooks, mine is a little bit bigger. She's seen me getting

6:37 ↗ down the street with that. So I was just looking and thinking about how many

6:41 ↗ wonderful things I've seen each of you do in the last month. And what a

6:45 ↗ great team you are, not only in the city of Issaquah, but outside. PSRC in

6:50 ↗ the courthouse on adoption day, which is actually my very favorite day in the courthouse

6:54 ↗ is adoption day. If you want to have fun with lots of little kids running

6:58 ↗ around with happy smiles and happy moms and dads, come to adoption day. Would you

7:01 ↗ agree with that, Stacey? It's a very cool day to be in the courthouse. So

7:05 ↗ thank you for all you do and I want to wish you a Merry Christmas

7:10 ↗ and happy holidays. So I have a couple of things to tell you about that

7:14 ↗ you should know about. First of all, we're going to be starting a pilot project

7:19 ↗ and we have invited your fire department. We'd like to also invite your police department.

7:24 ↗ We will be having a meeting on January the 17th and it'll be out at

7:28 ↗ Mount Sai Community Center and we have been chosen in the county to be able

7:33 ↗ to kind of be the SWAT team of ACEs. ACEs, as you know, is Adverse

7:38 ↗ Childhood Experiences, and we don't believe that any child should be left to deal with

7:43 ↗ a traumatic event. So what we're going to do is when there's a traumatic event,

7:48 ↗ we're going to ask policemen, firemen, and emergency doctors to call in to the county

7:53 ↗ and a certified medical person will, mental health person will come and help that child

7:58 ↗ immediately so that they aren't processing big, big, huge adult things as a child because

8:03 ↗ that impacts the rest of their lives. So, we're going to be starting this. We're

8:08 ↗ going to have two meetings. One will be the 17th and one will be the

8:12 ↗ 24th. I've already been in touch with Jeff and he's been wonderful and Greg twice.

8:17 ↗ By the way, the other night Greg and I did a de-escalation of a very

8:21 ↗ bad event and I could go to any bad event with him and feel very

8:26 ↗ comfortable. He handled it very well. There was a lot of screaming and yelling and

8:30 ↗ we got it all handled. And it wasn't me screaming and yelling. So I wanted

8:35 ↗ you to know that your fire department has been wonderful already stepping up to the

8:39 ↗ plate and has already talked to me about your chaplains program and how they interface

8:43 ↗ with this. So on those two meetings we're going to ask what do you want

8:47 ↗ as a city to be able to help with this program and then from that

8:51 ↗ time until the beginning of March we'll put that program together and we hope to

8:55 ↗ launch it in early March. Also, for your citizens who may not have the formularies

9:00 ↗ that they want on their medical insurance, we are going to be launching, after five

9:06 ↗ years of negotiating, a piggyback contract with NACO, the National Association of Counties, and it

9:11 ↗ will allow any citizen in the county to buy a group insurance to be able

9:17 ↗ to buy their prescription drugs and it isn't only for their prescriptions but if you

9:22 ↗ have an animal that takes prescription drugs this will have insurance that will your animal

9:28 ↗ will also be able to use that. So you'll be seeing in a couple weeks

9:33 ↗ Caremark signs in your pharmacies so that's what it's about. We also launched last year,

9:39 ↗ as you may have heard, the FERS program and that's a family intervention program where

9:44 ↗ if the police get to a scene where there's a family in crisis and the

9:48 ↗ child is the perpetrator, we bring the child to our center. It now looks like

9:53 ↗ a dorm instead of a jail and there are counselors on board and if the

9:57 ↗ parents and the children can make a contract to get along and work out their

10:02 ↗ problems, we do not arrest the child. and we have had a 62% reduction in

10:07 ↗ children being incarcerated. We are now at the lowest we've ever been in King County

10:13 ↗ history of children incarcerated. So good things are happening there. The two things I want

10:18 ↗ to tell you at the end is you've probably heard that transit is going to

10:24 ↗ have 300,000 more hours. So thank you to the mayor for his great transportation conference

10:30 ↗ that he had and I think it's going to be really important that we make

10:35 ↗ sure we get our share of those 300,000 hours. So we'll all be pulling for

10:39 ↗ that. I'm hoping that there will be more money coming for roads. We did put

10:44 ↗ a little bit more money in for roads this year than the executive had put

10:48 ↗ in, but as you know we're still short about 350 million dollars a year for

10:52 ↗ roads and that's really not a sustainable issue. So the good news of the night

10:58 ↗ besides all that is that there was some one-time money and I made some quick

11:02 ↗ phone calls to your mayor and he came up with some projects that would help

11:07 ↗ the city and the citizens of Issaquah. So you will be having some money for

11:12 ↗ your skate park and also for your Tibbett Creek Park. So I wanted you to

11:17 ↗ know that that is exciting and it's always funny and It's always fun when we

11:21 ↗ get one-time money or any money because for the last eight years all we've done

11:25 ↗ is cut. So it was really nice this time to be able to say what

11:30 ↗ wonderful things can we do in the city of Issaquah. So I wanted to present

11:34 ↗ you all with a check tonight for your money that will be coming from the

11:38 ↗ county. So thank you very much and I hope you have a wonderful new year.

11:42 ↗ Thank you, Kathy, very, very much for coming. And Thank

11:48 ↗ you for your continued support in the district and

11:54 ↗ to the citizens of Issaquah. Thank you very much.

12:00 ↗ You're welcome. Thank you. And Jeff, our parks director,

12:05 ↗ was here. Oh, there you are. Jeff, make sure

12:11 ↗ you take that check with you when you go.

12:17 ↗ Our next order of business is agenda bill 7-299.

12:23 ↗ a presentation on a water update. I'm calling forward

12:28 ↗ our Director of Public Works Engineering, Sheldon Lin, who

12:34 ↗ will make a few introductory remarks and then introduce

12:40 ↗ the consultant who will be presenting the works that

12:45 ↗ they undertook for the city. Thank you, Mayor, Council tonight. What the

12:51 ↗ Council will hear an update from the previous report that was done by Geo Sintec

12:56 ↗ by Bob Anderson of Geo Sintec. This is an update from the hydrogeologic and water

13:02 ↗ sampling and quality water quality sampling that was done and you had a report given

13:08 ↗ a couple of months ago. We've done some additional testing, some additional monitoring wells,

13:14 ↗ and so this is an update of that previous report. And so with that,

13:20 ↗ I'm going to bring Bob Anderson of GDSINTEQ up to give the presentation. And

13:26 ↗ while Bob is coming forward, I'd like to acknowledge Commissioner Lloyd Warren, Sammamish Plateau

13:31 ↗ Water District, who's joining us this evening. Lloyd, thank you for coming.

13:39 ↗ And while they're getting set up, I'd also

13:45 ↗ like to acknowledge the presence of Chief Jeff

13:51 ↗ Clark and his deputy for joining us this

13:56 ↗ evening in the front row. So welcome to

14:02 ↗ the both of you also. I think we're

14:08 ↗ ready. I'm through with introductions, so Bob Rollem.

14:14 ↗ Okay, thanks. Hi, everyone. So the saga continues. I think this is

14:19 ↗ chapter four. Is this the fourth time I've been here to present on you? So

14:24 ↗ this really is just an update. I'm going to show you, I'm going to keep

14:29 ↗ it short. So I think previously we've kind of let the presentation be interrupted with

14:33 ↗ questions. I think I'll just try and get all the way through it and that'll

14:38 ↗ answer your questions afterwards if that's all right. Does that work for everybody? Okay. I've

14:44 ↗ got a different base map to show you here. I

14:50 ↗ think I've shown you previously this base map has been

14:56 ↗ kind of an aerial photo. What this is is a

15:02 ↗ geologic map. A little bit ugly. It looks better on my screen here. So this

15:07 ↗ is what the surficial geology of the Lower Issaquah Valley looks like, and each different

15:12 ↗ color is a different type of sediment or a different type of rock. So one

15:17 ↗ of the things, so you'll see all these spots here. These are the wells that

15:22 ↗ we've been drilling over the course of this year, the orange ones. And then these

15:27 ↗ green spots here are wells that already existed prior to our investigation. So if you

15:32 ↗ remember early on we were installing wells in the vicinity of COI well four. This

15:38 ↗ is the well here with your, that has PFOS in it. And we put in

15:43 ↗ these first five wells, monitored them for a while, came up with some interim sort

15:49 ↗ of conclusions and updates to our conceptual understanding of what was going on. And then

15:54 ↗ we recommended installing two more wells in this vicinity up here, MW6 and MW7. We

15:59 ↗ completed that drilling in the fall. Those wells are in and we've sampled them. And

16:05 ↗ this is a, again, this is a geologic map, partly because I want to show

16:11 ↗ you some additional geology related to the bedrock. So, you know, you've got bedrock and

16:16 ↗ you've got sediments. Bedrock is kind of like the edge of the bathtub. And so

16:22 ↗ as we move up valley, you can see that we start getting into areas where

16:27 ↗ there's, where we're near the edge of the bathtub. And that's what this red material

16:33 ↗ is here. I know it doesn't look too red here, but this is bedrock and

16:38 ↗ these are all sediments. So as we go through here, I'll come back to that.

16:43 ↗ So we've got underground geology going on from north to south. I'm going to show

16:48 ↗ you this cross section. I think I've shown this to you before. After our

16:54 ↗ first investigation, that cross section stopped right here, and now we've extended it further south

17:00 ↗ with the installation of MW6 and MW7. So this is sort of a slice down

17:05 ↗ into the ground. It only goes down about 100 feet, but each of these little

17:11 ↗ hatchings here are wells, and this is the area where we've installed a monitoring well

17:17 ↗ that samples the groundwater. So City of Issaquah's production well is right here.

17:24 ↗ and this is the zone that it's withdrawing the water from. So we've tried to

17:29 ↗ kind of focus our study following this aquifer up gradient, so water's gonna be flowing

17:34 ↗ from this direction down to this direction. And you can see that we've always hit

17:39 ↗ this brown sand. If you look at the material, it kind of looks the same

17:44 ↗ immediately as soon as you see it. And as we got up to the most

17:50 ↗ recent well, MW6, we saw the same stuff. When we got up

17:55 ↗ to MW7, the geology was a little bit different. We started to see more silt.

18:01 ↗ And so really along this kind of north-south trend here, this was the most different

18:06 ↗ well that we'd seen in the investigation so far. But we did see what we

18:12 ↗ think is the same aquifer material, just a little bit deeper and has this silty

18:17 ↗ bed in it. Okay, so we sampled all these wells. We sampled them

18:23 ↗ for all those perfluorinated compounds, and we installed pressure transducers to measure the water level

18:29 ↗ to figure out the direction of flow. And so when you put

18:35 ↗ all those things together, here's sort of our composite interpretation of

18:40 ↗ what's going on with perfluorinated compounds in that upper aquifer zone.

18:46 ↗ So we have our geology map again. That's the washed out

18:51 ↗ greens and pinks. This blue line here, these are the groundwater flow contours.

18:57 ↗ So if you think of groundwater as flowing like a stream, it's going to flow

19:02 ↗ from higher elevation to lower elevation. So this is kind of a contour of the

19:07 ↗ groundwater table. So 72 up here, and it slopes down to about 65 when you

19:13 ↗ get in this area here, and then it slopes down further into 60 as you

19:18 ↗ get in below I-90. So groundwater is flowing in this

19:23 ↗ direction and we've terminated these contours against the edge of the

19:29 ↗ bathtub, the bedrock that you can see here that slopes all

19:35 ↗ the way down here along this ridge here. The different colored

19:40 ↗ zones here all correspond to concentrations of that material, the PFOS.

19:46 ↗ So if you remember at City Well 4, we were above the screening level.

19:52 ↗ And earlier this summer, this was our highest concentration of PFAS that we'd found

19:58 ↗ in the whole study area at MW5, and that was at 0.5 micrograms per

20:04 ↗ liter. So that's well in excess of the EPA's recommended action level.

20:10 ↗ What we found at MW6 was a very high PFOS level. In fact, it

20:16 ↗ was 2.2, so it was four and a half times higher than what we

20:22 ↗ found at MW5, and that's about 30 times higher than the action level for

20:27 ↗ PFOS that the EPA recommends. And then we installed another well at that MW7,

20:33 ↗ the farthest upstream. and we found virtually no PFAS there. There was a

20:39 ↗ trace detect of PFAS very close to the laboratory detection limit. So with

20:44 ↗ the information we've put together now, The only logical conclusion at this

20:50 ↗ point is that the source of this PFOS is at the east side fire

20:56 ↗ and rescue property so this is where we collected some soil samples over the

21:02 ↗ summer. We detected PFOS and we have this very high concentration here. So basically

21:08 ↗ our conclusion is that this is a significant source of PFOS to the aquifer. And

21:14 ↗ that's really about where we still have not determined what the likely pathways are to,

21:20 ↗ for example, the Sammamish Plateaus wells. We know that they have seen some trace levels

21:26 ↗ of PFOS, not anywhere near as high as we're seeing at the production well four.

21:32 ↗ But we can't tell with the information we have here whether the

21:37 ↗ concentration there is related to this distribution of PFOS or a different

21:43 ↗ one. We started to talk with the Plateau and their consultants about

21:48 ↗ how to try to study that and understand whether those two things

21:54 ↗ are related or is it another source altogether. And we also have not

22:00 ↗ completely determined whether this is the source and what the pathway is to test well

22:05 ↗ five or production well five. So remember, that's the production well that's in the deeper

22:11 ↗ part of the aquifer. We know there's some, there's a trace of PFOS there. Again,

22:16 ↗ not anywhere near as high as in the shallower well four. But with the information

22:21 ↗ we have here, we can't tell if it's for sure coming from here. Again, the

22:27 ↗ geology has me thinking that if we do any more exploration, if any more exploration

22:33 ↗ is done in this area, we should look for this window. I think it's possible

22:38 ↗ that there could be a window because there's probably some additional geologic energy that's been

22:44 ↗ going into the valley right here. So if you look at the shape of this,

22:49 ↗ it's kind of like a little side channel coming into the valley. So it's very

22:55 ↗ possible that this silt here, you can see it starts to get a little thinner

23:00 ↗ as you move up valley. It could possibly be eroded there. So our basic conclusions

23:05 ↗ here are that the Newport property is a source for that distribution of PFAS that

23:10 ↗ we've been monitoring over the summer. Because it's so high, that's a

23:15 ↗ pretty high hit. I'll just leave it at that. 2.2 is

23:21 ↗ a pretty strong detection of PFAS. I think that what you'll probably

23:27 ↗ see at well four is that concentrations will go up a little bit. They're not

23:33 ↗ gonna reach the same concentration that we saw at MW5. A lot happens between those

23:38 ↗ two locations and there's dilution and things get moved around. But it will probably go

23:44 ↗ higher before it goes lower over some period of time. And again, as I said,

23:50 ↗ the specific transport pathways The Plateau and Well 5 are still not known.

23:56 ↗ So our recommendations are we really think that some sort of soil and groundwater

24:01 ↗ investigation needs to be conducted at the Eastside property. That would include some analysis

24:07 ↗ of distribution of soil concentrations and some groundwater analysis. We think it should continue

24:13 ↗ to install this network of monitoring wells that has been installed now. I think

24:19 ↗ we need to go back to revisiting this whole operational scheme at well four

24:24 ↗ and well five. Remember when we first started talking about this, there was talk

24:30 ↗ of gradients and how the water levels operate depending on which well is on. So

24:35 ↗ I think we need to just reevaluate that. I don't think that's a huge thing,

24:40 ↗ but look at that. And then consider this further transport modeling to try and understand

24:44 ↗ if this is going other places, if it's going towards the Plateau's wells, where it

24:49 ↗ might be coming, those sorts of things. The three parties, I guess, the fire district

24:54 ↗ and the plateau and the city have been discussing things about how to move forward.

24:59 ↗ Nothing is really crystallized yet in terms of what the exact plan of action is.

25:05 ↗ but I think we've got a pretty good baseline to move forward and again getting

25:10 ↗ back to the original the original response the water that's going into your well into

25:15 ↗ your water system is fine the treatment system is working very well so there's there's

25:20 ↗ still no new or imminent threat to to public health in any way with your

25:25 ↗ water system I think we just are continuing to get closer and closer to understanding

25:31 ↗ where this is coming from and and coming up with a plan to clean it

25:36 ↗ up. And that's all I have. - Thank you. Questions of Bob or Lou?

25:42 ↗ - Probably some are for Bob, but also for Sheldon. I think the first

25:48 ↗ one was, at one point in time, we were presented with the scope of

25:54 ↗ work, and I actually spoke with Sheldon a bit about this today. So what

25:59 ↗ changed in the original scope of work compared to what work was actually done

26:05 ↗ and presented in your report? The original scope of work had, remember that we had

26:11 ↗ the sentinel well, which was based on the assumption that there was no PFOS in

26:16 ↗ the deep aquifer. So the idea was to put in some initial wells, try and

26:22 ↗ figure out where we might want to put a sentinel well. After we put the

26:27 ↗ initial wells in, it became a little more obvious that we were, we had found

26:33 ↗ something a little more significant than maybe we had expected. And so we shifted the

26:39 ↗ investigation to characterizing the extent and distribution up gradient from the initial wells. So, we

26:44 ↗ transferred those costs into more shallow wells instead of a deeper well. Did we complete

26:49 ↗ all of the initial scope or did we just not install? Was there anything else

26:54 ↗ besides the Sentinel well that was in the original scope that we did or didn't

26:59 ↗ do or that we changed? No. I think the Sentinel well was the only piece

27:04 ↗ that got sort of shifted and morphed into a different part of the investigation. I

27:10 ↗ have a lot of questions if there's someone else that wants to jump in. Go

27:15 ↗ ahead. There were some conclusions in the report and some recommendations

27:21 ↗ for further actions. What were the conclusions about other potential sources?

27:27 ↗ At this point, we didn't make any specific conclusions about other sources because we didn't

27:32 ↗ investigate any other sources. So we were trying to understand how significant this source was,

27:37 ↗ which was the intent of those last two wells, because we didn't know if the

27:42 ↗ concentrations were going up or down or what they were doing as you got closer

27:47 ↗ to the the East side property. The study actually then got more focused on a

27:52 ↗ source instead of what many of the other contributing sources might have been. Right. It

27:58 ↗ basically was following the flow path from the city's production well towards where we

28:04 ↗ thought the source was coming from, yes. We do still have some unanswered

28:10 ↗ questions on how it's getting in a deeper aquifer or how it's getting

28:15 ↗ in Sammamish Plateaus. Right, we were focused exclusively on your well four and

28:21 ↗ five system and tracking that further. There was some, I think, I read

28:26 ↗ it in the paper, there were some surface water samples collected and analyzed

28:32 ↗ by others. And surface water samples collected as part of this study? That's right.

28:38 ↗ And the data that's reported in this study is just the surface water samples that

28:43 ↗ were collected by the city? We took two surface water samples in Issaquah Creek and

28:49 ↗ Sammamish Plateau took more than one but less than five. I can't remember the number,

28:55 ↗ including the North Fork of Issaquah Creek. Okay. But the scope of your report really

29:00 ↗ was just to report back on the data that you have. So we haven't got

29:05 ↗ a mechanism yet for the council to see the information that's collected by all parties.

29:10 ↗ Not really. Like I said, we have been talking to the plateau. They're initiating some

29:15 ↗ more work now for their benefit to try and understand these other pathways that might

29:20 ↗ be going towards their well field. So I think, you know, the... This wasn't a

29:25 ↗ study to blanket the entire aquifer with monitoring wells and come up with a

29:31 ↗ regional groundwater analysis. So this was really focused on well four and what was

29:37 ↗ contributing to the immediate problem that you had right here. I think that we'll

29:43 ↗ start to learn more as the plateau contributes to the effort here. I think

29:48 ↗ the rest of my question is actually for staff. Okay. So the report contained

29:54 ↗ several recommended actions. What is the next step for us in understanding which recommendations the

30:00 ↗ city is going to adopt, when they would do them, and how much they would

30:05 ↗ cost? How does that process look? The first

30:11 ↗ thing that we're doing is we're working with the partners, Samanich Plateau, Eastside Fire

30:16 ↗ and Rescue, and the city are in conversation and discussion about these recommendations. No

30:22 ↗ determination has been made as to what the cost and full scope of all

30:28 ↗ this is. We don't have any cost estimates on that, and we don't have

30:33 ↗ a timeframe specific for when these studies would continue on this. we're still in

30:39 ↗ discussions with the partners we're working together as bob mentioned sam platt is you know

30:44 ↗ doing more sampling more data uh we're all sharing the data we're sharing everything we

30:49 ↗ get would it be possible at some point for council in whatever the next report

30:55 ↗ out is to see the compiled data the data that everybody's collecting okay yeah as

31:00 ↗ we get the data we can incorporate it within our updates that's great There was

31:06 ↗ a recommendation about ongoing monitoring, so do we, are we not, there's discussion about that

31:11 ↗ or are we actually planning on completing groundwater monitoring for the rest of 2017? Right

31:17 ↗ now what we have is we have the transducers in the wells for water level

31:22 ↗ monitoring and the like and then we're monitoring our production wells for the PFAS and

31:28 ↗ also monitoring our water quality treatment to make sure that the water stays safe for

31:33 ↗ the customers. Thanks, Sheldon. Any other questions? No. I just want to restate, I think

31:39 ↗ you answered the question, but not in the words I'm sure of. So the money

31:43 ↗ that was set aside for the Sentinel well was then taken and used for monitoring

31:48 ↗ well six and seven? That's correct. Okay. So I just wanted to say that. That

31:53 ↗ was the transfer that was made. That was the transfer because we already knew that

31:58 ↗ we had trace PFAS in the deeper aquifer already with well five. And then that

32:02 ↗ went there. Thank you. - I had one more. - Oh, did

32:08 ↗ you have a question? - One for Sheldon and one for Bob. Sheldon, could you

32:13 ↗ say something about the treatment system that we have? I know that when we installed

32:19 ↗ that, that we would be monitoring the output of that and having to cycle the

32:24 ↗ carbon on some regular schedule. What is that looking like? Have we had to, what's

32:30 ↗ the plan? Schedule any maintenance, place the carbon, do the switchover yet? Is it anywhere

32:35 ↗ near what we thought it would be or is it too early still? We've been

32:40 ↗ monitoring it. The vessels have sample ports at different elevations in the vessels and we

32:45 ↗ have yet to have to replace the first vessel. We're still -- we're thinking it's

32:50 ↗ going to be a number of months yet before we even have to replace the

32:55 ↗ first vessel of carbon. on that but the system is functioning fine we're not getting

33:00 ↗ any traces at all or detections on the output of those vessels so the carbon

33:05 ↗ filtration is working very well that first vessel has been in operation for how long

33:09 ↗ now been uh since about mid-june so about six months okay i remember when which

33:14 ↗ that was about the time where we thought we might have to change out the

33:18 ↗ carbon but right now the sampling is showing that we can probably last another few

33:23 ↗ months And a question for Bob real quick. Thank you, Sheldon. Could you go

33:29 ↗ back to the overhead, the one that showed the gradient, the overhead with boundaries? Yeah,

33:35 ↗ that one right there. So those gradient lines, I don't quite understand 72 to 60.

33:40 ↗ That seems like it's deeper in the south than it is in the north.

33:46 ↗ So this is the slope of the water table. So the water table is at

33:51 ↗ an elevation of 72 here and then it drops one foot, one foot, one foot,

33:56 ↗ one foot. So it's the slope of the of the water table itself. -

34:02 ↗ It's just the water, okay, so. - Right, and then the colors correspond to the

34:07 ↗ concentrations of PFOS in the groundwater. - Okay, well, okay, so, okay. I understand that

34:13 ↗ there's a downslope, and I look at those gradient lines, and it seems to me

34:18 ↗ that it could actually, I mean, you show these question marks boundaries, but it seems

34:24 ↗ to me it would, water would just tend to spread out as it flows down

34:30 ↗ gradient. Well, it's not necessarily. You know, I mean, once this is

34:35 ↗ a confined system, it's kind of discharging through. You know, you've got the edge of

34:40 ↗ the bathtub here, so it's going to tend to, obviously, it can't spread out in

34:45 ↗ this direction. One of the reasons we have question marks on the concentration here is

34:50 ↗ that, you know, it is possible there is some spreading here, but we know we

34:54 ↗ didn't see any PFAS in either of these two wells. We also know that we've

34:59 ↗ sampled this well repeatedly. You know, this is still a bit of the -- this

35:04 ↗ was a well that I was not expecting to not see PFAS in when we

35:08 ↗ had the hit here at MW5. So there is something that's sort of keeping a

35:13 ↗ steady flow field, and it's moving in one direction, and it doesn't seem to be

35:19 ↗ moving around too much in this area here. Or we need some more data to

35:24 ↗ see if there's something we don't understand yet. Thank you. Thank you, Bob. Right, Lou,

35:30 ↗ did you have another question? More for Sheldon. It's not so much a follow-up on

35:35 ↗ the technical report, more of a follow-up. If I was a business person or a

35:39 ↗ citizen and I wanted to get information, so we got this report three weeks ago,

35:44 ↗ but the media has been asking for information and we haven't been responding. And I'm

35:49 ↗ just curious, how do we... How does this work going forward if we have additional

35:53 ↗ updates and reports and who's the primary media contact for someone who's watching and concerned

35:58 ↗ tonight who would they talk to? Mayor Redekop: I think that's a great question and

36:02 ↗ I'm going to leave that one to show. That is a great question. Good punt.

36:07 ↗ The media did receive the report when, you know, shortly after we received it. I

36:12 ↗ think it was a couple of days difference between when we received it and the

36:18 ↗ media got it. We've been sending all the communications out through Autumn, the communications person

36:23 ↗ for the city. And then if there are technical questions, she usually fields them to

36:28 ↗ us over in Public Works Engineering, which would either be myself or Bob York.

36:35 ↗ Does that answer your question? Not really. It's more about when the coverage in the

36:40 ↗ media, either on the televised or print media, always says no comment from the city.

36:45 ↗ That's the part that I'm wondering if I'm a business or a resident and I

36:51 ↗ wanted to get information. There are many parties involved, but who is the primary contact

36:56 ↗ here for people who are interested in getting more information on the issue? That would

37:01 ↗ be Autumn. Autumn Monaghan, the communications person for the city. Okay. Any additional questions?

37:07 ↗ Sheldon, Bob, thank you for that update. We'll now move to

37:13 ↗ audience comments. Citizen comments are an important part of the public

37:19 ↗ process. We take them seriously and factor them into the decisions

37:25 ↗ we make. Anyone from the public who wishes to comment will have the

37:31 ↗ opportunity to do so. Please direct your comments to the whole council and not individuals.

37:36 ↗ While this is not a question and answer session, we will contact you to follow

37:42 ↗ up if needed. If you did not have an opportunity to include your email address,

37:48 ↗ you may leave that information on the clipboard on the edge of the dais over

37:53 ↗ here. When recognized, use the lectern and speak into the microphone. State your name, address,

37:59 ↗ and any relationship to the city. Limit your comments to five minutes. Submit any written

38:04 ↗ comments to the city clerk. A visual timer has been placed on the lectern. When

38:09 ↗ it turns yellow, you are within the last minute of your comment period. If you

38:14 ↗ use the full five minutes, the timer will sound to indicate the end of your

38:19 ↗ allotted comment time. Just a reminder, personal attacks obscene language, derogatory remarks and disruptive

38:25 ↗ behavior will not be permitted. Again, citizen comments, written and verbal, are an important

38:31 ↗ aspect of the public process. The city takes them seriously and we thank members

38:37 ↗ of the public for taking the time to address us during our meetings. And

38:42 ↗ with that, I'd ask, has anyone signed up to speak? Yes, Rowan Hines.

38:54 ↗ Thank you. My name is Rowan Hines. My address is 1571 Sycamore

38:59 ↗ Drive, Southeast, here in Issaquah. And I am a retired public official,

39:05 ↗ formerly serving as mayor and city council. I want to take this

39:10 ↗ opportunity to give Wayne a few reminders. When he first started here

39:16 ↗ in 1983, I think, Maybe Dave Kapler might have been the only

39:22 ↗ other one in the room besides me that was here then. Were you on the

39:27 ↗ council then, Dave? 83. So there's nobody here but you and me, Wayne. When you

39:33 ↗ first started, you were still young and wet behind the ears, and we made a

39:38 ↗ commitment that we would keep you until you learned to do your job, and I'm

39:44 ↗ glad to see you finally learned to do the job. One of the... The

39:49 ↗ first things I learned working with Wayne back in 1990 when I was first mayor

39:55 ↗ was you never wanted to ask Wayne a closed question, okay? Because if you asked

40:01 ↗ Wayne, "Can I do this?" the answer was always no. So I learned very quickly

40:07 ↗ that the way you asked Wayne a question, he says, "Well, here's what I want

40:13 ↗ to do, Wayne. How can we go about doing this?" Now, Wayne being a good

40:19 ↗ attorney, He would say he's creative. I prefer

40:25 ↗ devious. And he almost invariably found a way

40:30 ↗ to help us. I'll take my chances. But

40:36 ↗ we had many fond memories. We did accomplish a lot and a lot I'm very

40:41 ↗ proud of to be involved with. And I'm glad that you were a part of

40:47 ↗ that and was very helpful to me personally. And I'm very appreciative of that, Wayne.

40:52 ↗ And I wish you nothing but the best. And to remind everyone

40:58 ↗ again, there is life after retirement. And unlike most

41:03 ↗ times I come down here to speak, I do

41:09 ↗ not intend to stay for longer in the meeting.

41:15 ↗ Thank you very much. Thank you, Rowan. Next we

41:20 ↗ have Dane Williams and Sierra Martinson. I'm Dane Williams

41:26 ↗ and my address is 2044 Northwest Howis Drive in

41:32 ↗ Issaquah. Hi, I'm Sierra and I'm from the

41:37 ↗ Issaquah Youth Advisory Board and my address is 3529 264th Avenue and I

41:43 ↗ live in Sammamish, Washington. So the Issaquah Youth Advisory Board is a group

41:49 ↗ of teenagers in this community that plan events for teens, kids, and their

41:54 ↗ parents and we specifically are from Teen Advocacy, which is a subgroup in

42:00 ↗ the Youth Advisory Board, and we work on problems that directly affect teens,

42:06 ↗ such as mental health and drugs. So this is my second

42:12 ↗ year on the board and I'm a junior at Eastside Catholic on the plateau and

42:17 ↗ this year on the board we are working for the fourth time on the state

42:23 ↗ of mind mental health conferences. So in 2017 we'll be hosting the fourth annual conference

42:29 ↗ with Influence of Choice and the Healthy Youth Initiative. and this coming year's state

42:35 ↗ of mind will consist of three different conferences, one at Issaquah High School, one at

42:41 ↗ Liberty High School, and one at Mary Queen of Peace across the street from Skyline

42:46 ↗ High School. At each conference, attendees will be given the opportunity to attend multiple seminars

42:52 ↗ led by guest speakers, out of several which are offered. In the past, we have

42:58 ↗ had guest speakers and led attendees in mindful meditation, give a presentation on body image

43:03 ↗ disorders, explain the effects of technology on one's mental health, and much, much more. So

43:07 ↗ I can only imagine how stressful running the city of Issaquah can be. So the

43:12 ↗ Issaquah Youth Advisory Board invites all of you to join us at any of our

43:16 ↗ state of mind conferences at Mary of Queen of Peace on February 4th, Liberty High

43:21 ↗ School on March 11th, and Issaquah High School on April 29th, all of which are

43:25 ↗ from 11:30 to 4:30. Thank you. Thanks to

43:31 ↗ both of you for coming this evening. Next

43:37 ↗ we have Mark Burles. My name's Mark Burles.

43:43 ↗ I live at 1689 24th Avenue Northeast, right

43:49 ↗ up in the Highlands, right next to Central

43:54 ↗ Park. And I'm here to talk about Central

44:00 ↗ Park and the upcoming vote. Specifically, the two issues that were

44:06 ↗ left out of the budget in the last meeting that occurred two weeks ago around

44:10 ↗ the traffic situation and the lights. My only message is, because I know you've heard

44:15 ↗ a lot about this, Please don't consider these luxuries to the community immediately impacted by

44:21 ↗ the park. I think the traffic issue is fairly obvious when you visit there.

44:27 ↗ And with regard to the lights, I think there's some sound reasons around cost

44:32 ↗ and sustainability to go with LED. But I just ask if you're driving into

44:38 ↗ Issaquah from Seattle, if you look up and you see that bright glow, that's

44:44 ↗ pad three. I completely agree with the community

44:49 ↗ need for these fields. I just ask that

44:55 ↗ you not put too much of a burden

45:00 ↗ on the immediate surrounding residents as you fulfill

45:06 ↗ that need. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Next

45:12 ↗ is Ken Eastman. My name is Ken Eastman.

45:17 ↗ I'm resident of Issaquah 2473 Northwest Stony Creek

45:23 ↗ Drive. in the Talus community and tonight I'm representing the

45:28 ↗ Talus Residential Association and I would like to read a letter of

45:34 ↗ appreciation to the city from our association and our residents.

45:41 ↗ The 2016 has been a year of disruption and development up

45:46 ↗ on the hill. The Timber Ridge addition being finished, medians being

45:52 ↗ added to Talus Drive. Spring Peak also coming to a conclusion.

45:58 ↗ Parcels 7 and 8 up at the top, significant construction. The

46:03 ↗ Parcel 9 hillside on everybody's mind, a pump station installed. at

46:09 ↗ our playground and finally Forest Heights on the northeast corner. A lot of

46:15 ↗ disruption but we're here tonight to thank city staff, city council for all

46:21 ↗ of the support in making all those disruptions manageable and specifically I

46:27 ↗ want to cite a few individuals who have gone above and beyond.

46:33 ↗ First off, development services, last week was a tense week for all of us

46:38 ↗ as we were working through our read on the final plat for Parcels 7

46:44 ↗ and 8. With development services help, we managed to reach an agreement and in

46:50 ↗ the end, last Friday, we expressed our support for the final plat. A lot

46:56 ↗ of hard work by the development services team. A thanks to Denise Perillo, project

47:02 ↗ manager. She helped us through the Puget Sound energy changes in the summer, a

47:07 ↗ lot of disruption at what we call our four-way stop sign, and she's helping

47:13 ↗ to clean up the Spring Peak final issues. I want to cite Doug Schlepp,

47:19 ↗ city engineer. Here is a guy, no matter where he is involved, He's just

47:25 ↗ the man of knowledge and we just have really good faith that when Doug's involved

47:30 ↗ he's going to keep us appraised and he's going to be our advocate. So many

47:36 ↗ thanks to Doug for all the things he does for TALIS. Mike Bengree for helping

47:41 ↗ us with our sidewalk safety issues. Lucy Sloman of Development Services for helping us

47:47 ↗ with the pump station addition to our playground. It's not easy to integrate a

47:53 ↗ city utility into a playground when they are within inches of each other, but

47:59 ↗ we asked Lucy's help to work with city operations and we really appreciate the

48:05 ↗ fact that we think that the project will come out very well. Keith

48:10 ↗ Niven and Auden Monahan for keeping our community appraised during the hillside crisis.

48:16 ↗ That was a big deal to the community to know what was going on and

48:21 ↗ they did a superb job. Many public meetings on that. Brett Heath, back to the

48:27 ↗ hillside. That was a big crisis. The city utilities were in jeopardy. I mean, really

48:32 ↗ bad things could have happened had that, that the city department not gotten in there.

48:37 ↗ City trucks around the clock monitoring the situation. We all appreciate the fact that he

48:42 ↗ kept us and his entire team safe. Emily Moon for our continued coaching

48:48 ↗ and advocacy and how the city works. We're all volunteers and Emily

48:54 ↗ helps us through sort of decoding how city government works and recently

49:00 ↗ her help on our streetlight reimbursement and thank you Bob for your

49:05 ↗ commitment earlier in the meeting. And Mayor Butler and City

49:11 ↗ Council, this is a really big thank you. Thank you for your advocacy on

49:17 ↗ pushing back on the potential annexation area of the parcels west of TALIS. and

49:23 ↗ the great news from King County recently that they agreed with your decision.

49:28 ↗ So that's a double big thank you for the council and the mayor.

49:34 ↗ And lastly, I want to just call out Keith Niven. He has been

49:39 ↗ tireless in trying to get a resolution to the hillside at Parcel 9.

49:45 ↗ That is a difficult situation we recognize. And we look forward to a

49:51 ↗ good resolution to that. If you haven't been up there lately, please take

49:56 ↗ a look at it. And I think you'll see why that's probably first

50:02 ↗ and foremost on the residents' minds. I want to thank you for your

50:08 ↗ partnership, city staff. I wish you a Merry Christmas and a happy holiday.

50:13 ↗ CHRIS JERRAM: Thank you, Ken. CHRISTIE WOOD: No one further has signed up

50:19 ↗ to speak. CHRIS JERRAM: Lloyd? LLOYD HENRY: Sorry I didn't get down here

50:25 ↗ in time sign up before we were just getting out of our meeting. I'm Lloyd

50:31 ↗ Warren, currently president of the board of Sammamish Plateau Water and until the end of

50:36 ↗ the year we'll have new elections. After hearing the report I thought I'd take a

50:41 ↗ minute or two and just explain what activities the district is doing with respect to

50:46 ↗ PFCs in the groundwater. I think I could break that down into four different areas.

50:51 ↗ The first one is monitoring you've been doing monitoring we've also been doing monitoring we

50:57 ↗ don't have a plan to do a lot additional monitoring but we've done quite a

51:03 ↗ bit already we've done some initial analysis of that and and we believe in open

51:08 ↗ and transparent information and all that information as a consultant said it's been passed on

51:14 ↗ to both east side fire and rescue in the city and and and you have

51:20 ↗ provided information to us The second is we have two consultants that are

51:26 ↗ working with us. The first one is a geohydrologist who basically is working

51:31 ↗ on developing a groundwater model for the entire aquifer in the valley. And

51:37 ↗ we would hope that in the future we can coordinate with the city

51:43 ↗ on that effort. Because as the consultant said, there's a a lot of

51:48 ↗ question marks out there and part of it relates to the natural flow of water

51:53 ↗ but also both the city and the district are pumping significant amounts of water out

51:58 ↗ of their wells and we don't know how that interaction occurs and what happens We

52:03 ↗ have found lower levels of PFCs in our production wells. We have tested in

52:09 ↗ the creeks and found low levels in the north fork of Issaquah Creek. Now,

52:15 ↗ how the heck it gets in the surface water, we have no idea yet.

52:21 ↗ So we're going to be working on that hydraulic model to understand how all of

52:26 ↗ the pumping and the hydrogeology works so we can make much better decisions in the

52:32 ↗ future. The third effort is we do have a consultant that is going to be

52:37 ↗ taking all this information and providing us with some alternatives on where to look in

52:43 ↗ the future and what to do about our operations and our wells and hopefully in

52:48 ↗ coordination with Issaquah and the fire district, try to look at this in a long-term

52:53 ↗ solution in terms of what really works for not only our customers but all the

52:59 ↗ customers and all the community. And the fourth, which is just as

53:05 ↗ important, is at the invitation of the mayor, there's an effort to

53:10 ↗ try to get together a group of the three parties, the city,

53:16 ↗ the district, and the fire district, to look at this much more holistically and

53:21 ↗ try to look at this as a solution for the long term. We have some

53:27 ↗ immediate issues, we have some short term issues related to PFCs, and we have some

53:32 ↗ long term issues. This groundwater resource is really a treasure for the community. I remember

53:38 ↗ Dave Kapler back in the day, we did a lot of groundwater studies under the

53:43 ↗ county and it just kind of stopped. and we really should have continued that and

53:48 ↗ we really need to reinitiate that and engage for the future because this aquifer is

53:53 ↗ going to be around a lot longer than I am and I feel the responsibility

53:57 ↗ I think with our board that we continue to look at its health and its

54:02 ↗ real contributions to this community. So those are the four efforts we're working on and

54:06 ↗ we're looking forward to the new year and working on these efforts with both the

54:11 ↗ fire district and the city. Lloyd, thank you very much for coming this evening

54:17 ↗ and for that status report. David. Good evening. David Kepler, 255 Southeast

54:22 ↗ Andrew Street. I got about five topics. They're all quick and they're

54:28 ↗ all positive, so that's great. The lesson, how do I get so-and-so

54:34 ↗ done so I get it done and I do it legally? And

54:40 ↗ that was the broken record we got from our former city attorney.

54:45 ↗ Sounds weird to say former city attorney, but and that was, you

54:51 ↗ know, but i was going through uh silverado stuff tonight and i was thinking all

54:56 ↗ those all those legal things you had to get just i was thinking you had

55:00 ↗ to make sure you covered all these different bases about trails and easements and this

55:04 ↗ and that liability there's just so much that and you look at the books that

55:08 ↗ we produced for the the highlands and talus and all the legalese and all of

55:12 ↗ those and we've been working with them for 20 years almost And I think there

55:17 ↗ was a lot of good work done at the base and continues and of course

55:22 ↗ there's always updates, there's changes in laws, but it's been good. Senior Center, people are

55:28 ↗ quite positive about the city taking over and there's a lot of excitement about that.

55:33 ↗ Just the new paint they've done and the brightening up and the cleaning has been

55:39 ↗ noticed by the members for sure. Silverado is the committee working on that. Land

55:45 ↗ and Shore did a great job. We've been back and forth a lot. Staff did

55:50 ↗ a great job on that. Of course, my one of those is the open space.

55:55 ↗ protection of the open space but also trails it's kind of a situation we got

56:01 ↗ to go through the plotting process but the concept is we're going to see a

56:06 ↗ private kind of a private trail system for the plat later when we can make

56:11 ↗ connections through with the the regional trail hopefully i don't expect that lake sammamish to

56:16 ↗ cedar river trail we'll get all the way from lake sammamish to Cedar River, but

56:21 ↗ at least not as neat a trail as possible from the trail from the central

56:27 ↗ Issaquah to the city property on Squawk, the open space that we have, which connects

56:32 ↗ to the state open space and the county open space, that is a viable option

56:38 ↗ in the future. So we'll have a possibility of a trail on this property in

56:43 ↗ the future that would be a public trail. And it's really good how it worked

56:49 ↗ out. You must have had some kind of a lawyer or

56:54 ↗ something write the President's budget message. That was one of the most thorough ones

57:00 ↗ I've ever seen. It gave a lot of marching orders to the Council, the

57:06 ↗ administration, however, for the future. But it was good. Geology, we got

57:12 ↗ another geology lesson. I wish they weren't so expensive, but I think

57:17 ↗ it's really great that people are figuring out the geology on this

57:23 ↗ whole thing. And Lloyd's point about the aquifer that we have and

57:28 ↗ they have is really important to us in terms of if we

57:34 ↗ have to go and buy, Lake Taps water or more CWA water,

57:40 ↗ it's going to cost a lot more than protecting and retaining our aquifer. And

57:45 ↗ I'm still, I hope you can pull off the LED lights up in the

57:51 ↗ highlands. I think that just go up there and compare three to one in

57:56 ↗ those two areas and think of the impacts on the neighbors for one. Thank

58:02 ↗ you. Thank you, David. Does anyone else who has not signed up to speak?

58:08 ↗ Jeff? Hi, my name is

58:13 ↗ Jeff Walker. I live at 2001 16th Court Northeast in Issaquah in the Highlands. I

58:18 ↗ am the chairman of the Urban Village Development Commission and I'm glad to be here

58:23 ↗ tonight. I don't get to make it to too many of these meetings so glad

58:28 ↗ to be here. Congratulations, Mr. Tanaka. I just want to very quickly echo Mr. Burrell's

58:33 ↗ and also David's comments about the LED lights up in the Issaquah Highlands. I am

58:38 ↗ a resident there. I'm speaking as a resident tonight. But also on the traffic, whether

58:43 ↗ it's traffic calming, traffic issues, the parking, that sort of thing, the widening of the

58:47 ↗ street. I just want to throw my support behind that. I just think it's, as

58:52 ↗ a user of that park for many, many years, as a resident of the Highlands

58:56 ↗ since the first five homes were built, I've been there since '98, I'd love to

59:01 ↗ continue to see the growth. but also the smart action around that growth and in

59:06 ↗ this particular case I think if there's any way to pull it off I think

59:11 ↗ putting the effort behind that and the LED lights would go a long, long way.

59:16 ↗ So I just want to put my support behind that. So thank you very much.

59:21 ↗ Have a great holiday. Thank you, Jeff. Anyone else desiring to speak this evening? Oh,

59:27 ↗ thank you, Ken. Anyone else desiring to speak? Third and final call. Anyone desiring to

59:32 ↗ speak? Seeing no one, then audience comments are closed and we'll now

59:37 ↗ move to committee and regional reports beginning with Mariah Batiste. Thank you, Mr.

59:43 ↗ Mayor. Last week, the Eastside Human Services Forum had their annual meeting. The

59:49 ↗ bylaws were amended and the new board was voted in and I'm pleased

59:55 ↗ to say I was re-elected to the board, so I'm excited to serve

1:00:01 ↗ again. in the next few years. Ilse Flanagan, who's the director of

1:00:06 ↗ the National Reframing Initiative, gave the most amazing presentation regarding launching efforts

1:00:12 ↗ to create a cohesive voice for human services. And it was all

1:00:17 ↗ about how we talk about human services. And it was It was really

1:00:23 ↗ very interesting. So if you get a chance to look up the reframing initiative

1:00:29 ↗ or the reframing project, it's very interesting to look at. The next meeting will

1:00:35 ↗ be in January and I'll also be joining and waiting to hear when the

1:00:40 ↗ first meeting will be for me, the King Conservation District Advisory Committee for next

1:00:46 ↗ year. Thank you. Bill Ramos. - Thank you. Report on the ninth, I went to

1:00:52 ↗ the Eastside Transportation Partnership meeting. If you remember, that was the day with the heavy

1:00:56 ↗ snow prediction, so we did not get a quorum. At last meeting, we talked about

1:01:01 ↗ the legislative agenda that was supposed to be voted on then. Without a quorum, we

1:01:05 ↗ did do some discussion. They're doing a little more tweaking of that, and it'll come

1:01:09 ↗ back again in January, and I'll bring that to you then when we get that

1:01:14 ↗ little tweaked a little bit better, and for your comments on that. On the 14th,

1:01:19 ↗ I was at the Regional Transit Committee, and as Councilmember Lambert mentioned, Metro Transit has

1:01:23 ↗ 300,000 hours they're talking about adding. And we were trying to pass the Metro Connects,

1:01:28 ↗ the long-range plan. And the goal of that was to get that done by the

1:01:33 ↗ end of the year, and I didn't think that was gonna happen, and neither did

1:01:38 ↗ anybody else. But I'm proud to say that it did get passed on the 14th.

1:01:43 ↗ And much thanks to the Uh, King County council member and chair Claudia Valducci. She

1:01:48 ↗ led us through that very well, worked on a lot of points with SCA cities

1:01:54 ↗ and legislation. And the big sticking point on that was how do you implement those

1:01:59 ↗ things? And what we were able to do there was design how the RTC will

1:02:05 ↗ work with Metro transit through that process and implementation of the development program, the work

1:02:10 ↗ plan and timing and substance of service and capital decisions. The RTC is going to

1:02:15 ↗ be very involved as that continues to go and that was a big change in

1:02:19 ↗ how things have done in the past. I'm very glad to have been part of

1:02:22 ↗ that. That concludes my report. Thank you. Paul Winterside. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll say

1:02:27 ↗ first that my two regional committees I'm on, well, one, the Puget Sound Regional Council

1:02:32 ↗ Growth Management Policy Board did not have a meeting in December, so no report, and

1:02:37 ↗ our local Lodging Tax Advisory Committee also did not meet. But I do want to

1:02:42 ↗ report on the Council Infrastructure Committee, which met here in Council Chambers last Thursday on

1:02:47 ↗ the 15th. And there's three items I wanna discuss. We did begin a conversation

1:02:52 ↗ about one of our council goals about defining funding and other policy to guide our

1:02:58 ↗ Complete Streets program. So we had a presentation from staff. It was just a discussion

1:03:04 ↗ and basically what I learned was that there's a few words a couple score maybe

1:03:10 ↗ in the IMC that define Complete Streets and then there's a bunch of other process

1:03:15 ↗ that staff seems to know about. There is no formal council policy around Complete Streets

1:03:21 ↗ either for how to select or what guidance to use or even what funding is.

1:03:27 ↗ Now we have history and that is a guide. So we did have a review

1:03:32 ↗ of that and I think and a really healthy conversation. That's an ongoing process and

1:03:37 ↗ I think that I'll be reporting on that again as we go forward. But I

1:03:42 ↗ am very optimistic that we can actually put together a very council, from the council,

1:03:48 ↗ a coherent process to help us achieve I think what we all want for complete

1:03:53 ↗ streets and that is exactly what, as the name suggests, that we have that we

1:03:58 ↗ maximize the resources that we do have to complete these gaps in our

1:04:04 ↗ projects and our infrastructure for safer pedestrian non-motorized mobility within the city.

1:04:10 ↗ We also talked about the Trader Joe's Maple Street intersection. That was a budget item

1:04:15 ↗ as well. Now, we did get down into some of the details, but I think

1:04:21 ↗ in essence, I think the Council President has asked and we have initiated the intent

1:04:26 ↗ to have an agenda bill come forward. And eventually, I think what we got down

1:04:31 ↗ to is some guidance in the design of that intersection. And this is also, it's

1:04:37 ↗ at the concept level and we'll definitely be getting to more detail,

1:04:42 ↗ but some of the key objectives for the improvement to that intersection,

1:04:48 ↗ other than doing it for something less than $5 million, And that

1:04:53 ↗ was really the big thing that started this was that is there a

1:04:59 ↗ cheaper way to actually make a difference? And so we believe that we

1:05:04 ↗ can improve the safety both for pedestrians and motorized users of that intersection.

1:05:10 ↗ That intersection, We have to make the proper use of that intersection more intuitive for

1:05:15 ↗ both pedestrians and drivers. There is a lot of confusion on what are the turning

1:05:20 ↗ lanes, what are not turning lanes, and whether or not there's a circle there or

1:05:25 ↗ not. It is a non-intuitive intersection. And some of those improvements can be very simple

1:05:29 ↗ just with signage and markings as well. But at the same time, to manage the

1:05:34 ↗ costs, what we're trying to do is not force changes to either the Target or

1:05:38 ↗ the Trader Joe's parking areas. Because if we make changes that forces changes there, that's

1:05:44 ↗ where things scale up in complexity and cost quite significantly. So can we

1:05:50 ↗ achieve improved safety, more intuitive use without forcing changes on the neighbors nearby?

1:05:55 ↗ That's the objective. And then finally, it's not a project to add capacity. So this

1:06:01 ↗ idea of an additional kind of bypass lane where we could get more capacity through

1:06:06 ↗ there, that is not an objective as well. Now whether or not all of those

1:06:11 ↗ can be achieved is to be determined, but those are the primary kind of objectives

1:06:16 ↗ that were set out. And one last thing we did discuss is aesthetics, is that

1:06:21 ↗ the very cheap option that we all saw during budget. It was just going to

1:06:26 ↗ lay on top of concrete, which meant that we couldn't do anything with any type

1:06:31 ↗ of landscaping, or at least nothing that would survive. And so we asked that other

1:06:37 ↗ options that would allow us to have nice landscaping aesthetics be brought forward as well

1:06:42 ↗ for consideration. Now that does up the price quite significantly, but it is certainly an

1:06:47 ↗ option that we'd like to see what it would take. And so that was

1:06:53 ↗ the discussion around Trader Joe's. And then the last thing we discussed, I'll mention, is

1:06:59 ↗ the Traffic Advisory Committee. That's something that Council has asked that we put that governance

1:07:05 ↗ structure in place. And the staff did present a summary of the survey of Council

1:07:11 ↗ and various commissions and boards about the Transportation Mobility Board. And I just realized I

1:07:17 ↗ have it written down both ways, Transportation Mobility Board and Traffic Advisory Committee. So I

1:07:22 ↗ apologize for that confusion. So the staff presented two alternatives on what we might do

1:07:27 ↗ with that board. And so here's how it went down on the committee. One committee

1:07:32 ↗ member liked alternative one. Another committee member liked alternative two. And the third committee member

1:07:37 ↗ asked for an alternative three. So we didn't coalesce on any preferred model. So it's

1:07:43 ↗ going to remain within that committee for a while among our committee members, whomever they

1:07:48 ↗ are in 2017 to try to bring that to a place where at least we're

1:07:54 ↗ going to have, you know, we coalesce on an idea that we can all support

1:08:00 ↗ and bring back to the entire council for further action. And then, so that

1:08:06 ↗ concludes my report on infrastructure. The last thing I'll report is last Thursday, we

1:08:12 ↗ had a meeting for the Eastside Fire and Rescue Board and we got a

1:08:17 ↗ presentation, Chief Clark, appreciate you being here, gave us a presentation on his understanding of

1:08:22 ↗ the issues related to PFAS and let me tell you, we've only had to sit

1:08:28 ↗ up here and listen to people talk to us. The chief sat down, taught himself

1:08:33 ↗ and then spoke to us and I think that was very helpful and I really

1:08:38 ↗ admired that. And I found the information that was provided and the subsequent discussion to

1:08:43 ↗ be quite informative. The chief does acknowledge that in the past, foam with PFAS was

1:08:48 ↗ used at that site, but it's not being used there anymore. It's not on site

1:08:53 ↗ anymore. And so I think that's one key point. And we heard that tonight as

1:08:58 ↗ well. I just want to emphasize that. But one of the items that discuss I

1:09:03 ↗ think is important for our council members to understand is that According to both the

1:09:08 ↗ federal EPA and also our Washington Department of Ecology, there really are no cleanup standards

1:09:12 ↗ yet. So we saw that from our consultant that said, do something maybe to treat

1:09:16 ↗ that location. But there are no standards. And I've heard that phrase kicked around before.

1:09:21 ↗ It really didn't mean anything. I thought the way that the chief presented it really

1:09:25 ↗ meant something to me. And that would be, and if I just think about it

1:09:29 ↗ this way, is that if they were to go in and do a cleanup, and

1:09:33 ↗ without any standards or targets in place, and what if the EPA comes along later

1:09:38 ↗ and establishes some cleanup standards, and maybe they missed, maybe we did not clean up

1:09:42 ↗ or they did not clean up to that standard. They'd have to do it all

1:09:47 ↗ over again. So given the fact that that's an unknown, that the water is being

1:09:52 ↗ treated, and as we heard, everything that's being delivered to our customers is safe, the

1:09:57 ↗ fact that there's no more of that material on their location is that I think

1:10:01 ↗ the, it makes sense to me if I was the property owner as well to

1:10:05 ↗ like, okay, let's, um, you know, we don't have to move right now. We got

1:10:09 ↗ to, we, you know, without those standards and further, it also, uh, one of the

1:10:12 ↗ points that chief made is that, um, that there are, you know, the way you

1:10:16 ↗ identify where potential sources are is you talk to people within the community. And I

1:10:22 ↗ know, and what type of operations historically happened at different locations. And there are other

1:10:27 ↗ fire stations, you know, within the valley. And there are other potential sources, at least

1:10:32 ↗ kind of like at an interview level that you could understand. And I know it's

1:10:37 ↗ very much in an IFR's interest to investigate them further. as potential sources. And I

1:10:43 ↗ think, and I like that idea because as long as, I think we have some,

1:10:48 ↗ we don't have cleanup standards. The water that's being delivered is safe. There's no more

1:10:54 ↗ of the material on their property. And as we heard from our consultant, and also

1:11:00 ↗ from the Sammamish Plateau Water, they changed their name, Sammamish Plateau

1:11:05 ↗ Water, that they're also, I like that idea of doing kind

1:11:11 ↗ of an entire aquifer model. And so... And so understanding potentially all sources.

1:11:17 ↗ And I know Eastside Fire and Rescue is very interested in investigating some of those

1:11:23 ↗ other potential sources as well. And so those seem like prudent actions to me. And

1:11:29 ↗ I support that intent going forward and I wanted to share that with the entire

1:11:35 ↗ council. So that concludes my report of all my committees. Thank you. Tolomars.

1:11:40 ↗ Thanks, Mr. Mayor. The Council Services and Safety Committee met on Tuesday,

1:11:46 ↗ December 13th. We voted unanimously 2-0 to move forward the Arts Grant

1:11:52 ↗ Recommendations, Agenda Bill 7293, which is on regular business this evening. We

1:11:57 ↗ also received a report from the Economic Vitality Commission, which has been

1:12:03 ↗ very busy indeed. sound cities association public issues committee did not meet in

1:12:09 ↗ december uh also on tuesday december 13th was king county growth management policy council gmpc

1:12:15 ↗ which county council member lambert and i both serve on and it was uh

1:12:21 ↗ There was not a big check involved. There was a big lump of coal for

1:12:27 ↗ Carnation, Covington, North Bend, and Suquamish who have conditional certification at the moment. And it

1:12:33 ↗ was thought that a... path forward had been identified and then it was realized that

1:12:38 ↗ a path forward had not been identified and there will be further conversations and there

1:12:43 ↗ are substantive conversations that we should be aware of because it has to do with

1:12:48 ↗ growth and it has to do with uh the targets king county has targets of

1:12:52 ↗ course and uh our friends in gmpb uh are involved in uh implementing vision 2040

1:12:57 ↗ which uh figures how to manage those targets. And some cities have viewed those

1:13:03 ↗ targets as floors. I believe our city has at times viewed those targets

1:13:09 ↗ as floors. And I think there's a strong case actually that the language

1:13:14 ↗ of King County's, these philosophical concepts that we use, I think the language supports actually

1:13:20 ↗ a floor, but it's really a conversation about as growth happens in King County, can

1:13:25 ↗ cities exceed these targets? Where do we want growth to occur if it is in

1:13:29 ↗ fact exceeding the targets? I mean, if businesses are coming in, and we have this

1:13:34 ↗ nice plan for how many businesses we want to have come into King County and

1:13:38 ↗ in fact twice that is coming in what do we want to do about that

1:13:42 ↗ so I don't know if we're going to get that solved by February but GMPC

1:13:46 ↗ is going to take up this issue again in February and we certainly hope to

1:13:50 ↗ have something that those four cities can use a little bit further to guide their

1:13:54 ↗ their ongoing growth And then finally the regional E911 strategic plan scoping leadership group

1:14:00 ↗ that Councilmember Lambert and I also both serve on is of course meeting next

1:14:06 ↗ in January 19th. And it's going to be the leadership group governance, the leadership

1:14:12 ↗ group, which is a subgroup of the working committee, which I would not make

1:14:18 ↗ this too esoteric, is going to be presenting a draft of the governance model, which

1:14:23 ↗ is important for how E911 system would be governed and how, of course, we as

1:14:28 ↗ having a regional PSAP, that's important to us and it's important to all the residents

1:14:33 ↗ on how E911 will get implemented. So I'll be excited about that and of course

1:14:38 ↗ I will be discussing it further with council. That concludes my report. Thank you. Eileen

1:14:43 ↗ Barber. Thank you, Mayor. A final report for King Conservation District, Asmeriah,

1:14:48 ↗ will be taking over that. But this is very good news. They have

1:14:54 ↗ resolved some litigation that they have been in. And due to this litigation,

1:15:00 ↗ there was $1.4 million that can go towards four new programs. So they

1:15:06 ↗ are... First of them is an agricultural drainage assistance and this

1:15:12 ↗ will be $500,000 over three years to help maintain five miles of drainage

1:15:18 ↗ which will return at least 250 acres of farmland to active production and

1:15:24 ↗ improve another 250 acres. The next one will be Discovery

1:15:29 ↗ Farms demonstration project and this is private farms that enter into collaborative

1:15:35 ↗ agreements with the universities. This initiative will spend over $200,000 in three

1:15:41 ↗ years to create on-site, I lost it again, on-site production, especially food

1:15:47 ↗ production and increase the opportunity for farmers to develop necessary infrastructure to

1:15:53 ↗ support the farming business, the industry out there. The next one

1:15:59 ↗ is a small lot forest management and fire protection. These projects utilize

1:16:05 ↗ $500,000 to assist small lot forest owners to implement firewise practices. The

1:16:11 ↗ project will utilize and cooperate cooperative approach encouraging small landowners in King

1:16:16 ↗ County to work together to take advantage of the economy of scales.

1:16:26 ↗ And the last is the agriculture strategic plan. So that's $200,000 over three

1:16:31 ↗ years to support the development of agricultural strategic productive farming lands. The plan

1:16:37 ↗ will support the improvement of production lands and bring more acres into production.

1:16:43 ↗ And that's my report. Thank you. Mary Lou Pauley. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

1:16:49 ↗ Just a clarification, Paul, on the EFER one. The information we saw the other

1:16:55 ↗ day was from preliminary information that will be included in a report at some point

1:17:00 ↗ would be issued. My understanding was that the historical research that they had done, I

1:17:06 ↗ agree with you, it was an interesting approach that they did. I did not hear

1:17:10 ↗ that EFRA would be additionally investigating that, but that is something that we can see

1:17:15 ↗ when they issue their report. I'm not sure. All I heard was that they were

1:17:19 ↗ identifying it. So that's something we would see when it comes out. I had two

1:17:24 ↗ committees to report on. Land insurers next meeting is January 5th, 2017. There

1:17:30 ↗ are five items on the agenda. First being a moratorium update. The second

1:17:36 ↗ being an information session discussion on amending DSD permit fees. The third item,

1:17:42 ↗ which is for action, is the majority of the comp plan amendments that were being

1:17:47 ↗ reviewed during 2016. One section of the amendments having to do with capital facilities planning

1:17:52 ↗ and rate studies is going to come to a second January meeting, so we're going

1:17:57 ↗ to pull apart a couple items and we think we need two meetings to get

1:18:02 ↗ through all of it. Fourth item on the agenda will be the ninth major amendment

1:18:08 ↗ to the Issaquah Highlands two-party DA and this is to do with the transfer of

1:18:13 ↗ development units and the development agreement with Polygon. That is supposed to be through the

1:18:18 ↗ Land and Shore in January and back to Council either the second meeting in January

1:18:23 ↗ or the first meeting in February for a review and a decision. Last item will

1:18:28 ↗ be the Gilman Lofts development agreement and that is coming to the Land

1:18:34 ↗ and Shore Committee with a transportation recommendation from staff on the south leg

1:18:40 ↗ of the Three Tails intersection which I think has also been discussed at

1:18:46 ↗ the Infrastructure Committee. The other report is I was not able to attend

1:18:52 ↗ this month's Eastside Fire and Rescue update at the FAC, Finance and Administration

1:18:58 ↗ Committee. But we did have staff representative there, Jen Olsen represented the city and the

1:19:03 ↗ one item that was discussed was the exempt policy number 2025. It's been in committee

1:19:09 ↗ for a couple of touches. And basically, the discussion this time was around the deputy

1:19:14 ↗ chief's salary compression issue that has been identified over the last several years, as well

1:19:19 ↗ as a discussion on performance pay. And this, I believe, is going to be coming

1:19:24 ↗ back to the board in 2017. And that's the end of my report. CLARE DUDA:

1:19:29 ↗ Thank you. Stacy Goodman. STACY GOODMAN: No report. CLARE DUDA: Thank you for the mayor's

1:19:34 ↗ report. You heard some comments about the senior center as we

1:19:39 ↗ prepare for a seamless transition of services. We have two scheduled

1:19:45 ↗ meetings this month. One has already been held where parks and

1:19:51 ↗ rec staff were introduced to the mayors. to the members

1:19:57 ↗ and tomorrow I will host to meet the mayors there to

1:20:03 ↗ make a number of remarks and to provide an opportunity for

1:20:08 ↗ specific feedback. The other item I'd like to, I'm proud

1:20:14 ↗ to announce that Warren Kagari, the city's communications coordinator, recently co-authored

1:20:19 ↗ an article that was published in the Public Administration Review titled

1:20:25 ↗ "Social Media: How One City Opens the Evidence Black Box." The

1:20:31 ↗ article covers how Issaquah developed, implemented, and now continually evaluates its

1:20:36 ↗ social media program. And the only other item I have is

1:20:42 ↗ there will not be an executive session this evening. Moving now

1:20:48 ↗ to the consent calendar, I'd ask if the payables and payroll

1:20:53 ↗ dated 19 December 2016 have been reviewed? They have. They have.

1:20:59 ↗ Thank you. With that, I'd ask the clerk to read into

1:21:05 ↗ the record the consent calendar. The consent calendar was distributed to council in advance for

1:21:10 ↗ study. If authorized, council action will occur by single motion regarding the following items. Item

1:21:15 ↗ A seeks approval of the accounts, payables, and payroll of December 19th. Items B through

1:21:20 ↗ D seeks approval of the minutes of the council budget work sessions of November 29th

1:21:25 ↗ and December 3rd and the regular meeting of December 5th. Item E, AB 7001, amendments

1:21:31 ↗ to Issaquah Municipal Code 18.10 wetland rating system, seeks to adopt ordinance.

1:21:36 ↗ If adopted, it will be assigned number 2790. This concludes the reading.

1:21:42 ↗ Thank you. Does anyone desire to remove an item from the consent

1:21:48 ↗ calendar and consider it separately? Seeing none then,

1:21:53 ↗ Stacy Goodman. I would move to adopt the consent calendar as presented. Second. Moved

1:21:59 ↗ and seconded. All those in favor of adopting the consent calendar as submitted, signify

1:22:05 ↗ by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That carries unanimously. Moving now

1:22:10 ↗ to our next item of business. This is

1:22:16 ↗ a continuation of the public hearing and I

1:22:22 ↗ would, she's already here Jen. Welcome. You will

1:22:28 ↗ recall that the last time we considered this

1:22:34 ↗ we I will continue the hearing today, December the

1:22:39 ↗ 19th. And with that, I will, following Jen's presentation, open

1:22:45 ↗ the public hearing. Thank you, Mayor and Council Members. Tonight

1:22:51 ↗ is our last public hearing, and there is an ordinance

1:22:57 ↗ for your consideration for adopting the 2017 budget.

1:23:05 ↗ So the budget process started with an Agenda Bill 7243. That's the

1:23:11 ↗ 2017 budget. For this year, there were six budget workshops held in

1:23:17 ↗ 2016. The public hearing for the budget was opened on November 21,

1:23:23 ↗ continued to December 5, and then continued to tonight for the proposed

1:23:29 ↗ final budget adoption. The proposed 2017 budget provided from

1:23:34 ↗ the mayor in the beginning of October 2016 identified maintaining current levels of service

1:23:40 ↗ while there were important challenges that needed to be addressed through the budget and

1:23:46 ↗ the financial plan that it is, continued an investment in the city's capital assets,

1:23:51 ↗ and began to address operating impacts that are proposed for our

1:23:57 ↗ transitioning community. The recommended budget is on the city's website. You

1:24:03 ↗ can find that at isaquahua.gov, 2017 budget.

1:24:09 ↗ The budget was provided, also included city council goals and direction that continued from

1:24:15 ↗ previous years with a noted new work plan that was discussed between the council

1:24:21 ↗ and administration over the course of the budget development. One thing to note is

1:24:27 ↗ that in 2017, the community will go through a strategic planning process.

1:24:32 ↗ The council then provided priorities for their 2017 budget

1:24:38 ↗ that mainly were surrounding these three priorities: the overall

1:24:43 ↗ fiscal sustainability of the budget, moratorium work plan, and

1:24:49 ↗ transportation and traffic related needs. The city

1:24:55 ↗ council, through their deliberations process, provided some additions to the budget as well as

1:25:01 ↗ some reductions to the proposed budget. And those were in the areas of general

1:25:07 ↗ fund revenues for adjustments for DSD fees, some increase in sales tax for

1:25:12 ↗ B&O taxes and then a sale of fixed assets that we found to

1:25:18 ↗ be occurring from a closure that did not happen in 2016 but will

1:25:24 ↗ occur in 2017. There was some positions that were eliminated that had been

1:25:30 ↗ in the proposed budget. Those were that management analyst position and a public records clerk.

1:25:36 ↗ However, the administration will be bringing back those in mid-2017 for review.

1:25:42 ↗ There will be a start to work on the proposed classification and compensation study in

1:25:48 ↗ 2017 with a delay and to finish that study in 2018. The council added funds

1:25:54 ↗ for the mobility master planning effort to get that started as well as added funds

1:26:00 ↗ for the moratorium work plan. Other adjustments included some changes to the

1:26:05 ↗ proposed capital projects, eliminated some funding for Northwest Gilman Safety and Northwest Holley

1:26:11 ↗ Pedestrian Improvement projects. There were some added dollars for capital outlay for Complete

1:26:17 ↗ Streets with a request for a list of potential projects to come from

1:26:23 ↗ administration in 2017. for the Central Park project, a revision of the park

1:26:28 ↗ mitigation funds that were expected to come for that project until the bid alternates

1:26:34 ↗ are known. And then in the utility funds eliminated some long-term water treatment study

1:26:40 ↗ and plant design work until future date and added a new special revenue fund

1:26:46 ↗ for the school zone safety camera program. So some numbers. All funds

1:26:51 ↗ for all revenue types and sources were $125,493,000. The largest portion or

1:26:57 ↗ type of revenue source comes from charges for services. As you can

1:27:03 ↗ see in the pie chart, charges for services includes things like utility

1:27:09 ↗ rates, so that's those revenues come into those enterprise funds. And on the taxes,

1:27:15 ↗ which is the next largest source type, that's primarily in the general fund where we

1:27:21 ↗ record things like property tax, sales tax, and B&O tax. So that's revenue for all

1:27:27 ↗ funds. On the appropriation side, expenditures by type,

1:27:32 ↗ you can see that the largest type of expenditure is personnel, and that includes

1:27:38 ↗ salary and benefits in that category. The next largest category in all appropriations is

1:27:44 ↗ capital outlay, and that is for those projects that were identified in 2017, either

1:27:50 ↗ part of a larger project or the start of a new capital project.

1:27:57 ↗ Total expenditures were proposed to be $129,696,000. Because

1:28:02 ↗ personnel and benefits are the largest expenditure type,

1:28:08 ↗ just wanted to give a brief overview of

1:28:13 ↗ the full-time equivalents. As of the end of

1:28:18 ↗ 2016, would be a little over 267 positions.

1:28:24 ↗ The council did authorize new positions and those

1:28:29 ↗ 3.6 equivalent FTEs included positions for those capital

1:28:35 ↗ projects that are coming online. So the total

1:28:41 ↗ FTEs for 2017 is 271.125 FTEs.

1:28:47 ↗ Brief highlight on the capital projects that were included. The capital

1:28:53 ↗ outlay continued with some technology and software implementations and that's otherwise

1:28:58 ↗ known as the MUNIS implementation. Capital expenditures for fleet additions to

1:29:04 ↗ include some police vehicles and public works fleet. There's dollars

1:29:09 ↗ or the park projects included for Central Park, Pad 1, Confluence

1:29:15 ↗ Park, and Skate Park. Other capital projects on the transportation side

1:29:21 ↗ of things were for Southeast 62nd Street Extension, Newport Way Design,

1:29:27 ↗ Street overlay program continues and complete streets and that's where some additional dollars were

1:29:33 ↗ part of the council's deliberation. And then of course the South Cove Greenwood utility

1:29:39 ↗ annexation and the annual water sewer and stormwater improvement projects.

1:29:45 ↗ So if we look at the all funds appropriations by fund, you can see that

1:29:51 ↗ the general fund is the biggest fund. It is our largest operating fund. There are

1:29:56 ↗ a number of different capital funds for streets, utilities, and so that's why that makes

1:30:02 ↗ up that other expenditure type, but they're spread and they're tracked within different capital project

1:30:07 ↗ funds. So the general fund being the main operating fund, just wanted to take a

1:30:12 ↗ brief look at the general fund specifically. All sources for the general fund are

1:30:18 ↗ anticipated at $42,600,000. The largest type of source in the general fund comes from

1:30:24 ↗ taxes and that's 68% so that is heavily weighted there with regards to types

1:30:30 ↗ of source for the general fund that includes the property tax, sales tax, B&O

1:30:36 ↗ tax and utility taxes. The property tax levy

1:30:42 ↗ was set by the council for a 1% increase. That is the

1:30:47 ↗ max allowed by law. And that equates to $81,142 in increased property

1:30:53 ↗ taxes for a total general levy set at $8.4 million plus an

1:30:58 ↗ excess debt levy of about $1.6 million. That's based off the

1:31:04 ↗ 2017 King County assessed valuation, the latest number that the city had

1:31:10 ↗ received to base the levy and the tax rate on. So the

1:31:16 ↗ tax rate then is anticipated for 2017 to be $0.98 per $1,000

1:31:22 ↗ of assessed valuation for a property owner. That also then, just

1:31:28 ↗ to make note that the excess levy is $0.18 or almost $0.19 per $1,000

1:31:33 ↗ of assessed valuation for a property tax owner. So those two added together make

1:31:39 ↗ up the city's total tax rate. The property tax assessed valuation did

1:31:45 ↗ go up in 2017 about 6.5% and one might ask that how

1:31:50 ↗ come the tax rate is going down? It's large in part due

1:31:56 ↗ to the formula for property taxes in that property taxes were raised

1:32:01 ↗ about 1%. However, assessed valuations went up to 6.5 so it doesn't

1:32:07 ↗ necessarily balance out. Another impact or from a revenue side in the

1:32:13 ↗ general fund is that development services related fees are going down. That's primarily

1:32:18 ↗ due to what's in the project pipeline from a permitting an inspection standpoint

1:32:24 ↗ as well as the plan check fees and this is just some quick

1:32:30 ↗ historical information to show that there is a planned reduction in development service

1:32:36 ↗ revenues and also in part due to the moratorium work. And then

1:32:42 ↗ general fund expenditures, just to give an example of the types of

1:32:47 ↗ expenditures, but for law enforcement, that is the largest expenditure appropriations in

1:32:53 ↗ the general fund of a little over $10 million. Then we have

1:32:59 ↗ our Parks and Recreation divisions, a little over $8 million, fire protection

1:33:04 ↗ services over $6 million, and development services a little over $6 million

1:33:10 ↗ as well. And then we have our smaller departments in the general

1:33:16 ↗ fund that make up that total budget for 2017. And finally, the

1:33:22 ↗ general fund fund balance. The proposed ending fund balance for 2017

1:33:27 ↗ is just shy of about 15 million. Um, so what's expected

1:33:33 ↗ is about 14,953,000 to end the year 2017. Um, and just

1:33:39 ↗ as a comparison, the policy with regards to reserves, uh, the

1:33:45 ↗ red line shows the minimum amount required at 8% of expenditures.

1:33:50 ↗ The green line shows the maximum amount as required, 15% of expenditures. You see

1:33:56 ↗ that the general fund, ending fund balance is projected to be very healthy and

1:34:02 ↗ that was a council goal for overall financial stability is to make sure that

1:34:08 ↗ we were in good financial health for the end of the 2017 budget.

1:34:15 ↗ So with that, the final budget adoption steps are to receive

1:34:20 ↗ public testimony and consider the proposed ordinance that is in your

1:34:26 ↗ packet. And with that, I'd just like to say thank you for your patience as

1:34:32 ↗ I have started as the new finance director here. I'd like to say thank you

1:34:37 ↗ to Bob and Emily, the executive department, and Mayor Butler for welcoming me, the finance

1:34:43 ↗ team for being so supportive, and other departments for also being supportive as I jumped

1:34:49 ↗ into the budget. after it started, the budget process. Thank you to Beth Ann Rowe

1:34:54 ↗ for helping me so tremendously through this process and I'm very glad to be here.

1:35:00 ↗ So with that, I'll end my staff report. - Thank you. Are there any questions

1:35:06 ↗ of Janet this time? Seeing none then, oh wait. - Actually I do, but protocol

1:35:11 ↗ wise, should we do it as part of afterwards, after the public hearing? - I

1:35:17 ↗ think that-- - I'm gonna ask you to, Leave that document nearby. I'm going to

1:35:22 ↗ ask you to go back to some pages later on. So with

1:35:28 ↗ that, I'll open the public comment at 8:37. The same rules for

1:35:33 ↗ audience comments apply. And I would ask those who wish to speak

1:35:39 ↗ to come to the lectern, speak into the microphone. And with that,

1:35:45 ↗ I would ask, has anyone signed up to speak this evening? No

1:35:50 ↗ one has signed up to speak. Is there anyone who has

1:35:56 ↗ not signed up desiring to speak this evening? Yes, sir. Hi, Mayor, Council.

1:36:02 ↗ My name is Steve Pereira. I live at 170 Northeast Dogwood Street here

1:36:08 ↗ in Issaquah for about nine years now. So I guess my thoughts get

1:36:14 ↗ back to the Central Park planning. I understand that park mitigation fees are

1:36:20 ↗ being held out until further mitigation and bidding for those particular processes are

1:36:26 ↗ looked at. - Well that's fine, I guess my concern is in a larger

1:36:31 ↗ perspective it seems like there are more funds for that project that are gonna be

1:36:36 ↗ needed that were provided for in the recent park bond fund that was put forward.

1:36:41 ↗ So because of that it seems like there's gonna be an overage that's gonna be

1:36:46 ↗ needed provided from general funds. We had the recent Confluence Park pedestrian bridge. It also

1:36:51 ↗ had an overage that was budgeted that wasn't included in park funds. We had the

1:36:56 ↗ skate park that had initial fund came forward and then was increased because I think

1:37:01 ↗ the city council wanted to see something that met the needs of the public. And

1:37:05 ↗ this is where I give a shout out to Kathy Lambert for also providing some

1:37:10 ↗ King County funds for that project. So thank you for that. But overall, there seems

1:37:15 ↗ to be larger funds that are provided or being budgeted for that there are lots

1:37:20 ↗ of needs that could be met for city park and park and roll bike and

1:37:26 ↗ pedestrian traffic, upcoming PFAS funds that could be used. It seems like it's better to

1:37:31 ↗ say at some point we can't fund everything that we provided for and it's better

1:37:37 ↗ to say no to some products upfront and not yes, so because of that, it

1:37:43 ↗ seems like the Central Pad project is too big of a project for what the

1:37:47 ↗ priorities that the city has said, and I think we need to scale back and

1:37:52 ↗ say no rather than bidding projects and have them come back potentially at a higher

1:37:57 ↗ cost even more than what has been regulated. I also hear, I mean, obviously we

1:38:02 ↗ like parks and recreation because they are places where youth can learn about teamwork and

1:38:07 ↗ camaraderie and friendship and all those things that we as a public admire. So while

1:38:12 ↗ I'm for those things, it seems too high of a cost. I also hear about

1:38:17 ↗ what is a PROST, the acronym Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails and those are

1:38:22 ↗ good things. I like it better when we can talk about those things and not

1:38:27 ↗ the acronym because with the acronym we lose the foundations of what those things are

1:38:33 ↗ and how they're relevant to the public. If we're spending that amount of funds for

1:38:38 ↗ this particular project, there are parts of this, parks in the city that are places

1:38:43 ↗ in the city that don't have parks now and the more we spend in general

1:38:48 ↗ funds for Pad 1, the less likely we are to have parks in parts of

1:38:53 ↗ the city that don't have parks now. So keep pressing forward with parks, recreation, open

1:38:58 ↗ space and trails, prioritizing what the needs of the city as a whole are. The

1:39:03 ↗ other related thought was I know the Arts Commission funds are being reviewed

1:39:09 ↗ today and will be approved I would like to see and I know it's

1:39:15 ↗ probably not reasonable but everything in the in the Arts Fund that isn't part

1:39:20 ↗ of community gathering activities such as Shakespeare in the park or concerts in the

1:39:26 ↗ park I'd like to see that money reallocated to better use here in Isgoi

1:39:34 ↗ While those are good things, maybe we could take a one-year moratorium on

1:39:40 ↗ arts projects and use those funds more wisely. Thank you. - Thank you,

1:39:45 ↗ Steve. Is there anyone else desiring to speak this evening who has not

1:39:51 ↗ signed up? Anyone else? Third and final call. Seeing no

1:39:57 ↗ one, then the public hearing is closed

1:40:02 ↗ at 8:42. With that, Stacey Goodwin? I'm

1:40:07 ↗ going to make a motion. I would

1:40:13 ↗ move to adopt ordinance number- 2791. adopting

1:40:18 ↗ the final budget of the city for the fiscal year

1:40:24 ↗ commencing January 1, 2017, and creating a school zone safety

1:40:30 ↗ fund. Second. Moved and seconded. Discussion on the motion? I

1:40:36 ↗ have a couple of corrections I'd like to note in

1:40:42 ↗ the ordinance. But I guess we can discuss later if

1:40:48 ↗ we need to amend the motion, but we can probably

1:40:54 ↗ just simply amend it by noting a couple of

1:41:00 ↗ the corrections. In the one, two, third whereas,

1:41:05 ↗ it talked about workshops. We actually had work

1:41:11 ↗ sessions. And in the fourth whereas, it says

1:41:16 ↗ on December 3rd, the council deliberated the final

1:41:21 ↗ adjustments and I think it was December 12th

1:41:27 ↗ we deliberated the final adjustments. That's what I

1:41:32 ↗ have. Thanks. - You'll call those Scrivener errors

1:41:37 ↗ and make those adjustments to the resolution. Questions

1:41:43 ↗ or discussion? Paul Winterstein. - Thank you, I want to make some general

1:41:49 ↗ comments. As Jen was flipping through those slides, you know there is a

1:41:54 ↗ novel behind every one of those pages. There really is. And if I

1:42:00 ↗ had just seen that presentation back in October, I wouldn't have known that

1:42:06 ↗ story. I mean, this council and the administration has put in quite an

1:42:12 ↗ effort. And I want to point out something, and there was an audience

1:42:17 ↗ comment tonight that I think was mentioned something significant. if everybody has seen the council

1:42:23 ↗ president's transmittal letter and where we talked about the changes to the proposed budget as

1:42:28 ↗ well. I think we capture, council president Goodman has captured in that something, and I'm

1:42:34 ↗ speaking as someone who for the last two years wrote those council president letters, and

1:42:39 ↗ I never captured, the kind of the the priorities and the intent the goals that

1:42:45 ↗ we were trying to achieve with our budget and we discussed that this year and

1:42:50 ↗ it became stronger than ever before in shaping i think the resultant budget we we

1:42:55 ↗ weighed measures relative to our priorities relative to our priorities and i think it's it's

1:43:01 ↗ good for the citizens to realize you know that we work that way it's all

1:43:06 ↗ very transparent it's all on camera And I think we've done a very

1:43:12 ↗ good job of capturing in this budget the intent of this legislative

1:43:18 ↗ body. And I was going to add one thing in particular, though, because

1:43:24 ↗ the discussion never really ends. And I've had a kind of a new insight on

1:43:29 ↗ something that I'm just going to share with the council really quick. It's not for

1:43:35 ↗ discussion or debate or anything. It's just maybe for next year. But Jen, if you're

1:43:41 ↗ still here, could you go to page 19 on your deck in this document? Yeah,

1:43:47 ↗ that one. So so that's one of our overriding or very powerful policies that

1:43:53 ↗ we're very keen to understand how well we're in compliance has to

1:43:58 ↗ do with assuring that we're approving expenditures out of the general fund

1:44:04 ↗ especially those that are ongoing expenditures such as the hiring of new

1:44:10 ↗ staff that those expenditures that we're adopting are covered as much as

1:44:16 ↗ possible by the incoming revenues for that same calendar year. So we budget, you

1:44:22 ↗ know, it's kind of cash based, it's year to year. And we've heard comments tonight,

1:44:27 ↗ it's in the letter too, about being, you know, having strong fiscally sound budget. And

1:44:33 ↗ I think that that is one of the key things that we do. But as

1:44:39 ↗ far as a policy that we enforce. And we had more conversation about, and it's

1:44:44 ↗ difficult to do, and it's all to make changes to the proposed expenditures in the

1:44:50 ↗ general budget. I think I find that very taxing, very difficult, but I think we

1:44:56 ↗ were very thoughtful and very deliberate and very open and had many conversations about these.

1:45:01 ↗ But this chart, the way, Jen, that you put it together, it struck me, if

1:45:06 ↗ you look at the amounts of the ending fund balance, one of the difficult things

1:45:11 ↗ that we're trying to do is... as is said in the letter and as part

1:45:16 ↗ of our policy, is not approve expenditures that will be ongoing year to year, which

1:45:21 ↗ we know are in excess of our incoming revenues. I've already said that. And if

1:45:26 ↗ we did that, then that blue line would start to go down. It would get

1:45:31 ↗ closer and closer to our policy, our min and max policy levels. which is not

1:45:36 ↗ a bad thing. I mean, we have those levels for a reason, and we're very,

1:45:40 ↗ very high in front of them. But it just occurs to me when you look

1:45:45 ↗ at it this way that I think there's a difference between a balanced budget and

1:45:50 ↗ then a deficit spending. We're not spending more than we have. We're spending what we

1:45:56 ↗ have plus what we take in. And if use of the general fund balance allows

1:46:01 ↗ us to kind of smooth out some curves, there will be reductions in revenues, there

1:46:07 ↗ will be higher expenses sometimes, sometimes one time, sometimes ongoing. Knowing that we've got this

1:46:13 ↗ reserve and that we can use it to kind of smooth out some of the

1:46:18 ↗ bumps, I know I'm on the long-term ad hoc finance committee, and I think that's

1:46:24 ↗ an area from a policy perspective, especially as we consider creating a strategic plan and

1:46:29 ↗ a framework to guide our budgeting next year, that I'm gonna bring back and to

1:46:35 ↗ have discussion with the council on how we can use this balance to perhaps think

1:46:40 ↗ and act a little bit longer term, and not only for ongoing expenses, but the

1:46:45 ↗ other thing that occurred to me when I looked at it this way as well

1:46:50 ↗ is that one of the things we did was not fund the contingency fund. And

1:46:56 ↗ taking a little bit out of that and stowing it away in the contingency fund,

1:47:01 ↗ I'm gonna wanna be talking about that next year as well because We have that

1:47:07 ↗ capacity and yet, and that's not an ongoing expenditure. It's putting

1:47:12 ↗ in a place where we limit on how we can use

1:47:18 ↗ it. So just this graph and showing the relative kind of magnitude

1:47:24 ↗ of our policy levels for min/max of ending fund balance and where

1:47:30 ↗ our current ending fund balance is, and I started thinking longer term

1:47:36 ↗ in our policy about managing expenses, I think has opened my mind

1:47:41 ↗ up to having additional conversations going forward on how we can look

1:47:47 ↗ longer term these funds. Thank you. - Any other comments? Seeing none

1:47:53 ↗ then, all those in favor of adopting ordinance number 2791, adopting the final

1:47:59 ↗ budget of the city for the fiscal year commencing January 1st, 2017, and creating

1:48:05 ↗ the school zone funds signify by saying aye. - Aye. - Those opposed? That

1:48:11 ↗ carries unanimously. - Mayor Butler? - Yes. - I just want to make one

1:48:17 ↗ other comment as well. - Go ahead. - You'll notice that in the establishment

1:48:23 ↗ of that school camera, School Zone Camera Fund. There's been a lot

1:48:28 ↗ of discussion over the years about the collection of revenues from speed cameras

1:48:34 ↗ in school zones. And what the city, what we've done with that fund

1:48:40 ↗ is we're committing the funds collected from the speed camera to be to

1:48:45 ↗ two be used in the future toward traffic education safety improvements rather than it

1:48:51 ↗ going in the general fund where it can be used in really any way

1:48:57 ↗ so that special fund is assuring that those revenues that we're collecting have to

1:49:02 ↗ do with education and safety related to traffic and mobility within the city and

1:49:08 ↗ i think that's a very unique and commendable transparent way to demonstrate that We

1:49:14 ↗ realize the purpose for those cameras and what we're trying to do and we want

1:49:19 ↗ to make sure that we get the best possible outcome with the funds that we

1:49:25 ↗ collect for those cameras. And I think I just want to point that out and

1:49:31 ↗ I'm proud of this council for having established that new precedent. Thank you for that

1:49:37 ↗ comment. Moving now to agenda bill 7293, 2017. Arts Grant Recommendations. This

1:49:43 ↗ is coming back from Services and Safety. And I

1:49:49 ↗ believe they requested a staff presentation to queue this

1:49:54 ↗ up for action. Amy Dukes, our arts coordinator. Thank

1:50:00 ↗ you. I am not wearing my glasses. I'm just

1:50:05 ↗ not helping. Oh, it's that. Looks like you dialed

1:50:11 ↗ a friend there, Amy. Great. Thank you. Thank

1:50:17 ↗ you, Mr. Mayor and Council. I'm here tonight just to bring

1:50:22 ↗ forth the recommendations from the Arts Commission for the 2017 Arts

1:50:28 ↗ Grants. And I presented at services earlier last week. Just a

1:50:33 ↗ reminder, these grants are funded through the Municipal Arts Fund, which

1:50:39 ↗ is a special revenue fund and which comes from admissions tax,

1:50:45 ↗ primarily from our movie theaters. And I don't know

1:50:50 ↗ how to get rid of that. So what you have before you

1:50:56 ↗ in terms of the recommendations are 33 grants that total $195,100. We

1:51:02 ↗ did receive over $300,000 in requests this year, which was a record

1:51:07 ↗ high and made for a challenging grant panel. The recommendations include 24

1:51:13 ↗ grants to nonprofit arts and community organizations, which is about 93% of the

1:51:19 ↗ recommendations, and then nine grants to Issaquah school district schools. And just I wanted

1:51:25 ↗ to point out that 97% of the funding is going to local Issaquah organizations.

1:51:32 ↗ And then just to give you an idea of what types of things these

1:51:38 ↗ fund, this pie chart just shows the types of programs that we're supporting. There's

1:51:44 ↗ really a huge range of activities, lots of community festivals, celebrations, performing arts, all

1:51:50 ↗ that are free to the community. And really a lot of different programs that

1:51:56 ↗ reach seniors, students, lots of special populations. And

1:52:02 ↗ then I just wanted to give you an overall estimated participation for these grants. About

1:52:07 ↗ 400,000 residents, visitors, and students, teachers will be served through these projects. There will be

1:52:13 ↗ about 2,500 volunteers that will be involved in these projects. And it really equates to

1:52:19 ↗ about 400 events and performances throughout 2017. So it has quite a large impact.

1:52:26 ↗ And that is all I have, but I'm happy to

1:52:31 ↗ answer questions. Are there questions to Amy? Seeing none then,

1:52:37 ↗ Polo Bartz. Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the 2017

1:52:42 ↗ Arts Grant Award recommendations as presented for a total expenditure

1:52:48 ↗ of $195,100. Second. Moved and seconded. Questions or discussion?

1:52:55 ↗ Small little -- thank you for that presentation, Amy. And just looking at

1:53:00 ↗ the table in our packet, the attachment in the table, I note that

1:53:06 ↗ in most cases the actual grant recommendation is some percentage, not 100%. Maybe

1:53:11 ↗ in a few cases it's 100% of the actual request. But there's a

1:53:17 ↗ couple where it's actually a little bit larger, not by a lot. Is

1:53:23 ↗ that intentional or is there some Scribner error in these as well? Is

1:53:28 ↗ there one in particular that you're -- Yeah, I know I just had it and

1:53:33 ↗ I just lost it. So I apologize. The Pacific Northwest animal -- We're not talking

1:53:38 ↗ a lot. But I just noticed they clearly had some formula. But then you look

1:53:42 ↗ at the Izaquah singers where they asked for 2,000 and we're granting them 2,200. I

1:53:47 ↗ just wondered if that was just a typo. No, actually I think there was

1:53:53 ↗ just a lot of enthusiasm for that project because there's so many volunteers and

1:53:58 ↗ because they provide everything free and they serve our senior population by going to

1:54:04 ↗ all of our local senior living facilities and bringing joy. That's great. And

1:54:10 ↗ also I should note their budget was much larger than what they were requesting

1:54:16 ↗ and they did have a gap. They still had a need beyond what they

1:54:21 ↗ were requesting. I'm glad you were able to do that. Thank you. Other questions

1:54:27 ↗ or discussion? Just a question. Was this an increase over what you had seen

1:54:33 ↗ in terms of grant application numbers from - The numbers of grant applications

1:54:39 ↗ were slightly larger, but the requested dollar amount was quite a lot larger. -

1:54:44 ↗ Thank you. bill and i just want to mention being on on the committee uh

1:54:50 ↗ there that we we question whether this should be on consent or not and i

1:54:54 ↗ just wanted to make sure we pushed to make sure it was here on general

1:54:58 ↗ business this is a great thing we want to get people noting what what events

1:55:01 ↗ are happening maybe they can encourage to take place a little more you know take

1:55:05 ↗ part a little more in those things and see the kind of things that we're

1:55:09 ↗ doing here that uh really involving the community and so forth as some of our

1:55:12 ↗ comments have made so uh appreciate all the work done amy thank you Thank you

1:55:17 ↗ for that background. Other questions or discussion? Seeing none, then all

1:55:23 ↗ those in favor of approving the 2017 Art Grant Award recommendations

1:55:28 ↗ as presented for a total expenditure of $195,100 signify by saying

1:55:34 ↗ aye. Aye. Opposed? That carries unanimously. Thank you. Moving. Thank you,

1:55:39 ↗ Amy. Moving now to agenda bill 7196, Silverado Development

1:55:45 ↗ Agreement. This is coming back from the Land and Services

1:55:51 ↗ Committee, Councilmember Pauley. I'm assuming that Christopher Wright of DSD

1:55:57 ↗ is going to kick it off and provide a briefing

1:56:03 ↗ on what this is all about. So Christopher. I will

1:56:09 ↗ thank you Mr. Mayor, Council. Hello everyone. Happy Wayne Tanaka Day. I didn't

1:56:15 ↗ think I'd ever put those words in one sentence together. Tonight the administration

1:56:21 ↗ is asking that you approve the resolution to direct the Mayor to sign

1:56:26 ↗ the development agreement with Silverado here's a

1:56:32 ↗ description of the project it's a it's a site that's a little less than 22

1:56:37 ↗ acres and is currently zoned single family estates and we're entering into the development agreement

1:56:43 ↗ because what is proposed is a clustered development and the plot will include a

1:56:48 ↗ maximum of 20 dwelling units which will include two parcels that will be dedicated to

1:56:54 ↗ the city for future affordable housing units. It includes a bridge, trail easements, and a

1:56:59 ↗ significant portion of the site as a native growth protection easement.

1:57:05 ↗ This aerial photo shows the vicinity of and where that project is located. It's on

1:57:11 ↗ the east side of SR 900, basically directly across the street from the entrance to

1:57:17 ↗ TALIS. It's surrounded by a single family residence and it does have the Squawk Mountain

1:57:23 ↗ Nursery to the north. And

1:57:28 ↗ we are recommending approval of the development agreement because we do feel it

1:57:34 ↗ meets the purposes and intent of a cluster development including the purpose listed

1:57:40 ↗ here which is achieving a maximum allowable density on a development while preserving

1:57:46 ↗ critical areas and other open space. which this development will, provides common usable

1:57:51 ↗ and native forested open space within the cluster development that are not part of platted

1:57:56 ↗ lots. And I'll show you the plot plan and how we're achieving that. Encourage affordable

1:58:02 ↗ housing through provisions of smaller lots. We're achieving affordable housing in a couple

1:58:08 ↗ of different ways here. One is, again, just by the nature of clustering

1:58:13 ↗ and creating smaller lots versus creating larger estate lots. But also, as I

1:58:19 ↗ mentioned, we're also setting aside two lots for specifically affordable housing. And then

1:58:25 ↗ finally, provide a more efficient arrangement of structures, providing services and infrastructure.

1:58:33 ↗ This is the the general site plan for the development agreement and basically just if

1:58:39 ↗ I can explain what this shows the areas in white here and here those are

1:58:45 ↗ the developable areas of the site so the 20 units that are allowed on the

1:58:50 ↗ site will be clustered within these two areas. This is the location of the bridge

1:58:56 ↗ that will cross Tibbetts Creek. And then all of the hatched area will

1:59:02 ↗ be preserved as permanent open space. And that's the area that, as I mentioned,

1:59:08 ↗ is the native growth protection easement, but will also allow future trail connections as

1:59:13 ↗ well with that relocatable trail easement that you see referenced in the development agreement.

1:59:22 ↗ And then finally this this project has certainly evolved over time. You may recall about

1:59:28 ↗ a year and a half ago the first proposal was for an actual assisted care

1:59:34 ↗ facility a building on the site that required a code amendment which was not approved

1:59:40 ↗ last year. And then earlier this year when the development agreement application

1:59:45 ↗ first came in, what was proposed was basically a clustering of duplex units

1:59:51 ↗ that would be used for senior adult family homes. Now all of that

1:59:57 ↗ has gone away and now senior housing is no longer a portion of

2:00:02 ↗ this development agreement and now it is just a straightforward residential single-family plat,

2:00:08 ↗ albeit clustered. And so I wanted to just point out, there's been a lot of

2:00:14 ↗ little changes to the development agreement, but I wanted to point out some of the

2:00:18 ↗ more notable ones that have happened over that. This project went to the Land and

2:00:23 ↗ Shore Committee three different times. And so these are changes that came out of those

2:00:27 ↗ meetings since you all last saw it. The first one was a clarification that the

2:00:32 ↗ pedestrian and vehicle bridge that crosses Tibbets Creek will be built by the owner, by

2:00:38 ↗ the developer, and then maintained by the homeowners association. The second is again what

2:00:43 ↗ I showed you was a simplified plan just showing the buildable area because the earlier

2:00:49 ↗ version that you may recall actually showed the lot lines and a storm detention vault

2:00:54 ↗ and a lot of other things that didn't need to be there. So we've simplified

2:00:59 ↗ the plan just showing where the buildable area is and then where the open space

2:01:05 ↗ will be. The area outside of the buildable areas I just mentioned will be a

2:01:10 ↗ native growth protection easement. which will be owned by the homeowners association but will include

2:01:15 ↗ the recreational trail easements dedicated to the city. So there was some discussion within Land

2:01:21 ↗ and Shore on whether the native growth protection easement, whether that land should be dedicated

2:01:26 ↗ to the city or whether it should be continued to be privately owned and where

2:01:31 ↗ we landed is that it should be owned by the homeowners association but again with

2:01:37 ↗ the easements for the city. And there was much

2:01:42 ↗ discussion about the relocatable trail easement and we further have defined that and in attachment

2:01:48 ↗ three shows where we landed with that. And I think it's important to note in

2:01:54 ↗ addition to the refinement that we've done so far that the final trail easement language

2:02:00 ↗ will come back to the city council for approval when we get to that point

2:02:06 ↗ in our review of the preliminary plat application. Since you

2:02:12 ↗ last saw it, the total number of dwelling units that is being proposed as part

2:02:17 ↗ of this development agreement was reduced from 22 to 20 and that was basically, that

2:02:23 ↗ was based on a more detailed calculation of the density credit transfer out of the

2:02:28 ↗ land use code where we determined that you could only get 20 units there at

2:02:33 ↗ maximum density given the critical areas on the site. And then finally a confirmation that

2:02:39 ↗ the plat will not be exempt from the moratorium during the course of the land

2:02:44 ↗ and shore review. At one point there was a proposal to exempt this from the

2:02:49 ↗ moratorium, but the recommendation that we're making is that it not be exempt. And so

2:02:54 ↗ the next steps for this project would be once the moratorium is lifted,

2:03:00 ↗ they would be able to apply for a preliminary plat application, which would

2:03:06 ↗ go through a public hearing process to the city's hearing examiner and then

2:03:12 ↗ enter into construction permits after that. And that concludes my presentation, but I'm

2:03:18 ↗ available for questions. Just wanted clarification. So I didn't hear you

2:03:23 ↗ say this, so apologize if I missed it. I think it's important to

2:03:29 ↗ point out that this is not a, the development agreement is required for

2:03:35 ↗ this type of clustered arrangement for five acres and larger. That's right. So

2:03:41 ↗ this is not a development agreement that is a request just

2:03:47 ↗ just because they want one. This is required under the code for

2:03:52 ↗ this type of an arrangement. And so I think two important aspects

2:03:58 ↗ are that it's required and also that it's not vested. They cannot

2:04:04 ↗ build under the old codes. Thank you for that explanation. Mayor Lupali.

2:04:10 ↗ I'll make a motion. Approve resolution number 2016-20. Authorizing the mayor to

2:04:15 ↗ execute the Silverado Development Agreement. Second. Chair Jerry Cook: Moved and seconded. Questions or

2:04:21 ↗ discussion? Mary Lou? Mary Lou: That was a really good summary, Christopher. This project has

2:04:26 ↗ been around for over two years in many different forms. Just a few notes. This

2:04:31 ↗ one is not in the central Issaquah area. So this is south and this would

2:04:36 ↗ normally be covered by our normal code. The moratorium exemption was discussed at length at

2:04:41 ↗ the last Land and Shore. The developer had asked to put it in to have

2:04:45 ↗ us consider it. It's something that we all should be talking about tonight as well

2:04:50 ↗ because while the moratorium is on, there will be other development proposed development agreements requesting

2:04:55 ↗ the same thing. So this has got a significant amount of discussion and whether or

2:04:59 ↗ not you think it's appropriate or it should be put back in is a good

2:05:04 ↗ question to talk about. And then I just had a little question, Christopher, and after

2:05:08 ↗ our last land and shore meeting, there were going to be a few more little

2:05:12 ↗ language tweaks. And in the version that we had, it was kind of hard to

2:05:16 ↗ see where they are. So some of them were small. The one that I'm interested

2:05:20 ↗ in you pointing out is adding a clause that the development agreement does not vest

2:05:25 ↗ the project to any code amendments that are made based on the moratorium. Can you

2:05:29 ↗ show us where that is in the -- what language is?

2:05:35 ↗ The other two edits that were done was there was a cleanup

2:05:40 ↗ replacing the word applicant with owner and the last one was they

2:05:46 ↗ also amended the definition of how the relocatable trail easement will work.

2:05:52 ↗ So those were, these wording edits were not something that we reviewed

2:05:57 ↗ at Land and Shore. They are new in the document you're seeing

2:06:03 ↗ today. Give me a moment. The vesting's in paragraph 10. It's the

2:06:08 ↗ vesting in paragraph 10. About halfway down. Owner shall not be vested,

2:06:14 ↗ however, against any changes in regulations enacted by the city in response to the development

2:06:19 ↗ moratorium imposed by the city of Issaquah ordinance number 2778, including but not limited to

2:06:24 ↗ regulations concerning architectural review and urban design elements, affordable housing, mixed use parking, and the

2:06:29 ↗ vision for each zoning district. And then I had a question about that. Thank you,

2:06:33 ↗ Stacey, for reading that. I guess, Christopher, the question was that under the housing then,

2:06:38 ↗ if there were to be an affordable housing target that was different, this development

2:06:44 ↗ agreement would go with what is outlined in here, even though they may

2:06:50 ↗ not plat or develop until after the moratorium. Right. Basically, that would be

2:06:56 ↗ a possible scenario. And I think when there was a discussion about whether this development

2:07:02 ↗ agreement should be exempt from the moratorium or not, that was the big question is

2:07:07 ↗ what if we do change something in the code amendments as a result of the

2:07:12 ↗ moratorium that would affect this. And one of the main reasons for not exempting it

2:07:17 ↗ was just in case something like that, a code amendment like that does happen. And

2:07:23 ↗ where's the other language, the part that

2:07:28 ↗ was the better clear definition of the

2:07:34 ↗ relocatable trail? Yeah, so go to the

2:07:40 ↗ website. 6B. 4. 4, third paragraph. And

2:07:46 ↗ are you looking at it in track

2:07:52 ↗ changes, Stacy, or no? No. Okay. Regional

2:07:57 ↗ trail easement. So you want to go

2:08:03 ↗ to that one section specifically about the...

2:08:09 ↗ Just curious what the edit was since

2:08:15 ↗ we don't have it in track changes.

2:08:20 ↗ Okay.

2:08:28 ↗ There was a lot of discussion about that last time,

2:08:33 ↗ but I'm not really clear what changed. There it is.

2:08:39 ↗ You passed it. It was in the vesting section, wasn't

2:08:45 ↗ it? I thought it was regional trail easement. All the

2:08:51 ↗ email notes says better clear definition of how the relocatable

2:08:56 ↗ trail easement will work both in the DA and in

2:09:02 ↗ the sample recreational trail easement document. Yeah, basically this is

2:09:08 ↗ the section that you're referring to that talks about

2:09:13 ↗ that it's vested to land use codes, environmental codes, municipal

2:09:19 ↗ code regulations, but not vested to international building code and

2:09:25 ↗ then also different regulations that may come out of the

2:09:31 ↗ moratorium. I think our city attorney's leaning forward towards the

2:09:37 ↗ mic to speak to this question. Yes, Councilmember Pauley, if you're

2:09:43 ↗ looking for the, I know we didn't do it in track changes in terms of

2:09:48 ↗ the relocated trail easement, but the language you're looking for, I think is on page

2:09:54 ↗ two, bottom of the page where it talks about regional trail easement. The first sentence

2:10:00 ↗ is basically the same as was in the previous agreement. And then the new language

2:10:06 ↗ starts and it goes through to the next page and to the words

2:10:12 ↗ as provided in this section on the next page and that I think the

2:10:18 ↗ remainder is pretty much as it was in the previous document. So we did

2:10:24 ↗ insert language that was about the, how the relocatable trail would work.

2:10:30 ↗ The preliminary location would be established with the preliminary plat and

2:10:36 ↗ then we will be allowed to relocate that at some point

2:10:42 ↗ in the future. That language is also reflected in the trail

2:10:48 ↗ easement itself on page 269 of your packet. It is section

2:10:54 ↗ six of the relocatable trail easement. So the language is

2:11:00 ↗ laid out in fair detail in that part as well. Okay. And I think

2:11:05 ↗ that was to address the concern that the language we were looking at last

2:11:11 ↗ landed shore still was not quite clear enough to understand what the intent was.

2:11:16 ↗ So just reading what you pointed out as new makes a lot more sense

2:11:22 ↗ than what we saw at the committee. That's great. Other questions or discussion? A

2:11:28 ↗ couple questions. Just to clarify again, when you get back and forth on what's

2:11:34 ↗ vested and not vested, I'm not sure I followed that exactly. So I heard

2:11:40 ↗ you say that it's not vested against any changes from the moratorium, but that

2:11:46 ↗ it is vested in some items. Right. Yeah. The land use code, development standards,

2:11:52 ↗ environmental regulations, the municipal code, OK, so if any of those

2:11:57 ↗ things change from the municipal code, it could change from the moratorium, right? I'm getting

2:12:03 ↗ a little-- Well, there's-- yeah, there's the-- is it five things specifically listed in the

2:12:09 ↗ moratorium that are going to be addressed over the next year? Yeah, if any of

2:12:15 ↗ those affect this development, those changes would not be vested. So they would have to

2:12:21 ↗ adhere to those new regulations that come out of the moratorium code amendments. - And

2:12:26 ↗ affordable housing? Statement on that was? It wouldn't apply to this development. The affordable housing

2:12:31 ↗ component would be as described in this agreement. It wouldn't change. I'd stick with the

2:12:36 ↗ two. I'm just trying to clarify what's what. I've got another question, but I'll come

2:12:41 ↗ back. But if we were to change the code to require more after the moratorium,

2:12:45 ↗ this agreement would not change. It would stay as it is. That's not what it

2:12:50 ↗ says. That's not quite correct. That's what

2:12:56 ↗ I'm trying to figure out. I'm a little clear. Okay. If you turn

2:13:02 ↗ to page 257 of your packet, section 10 of the development agreement, It

2:13:08 ↗ says that owner shall not be vested against any changes in regulations enacted by

2:13:13 ↗ the city in response to the development moratorium imposed by the moratorium ordinance. And

2:13:19 ↗ then it says including but not limited to. So any changes to any regulations, not

2:13:25 ↗ just to the five subjects here, they would not be vested to by virtue of

2:13:31 ↗ this agreement. So any changes you make in response to the moratorium, they are going

2:13:36 ↗ to have to comply with. And the affordable housing is specifically listed here because it

2:13:42 ↗ was one of the things that you mentioned in the moratorium. So they would have

2:13:48 ↗ to comply with that. - Thank you, that's the way I thought it read and

2:13:53 ↗ that's why I was confused. - That's the way I drafted it. Hopefully, Mr. Christopher

2:13:57 ↗ and I agree that that's what it's supposed to be. - So any of those

2:14:02 ↗ changes, whatever it is, they have to-- - They do apply. - Great. One more

2:14:07 ↗ question or somebody else? - Go ahead, Bill. - Getting into SEPA a little bit,

2:14:11 ↗ and we'll flash back here to where we were. Talks about mitigated SEPA, and so

2:14:16 ↗ that tells me there's something in there. that there are some concerns, but I don't

2:14:21 ↗ get much detail anywhere because there's no SEPA anywhere. The best I've got is under

2:14:26 ↗ SEPA compliance. It talks about required to include evaluation of critical area impacts, traffic, and

2:14:32 ↗ other applicable SEPA elements. So it's telling me we've got some mitigation that must occur,

2:14:37 ↗ but I'm... - Sir, what do we know about that? - Well basically there was

2:14:43 ↗ a SEPA determination that was done just for the development agreement that addressed the issues

2:14:48 ↗ that are in the development agreement which basically is just the clustering of the units.

2:14:53 ↗ But then another SEPA review and determination will have to be made with the preliminary

2:14:58 ↗ plat application when we know more about the impacts to the critical areas and the

2:15:02 ↗ buffers and we know how the lots are gonna be laid out and more about

2:15:07 ↗ the bridge crossing. So there'll be SEPA done with the preliminary plat as well. -

2:15:11 ↗ Okay, so there's more SEPA coming and you know at least there's those issues, those

2:15:15 ↗ three listed that you're definitely gonna have to deal with and that'll be a totally

2:15:19 ↗ separate decision. So some other decision from there could affect this. - Right. - Okay,

2:15:23 ↗ great, thank you. Thank you. Just wanted clarity

2:15:29 ↗ on, I know that it's no longer a senior living

2:15:35 ↗ facility, but the entity is Silverado Senior Living Holdings. So

2:15:41 ↗ is there no intent for that use as was originally

2:15:46 ↗ visioned, as originally proposed? This is just residential housing and I

2:15:52 ↗ can answer that market rate oh you can correct me if I'm wrong but it's

2:15:57 ↗ my understanding that Silverado was looking at this property for a developing one of their

2:16:03 ↗ assisted care facilities but what they're looking at now because senior or I mean a

2:16:08 ↗ single family development is not in their wheelhouse I think they will likely sell it

2:16:13 ↗ to a residential developer And the development agreement

2:16:19 ↗ will provide the framework for that preliminary plat that we will do with

2:16:25 ↗ them. All right. Thank you. Any additional questions or discussion? Seeing none, then.

2:16:30 ↗ So I just want to make sure that I understand the language on

2:16:36 ↗ the history of this bill said that Land and Shore supported it with

2:16:42 ↗ the changes that were specified. And so I take it that Land and

2:16:48 ↗ Shore the changes that were specified were sufficient and if Land and Char

2:16:54 ↗ people here felt they weren't, they would pipe up? - Yes. - Thank you.

2:16:59 ↗ - Yes, that's correct. - Pipe up. - Pipe up. - They would pipe

2:17:05 ↗ up. - So with that, all those in favor of approving resolution number 216-20,

2:17:11 ↗ authorizing the mayor to execute the Silverado Development Agreement, signify by saying aye. -

2:17:16 ↗ Aye. - Those opposed? That carries unanimously. Moving to our last

2:17:22 ↗ item under regular business agenda bill. I just want to side comment on

2:17:28 ↗ this afterwards. I just want to compliment Land and Shore and all this process. This

2:17:32 ↗ was a two-year process. It came about and I'm really pleased with the changes that

2:17:37 ↗ really I think benefit the city and I just want to mention that because it's

2:17:41 ↗ come a long way from something that I wasn't really looking at with much favor

2:17:46 ↗ and I'm pleased with a lot of the changes that I think are beneficial for

2:17:50 ↗ the long run. So thank you. Thank you. Now, moving now to

2:17:56 ↗ agenda bill 7272, election of council president and deputy council

2:18:02 ↗ president for 2017. The proposed council action is three parts.

2:18:07 ↗ The first is to suspend the rules that conduct the

2:18:13 ↗ election of the positions. The IMC specifies that the election

2:18:18 ↗ of the council president and deputy is taken is to

2:18:24 ↗ take place at the first regular meeting of each calendar year. There

2:18:30 ↗ have been a number of times in the history where we have

2:18:36 ↗ suspended the rules and conducted the election in December since all of

2:18:41 ↗ the council members will be here after the first of the year

2:18:47 ↗ and this provides an opportunity for a jump start on committee assignments.

2:18:53 ↗ So, the first is a motion to temporarily

2:18:59 ↗ suspend council rules of procedure for election purposes.

2:19:04 ↗ All? Yeah, so moved. And moved and seconded.

2:19:09 ↗ Any discussion? All those in favor signify by

2:19:15 ↗ saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That carries unanimously.

2:19:20 ↗ Now, I will call for nominations for Council President. I

2:19:26 ↗ would like to nominate Council Member Goodman. Second. Okay. Other

2:19:32 ↗ nominations? No, I actually moved to close nominations for the

2:19:37 ↗ 2017 position for Council President. And all those in favor

2:19:43 ↗ signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? All those, well,

2:19:49 ↗ We're going to vote anyway, Stacey. All those

2:19:54 ↗ in favor of Stacey Goodman for Council President

2:20:00 ↗ for 2017, signify by saying aye. Aye. Actually,

2:20:06 ↗ you're supposed to, but no. Okay. All those

2:20:12 ↗ opposed? By your vote, Councilmember Goodman will be

2:20:17 ↗ again Council President Goodman for 2017. Congratulations. Now we will

2:20:23 ↗ use the same process for Deputy Council President. Sola? Yes,

2:20:29 ↗ I nominate Mary Lou Pauley for Deputy Council President. Second.

2:20:37 ↗ I move to close nominations for the 2017 position of Deputy Council

2:20:43 ↗ President. Second. All those in favor of closing nominations, signify by saying

2:20:49 ↗ aye. Aye. Opposed? Now for the vote, all those in favor of

2:20:54 ↗ Mary Lou Pauly for Deputy Council President, signify by raising your right

2:21:00 ↗ hand. Wow, that was close, but Mary Lou, by your fellow

2:21:06 ↗ by the council members present, you are the deputy council president for

2:21:12 ↗ 2017. Congratulations. - Thank you, Mr. Mayor. - Thank you. - Okay,

2:21:18 ↗ we are winding down. I think our next item is for the

2:21:24 ↗ good of the order. The hour is late and

2:21:30 ↗ I will keep it brief. I was hoping to have a happy story this evening

2:21:35 ↗ about our neighbors to the north. And I just want to briefly mention, as I

2:21:41 ↗ think most people know, the Muslim Association of Puget Sound is the largest mosque in

2:21:47 ↗ Washington state. They are in Redmond. They had a vandalism on Monday, November 21st. Someone

2:21:53 ↗ took a sledgehammer to their sign. They rebounded. They had a sign restaurant.

2:21:59 ↗ They built a new base. They offered local community leaders and elected officials

2:22:04 ↗ to come and put their handprint on the new base. And on Friday,

2:22:10 ↗ December 9th, I was lucky enough to represent Issaquah. Council members Pauly and

2:22:16 ↗ Ramos were there as well. And we were all very excited. Unfortunately, Saturday,

2:22:22 ↗ December 17th, someone took a golf club according to the Redmond

2:22:27 ↗ Police Department to the actual metal sign that was sitting on

2:22:33 ↗ top of this new base and so just unbelievable the folks

2:22:39 ↗ at the Muslim Association continue to they're emphasizing the support that

2:22:44 ↗ they're getting from the community they have a they have sort of a set

2:22:50 ↗ of reference information if people want to know how they can help and it really

2:22:55 ↗ involves engaging the community and the people around them and coming to talk to them

2:22:59 ↗ they actually want their perpetrator to come in and talk to them and get to

2:23:04 ↗ meet them so hopefully I know the the Redmond Police Department Mayor Marcioni says they

2:23:08 ↗ have some good leads on it but if fellow council members are interested in contacting

2:23:13 ↗ MAPS to show their support I'm sure they would very much appreciated. The base that

2:23:18 ↗ was part of the ceremony was not damaged. So that will continue. They will use

2:23:23 ↗ that. They will, the community outreach that they had received will go on, but the

2:23:29 ↗ sign itself will get replaced. Just wanted to share that with my fellow council members.

2:23:34 ↗ Thank you. - And I would just comment that your Facebook post, which you mentioned

2:23:40 ↗ has been provided to the Seattle Times was a very, very good one. very

2:23:46 ↗ accurate description of the position and everything and it is

2:23:52 ↗ certainly consistent with the proclamation that each of you signed

2:23:57 ↗ at our first meeting in December speaking out against these

2:24:03 ↗ kinds of things. So thank you. Anything else? Stacy. Not

2:24:09 ↗ winding down quite yet. As I mentioned at our last council meeting, we

2:24:15 ↗ talked during good of the order about some possible agenda bills, transportation related.

2:24:21 ↗ And so I have three here, I've talked to the administration about

2:24:26 ↗ them after last leadership meeting. And then one of them, the Trader

2:24:32 ↗ Joe's Target Maple Street intersection, as Paul talked about earlier, we talked

2:24:38 ↗ about it at infrastructure. And although we can't direct the administration at

2:24:43 ↗ infrastructure, or none of us can individually, I have taken the liberty

2:24:49 ↗ to put it into a proposed motion. So I have three proposed

2:24:55 ↗ agenda bills. One is regarding Providence Point, one Gilman Safety Improvements, and

2:25:01 ↗ one regarding Trader Joe's. So I'm gonna start with the Gilman safety improvements first, because

2:25:07 ↗ there was an indication during budget with head nods that we would be interested in

2:25:13 ↗ having the administration prepare an agenda bill that has more details about Gilman safety improvements.

2:25:19 ↗ As you'll recall, there was $50,000 proposed in the 2017 budget, and a discussion, at

2:25:24 ↗ least on my part, I'm still a little bit confused about what that project involves.

2:25:30 ↗ And I understand, and to be fair, there is a lack of specificity specifically because

2:25:36 ↗ there are some phases that the that would need to be gone through

2:25:41 ↗ before we can figure out exactly what the end goal is in

2:25:47 ↗ terms of what the plan would be. But I think there was

2:25:52 ↗ initially some confusion about that project. So the agenda bill would read

2:25:58 ↗ as follows, if I may. direct the administration to prepare an agenda bill

2:26:04 ↗ regarding the Gilman safety improvements, which shall include more details about the project so that

2:26:10 ↗ the goals as well as short-term and total project costs are more clearly articulated to

2:26:15 ↗ be brought back to the council by the end of January, 2017. And if the

2:26:21 ↗ administration so desires may ask the council to appropriate $50,000 toward the plan for 2017

2:26:26 ↗ that had been in the proposed budget. So I

2:26:32 ↗ realize it's kind of long, lawyers do. So anyway, the elements are

2:26:38 ↗ directing the administration, prepare an agenda bill, more details, to know more

2:26:44 ↗ about the costs, the $50,000 plus the potential possible total costs, come

2:26:50 ↗ back at the end of January, which I did clear with the

2:26:56 ↗ administration was a doable timeframe, and that we may be asked in

2:27:01 ↗ that agenda bill to appropriate $50,000. Understood. So I would make that motion now.

2:27:07 ↗ So point of order. I don't -- if history is our teacher at all,

2:27:13 ↗ I mean, requesting the administration to prepare an agenda bill doesn't always require a

2:27:19 ↗ form of motion by the council. I mean, it is the council president's prerogative.

2:27:26 ↗ after especially conferring with other council members just to make that request. And historically,

2:27:31 ↗ you know, those have been honored. So are you actually hoping that we actually

2:27:37 ↗ do a formal motion and vote on these proposals? Well, head, not our thumbs

2:27:43 ↗ are a vote. Yeah. But I believe we understand. If you have

2:27:49 ↗ a written description, you have discussed that with the administration. There

2:27:55 ↗ is an agreement. That is sufficient for us to act if

2:28:01 ↗ you so desire. Mr. Suggestion? Yes. The next one, Stacy. I

2:28:07 ↗ guess it was a vote. No, it wasn't a vote. Well,

2:28:13 ↗ everybody said yes, so I don't know what the, but it

2:28:19 ↗ sounded like a direction, however we want to. Your turn.

2:28:26 ↗ So the next one would be about Trader Joe's. And a few

2:28:31 ↗ months ago, we directed the administration to come up with a less

2:28:37 ↗ expensive, as Paul was talking about earlier, less expensive option for that

2:28:43 ↗ intersection, not $5 million, and do it in a, I don't remember

2:28:49 ↗ what the words were, but a fairly... short-term timeframe. And

2:28:54 ↗ as Paul was talking about earlier, when we talked

2:29:00 ↗ at infrastructure, Sheldon talked about the very preliminary concept

2:29:05 ↗ and the goals that his department was looking at.

2:29:11 ↗ And those goals were improved safety, provide a more intuitive

2:29:17 ↗ intersection experience for pedestrians and drivers, not impact the internal circulation for the adjacent

2:29:23 ↗ property owners, and not focus on increased capacity. So what I had drafted was

2:29:28 ↗ direct the administration to prepare an agenda bill regarding the Trader Joe's Target Maple Street

2:29:34 ↗ intersection, which shall include design cost and funding options, recommendations and analysis for an interim

2:29:40 ↗ improvement to that intersection and has the following goals in mind, which I already mentioned,

2:29:45 ↗ to be brought back to the council by the end of the first quarter of

2:29:51 ↗ 2017 with policy considerations. And I also ran that time frame by the

2:29:57 ↗ administration and that was fine. So however we want to do that. Or

2:30:03 ↗ talk about it if not. So directed. Okay, and then the third one,

2:30:09 ↗ Providence Point. There had seems to be some sort of an indication from

2:30:15 ↗ fellow council members that there is an interest in seeing whether the Providence

2:30:21 ↗ Point intersection could be done given its relatively lower cost. compared to

2:30:27 ↗ the other larger projects that were on the bond. And

2:30:32 ↗ so I also discussed this with the administration and the

2:30:38 ↗ language would be to prepare an agenda bill regarding the

2:30:44 ↗ Providence Point signalization and realignment project which shall include design, cost and

2:30:50 ↗ funding options, recommendations, analysis for options as well as recommendations, and consider new nearby development

2:30:55 ↗ to be brought back to the council by the end of the first quarter of

2:31:01 ↗ 2017 with policy. So, yes. I have one question about that. Do we as part

2:31:06 ↗ of that process have any conversation with Sammamish about the design requirements around that given

2:31:11 ↗ that it's a major arterial that is very close to their borders?

2:31:17 ↗ Do we or should we? Should we? Sure. We can and we could. I would

2:31:22 ↗ like to see that language and have that direction. I would want to make sure

2:31:27 ↗ that whatever came forward had been there had been some level of discussion between our

2:31:32 ↗ two cities as to what that would look like. If I can add to that

2:31:37 ↗ especially that the point is made very clear that we're interested in the safety of

2:31:42 ↗ our residents and that's our primary concern. Actually had a brief discussion of that today

2:31:47 ↗ with the mayor and city manager.

2:31:53 ↗ plus one, Stacy. - Okay, all right. - And if you could forward

2:31:59 ↗ the exact wording to the clerk, and I bet you've already done that.

2:32:05 ↗ - Nope, but I sent it to you. - Well, that's great. -

2:32:11 ↗ I'll do it now. - Thank you. - I just want to thank

2:32:16 ↗ Council President Goodman for the collaboration and transparency of that process.

2:32:22 ↗ There's a number of different ways and historically we've used them to initiate bills,

2:32:28 ↗ but these are priorities for the city, for the city council, and even to

2:32:34 ↗ the extent of how we are sourcing new agenda bills to achieve objectives for

2:32:39 ↗ the city. I appreciate the collaboration and the transparency. Stacey. Hey, anything else for

2:32:45 ↗ good of the order this evening, Mariah? I just wanted to

2:32:51 ↗ give a reminder that the Count Us In, which was formerly the

2:32:56 ↗ One Night Count, which is a point-in-time count of individuals and families

2:33:02 ↗ experiencing homelessness in King County, is taking place on January 27th. and

2:33:08 ↗ there's an informational meeting that you can find out more on the All

2:33:13 ↗ Home website. It's in Seattle on Tuesday, December 20th in the afternoon. Thank

2:33:19 ↗ you. And in addition, I included a paragraph in the Mayor's report that

2:33:25 ↗ I did not announce because that's distributed to the Council prior to the

2:33:30 ↗ meeting that has that information in it also. So thanks for emphasizing that.

2:33:37 ↗ Anything else for good of

2:33:42 ↗ the order? Seeing none, then

2:33:47 ↗ we are adjourned.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Eileen Barber

Mariah Bettise

Stacy Goodman

Tola Marts

Mary Lou Pauly

Bill Ramos

Paul Winterstein

Motions and votes (7)

Adopt Ordinance No. 2791, adopting the Final Budget of the City for the fiscal year commencing Jan. 1, 2017, and creating the School Zone Safety Fund. . AB 7293 - 2017 Arts Grant Recommendations

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 7-0

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

Approve the 2017 arts grant award recommendations as presented, for a total expenditure of $195,100. . b)

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BARBER

Carried 7-0

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

Approve Resolution No. 2016-20, authorizing the Mayor to execute the Silverado Development Agreement. . 12-19-16 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7871 c)

Moved by PAULY · seconded by GOODMAN

Carried 7-0

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

Temporarily suspend Council Rules of Procedure for election purposes. . Councilmember Ramos nominated Councilmember Goodman as Council President for 2017.

Moved by WINTERSTEIN · seconded by RAMOS

Carried 7-0

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

Close nominations for the 2017 position of Council President. . BY SHOW OF HANDS, GOODMAN WAS SELECTED AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT, 7-0. Councilmember Marts nominated Councilmember Pauly as Deputy Council President for 2017.

Moved by WINTERSTEIN · seconded by MARTS

Carried 7-0

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

Close nominations for the 2017 position of Deputy Council President. . BY SHOW OF HANDS, PAULY WAS SELECTED AS DEPUTY COUNCIL PRESIDENT, 7-0.

Moved by WINTERSTEIN · seconded by BARBER

Carried 7-0

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

APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. a) Accounts: Payables and Payroll, Dec. 19, 2016; Approved $ 7,474,160.35. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK NUMBERS AMOUNT Accounts Payable Checks 165342 to 165364 102,073.17 Accounts Payable Checks 165365 to 165611 2,954,499.32 Municipal Court Checks 4377 to 4390 25,2…

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

Carried 7-0

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