City Council Regular Meeting · Tuesday, January 17, 2017 · City Council Digest

6. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll, January 17

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.2017

Topics: Budget

Open packet at p.2017 ↗

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, January 3, 2017

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.5–7

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR b) 01-03-17 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7873

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 Special Meeting, January 4, 2017

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.9

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

a) ID 0073 - Legislative Breakfast with Legislators from the 5th and 41st Districts

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

Mt. Hood Pump Station Replacement AB 7126

Carried 7-0

Accept Project · packet pp.11–12

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Engineering Department:

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

Local Hazardous Waste Management Program Grant AB 7266

Carried 7-0

Accept Grant · packet pp.13–29

Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Office of Sustainability:

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

2017-2018 Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant AB 7275

Carried 7-0

Accept Grant · packet pp.31–50

Open packet at p.31 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Office of Sustainability:

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

Bid Award - North Issaquah SE AB 7290

Carried 7-0

Refer to Council Infrastructure Committee · packet pp.51–58

Open packet at p.51 ↗

Staff report:

C. Reference Check

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

2016 Maintenance Overlay Project, Contract MC16-1 AB 7305

Carried 7-0

Accept Project · packet pp.59–61

Open packet at p.59 ↗

Staff report:

Page 59 of 228 CONSENT CALENDAR h)

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

IT Surplus Equipment AB 7307

Carried 7-0

Authorize · packet pp.63–65

Open packet at p.63 ↗

Staff report:

NEW CITY COUNCIL AB 7307 - AGENDA BILL Consent City Council Regular Meeting - 17 Jan 2017 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

Gilman Blvd. Improvements: SR AB 7308

Carried 7-0

Refer to Council Infrastructure Committee · packet pp.67–70

Open packet at p.67 ↗

Staff report:

NEW CITY COUNCIL AB 7308 - AGENDA BILL Consent City Council Regular Meeting - 17 Jan 2017 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

Trader Joe's/Target/Maple Street Intersection Interim Improvements AB 7309

Carried 7-0

Refer to Council Infrastructure Committee · packet pp.71–75

Topics: Transportation

Open packet at p.71 ↗

Staff report:

This intersection was examined by Transportation Solutions Inc. (TSI) as part of the 2015 Pedestrian Crossing Study. TSI's findings related to this intersection are summarized below:

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

7. PUBLIC HEARING

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

Carried 7-0

Conduct Public Hearing; Refer to Council · packet pp.77–100

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.77 ↗

Staff report:

CITY COUNCIL UPDATED AGENDA BILL AB 7215 - City Council Regular Meeting - 17 Jan 2017 Public Hearing

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

8. REGULAR BUSINESS

Legislative Agenda Proposed Amendment Re: Small Cell Deployment AB 7314

Carried 7-0

Direct Administration · packet pp.101–111

Open packet at p.101 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Executive Department:

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

Amending Development Services Department Permit Fees AB 7050

Adopt Ordinance; Direct Administration · packet pp.113–212

Topics: Land UseBudget

Open packet at p.113 ↗

Staff report:

UPDATED CITY COUNCIL AB 7050 - AGENDA BILL Regular City Council Regular Meeting - 17 Jan 2017 Business

Capital Budget Policy AB 7306

Carried 7-0

Refer to Various Meetings · packet pp.213–226

Topics: Budget

Open packet at p.213 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Finance Department:

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

9. GOOD OF THE ORDER

Committee Assignments

packet pp.227–228

Open packet at p.227 ↗

Staff report:

Jurisdiction Organization Barber Goodman Marts Pauly Ramos Bettise Winterstein Butler (Mayor) City Council Infrastructure Committee Member Chair Member Land and Shore Committee Chair Member Member Services and Safety Committee Member Chair Member Committee of the Whole Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Leadership President Deputy President

1543 segments

0:36 ↗ I'll call the January 17th, 2017 regular council meeting to order and ask

0:42 ↗ those in the audience who would like to join the council and me in the

0:45 ↗ Pledge of Allegiance to please stand.

0:51 ↗ I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

0:57 ↗ republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible,

1:03 ↗ with liberty and justice for all.

1:10 ↗ Our next order of business is audience comments

1:16 ↗ and citizen comments are an important part of the public process. We take them

1:22 ↗ seriously and factor them into the decisions that we make. Anyone from the

1:28 ↗ public who desires to comment will have the opportunity to do so this evening. Please

1:34 ↗ direct your comments to the whole council and not individuals. While this is not a

1:39 ↗ question and answer session, we will contact you to follow up if needed. If you

1:43 ↗ did not have an opportunity to include your email, please provide that information

1:49 ↗ on the clipboard at the front desk. And recognize, use the lectern and

1:55 ↗ speak into the microphone. State your name, address, and relationship to the city. Limit

2:01 ↗ comments to five minutes. Submit any written comments to the city clerk.

2:07 ↗ The visual timer has been placed on the lectern. When it turns yellow, you are

2:11 ↗ within the last minute of your comment period. If you use the full five minutes,

2:15 ↗ the timer will sound to indicate the end of your allotted time.

2:21 ↗ Again, citizen comments written and verbal are an important aspect of the public process.

2:27 ↗ The city takes them seriously and we thank members of the public for taking the

2:31 ↗ time to address us during meetings. As information

2:38 ↗ We will also be having a public hearing this evening on agenda bill 7215,

2:44 ↗ the ninth major amendment to the Esquad Highlands two-party development agreement, dash Polygon Northwest

2:50 ↗ requesting a major modification for transfer of development rights. That

2:56 ↗ public hearing will be held after

3:02 ↗ we deal with the consent calendar. So with that, I would ask if

3:08 ↗ anyone has signed up to speak. Yes, David Kapler.

3:22 ↗ To get what I need here.

3:31 ↗ Whoops, one one I think. This cord is short.

3:37 ↗ First of all, David Kapler, 255 Southeast Andrews Street. Good, thank you.

3:44 ↗ Oh, you gotta do it down there, that makes sense. Thank you. First of all,

3:50 ↗ the senior center, it's great working. The city has done a tremendous job there. The

3:55 ↗ staffing, the improvements, the painting, the cleaning, the furniture,

4:01 ↗ everything, and the programming is just great. It's just wonderful. Very, very positive place to

4:06 ↗ visit. Second item, on your agenda item tonight, and consent agenda 7290

4:13 ↗ talks about the contract. My concerns here are related to my comments I

4:19 ↗ made, I think at the last meeting, about how the East Lake Sammamish Trail

4:26 ↗ comes to Gilman Boulevard and trying to cross Gilman Boulevard and trying to have things

4:31 ↗ that will draw people on the East Lake Sammamish Trail to the southern part,

4:37 ↗ the south of I-90 part of central Issaquah and beyond to the south.

4:43 ↗ My concern is the picture here of the tunnel.

4:49 ↗ If you're in that tunnel and there's a problem, you're going to be completely out

4:54 ↗ of any visual or sound awareness. And how are we going to deal with the

5:00 ↗ safety of people in that tunnel? The tunnel also appears on this slide here on

5:06 ↗ the left. And you can see from both slides that show the tunnel, it's all

5:10 ↗ forested around there. There's no other development near it. It's just a long ways away.

5:16 ↗ Any sound that a person having a problem in there would make would not be

5:20 ↗ heard by anybody nearby. And I think we need to get assurance that somehow

5:26 ↗ the safety of that tunnel, if we have to have a tunnel, is going to

5:30 ↗ be assured. Thank you. No one

5:36 ↗ further has signed up to speak. Is there anyone else desiring to speak

5:43 ↗ on any other topic rather than the one that will be covered under the public

5:49 ↗ hearing? Connie? Hey, I'm Connie

5:54 ↗ Marsh at 1175 Northwest Gilman Suite B11.

6:00 ↗ Soon not to be there. And I want to talk about Gilman Boulevard for just

6:05 ↗ a second. I see that that popped up basically first thing again in

6:11 ↗ this year after you had delayed it from the budget session. And I'm unwilling to

6:16 ↗ have that go forward until you actually get the meetings put in place as to

6:22 ↗ what the vision for Gilman Boulevard should be from the visions going through this

6:28 ↗ for the central LISQUAL plan. Because I don't think streets should be mandated

6:34 ↗ by engineering. I think streets and what they should look like should first

6:40 ↗ be mandated by the community that's going to use them and what they would like

6:44 ↗ to see and how they would like it to work. So I would ask that

6:48 ↗ you delay that until the community meetings have been held for that

6:54 ↗ area. Thanks. Thank you.

7:00 ↗ Is there anyone else desiring to speak on any other

7:06 ↗ topic other than the subject of the public hearing? Anyone else desiring to speak?

7:11 ↗ Anyone desiring to speak? With that, audience comments are closed and we'll now

7:17 ↗ move to committee and regional reports, beginning with

7:23 ↗ Ariam Teest. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The

7:29 ↗ Eastside Human Services Forum Board meeting will be tomorrow morning. working

7:35 ↗ on the 2017 legislative agenda, budget approval, and work plan. And I'll have more

7:40 ↗ information once we get through that meeting. That concludes my report. Thank you. Thank you.

7:45 ↗ Bill Ramos. On the 11th, I had a meeting with the EMAC, Emergency

7:51 ↗ Management Advisory Council. And basically the takeaway from that is from

7:57 ↗ the Cascadia Rising exercise last year, they've basically come out of there with three major

8:03 ↗ issues dealing with more policy and all that level versus technical stuff. So

8:09 ↗ that's, and I'll get more on that later, but that's what they'll be working on

8:13 ↗ predominantly this next year, really working on trying to communicate how policy works through those

8:18 ↗ major disasters. On last Friday the 13th, I was at the Eastside

8:24 ↗ Transportation Partnership, and they've got, talked about our legislative agenda. I brought that to you

8:29 ↗ about a month or so ago. trim down a little bit and finalize a little

8:34 ↗ more. We'll talk a little more about that in good of the order. So that

8:39 ↗ passed at that time. And tomorrow I'll be at the Regional Transit Committee meeting and

8:44 ↗ that is in a different spot than usual normally as any King County Council Chambers.

8:48 ↗ It will be at Union Station tomorrow at 3 o'clock if anybody's interested. So there's

8:53 ↗ change in location on that. That concludes my report. Thank you, Paul Winterstein. Thank you,

8:58 ↗ Mr. Mayor. The Council Infrastructure Committee, our next meeting is this Thursday, January 19th here

9:03 ↗ in Council Chambers. It will be televised live online and on the Issaquah City TV.

9:09 ↗ On the agenda will be three items pending approval of tonight's consent agenda and three

9:13 ↗ other items. On the consent are agenda bill 7290, a review and

9:18 ↗ recommendation of the proposed winning bid for the construction of the 62nd Street extension.

9:24 ↗ and agenda bill 7308 which is funding for phase one of a Gilman Boulevard corridor

9:30 ↗ study for the ultimate purpose of improving safety for all users, improving accommodations for non-motorized

9:35 ↗ users and developing standard consistent redevelopment standards. And finally

9:41 ↗ agenda bill 7309 which is funding for safety and usage improvements on Maple

9:47 ↗ Street at the intersection of Trader Joe's and Target parking lot entranceways. The three

9:53 ↗ other items on the agenda are continuation of the discussion about enhancements to the complete

9:58 ↗ streets program and potential projects for 2017, including

10:04 ↗ on Second Avenue, south of the high school where Rainier Trail

10:10 ↗ crosses Second Avenue. And a continuation of the discussion about the formation of a transportation

10:16 ↗ mobility board. And finally, status updates on notable water, sewer, storm water, and

10:21 ↗ transportation projects. The Eastside Fire and Rescue Board of Directors, we met last

10:27 ↗ Thursday on January 12th at EFR Headquarters on Newport Way. The notable items on the

10:32 ↗ agenda were that the chief, one was the chief reported that EFR and Fire District

10:37 ↗ 10 have retained joint representation for advice and defense on matters concerning PFAS.

10:45 ↗ The board approved a 3.87 increase in the top step only of the

10:51 ↗ deputy chief position pay scale. And finally, the board approved a performance-based bonus plan

10:57 ↗ for deputy chiefs. This program will be implemented starting in 2018.

11:03 ↗ And then my final committee report is from the Puget Sound Regional Council Growth Management

11:09 ↗ Policy Board, or the GMPB. We met last Thursday, or excuse me, back on January

11:15 ↗ 5th, almost two weeks ago at PSRC headquarters in Seattle. Notable items on the agenda

11:20 ↗ included, we received an update on the regional center's framework update project.

11:26 ↗ There has been a working group developing a proposal and this will come in front

11:30 ↗ of the GMPP in just a couple months. We will be considering changes to the

11:35 ↗ regional center's program, which our City Regional Growth Center is part of. These changes will

11:41 ↗ affect future center designations and the funding formula for transportation projects.

11:47 ↗ The update will also provide input to the region's Vision 2040 and Transportation 2040

11:53 ↗ guiding documents that will be updated in the near future. For all these reasons, the

11:59 ↗ Regional Center's framework update project is critical to Issaquah and our citizens both now and

12:03 ↗ for a long time into the future. I will be bringing issues about the update

12:09 ↗ back to this council for discussion in the future. And then the other issue we

12:13 ↗ discussed, the board had a great discussion about conditional certification of the comprehensive plans of

12:19 ↗ certain small cities including Snoqualmie and North Bend. The board did make a recommendation to

12:24 ↗ the PSRC Executive Council for how the cities can achieve full certification

12:31 ↗ of their comprehensive plans without going through a full amendment process, which is lengthy and

12:37 ↗ costly. The small cities appear to accept this alternative and this development I think is

12:42 ↗ really good for the region and for our neighbors in Snoqualmie and North Bend. That

12:47 ↗ concludes my report. Thank you, Tola Martz. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council Services and Safety

12:52 ↗ Committee did not meet in January and assuming we keep to the 2016

13:00 ↗ recurrence schedule, our next meeting will be on Tuesday, February 14th. Sound Cities Association Public

13:06 ↗ Issues Committee met first meeting of the year Wednesday, January 11th, and there were no

13:12 ↗ action items other than approval of the annual meeting schedule. The King

13:18 ↗ County Growth Management Policy Council has not listed first meeting yet, it's typically in February,

13:24 ↗ but they don't have those dates up yet. The regional E911 group is gonna meet

13:29 ↗ next, sorry, this Thursday, January 19th from nine to 11 in the Chinook building in

13:34 ↗ Seattle. And we're gonna get a status on the technology group draft. There's a technology

13:38 ↗ group, a finances group, and a governance group. And the technology is the one that

13:43 ↗ has the most heavy lifting to do. And so we're gonna find out how that's

13:48 ↗ going ahead of a, I believe, March 30th deadline for the draft of that technology

13:53 ↗ plan. So we're excited to hear about that. And I'll just mention, Council Member Winterstein,

13:58 ↗ I'm thrilled to hear that GMPB came up with a good solution. GMPC wanted to

14:03 ↗ give a recommendation to our friends in GMPB and couldn't remotely come close to a

14:08 ↗ consensus on what that recommendation would be. So I'm thrilled to hear that our neighbors

14:11 ↗ to the east have a solution that they think is workable. That concludes my report.

14:15 ↗ Thank you. Eileen Barber. Thank you. So far

14:21 ↗ most of my meetings have not started yet. I am serving on Y-Ret 8 and

14:26 ↗ our first meeting will be on tomorrow. And also we'll be joining Paul

14:32 ↗ Winterstein on Eastside Fire and Rescue and also on Services and Safety so I'll be

14:37 ↗ joining on that. And I have no other report. Thank you. I'll be back next

14:42 ↗ month. Thank you. Mary Lou Pauly. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Land and

14:48 ↗ Shore met on Thursday January 5th. One of the items AB 7050 amending DSD

14:54 ↗ fees will be on regular business this evening and after a staff presentation if

15:00 ↗ there is some additional information that I can add about committee conversation I'll do it

15:04 ↗ at that time. AB 7270 comprehensive plan amendments. This was a

15:12 ↗ one of a series of discussions about a series of amendments from carrying over from

15:17 ↗ 2016 on the comp plan. The conversation at this meeting focused on a discussion of

15:23 ↗ the growth management targets through the year 2031 and a discussion on the number of

15:28 ↗ housing units that the city will be, will have

15:34 ↗ capacity to build during that time. And discussion about how projections of that growth rate

15:40 ↗ should occur. for additional future units in future years.

15:49 ↗ One of the big points of discussion that other council members not on land and

15:54 ↗ shore may want to start thinking about is how do present,

16:00 ↗ how do current limits on the number of units Let me read this again,

16:07 ↗ sorry. How do we prevent or limit over building before transportation improvements catch up?

16:12 ↗ We spent a significant amount of our meeting talking time about that and so that's

16:17 ↗ a question that will come up when the whole package comes before land and shore.

16:22 ↗ There were questions on where we are now in terms of number of units built

16:25 ↗ by this year, by 2018 and as far out as 2031.

16:31 ↗ So we only got part way through exhibit E of this package and it's going

16:35 ↗ to be referred to the February Land and Shore meeting. Next agenda bill was AB

16:40 ↗ 7215, the ninth major amendment to the Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement. There will be a

16:45 ↗ public hearing on this this evening. Some of the questions considered by the committee were

16:51 ↗ can purchased transfer of development rights be used elsewhere in the city, such as the

16:56 ↗ central Issaquah area. Should the transfer of development rights receiving site map be reviewed by

17:02 ↗ council based on the approval of the central Issaquah plan after the creation of that

17:08 ↗ map? There were no decisions made at the meeting and the conversation has been continued

17:13 ↗ to the next Land and Shore which will be on January 8th. AB 7219. 18th.

17:19 ↗ Sorry, 18th. What did I say? 8th. January 18th, thank you. AB 7219.

17:26 ↗ an agenda bill on the draft development agreement for Gilman Lofts. There was questions and

17:31 ↗ public comment about improvements that were proposed to the Three Trails Crossing area on Gilman

17:37 ↗ Boulevard. There was concern expressed from property owners adjacent to the site that currently

17:43 ↗ permitted projects and proposed C-curb constructions will impair and harm

17:49 ↗ businesses on that street. There were no decisions made at the meeting that was also

17:54 ↗ referred for continuation at the January 18th Land and Shore meeting tomorrow. There were requests

17:59 ↗ from council members for additional information on C-curb construction, traffic light proposal, et cetera.

18:07 ↗ And that's it. Our next meeting will be tomorrow and we will have the continuation

18:12 ↗ of AB 7215, AB 7210 and the comp plan AB 7270.

18:19 ↗ And that completes my report. Thank you. Council President Stacey Goodman. No report. And for

18:25 ↗ the mayor's report, briefly there will be an executive session held this evening for the

18:30 ↗ purpose of discussing pending slash potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110

18:38 ↗ paren 1 paren I. The item is expected to take approximately five minutes. No

18:44 ↗ action is anticipated to follow in open session. We are

18:50 ↗ now accepting allocations or applications for open

18:55 ↗ positions on the city's boards and commissions. Our boards and commissions cover a broad range

19:01 ↗ of topics, including arts, economic development, environmental issues, growth,

19:08 ↗ and even international diplomacy through our sister city

19:13 ↗ relationship with Sundal, Norway, and Shefshawa, Morocco. To

19:19 ↗ learn more and apply, go to isaqwa.gov backslash apply.

19:28 ↗ The application deadline is 5 p.m. February the 15th, 2017.

19:35 ↗ Now the word application sounds like you're not really

19:41 ↗ applying for a job and it doesn't require an awful lot of information.

19:46 ↗ Just your willingness to serve and a little bit about why you think you would

19:52 ↗ do a good job on that board or commission and any relevant experience that you

19:57 ↗ think that might contribute to that. So I would encourage not only those in the

20:02 ↗ audience here but those watching on TV to

20:09 ↗ go to our website, look at that and see where you might help the

20:15 ↗ city in the work that we do. And with that, that

20:20 ↗ concludes my report, and we will move now to the consent

20:27 ↗ calendar. And I'd ask if the payables and payroll for January the 17th have been

20:33 ↗ reviewed. We have. Thank you. And then I would ask the city

20:39 ↗ clerk to read the consent calendar into the record, please. The consent calendar was

20:45 ↗ distributed to Council in advance for study if authorized Council action will occur by single

20:49 ↗ motion regarding the following items. Item A seeks approval of the accounts payables and payroll

20:54 ↗ of January 17th. Items B and C seeks approval of the minutes of the regular

20:59 ↗ meeting of January 3rd and the special meeting of January 4th. Item D AB 7126

21:04 ↗ Mount Hood pump station replacement seeks acceptance of project. Item E AB 7266

21:10 ↗ local hazardous waste management program grant seeks acceptance of grant. Item F, AB-7275, 2017-2018

21:18 ↗ Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant, seeks acceptance of grant. Item G, AB-7290,

21:24 ↗ Bid Award, North Issaquah Southeast 62nd Street Extension Construction Contract, seeks referral to Council

21:30 ↗ Infrastructure Committee. Item H, AB-7305, 2016 Maintenance Overlay Project,

21:36 ↗ seeks acceptance of project. Item I, AB-7307, IT Surplus Equipment, seeks authorization. Items J and

21:41 ↗ K, AB 7308, Gilman Boulevard Improvements, SR 900

21:48 ↗ to Issaquah Creek, and AB 7309, Trader Joe's Target Maple Street Intersection Interim

21:53 ↗ Improvements, seeks referral to Council Infrastructure Committee. This concludes the reading.

21:59 ↗ Thank you. I would ask, does any council member desire to remove any item from

22:04 ↗ the consent calendar for special consideration?

22:12 ↗ Council President Goodman. I would move to adopt the consent calendar as presented. Second. Moved

22:17 ↗ and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, that carries

22:23 ↗ unanimously. Moving now to our public hearing

22:28 ↗ agenda bill 7215, 9th major amendment to the Esquadalas Two-Party Development

22:34 ↗ Agreement. With that, I would call Keith Niven, our director of

22:41 ↗ Development Services forward for a staff report and update

22:58 ↗ Good evening, Mr. Mayor City Council Keith Niven Director of Economic Development and Development

23:04 ↗ Services so this evening I'm gonna I give a fairly short presentation

23:11 ↗ regarding the proposal for adding 100 transfer of development rights into Izzaqua

23:16 ↗ Highlands and we'll go from there. So I

23:22 ↗ thought I'd start with just a little bit of background for those maybe in the

23:26 ↗ audience who don't know what a transfer of development right is. So transfer of development

23:30 ↗ rights or TDRs as they are called is one smart growth tool used to manage

23:36 ↗ land development. TDR is the exchange of zoning privilege from areas desired to be

23:42 ↗ preserved such as critical areas and open space to areas better able to accommodate higher

23:47 ↗ densities. The section on the left here is from the city's transfer of

23:53 ↗ development rights code and I highlighted Item C specifically,

23:59 ↗ which says, and this section is the intent of

24:06 ↗ the TDR program within the city. And item C says, increase density in specific parts

24:12 ↗ of the city that are best suited to accommodate urban densities and to accomplish city

24:16 ↗ goals for increasing the opportunities for transit service, open space, and increased efficiency of

24:22 ↗ urban service provision. So this kind of sets the background for our TDR program. and

24:29 ↗ why we support transfer of development rights. So moving from there, what we're here

24:35 ↗ to talk about this evening is basically this proposal by Polygon Northwest

24:41 ↗ to add 100 transfer of development rights to Issaquah Highlands. Polygon Northwest owns the

24:49 ↗ Does it look light yellow? Well, the lighter yellow area on the map

24:55 ↗ here. And to give you an orientation, you can see Safeway right here sitting in

25:00 ↗ between Highlands Drive and 9th. Discovery Drive is down here at the south end.

25:07 ↗ This gray area over here is the West Highlands Park neighborhood. This gray line at

25:12 ↗ the top is High Street. Swedish Hospital sits down here

25:19 ↗ and kind of the subdivision that's under construction kind of at the south end is

25:24 ↗ called Westridge South. So where did these TDRs come

25:30 ↗ from? So these 100 TDRs came from a deal that the

25:36 ↗ city brokered a few years ago to preserve Park Point. Park Point was

25:42 ↗ the third urban village in the city that never happened. And it never happened

25:48 ↗ because we transferred the development rights off this 101 acres and

25:54 ↗ the 100 units that Polygon purchased were the last 100 units off

26:00 ↗ those. So why Izaquois Highlands? As you

26:06 ↗ can see, this map here on the left hand side, the red

26:12 ↗ areas are the TDR receiving sites in the city. The green areas are the

26:18 ↗ TDR sending sites. And why Izaquah Highlands? Izaquah Highlands is identified as a

26:24 ↗ TDR receiving site as you can see from the map. The land is already graded,

26:28 ↗ flat, there are no trees to cut down, and there's adequate infrastructure to support the

26:33 ↗ added density. So what is the decision process and why are we here?

26:40 ↗ We're here because Izakwa Highlands is governed by a development agreement primarily. The TDR process

26:46 ↗ itself does not require a council action so long as it's consistent with the existing

26:53 ↗ sending and receiving site map. But because this is a development agreement, it identifies that

26:59 ↗ adding additional residential units requires the city council to approve a major

27:04 ↗ modification. So that's really the decision that's in front of the city council is to

27:10 ↗ whether or not to approve the major modification request for

27:16 ↗ the Issaquah Highlands development agreement. So as you can see on the left hand side,

27:20 ↗ there's basically kind of the process. So the city received this request in June of

27:26 ↗ last year. And then the Urban Village Development Commission reviewed this

27:32 ↗ request and provided a recommendation to the City Council on the 6th of December.

27:38 ↗ The SEPA determination of non-significance was issued on the 13th of January.

27:45 ↗ And it's currently in its comment and appeal period of 21 days. We're having this

27:50 ↗ public hearing tonight. As was mentioned earlier, agenda bill 7215 is still in the

27:56 ↗ Land and Shore Committee and there'll be a meeting tomorrow night to continue the conversation

28:00 ↗ on that. And we anticipate that at some point it will come out of committee

28:06 ↗ with a recommendation to the full council and that may be as early as the

28:11 ↗ 6th of February. So that concludes my presentation this evening. Thank you, Keith.

28:20 ↗ We'll now open the public hearing. And just a reminder that the

28:26 ↗ same rules that I established at the beginning for audience comments apply this

28:32 ↗ evening. When recognized, please come to the lectern, speak into the microphone, state your name

28:37 ↗ and any relationship to the city along with your address. And with that,

28:44 ↗ I'll open the public hearing at 729.

28:51 ↗ Fred Nystrom. Is anyone signed up to speak? Yes. He's not here, is he? Okay.

28:57 ↗ Okay, so we've got AJ McGaulie.

29:11 ↗ Hi, my name is AJ McGaulie. I live at 18707 Southeast Newport Way.

29:18 ↗ I'm a recent arrival to Issaquah, having moved here this last spring. My

29:23 ↗ interest in this development of the Highlands is just interest in my community and wanting

29:29 ↗ to see smart growth and productive growth in the community. I believe the

29:35 ↗ additional units are welcome as someone who just navigated the housing market and purchased a

29:39 ↗ home this past spring. I am keenly aware of the need for additional housing, so

29:43 ↗ I think it is great that the City is still open to continue to develop

29:47 ↗ and grow. I believe the consolidation of the additional housing into the town center of

29:53 ↗ the Highlands is good. I think that is smart urban design and it is better

29:56 ↗ to be building the units in the town center cores as opposed to in a

30:01 ↗ more subdivision type development at the edge of the Highlands as it is currently in

30:05 ↗ the current Highlands plan. However, I do have

30:11 ↗ two concerns about the proposal currently from Polygon around the affordable units.

30:20 ↗ Well, my concerns are around the location of the affordable units. I believe Keith mentioned

30:24 ↗ this in his presentation, but in the proposed bill, the affordable units,

30:30 ↗ the 25 affordable units that are included in the proposal will not be located with,

30:36 ↗ will not be co-located in the town center with the 500 units that will be

30:41 ↗ built on the on the primary site, but they will instead go into a city

30:45 ↗ property that's kind of further on the edge of the Highlands, still within the Highlands,

30:50 ↗ but not nearly as close to the town center, closer to a 15-to-20 minute walk

30:54 ↗ to 9th Avenue, 9th Avenue to the bus stations there. My concerns on that are

30:59 ↗ twofold. First off, those who will be living in the affordable units will be much

31:03 ↗ less likely to have access to cars and will be more likely to depend upon

31:06 ↗ transit. And as 9th Avenue is the primary transit corridor for a metro and sound

31:10 ↗ transit, I think it's important to locate the affordable units as close to transit as

31:15 ↗ possible. Given that the proposed development is literally right next to 9th Avenue, I think

31:20 ↗ that that would be very reasonable. And the second one is I think the segregation

31:25 ↗ of the affordable units into a kind of distinct site all by itself is not

31:29 ↗ healthy for the community. I think it's important to integrate the affordable units into the

31:34 ↗ existing community structure as opposed to building them in a way that kind of carves

31:38 ↗ off and says, okay, this is a market rate development, this is an affordable rate

31:42 ↗ development. I would like to see a proposal that kind of blends the

31:48 ↗ developments, has the same number of total units, same number of market rate units, portable

31:52 ↗ units, but blends them in a way that kind of allows for the creation of

31:59 ↗ one neighborhood as opposed to kind of two distinct communities that may not mingle because

32:03 ↗ of decisions made in terms of architecture and urban design.

32:10 ↗ That's all comments I have for now. Thank you. AJ, thank you very, very much.

32:17 ↗ David Kapler.

32:27 ↗ David Kapler, 255 Southeast Andrew Street. TDRs are of course dear to my heart

32:33 ↗ and getting the TDRs off of Park Point is something we worked on for over

32:39 ↗ 20 years. So I'm glad to see that. I'm also working, encouraging the

32:45 ↗ county to acquire other properties very close to Issaquah or adjoining Issaquah. and the

32:51 ↗ TDRs are an important aspect of making those purchases potentially more affordable

32:57 ↗ to the county. So I'm quite a fan of that. 100 units

33:02 ↗ expansion in the Highlands, you know,

33:08 ↗ has some things going for it. The park and ride is definitely important. The services

33:13 ↗ that are available, retail type services, some degree employment as well

33:19 ↗ with the hospital especially. What's lacking are parks and

33:25 ↗ schools for that area and that's a complicating problem. If we

33:31 ↗ knew the school district was looking at the former Bellevue College site as

33:37 ↗ elementary school site, middle school site, that could be helpful to make this more workable.

33:42 ↗ There is,

33:49 ↗ Tony won't be thrilled, but there are some trees close to here that are not

33:54 ↗ in the viewshed of the Mountain Sound Greenway that a

34:01 ↗ few could be sacrificed for some park west of this property, but

34:07 ↗ not a lot. The other is the mathematical issue.

34:13 ↗ I figure if there's, talking about 130 units, we're talking about 30% of

34:19 ↗ those being affordable, that gets to 39 units. And putting them, like the previous

34:25 ↗ gentleman said, putting them all in one place and not mixing them is the wrong

34:30 ↗ thing to do. I also have concerns about a group home being equivalent to five

34:36 ↗ dwelling units, which was part of the mathematics here. I live across the street practically

34:41 ↗ from the group home at Second and Andrews and that home does generate a little

34:47 ↗ bit more traffic than some homes and all. But the residents don't have vehicles, it's

34:52 ↗ the people that work there that have the vehicles and other people that come to

34:55 ↗ provide services. It's hard for me to imagine that equaling

35:02 ↗ five dwelling units. Thank you. Thank you, David.

35:11 ↗ Fred Nystrom.

35:18 ↗ Well, we moved you down the list, Fred, because you weren't here when your name

35:23 ↗ was called.

35:59 ↗ Good evening. My name is Fred Nystrom. I have for the last 33 years lived

36:04 ↗ here in Issaquah 391 Southeast Sycamore Creek Lane and have been a

36:09 ↗ past member of the Policy Planning Commission. And

36:15 ↗ well, I want to speak on the addition of the 100 housing units.

36:21 ↗ Some may see this as a power play from a greedy developer. I take a

36:26 ↗ very different position on this. because of my long-term perspective here in the community

36:32 ↗ and past involvement. Let me take you back to the 1990s. I

36:38 ↗ don't know how many of you were here at that point, but we had a

36:42 ↗ situation where we had some Canadian developers come into town and buy a big hunk

36:47 ↗ of land behind Issaquah High School that stretched on up the hill. I believe its

36:51 ↗ name was Park Point. It was gonna be a major

36:57 ↗ impact on us. Not only were they going to be scraping the hill and building

37:03 ↗ hundreds of homes, but there was no arterial access to this piece of property. So

37:09 ↗ all the traffic that was gonna be generated was gonna come down those tiny little

37:15 ↗ undersized streets next to Clark Elementary. And it

37:21 ↗ created a fair amount of outrage and comment within the community. Now this developer

37:27 ↗ had the right to proceed and he had the correct zoning, but

37:34 ↗ the city was, had a difficult time challenging those rights.

37:40 ↗ And they finally, after about a year of angst and community

37:46 ↗ meetings and conversations, came up with a program that had been used very

37:52 ↗ successfully in numerous other communities. and it's called a transfer of density,

37:59 ↗ or developmental density, if you will. And developers like Polygon

38:05 ↗ were solicited and asked if they would put money into a pool so

38:11 ↗ that the density that was allowed on the Park Point property could be transferred

38:17 ↗ somewhere else. And lo and behold, they did. They put up a cool $1 million

38:25 ↗ And they did this to help Park Point to go away.

38:31 ↗ And they did it so that they would have a projectable way to have

38:37 ↗ space to develop in the future. Now, I can't imagine

38:43 ↗ the faith and trust that Polygon put in for this, but they wrote that check

38:49 ↗ for a million dollars because, and they did it because There was an

38:54 ↗ agreement that was fair, it was above board, and it served a positive community

39:00 ↗ purpose. Now it's time that Polygon receives

39:06 ↗ their ability to utilize the density transfer that they

39:12 ↗ legally and morally are entitled to. To solicit money

39:18 ↗ decades ago and have that benefit and then to deny or slow down or

39:23 ↗ modify that permit is sort of the worst

39:29 ↗ types of a bait and switch operation, which I don't think is the way the

39:34 ↗ council likes to see themselves. And furthermore, it would

39:40 ↗ really cool down the ability to use this tool in the future for other good

39:45 ↗ community benefits. Polygon was part of the solution. on

39:51 ↗ twenty years ago and it that kept us kept that hill in the beautiful

39:56 ↗ natural shape that it's in now one other key point

40:03 ↗ my daytime job on the executive director of life enrichment options and we represent people

40:09 ↗ with disabilities and they are the lowest of low income and we have been building

40:13 ↗ homes for them polygon helped build our very first home over on croston and

40:22 ↗ We know that the city has been working to pressure developers to

40:28 ↗ include low income housing in the community and it has been a failure.

40:35 ↗ Atlas apartments, everybody's been hearing about Atlas apartments, zero low income housing. The

40:40 ↗ group on the that's coming in, I don't even know their name yet on Newport

40:44 ↗ way zero. On the other hand, Polygon has come up and stated right

40:50 ↗ up front that they are with these 100 units, they're gonna make space for low

40:56 ↗ income housing. They've set a standard. And this is an example

41:02 ↗ of them continuing to put the community needs first and they need to be respected,

41:08 ↗ supported and thanks for their commitment to our community. Thank you. Thank you,

41:14 ↗ Fred. No one further has signed up to speak.

41:22 ↗ And then followed by.

41:30 ↗ Good evening, council members. My name is Dewana Koloskova and I am the attorney for

41:34 ↗ Polygon Northwest. I've met some of you over the years and I actually have the

41:39 ↗ pleasure of telling you that my mother was the Issaquah planner involved in some of

41:45 ↗ the discussion that you just heard back in the 1990s. Mr. Butler, you might recall,

41:50 ↗ Anna Koloszek. I am here to follow up on correspondence that I submitted to you

41:56 ↗ all earlier today. And my plea to you is actually pretty straightforward in that I,

42:04 ↗ In reviewing the major modification that is before you, we simply request that you review

42:09 ↗ that on the basis of the existing comprehensive plan policies, the

42:14 ↗ adopted maps before you, and the existing city code that's in place. I

42:20 ↗ understand at the Land and Shore Committee that there was some discussion as to what

42:25 ↗ the council might be interested in, but for purposes of this major modification, those comprehensive

42:31 ↗ plan policies and the acceptance of this site as a receiving site

42:37 ↗ is well borne out by those policies and an appropriate location

42:44 ↗ for purposes of the proposal. And I think it's also

42:50 ↗ appropriate to highlight that Mr. Niven and staff have done a good job of identifying

42:57 ↗ multiple comprehensive plan policies that this application that this major modification is

43:02 ↗ consistent with oftentimes we might submit to you an application that implements maybe

43:08 ↗ one maybe two policies and we kind of argue that's consistency here we have quite

43:13 ↗ a number of comprehensive plan policies and good practical reasons for

43:19 ↗ supporting the major modification So with that, I would respectfully

43:25 ↗ ask that the council apply the adopted policies, the adopted city code and the adopted

43:30 ↗ maps, which include this property as a receiving site. Thank you very much. And we

43:36 ↗ are available if there are questions. Alana, thank you very, very much. Steve.

43:52 ↗ Connie, welcome back. Again, Connie Marsh, 1175 Northwest Gilman

43:57 ↗ Boulevard, Suite B11. So there are some things

44:03 ↗ about this proposal that take it out of the typical

44:09 ↗ comprehensive plan policies that were just discussed. And that is the

44:15 ↗ switch of the affordable housing, not necessarily low income housing, that they want to put

44:20 ↗ on the city parcel that is quite some distance away from this parcel uphill.

44:26 ↗ and quite a distance away from the transit center. I am not going to repeat

44:32 ↗ the absolutely perfect presentation that came out of the first speaker. I totally agree with

44:37 ↗ that. And I think that the proposal should mix the affordable housing in each area.

44:43 ↗ I'm not particularly against them using the city parcel to get what we need for

44:48 ↗ affordable housing, though I would like to increase that to 50 units unless they agree

44:53 ↗ to actually put in low income housing. because We need low

44:59 ↗ income housing more than the three tiered program that the Issaquah Highlands has existed on

45:05 ↗ for a long time. The other thing that is missing in this section of the

45:09 ↗ Issaquah Highlands is anything in the range of public parks. You have small parks from

45:14 ↗ the different developments, but basically there is no public park and I can't believe Dave

45:20 ↗ actually put trees up to cut down to create parks. Really? But we do need

45:25 ↗ to have of. parks there because soon we will be doing

45:31 ↗ the prost and we will immediately be out of consistency as soon as the

45:37 ↗ Highlands is done, then we will be deficit in that area for public parks. So

45:42 ↗ you do have the leeway in changing a development agreement to address these external

45:48 ↗ issues. It's part of a broader negotiation that goes way, way, way far

45:54 ↗ outside of any policies that we have presented for transfer of development rights. Please don't

45:59 ↗ be constrained by that. Thank you. Thank you, Connie.

46:09 ↗ Mary, welcome. My name is Mary Lynch and I reside at 2690 Northwest Oak

46:15 ↗ Crest Drive. I just want to say I concur with what Connie and David had

46:19 ↗ said before. I also would like to say as far as a policy change, I

46:23 ↗ would hope that the City Council has on their agenda is to change and review

46:28 ↗ the transfer development right policy so it is in alignment with what the central area

46:32 ↗ plan means so that this does not happen, even come before the council again into

46:37 ↗ an area where the density is not supposed to happen or increase. I also would

46:42 ↗ hope that you would look at this area and it's total holistic. You've got Lakeside

46:48 ↗ that's gonna have a lot more units. You have a lot more things going up

46:50 ↗ there that I really do not think the city has looked at the infrastructure for

46:53 ↗ that area. Not only parks, schools, transportation,

46:59 ↗ and services. How are you gonna service these additional people? As Connie

47:05 ↗ mentioned, I really think we need more low income, not just affordable, and I would

47:10 ↗ like to see that with the transfer of development rights, that whatever happens, happens on

47:15 ↗ the Polygon property, or they give 100, or something back to this other property

47:21 ↗ because land is of value and there's a lot that can be done with that

47:25 ↗ land and maybe the city could trade it off and build higher affordable or higher

47:30 ↗ homes there and get land someplace else where it makes more right to put low

47:36 ↗ income housing because that is one of the things we really need to have. But

47:40 ↗ I think the city is not looked at with the moratorium you're looking just at

47:43 ↗ the central area plan but I think you need to step back and for the

47:46 ↗ highlands and really look at what is going to happen up there. You already are

47:50 ↗ overcrowded in the schools you're busing out of there traffic is horrendous there you don't

47:54 ↗ have a park the park and ride is totally full you don't have transportation up

47:57 ↗ there so to the density without looking at a holistic approach

48:03 ↗ to infrastructure I think is really wrong and that you should do that before you

48:09 ↗ approve this to go forward. Thank you. Thank you, Mary. Is there anyone else desiring

48:14 ↗ to speak? Yes, please.

48:24 ↗ I'm Lindsay Walsh at 1769 28th Avenue Northeast in Issaquah. I'm a Highlands

48:30 ↗ resident. I will speak out mostly in support of this idea. I

48:36 ↗ think some of our strengths in the Highlands are our density and also the mixed

48:41 ↗ income levels that we have already in place that have really worked out very well

48:47 ↗ for us. I think I will speak to what our first speaker, AJ, said when

48:52 ↗ he mentioned that the Highlands was our town center. I think we really

48:58 ↗ need to, again, look at this central Issaquah plan and say, hey, that's where our

49:03 ↗ TDRs should be going. We need to build more of our density there. As much

49:07 ↗ as the Highlands is a strength from the density, we still have that central

49:13 ↗ Issaquah plan that we should be putting more and more attention to. Additionally, I would

49:20 ↗ third or fourth the idea that our affordable or preferably low

49:26 ↗ income housing should be there on high street where it is closer to the transportation.

49:31 ↗ That's going to be our most benefit. And so I think we really should push

49:36 ↗ the developers toward that way if there is any possibility.

49:42 ↗ Thank you, Lindsay. Anyone else desiring to speak?

49:49 ↗ Yes.

50:01 ↗ Good evening. My name is Amber Kernow and I reside at 24540

50:08 ↗ Southeast 46th Terrace. But as of two weeks ago,

50:15 ↗ I used to live in Forest Ridge, which is the neighborhood that's

50:21 ↗ adjacent to the city parcel that we're talking about tonight. And Mr. Nivens didn't talk

50:27 ↗ about it. And I was wondering why, but I'm pleased to

50:33 ↗ know that there are some folks in the public talking about that tonight.

50:39 ↗ And though I have moved Five minutes away, I'm very interested in this issue because

50:45 ↗ I was one of the original owners in Forest Ridge. I used to

50:51 ↗ live on 14th place and that is the street that's on the ridge

50:57 ↗ And there are lots of kids and there's lots of density already on that street.

51:03 ↗ There's a lack of parking already on that street. On Falls Drive, which

51:09 ↗ wraps around the other side of Forest Ridge, high density, lack of parking.

51:16 ↗ There's also speeding issues already because a lot of folks at the top of

51:22 ↗ Issaquah Highlands use Falls Drive as a go around for park

51:28 ↗ drive. I don't blame them, but no one in Forest Ridge likes the fact

51:34 ↗ that people speed through this residential neighborhood. Now this one acre

51:40 ↗ parcel that we're talking about is a view property. I just

51:46 ↗ sold my home for a million dollars and I have I had 4,200

51:52 ↗ square feet, okay, and the view is spectacular.

51:58 ↗ It's my opinion that the city is not using this one acre

52:05 ↗ in a deal with Polygon for the highest and best use of this land.

52:12 ↗ Now, I get that there's a deal here. I understand that Polygon has built a

52:18 ↗ lot of homes. Polygon built my former home. They're a good builder. They're part of

52:23 ↗ this community. However, as my former

52:28 ↗ esteemed citizens and neighbors just talked about,

52:36 ↗ Low income housing or affordable housing within this one acre parcel

52:42 ↗ on abutting forest ridge which is already crowded

52:49 ↗ is problematic. It's problematic for traffic, for land values,

52:55 ↗ for the ability of these new potential residents to

53:01 ↗ utilize the services of the highlands and metro so forth.

53:08 ↗ It's down the hill and it's up the hill to the park and ride. Look

53:13 ↗ at our weather tonight. It gets dark at 4 o'clock, so many months of the

53:17 ↗ year. It's not a very practical solution. Why the city and

53:23 ↗ Polygon would agree to put this affordable housing up in this

53:28 ↗ neighborhood when there aren't the services, there's not the infrastructure, there's not a park that's

53:34 ↗ big enough to hold an extra 100 children or 50 children or even

53:40 ↗ that. It's going to change the nature of the neighborhood,

53:47 ↗ in my opinion. And I'm very concerned about that.

53:54 ↗ I'm concerned about and believe that there needs to

54:00 ↗ be a lot of due diligence by the city to

54:05 ↗ implement and to agree on a deal with Polygon for something like this. I don't

54:11 ↗ know why it's not this these extra units in addition to the 100

54:18 ↗ are not closer to the town center. I don't understand that. What's going to happen

54:23 ↗ with all the construction equipment that comes in in this little neighborhood? Where are they

54:27 ↗ going to park? I just don't see it happening.

54:37 ↗ I am opposed to the city agreeing to

54:44 ↗ to have Polygon build your affordable housing in exchange

54:50 ↗ for the additional 100 units that they want to build in Westridge. Thank you.

54:58 ↗ Thank you, Amber. Anyone else desiring to speak?

55:13 ↗ Hi, my name's Steve Pereira. I live at 170 Northeast Dogwood Street here in Isrago

55:17 ↗ for about nine years. A process question to start with. Is it general audience comments

55:23 ↗ and specific time allotted later for topics, specific topics, or is it just general topics

55:29 ↗ at this point? This is a public hearing as I announced before. Audience comments

55:35 ↗ were the first item of business after the Pledge of Allegiance. And this is

55:41 ↗ a public hearing on the 9th Amendment to the Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement. So. My

55:47 ↗ apologies for being late. I will reserve my comments just for the specific topic at

55:52 ↗ hand and save the others for future time. Thank you. I'm here in regards to

55:58 ↗ the proposed 100 units developed by,

56:04 ↗ in the Issaquah Highlands. What I really like and excited about having served on or

56:09 ↗ been involved in the homeless or housing situation is a commitment by the developer to

56:14 ↗ build 100 lots or 100 units for development. One of the things I like in

56:20 ↗ having attended these meetings is that I learned a lot about Issaquah having been a

56:24 ↗ relatively short timer here in those nine years. While I'm excited about the 100 units,

56:29 ↗ I'm not excited about them being put on a city-owned lot that might have the

56:34 ↗ opportunity to be developed for a housing unit on its own. The 100

56:41 ↗ units on a view property also doesn't sound like the best development deal. I'd like

56:45 ↗ to see the 100 units built in Iskwa as a way of getting affordable housing.

56:50 ↗ I'd like to see that included in the developer's land, though not as a separate

56:55 ↗ agreement because we're not having a lot of low income housing developed. I just think

57:01 ↗ there's also better way for 100 units to be allotted for land based

57:06 ↗ on a smaller lot size than what's being proposed. So while I'm excited

57:13 ↗ for the 100 units and 100 low income housing, I'm not in favor, in the

57:18 ↗ Highlands, I'm not in favor of those 100 units being built in the

57:24 ↗ city owned property. I also don't know that based on this current infrastructure

57:30 ↗ that there's, with traffic and infrastructure, there's room in the central

57:36 ↗ Isabel Plan with arterial traffic for 100 additional traffic routes or vehicles. So because of

57:42 ↗ that, I don't think they should be built in the central Issaquah plan. I think

57:45 ↗ they should be developed in the highlands where traffic structure is much more

57:51 ↗ robust than it is. It seems to be here in the central Issaquah plan or

57:56 ↗ the Issaquah Valley floor. Thank you. Thank you, Steve.

58:04 ↗ Yes, please come forward. It didn't work.

58:16 ↗ Good evening. Thank you for allowing me to go last, maybe. My name is Bernadette

58:20 ↗ Curran. I'm at 1689, 14th Place, Northeast, Issaquah Highlands, Forest Ridge

58:26 ↗ area. So everyone, I think, pretty much is saying the same thing tonight. The

58:32 ↗ public part of land that they're talking about putting the low income or reduced income

58:37 ↗ housing doesn't make sense on many levels. The fact that

58:43 ↗ there isn't easy access for anyone who's going to live there to get to public

58:48 ↗ transportation, to go food shopping, et cetera, et cetera, you know, that's kind of one

58:54 ↗ side of the coin. Other side of the coin as being a person who lives

58:58 ↗ up there, I can tell you right now, you leave the house at say nine

59:02 ↗ o'clock, nine oh five in the morning, the traffic just to get down to park

59:07 ↗ which is about, I don't know, maybe half a mile from where the intersection is

59:12 ↗ at, it is completely backed up with cars because people drop their kids off in

59:16 ↗ the morning, they come down College Drive, they all go down to Starbucks, and it's

59:21 ↗ already a mess. To think about adding additional homes there

59:27 ↗ is just going to completely complicate that whole matter even worse. I

59:33 ↗ can't imagine, As Amber was saying earlier, what it's going to be like for the

59:38 ↗ bulldozers, the type of construction trucks that are going to be in the area. There

59:43 ↗ is no room for them to park now. So it's going to get even worse.

59:48 ↗ As a resident, that upsets me. I will also say I know

59:54 ↗ that from the, I believe it's Arch is the home for the

1:00:00 ↗ disabled people that are going to be there. I would like to know if there's

1:00:04 ↗ gonna be a study or something said that we know the members who are gonna

1:00:09 ↗ be living there don't have any kind of past crime or prior convictions. There's schools,

1:00:15 ↗ there's little kids in the neighborhood. How do we know that the people who are

1:00:19 ↗ gonna be there and walking around the neighborhood are not at all gonna be a

1:00:23 ↗ menace to the neighborhood and to the citizens that are in the area? So

1:00:30 ↗ again, I think you can probably hear my frustration There's many levels on why that

1:00:35 ↗ piece of land doesn't make sense to put the affordable home. I'm really hoping that

1:00:40 ↗ the council will hear everyone's feedback this evening and reconsider it.

1:00:46 ↗ So thank you again for the time. Thank you very, very much, Bernadette. Is there

1:00:52 ↗ anyone else desiring to speak this evening? Yes. Yes, sir. Please approach the mic.

1:00:58 ↗ Thank you. My name is Bill Mitzel. I live at 1914 Northeast Killian Lane. 14

1:01:04 ↗ years. This is about four to five blocks from the subject property we've been talking

1:01:10 ↗ about for the low or reduced income housing. I can confirm as walking

1:01:16 ↗ that neighborhood weekly what they've said about the parking

1:01:21 ↗ situation, about the folks from higher up in the Highlands taking that as a shortcut

1:01:26 ↗ for traffic. to avoid Park Drive and that it doesn't make

1:01:32 ↗ sense for that use based upon the way the transit is currently. There's no bus

1:01:38 ↗ route there. It's a long walk and or drive and most of

1:01:44 ↗ them probably would not necessarily be driving. You want to be where at least you

1:01:48 ↗ could walk a bus stop maybe not have to walk to the transit station but

1:01:53 ↗ at least be within walking distance of a bus stop and that is not anywhere

1:01:57 ↗ there the grocery store would be a good 10-15 minutes away and that's

1:02:03 ↗ problematic. I do have one request that you look at one fact

1:02:10 ↗ in making this decision. It's been said that the infrastructure is in place

1:02:16 ↗ in the central Issaquah Highlands. I object to that. It is not

1:02:22 ↗ in place if the schools are not in place. It might be in

1:02:28 ↗ place, the infrastructure might be in place for employers, for businesses, because that doesn't

1:02:34 ↗ impact schools. But if you're opening up to homes, apartments, et cetera, schools

1:02:40 ↗ are part of the infrastructure. If you're gonna have people living five minute walk from

1:02:45 ↗ a school, But after it's built, they find out later that, oh, they're zoned out.

1:02:50 ↗ They're going to have to be bused down to Clark or somewhere else. That's not

1:02:54 ↗ good. So it's part of the schools are part of the infrastructure, just like the

1:02:59 ↗ transportation is. Thank you. Thank you, Bill. Anyone else desiring to be

1:03:05 ↗ last? Anyone else? Third and final call. Anyone else

1:03:11 ↗ desiring to speak this evening? Seeing no one then the

1:03:17 ↗ public hearing is, the opportunity to speak

1:03:24 ↗ this evening is over and the reason I said that I'm not sure whether the

1:03:29 ↗ public hearing will be continued or actually closed. So with that.

1:03:49 ↗ Mr. Mayor, move to refer AB 7215 to the January 18, 2017 Council

1:03:55 ↗ Land and Shore Committee for further review and recommendation, returning to the full Council on

1:04:00 ↗ February 21, 2017. Second. Moved and seconded. With

1:04:06 ↗ respect to the public hearing, I would ask the Council if you

1:04:12 ↗ desire to keep that open or to continue the public hearing

1:04:19 ↗ following the Land and Shore meeting. Mr. Mayor? I would recommend that we keep

1:04:25 ↗ the public hearing open. I think as we've heard tonight, this is a very complicated

1:04:30 ↗ proposal that's in front of us. So I actually think we will deal with maybe

1:04:36 ↗ some additional public comments tomorrow evening at Land and Shore, which is also a televised

1:04:40 ↗ meeting. But I think the best idea would be to leave it open. Mary Lou,

1:04:45 ↗ thank you. With that, I will not close the public hearing this evening, and we

1:04:50 ↗ can now discuss the motion that is before us. Paul, did you, is there something

1:04:56 ↗ you want? No, I'm just stroking my chin.

1:04:57 ↗ Okay. Stacey?

1:05:03 ↗ Well, as a member of Land and Shore, I wasn't at the last meeting, but

1:05:07 ↗ thanks for, right? For filling in for me? But I

1:05:13 ↗ would be interested if any council members have questions that they want to specifically address

1:05:19 ↗ tomorrow night at the meeting, tonight would be a good time to put those forward

1:05:22 ↗ if you have them. I would second that comment. It would be very, very helpful

1:05:26 ↗ so that staff has an opportunity to prepare and to provide

1:05:32 ↗ information that would be helpful as the committee discusses this and works towards a recommendation.

1:05:42 ↗ Are there questions at this time that anyone is aware of? I just wanted

1:05:48 ↗ to just say, so during our last Land and Shore meeting, we did have Council

1:05:51 ↗ Member Ramos substitute in for Council Member Goodman, and I wondered if there was anything,

1:05:57 ↗ you will not be attending the next meeting, if there's anything that you heard tonight

1:06:00 ↗ that triggered additional questions since you did get to participate in the first one. Is

1:06:04 ↗ there anything else you wanted us to discuss tomorrow? I think we talked about most

1:06:07 ↗ of them there. So I'm okay with that conversation continuing from where it left off.

1:06:13 ↗ Okay, thanks. I guess I can ask tomorrow night, but I'll ask right now just

1:06:18 ↗ so that Keith has the benefit of having a 24 hours notice. I would be

1:06:22 ↗ a little bit curious about the numbers. I mean, we hear very generally

1:06:28 ↗ speaking concerns from people about the build out in the highlands and it's more than

1:06:31 ↗ we expected and the schools are crowded and on and on and on and there's

1:06:34 ↗ more traffic. So what are the facts? about what was originally entitled and maybe what

1:06:40 ↗ we've done in terms of expansion areas and additional ERUs and I

1:06:46 ↗ think some explanation of where we were and where we are would be appropriate.

1:06:55 ↗ Okay. That's very, very helpful. Yes.

1:07:04 ↗ Also for Keith, there was discussion during the comprehensive plan amendment portion of our meeting

1:07:09 ↗ last time about where we are with our current targets in terms of the

1:07:14 ↗ units, residential units that were going to be built by 2031. And so

1:07:21 ↗ this also is a piece of that story. I think in our packet for Land

1:07:24 ↗ and Shore, I did see that there was some information through the conclusion of 2016,

1:07:29 ↗ but there are many, many other residential projects in the pipeline for 17 and 18.

1:07:33 ↗ And I guess I'd kind of like to know, at 2018, where are we going

1:07:38 ↗ to be and what does this additional 100 units do to that capacity number?

1:07:45 ↗ Thanks. Keith, you could just nod your head and I will report to those watching

1:07:49 ↗ on TV. Do you have clarity around those two questions? That was a

1:07:55 ↗ thumbs up. Any additional discussion on

1:08:01 ↗ the motion? All those in favor of

1:08:06 ↗ referring agenda bill 7215 to the January 18th, 2017 Council Land and Shore Committee

1:08:12 ↗ for further review and recommendation returning to the full council on February

1:08:18 ↗ 21st, 2017 signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That carries

1:08:23 ↗ unanimously. Moving now to regular business. Agenda bill 7314.

1:08:32 ↗ Legislative agenda proposed amendment reference small cell

1:08:38 ↗ deployment. And with that, I see

1:08:43 ↗ Scott of Ogden Murphy Wallace coming to the microphone. Please identify yourself for our

1:08:50 ↗ audience. And I believe you have a PowerPoint presentation for us this evening.

1:08:56 ↗ By way of introduction, this is an emerging issue that we just learned

1:09:02 ↗ about, but it's an issue that has been around for a little while, and this

1:09:07 ↗ is designed to be a primer on regulating small cells in the right of way,

1:09:12 ↗ and whether this should be added to our legislative agenda.

1:09:21 ↗ While the technical difficulties are being ironed out here, Mayor, Council, my name is Scott

1:09:25 ↗ Snyder. I'm an attorney at Ogden Murphy Wallace. In addition to serving as your

1:09:31 ↗ city attorneys, Issaquah has joined a consortium of 25

1:09:37 ↗ Puget Sound and Eastern Washington cities to address the small cell

1:09:44 ↗ build out and deployment that's going to be going on now and really over the

1:09:49 ↗ next three years. This is a small cell and as we'll discuss,

1:09:55 ↗ it's not really small. Small cell is a

1:10:01 ↗ microwave antenna that supplements the macro towers, the large 120

1:10:07 ↗ foot lattice towers that cell companies use to distribute their signal.

1:10:15 ↗ If you watched as I did way too much NFL football over the weekend, you

1:10:19 ↗ probably saw the ad that described Verizon's five-year-old network as

1:10:26 ↗ really old in dog years. Over the past

1:10:32 ↗ three years, the amount of data that's transferred has tripled. It has

1:10:38 ↗ been doubling about every three or four years. As you know, smartphones are not

1:10:44 ↗ for making telephone calls anymore. They're for watching movies, taking pictures,

1:10:50 ↗ and the amount of data that is used is astronomical. The

1:10:56 ↗ cell companies, you'll remember the ad I was talking about was criticizing Verizon. Verizon's in

1:11:01 ↗ the midst of rolling out hundreds of millions of dollars in deployment to build

1:11:07 ↗ small cells. Small cells are a way of of eliminating

1:11:13 ↗ dead spots. It used to be you were worried about dead spots with your phone

1:11:18 ↗ on a dropping a call. Now it's you don't want to miss the last part

1:11:22 ↗ of a movie on your way to school perhaps. The.

1:11:30 ↗ Your city and 25 others began the process about a year ago

1:11:36 ↗ of updating your codes. One of the realities here is

1:11:42 ↗ that the right-of-way has traditionally been used by wireline companies, telephone companies,

1:11:48 ↗ cable TV companies. They build poles, they hang wires. It's been a linear

1:11:54 ↗ process. Your city, like many other cities with whom we work, over the past 10

1:12:00 ↗ years have been active, or 20 really, have been actively pursuing undergrounding,

1:12:06 ↗ getting those utilities down, which works great for wireline,

1:12:12 ↗ but if a microwave tower to be effective has to be above ground. The Federal

1:12:18 ↗ Communications Commission has identified those utility poles in the

1:12:24 ↗ right of way as a necessary resource. Under federal law, cities can't discriminate

1:12:31 ↗ can't refuse entry into their cities for small cell deployment, and they have to provide

1:12:37 ↗ access to the right-of-way on a non-discriminatory basis. Part of the

1:12:44 ↗ reality, the business reality these days, is Verizon in

1:12:50 ↗ that build-out that I mentioned are really building out the 4G network. While we're all

1:12:56 ↗ aware that 5G is promised and advertised, It's two or three years out. The

1:13:02 ↗ Federal Communications Commission has not sold the frequency. There's no way to know what the

1:13:07 ↗ equipment is looking like, will look like. What we're discussing is

1:13:13 ↗ how the cell carriers will distribute those

1:13:21 ↗ facilities throughout the community. Part of the reason that we began

1:13:26 ↗ our work and you joined the consortium was the realization

1:13:32 ↗ that 75 conditional use permits using the same structure

1:13:38 ↗ that cities have used for macro towers to identify hundreds

1:13:44 ↗ of small cells and get them approved in the 150

1:13:51 ↗ day period that the Federal Communication Commission allows or the 120 day

1:13:59 ↗ that state law requires would be very difficult and has the potential to swamp most

1:14:04 ↗ cities' systems. The city of Kirkland, the city of Spokane,

1:14:09 ↗ Kenmore have all updated their codes. Spokane has made small cells

1:14:16 ↗ an outright permitted use. Other cities have adopted streamlined components and

1:14:21 ↗ we're actively working with your public works engineering and planning department

1:14:29 ↗ to look at the permitting options. How are you going to accommodate something that while

1:14:35 ↗ you may have public hearings where your citizens have concerns about the aesthetic environment, but

1:14:41 ↗ probably every one of those citizens will have in their pocket or their purse the

1:14:45 ↗ device that's driving the need for it. The reason I'm here tonight though, in addition

1:14:50 ↗ to queuing up this issue that you'll be dealing with over the next months, perhaps

1:14:56 ↗ up to six months, I was to alert you that Verizon has introduced

1:15:02 ↗ nationally in last count 21 states legislation

1:15:08 ↗ that's very preemptive in nature. Would remove most city

1:15:14 ↗ traditional control over the right-of-way as the trustee of the right-of-way as it

1:15:20 ↗ relates to small cell deployments. It's targeted to help

1:15:25 ↗ Verizon get their new network deployed,

1:15:31 ↗ but it has a number of features that are referenced in the menu,

1:15:37 ↗ in the memo that I provided in your packet. You know, a particular concern

1:15:44 ↗ are provisions such as making and outright permitted use

1:15:50 ↗ in every neighborhood in your city. Ignore, there is a tip of the hat to

1:15:55 ↗ historic districts and residential districts, but shorelines

1:16:01 ↗ environments, downtown business districts, undergrounded neighborhoods.

1:16:07 ↗ Your city is unique in being very far along in a program

1:16:13 ↗ of undergrounding and telling a citizen in a community that may at his or her

1:16:19 ↗ own expense have paid to have their community undergrounded that now

1:16:25 ↗ cell companies have the right at their discretion to install a microwave

1:16:31 ↗ facility. That's gonna be a tough sell. A few pictures

1:16:37 ↗ and I want to thank the city of

1:16:43 ↗ Bellevue for the photographs. We're using them in a different context. Thank you.

1:16:49 ↗ Don't touch the mouse. Thank you.

1:16:57 ↗ As you can see, these are the portions of the antenna structure

1:17:03 ↗ The antenna can be at the top of the pole or in what's called the

1:17:07 ↗ communication zone, which is the middle part of the pole below the

1:17:13 ↗ power lines and above the cable at the bottom.

1:17:19 ↗ There's typically a box. The state statute currently defines the small cell, the

1:17:25 ↗ antenna, as something that's as a device that's three cubic feet or smaller.

1:17:32 ↗ and the related facilities as 17 cubic feet or smaller. The

1:17:38 ↗ legislation that I've mentioned in its original format would also prevent cities from

1:17:44 ↗ using aesthetics considerations, requiring concealment technology,

1:17:50 ↗ basically getting involved in any meaningful way in the permitting process. As a member

1:17:56 ↗ of the consortium and as the attorney that's representing the consortium, we've been working

1:18:02 ↗ actively with Victoria Lincoln of the Association of Washington Cities.

1:18:08 ↗ You have a lobbyist. I know that the city of Bellevue is actively

1:18:14 ↗ opposing the legislation. Tacoma and Seattle are involved both as public

1:18:20 ↗ utilities and as permitting agencies. The item

1:18:26 ↗ got dropped in the hopper in the legislative process very late.

1:18:33 ↗ It was not on the radar at the time that the AWC committees first met.

1:18:39 ↗ So we're here to alert you to what's going on and for you to

1:18:45 ↗ make a policy consideration about whether you would like to instruct your to become

1:18:51 ↗ involved in the process. AWC's position to date is no

1:18:57 ↗ preemption. We've been working, we, the consortium, have been working with

1:19:03 ↗ Ms. Lincoln to put together model ordinances. The consortium members are looking

1:19:09 ↗ at both franchise-based and planning-based approaches.

1:19:17 ↗ The, you know, one of, Verizon sales pitches to the

1:19:22 ↗ legislature is we're in active competition in this state for money.

1:19:29 ↗ I don't think anyone is for the deployments. And I'd suggest that none of

1:19:35 ↗ the 25 cities that I've been working with have any desire to stop the deployment.

1:19:41 ↗ They want to make sure that the deployment occurs in a way that is meaningful

1:19:46 ↗ in terms of each community's particular structure. and that as it comes

1:19:52 ↗ in, that cities work actively to expedite the process for an inevitable rollout,

1:19:58 ↗ but that we not lose traditional powers that communities have held under your

1:20:03 ↗ state constitution since the 1896 as the stewards and trustees of the

1:20:09 ↗ public right of way. Mayor, I'd be happy to answer questions or provide more detail.

1:20:15 ↗ I've got, oops, I keep doing that. I have lots of pictures.

1:20:22 ↗ Are there questions of Scott? Looks like you

1:20:28 ↗ did a pretty good job of explaining where we're at. Or I bored everyone into

1:20:32 ↗ submission, yes sir.

1:20:40 ↗ Stacy? Well, I'll make a motion. maybe there's a discussion after that. I would

1:20:46 ↗ move to direct the administration to amend the city's 2017 legislative agenda, adding the following

1:20:51 ↗ language, and it's in the packet, but I'll read it for those folks who don't

1:20:54 ↗ have the benefit of seeing it. Land use slash telecommunications. Issaquah would oppose

1:20:59 ↗ legislation on the development and build out of, quote, small cell, unquote, telecommunications

1:21:05 ↗ networks that would unduly preempt local authority. However, the city is open to supporting legislation

1:21:11 ↗ that retains flexibility and takes more of a model ordinance approach. Second. Moved and

1:21:17 ↗ seconded. Discussion or questions?

1:21:25 ↗ Seeing none then, all those in favor of the motion to direct the administration to

1:21:31 ↗ amend the city's 2017 legislative agenda as described by Council President

1:21:37 ↗ Signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, that carries unanimously. Thank you, Scott.

1:21:44 ↗ Thank you, Mayor, and I'll look forward to speaking with you again about amending your

1:21:48 ↗ ordinances over the next months. Thank you. Moving now to agenda bill 7050,

1:21:56 ↗ amending development services department permit fees. Keith

1:22:02 ↗ Niven, director of Development Services for a

1:22:08 ↗ staff presentation. Keith, welcome back. Thank you.

1:22:18 ↗ Okay, nightcap of a double header. So last time I

1:22:24 ↗ was in front of y'all was December 12th at a council workshop.

1:22:30 ↗ That was like 30 minutes ago.

1:22:37 ↗ Last time I was in front of you talking about development services fees was last

1:22:41 ↗ year, December 12th, at a workshop. And we talked a lot about where

1:22:47 ↗ we are and why we're doing this. And I just want to touch on that

1:22:50 ↗ for a brief bit before I go through kind of what we talked about at

1:22:53 ↗ Land and Shore. The development services department is

1:22:59 ↗ responsible for both long range planning and permitting for development within the city.

1:23:06 ↗ And over the past couple years the city has been operating in the red. In

1:23:11 ↗ other words what we had budgeted for permit revenue and what we actually took in

1:23:16 ↗ annually did not meet our targets. In 2015, the

1:23:22 ↗ city council appropriated $50,000 for the city to hire a consultant to look at our

1:23:27 ↗ fees and to assess how the department was doing in terms of its

1:23:33 ↗ cost recovery. And in a very brief summary, what I would tell you is

1:23:39 ↗ the department has basically three work groups. One would be kind of analogous to planning,

1:23:45 ↗ one would be engineering, and the other would be building. So of those three divisions,

1:23:50 ↗ Building was operating at about 100% cost recovery. Planning was operating at 37% cost recovery.

1:23:56 ↗ In the engineering group, the consultant couldn't really determine at what level they were operating

1:24:02 ↗ for cost recovery. So with all of that, we put together

1:24:08 ↗ a proposed new fee schedule for you. And we've been going through conversations at the

1:24:14 ↗ Land and Shore Committee. And really, the conversations have focused

1:24:20 ↗ on these four items, degree of cost recovery, whether

1:24:26 ↗ there's a target or a minimum or a reserve that's created. What would be the

1:24:32 ↗ impact to smaller projects by potentially increasing the permitting fees?

1:24:37 ↗ And then a question was asked on the December 12th workshop, what is the accuracy

1:24:42 ↗ of forecasting? Is there a way to predictably understand where you

1:24:48 ↗ should set that target if you're gonna set one. So I'm gonna start with degree

1:24:52 ↗ of cost recovery and what we talked about in December was kind of a proposal

1:24:58 ↗ to hit 75% cost recovery and this is actually a two part, I think,

1:25:03 ↗ conversation. One is how much of the department is cost recovery and there's a certain

1:25:08 ↗ number of positions that I think what we would say

1:25:14 ↗ arguably is a function that is not development service related, it's more long range

1:25:19 ↗ planning and admin. And then there's, what percentage of the remaining

1:25:25 ↗ department is cost recovery. And I provided basically some different levels. We talked

1:25:31 ↗ about 75%. Here's an 80, 90, and 100. And based on the $6.2 million

1:25:37 ↗ budget for the department, the numbers in the right column is how that works out

1:25:43 ↗ in terms of percentage. What we also talked about was peer cities and what are

1:25:47 ↗ other cities doing in terms of cost recovery. So there's a list here on this

1:25:50 ↗ slide of some of those other cities. And based on the ones that we

1:25:56 ↗ surveyed, the average is 75% cost recovery, means 73%.

1:26:04 ↗ Target or minimum, this is a conversation about if we make a budgeting assumption,

1:26:10 ↗ say, of 80% cost recovery, and I'm going to pick that number for a reason,

1:26:14 ↗ we'll see in a moment, that would basically be $4 million. So if we target

1:26:20 ↗ $4 million through the budgeting process for revenue for this department, what happens if you

1:26:25 ↗ don't meet that target? And we talked about whether or not you develop a

1:26:31 ↗ reserve so that if there are permitting or dead points that you wouldn't

1:26:37 ↗ have to immediately potentially get rid of staff because that's our most

1:26:43 ↗ significant operating cost, obviously. And so that was, I think, a significant

1:26:48 ↗ part of the conversation that we had at the last Land and Shore meeting. Impact

1:26:54 ↗ on small projects. So what I did with this was basically the first column is

1:26:59 ↗ different types of permitting projects from home remodels to

1:27:05 ↗ new bigger projects like gateway which is the apartments on Newport to say a small

1:27:10 ↗ commercial remodel and if you look at the columns basically there is land use site

1:27:15 ↗ work and building permits as we talked about the three divisions and what the existing

1:27:20 ↗ permit fee was in 2016 or is today and what is being proposed and how

1:27:25 ↗ that changes. Bless you. My assessment of this is if you look

1:27:31 ↗ at it, there's really a very small change to Gateway. And what I think we've

1:27:36 ↗ seen is that the smaller projects are really where some of the bigger increases are

1:27:42 ↗ coming. But it's partially because those are the ones being mostly subsidized right now with

1:27:47 ↗ the existing fee structure. And then lastly,

1:27:53 ↗ we came away with a recommendation from committee. which has been slightly, I think, revised.

1:28:00 ↗ I think what's coming out of committee is to one, approve the fee schedule. Two,

1:28:05 ↗ is to set the permitting revenue target at 80%, which would be $4 million for

1:28:10 ↗ the 2017 budget. Three, it's coming to an agreement with the

1:28:16 ↗ excluded positions, which are the three long range planning positions, the counter service manager and

1:28:22 ↗ the director. Although that was a two to one conversation, we can kind of pull

1:28:26 ↗ that apart if we need to. And then the fourth item was to not enact

1:28:30 ↗ the new fee schedule until the 20th of February. And part of the reason for

1:28:35 ↗ that was to give some of the folks that are either thinking about submitting for

1:28:41 ↗ permits or an adequate amount of amount of time to actually get in before the

1:28:46 ↗ new fee schedule is enacted. So that concludes my

1:28:52 ↗ quick presentation. If there's questions or if Mary Lou, if you'd want to add anything

1:28:57 ↗ else. Mary Lou. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just add a couple of things. Thanks for

1:29:01 ↗ the summary, Keith. That was really good. This is a long and complicated agenda bill.

1:29:07 ↗ A couple of things that I wanted to add is Under the committee's recommendation on

1:29:12 ↗ cost recovery target, we were all happy to see that it increased from 75% to

1:29:17 ↗ 80%. However, I think Bill would also like to speak to a suggestion that he

1:29:23 ↗ made about in the future in terms of potentially looking at moving

1:29:28 ↗ towards 100% cost recovery. So that was not unanimously supported, but it was an idea

1:29:34 ↗ that Bill had put out on the table. Also happy to see that one of

1:29:39 ↗ the administrative positions that had been previously excluded had been added back in. The comment

1:29:45 ↗ about the two to one vote, both Councilmember Batista and

1:29:51 ↗ I agreed with the positions that were proposed in the agenda bill. Bill, do you

1:29:56 ↗ want to talk about your thoughts on why the director position should also be included

1:30:01 ↗ in cost recovery? Because that can't. Whenever you want to fit those in, you want

1:30:03 ↗ to. I'll go down my list and let you talk to both of those. Thanks.

1:30:08 ↗ That's great. There was a general consensus to establish a cost recovery

1:30:13 ↗ reporting plan. Administration reviewed that recommendation after Land &

1:30:20 ↗ Shore finished. And there are a couple of changes that they would like to make,

1:30:24 ↗ and I'll make a few comments on those at the end. The second one that

1:30:28 ↗ the committee recommended but administration would like us to pause on is that the committee

1:30:33 ↗ did believe establishing a reserve for smoothing out the peaks and the valleys in terms

1:30:37 ↗ of permit processing is a good idea. And one of the other questions that came

1:30:43 ↗ up is there is a change in the table in the way fees are collected

1:30:47 ↗ for negotiations of a development agreement. It's on a per acre basis. It used to

1:30:52 ↗ be time and material. And there was concern by the committee that there should be

1:30:58 ↗ some reporting, if development agreements are being negotiated, there should be some reporting out during

1:31:04 ↗ the year to verify whether or not that is a good change in how we

1:31:08 ↗ collect that fee. The committee supported the ordinance having a 30

1:31:15 ↗ day implementation period which puts it at mid February. There also was an ask of

1:31:20 ↗ staff that due to the significance of some of the increases in fees, that there

1:31:26 ↗ be an attempt made to inform residents and developers that have been into the permitting

1:31:32 ↗ center, are in process or about to submit, are notified of these increases, similar

1:31:38 ↗ to what was done when the moratorium came into effect and there was an outreach

1:31:43 ↗ process to make sure that people in that loop somehow were notified. The staff is

1:31:49 ↗ recommending some changes to land and shore recommendations and it has to do with the

1:31:53 ↗ financial aspects. And I think both Bill and Mariah, it would be great if you

1:31:59 ↗ would comment on the staff's changes as well. The changes are that we will be

1:32:04 ↗ as a council discussing some financial policy, long range planning items

1:32:10 ↗ this year. And rather than create another new reserve at this time,

1:32:16 ↗ Staff recommends that in our conversation on long-term planning, we talk about reserves in

1:32:22 ↗ general before we start creating another reserve. And that seems to make sense to me

1:32:26 ↗ as long as we do get to the end point at some point within the

1:32:30 ↗ next 12 to 18 months of looking at a reserve for development

1:32:34 ↗ services recovery, cost recovery. And then the reporting was

1:32:40 ↗ another item that had come up from administration. In terms of financial reporting, the committee

1:32:44 ↗ had asked for quarterly reporting. And based on the information that can be

1:32:51 ↗ collected from our current financial system, the director of finance would like to

1:32:57 ↗ come back and find out exactly what that reporting looks like to confirm that it

1:33:01 ↗ is possible to report in the manner requested. So again, I think that's a reasonable

1:33:04 ↗ request leave it in the agenda bill but defer it until the finance

1:33:10 ↗ director has time to confer with land insurers to what that might look like. And

1:33:15 ↗ Bill, would you like to comment on, I'm sorry Mr. Mayor, but I think both

1:33:19 ↗ the committee members would probably like to add something. Mariah sort of raised her hand

1:33:23 ↗ before so why don't you start Mariah and then we'll move to Bill. Well, I

1:33:29 ↗ think that it does make sense what the administration has talked about in terms of

1:33:34 ↗ coming back with more information, but do definitely wanna see

1:33:40 ↗ us talk about the reserve fund and the quarterly reporting. I think

1:33:46 ↗ when we were discussing the reserve fund and the different options that may be

1:33:52 ↗ out there, one of the comments that I made during committee is that It doesn't

1:33:56 ↗ seem to make a lot of sense to me to have a model where

1:34:03 ↗ as things dip down that you have to look at potentially laying off

1:34:08 ↗ staff. And from a strategic perspective when looking at,

1:34:14 ↗ when looking across sort of a personnel or a human resources plan, the amount of

1:34:19 ↗ time that it takes to to then recruit, to

1:34:25 ↗ train, and all of those sometimes hidden and sometimes not hidden costs that go into

1:34:31 ↗ all of that, not to mention morale, and just looking at that from

1:34:37 ↗ that perspective, the reserve fund seemed to make a lot of sense to me, and

1:34:42 ↗ we also talked about that if there were overages where more

1:34:48 ↗ money was made that that would be in the reserve fund and then potentially the

1:34:52 ↗ rest of that would come from the general fund. So I just wanted to point

1:34:55 ↗ out some of the things that we talked about in terms of the reserve fund

1:34:59 ↗ and why we had gone down that road. So I'll look forward to getting more

1:35:04 ↗ information about that. Bill? I'll kind of

1:35:10 ↗ start at the top I guess. You had some questions there. I think we orient

1:35:15 ↗ a little bit. The set of being for 80% cost recovery,

1:35:21 ↗ I think that's basic to one of my questions, and that is I'm not sure

1:35:26 ↗ why we want to set 80% cost recovery on something. It seems to me if

1:35:30 ↗ you're looking at cost recovery, you should normally look at 100%. That's what cost recovery

1:35:34 ↗ is. I'm not saying that we're always gonna plan to have a 20% of somebody

1:35:39 ↗ else cover the cost of that part of business. So I think This would be

1:35:45 ↗ a great first step. I would support stepping ahead with these new fees now, but

1:35:51 ↗ I'd say we should look at the next step, which is working towards 100% recovery,

1:35:56 ↗ because this is a program I think that should cover its own costs. It's one

1:35:59 ↗ of our largest pieces of our budget in so many ways, so I think that's

1:36:05 ↗ what we should look at, and that should be the next step, because why should

1:36:12 ↗ everybody else subsidize this program? That's what it gets down to on that. To follow

1:36:17 ↗ with that, I think the next thing I'll address is the two to one vote

1:36:21 ↗ there on item three is what positions should be excluded. And to me,

1:36:28 ↗ all the positions that aren't dealing with development should be excluded. So the long range

1:36:32 ↗ planning, the comprehensive plan, those kinds of folks, which are on there, all of them

1:36:36 ↗ except the director. As I talked to, director

1:36:42 ↗ at the time. In the development side, there's what, 22 out of 26 of

1:36:48 ↗ your employees are in the development side, four are in the long-term planning side. So

1:36:54 ↗ that obviously is the major part of the department. So why the director would not

1:37:00 ↗ be part of that, because if you had a department of four people, that would

1:37:03 ↗ be a whole lot simpler thing to do and you wouldn't need to have a

1:37:06 ↗ highly skilled person as our director to manage four people versus to manage 26. So

1:37:12 ↗ I think that position should also be excluded, or should not be

1:37:18 ↗ excluded, excuse me. Keep that wording right. So there will only be four, or three,

1:37:23 ↗ three rather than four. So that again is just trying to keep the cost where

1:37:27 ↗ the costs really are.

1:37:34 ↗ The reserve, I had another question on that. So as you look at the target

1:37:38 ↗ 80 versus 100 percent, the reserve, when you're only trying to gather 80 percent,

1:37:45 ↗ a reserve doesn't make a lot of sense. In a sense, you're going to subsidize

1:37:48 ↗ it anyway. And where the reserve, how are you going to get the reserve? To

1:37:52 ↗ me, the devil's in the detail. If the reserve comes from the general fund, then

1:37:56 ↗ that's not a reserve. That's just what you'd pay it with anyway. So there's no

1:38:00 ↗ point in that. If you look at something, the reason for reserve is to level

1:38:05 ↗ out things as some of the things mentioned from the human resources side to treat

1:38:11 ↗ our employees right. We don't want to have a department that's fluctuating all over the

1:38:14 ↗ place. We want to build things up so that when years are low, that's okay

1:38:20 ↗ because the years are high and we would balance that out. And that's a good

1:38:23 ↗ idea because as I mentioned before, you have no way of knowing what business is

1:38:27 ↗ coming in the door, right? And you can't control it like other folks can a

1:38:32 ↗ little bit more so, but you cannot. And we don't want to have you sitting

1:38:35 ↗ at the whim of who's coming in the door and who's not. So some way

1:38:39 ↗ to balance that is good. How you do it, but if you do it with

1:38:43 ↗ just say one of the proposals is setting aside $100,000 of general fund money to

1:38:47 ↗ build up a pot of reserve. Well, I don't see a reason for that because

1:38:53 ↗ if we're just going to pay it next year for $200,000, then we would have

1:38:56 ↗ paid over two years versus one. That didn't make sense to me, but if you

1:39:00 ↗ built it up with money that came in into the department because of a higher

1:39:07 ↗ year, then that would cover you on the lower years. That would make sense to

1:39:10 ↗ me on the reserve. And that would also take care of

1:39:17 ↗ protecting our employees, keeping good, well-trained folks when they're ready to do the work so

1:39:22 ↗ they can do good quality work, not just the work. Point of order. I do

1:39:27 ↗ have a motion and there's a lot of different topics being discussed. I think it

1:39:31 ↗ would help if there is one proposed in the packet and

1:39:38 ↗ the actual movement, the language of that, it's not clear to me whether or not

1:39:44 ↗ it embraces this additional talk, this conversation about reserve and what positions are in or

1:39:49 ↗ out. So it's a little bit unclear on what questions we're considering right now.

1:39:58 ↗ Mr. Mayor, I would move to adopt ordinance number 2792.

1:40:05 ↗ Mending section 3.64.010 of the Issaquah Municipal Code and the Land Use

1:40:11 ↗ and Site Work Fee Schedule adopted by such section, directing that the fee schedule be

1:40:16 ↗ set forth in the Issaquah Municipal Code in full and establishing an effective date of

1:40:21 ↗ February 20, 2017. I'm not really sure if I should be reading the other.

1:40:29 ↗ I think that's it. Second. Moved and seconded discussion on the

1:40:35 ↗ main motion or there have been a number of

1:40:41 ↗ items that need to be further discussed

1:40:47 ↗ over time and those are clearly listed in the agenda bill. What Mariah and

1:40:53 ↗ Bill have spoken to is their thoughts and

1:40:59 ↗ views on that. And so I see this really as

1:41:05 ↗ several, one motion and future work to be done on

1:41:11 ↗ topics one through four listed at the bottom of the agenda bill.

1:41:18 ↗ Did I get that right? I would also, Mr. Mayor,

1:41:24 ↗ possibly recommend additional language be added to the motion that addresses the,

1:41:31 ↗ on page 115 at the bottom, there are four points that land inshore, four additional

1:41:36 ↗ recommendations from land inshore, but number two and number three are gonna be deferred. And

1:41:40 ↗ so what might make sense is to amend the motion saying that

1:41:46 ↗ creation of a development services department reserve fund and the,

1:41:53 ↗ Reportly reports out to Council's Services and Safety Committee will be deferred

1:42:01 ↗ until further consultation with the administration. Just to make sure that only one and four

1:42:06 ↗ are included. Okay, so I heard an

1:42:12 ↗ amendment offered to clarify steps going forward that would

1:42:18 ↗ include items one and four. deferring one

1:42:24 ↗ and... I mean, two and four and deferring one and,

1:42:31 ↗ no, deferring two and three

1:42:37 ↗ and going forward on one and

1:42:39 ↗ four. Want to try to put that

1:42:45 ↗ in words? I thought I did. Okay.

1:42:53 ↗ I would move that we amend the original motion to include the following language at

1:42:58 ↗ the end of the motion. Creation of a development services department reserve fund

1:43:05 ↗ and quarterly reporting to the council services and safety committee will be deferred until

1:43:10 ↗ further consultation with administration. Make sense? I would suggest

1:43:17 ↗ that you include the language of what you want to include, not exclude. Okay, it's.

1:43:22 ↗ The existing motion doesn't include that language. It is, it doesn't include it, but the

1:43:27 ↗ agenda bill does include it. The agenda bill already talks about the 80% cost recovery.

1:43:36 ↗ But it's not in the, it's not in the proposed ordinance.

1:44:01 ↗ Let me take a crack at it. Adopt ordinance number 2792 amending

1:44:07 ↗ section as stated in the original motion

1:44:13 ↗ and setting the cost permitting, set the permitting cost

1:44:19 ↗ recovery revenue target at 80% of non-excluded cost

1:44:25 ↗ and excluding the following positions from the permitting cost recovery

1:44:31 ↗ revenue target. And those positions are listed here.

1:44:38 ↗ Is that the intent? Yes. Second. The seconder?

1:44:44 ↗ Accepts the amendment. Okay. And

1:44:50 ↗ that's a friendly amendment. Back to the

1:44:56 ↗ amended motion. Additional discussion or

1:45:01 ↗ questions? Stacy? Thank you. Keith, can you remind me what

1:45:08 ↗ the rationale for excluding the director's position? So right now,

1:45:16 ↗ the rationale is that the director's position spends a lot of time

1:45:23 ↗ at meetings like this, dealing with policy issues.

1:45:28 ↗ And, you know, it's the actual right now, so right now, it's not

1:45:34 ↗ a great time to do a slice and see what I'm actually spending my time

1:45:38 ↗ on because I'm spending time on actual permit issuance because I'm missing staff. We have

1:45:42 ↗ vacancies. But during when the department is fully staffed, the director is really

1:45:48 ↗ doing mostly policy work associated with the department. Some of that's

1:45:55 ↗ development related. Some of it's long range planning related. And so as we talked about

1:46:00 ↗ this at committee, if I was to try and put a percentage

1:46:06 ↗ of the director's time that dealt with development related things versus policy related

1:46:12 ↗ things, it would be hard for me to guess what that number

1:46:18 ↗ might be. So we kind of left that conversation at that point, and that's kind

1:46:23 ↗ of when the vote happened. I mean, for example, these fees, you could say

1:46:29 ↗ it is development related, but it's really policy related getting the department to run at

1:46:34 ↗ its budgeted kind of operating cost. So

1:46:40 ↗ it's not clear for me that it should be not excluded. Okay, thank you. And

1:46:45 ↗ then I had a follow-up, not a follow-up to that, I have a second question.

1:46:49 ↗ There was, can the city, and this is probably a question for Jim Haney,

1:46:57 ↗ Can the city seek 100% cost recovery?

1:47:04 ↗ Or are there, the reason I'm asking is because, or are there

1:47:11 ↗ parts of work that DSD does that cannot be included in these?

1:47:18 ↗ The city can seek and can require 100% cost recovery for

1:47:25 ↗ costs that are related to actually processing permits. So

1:47:31 ↗ obviously it's an art as Keith indicated as to determine what

1:47:37 ↗ some positions spend on actually processing permits versus doing

1:47:43 ↗ policy work and so forth. But you can recover 100% of your costs legally.

1:47:49 ↗ So the best example would be King County's DDS where they do

1:47:55 ↗ charge, they keep track of time and they bill it out that way.

1:48:01 ↗ It's a structure we don't have here now. It was similar to what we did

1:48:05 ↗ with the major development review team which when I ran that work group within the

1:48:10 ↗ city, we had two admin staff just to work invoicing. And so

1:48:17 ↗ it adds layers of staffing requirements within the organization. So we can go there. It

1:48:22 ↗ does require, I think, a structural change for us to get there. And we talked

1:48:26 ↗ about this a couple of years ago at Land and Shore, and I was one

1:48:31 ↗ of those who was asking about the structure to be able to do that. And

1:48:36 ↗ at the time, I was told we don't have that ability now, but we will

1:48:40 ↗ with our new system. And so is that true, that we would have that?

1:48:46 ↗ I would have to defer to somebody else on that question. Can

1:48:52 ↗ you... Thank you, Mayor.

1:48:58 ↗ Dial a friend. I'm unable to answer that right now at this time, but that's

1:49:04 ↗ something that we can look into and bring more information back to the committee and

1:49:08 ↗ the council. Okay. I would like to know, because I was told at that time

1:49:12 ↗ that we would have that ability with this new system. and so I would like

1:49:17 ↗ to know if we will actually have it. Thanks.

1:49:25 ↗ Paul? Yeah, regarding the 80%, so the way I'm interpreting this

1:49:31 ↗ is we, those positions that are part of the cost recovery calculation,

1:49:38 ↗ we are effectively saying that on average they

1:49:44 ↗ spend 80% of their time doing this work and about roughly 20% it's

1:49:52 ↗ more for the public good, not specifically to help some type of engineering or development

1:49:57 ↗ effort. And so, At least that's the way I'm interpreting it. And if we

1:50:03 ↗ had a labor tracking system and everybody did punch in their hours,

1:50:09 ↗ and we're saying we think roughly that for every 40 hours that

1:50:15 ↗ these, to use a 40 hour work week, that these employees are clocking 32 of

1:50:21 ↗ those, are actually

1:50:27 ↗ for the actual items related to fees and another aid are roughly not. They're

1:50:33 ↗ doing some other overhead or public service. Is that how we got it 80? I

1:50:39 ↗ don't wanna put any words in your mouth because I'm wondering why not 75, why

1:50:42 ↗ not 90, why not 100? I would go at it from two different directions. One

1:50:48 ↗ is yes, I would guess with you that of a total work week, 32 out

1:50:54 ↗ of 40 hours doing either permit review or answering permit related queries

1:51:00 ↗ is probably a good average across the department. The other piece is

1:51:07 ↗ looking at, so we did some projections based on the proposed fee schedule on what

1:51:13 ↗ revenue would be reasonable given kind of a normal workload. And

1:51:19 ↗ that gets us at about, my guess would be 3.8 million, right? So 3.8, 4

1:51:26 ↗ million, so 4 million is 80%, 3.8 would be just shy. So

1:51:31 ↗ part of it, and in the past the council has been very concerned over increasing

1:51:38 ↗ fees too much at any given time. And so what this represents, I believe,

1:51:44 ↗ is both kind of hitting the target of what staff are really doing

1:51:50 ↗ and putting the fees at a level that I think is reasonable but gets the

1:51:55 ↗ department at a much better cost recovery rate than where we are right now.

1:52:02 ↗ So we pushed it a long ways and I think Council Member Ramos' proposal to

1:52:07 ↗ get to 100%, I'm not pushing back against, but I think that should be more

1:52:13 ↗ of a progression based on, so you asked me a long time ago, how do

1:52:17 ↗ I know that these fees are right? And what I would tell you is, I

1:52:21 ↗ don't think we do know that. I think what I can tell you is that

1:52:26 ↗ of the three work groups, building was in the right spot, This takes

1:52:32 ↗ planning from 30%, 37% cost recovery to what I would think would be somewhere

1:52:37 ↗ between 80 and 100. And the engineering group, I still don't know the answer to

1:52:42 ↗ because the fee study done by the consultant didn't give me any indication of where

1:52:46 ↗ it was. So we had to kind of shoot in the dark based on what

1:52:49 ↗ we thought we should do. So if you were to ask me is this proposed

1:52:55 ↗ fee schedule much better very much better than what's in existence, I would say yes.

1:53:01 ↗ Is it gonna potentially get us to a point where we're beyond 80% cost recovery?

1:53:07 ↗ I think that's a possibility, and if so, I think that's part of that ongoing

1:53:10 ↗ conversation about if we are in the right spot, and if we are potentially

1:53:16 ↗ recovering more than 80% of our cost, then let's move the target upward, right? Or

1:53:21 ↗ let's progress it, and let's look for more operational savings to actually get to a

1:53:25 ↗ higher percentage. So I'd answer it kind of both

1:53:31 ↗ ways. I think it's the right number from both what staff is doing now and

1:53:35 ↗ also I believe it's an achievable target for the

1:53:41 ↗ department for this first year of a new fee schedule.

1:53:47 ↗ So one of the things when I look at fees or really anything taxation

1:53:52 ↗ or revenue generation for city is can I go look somebody in the eye and

1:53:57 ↗ explain it and feel comfortable with that explanation and I'm very comfortable with 80% and

1:54:02 ↗ I'll tell you why. I'm lucky enough to have employees that work for me and

1:54:08 ↗ fully billable for them is 140 hours a month and that is 80.8% of the

1:54:11 ↗ actual 2080 hours per

1:54:16 ↗ year that exist in a 40-hour work week. And so that is reflecting that people

1:54:21 ↗ take vacations, they take sick leave, they have to come before council and

1:54:27 ↗ answer questions, et cetera, et cetera. And so if I was sitting down with

1:54:33 ↗ a resident or a business, I would feel very comfortable explaining that. So I feel

1:54:37 ↗ comfortable about this target. Thank you. Other questions or comments?

1:54:43 ↗ Paul, do you have another one? I think we're still talking about the amendment to

1:54:45 ↗ the motion. And the second part that was added, number four in the packet, it

1:54:51 ↗ does say explicitly, it's the one that says exclude the following positions from the permitting

1:54:55 ↗ cost recovery revenue target director, long range planners, planning division, excuse me. And then it

1:55:00 ↗ says parenthetically three positions. I guess that could change over time. It could go to

1:55:06 ↗ two, it could go to three. And so I interpret the three positions just as

1:55:12 ↗ a count of the current number of positions. But the intent of this would be

1:55:16 ↗ to always exclude long range planning division. That's my interpretation of this. And I'm just

1:55:21 ↗ wondering if my colleagues agree with that. I

1:55:27 ↗ see no one shaking their head with the opposite. All right, just wanted to make

1:55:32 ↗ that clear. Other questions or comments, Bill?

1:55:39 ↗ The way you brought this up with the 80% in my mind has never been

1:55:43 ↗ discussed that way previously. So it was 80% of the cost of doing

1:55:49 ↗ business, not 80% because 20% is other business. It was these

1:55:55 ↗ positions are 100% doing this work, including those kinds of costs that

1:56:00 ↗ cost an employee to have benefits and and all those things are wrapped into that

1:56:06 ↗ 100% of cost. It was never, we're only doing 80% because that's all they do

1:56:12 ↗ and 20% is towards, I don't know, whatever else they do. So it was just

1:56:17 ↗ a decision to claim, try to get only 80% of the true cost, not

1:56:23 ↗ the way you guys are both looking at it, I guess, and that's just what

1:56:26 ↗ I wanted to clarify. You've never presented it that way that I've heard before. Okay.

1:56:35 ↗ So I think we talked about it a little bit at the December 12th workshop,

1:56:39 ↗ and I think part of the discussion when a suggestion was to go to an

1:56:42 ↗ enterprise fund that there were costs associated with staffing that represented

1:56:48 ↗ more of a public benefit than was developer related. But that's my recollection, which may

1:56:53 ↗ not be accurate. I'm just saying I think we might have just touched it a

1:56:56 ↗ little bit. Going towards enterprise fund, which is a whole other level. Exactly. Right.

1:57:04 ↗ Other questions or discussion? Mariah? I

1:57:10 ↗ just wanted to make sure that this particular issue didn't fall off the plate. We

1:57:16 ↗ had talked about it at January 5th land and shore and Mary Lou had alluded

1:57:22 ↗ to this. But when we were talking about the fee impacts and development agreements, we

1:57:27 ↗ had talked about the issue of moving to per acre fee structure.

1:57:34 ↗ And we had considered at that time giving the director

1:57:40 ↗ discretion between an hourly rate and

1:57:46 ↗ the per acre fee structure. And I'm wondering if a good place to put this,

1:57:50 ↗ I'm not sure if it makes sense, so this is a question for you, with

1:57:53 ↗ the quarterly reporting that maybe that could be something that we could talk about whether

1:57:58 ↗ that is working well or whether that discretion needs to be in there because that

1:58:04 ↗ is not something that came forward in terms of the recommendations.

1:58:11 ↗ Keith, can you pull up the table where you had the new fees? Because I

1:58:13 ↗ thought you had a note at the bottom or we're going to add a note

1:58:16 ↗ at the bottom about that item. I did. So

1:58:23 ↗ I'm going to ask Tisha, is the packet up?

1:58:33 ↗ So the conversation was, I'm not sure if I'm close enough to the mic. So

1:58:39 ↗ the conversation at committee was we were dramatically changing how we were going to charge

1:58:44 ↗ for development agreements. And although we don't see very many of them coming down the

1:58:49 ↗ pike, there could be some. And going to a completely different

1:58:55 ↗ measure, right now it's the old fee schedule is hourly and we're

1:59:00 ↗ going to a per acre basis. And part of it is to get a more

1:59:04 ↗ predictable fee up front. Plus it takes the staff out of having to do

1:59:12 ↗ accounting of their time, which we talked about earlier. But it also, we put a

1:59:16 ↗ note on the table at the end. It's footnote three to the new fee schedule,

1:59:21 ↗ which allows the director to adjust the fee if it's believed that

1:59:27 ↗ it's not going to be commensurate with the amount of work done. So and the

1:59:33 ↗ to kind of give you an absurd way that that might play out is if

1:59:37 ↗ Lake Sammamish State Park if the state parks came forward and said we want to

1:59:41 ↗ do a development agreement just because of the vast amount of land in the state

1:59:46 ↗ park that would be a huge fee that the department would take in that would

1:59:51 ↗ probably be well in excess of the amount of staff cost associated with that. So

1:59:55 ↗ so we did add a footnote three to the table. which would allow the director

2:00:00 ↗ to kind of make an administrative decision when an applicant came in for a development

2:00:06 ↗ agreement specifically if we believe that the complexity or the land wasn't going to

2:00:12 ↗ land us at a spot where we would be recovering our fees at an expected

2:00:18 ↗ level. Did that answer your question, Maria? Yes, thank you.

2:00:24 ↗ Paul? I was just going to make a point of order. We haven't finished about

2:00:28 ↗ the amendment to the motion. And I think this topic goes back to the main

2:00:32 ↗ motion. I believe the main motion has been amended to

2:00:38 ↗ include items. We did, but we didn't vote on the amendment.

2:00:46 ↗ All those in favor of amending the main motion

2:00:53 ↗ by including Items 1 and 4

2:01:00 ↗ signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed?

2:01:06 ↗ The amendment passes. We're now talking about an amended motion. Mary Lou?

2:01:12 ↗ Thanks. Just a question for Mariah to make sure I understand. When we talked about

2:01:17 ↗ it in committee, we had said that during quarterly reporting or whatever kind of reporting

2:01:21 ↗ we were going to get about financials, we would have a special pull out of

2:01:26 ↗ the development agreement time material. Now, this new motion no longer has

2:01:32 ↗ the quarterly reporting because it's deferred. Was your question about do we still get some

2:01:37 ↗ sort of feedback on whether or not we have an appropriate measurement for development agreements

2:01:42 ↗ since we're not going to have quarterly reporting? Well, maybe just to add it in

2:01:46 ↗ as it's deferred and when we're talking about that, I just wanted to make sure

2:01:50 ↗ that that wasn't missed.

2:01:58 ↗ No additional amendment. Additional questions or discussion? Paul?

2:02:05 ↗ It wasn't that many years ago that we revised and tried the same thing.

2:02:11 ↗ I know some of the history is there. Some of these

2:02:17 ↗ changes are pretty significant.

2:02:25 ↗ I'm glad to see, I know when we budgeted for 2017, we assumed maybe the

2:02:30 ↗ start of these on February 1st. So it's with a little bit of angst, but

2:02:35 ↗ I think the point that Mary Lou, you made earlier about just notifying people who

2:02:39 ↗ are in the process of this change, give them,

2:02:47 ↗ especially if they're smaller businesses or individuals that might be affected by this. So this

2:02:52 ↗ defer to February 20, because of the significance of these changes,

2:02:58 ↗ I think does give hopefully those opportunity for some that otherwise maybe wouldn't be able

2:03:04 ↗ to proceed the opportunity to apply ahead of time.

2:03:10 ↗ And so I'm glad that, I hope we don't have to keep doing this every

2:03:13 ↗ three or four years. We did defer the reporting, it's absolutely

2:03:19 ↗ critical, but I also understand how difficult it can be. We wanna be able to

2:03:23 ↗ get accurate numbers that we believe and trust. And I know the back end systems

2:03:28 ↗ have to be in place for capturing that data and for them to be able

2:03:31 ↗ to extract it and understand it correctly. So we'll get there and it's gonna be

2:03:36 ↗ good when we get there. It'll be great.

2:03:42 ↗ And so, and I'd also would wanna throw out there for

2:03:48 ↗ discussion, again, the item that we didn't include. I think we do have the long-term

2:03:53 ↗ ad hoc finance committee and maybe the reserve fund for this. I looked at the

2:03:59 ↗ kind of the charter for that. It's actually in our packet. It doesn't talk explicitly

2:04:04 ↗ about this type of financial policy, but it certainly seems to me to be within

2:04:08 ↗ the spirit and the intent of that group. So

2:04:14 ↗ if the finance department wants to, has asked us to pull back on establishing the

2:04:20 ↗ reserve funds so that they can get better prepared and maybe present us some additional

2:04:25 ↗ information. I think if that would, that issue, if we wanted to put it through

2:04:30 ↗ a committee, I think the finance committee might be, I would suggest that because I

2:04:36 ↗ think there's a couple attributes to end the purpose of this that we haven't had

2:04:40 ↗ a lot of discussion about but we were just scratched upon. when we did meet

2:04:45 ↗ one time last year in the Finance Committee is that and that's doing multi-year planning.

2:04:49 ↗ And so this idea of a reserve, this idea that we would try to smooth

2:04:52 ↗ out the bumps really is saying we need to establish a policy that for

2:04:59 ↗ the finance of some operation that looks in multiple

2:05:04 ↗ years. And we don't have a history of doing that. And so that's just a

2:05:09 ↗ suggestion that we can take up at another conversation. But I do

2:05:15 ↗ look forward and I think we should have that conversation about a reserve. That's all.

2:05:21 ↗ Thank you. Additional questions or discussion? Seeing

2:05:27 ↗ none then, all those in favor of adopting ordinance number 2792 amending section 3.64.010

2:05:35 ↗ of the Issaquah Municipal Code and the land use and site work fee schedule

2:05:42 ↗ adopted by set section directing that the fee schedule be set forth in the

2:05:48 ↗ Iskawa Municipal Code in full and establishing an effective date of February 20, 2017

2:05:56 ↗ and set the permitting cost recovery

2:06:01 ↗ revenue target at 80% of non-excluded costs per end $4 million for 27

2:06:09 ↗ and excluding the following positions from the cost, from the permitting cost recovery

2:06:16 ↗ revenue target, the director, long range planning division, parent three positions, and the

2:06:21 ↗ counter services manager signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed,

2:06:28 ↗ that carries unanimously. Our next item under regular business is agenda bill.

2:06:39 ↗ 107306, capital budget policy. And our director, Jen Olson, is

2:06:44 ↗ approaching the microphone to provide a

2:06:50 ↗ summary of the administration's recommendation for going forward

2:06:59 ↗ to establish our capital budget policy. So Jen?

2:07:07 ↗ Thanks for sticking around. Thank you, Mayor Butler, City Council members.

2:07:13 ↗ We're going to talk a little bit more about policy, but just a brief presentation

2:07:18 ↗ before we get started with a section of our financial policy. And I

2:07:24 ↗ appreciate the council waiting to talk more about comprehensive financial policy because I think that

2:07:30 ↗ that's important rather than piece sections of that financial policy because

2:07:36 ↗ they interrelate to each other. And so I think that that is a better practice.

2:07:42 ↗ So I appreciate that. So tonight, this agenda item, the purpose of it is to

2:07:47 ↗ kick off the capital budgeting process for future years, as

2:07:53 ↗ well as the upcoming capital improvement planning process for 2018 through 2023.

2:08:06 ↗ At the last council meeting, there was a proposal and a motion

2:08:12 ↗ to address the placeholder document for the 2017 CIP.

2:08:19 ↗ But with the idea that the capital budget process would be improved. And so what

2:08:25 ↗ the administration wants to do and work with the council is and

2:08:31 ↗ identified a pathway forward or a timeline that would update the budget policy first,

2:08:37 ↗ then improve the capital improvement development process, and of course add in better engagement with

2:08:43 ↗ the community. and along with the agenda bill

2:08:49 ↗ was a proposed timeline for the conversations about the

2:08:57 ↗ policy capital budget policy as well as timeframes for the capital

2:09:02 ↗ improvement planning and I know that this is hard to read at this point so

2:09:07 ↗ I have a slide that did not

2:09:15 ↗ Yeah, I like that presentation. There you go. That was lean.

2:09:23 ↗ Well, that's the draft version. It is the draft version. It started off and I'm

2:09:28 ↗ not sure if I can get access to.

2:09:38 ↗ That's what I've got to go out and find.

2:10:12 ↗ you

2:10:20 ↗ so the dates that have been identified to have the conversation about the capital budget

2:10:24 ↗ policy are tonight's kickoff and consider the motion to

2:10:32 ↗ move the discussion to the council committee of the whole on January 24th February 13th

2:10:41 ↗ the conversation would be at the council work session a proposed march 6 public hearing

2:10:47 ↗ on the capital budget policy updates march 13th then back to the council for

2:10:53 ↗ work session and a proposed adoption of the policy via resolution is

2:10:59 ↗ slated for april 3rd wanted to

2:11:05 ↗ provide a few just real broad overview kind of best practices when we're talking about

2:11:11 ↗ financial policy and you might hear me as a broken record when we start to

2:11:14 ↗ talk about other sections of the financial policy the the current capital budget section

2:11:21 ↗ of the financial policy was included with the agenda bill to get you familiar with

2:11:25 ↗ that current language but when we're talking about financial policy overall best practices we want

2:11:31 ↗ to make sure that we consider that financial policy is comprehensive and it's a base

2:11:36 ↗ of guidelines for decision making and strategic intents. And what that means is that

2:11:42 ↗ the financial policy should really be in support of strategic plans and

2:11:48 ↗ those comprehensive plans and perhaps master plans. But we'll talk about the master plans when

2:11:54 ↗ we get into the capital and improvement planning in those stages.

2:12:00 ↗ Financial policy, there is always the delicate balance of, in your policy,

2:12:06 ↗ having the difference between flexibility versus control. And so if a

2:12:12 ↗ policy is too controlling, then that often handcuffs or hog ties or whatever you want

2:12:17 ↗ to call it, the administration or management with regards to how to deliver creative solutions.

2:12:23 ↗ So flexibility at the policy level is very important for you to consider. The other

2:12:29 ↗ best practice in financial policy is that there is a difference between policy versus procedures.

2:12:37 ↗ statement of principles and goals are typically in policy versus the administrative

2:12:42 ↗ day-to-day directives and that level of detail of those procedures and then

2:12:48 ↗ finally then the financial policy discussion should be based around a collaborative process and that's

2:12:54 ↗ what the administration has brought forward in the proposed timeline for talking about policy as

2:13:00 ↗ well as the capital budget development

2:13:06 ↗ proposed policy is in is in the final stages of a review by administration

2:13:12 ↗ and the goal is to have this or it will be provided with the agenda

2:13:17 ↗ packet for the council committee of the whole some things that you can look forward

2:13:23 ↗ to in your discussions will be objectives, the capital budget

2:13:29 ↗ objectives in this particular section to be added,

2:13:35 ↗ a revised CAP timeframe, so that's the number of years that you want to include

2:13:41 ↗ in your capital budget, a comprehensive criteria and project ranking set of

2:13:46 ↗ guidelines. And this will likely be the hot topics and

2:13:52 ↗ probably have the most discussion when we start with what those criteria

2:13:59 ↗ weighting certain criteria heavier than another set of criteria and so on and so forth.

2:14:06 ↗ The upcoming proposed policy will have some revised project sources which are

2:14:12 ↗ funding and uses which are cost revisions identified in policy.

2:14:18 ↗ There will be some proposed threshold guidelines with regards to what makes from a dollar

2:14:24 ↗ level, what makes the capital budget from year to year. And then some

2:14:30 ↗ enhanced public engagement efforts in the policy. So with that, The proposed

2:14:36 ↗ motion with the Council tonight is to refer this agenda bill to the following meetings

2:14:41 ↗ for review and recommendation and returning to the full Council for final actual action

2:14:47 ↗ on April 3rd. And so with that, that ends my presentation. I'd be happy to

2:14:52 ↗ answer any questions. Thank you, Jen. Are there questions before

2:14:58 ↗ someone entertains a motion?

2:15:06 ↗ a motion Stacy oh you look like you're I was just gonna say so moved

2:15:12 ↗ I would move to refer agenda bill 7306 to the following meetings for review and

2:15:16 ↗ recommendation January 24th February 13th March 6th March

2:15:21 ↗ 13th returning to the full council for final action on April 3rd 2017 thank you

2:15:26 ↗ moved and seconded are there questions or discussion at this time

2:15:33 ↗ Stacy just looking forward to this So am I. So much.

2:15:39 ↗ Seriously. I think that's probably a uniform opinion of just about sitting to my right

2:15:45 ↗ up here. All those in favor of referring the agenda bill to the following meetings

2:15:51 ↗ for review and recommendation as outlined in the motion

2:15:58 ↗ and returning to the full council for final action on April 3rd, 2017, signify by

2:16:03 ↗ saying aye. Aye. That carries unanimously. Moving

2:16:09 ↗ now to good of the order. Does anyone

2:16:15 ↗ have anything this evening? Bill, I think you had something. You want to do that

2:16:19 ↗ now? Yep. Okay. So I apologize for the timing, but I sent out this morning

2:16:26 ↗ So, Ms. Patricia, thank you for forwarding it to the council. So you'd have something

2:16:29 ↗ to look at from the Eastside Transportation Partnership and their legislative agenda. If you got

2:16:34 ↗ a chance to glance at that today, great. If not, I'll just basically hit a

2:16:39 ↗ quick highlights for you. And basically, it's a 10-point legislative agenda for the Eastside Transportation

2:16:44 ↗ Partnership. And the main things are item five and six, which is five is I-90,

2:16:50 ↗ I'll just read it from here. It says we urge full funding for improvements to

2:16:54 ↗ increase the capacity of I-90 interchanges at Front Street and SR 900 in Issaquah and

2:16:59 ↗ the reconfiguration of I-94 or five-year interchange to improve overall traffic flow. We have our

2:17:03 ↗ two main intersections in that top list. And the second item of six was SR18,

2:17:08 ↗ State Route 18. The mobility and capacity of this corridor between I-90 and South King

2:17:12 ↗ County must be improved by redesigning the I-90 and State Route 18 interchange and

2:17:18 ↗ constructing an additional lane between I-90 and the Isquahobart Road. So I think two of

2:17:23 ↗ our main points of interest to get traffic functioning around here are in there.

2:17:30 ↗ And I think that's, of most concern to us. If there's other questions or anything

2:17:35 ↗ you looked at or you want to? Mary Lou? Sure. I guess

2:17:41 ↗ I'm not as familiar with exactly what's entailed in the I-90 Front Street Improvement Package.

2:17:48 ↗ But we already have an issue where the volume of traffic coming off I-90 onto

2:17:52 ↗ Front Street is in excess of what we can handle in terms of it shuts

2:17:57 ↗ us down between 2.30 and 6.30 every day. So how Does that package

2:18:03 ↗ put more traffic on Issaquah City streets with the reconfiguration or

2:18:09 ↗ what does it do to the benefit of Issaquah's internal circulation? To me, it just

2:18:14 ↗ takes, instead of Issaquah asking for the analysis on the interchange and the

2:18:20 ↗ work we want to do to make that better, it just gives another group supporting

2:18:24 ↗ that basically from a regional perspective, not just from us. This is just kind of

2:18:29 ↗ like our, legislative agenda on what we want to push, it just has a bigger

2:18:34 ↗ grouping of folks. Great. So for that particular project, though, how does that

2:18:40 ↗ benefit Issaquah's internal circulation issues that we already have?

2:18:47 ↗ I would say directly to your question, I don't know as I answer that. It's

2:18:51 ↗ looking at going to be at the interchange. Just as a refresher, moving Washington forward

2:18:56 ↗ included for an interchange justification report for

2:19:03 ↗ the Front Street I-90 interchange between SR 900 and

2:19:08 ↗ Sunset to look at the traffic flows and the

2:19:15 ↗ impacts of those as a first step towards federal funding

2:19:21 ↗ or funding for the next step, which would be beginning the environmental

2:19:28 ↗ documentation and design of the project. So we've already funded, the

2:19:34 ↗ Washington State Legislature has already funded the interchange justification report.

2:19:40 ↗ That was an early effort and that effort is underway, it's just

2:19:45 ↗ beginning right now. So I'll fill out

2:19:51 ↗ maybe a little. What this does is just an acknowledgement that the state a good

2:19:56 ↗ thing that this is important for us and it's an important first step is how

2:20:02 ↗ I would summarize it. Do I have that right Bill? Yeah and it's just and

2:20:06 ↗ it's again bringing more we've been pushing on that and it's again to me a

2:20:10 ↗ regional backing of continue going to look at these hot spots that are

2:20:16 ↗ causing regional flow issues that we as Issaquah can't on our own right right i

2:20:22 ↗ guess i think i i think the question is simpler what i'm asking is simpler

2:20:26 ↗ if the interchange currently handles 30 000 vehicles a day is the interchange

2:20:32 ↗ justification report looking at changing the capacity to 50 or 60 000 vehicles a day

2:20:37 ↗ like what what is the point of improving that intersection to get more cars off

2:20:42 ↗ the highway to drive through issaquah is that where we're headed i think so BUT

2:20:48 ↗ I THINK IT'S ALSO TO, NOT NECESSARILY MORE CARS, BUT TO HANDLE THE ONES THAT

2:20:52 ↗ ARE THERE BETTER. WELL, SO FEED INTO THE CITY STREETS. INTERCHANGE

2:20:57 ↗ JUSTIFICATION REPORT WILL MAKE SOME ESTIMATES OF,

2:21:03 ↗ IT WILL DOCUMENT EXISTING TRAFFIC AND ESTIMATES OF FUTURE TRAFFICS. AND LOOK AT THE

2:21:09 ↗ INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED TO SUPPORT THOSE INCREASED TRAFFIC DEMANDS. GREAT.

2:21:15 ↗ COMING OFF OF THE HIGHWAY INTO ISSAQUA. ALSO GETTING ON. BOTH WAYS. AND GETTING ON.

2:21:24 ↗ HOLA. SO I RECALL A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO TALKING ABOUT THIS.

2:21:30 ↗ AND THIS IS, I'M SORRY, WAS IT 17 OR 18? 17, RIGHT? FRONT AND Yes,

2:21:35 ↗ 17. 17. So I remember seeing a potential configuration that had everything coming into

2:21:41 ↗ one signalization area, and I was incredulous, but I

2:21:47 ↗ remember very specifically being told the expectation is that having one complicated

2:21:53 ↗ signalization area is actually better for cross flow traffic going north to south so that

2:21:58 ↗ my infamous trying to get to land and shore and i was at home depot

2:22:02 ↗ and i had an hour and i didn't get there in time a an updated

2:22:07 ↗ uh interchange my understanding is would actually improve that situation at least that was what

2:22:11 ↗ i was told a few years ago so i think it isn't just getting traffic

2:22:15 ↗ off the freeway although i too would want to make sure that we understood in

2:22:20 ↗ that it wasn't just THAT WHATEVER HAPPENED AT EXIT 17 WASN'T JUST GOING TO BE

2:22:23 ↗ FOR THE BENEFITS OF FOLKS ON I-90, BUT FOR INTERNAL TRAFFIC FLOW AS WELL. AND

2:22:28 ↗ THAT STUDY THAT YOU SAW THAT LOOKED AT SPECIFICALLY THE FRONT STREET INTERCHANGE RECOMMENDED AN

2:22:34 ↗ ADDITIONAL CROSSING OF I-90 AT

2:22:40 ↗ 12th AVENUE. AND THE INTERCHANGE JUSTIFICATION REPORT LOOKS AT NOT JUST EXIT 17,

2:22:50 ↗ but it looks at from 15 to 18. SR 900 for that and

2:22:56 ↗ would identify any additional projects that might help the traffic flow.

2:23:03 ↗ And one of those is the potential additional crossing of I-90 in

2:23:09 ↗ the vicinity of 12th Avenue. Thanks. Paul? So we're

2:23:15 ↗ discussing, so this has already been adopted by Eastside Transportation Partnership?

2:23:21 ↗ Yeah, and there was some question because it didn't, many people didn't get to bring

2:23:24 ↗ it back, the final version. So they looked at that as best they could.

2:23:31 ↗ As the draft came out like a century earlier, the concepts haven't changed any, but

2:23:36 ↗ there's definitely some wording change. Basically, mainly shortening it

2:23:42 ↗ up a lot and making it succinct and trying to get so that everybody, agree

2:23:48 ↗ on that such as you know I say the wording here didn't really say to

2:23:51 ↗ do something new it just said urge full funding of the projects that are basically

2:23:55 ↗ already lined up that people have lined up so it's again just encouraging the funding

2:24:00 ↗ of what has happened or is planned and to speed up some of that funding

2:24:04 ↗ is like an I night are the SR 18 and 90 interchange is really many

2:24:09 ↗ years out so just trying to get that moved up closer just because there's more

2:24:13 ↗ folks dating there behind it So this is

2:24:20 ↗ all academic, but I think the, I'm not aware of anything being on the legislative

2:24:26 ↗ docket this year for actually funding improvements. It's actually

2:24:32 ↗ executing the project that's already been funded, which is the justification report. It'd be great

2:24:37 ↗ if it actually said that. I mean, it's kind of looking back and saying, yeah,

2:24:41 ↗ really do that thing you already funded, complete that energy age justification report.

2:24:48 ↗ There's just a little bit of possibility for some confusion because I'm not aware of

2:24:53 ↗ anything being funded to make actual improvements. It's more of the study so that we

2:24:59 ↗ can propose, it's a multiple step process. Again, it's kind of academic if it's already

2:25:05 ↗ been adopted, but our constituents and our representatives in Olympia

2:25:11 ↗ might find it a little bit confusing.

2:25:19 ↗ Any other comments? Stacey? Well, I don't have any comments on that. Oh, any other

2:25:24 ↗ discussion on the ETP? So

2:25:30 ↗ was that approved, Bill? Yes, with those who were there, with one abstention. The Senate

2:25:36 ↗ Majority? Yes, there was. And there was one abstention because one city said they couldn't

2:25:40 ↗ vote because it hadn't gone through their council, but everybody thought they were good enough

2:25:45 ↗ with that. Thank you. This will be brief. The last page of the packet or

2:25:50 ↗ the last two pages of the packet lists the committee assignments and and other local

2:25:56 ↗ and regional assignments for council members for 2017. For the benefit of the public, I

2:26:02 ↗ will just say that that those assignments for the most part are made annually by

2:26:08 ↗ the assignments appointments by the council president after

2:26:15 ↗ about where they would like to serve, where they think they would best serve, what

2:26:20 ↗ the community needs. And so that's what this list is in the last two pages

2:26:24 ↗ of the packet. I would add that's not on here that the appointments for 2017

2:26:30 ↗ for the ad hoc long-term finance committee, I think is what it's called,

2:26:37 ↗ our council members, Polly, Martz, and Winterstein. And I, I think, Even though that's not

2:26:43 ↗ technically a council committee, I think it should probably be reflected in this next year

2:26:50 ↗ on the survey that we send out and also on this spreadsheet for

2:26:56 ↗ transparency reasons. We can do that. We will do that. Next

2:27:02 ↗ year, I don't know that I'll be doing that, but that's why I'm saying it

2:27:07 ↗ out loud. That's all I had. Anything else for good of the order?

2:27:13 ↗ Seeing none then, we will now move into executive session. The purpose of

2:27:18 ↗ discussing pending and potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110

2:27:25 ↗ paren 1 paren I. The item is expected to take approximately five minutes. No

2:27:30 ↗ action is anticipated to follow an open session.

2:34:15 ↗ We are back in session at 935. Is there

2:34:21 ↗ any other business to come before the council? Seeing none, then we are adjourned. Some

2:34:26 ↗ of us are adjourned.

2:34:33 ↗ And some are.

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 (6)

Refer AB 7215 to the January 18, 2017 Council Land & Shore Committee for further review and recommendation, returning to the full Council on February 21, 2017. .

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

Direct the Administration to amend the City's 2017 Legislative Agenda by adding the following language: “Land Use/Telecommunications  Issaquah would oppose legislation on the development and build-out of "small cell" telecommunications networks that would unduly pre-empt local authority. However, t…

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

Adopt Ordinance No. 2792, amending Section 3.64.010 of the Issaquah Municipal Code and the Land Use and Site Work Fee Schedule adopted by such section; directing that the Fee Schedule be set forth in the Issaquah Municipal Code in full; and establishing an effective date of February 20, 2017.

Moved by PAULY · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 7-0

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

Amend the motion to include the following recommendations of the Council Land & Shore Committee: Recommendation #1. Set the permitting cost-recovery revenue target at 80% of non- excluded costs ($4 million for 2017). Recommendation #4. Exclude the following positions from the permitting cost-recover…

Moved by PAULY · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 7-0

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

Refer AB 7306 to the following meetings for review and recommendation:  January 24, 2017 Council Committee of the Whole  February 13, 2017 Council Committee Work Session  March 6, 2017 Regular Council Meeting for Public Hearing  March 13, 2017 Council Committee Work Session Returning to the full…

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 CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. a) Accounts: Payables and Payroll, Jan. 17, 2017; Approved $ 6,660,581.21. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK NUMBERS AMOUNT Accounts Payable Replacement Check 165788 to 165789 16,996.34 Accounts Payable Checks 165790 to 165812 114,564.30 Accounts Payable Checks 165813 t…

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