City Council Regular Meeting · Monday, October 16, 2017 · City Council Digest

6. CONSENT CALENDAR

Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, Oct. 2, 2017

Approve · packet pp.101–105

▶ Watch from 26:50 Open packet at p.101 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR c) 10-02-17 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page [0000]

KCDOT I-90 Transportation Demand Management Partnership Agreement AB 7360

Accept Grant · packet pp.107–122

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 26:53 Open packet at p.107 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Office of Sustainability:

Water Meter Replacement - South Cove AB 7377

Accept Project · packet pp.123–124

Topics: Water

▶ Watch from 26:56 Open packet at p.123 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Engineering Department:

2017 Water Main Rehabilitation Project AB 7378

Accept Project · packet pp.125–126

Topics: Water

▶ Watch from 26:59 Open packet at p.125 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Engineering Department:

Mt. Hood Tank Improvement Project AB 7403

Refer to Council Land & Shore Committee · packet pp.127–128

▶ Watch from 27:02 Open packet at p.127 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Engineering Department:

King County Flood District Grant for East Lake Sammamish Pkwy/SE 56th St. Conveyance Improvements AB 7414

Carried 6-0

Accept Grant · packet pp.387–397

Topics: ParksWater

▶ Watch from 27:05 Open packet at p.387 ↗

Staff report:

UPDATED CITY COUNCIL AB 7414 - AGENDA BILL Consent City Council Regular Meeting - 16 Oct 2017 Calendar

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

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

Termination of Costco Easement AB 7459

Refer to Council Land & Shore Committee · packet pp.399–451

▶ Watch from 27:08 Open packet at p.399 ↗

Staff report:

City Council / Stacy Goodman, Council President:

7. PUBLIC HEARING

2017 Third Budget Amendment AB 7482

Conduct Public Hearing; Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.467–476

Topics: Land UseBudget

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 19, 2016 City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 19, 2017

Open packet at p.467 ↗

Staff report:

CITY COUNCIL UPDATED AGENDA BILL AB 7482 - City Council Regular Meeting - 16 Oct 2017 Public Hearing

8. REGULAR BUSINESS

Vertical Mixed-Use (Re: Development Moratorium) AB 7317

Carried 6-0

Authorize · packet pp.477–509

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 28, 2017

▶ Watch from 7:17 Open packet at p.477 ↗

Staff report:

The Planning Policy Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments on Sept. 28, 2017. The Commission recommended the proposed amendments with one change: to maintain the maximum building height at 125' (using bonus density) instead of the recommended 135'. The Administration supports this change. The Commission's findings are attached to the proposed ordinance.

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

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

2017 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan AB 7483

Carried 6-0

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.575–609

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Feb 9, 2017 City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 20, 2017 Planning Policy Commission · Sep 14, 2017

▶ Watch from 8:08 Open packet at p.575 ↗

Staff report:

The PPC held a public hearing on the amendments on Sept. 14, 2017. After the close of the public hearing, PPC voted to recommend moving the proposed amendments forward to Council in concurrence with the Administration's

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

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

Moratorium on Community Health Engagement Locations, Safe Injection Sites AB 7489

Adopt Ordinance; Set Public Hearing · packet pp.617–623

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 8:59 Open packet at p.617 ↗

Staff report:

and zoning regulations. This agenda bill also proposes scheduling a public hearing on Nov. 6, 2017 to take public testimony on the moratorium and the interim official control adopted by this ordinance.

2017 Regional Agenda AB 7312

Carried 5-1

Receive · packet pp.625–656

▶ Watch from 9:51 Open packet at p.625 ↗

Staff report:

City Council / Stacy Goodman, Council President:

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by GOODMAN

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

Opposed: Ramos

3559 segments .txt ↗

0:15 ↗ I'll call the City Council regular

0:18 ↗ meeting for October 16th to order and as

0:21 ↗ those would like to join the council and

0:23 ↗ myself in the Pledge of Allegiance to

0:25 ↗ please stand

0:27 ↗ I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

0:32 ↗ United States of America and to the

0:34 ↗ Republic for which it stands one nation

0:37 ↗ under our next item of business as

0:53 ↗ audience comments citizens comments are

0:56 ↗ an important part of the public process

0:58 ↗ we take them seriously and factor them

1:01 ↗ into the decisions we make any one for

1:04 ↗ the public who wishes to comment on

1:06 ↗ tonight's agenda items or other topics

1:09 ↗ to do so at this time address your

1:12 ↗ comments to the entire council and not

1:14 ↗ to individuals it is not a question and

1:18 ↗ answer session will contact you to

1:21 ↗ follow up if needed if you did not have

1:24 ↗ an address on the sign-in sheet

1:26 ↗ you may leave that information on the

1:28 ↗ clipboard at the front table after

1:31 ↗ speaking when recognized use the lectern

1:34 ↗ and speak into the microphone state your

1:36 ↗ name address and any relationship to the

1:39 ↗ city limit your comments comments to

1:41 ↗ 5-minutes

1:42 ↗ and if you have written comments please

1:44 ↗ submit those to the city clerk the

1:47 ↗ visual timer has been placed on the

1:49 ↗ lectern when it turns yellow you are

1:50 ↗ within the last minute of your comment

1:53 ↗ period if you use the full five minutes

1:55 ↗ the timer will sound to indicate the end

1:57 ↗ of your a lot of comment time please be

2:01 ↗ respectful in your comments and again

2:04 ↗ since the comments written and verbal

2:07 ↗ are an important aspect of the public

2:09 ↗ process we take those comments seriously

2:11 ↗ and I want to thank members of the

2:13 ↗ public for taking the time to address us

2:16 ↗ during our meetings and with that I

2:19 ↗ would ask has anyone signed up to speak

2:21 ↗ this evening yes Joe verdure

2:40 ↗ good evening thanks for the opportunity

2:44 ↗ to voice my opinion I'm standing here to

2:49 ↗ tell you that I am in opposition to safe

2:53 ↗ site safe injection sites within the

2:56 ↗ city of Issaquah I'm personally opposed

3:00 ↗ to safe injection sites within the city

3:02 ↗ of Issaquah and the concept of utilizing

3:06 ↗ City residences tax dollars to support

3:09 ↗ drug users to continue their drug habit

3:11 ↗ is repulsive to me the utilization of

3:17 ↗ illegal drugs is against the law federal

3:21 ↗ state and local how the city of Issaquah

3:26 ↗ can even consider such support action in

3:28 ↗ my opinion is reprehensible drug addicts

3:36 ↗ chose to use illegal drugs the citizens

3:41 ↗ and taxpayers of Issaquah did not force

3:44 ↗ or encourage drug using individuals to

3:47 ↗ become users and addicts the City of

3:52 ↗ Seattle jokingly referred to as free

3:55 ↗ adil may have such an ordinance and a

4:00 ↗ blind eye to drug addicts and safe

4:02 ↗ injection sites and as such have

4:05 ↗ encouraged more drug addicts to move to

4:07 ↗ our area the very idea that the city of

4:12 ↗ Issaquah is thinking about safe

4:16 ↗ injection sites is offensive from

4:18 ↗ several perspectives including one

4:22 ↗ encouraging drug users to continue to

4:25 ↗ use the use of drugs and at taxpayer

4:29 ↗ expense - the city is encouraging drug

4:34 ↗ users and addicts to continue to break

4:36 ↗ the law and using taxpayer dollars to do

4:40 ↗ so and three encouraging more drug users

4:45 ↗ to move to is equal force the residents

4:48 ↗ of the city to deal with the problems

4:50 ↗ they bring with them

4:52 ↗ so in closing city government get back

4:56 ↗ to basics

4:57 ↗ of running our city without wasting our

5:00 ↗ taxpayer dollars for a liberal

5:02 ↗ progressive agenda of the continuance of

5:05 ↗ dumbing down America thank you thank you

5:10 ↗ Joe

5:14 ↗ no one further has signed up to speak

5:16 ↗ David would you like to speak this

5:19 ↗ evening please

5:26 ↗ David Kepler 255 southeast Andrew Street

5:29 ↗ thank you as a spokesperson for the

5:33 ↗ liberal progressives in town but Joe and

5:38 ↗ I agree actually though I spend a week

5:42 ↗ in New York City usually for the last

5:46 ↗ eight nine years visiting my daughter

5:48 ↗ and exploring all over all five boroughs

5:51 ↗ nothing I found in New York City is as

5:53 ↗ exciting or scary as part of Vancouver

5:58 ↗ BC that I happened to stumble into one

6:01 ↗ day and the ads on television the Willie

6:07 ↗ Horton ad makers would blush at some of

6:11 ↗ the ugly ads were seeing on TV about

6:12 ↗ this topic but at the same time why

6:17 ↗ spend time of doing a moratorium in

6:20 ↗ talking about bringing this up in six

6:23 ↗ months if you believe that we this is

6:26 ↗ even in the cards at all for Issaquah

6:28 ↗ you need to say where you would do it

6:30 ↗ there's like one place in that's

6:33 ↗ community hall right here we have place

6:35 ↗ in fire it's not going to happen here

6:38 ↗ why are we spending all this time

6:39 ↗ stirring up all the community and

6:42 ↗ actually was probably doing a disservice

6:44 ↗ to people who are trying to solve in

6:48 ↗ help with this problem thank you thank

6:53 ↗ you David all right Steve

7:08 ↗ I could even no steeper era when 70

7:13 ↗ northeast dogwood Street for about ten

7:14 ↗ years

7:14 ↗ so several thoughts as I went through

7:17 ↗ the regular business agenda a b7

7:20 ↗ three-one-seven vertical mixed-use again

7:22 ↗ I've asked you to there needs to be more

7:23 ↗ of a public comment period before this

7:25 ↗ even comes out to be an attitude a lot

7:27 ↗ tonight doesn't seem to the night that

7:29 ↗ should happen specifically previously I

7:34 ↗ talked about kind of the concept of a

7:36 ↗ TDR where this kind of becomes a

7:38 ↗ receiving site for other development I'd

7:40 ↗ like to hear where development isn't

7:42 ↗ going to go to counteract putting the

7:44 ↗ development here in this specific

7:45 ↗ location part two I had heard public

7:49 ↗ comment that previously talked about

7:51 ↗ citizen input that's limited the height

7:52 ↗ to 85 feet and proposition got forward

7:56 ↗ about 425 feet what happened with that

7:58 ↗ gap or understanding item three I'd like

8:02 ↗ to hear this in context of other

8:03 ↗ possible vertical mixed-use in the

8:06 ↗ proposed Costco development agreement

8:08 ↗ and the rally development agreement how

8:10 ↗ do they counteract or how do they

8:11 ↗ interact with each other what's going to

8:13 ↗ be a larger impact before this gets

8:15 ↗ brought forward I'd like to hear more

8:18 ↗ about the traffic plan and how we're

8:20 ↗ going to accommodate at seven seven

8:21 ↗ thousand traditional housing units and

8:24 ↗ the proposal I'd heard at one point was

8:26 ↗ for gilman boulevard to become one lane

8:28 ↗ in each direction and parking on the

8:31 ↗ street and a bike lane so that would

8:33 ↗ seem to be counteract that out to hear

8:35 ↗ that out there it gets addressed I like

8:37 ↗ to hear about school interactions

8:42 ↗ [Music]

8:46 ↗ on the safe injection sites I don't have

8:50 ↗ that really an input one or the other I

8:52 ↗ like to see community input come forward

8:54 ↗ on this before the city takes in a stand

8:57 ↗ or a position however since there's not

9:02 ↗ currently anything on the books that

9:04 ↗ wouldn't make it become a safe injection

9:06 ↗ site I don't want to see you spending

9:07 ↗ more time talking about it I agree

9:09 ↗ either do it or don't do it and then

9:12 ↗ move on to more issues that need focus

9:16 ↗ today

9:19 ↗ lastly item F which is the regional

9:22 ↗ agenda I wasn't there were a number of

9:26 ↗ items that I wasn't a big fan of when it

9:30 ↗ talks about I like to see more talk

9:32 ↗ about the canopy tree canopy being

9:34 ↗ preserved and retained I'd like to see

9:36 ↗ more public safety where it talks about

9:39 ↗ fire protection and restoration since we

9:41 ↗ are such a wooded hill-side and we see

9:44 ↗ here a lot about fires going on there

9:49 ↗ talked about one for education and I'd

9:51 ↗ like to see some focus or difference

9:53 ↗ drawn between when maybe the the city of

9:56 ↗ is croisé and the city of this quest

9:58 ↗ school and the school district have

9:59 ↗ seeming to be competing needs or wants

10:01 ↗ how those get thrashed out not just that

10:04 ↗ we do whatever that is classical

10:06 ↗ district says but we find a way to work

10:08 ↗ together and the Bellevue college

10:13 ↗ doesn't really seem to be much of a

10:14 ↗ regional agenda item it seems to be more

10:16 ↗ of a city of is gwah wants to see

10:18 ↗ Bellevue college built here I'm not sure

10:20 ↗ how it's a regional agenda item I think

10:22 ↗ there could be better focus thanks thank

10:29 ↗ you Steve

10:30 ↗ anyone else who desires to speak who has

10:34 ↗ not signed up anyone else seeing no one

10:39 ↗ others comments are closed and will now

10:42 ↗ move to Committee and regional reports

10:44 ↗ beginning with Mariah Thank You mr.

10:48 ↗ mayor

10:48 ↗ the King County Conservation District

10:52 ↗ for sound cities Association will be

10:54 ↗ meeting on Wednesday in Renton at 3:30

10:58 ↗ on the agenda there will be a they will

11:02 ↗ be looking for a consensus vote on the

11:06 ↗ recommendations that have been made for

11:08 ↗ the 2017 regional food system grants

11:11 ↗ they I have basically sent this to

11:15 ↗ everyone a little bit late so I would

11:18 ↗ love to hear any feedback you have I'll

11:20 ↗ bring it up during the good of the order

11:21 ↗ and then the meeting is Wednesday so you

11:24 ↗ can contact me if you have questions or

11:25 ↗ concerns but the projects were ranked by

11:28 ↗ the regional food systems grant working

11:30 ↗ group on a numerical scale based on the

11:33 ↗ strength of the application and the

11:34 ↗ competitive grant funding priorities and

11:36 ↗ the priorities are infrastructure

11:39 ↗ consumer demand land access food safety

11:42 ↗ and business management and they also

11:45 ↗ took into consideration geographic

11:47 ↗ distributions so there there are there's

11:50 ↗ a lot of information maps but this was a

11:53 ↗ very long process that the conservation

11:56 ↗ district has gone through to try to

11:58 ↗ focus in on where the biggest needs were

12:02 ↗ so again if you have questions or

12:04 ↗ comments or anything that you'd like me

12:06 ↗ to know before Wednesday that would be

12:08 ↗ great that concludes my report

12:10 ↗ thanks thank you bill Thank You mr.

12:13 ↗ mayor

12:14 ↗ my first announcement is to let you know

12:16 ↗ and some of you know already but last

12:18 ↗ week governor jay Inslee appointed me to

12:22 ↗ the Washington State Public Works board

12:24 ↗ and I term started immediately as soon

12:26 ↗ as I signed my formation sheet and the

12:29 ↗ first meeting excuse me will be November

12:31 ↗ 3rd it will meet once a month or every

12:35 ↗ other month and a little

12:38 ↗ what it does some mass for that it

12:40 ↗ started in 1985 and it's basically a

12:43 ↗ board put together to help bring

12:46 ↗ technical support and financial support

12:48 ↗ project to jurisdictions particularly

12:50 ↗ smaller ones that may not have it in

12:52 ↗ their infrastructure and public works

12:53 ↗ projects and so they can get financing

12:55 ↗ much cheaper through this program versus

12:58 ↗ going through regular bonding and so

12:59 ↗ forth and all that's just paid back and

13:01 ↗ so it's a kind of a bank that cycles

13:03 ↗ through and there's one pays back it

13:04 ↗ just goes back out again so that's their

13:07 ↗ task and it's a four-year term the

13:10 ↗ Infrastructure Committee will not meet

13:12 ↗ it was scheduled for this Thursday but

13:14 ↗ it was cancelled because there's nothing

13:16 ↗ particular to talk about this month so

13:17 ↗ we cancelled that I was at the emergency

13:22 ↗ management advisory committee on last

13:25 ↗ Wednesday and the topic was dams and dam

13:29 ↗ dam safety so it's interesting to

13:34 ↗ realize there's over 90 damn licensed

13:36 ↗ dams in King County and only about a

13:39 ↗ dozen of them have up-to-date plans on

13:42 ↗ what happens if there's a failure of

13:44 ↗ some sort so the county is trying to

13:47 ↗ work on getting those updated and as a

13:49 ↗ push to get increased dam safety the

13:54 ↗ regional transit committee will normally

13:56 ↗ meet on the third Wednesday of the month

13:58 ↗ but this year has been moved to the

13:59 ↗ fourth Wednesday on the 25th of October

14:01 ↗ I don't have an agenda yet but I will be

14:03 ↗ there for that and that concludes my

14:05 ↗ report no congratulations on your

14:09 ↗ appointment and thank you for your

14:12 ↗ report thank you all Thank You mr. mayor

14:14 ↗ last Thursday the 5th we met the growth

14:18 ↗ management policy board met and the key

14:20 ↗ action of that meeting was the

14:22 ↗ authorization the board authorized the

14:24 ↗ PSR C staff to take the regional the

14:27 ↗ draft reach regional centers framework

14:29 ↗ update out for public comment and did

14:33 ↗ others get an email of notification I

14:35 ↗ don't know if they just sent it to every

14:37 ↗ elected or not I did see that

14:41 ↗ okay I will forward it to make sure

14:43 ↗ there's makka mint period is through

14:47 ↗ November 8 I want to say that Cohn

14:49 ↗ balance I think that this update really

14:51 ↗ does make some improvements to growth

14:53 ↗ planning in the region and it really

14:56 ↗ does no harm to Issaquah our regional

14:58 ↗ growth center is would be grandfathered

15:00 ↗ it does set performance measures based

15:03 ↗ upon on on specific measurable items

15:07 ↗ there is a there is a decertification

15:09 ↗ process that it proposes and and the

15:14 ↗ intent is that you know maybe some

15:15 ↗ places just weren't intended and they

15:18 ↗ shouldn't be eligible for regional

15:21 ↗ funding but that's though that's only

15:23 ↗ one small part of it it spend a lot of

15:25 ↗ time talking about manufacturing in

15:27 ↗ industrial centers but also military

15:29 ↗ installations and the board moved on

15:33 ↗ Thursday to staff to make a

15:37 ↗ recommendation that military the

15:39 ↗ military centers such as Joint Base

15:42 ↗ lewis-mcchord to actually go through a

15:45 ↗ certification process even though they

15:46 ↗ don't plan under the GMA they have such

15:49 ↗ big job in transportation impacts in

15:51 ↗ their local regions that if the nearby

15:54 ↗ cities want to participate in the

15:56 ↗ regional funding nearby growth centers

16:00 ↗ want to participate in the regional

16:01 ↗ funding because of a military

16:04 ↗ installation the military installations

16:06 ↗ are going to have to apply and qualify

16:07 ↗ under certain criteria so that hasn't

16:10 ↗ been defined but I think the board

16:11 ↗ accepted that there would be a

16:12 ↗ qualification process and so that is

16:16 ↗ that that is available out for public

16:18 ↗ comment it's available off on the ESRC

16:20 ↗ website and then last Thursday on the

16:25 ↗ 12th I attended the second meeting of

16:28 ↗ the PSR C 2018 project selection task

16:32 ↗ force now this task force is all it's

16:35 ↗ doing is setting a policy is

16:38 ↗ establishing the policy for the project

16:40 ↗ selection will happen next year by the

16:44 ↗ transportation policy board and

16:48 ↗ and really it's it's it's a funny

16:51 ↗ exercise because we're not going into

16:53 ↗ there's a lot there and they're quickly

16:56 ↗ running through kind of policy questions

16:59 ↗ even though it wasn't on the agenda and

17:02 ↗ and that as a group there's over 30

17:05 ↗ people involved are agreeing to just do

17:08 ↗ everything like we did last time in

17:10 ↗ terms of the allocation of funds what to

17:13 ↗ do how what percentage to set as a set

17:15 ↗ aside policy level things that will

17:17 ↗ guide this election period process for

17:19 ↗ next year one of the things to that's it

17:24 ↗ we did address already is that King

17:26 ↗ County just like the other counties that

17:28 ↗ planet or GMA can forward for regional

17:33 ↗ funds like a set number of projects for

17:37 ↗ consideration so we have a regional

17:40 ↗ center within King County if and if we

17:43 ↗ make an application for a transportation

17:45 ↗ project related to our regional center

17:48 ↗ it will have to compete with others

17:50 ↗ within king county applications and then

17:52 ↗ the county itself will only propose six

17:54 ↗ of those four considered funding and

17:57 ↗ none of that none of that has changed it

17:59 ↗ hasn't changed in the framework update

18:01 ↗ it hasn't changed in these in these

18:03 ↗ funding policies as well and similarly

18:07 ↗ the other counties have a certain number

18:09 ↗ that they can forward for funding as

18:11 ↗ well we don't have any potential

18:13 ↗ military installations here in King

18:15 ↗ County but if they were to become

18:17 ↗ regional centers then Pierce and

18:19 ↗ Snohomish and even Kitsap counties would

18:21 ↗ and they'd have to compete for their

18:24 ↗ slots that those counties can can

18:26 ↗ propose so the regional centers could

18:28 ↗ mean more competition for funds but only

18:31 ↗ within the counties in which they exist

18:33 ↗ not so much King County therefore no not

18:36 ↗ so much with us so that's that's my

18:37 ↗ update on those got any questions and I

18:39 ↗ will forward to make sure you all have

18:40 ↗ the email that shows where you can get

18:43 ↗ the the document for for comment that

18:46 ↗ concludes my report thank you Paul Toula

18:50 ↗ thanks mr. mayor council services and

18:52 ↗ Safety Committee met on Tuesday October

18:54 ↗ 10th we had an update on the transit

18:56 ↗ oriented development opportunity center

18:58 ↗ an update on the classification and

19:01 ↗ compensation

19:01 ↗ study we had four action items in front

19:04 ↗ of us at gender bill 74-62 on school

19:07 ↗ impact fees we recommended it come back

19:10 ↗ on November 6th agenda bill 74 43

19:15 ↗ Recreation registration and scheduling

19:18 ↗ software development agreement we

19:20 ↗ recommended to come back tonight where

19:22 ↗ it is on I believe regular business

19:25 ↗ agenda bill 74 72 Providence points

19:29 ↗ signalization here we recommend you to

19:33 ↗ come back November 6 but with some

19:34 ↗ specific guidance around looking at two

19:37 ↗ particular options one being a

19:39 ↗ transportation benefit district and the

19:41 ↗ other being a levee lid going down that

19:44 ↗ path and we asked the administration to

19:47 ↗ come back to full council hoping

19:49 ↗ November 6 with additional information

19:51 ↗ how both of those options would impact

19:54 ↗ residents and businesses in Issaquah so

19:57 ↗ and then the final bill was 74 80 to

20:00 ↗ 2017 third budget amendment which is the

20:03 ↗ subject of a hearing this evening sound

20:07 ↗ cities Association public issue

20:08 ↗ committee met on Wednesday October 11th

20:10 ↗ the thing that people here should know

20:13 ↗ about is we took the first of two looks

20:16 ↗ at a SCA legislative agenda it has three

20:21 ↗ planks all three very fairly high level

20:24 ↗ the first is looking at the property tax

20:26 ↗ cap it is generally felt that

20:29 ↗ municipalities would like the option at

20:33 ↗ least the option to consider beyond a 1%

20:35 ↗ increase in property tax

20:36 ↗ the second is investing in public health

20:39 ↗ services recognition that there's

20:41 ↗ currently underfunding of public health

20:44 ↗ services in in the county and then the

20:47 ↗ third is addressing housing and

20:50 ↗ homelessness crisis in the county and

20:52 ↗ what can be done about it

20:54 ↗ so again these are fairly high-level if

20:57 ↗ you go take a look at the SCA materials

20:59 ↗ you'll find they're also a fairly high

21:01 ↗ level they're about as as detailed as

21:04 ↗ I've just described to you but if you

21:06 ↗ have any feedback from me

21:08 ↗ please let me know offline I intend to

21:11 ↗ this seems to dovetail with a lot of our

21:13 ↗ concerns but I would be happy to talk to

21:16 ↗ folks further if anybody hears anything

21:18 ↗ there that that sounds sounds like not

21:22 ↗ good thanks that concludes my report I

21:25 ↗ call not Mary Lou Nikki mr. mayor I

21:28 ↗ attended the esight Fire and Rescue

21:30 ↗ Board of Directors meeting on October 12

21:34 ↗ I've known our city in the fire chief's

21:37 ↗ briefing he talked about some of our

21:40 ↗ fire fighting force heading from

21:42 ↗ Washington down to work with the wild

21:44 ↗ fire crews down in California he also

21:47 ↗ had a consumer warning I guess that he

21:53 ↗ talked about there was a press release

21:55 ↗ there are certain vendors out in the

21:56 ↗ community right now representing

21:58 ↗ themselves is our local fire department

22:00 ↗ to do home inspections and they're

22:02 ↗ charging fees for this they are not in a

22:05 ↗ firefighting uniform but they are in a

22:07 ↗ uniform that looks like an inside Fire

22:09 ↗ and Rescue uniform and so they're trying

22:11 ↗ to get the word out even in the vite the

22:14 ↗ vehicles they are driving and also look

22:16 ↗ like fire fighter vehicles trying to get

22:18 ↗ the word out to the community they have

22:20 ↗ had complaints from some seniors who

22:21 ↗ have been targeted but this is not our

22:24 ↗ local fire department doing it currently

22:26 ↗ State Fire and Rescue is having a

22:28 ↗ discussion with fall city about whether

22:31 ↗ or not they their Fire Department plans

22:33 ↗ to do a merger with district 10 so this

22:36 ↗ would be district 27 and 10 district 10

22:39 ↗ being one of our partners talking about

22:41 ↗ a merger and it is just at the beginning

22:43 ↗ stages right now Maple Valley has also

22:45 ↗ approached the site Fire and Rescue as

22:47 ↗ it has many other jurisdictions at this

22:49 ↗ time asking for Eastside Ferren recipe

22:52 ↗ to provide a price for a contract for

22:54 ↗ full full fire and emergency services

22:56 ↗ again that one's at the beginning stages

22:58 ↗ under new business the 2018 budget and

23:02 ↗ revenue expenses the new the 2018 budget

23:06 ↗ was approved without amendments so that

23:08 ↗ is something that our finance director

23:10 ↗ has also been reviewing

23:12 ↗ another item was a consideration of a

23:15 ↗ new revenue stream a motor vehicle

23:17 ↗ accident revenue stream and this is

23:20 ↗ something that

23:21 ↗ yfir had discussed five to seven years

23:23 ↗ ago and had a split board they're

23:25 ↗ bringing it back now there are very

23:27 ↗ strong feelings from many board members

23:30 ↗ as to whether or not this is a good idea

23:31 ↗ or not but it has been referred to the

23:34 ↗ Finance and Administration Committee

23:35 ↗ they're approximately 40 fire

23:37 ↗ departments that do it now it is allowed

23:39 ↗ under current our CW's and what it does

23:42 ↗ is it allows emergency services to bill

23:45 ↗ insurance company for the cost of

23:47 ↗ response during motor vehicle accidents

23:51 ↗ the next Finance and Administration

23:54 ↗ Committee for reset Fire and Rescue

23:56 ↗ would be on October 25th at headquarters

23:58 ↗ and the next board meeting will be

23:59 ↗ November 9th at 4 p.m. at headquarters

24:01 ↗ and that concludes my report

24:03 ↗ Thank You Stacey Thank You mr. mayor

24:06 ↗ Landon Shore committee met on October

24:08 ↗ 5th two of the items agenda bill 7317

24:14 ↗ vertical mixed-use and agenda bill 74 83

24:18 ↗ 2017 amendments to the comprehensive

24:21 ↗ plan are on the our agenda tonight two

24:28 ↗ of the items end of development

24:29 ↗ agreements and agenda bill 73 26 Oldtown

24:32 ↗ sub area plan are still in committee and

24:35 ↗ agenda bill 73-42 architectural fit and

24:38 ↗ urban design i don't have my notes with

24:41 ↗ me but I believe the next stop might be

24:43 ↗ full council nope back to committee

24:45 ↗ keith is nodding his head on the 25th

24:49 ↗ our next meeting is October 25th I don't

24:52 ↗ have any agenda in front of me but it's

24:55 ↗ right here at 6:30 p.m. so tune in it's

25:00 ↗ very important thanks actually see there

25:03 ↗ will be an executive session held this

25:05 ↗ evening to discuss acquisition of real

25:07 ↗ estate for our CWF 42.3 0.1 1 0 / n 1 /

25:13 ↗ n be potential pending potential

25:17 ↗ litigation per our CW 42.3 0.1 1 0 / n

25:23 ↗ one paren I and collective bargaining

25:27 ↗ sessions for our CW 42 3 0 1 4 0 paren

25:33 ↗ for these items are expected to take

25:35 ↗ approximately 60 minutes action is

25:39 ↗ anticipated to follow in open session

25:43 ↗ councilmember barber is an excused

25:46 ↗ absence this evening I am proclaiming

25:51 ↗ October 16 to 22nd as code enforcement

25:55 ↗ officer appreciation week in fact thank

25:58 ↗ our code enforcement officials for

26:00 ↗ ensuring our community safety health and

26:03 ↗ welfare

26:04 ↗ I'm also proclaiming the month of

26:07 ↗ October is Domestic Violence action

26:09 ↗ month and urge all citizens to speak out

26:12 ↗ against domestic violence on October the

26:16 ↗ 3rd the city hosted its fourth annual

26:18 ↗ brokers forum along with answering a

26:21 ↗ range of questions we provided

26:23 ↗ information on its across moratorium and

26:26 ↗ current transportation projects I

26:30 ↗ attended the site transportation

26:33 ↗ partnership meeting on October the 13th

26:36 ↗ where we reviewed and approved our

26:38 ↗ operating procedures and agreement and

26:41 ↗ there were no changes to either of those

26:46 ↗ agreements so that concludes my report

26:50 ↗ you now move to the consent calendar and

26:54 ↗ I've asked the clerk to read the consent

26:56 ↗ calendar into the record the consent

26:59 ↗ calendar was distributed to council in

27:01 ↗ advance for study if authorized council

27:03 ↗ action will occur by single motion

27:04 ↗ regarding the following items item a

27:06 ↗ seeks approval of the accounts payables

27:08 ↗ in payroll of October 16th items B and C

27:11 ↗ seeks approval of the minutes of the

27:13 ↗ special meeting of October 2nd and the

27:15 ↗ regular meeting of October 2nd item D a

27:17 ↗ b7 36 0

27:20 ↗ KCI 90 transportation demand management

27:22 ↗ partnership agreement seeks to accept

27:25 ↗ grant items EF and G a B 7 377 water

27:29 ↗ meter replacement south cove a b7 37 8

27:33 ↗ 2017 water main rehabilitation project

27:35 ↗ and a b7 403

27:37 ↗ hood tank improvement project seeks to

27:39 ↗ accept projects item H a b7 405 end of

27:44 ↗ certain development agreements relating

27:45 ↗ to Issaquah Highlands and Tallis seeks

27:48 ↗ referral to council and in short

27:49 ↗ committee item I a b7 4-1 for King

27:52 ↗ County flood district grant for East

27:54 ↗ Lake Sammamish Parkway south east 56th

27:56 ↗ Street conveyance improvement seeks to

27:59 ↗ accept grant items J and K a b7 for 59

28:03 ↗ termination of Costco easement and a b7

28:05 ↗ four nine three Lake Sammamish State

28:07 ↗ Park partnering agreement seeks referral

28:09 ↗ to Council an inshore committee this

28:11 ↗ concludes the reading Thank You tisha

28:14 ↗ I've had the accounts payable and

28:20 ↗ payroll been approved

28:22 ↗ they have thank you the Senate

28:25 ↗ councilmember desire to remove any item

28:29 ↗ from the consent calendar and considered

28:31 ↗ under regular business Stacey

28:36 ↗ I'd moved to adopt the consent calendar

28:37 ↗ as presented second moved and seconded

28:41 ↗ all those in favor signify by saying aye

28:43 ↗ those opposed that carries unanimously

28:48 ↗ moving now to public hearing agenda bill

28:51 ↗ 7 4 8 2/3 budget amendment again Olson

28:57 ↗ our finance director for a for the staff

29:01 ↗ report Jen good evening good evening

29:04 ↗ mayor Butler tonight's public hearing is

29:07 ↗ for the council to consider a budget

29:10 ↗ amendment ordinance this would be the

29:12 ↗ third and final one for 2015 tonight to

29:14 ↗ take public comment on the proposed

29:16 ↗ amendments what's a bit unusual about

29:19 ↗ this particular budget amendment is that

29:21 ↗ it includes some fund accounting

29:23 ↗ adjustments that essentially are some

29:25 ↗ housekeeping items in nature they do not

29:28 ↗ change the overall prior to the budget

29:31 ↗ adjustments they do not change the

29:32 ↗ overall revenues nor expenditures nor

29:35 ↗ estimated ending fund balance however

29:38 ↗ the budget amendments in the on the

29:41 ↗ exhibit that the council has attached

29:44 ↗ with the ordinance under the blue

29:46 ↗ columns

29:47 ↗ blue highlighted columns are those

29:50 ↗ amendments that have come from counsel

29:52 ↗ direction through an agenda bill or are

29:56 ↗ essentially additional with the with

29:59 ↗ regards to the debt service the debt

30:01 ↗ fund where we want to properly classify

30:04 ↗ bond proceeds and those transfers out

30:07 ↗ for the use of those bond proceeds from

30:10 ↗ the prior voter-approved park bonds so

30:14 ↗ there's information in detail about this

30:18 ↗ proposed ordinance this item went to

30:21 ↗ council services and safety and staff

30:23 ↗ reviewed that with the committee at that

30:26 ↗ time and was referred back to the

30:27 ↗ council for your final consideration so

30:30 ↗ that concludes my very brief

30:33 ↗ presentation and I'd be happy to answer

30:35 ↗ any any questions of the council there

30:37 ↗ any questions

30:38 ↗ Mary Lou x-gen under the professional

30:44 ↗ services for the finance department

30:45 ↗ there was an adjustment of a hundred and

30:47 ↗ forty thousand for the 2015-2016 audit

30:51 ↗ was that the actual cost of the audit or

30:54 ↗ the increased cost of an audit that

30:57 ↗ would include dollars for the increased

31:00 ↗ cost of the audit in 2017 we had audit

31:04 ↗ costs for the 2015 audit as well as the

31:08 ↗ 2016 audit and so we essentially have a

31:11 ↗ couple years as well as some temporary

31:14 ↗ accounting services that we have needed

31:17 ↗ in order for us to comply with and be

31:20 ↗ prepared for the auditors that are on

31:23 ↗ site doing audit field work if we broke

31:26 ↗ it into the two years it's not an

31:28 ↗ extraordinary cost that's actually

31:29 ↗ typical it's just two years worth of

31:31 ↗ additional cost that's that's correct

31:33 ↗ what we're looking at is approximately

31:36 ↗ an annual cost anywhere between ninety

31:39 ↗ thousand and 120 thousand for audit

31:43 ↗ fieldwork from the state auditor's

31:44 ↗ office and it looks like the costs for

31:51 ↗ the work done up in talus the road and

31:53 ↗ utility repair work is covered in a

31:55 ↗ couple of places but it looks like

31:57 ↗ to date the work we did this summer was

32:00 ↗ a 1.7 million dollar expenditure when we

32:04 ↗ include everything that we've done that

32:09 ↗ budget amendment it's actually separated

32:12 ↗ out from the funds that are going to pay

32:15 ↗ for it and so this came from agenda bill

32:17 ↗ seventy four thirty four and so this is

32:20 ↗ what you're seeing is essentially the

32:21 ↗ accounting of that so what we have is

32:24 ↗ the 957 from the general fund and then

32:27 ↗ we have the portions coming from the

32:29 ↗ utility funds based on the associated

32:32 ↗ costs for those utilities that are all

32:35 ↗ going into the street capital project

32:37 ↗ fund where the project essentially is

32:39 ↗ tracked out of her or paid out of the

32:41 ↗ resident was asking what the total

32:44 ↗ expended this summer one point seven

32:46 ↗ would be one point seven million would

32:47 ↗ be the right number for this summer

32:49 ↗ that would be based on the agenda bill

32:51 ↗ okay and then I think the last one was

32:52 ↗ there was a note somewhere street

32:54 ↗ capital project fund 2.1 million dollar

32:57 ↗ Newport Way proposed expenditures

33:00 ↗ delayed that's correct

33:02 ↗ so what what what was that is that

33:05 ↗ something that went to infrastructure

33:06 ↗ where there was going to be an

33:07 ↗ expenditure this year but now it's not

33:09 ↗ happening that's that's correct what

33:12 ↗ we're trying to do is and especially

33:14 ↗ with capital projects it's all about

33:16 ↗ cash flow so if a project is delayed

33:19 ↗ where the the spending authorization is

33:21 ↗ not needed we want to correct that in

33:22 ↗ the budget what you'll see then in the

33:25 ↗ 2018 budget as well as in the capital

33:28 ↗ budget the 2018 through 2022 CIP that

33:33 ↗ the council reviewed and authorized is

33:35 ↗ that that project essentially those

33:38 ↗ costs and associated funding shifted

33:40 ↗ then with the changes to that project

33:42 ↗ thank you

33:44 ↗ all thank you Jen in on a appendix that

33:53 ↗ Appendix A the know yes it is it's a

33:57 ↗ Exhibit A to the ordinance where you

33:59 ↗ have the fun names and you have the

34:01 ↗ columns of their changes the very top

34:03 ↗ ones a general fund it's I think in the

34:07 ↗ far right column

34:09 ↗ for all of those funds really it's like

34:11 ↗ okay with the aggregation of all the

34:15 ↗ amendments that we've made that's what

34:17 ↗ we're estimating the end of an ending

34:18 ↗ fund balance to be for each of those

34:20 ↗ funds at the time that a budget

34:24 ↗ amendment or fund balance information is

34:26 ↗ presented it's a snapshot of the

34:28 ↗ estimated ending fund balance right okay

34:31 ↗ what jumped out at me for the general

34:34 ↗ fund gen was it says ten million

34:38 ↗ ninety-three thousand and change the

34:41 ↗ budget document we just got forecasts

34:45 ↗ and estimated beginning balance for next

34:47 ↗ year of sixteen million nine hundred and

34:49 ↗ thousands and change so that's a big

34:51 ↗ discrepancy well fund balance is a hard

34:54 ↗ one to provide information in a

34:56 ↗ published document and as I said it is

35:00 ↗ something that when we are doing

35:02 ↗ forecasting and we are getting those

35:04 ↗ numbers up to date you'll always see and

35:07 ↗ that's why the budget reflects a better

35:10 ↗ estimate of that I would never want to

35:13 ↗ provide you with too much and so fund

35:16 ↗ balance is one of those things that can

35:20 ↗ be a challenge to estimate but for the

35:23 ↗ 2018 budget is where we focused our work

35:26 ↗ on trying to provide a prediction of

35:29 ↗ what we were going to have in that

35:30 ↗ because we had some finality to the 2016

35:34 ↗ ending the ending fund balance from the

35:38 ↗ audit fieldwork okay so so that's it's

35:46 ↗ nearly a seven million dollar difference

35:48 ↗ I mean can you just give me a is it just

35:53 ↗ because of timing or

35:57 ↗ a lot of it is because of timing the

35:59 ↗ other thing that you'll want to remember

36:02 ↗ is at the beginning balance for you'll

36:05 ↗ see over in the far left corner is

36:08 ↗ essential that is the ending once we had

36:12 ↗ the 2015 audit was was finalized and

36:16 ↗ remember we had two audits going on so

36:19 ↗ there was a lot of shifting around of of

36:22 ↗ information it's not that we don't we

36:24 ↗ don't know what we have in our cash

36:26 ↗ balances but in the published document

36:28 ↗ it is difficult to provide a number and

36:32 ↗ and then to explain in detail the ins

36:36 ↗ and outs of the checkbook so the

36:39 ↗ estimated ending fund balance that you

36:42 ↗ see in a budget document is based on the

36:45 ↗ budget the 2018 beginning fund balance

36:50 ↗ 418 is where we're doing forecasted

36:54 ↗ estimates for the end of 2017 so there

36:58 ↗ is going to be a difference because

37:00 ↗ we're looking at the departments are

37:02 ↗ looking at what they expect to spend and

37:05 ↗ what we expect to receive in for revenue

37:07 ↗ so we're trying to get closer to the

37:08 ↗ actual so it it's a lot of complication

37:12 ↗ and a lot of detail that I'd be happy to

37:15 ↗ provide and in another method if it

37:19 ↗ would please the council to to

37:21 ↗ understand fund balance at in snapshot

37:24 ↗ form okay if I may let me let me try to

37:27 ↗ recharacterize it what I in my own words

37:29 ↗ what I think I heard is that for this

37:32 ↗ agenda bill everything that we're

37:36 ↗ accounting for has gone through some

37:38 ↗ very rigorous handling with previously

37:43 ↗ through other attended bills and you're

37:47 ↗ very certain there are there are both

37:49 ↗ revenue and expenditure changes

37:50 ↗ obviously we've dealt with expenditure

37:52 ↗ changes in previous bills but you do put

37:55 ↗ some revenue

37:58 ↗ changes as well and it's I think you

38:01 ↗ just said that those are pretty absolute

38:03 ↗ we know these changes happened however

38:06 ↗ when you're doing the budget for next

38:08 ↗ year staff brought forward other

38:12 ↗ forecasts of maybe revenue and already

38:15 ↗ budgeted expenditures that they that may

38:18 ↗ or may not happen and you took that into

38:20 ↗ account when you came up with the

38:21 ↗ estimated beginning fund balance for

38:23 ↗ next year's budget that's correct

38:26 ↗ one thing one thing that is an internal

38:30 ↗ administrative challenge is the the

38:34 ↗ moving or the fluidity of information

38:37 ↗ that's coming when we're creating the

38:38 ↗ budget and when we're creating when

38:42 ↗ we're looking at retrospective

38:43 ↗ information budget versus actuals and

38:46 ↗ then of course we're going through the

38:48 ↗ forecasting exercise for the end of the

38:51 ↗ year from an audit perspective and and

38:54 ↗ then of course creating that for the

38:56 ↗ budget document because we want to get

38:57 ↗ as close as we can to a predicted ending

39:00 ↗ fund balance for the budget document the

39:03 ↗ budget amendment is essentially a focus

39:06 ↗ on the revenues and the expenditures and

39:09 ↗ not necessarily on the beginning ending

39:12 ↗ fund balance okay thank you

39:20 ↗ other questions seeing none then I will

39:25 ↗ open the public hearing at 7:40 and ask

39:32 ↗ if anyone has signed up to speak

39:34 ↗ no there anyone desiring to speak on the

39:42 ↗ proposed budget changes for 2017 anyone

39:52 ↗ designed to speak seeing none then the

39:58 ↗ public hearing is closed at 7:41 this is

40:03 ↗ coming back from services and safety

40:06 ↗ Toller do you want to speak to this I do

40:09 ↗ mr. mayor thank you I would like to move

40:11 ↗ to adopt ordinance number 2808 amending

40:16 ↗ the 2017 budget is set forth in

40:18 ↗ ordinance number 2 791 and amended in

40:21 ↗ ordinances numbers to seven nine five

40:23 ↗ and two seven nine eight concerning

40:24 ↗ revenues expenditures and fund balance

40:26 ↗ for various funds for the year 2017 and

40:29 ↗ authorizing the finance director to make

40:31 ↗ the necessary adjustments and approving

40:33 ↗ prior expenditures second moved and

40:36 ↗ seconded additional questions or

40:39 ↗ discussion seeing none all those in

40:45 ↗ favor of adopting ordinance number 2808

40:49 ↗ signify by saying aye aye

40:51 ↗ I was opposed that carries unanimously

40:55 ↗ moving now to regular business agenda

40:58 ↗ bill 7 3 1 7 vertical mixed-use

41:06 ↗ reference

41:07 ↗ development moratorium and

41:11 ↗ our Economic Development Manager hi good

41:23 ↗ evening

41:24 ↗ Davis Hayes who's all teed up and ready

41:29 ↗ to go with a brief staff report yes good

41:34 ↗ evening

41:34 ↗ my name is Jen Davis Hayes I work here

41:37 ↗ at the City and Economic Development and

41:38 ↗ tonight we're presenting to you the

41:41 ↗ final recommendations for the vertical

41:43 ↗ mixed-use changes which as the mayor

41:45 ↗ mentioned is part of the development

41:47 ↗ moratorium you may remember we are here

41:51 ↗ at a work session to discuss these draft

41:54 ↗ recommendations back in August and since

41:57 ↗ then have been through several meetings

41:59 ↗ to refine these even further one of the

42:04 ↗ things I wanted to mention this is has

42:05 ↗ been a project has been since last

42:07 ↗ spring we at first hired a consultant by

42:11 ↗ the new consulting firm by the name of

42:13 ↗ iko iko Northwest to look at the market

42:15 ↗ study and so you in September of 2016 we

42:20 ↗ presented the findings that they

42:23 ↗ discovered and so this is just a

42:25 ↗ reminder of the the study and for those

42:28 ↗ who are new to the topic but basically

42:31 ↗ the market study showed that we are

42:33 ↗ about 5 to 10 years out from vertical

42:35 ↗ mixed-use happening without additional

42:38 ↗ incentives and that the real estate

42:41 ↗ market was moving in the correct

42:42 ↗ direction any questions about this

42:45 ↗ initial study we did ok and then after a

42:49 ↗ lot of discussion with Council we were

42:51 ↗ directed to look at at the code to make

42:54 ↗ sure that when the development does come

42:55 ↗ are we going to get the type of vertical

42:58 ↗ mix are the type of buildings we want to

43:00 ↗ see which our vertical mix use that will

43:02 ↗ add to the vibrancy of our community and

43:04 ↗ so that scope again looked at our code

43:06 ↗ and made the following recommendations

43:09 ↗ here to move forward to ensure that when

43:14 ↗ development does come it will be in the

43:16 ↗ form of vertical mix use of the

43:18 ↗ commercial on the ground floor so

43:19 ↗ tonight we're going to go into some of

43:21 ↗ the detail

43:23 ↗ these are in your packets you these are

43:25 ↗ the Ament the chapters that are being

43:27 ↗ amended in our code for the centralized

43:31 ↗ cost design and development standards

43:33 ↗ the first section chapter 1 just talks

43:36 ↗ to basically about the purpose and

43:38 ↗ applicability so that's a really general

43:41 ↗ description of vertical mix use and

43:43 ↗ explaining that that where that it

43:45 ↗ applies the the next point I want to

43:49 ↗ just briefly talk about is the geography

43:52 ↗ about where this will occur so we are

43:55 ↗ looking at it's kind of a may be hard to

43:57 ↗ see it's a hatched parcel there's three

43:59 ↗ actually parcels it looks like multiple

44:00 ↗ more than that

44:02 ↗ but it's the hatched parcels that are in

44:04 ↗ our urban core and the black lines are

44:08 ↗ where actual commercial space will be

44:11 ↗ required if there are buildings are

44:13 ↗ being built along those streets there

44:17 ↗ any questions about the location

44:19 ↗ geographic location we've identified yes

44:22 ↗ yeah thanks Jen so the black line that

44:29 ↗ little the table in there says it

44:32 ↗ required ground floor frontages that's

44:35 ↗ what you just said as well and and and

44:37 ↗ could you just explain the difference

44:39 ↗ between that and the other parcels which

44:43 ↗ are have the that are that are with this

44:49 ↗ would have the overlay what's the

44:51 ↗ difference between the entire overlay

44:53 ↗ and those frontages sure so basically

44:57 ↗ again so these are there are three

44:59 ↗ parcels here that are identified so

45:01 ↗ there's one in the corner of North West

45:03 ↗ Gilman and twelfth a larger one that

45:05 ↗ where it says future northwest mall is

45:08 ↗ currently one parcel and then the third

45:11 ↗ parcel which is the Commons over here

45:12 ↗ and so if a developer when developer

45:15 ↗ comes in to ever develop in this area

45:19 ↗ most likely there'll be a phased

45:21 ↗ redevelopments because these are a

45:23 ↗ larger parcel so you'll be looking at

45:24 ↗ are you looking at the what the the

45:26 ↗ grander scheme is if a building is built

45:28 ↗ and it's along the I'm going to use this

45:32 ↗ along the

45:34 ↗ along here again so this area here will

45:38 ↗ require commercial ground-floor use okay

45:42 ↗ if the building back in this in this

45:46 ↗ portion let's just say it's back here

45:47 ↗ they could have resolved residential all

45:50 ↗ commercial all retail and there are no

45:53 ↗ there are no ground-floor requirements

45:57 ↗ for that now there are other

45:58 ↗ requirements that we have in the code

45:59 ↗ that they would have to abide by but as

46:01 ↗ far as having commercial space on the

46:03 ↗ ground floor that is required that would

46:06 ↗ not be required does it not mean they

46:07 ↗ cannot do that that makes sense and I

46:11 ↗ did answer your question it does it does

46:13 ↗ I think the visual is always when is

46:15 ↗ that when you say vertical mixed-use

46:19 ↗ it's a given building and it has mixed

46:25 ↗ uses yep if the ground floor is

46:27 ↗ something commercial and something

46:28 ↗ perhaps not commercial residential above

46:30 ↗ that but with the and so that's what's

46:33 ↗ required on the black line that's what

46:34 ↗ the overlay is but the rest of the

46:36 ↗ parcels it's it's still says vertical

46:39 ↗ mixed-use that's still the overlay it's

46:41 ↗ still the overlay right but there's

46:43 ↗ other conditions they have to abide by

46:44 ↗ as far as the right just just and so you

46:47 ↗ know could you just share with us you

46:48 ↗ know if it's not commercial on the first

46:50 ↗ floor what would be an example of

46:52 ↗ vertical mixed-use off somewhere within

46:54 ↗ those parcels but not on the road

46:57 ↗ frontage ease so that would not be

46:58 ↗ required to have ground floor so it

47:00 ↗ could be so it doesn't it won't require

47:02 ↗ to be vertical mix it won't be required

47:04 ↗ to be vertical mix use so it could be

47:05 ↗ completely residential completely retail

47:07 ↗ completely office right right and that

47:14 ↗ was my understanding so I didn't see

47:16 ↗ this in committee before but I did see

47:18 ↗ it and preparing for this evening it

47:20 ↗ does seem a little bit confusing to me

47:22 ↗ that we have a vertical mixed-use but

47:24 ↗ we're not requiring work mixed-use on

47:27 ↗ all the on the entire parcel yes so one

47:30 ↗ of the things that both consultants

47:33 ↗ looked at is the amount of commercial

47:36 ↗ space you provide your community and

47:37 ↗ whether or not that's it's set you know

47:39 ↗ a good balance and so I think if you

47:42 ↗ required in every single building within

47:44 ↗ the these parcels it may there may be a

47:47 ↗ chance that there's over

47:48 ↗ of a retail space and I understand so I

47:53 ↗ think what you're saying is it's it's

47:54 ↗ it's it's zoning more or less for a

47:58 ↗ given parcel a parcel has one zone on it

48:01 ↗ and this overlay specifically adds the

48:06 ↗ commercial component on those Road

48:07 ↗ frontages and some other development

48:10 ↗ standards yes and this thing as as we

48:17 ↗ would move along and perhaps we get the

48:19 ↗ vertical mixed-use in place in all of

48:23 ↗ the areas that we have defined there and

48:26 ↗ things are starting to build out is

48:27 ↗ there a specific time that we've

48:29 ↗ designated to take a look at it again

48:31 ↗ and to revisit I'm assuming that then we

48:34 ↗ could require that potentially other

48:38 ↗ areas have more vertical mixed-use sure

48:41 ↗ so this is part of the central Issaquah

48:43 ↗ development design standards so we do

48:45 ↗ look at the central swap plan every

48:47 ↗ three years for kind of a relation of

48:52 ↗ that and we have I believe an annual

48:54 ↗ report card so there could be something

48:56 ↗ that looks at that but at any time and I

48:59 ↗ know that you may recall serving in the

49:01 ↗ economic vitality commission that we

49:03 ↗ looked at several areas throughout the

49:04 ↗ urban core and actually a lot of

49:06 ↗ discussion we had previously with

49:08 ↗ councils is looking at you know what

49:11 ↗ space actually makes the most sense so

49:12 ↗ there it definitely we can anytime come

49:15 ↗ back and look at whether there's what

49:16 ↗ other locations would make sense once

49:18 ↗ this is built out thank you

49:23 ↗ any other questions about the geography

49:25 ↗ continue okay so and this just so one of

49:30 ↗ the things we wanted to make sure is

49:31 ↗ those users who come into our code make

49:34 ↗ sure that they have the opportunity to

49:35 ↗ understand that we have an overlay

49:37 ↗ because we don't have that often in our

49:39 ↗ code so in the zoning on the zoning map

49:43 ↗ and it's hard to see here but they those

49:45 ↗ areas are hatched and then it

49:46 ↗ specifically calls out to look at the

49:49 ↗ figure of the map and then on that map

49:53 ↗ the the figure for for vertical makes

49:56 ↗ use overlay map that has more

49:58 ↗ information about where to get

49:59 ↗ information about the standards so in

50:02 ↗ the actual chapter four we're looking at

50:06 ↗ at the table permitted uses again trying

50:10 ↗ to make it as easy as easy as as

50:12 ↗ possible for people to utilize and so

50:14 ↗ what we did was he added two footnotes

50:16 ↗ to the table where they were added to

50:19 ↗ specific items or specific uses so along

50:23 ↗ the ground floor along those black

50:25 ↗ colored streets we are going to require

50:28 ↗ vertical mixed use again commercial

50:30 ↗ ground floor for those areas and on 60

50:34 ↗ feet from the corner of the building in

50:36 ↗ you were required to provide either

50:39 ↗ retail or restaurant uses so those are

50:44 ↗ that's what's highlight our footnoted

50:46 ↗ here and then the basically the middle

50:48 ↗ of the building you're able to provide

50:50 ↗ the other uses that are currently

50:51 ↗ allowed in the urban core so again this

50:53 ↗ these properties are currently in the

50:55 ↗ urban core and we felt that there are

50:57 ↗ some uses in there that are vibrant

50:59 ↗ enough to add to the to the commercial

51:03 ↗ district as it gets built up and we want

51:05 ↗ to make sure that some of the spaces in

51:06 ↗ the buildings are reserved for those

51:08 ↗ more vibrant uses as restaurants and

51:10 ↗ retail any thoughts about that our

51:15 ↗ questions yes

51:17 ↗ Jen the developments we've seen on the

51:20 ↗ valley floor in the last couple of years

51:22 ↗ have just been residential so with with

51:26 ↗ this approach where we are just

51:27 ↗ requiring it on alert a certain strip

51:30 ↗ and councilmember Bateses question about

51:32 ↗ how often do we look at it what else is

51:36 ↗ there in here that if over the next two

51:39 ↗ or three year period again we just say

51:41 ↗ single-use buildings is it really three

51:44 ↗ years that we have to wait to do

51:46 ↗ something or it's something that we

51:48 ↗ would maybe be tracking annually so that

51:50 ↗ if we're continuing down the line of

51:52 ↗ just residential we would have an

51:53 ↗ opportunity to change and then nothing

51:55 ↗ would restrict us from setting it this

51:58 ↗ year doing an evaluation next year and

52:00 ↗ changing we could be that nipple it's

52:03 ↗ there's three parcels so it'd be pretty

52:05 ↗ easy to track yes yep yes oh sorry

52:10 ↗ and and just you pick these three

52:12 ↗ parcels and I'm just wondering you know

52:15 ↗ we don't know what I don't know what

52:16 ↗ property owners are thinking oh maybe

52:18 ↗ you're due and that's the question is

52:19 ↗ there these being considered to

52:21 ↗ redevelop or these might be sitting

52:22 ↗ there for 20 years because the people on

52:24 ↗ them are very content with what they

52:25 ↗ have or why were these so was there some

52:27 ↗ of that information used in the

52:29 ↗ selection so um so part of the analysis

52:34 ↗ we did a staff and then also the

52:35 ↗ consultants did is looking at what the

52:37 ↗ amenities are in the area and what the

52:38 ↗ future development opportunities are and

52:40 ↗ also looking at the parcels that are

52:42 ↗ ripe for development and so the commons

52:45 ↗ shopping center has shown an interest in

52:49 ↗ potentially redeveloping over time

52:51 ↗ they're not looking do anything tomorrow

52:53 ↗ or you know in the near future but

52:55 ↗ there's discussion about potentially

52:57 ↗ looking at talking to them a little bit

52:59 ↗ more about their development their

53:01 ↗ future development Town & Country Center

53:04 ↗ has a style of you know older shopping

53:10 ↗ center with a lot of parking and so

53:12 ↗ that's again in the area where we

53:14 ↗ envision where there's a lot of

53:15 ↗ amenities ready it's near the Transit

53:17 ↗ Center and we envision some

53:19 ↗ redevelopment to be occurring in that

53:21 ↗ area so thank you

53:26 ↗ so we are also adding a table that looks

53:30 ↗ at the standards summary table so again

53:33 ↗ this is not a new zone this is an

53:35 ↗ overlay so the people will be directed

53:37 ↗ to this right below the nor the other

53:40 ↗ standards summary table and so the

53:43 ↗ changes here are based on wanting to see

53:46 ↗ more dense development in this area so

53:50 ↗ that we don't get single story

53:52 ↗ single-use development so while we may

53:56 ↗ not have ground floor commercial in

53:57 ↗ every building that's built in here we

53:59 ↗ will have a more dense building type so

54:02 ↗ we've increased the FA are from for

54:07 ↗ residential commercial to 2.5 and

54:09 ↗ currently in the urban core it's it's

54:13 ↗ less than 1 for them for the minimum

54:16 ↗ residential and then we've increased the

54:18 ↗ base to 5.0 and then maximum to 8 we

54:21 ↗ initially just so you know we initially

54:24 ↗ had a recommendation to do the maximum

54:26 ↗ height at 135 feet

54:29 ↗ it was the Planning Policy Commission's

54:31 ↗ finding to recommend just remain at the

54:34 ↗ 125 which is currently allowed under

54:36 ↗ urban core zoning and the administration

54:40 ↗ concurred with that agreement so we've

54:41 ↗ had since amended that get to 125 so

54:47 ↗ again these these standards will help to

54:49 ↗ ensure that we actually get the type of

54:51 ↗ building they may not all be commercial

54:54 ↗ on the ground floor but the market will

54:56 ↗ also determine so there may be we may

54:57 ↗ see a lot more vertical mixed-use with

54:59 ↗ commercial and ground-floor than what we

55:01 ↗ require if the markets there and that's

55:03 ↗ what we feel is a good bet any questions

55:07 ↗ about the numbers

55:09 ↗ okay and then chapter 8 parking so you

55:14 ↗ have recently discussed in the past

55:17 ↗ additional parking requirements for

55:19 ↗ requiring 50% of required parking in

55:23 ↗ structured parking we have increased

55:25 ↗ that for these these parcels to 90

55:28 ↗ percent and so again that is trying to

55:31 ↗ avoid having the sea of parking that 50%

55:35 ↗ of your required parking would allow

55:38 ↗ because in these again in these areas

55:41 ↗ you want to make sure that it's as

55:42 ↗ pedestrian friendly and as compact as

55:44 ↗ possible

55:45 ↗ so that is the quick review of our

55:50 ↗ recommendations and changes to code we

55:53 ↗ are here to answer any questions all

55:56 ↗ right Mariah can can you remind me in

56:02 ↗ the areas where vertical mixed use is

56:04 ↗ not required are what would encourage

56:07 ↗ someone to actually go forward and build

56:11 ↗ vertical mixed-use outside of that

56:13 ↗ required area yes sir so the market so

56:16 ↗ that if they if they believe that the

56:19 ↗ the location was a great use for

56:21 ↗ vertical mixed-use we took currently do

56:23 ↗ not have any incentives to require aya

56:25 ↗ no encourage that but if you know if

56:28 ↗ they feel like they're a good space

56:30 ↗ right so this does not preclude anybody

56:32 ↗ anywhere else in the urban core or in

56:34 ↗ the central plan area that's

56:36 ↗ allowed to to develop a vertical

56:39 ↗ mixed-use building to do so okay but

56:41 ↗ there's just not a any incentives to do

56:44 ↗ that this is coming back from land and

56:49 ↗ shoulder Stacie would you like to speak

56:52 ↗ to this I can make a motion

56:55 ↗ I would move to adopt ordinance number

56:58 ↗ two 809 adopting by reference amendments

57:02 ↗ to the central Issaquah development and

57:03 ↗ design standards including establishing

57:05 ↗ a vertical mixed-use development overlay

57:07 ↗ establishing the regulations for

57:09 ↗ vertical mixed-use development and

57:10 ↗ requiring structured parking for new

57:12 ↗ development within parcels within the

57:14 ↗ vertical mixed-use overlay second it's

57:17 ↗ moved in seconded discussion or

57:19 ↗ additional questions

57:21 ↗ Mary Lou thanks and I wanted to say

57:24 ↗ thank you for all your hard work on this

57:26 ↗ you were one of the first to come back

57:28 ↗ before a committee with a moratorium

57:30 ↗ work item and we sent you back and you

57:35 ↗ regrouped brought in some more expertise

57:38 ↗ and this is entirely different than what

57:40 ↗ you brought the first time I think it's

57:43 ↗ workable and I'm really hopeful that

57:45 ↗ we've landed in a great place but thank

57:47 ↗ you for your patience with us and this

57:50 ↗ is this is really good it's a complex

57:53 ↗ topic thanks for pushing us other

57:56 ↗ questions or discussion all those in

58:01 ↗ favor of adopting or that's number 2809

58:05 ↗ as stated in the agenda bills signify by

58:08 ↗ saying aye all right all right I was

58:10 ↗ opposed but carries unanimously thank

58:13 ↗ you Jeff thank you moving now to agenda

58:18 ↗ bill seven four four three Recreation

58:21 ↗ registration and scheduling software

58:23 ↗ professional services agreement

58:30 ↗ Neph waddling our director of Parks and

58:35 ↗ Recreation recreation for the staff

58:38 ↗ report mayor Thank You Trish I promise

58:40 ↗ to be as quick as I can

58:43 ↗ Thank You mayor good evening Council I'm

58:47 ↗ here tonight to talk about a great

58:51 ↗ opportunity we have to update and

58:52 ↗ upgrade our recreation and registration

58:54 ↗ software system and programs I think as

58:58 ↗ we all know recreation programs and

59:00 ↗ services that we provide really are a

59:02 ↗ primary touch point with many of our

59:05 ↗ resident that many of our residents have

59:06 ↗ with us as as a city the registration

59:11 ↗ software system itself is a very

59:13 ↗ important element and really an initial

59:16 ↗ element to their customer experience we

59:19 ↗ are currently operating with a system

59:21 ↗ that was originally purchased in 1996 so

59:25 ↗ 21 years old few upgrades but certainly

59:29 ↗ a system that is a little tired and the

59:33 ↗ vendor informed us last year that they

59:36 ↗ will no longer be supporting this system

59:38 ↗ in future years so it really became an

59:41 ↗ opportunity for us to explore other

59:43 ↗ options and to seek really what we would

59:47 ↗ find to be the best system we can find

59:49 ↗ for our residents and for our own

59:52 ↗ internal processes well with that in

59:54 ↗ mind we undertook over a little over a

59:57 ↗ year ago an RFP process to seek that out

1:00:00 ↗ from the very beginning we chose to take

1:00:03 ↗ a very integrated approach with this and

1:00:06 ↗ partnering directly with IT melissa

1:00:08 ↗ ching our admin supervisor and Parks has

1:00:12 ↗ served as the project manager Melissa's

1:00:14 ↗ here John Trager IT director has been a

1:00:17 ↗ really an important part of that team as

1:00:20 ↗ well just a subject matter expert and

1:00:23 ↗ also helping us navigate this RFP

1:00:25 ↗ process so very much an

1:00:27 ↗ interdepartmental process that I think

1:00:31 ↗ we're very very proud of and I think the

1:00:33 ↗ outcome that we have before you really

1:00:35 ↗ speaks to the quality of that

1:00:38 ↗ of that work we had six proposals that

1:00:40 ↗ were submitted through some very

1:00:43 ↗ thorough vetting through three phases we

1:00:47 ↗ identified a very clear unanimous winner

1:00:52 ↗ in a product called perfect mind not

1:00:55 ↗ only was this unanimous amongst IT and

1:00:58 ↗ recreation staff but finance and

1:01:00 ↗ certainly their involvement in this

1:01:02 ↗ process certainly were clear consensus

1:01:06 ↗ winners we feel like this product gives

1:01:10 ↗ us a a real significant improvement in

1:01:12 ↗ our internal integration in particular

1:01:17 ↗ with munis as well as a number of our

1:01:19 ↗ other systems we also feel like very

1:01:22 ↗ importantly this is going to be a much

1:01:23 ↗ better customer experience for those

1:01:26 ↗ that are doing online registrations

1:01:28 ↗ we'll be able to for the first time

1:01:31 ↗ actually streamline all of our rentals

1:01:32 ↗ so all the rental work we do at

1:01:34 ↗ Pickering barn and our picnic shelters

1:01:37 ↗ and others and incorporate that it that

1:01:39 ↗ into this process not only is the online

1:01:43 ↗ tool such a marked improvement there's

1:01:46 ↗ other sort of 21st century upgrades such

1:01:50 ↗ as being much more mobile device

1:01:52 ↗ friendly and other tools that we think

1:01:55 ↗ our customers are really going to find

1:01:57 ↗ value in as we identified in the

1:02:02 ↗ services in safety meeting last week a

1:02:06 ↗ little bit of a timing thing to work

1:02:08 ↗ through here and that this is a 2018

1:02:11 ↗ expenditure it was identified in the six

1:02:15 ↗ year CIP it's also identified in the

1:02:18 ↗ proposed capital budget why we're here

1:02:20 ↗ now in late 2017 asking for this

1:02:23 ↗ agreement is really it's a contingent

1:02:25 ↗ approval that we're asking for with your

1:02:28 ↗ contingent approval that is we wouldn't

1:02:31 ↗ be expending any funds until 2018 and

1:02:34 ↗ that would all be dependent upon 2018

1:02:37 ↗ budget being adopted it does allow us to

1:02:40 ↗ get on the vendor schedule that allows

1:02:42 ↗ us to start to map out as a internal

1:02:45 ↗ staff the work that we need to do and

1:02:47 ↗ the scheduling we need to do to

1:02:49 ↗ ultimately result

1:02:50 ↗ a quicker switchover in 2018 so with

1:02:55 ↗ that I'm available John and Melissa are

1:02:58 ↗ certainly available if you have any

1:03:00 ↗ additional questions thank you there any

1:03:03 ↗ questions at this time this is coming

1:03:06 ↗ back from services and safety

1:03:09 ↗ Toula would you like to speak to this or

1:03:12 ↗ make a motion

1:03:13 ↗ thanks mr. mayor I move to authorize the

1:03:15 ↗ mayor to enter into and execute an

1:03:16 ↗ agreement with perfect mind incorporated

1:03:19 ↗ in 2018 to provide implementation

1:03:21 ↗ training and ongoing support of the

1:03:23 ↗ perfect mind cloud-based Parks and

1:03:25 ↗ Recreation software for an estimated

1:03:27 ↗ first year amount of ninety six thousand

1:03:29 ↗ twelve dollars and forty-five thousand

1:03:31 ↗ twelve dollars annually over the

1:03:32 ↗ remaining four years of the five year

1:03:34 ↗ period for a total not to exceed two

1:03:36 ↗ hundred and seventy six thousand sixty

1:03:38 ↗ dollars second moved and seconded

1:03:41 ↗ questions or discussion

1:03:44 ↗ Ola thanks mr. mayor we we talked

1:03:47 ↗ extensively about this the city staff

1:03:50 ↗ provided very good feedback on sort of

1:03:54 ↗ the trade study that they performed and

1:03:56 ↗ the committee asked questions around

1:03:58 ↗ some of the line items that we saw and

1:04:00 ↗ we couldn't we couldn't find any fault

1:04:01 ↗ with it we picked at it and picked at it

1:04:03 ↗ and all seemed pretty solid the reason

1:04:05 ↗ that we wanted it to come back to full

1:04:07 ↗ council is that as mentioned this is one

1:04:09 ↗ of the primary interfaces that people

1:04:11 ↗ have with the city this is one of the

1:04:13 ↗ ways that people interact with their

1:04:15 ↗ government and so we are excited about

1:04:17 ↗ the possibility of moving into 21st

1:04:20 ↗ century technology other Paul you know

1:04:25 ↗ thank you Jeff I don't know a lot about

1:04:27 ↗ Park software but I know a little bit

1:04:29 ↗ about these systems just some basic

1:04:30 ↗ questions I think in the 2018 budget I

1:04:33 ↗ didn't see any additional headcount so

1:04:36 ↗ if you do implementations like this

1:04:38 ↗ always takes time always takes cycles

1:04:40 ↗ away from somebody so I could you just

1:04:44 ↗ say a word about how how you're planning

1:04:46 ↗ to staff this implementation because and

1:04:48 ↗ that will have an impact on some

1:04:49 ↗ people's availability in their work

1:04:51 ↗ plans absolutely as I mentioned early

1:04:53 ↗ Melissa King will serve as the the

1:04:55 ↗ project manager she's been the lead

1:04:57 ↗ through this RFP process I know John and

1:05:00 ↗ the IT staff will be providing some

1:05:03 ↗ support as well and

1:05:04 ↗ so it's really both departments have

1:05:07 ↗ this in their work plan as we map this

1:05:11 ↗ out so we're planning to do it with with

1:05:13 ↗ no additional no additional staff okay

1:05:16 ↗ and the I have a couple boys the the so

1:05:22 ↗ the license fee or whatever you call it

1:05:24 ↗ per year whatever the however they refer

1:05:26 ↗ to it it's fixed is I assume then there

1:05:28 ↗ may its

1:05:30 ↗ there's no constraints in terms of like

1:05:32 ↗ number of staff users or even external

1:05:35 ↗ customer users sometimes there's a

1:05:37 ↗ there's a lever there for the way these

1:05:39 ↗ are priced so is this have any kinda we

1:05:42 ↗ see them shaking their heads no no it's

1:05:45 ↗ a five year five year set them out with

1:05:48 ↗ that renewal that will certainly to be

1:05:50 ↗ dependent upon what our revenue picture

1:05:53 ↗ looks like in your six okay and so this

1:06:02 ↗ will be there's some talk about data

1:06:05 ↗ migration and I'm a parks customer I'm

1:06:09 ↗ also a city utilities customer and I

1:06:13 ↗ think there's a permit somewhere in the

1:06:15 ↗ database about some some work we've done

1:06:17 ↗ and and so what is going to be the user

1:06:20 ↗ the customer citizen kind of experience

1:06:24 ↗ here um we it's it's it is more for John

1:06:31 ↗ or anything right we really don't is is

1:06:33 ↗ it we any we doing any kind a master

1:06:36 ↗ data implementation error this is gonna

1:06:39 ↗ mean all of their customers are all

1:06:41 ↗ going to repeat it in this just like

1:06:42 ↗ they're repeated in the utility side

1:06:43 ↗ just like they're repeated and perhaps

1:06:46 ↗ in the development services side as well

1:06:48 ↗ yeah I think John can speak to that

1:06:50 ↗ migration of the data we have in the old

1:06:52 ↗ system to this to this new one so I

1:06:55 ↗ think your question is more around

1:06:57 ↗ centralized data repository of all these

1:06:59 ↗ various systems of this is just another

1:07:01 ↗ one like the add like the master you

1:07:03 ↗ like well that's that is the master data

1:07:06 ↗ database is not in scope initially for

1:07:09 ↗ this there's a lot of other moving

1:07:10 ↗ pieces before we can build that however

1:07:12 ↗ there will be data integration with the

1:07:14 ↗ ERP system

1:07:17 ↗ for back-and-forth transaction

1:07:18 ↗ processing between the two and this will

1:07:22 ↗ be setting a new precedent for our

1:07:24 ↗ e-commerce model because we have other

1:07:25 ↗ touches what will be having ecommerce

1:07:27 ↗ that we don't currently have so

1:07:30 ↗ currently in the city the only

1:07:32 ↗ e-commerce is the existing site which is

1:07:34 ↗ extremely outdated if anybody here has

1:07:36 ↗ used it so this will be the beginning of

1:07:40 ↗ a much tighter integration with the

1:07:42 ↗ finance system as far as the citizen

1:07:45 ↗ touches you know we'll have to have this

1:07:48 ↗ available for the places where they may

1:07:50 ↗ call and ask questions and any front

1:07:53 ↗ office type or front desk type of

1:07:55 ↗ positions the user interface is very

1:07:59 ↗ easy to use and see you to research

1:08:01 ↗ what's going on with particular

1:08:02 ↗ customers okay and then just my last

1:08:05 ↗ question one of the biggest challenges

1:08:07 ↗ to any type of implementation project

1:08:08 ↗ like this is legacy data quality if you

1:08:11 ↗ have issues and is this accounted for in

1:08:13 ↗ the project plan as well when you do

1:08:15 ↗ conversions you find out all your

1:08:17 ↗ problems with data and it can really

1:08:18 ↗ have an impact on timeline when we did a

1:08:22 ↗ high-level analysis of the data that's

1:08:23 ↗ in there and of course there's all kinds

1:08:25 ↗ of issues so there'll be some data

1:08:27 ↗ cleanup but that is a point in the

1:08:28 ↗ project plan that that's the draft at

1:08:31 ↗ this point okay thank you

1:08:33 ↗ that's all my questions thanking oh yeah

1:08:35 ↗ I just wanted to add around that

1:08:36 ↗ question around implementation because

1:08:38 ↗ that was one of the things that we

1:08:39 ↗ picked out in committee because you know

1:08:42 ↗ I've seen implementations of software

1:08:44 ↗ packages and so I wanted to we confirmed

1:08:46 ↗ that 51,000 in first year costs included

1:08:50 ↗ the implementation effort which sizes

1:08:53 ↗ about how much you know if that's the

1:08:55 ↗ external consultant effort that size is

1:08:58 ↗ how big you know any potential internal

1:09:00 ↗ support of that external actual you know

1:09:03 ↗ frontline work and certainly with the

1:09:06 ↗ Parks Department you know that's that's

1:09:08 ↗ other size if it was if it was you know

1:09:10 ↗ five hundred thousand dollars of

1:09:12 ↗ external consulting or even a couple

1:09:13 ↗ hundred thousand then I then I would

1:09:15 ↗ also be concerned about what the effort

1:09:17 ↗ looked like on internal staff but it's a

1:09:19 ↗ small enough implementation that it

1:09:20 ↗ seems reasonable Thank You Mariah

1:09:23 ↗ followed by bill

1:09:25 ↗ so when we were talking about this at

1:09:27 ↗ services and I do have a question for

1:09:30 ↗ you John this is a 21 year old software

1:09:33 ↗ that that I think that the change over

1:09:37 ↗ it sounds like is going to create a much

1:09:40 ↗ better customer experience for everyone

1:09:43 ↗ who's who's using that and then be a lot

1:09:45 ↗ easier internally because of mostly

1:09:48 ↗ because of the integration with with

1:09:50 ↗ other departments and John there was

1:09:52 ↗ something about some servers that you

1:09:55 ↗ were updating as well could you talk a

1:09:58 ↗ little bit about that I think you

1:10:00 ↗ mentioned oh this is a this is a hosted

1:10:01 ↗ service so we won't be having to run

1:10:04 ↗ servers like we currently do for the

1:10:07 ↗ existing system that's that will take

1:10:09 ↗ you know replace did you have some that

1:10:12 ↗ worth you were phasing out and this was

1:10:15 ↗ a good move exactly so our overall

1:10:17 ↗ strategy for the city and part of our

1:10:20 ↗ technology strategy is to move to

1:10:24 ↗ cloud-based applications where it makes

1:10:26 ↗ sense there are always there always be

1:10:27 ↗ exceptions but the amount of servers

1:10:30 ↗ that will be hosting has been dropping

1:10:32 ↗ and this is continuing to lower that

1:10:35 ↗ number to reduce our footprint because

1:10:38 ↗ the costs of complexity of managing that

1:10:41 ↗ is getting on more difficult for the and

1:10:43 ↗ the amount of staff it requires to run a

1:10:46 ↗ big server farm it's not something that

1:10:48 ↗ we're it's an are not in our strategy

1:10:50 ↗ roadmap at this point so cloud-based is

1:10:53 ↗ our goal for this particular application

1:10:56 ↗ as we are currently cloud-based for the

1:10:58 ↗ munis ERP system and we're also our

1:11:01 ↗ city's website is cloud-based and so

1:11:04 ↗ there's a lot of platforms that touch

1:11:06 ↗ the public there are a cloud-based

1:11:07 ↗ already so this was just catching up

1:11:10 ↗ with the rest thank you no thank you

1:11:15 ↗ question on the customer experience so I

1:11:20 ↗ saw here in one place it says it doesn't

1:11:21 ↗ allow credit card offer credit card

1:11:24 ↗ processing but but it talked about it'll

1:11:28 ↗ allow it some ways is the old way that

1:11:30 ↗ it's done so I'm just asking what the

1:11:32 ↗ customer experience is they can come

1:11:34 ↗ online and

1:11:35 ↗ pay for their stuff with their credit

1:11:37 ↗ card and that would be a seamless

1:11:40 ↗ experience or not of course it would I

1:11:43 ↗ mean they currently do that and this is

1:11:44 ↗ the current system has a lot of

1:11:46 ↗ difficulty with refunds or other changes

1:11:48 ↗ unless a perfect transaction is easy

1:11:51 ↗ everything else is difficult with our

1:11:52 ↗ current system the new systems grace

1:11:54 ↗ greatly simplifies all that and makes

1:11:57 ↗ that a lot easier for a customer

1:11:58 ↗ experience people schedule events and

1:12:01 ↗ then they cancel all that kind of stuff

1:12:03 ↗ and then it's the integration piece into

1:12:07 ↗ our e-commerce to be much more

1:12:09 ↗ straightforward currently it's not very

1:12:12 ↗ easy for us to process ok and just to

1:12:16 ↗ notices recreation of management pays

1:12:19 ↗ fifty six thousand dollars in virgin

1:12:21 ↗ transaction fees that's the credit card

1:12:22 ↗ fees for people use it the three percent

1:12:24 ↗ or whatever and that doesn't go away we

1:12:26 ↗ still have to use you know these things

1:12:27 ↗ to everybody you know so that's really a

1:12:30 ↗ no change essentially we are in a

1:12:33 ↗ different for effort as part of the

1:12:34 ↗ unit's program I'm looking at see we can

1:12:37 ↗ get a better rate by bringing in these

1:12:39 ↗ other e-commerce pieces I was talking

1:12:40 ↗ about so if we can you know negotiate a

1:12:44 ↗ better rate with the Clearinghouse it's

1:12:46 ↗ got a credit card Clearinghouse is what

1:12:47 ↗ it's called we might be able to do a

1:12:49 ↗ little better on that and when we start

1:12:51 ↗ bringing in other services that people

1:12:53 ↗ buy currently with checks or other types

1:12:55 ↗ of payment for example utility billing

1:12:59 ↗ thank you any additional questions or

1:13:03 ↗ discussion seeing none then all those in

1:13:07 ↗ favor of authorizing the mayor to enter

1:13:10 ↗ into and execute an agreement with

1:13:13 ↗ perfect mind Inc and 2018 to provide

1:13:16 ↗ implementation training and ongoing

1:13:18 ↗ support of the perfect mind cloud-based

1:13:21 ↗ Parks and Recreation software for an

1:13:24 ↗ estimated first year amount of ninety

1:13:26 ↗ six thousand twelve dollars and forty

1:13:30 ↗ five thousand twelve dollars annually

1:13:32 ↗ over the remaining four years of a

1:13:34 ↗ five-year contract period for total not

1:13:37 ↗ to exceed two hundred and seventy six

1:13:39 ↗ thousand sixty dollars signify by saying

1:13:41 ↗ aye

1:13:42 ↗ I supposed that carries unanimously

1:13:47 ↗ moving now Krish who agenda bill 7 4 8 3

1:13:55 ↗ 2017 amendments to the Comprehensive

1:13:59 ↗ Plan fish Hainan for the staff report

1:14:04 ↗ thank you thank you I had the worst

1:14:14 ↗ trouble with the screen and then just

1:14:16 ↗ rise and just started

1:14:33 ↗ thank you thank you technical

1:14:37 ↗ difficulties okay we're here for the

1:14:39 ↗ annual comp plan amendments there are

1:14:42 ↗ very few this year because we did so

1:14:45 ↗ many moratorium pieces so there's only a

1:14:49 ↗ few there's the land-use element that we

1:14:51 ↗ do every year with the Office of

1:14:53 ↗ Financial Management giving us our new

1:14:55 ↗ population and household numbers we

1:14:58 ↗ added our new housing units to our state

1:15:00 ↗ target we changed our potential

1:15:02 ↗ annexation areas map and the annexation

1:15:05 ↗ history maps because of the King County

1:15:07 ↗ Island and the Bellevue utility parcel

1:15:10 ↗ we did a few redesignate Sandri zones to

1:15:13 ↗ newly owned city property and we put in

1:15:17 ↗ the Transportation Improvement Program

1:15:19 ↗ that you already adopted that officially

1:15:21 ↗ goes in the comp plan through this

1:15:24 ↗ process the first one quickly is how

1:15:27 ↗ many housing new housing units were

1:15:31 ↗ actually final this year that we can

1:15:32 ↗ count for towards our state target there

1:15:36 ↗ was just over a thousand new units in

1:15:38 ↗ 2017 and so there's just a little over a

1:15:41 ↗ thousand remaining in our 2031 state

1:15:45 ↗ target have a question oh okay go back

1:15:50 ↗ one Trish please

1:15:51 ↗ so that can you clarify the twelve

1:15:54 ↗ ninety two units remaining to the twenty

1:15:56 ↗ thirty one target we've already got

1:15:58 ↗ projects in the pipeline and so if you

1:16:00 ↗ if and I realized technically we don't

1:16:04 ↗ include those correct that if were you

1:16:06 ↗ were to account for those what do we

1:16:09 ↗ have remaining for our two our twenty

1:16:11 ↗ thirty one target we I think Keith did a

1:16:15 ↗ rough estimate at Landon Shore and we

1:16:18 ↗ had like 800 in the pipeline so that

1:16:22 ↗ would be then pretty close to being the

1:16:26 ↗ target hitting the target so that in the

1:16:29 ↗ note 192 - 800 if they all come online

1:16:34 ↗ next year they'd all have to be final to

1:16:36 ↗ count but not just next year actually

1:16:40 ↗ right yes that are in okay so it's four

1:16:43 ↗ or five hundred left correct

1:16:45 ↗ Thanks correct other questions on this

1:16:51 ↗ we have an answer so could we go to the

1:16:58 ↗ transportation improvement slide that

1:17:02 ↗ the okay that's at the end the oh I'm

1:17:06 ↗ sorry I'm generally I had on the weight

1:17:08 ↗ which is fine but go ahead you're gonna

1:17:09 ↗ miss all the excitement I don't want to

1:17:12 ↗ miss the excitement okay we have a new

1:17:15 ↗ population number from the state we're

1:17:17 ↗ up to 36,000 and 30 very exciting and we

1:17:22 ↗ also because of the end of development

1:17:25 ↗ agreements we were able to really key

1:17:26 ↗ into the what's left for the entitlement

1:17:29 ↗ for the talus and the highlands so our

1:17:31 ↗ population chart is a lot more accurate

1:17:33 ↗ than it's been we've always just had

1:17:35 ↗ that end number because we just never

1:17:38 ↗ were really sure how it would sort out

1:17:40 ↗ so that's a lot more accurate in this

1:17:41 ↗ go-around as well this is our new

1:17:45 ↗ potential annexation area map it's I

1:17:48 ↗ think it's pretty beautiful there's only

1:17:50 ↗ one left which is very different than

1:17:53 ↗ when I first started here

1:17:54 ↗ I'm warned you had asked about the

1:17:56 ↗ little pieces up by Grand Ridge and I'm

1:17:59 ↗ in a discussion with King County about

1:18:00 ↗ those we had always understood they call

1:18:04 ↗ them on their map the Issaquah Highlands

1:18:07 ↗ gaps or something they don't call it a

1:18:09 ↗ PAA they don't call it things that it's

1:18:12 ↗ a quest should take in the near future

1:18:14 ↗ so I have contacted them we're going

1:18:16 ↗ back and forth because when we

1:18:17 ↗ negotiated Issaquah Highlands those were

1:18:19 ↗ always meant to stay King County so it

1:18:22 ↗ seemed odd to us that perhaps they want

1:18:24 ↗ us to take them over now so wanted you

1:18:27 ↗ to know we're still in discussions about

1:18:28 ↗ that this is the very busy annexation

1:18:33 ↗ history map from the dinosaur age and

1:18:36 ↗ the one that's a little more clear to

1:18:39 ↗ understand is how busy we've been since

1:18:41 ↗ 1990 these are just the ones since 1990

1:18:44 ↗ and again this is updated to have can

1:18:47 ↗ counting island and the bellevue utility

1:18:49 ↗ parcel we did as i said some redesignate

1:18:54 ↗ Sandri zones we sent

1:18:57 ↗ letters to 300 property owners within

1:18:59 ↗ 300 feet of all of them so they would

1:19:01 ↗ know that some reasons are going on near

1:19:03 ↗ them the first group is the for the road

1:19:10 ↗ project that's going to Costco these are

1:19:13 ↗ all gonna be remain open space and part

1:19:16 ↗ of them will be floodplain improvements

1:19:20 ↗ this one was purchased in part with fire

1:19:24 ↗ impact fees this one's at an East Lake

1:19:25 ↗ Sammamish Parkway

1:19:28 ↗ Church can I just ask a question sure

1:19:30 ↗ that one partially purchase with impact

1:19:33 ↗ fees are fully purchased with him I

1:19:35 ↗ don't have the whole record of them but

1:19:37 ↗ I was hurt I was told that at least part

1:19:40 ↗ of them what part of this was paid for

1:19:42 ↗ with fire impact fees

1:19:45 ↗ yeah it's fully paid with fire impact

1:19:47 ↗ fees I think fully paid but thank you

1:19:49 ↗ okay I knew that it was a bunch this is

1:19:53 ↗ actually owned by the over Dale property

1:19:55 ↗ owners association and they wanted it to

1:19:58 ↗ be a conservation easement if you can

1:20:01 ↗ recall Janet wall did this last year

1:20:03 ↗ with her property up there and so they

1:20:05 ↗ wanted to go through the same parcel so

1:20:07 ↗ this is actually privately owned but

1:20:09 ↗ they wanted a conservation easement on

1:20:11 ↗ it so we're proposing to rezone this as

1:20:14 ↗ well to Conservancy recreation as we did

1:20:16 ↗ with Janet's

1:20:17 ↗ last year and this one is right down

1:20:23 ↗ here on Front Street and this is part of

1:20:27 ↗ the park sock was acquisition that they

1:20:29 ↗ used park bond money for this one that

1:20:32 ↗ will someday be a park of some sort

1:20:35 ↗ along with the others that we own that

1:20:38 ↗ some of the pieces to the north as well

1:20:39 ↗ I have a question on that one to Trish

1:20:43 ↗ so that is the one that is currently

1:20:45 ↗ grass where houses were demolished I'm I

1:20:51 ↗ haven't been by there Jeff recently but

1:20:54 ↗ I did check with Jen Fink on Friday to

1:20:56 ↗ be sure that it had been purchased with

1:20:59 ↗ Park bond money and she confirmed that

1:21:01 ↗ it was park bond money just maybe I'll

1:21:04 ↗ discuss it with the chair of land and

1:21:06 ↗ sure but it would be interesting to know

1:21:07 ↗ if this one

1:21:07 ↗ is going to be zone community facilities

1:21:10 ↗ recreation as its proposed after its

1:21:12 ↗ proposed car but the interim uses might

1:21:14 ↗ be and before this is built out as a

1:21:16 ↗ park but I'll just talk with the chair

1:21:19 ↗ of linen chore and see if that's

1:21:21 ↗ something that we could get more

1:21:22 ↗ information on in a later date sure or I

1:21:25 ↗ couldn't be a park for a while right or

1:21:27 ↗ I can contact Jen and have her sure do

1:21:31 ↗ you want me to follow up on that back

1:21:32 ↗ you're gonna okay I just put it up to

1:21:35 ↗ the chair and let her decide if she

1:21:36 ↗ wants okay thanks now Mariah we're at

1:21:41 ↗ the six-year TI p and this is the same

1:21:43 ↗ one that you all adopted I believe it

1:21:45 ↗ was early in the summer and so we

1:21:48 ↗ haven't changed anything we're just

1:21:49 ↗ updating the document from last year

1:21:51 ↗ with the document that you've approved

1:21:53 ↗ and sent to the state already so that's

1:21:56 ↗ what this is showing and that's oh did

1:22:00 ↗ you have a question on there

1:22:02 ↗ I did so when the breakout I don't think

1:22:05 ↗ it's it's not on your presentation but

1:22:08 ↗ the breakout of the transportation

1:22:11 ↗ improvement projects in this spreadsheet

1:22:13 ↗ now I'm trying to find it it was

1:22:18 ↗ actually taken from the summary page

1:22:21 ↗ that's what we got from Sheldon okay so

1:22:24 ↗ I'll just ask my question as I'm trying

1:22:26 ↗ to find this so in in the package it's

1:22:31 ↗ like as page 16 of 35 but it's where

1:22:35 ↗ we're basically listing the 2018 to 2023

1:22:39 ↗ transportation improvement plan so I

1:22:42 ↗ could be confused but when we were

1:22:44 ↗ talking about the capital improvement

1:22:45 ↗ plan which include included

1:22:47 ↗ transportation back in September on

1:22:52 ↗ specifically on 0 o to 8 which was

1:22:56 ↗ Northwest Sammamish Road that had to do

1:22:58 ↗ with when wash dot comes in and is doing

1:23:02 ↗ some shoulder work that we had that I

1:23:05 ↗ had proposed adding money in for

1:23:09 ↗ 2018-2019 to coincide with that project

1:23:11 ↗ and I don't see it here I'm assuming I

1:23:14 ↗ should see it here it's just a good sign

1:23:17 ↗ this is just what Sheldon gave me to put

1:23:20 ↗ in the comp plan

1:23:20 ↗ and so I was assuming it was the adapted

1:23:23 ↗ version but I don't know a detail like

1:23:25 ↗ that that might have changed I can

1:23:30 ↗ follow up good evening Keith Niven

1:23:35 ↗ development services director and

1:23:37 ↗ economic development director so I think

1:23:40 ↗ so you're right you did make a

1:23:43 ↗ recommendation for a million dollars

1:23:46 ↗ being going towards the pinch point and

1:23:48 ↗ I think procedurally what would need to

1:23:52 ↗ happen is if that gets adopted I think

1:23:54 ↗ it's in the budget the the budget has

1:23:58 ↗ it's been presented by the mayor's

1:24:00 ↗ office and so if that gets adopted by

1:24:02 ↗ the council then that would go into a

1:24:04 ↗ docket item for next year to be added

1:24:06 ↗ because it's it just hasn't happened yet

1:24:09 ↗ the recommendation that you've made is

1:24:11 ↗ now I think part of the proposed 2018

1:24:14 ↗ budget and then if that gets adopted by

1:24:18 ↗ the council then we would put that into

1:24:20 ↗ a 2018 comp plan docket item so it's not

1:24:24 ↗ in the 17 work items because it's it's

1:24:28 ↗ behind okay I I thought it might be

1:24:30 ↗ something procedural and so I just

1:24:33 ↗ wanted to ask about that thank you

1:24:36 ↗ it's a good question via Emily urging

1:24:44 ↗ Jensen here tonight but it may be an

1:24:46 ↗ Emily question or Bob question and that

1:24:48 ↗ is that I thought we adopted the CIP I

1:24:50 ↗ didn't think we were adopting the CIP

1:24:52 ↗ during budget I thought we adopted it

1:24:54 ↗ and so I had assumed any changes that

1:24:55 ↗ were in it would show up in the CFP or

1:24:59 ↗ the comprehensive plan amendment of us

1:25:02 ↗ oh I think this is just a timing and

1:25:06 ↗ sequence issue and I and I don't think

1:25:09 ↗ it's a significant one I think

1:25:13 ↗ everything keeps said is accurate you

1:25:15 ↗ you made a motion at the tail end of our

1:25:19 ↗ capital improvement program adoption to

1:25:22 ↗ request some more immediate funding for

1:25:26 ↗ that project we have

1:25:28 ↗ updated the capital improvement program

1:25:32 ↗ to reflect that change that's posted

1:25:34 ↗ it's available for all the C online and

1:25:37 ↗ we've taken steps to implement it via

1:25:39 ↗ your proposed budget as well as a first

1:25:43 ↗ year capital program and we'll talk more

1:25:48 ↗ about that when we get into budget

1:25:50 ↗ deliberations what that looks like in

1:25:52 ↗ the adopted budget then we can talk

1:25:53 ↗ about the actual work program for that

1:25:56 ↗ item as well I I don't think it's

1:26:00 ↗ significant enough that it needs to be

1:26:02 ↗ reflected in this map but we can

1:26:03 ↗ incorporate it when we go through at its

1:26:07 ↗ next time these things always lag each

1:26:09 ↗ other to some degree we will make

1:26:12 ↗ changes we're gonna have this from time

1:26:15 ↗ to time we're gonna have it next year

1:26:16 ↗ when we do an update to the capital

1:26:19 ↗ improvement program

1:26:20 ↗ you're not going to immediately probably

1:26:22 ↗ have the right sequence with adopting

1:26:24 ↗ the comp plan on amendments next year as

1:26:27 ↗ well so you're going to be playing

1:26:29 ↗ catch-up on on one of the two documents

1:26:39 ↗ other questions or discussion this is

1:26:44 ↗ coming back from Landon Shore station I

1:26:47 ↗ would move to adopt ordinance number 28

1:26:50 ↗ 10 adopting by reference several

1:26:53 ↗ amendments to the comprehensive plan for

1:26:54 ↗ the city of Issaquah by updating the

1:26:56 ↗ land-use element the transportation

1:26:58 ↗ element and related Maps and amending

1:27:00 ↗ the land use designation map and zoning

1:27:02 ↗ map for community facilities properties

1:27:04 ↗ and the King County Island annexation

1:27:05 ↗ area second it's moved and seconded

1:27:08 ↗ additional discussion or questions Mary

1:27:12 ↗ little question for Trish I think

1:27:14 ↗ Emily's explanation makes sense but from

1:27:17 ↗ a transparency point of view I find it

1:27:19 ↗ kind of confusing why under the comp

1:27:22 ↗ plan then wouldn't we actually footnote

1:27:24 ↗ that table and refer to the actual

1:27:27 ↗ governing document like it seems odd to

1:27:30 ↗ me to have a CIP that says one thing and

1:27:33 ↗ a comp plan that says something else why

1:27:36 ↗ why don't we cross-reference why don't

1:27:38 ↗ we explain it seems weird to have it

1:27:41 ↗ stated differently in to garden it's I

1:27:43 ↗ think for the comprehensive plan being

1:27:46 ↗ the policy document were required by the

1:27:49 ↗ state to have the Transportation

1:27:50 ↗ Improvement Program as part of our

1:27:53 ↗ document even though it's previously

1:27:55 ↗ been adopted months ago and so it we

1:27:59 ↗ sort of have to wait and tuck it in when

1:28:00 ↗ we're ready to adopt ours and so the

1:28:02 ↗ whole part of asking for funding and all

1:28:05 ↗ that because you do that at a whole

1:28:07 ↗ different time then ours we could

1:28:10 ↗ certainly try to say to footnote

1:28:12 ↗ whatever it is that's coming next year

1:28:15 ↗ or that's on its way but that gets a

1:28:18 ↗ little odd to that all of a sudden it's

1:28:19 ↗ March and there's a strange footnote

1:28:21 ↗ about there's an extra million proposed

1:28:24 ↗ that's in so the footnote but I think be

1:28:28 ↗ confusing to it might be less confusing

1:28:29 ↗ but it's still it's still odd because

1:28:32 ↗ the documents aren't just one yeah I

1:28:34 ↗ think I meant to ask a different

1:28:36 ↗ question okay I understand that the CIP

1:28:39 ↗ is approving projects and the budget is

1:28:41 ↗ approving funding for projects the CIP

1:28:44 ↗ is a project list and the comp plan is

1:28:47 ↗ project list

1:28:49 ↗ and they don't match and my suggestion

1:28:51 ↗ is why not footnote something somewhere

1:28:54 ↗ either in this CIP or in the comp plan

1:28:58 ↗ that says that there's a companion

1:29:00 ↗ document not saying call it a million

1:29:02 ↗ dollars to talk about one project oh

1:29:03 ↗ that they are just project list both of

1:29:06 ↗ them right and they're different and

1:29:08 ↗ neither one is funding approval so I'm

1:29:11 ↗ not confused about the budget piece it's

1:29:13 ↗ having two programmatic documents that's

1:29:15 ↗ differ okay I was gonna suggest we could

1:29:19 ↗ just amend the map because it is in the

1:29:21 ↗ budget and it's in the capital plan and

1:29:24 ↗ if you want if we want to capture

1:29:27 ↗ mitigation fees for that project that

1:29:29 ↗ really should be on the CFP list so we

1:29:32 ↗ could amend a map and just incorporate

1:29:33 ↗ that as part of the we approve it

1:29:37 ↗ tonight without the amended map just

1:29:39 ↗ provide direction to amend the map yes

1:29:44 ↗ yeah I the direction is clear enough so

1:29:48 ↗ I think yeah I think it is and they and

1:29:50 ↗ the document also references the CIP and

1:29:53 ↗ the CIP is adopted so I think I think

1:29:56 ↗ we're covered there my point is just our

1:30:00 ↗ capital plan is always it's a plans

1:30:02 ↗ planning document will change over time

1:30:04 ↗ and so that's the catchment that we have

1:30:05 ↗ but here I think you have the clear

1:30:07 ↗ linkage to the adopted CIP and while the

1:30:10 ↗ map may not have reflected one of those

1:30:12 ↗ last-minute changes I think you have all

1:30:15 ↗ the backup that you need Thanks oh thank

1:30:19 ↗ you I want to make sure I understand all

1:30:21 ↗ this as well Bob I the the project is

1:30:25 ↗ actually already on T IP the the

1:30:33 ↗ Sammamish Road project so it's already

1:30:35 ↗ eligible for mitigation funds and and so

1:30:42 ↗ what we did late recently was amend in

1:30:46 ↗ the light I was it changed to the CIP so

1:30:49 ↗ so when we may actually expend some of

1:30:52 ↗ those funds the project is already

1:30:54 ↗ eligible for mitigation fees

1:30:58 ↗ all right Araya

1:31:01 ↗ and i just wanted to clarify it wasn't

1:31:04 ↗ actually the map i was looking at it was

1:31:06 ↗ the it was the spreadsheet that goes

1:31:07 ↗ through everything and breaks it down by

1:31:09 ↗ year so I was just expecting to see that

1:31:11 ↗ in 2018 and 2019 to coincide with that

1:31:15 ↗ project so but we could maybe have that

1:31:20 ↗ he updated in two sections so like just

1:31:24 ↗ for the benefit of counsel

1:31:25 ↗ so the council didn't make that motion

1:31:27 ↗ to put a million dollars into the budget

1:31:29 ↗ we adopted that that's done what we and

1:31:32 ↗ at that time what we mentioned was we

1:31:34 ↗ still don't know when wash that's going

1:31:35 ↗ to do their project because it's going

1:31:37 ↗ to tie with that you know there's a

1:31:38 ↗ possibility maybe through four years

1:31:40 ↗ before they actually do that based on

1:31:43 ↗ you know additional data that they're

1:31:45 ↗ getting and then if they're doing

1:31:46 ↗ eastbound or westbound first so I think

1:31:50 ↗ I just want to qualify that while we

1:31:53 ↗ believe it's in the budget for next year

1:31:54 ↗ we got a million dollars in there

1:31:55 ↗ there's a possibility that it may not

1:31:57 ↗ get done within the next couple years I

1:32:03 ↗ just wanted to say and that's something

1:32:07 ↗ that we we talked about when we were

1:32:10 ↗ talking about this amount of money and

1:32:12 ↗ and the purpose of putting that forward

1:32:16 ↗ was just that when the project does come

1:32:18 ↗ forward that helping out with that road

1:32:21 ↗ and adding a sidewalk and dealing with

1:32:24 ↗ some of the issues that those

1:32:26 ↗ neighborhoods have all been dealing with

1:32:28 ↗ would would be there so understanding

1:32:32 ↗ that it could be a little bit further

1:32:33 ↗ out but that was the purpose of bringing

1:32:35 ↗ the money forward and not having it all

1:32:38 ↗ sit in future years other questions or

1:32:44 ↗ discussion

1:32:47 ↗ all those in favor of adopting ordinance

1:32:51 ↗ number 28 10 as stated by the chair of

1:32:54 ↗ the land and Tour Committee signify by

1:32:56 ↗ saying aye aye I was opposed that

1:33:00 ↗ carries unanimously

1:33:01 ↗ moving now to agenda bill 7 4 7 1

1:33:11 ↗ opposing community health engagement

1:33:14 ↗ location safe injection sites in

1:33:16 ↗ Issaquah this is coming back from the

1:33:21 ↗ administration Bob for the staff report

1:33:25 ↗ Thank You mayor

1:33:26 ↗ so if council recalls the administration

1:33:30 ↗ had proposed the resolution that would

1:33:33 ↗ have banned safe injection sites and

1:33:36 ↗ this was in front of the council Rob did

1:33:40 ↗ you go to the podium sure to make sure

1:33:43 ↗ you're on TV you don't get many

1:33:44 ↗ opportunities for this

1:33:51 ↗ Thank You mayor and council Bob Harrison

1:33:54 ↗ city administrator and so this item had

1:33:57 ↗ come to council that there's a lot of

1:34:00 ↗ conversation obviously amongst a number

1:34:02 ↗ of communities and King County for the

1:34:05 ↗ safe injection sites there was an

1:34:07 ↗ original resolution that was proposed I

1:34:09 ↗ would ban the sites and based on public

1:34:12 ↗ input there was a desire to look at

1:34:14 ↗ getting some additional feedback in the

1:34:17 ↗ community and from the Human Services

1:34:18 ↗ Commission at that same time when the

1:34:21 ↗ resolution was passed there was some

1:34:24 ↗ consideration about doing a moratorium

1:34:26 ↗ and so there's really two kind of

1:34:27 ↗ companion bills this evening and we've

1:34:29 ↗ based on input that we got from the

1:34:31 ↗ services committee chair where this

1:34:33 ↗ would have been referred to eventually

1:34:34 ↗ and council leadership we've decided

1:34:36 ↗ that perhaps a better tack would be what

1:34:39 ↗ we're proposing this evening and so

1:34:41 ↗ first of all I'm September 5th the

1:34:45 ↗ council did refer this to the safe Human

1:34:48 ↗ Services Commission and services and

1:34:50 ↗ safety there was a countywide initiative

1:34:52 ↗ to ban safe injection sites scheduled

1:34:55 ↗ for the February 28th 18 special

1:34:57 ↗ election there was a decision made in

1:34:59 ↗ superior clerk this today that

1:35:02 ↗ overturned that ban

1:35:04 ↗ I'm sorry that overturned that proposed

1:35:07 ↗ legislation

1:35:08 ↗ I left the article and unfortunately at

1:35:10 ↗ my desk so that will not be going in

1:35:13 ↗ front of voters as of the decision today

1:35:15 ↗ although that certainly could be

1:35:17 ↗ appealed so just to be clear that was

1:35:22 ↗ the citizens initiative as a citizen's

1:35:24 ↗ initiative initiative and King County

1:35:28 ↗ Superior Court determined that that

1:35:30 ↗ initiative had too broad of a reach to

1:35:34 ↗ be a valid initiative and that group has

1:35:36 ↗ vowed to appeal an appeal to the state

1:35:40 ↗ Supreme Court of necessary I just wanted

1:35:42 ↗ to be clear about what that was it

1:35:43 ↗ wasn't that County Council yeah thank

1:35:46 ↗ you for clarifying it that's exactly

1:35:47 ↗ right the judge decided that local

1:35:51 ↗ legislative bodies have the authority to

1:35:53 ↗ determine budgets and i-27

1:35:55 ↗ initiative 27 impinged on that

1:35:57 ↗ legislative authority of the county and

1:35:59 ↗ it's an entirety extends beyond the

1:36:01 ↗ scope of the local initiative

1:36:04 ↗ the judge also wrote that state law

1:36:06 ↗ gives governing officials

1:36:06 ↗ decision-making authority and public

1:36:08 ↗ health measures in initiative 27

1:36:10 ↗ interferes with the Health Board and the

1:36:12 ↗ County Council's duties and obligations

1:36:13 ↗ so that decision was made earlier today

1:36:16 ↗ which really gives strength to the

1:36:18 ↗ argument that was proposed by council

1:36:21 ↗ leadership and the services and safety

1:36:22 ↗ chair that we look in a moratorium which

1:36:25 ↗ is a way to deal with the issue on a

1:36:27 ↗ zoning perspective so the first item is

1:36:30 ↗ what we're suggesting is to discharge

1:36:33 ↗ the agenda bill from consideration by

1:36:35 ↗ the Human Services Commission and

1:36:36 ↗ council services and Safety Committee

1:36:38 ↗ and indefinitely postponed consideration

1:36:41 ↗ of agenda bill 7 471 proceed to consider

1:36:44 ↗ and adopt a moratorium as outlined

1:36:46 ↗ independent agenda bill seven four eight

1:36:48 ↗ nine the more term of the community

1:36:51 ↗ health engagement locations and so that

1:36:53 ↗ would be the item that would come up

1:36:54 ↗ after this item and we can talk a little

1:36:57 ↗ bit about that when we get there

1:36:59 ↗ can you talk a little bit about the

1:37:00 ↗ effect of the first agenda bill the

1:37:05 ↗ effect when it says discharge from Human

1:37:07 ↗ Services mission talk about the effect

1:37:12 ↗ that that would have on the ability of

1:37:14 ↗ the Human Services Commission to

1:37:15 ↗ continue to have that conversation and

1:37:19 ↗ then what it does to any referral to

1:37:23 ↗ services and safety so that's a good

1:37:26 ↗ question and so the original motion

1:37:30 ↗ would have been a direction by the City

1:37:32 ↗ Council to the Human Services Commission

1:37:34 ↗ to review that item and then come back

1:37:37 ↗ with a report to the City Council at

1:37:39 ↗ that time by discharging this it

1:37:41 ↗ discharges the official council action

1:37:44 ↗ of taking it to that commission and

1:37:46 ↗ expecting a report back the Human

1:37:48 ↗ Services Commission still has a full

1:37:50 ↗ authority to review investigate and

1:37:54 ↗ gather more information if they choose a

1:37:56 ↗ community conversation around this issue

1:37:58 ↗ and then report back to the mayor at

1:38:01 ↗ some future of date which is within the

1:38:03 ↗ charge of their kind of commission

1:38:05 ↗ responsibilities what this action though

1:38:08 ↗ does is it just takes away that council

1:38:10 ↗ directive that the Commish

1:38:11 ↗ and file that report at some future date

1:38:14 ↗ with the Services Committee and then

1:38:16 ↗ back to the City Council other questions

1:38:21 ↗ or discussion I'll appreciate that

1:38:26 ↗ clarification and I'm wondering if if I

1:38:30 ↗ say it this way this is correct too

1:38:33 ↗ because the the the action that had

1:38:37 ↗ taken then it had asked the Commission

1:38:40 ↗ to make a recommendation on a very

1:38:45 ↗ specific bill that included a resolution

1:38:48 ↗ with very specific language in it and

1:38:51 ↗ and all what this bill but with this

1:38:55 ↗ action that we may be considering I

1:38:57 ↗ don't think we have a motion for it all

1:38:59 ↗ right so what is is simply saying you

1:39:04 ↗ don't need to consider that that bill

1:39:06 ↗ and that resolution is very specific to

1:39:12 ↗ the previous legislation it's not topic

1:39:16 ↗ broad it's just to a specific piece of

1:39:19 ↗ legislation that they were asked to make

1:39:20 ↗ a recommendation on that's correct okay

1:39:23 ↗ so it's not it's not stopping

1:39:25 ↗ conversation about a topic it's it's

1:39:26 ↗ just stopping a given specific

1:39:28 ↗ legislation okay thank you Stacy there

1:39:36 ↗ are no other questions I'm gonna make a

1:39:38 ↗ motion

1:39:40 ↗ I would move to discharge agenda Bell

1:39:42 ↗ 7471 from consideration by the Human

1:39:45 ↗ Services Commission and council services

1:39:47 ↗ and Safety Committee and indefinitely

1:39:50 ↗ postponed agenda bill 7471 I thank you

1:39:57 ↗ Peter just questions or additional

1:40:06 ↗ discussion hola

1:40:10 ↗ so I don't really try to keep my

1:40:14 ↗ comments short but I hope Council will

1:40:15 ↗ indulge me because I'm gonna speak a

1:40:17 ↗ little bit longer than I normally do

1:40:18 ↗ because this is I consider an extremely

1:40:21 ↗ important topic that we're looking at

1:40:23 ↗ today I believe the original 7471 bill

1:40:27 ↗ is unnecessary the County Council in

1:40:31 ↗ addressing chell sites basically said

1:40:34 ↗ that a city would need to affirmative ly

1:40:38 ↗ it would need to affirm that they wanted

1:40:41 ↗ a child site to be considered for a

1:40:43 ↗ child site so doing nothing would mean

1:40:46 ↗ that we would not have to consider a

1:40:48 ↗ Chell site so so that's 7471 I don't

1:40:55 ↗ believe there's a bill in front of us

1:40:57 ↗ tonight and my comments are going to be

1:40:58 ↗ on 74 71 and 74 89 together because it's

1:41:02 ↗ it's hard to talk at a high level about

1:41:05 ↗ them without talking about both of them

1:41:07 ↗ so we don't have a bill in front of us

1:41:09 ↗ in this process that would allow shell

1:41:12 ↗ sites 7471 would have said no to Chell

1:41:16 ↗ sites and I believe 74 eighty-nine the

1:41:18 ↗ moratorium is if you look at it a

1:41:21 ↗ moratorium towards an eventual decision

1:41:23 ↗ around not around I don't say outlined

1:41:28 ↗ but prohibiting shell sites that's how I

1:41:30 ↗ read section 3 of 74 89 of the actual

1:41:33 ↗ ordinance so when we were considering

1:41:39 ↗ first of all I believe this is not about

1:41:41 ↗ individual rights this is about public

1:41:43 ↗ safety so there is nobody who is coming

1:41:46 ↗ before this council who is saying we

1:41:48 ↗ want shell sites because we want to be

1:41:50 ↗ able to shoot heroin people are coming

1:41:52 ↗ before there are there are people who

1:41:54 ↗ have come before this council respected

1:41:57 ↗ people leaders in our community who have

1:41:59 ↗ said that they believe that shale sites

1:42:02 ↗ would potentially save lives I don't

1:42:06 ↗ know if that's the case or not but I

1:42:10 ↗ believe that what we have in front of us

1:42:12 ↗ is a fundamental level we have a

1:42:14 ↗ situation where the vast majority of

1:42:17 ↗ people in the city have made it clear

1:42:18 ↗ that they're very against Chelsey's and

1:42:20 ↗ then there is a minority who believe

1:42:24 ↗ that shale sites could save lives and I

1:42:26 ↗ think that in that situation one has to

1:42:29 ↗ be extraordinarily careful about

1:42:32 ↗ adjudicating something like this and so

1:42:34 ↗ I personally am skeptical and I have

1:42:37 ↗ said this to the advocates of shale

1:42:38 ↗ sites I am skeptical that shale sites

1:42:40 ↗ would be beneficial to a population I

1:42:43 ↗ believe that if you read the

1:42:45 ↗ decriminalization data for for instance

1:42:49 ↗ Portugal I think what you find is that

1:42:51 ↗ you see an increase in hard drug use and

1:42:54 ↗ you see a modest decrease in fatalities

1:42:57 ↗ associated with those hard drugs that is

1:43:00 ↗ an extraordinarily difficult set of

1:43:03 ↗ circumstances and so I I have said that

1:43:06 ↗ I will need to see a lot of science

1:43:08 ↗ before I would be can before I would

1:43:11 ↗ consider allowing shale sites

1:43:14 ↗ nonetheless I think we have to have the

1:43:16 ↗ conversation I think that we all know

1:43:20 ↗ people who have been impacted by heroin

1:43:25 ↗ use and have lost people and I have a

1:43:28 ↗ friend of mine who you know I remember

1:43:31 ↗ when her niece was born and recently her

1:43:33 ↗ niece came home she was an 18 year old

1:43:35 ↗ girl

1:43:36 ↗ her dad was waiting up for he kissed her

1:43:38 ↗ goodnight she went into her room and

1:43:40 ↗ died she had done what's called a

1:43:42 ↗ speedball which is where he makes heroin

1:43:44 ↗ and cocaine and she just died and let me

1:43:47 ↗ tell ya as the parent of a 19 year old

1:43:50 ↗ that hits you close to home so again I'm

1:43:54 ↗ skeptical but I think we owe it to

1:43:57 ↗ understand the science see if in fact it

1:44:02 ↗ does see if in fact there is a public

1:44:05 ↗ safety benefit too

1:44:06 ↗ during gel sites again we don't have any

1:44:08 ↗ bill in front of us that would authorize

1:44:09 ↗ chell sites I just think we don't want

1:44:12 ↗ to I don't think we want to say

1:44:16 ↗ absolutely positively no before we have

1:44:19 ↗ taken a look at the science because we

1:44:20 ↗ owe it to the people in our community

1:44:22 ↗ who have told us this is important to

1:44:24 ↗ them to do so so that's why I'll be

1:44:27 ↗ supporting the motions this evening on

1:44:30 ↗ both 74 71 and 74 89 thank you thank you

1:44:34 ↗ Toula digital bill thank you and thank

1:44:40 ↗ you we've got a lot there and I

1:44:43 ↗ appreciate the the intro I also I'm not

1:44:48 ↗ a supporter of shale sites in Issaquah

1:44:50 ↗ right now I want to make that clear but

1:44:52 ↗ we don't know the answer to that

1:44:54 ↗ question that's that's also clear but to

1:44:57 ↗ me there shouldn't be an issue that

1:44:59 ↗ we're discussing up here as was stated

1:45:02 ↗ it wasn't an issue that needed to be

1:45:04 ↗ come come before the council

1:45:06 ↗ it was thing that if we took no action

1:45:09 ↗ no action would be taken and it was fine

1:45:11 ↗ we don't have to pass ordinances against

1:45:15 ↗ things that aren't going to happen so I

1:45:18 ↗ guess that process had brought it up to

1:45:21 ↗ the public made it a public issue it

1:45:23 ↗ does bother me in the way that came

1:45:25 ↗ about and and created quite a stir in

1:45:28 ↗ the community on both sides of the

1:45:29 ↗ argument that that didn't need to happen

1:45:35 ↗ so I'm sorry that that did happen and

1:45:37 ↗ that some people very stressed out by

1:45:39 ↗ that because it is a very complicated

1:45:40 ↗ emotional and and social engineering

1:45:44 ↗ issue it's not an easy thing to deal

1:45:45 ↗ with and I don't pretend to have the

1:45:47 ↗ answers but what I want to do is put it

1:45:51 ↗ to bed right I wanted to let folks know

1:45:55 ↗ that we're not dealing this no one in

1:45:57 ↗ that I know anywhere and it was

1:45:59 ↗ proposing to to have safe injection

1:46:01 ↗ sites there's no talk of doing that and

1:46:03 ↗ if we say we were postponed indefinitely

1:46:06 ↗ that this is not going to be an option

1:46:09 ↗ for us at this point in time I think

1:46:11 ↗ that wraps up how it was started

1:46:14 ↗ and if if people in the community have

1:46:16 ↗ discussions and and bring things up

1:46:18 ↗ that's what community conversations are

1:46:21 ↗ for and they can bring those things up

1:46:23 ↗ as they see fit

1:46:24 ↗ and those may come just things later but

1:46:27 ↗ who knows right that's not what we're

1:46:29 ↗ looking at here so I guess to me it came

1:46:32 ↗ as a as an ordinance and we rejected

1:46:37 ↗ that basically so without more

1:46:38 ↗ information now we're saying we're gonna

1:46:40 ↗ postpone it indefinitely so I agree with

1:46:42 ↗ that process I do have a problem

1:46:44 ↗ stepping again across the line to the

1:46:46 ↗ next issue of then declaring a

1:46:49 ↗ moratorium against it that is

1:46:51 ↗ specifically States direction to design

1:46:55 ↗ something that is prohibiting the action

1:46:58 ↗ so to me it's the same as the ordinance

1:47:00 ↗ it's just taking six months to do it and

1:47:03 ↗ so I think that's a very unnecessary

1:47:05 ↗ item as well because again we're taking

1:47:08 ↗ steps of something that I can't support

1:47:10 ↗ because I don't know and and I'd it's

1:47:13 ↗ not a discussion and again I don't think

1:47:15 ↗ we need to ban things that aren't on the

1:47:17 ↗ table to talk about so with that in mind

1:47:20 ↗ I'd like to just say that I'm looking at

1:47:23 ↗ supporting indefinitely postponing it

1:47:26 ↗ but voting against the moratorium

1:47:28 ↗ because that is unnecessary

1:47:30 ↗ and just Stokes the fire to bring things

1:47:33 ↗ back in the community in the discussion

1:47:36 ↗ to worry about and it's six months to

1:47:38 ↗ deal with again I'd like to put it to

1:47:39 ↗ bed tonight the tonight discussion from

1:47:42 ↗ the council level stops and ends in the

1:47:45 ↗ community knows that our discussion is

1:47:47 ↗ ending on it I mean you can do what they

1:47:49 ↗ want but our discussion is over with

1:47:50 ↗ rather than keep it alive with a

1:47:52 ↗ six-month moratorium which keeps it

1:47:54 ↗ alive until we have to deal with it

1:47:56 ↗ again in six months why would we do that

1:47:58 ↗ to ourselves I don't understand that so

1:48:01 ↗ I'll be voting against the moratorium

1:48:03 ↗ part hopefully and just put it to

1:48:05 ↗ postpone indefinitely and let it rest as

1:48:09 ↗ it should have been before

1:48:10 ↗ it hadn't come up thank you

1:48:13 ↗ other questions or discussion seeing

1:48:18 ↗ none then all those in favor of

1:48:22 ↗ discharging agenda bill 747 one from

1:48:26 ↗ consideration by the Human Services

1:48:28 ↗ Commission and council services and

1:48:31 ↗ Safety Committee and number two

1:48:33 ↗ indefinitely persona host pone agenda

1:48:37 ↗ bill seven four seven one signify by

1:48:40 ↗ saying aye I was opposed that carries

1:48:45 ↗ unanimously

1:48:46 ↗ moving now to agenda bill seven four

1:48:51 ↗ eight nine Bob and would you explain

1:48:56 ↗ this and any anything else you would

1:48:59 ↗ like so again this was recommended by

1:49:05 ↗ the chair of the service and Safety

1:49:08 ↗ Committee and agreement with the

1:49:09 ↗ administration and council leadership

1:49:10 ↗ that this was an appropriate action to

1:49:13 ↗ take which is it's moratorium there's a

1:49:15 ↗ public hearing scheduled as part of this

1:49:17 ↗ moratorium in two weeks it is a

1:49:20 ↗ six-month moratorium although we would

1:49:22 ↗ anticipate that that we would

1:49:25 ↗ incorporate this item within just

1:49:27 ↗ prohibited uses in the zoning code and

1:49:30 ↗ that would be our recommendation it

1:49:31 ↗ likely won't take six months to deal

1:49:33 ↗ with I think one of the concerns that we

1:49:35 ↗ had was that that initial motion was

1:49:38 ↗ done by the King County Council at one

1:49:40 ↗ of their committees and and the King

1:49:42 ↗ County Council by simple motion could

1:49:44 ↗ lift the requirement that they had put

1:49:47 ↗ on there that said the cities have to

1:49:49 ↗ require them have to have it a positive

1:49:51 ↗ or affirmation by their City Council to

1:49:53 ↗ incorporate so this very clearly deals

1:49:56 ↗ with the issue that they're going to be

1:49:57 ↗ strictly prohibited within the cities

1:49:59 ↗ with whether the county changes their

1:50:03 ↗ mind or keeps their mind as it is this

1:50:06 ↗ so we have a public hearing scheduled

1:50:08 ↗ for November 6th and this would

1:50:11 ↗ essentially give us time for DSD to work

1:50:13 ↗ through the issues affiliated with the

1:50:16 ↗ zoning there's findings of fact laid out

1:50:19 ↗ in the ordinance and then following the

1:50:21 ↗ public hearing the council may choose to

1:50:22 ↗ amend those findings of fact based on

1:50:24 ↗ the

1:50:26 ↗ testimony provided at the public hearing

1:50:28 ↗ at that time but at this at this point

1:50:32 ↗ the findings of facts of counsel doubt

1:50:33 ↗ the ordinance would be sufficient to

1:50:37 ↗ proceed with moratorium that clean up

1:50:40 ↗ the zoning code so I've got a question

1:50:45 ↗ for Bill you said you're gonna vote

1:50:48 ↗ against it because you wanted to go

1:50:51 ↗ farther and I didn't know if you were

1:50:56 ↗ there was any interest in proposing a

1:50:59 ↗ motion I would go further than the

1:51:01 ↗ moratorium No

1:51:11 ↗ well I moved to adopt ordinance number

1:51:14 ↗ 28 11 providing for a moratorium and

1:51:17 ↗ interim official control prohibiting the

1:51:19 ↗ location of community health engagement

1:51:22 ↗ locations safe injection sites in all

1:51:24 ↗ zoning districts of the city and set the

1:51:26 ↗ required public hearing for the council

1:51:28 ↗ meeting of November 6th 2017 okay

1:51:35 ↗ moved and seconded discussion mr. mayor

1:51:45 ↗ I think what is not particularly

1:51:48 ↗ transparent to the public when they look

1:51:51 ↗ at our packet is that we've received an

1:51:53 ↗ enormous amount of correspondence on

1:51:55 ↗ this and I think councilmember Mart

1:51:56 ↗ summed it up very nicely very accurately

1:51:59 ↗ the community is definitely torn on this

1:52:02 ↗ issue there is a majority that is saying

1:52:04 ↗ do something and do something tonight

1:52:06 ↗ and there is a very concerned and vocal

1:52:11 ↗ and supportive minority voice saying

1:52:13 ↗ that this could be a tool in the toolbox

1:52:15 ↗ that could help with the opioid crisis I

1:52:17 ↗ do agree with council member Ramos that

1:52:20 ↗ we're not talking about opening a shell

1:52:22 ↗ sign in Issaquah and that there are a

1:52:24 ↗ lot of unknowns he also received a

1:52:26 ↗ letter today from the ACLU and I just

1:52:29 ↗ wanted to talk to part of it the last

1:52:32 ↗ second last paragraph from the end says

1:52:35 ↗ that passing an unnecessary moratorium

1:52:37 ↗ and limiting input from the Human

1:52:38 ↗ Services Commission seems

1:52:39 ↗ counterproductive it also adds to the

1:52:42 ↗ overwhelming amount of stigma

1:52:43 ↗ individuals and their loved ones

1:52:44 ↗ struggling with substance use disorder

1:52:46 ↗ already face in effect it says that even

1:52:49 ↗ though there is no way for a shell to

1:52:51 ↗ open in Issaquah absent an affirmative

1:52:53 ↗ voice just to be safe we want to go on

1:52:55 ↗ the record opposing them anyway and I

1:52:58 ↗ have a lot of heartburn with that

1:52:59 ↗ statement for a couple of reasons one is

1:53:02 ↗ I think the first bill that was here

1:53:03 ↗ tonight that we approve continues the

1:53:05 ↗ community conversation at the community

1:53:08 ↗ level with the Human Services Commission

1:53:10 ↗ and I think that is the appropriate

1:53:11 ↗ place for it to be we're not the final

1:53:14 ↗ voice in this it is the community so the

1:53:17 ↗ fact that we got through the first bill

1:53:18 ↗ is great the second part that says that

1:53:21 ↗ a moratorium

1:53:22 ↗ actually is a negative phone I don't

1:53:24 ↗ agree with that we don't know how

1:53:27 ↗ something is going to function we don't

1:53:29 ↗ have code and regulations we do put a

1:53:31 ↗ moratorium in place and I have never

1:53:33 ↗ felt that any of the moratorium votes

1:53:35 ↗ that we cast was negative to the issue

1:53:38 ↗ for example medical marijuana but in a

1:53:41 ↗ moratorium till you figure out the rules

1:53:43 ↗ counsel was actually in support of

1:53:45 ↗ medical marijuana

1:53:46 ↗ they passed a moratorium to get ready

1:53:48 ↗ retail marijuana same thing issues with

1:53:52 ↗ the central let's go up plan I didn't

1:53:54 ↗ hear anybody put up their hand and say I

1:53:55 ↗ hate the plan let's go back to the

1:53:57 ↗ beginning what they said was the rules

1:53:59 ↗ aren't working let's fix the rules I

1:54:01 ↗ actually believe the reason the council

1:54:02 ↗ did the moratorium was because they

1:54:04 ↗ wanted to put the effort back in to

1:54:06 ↗ making the central square plan rules and

1:54:07 ↗ regulations work if anything it was a

1:54:10 ↗ sensible pause to say we don't know what

1:54:12 ↗ we're dealing with here so let's take a

1:54:15 ↗ break let's take a moratorium and so for

1:54:17 ↗ me personally I find this entire issue

1:54:20 ↗ extremely upsetting whether you're

1:54:22 ↗ reading the letters listening to the

1:54:23 ↗ testimony somebody whose child has died

1:54:26 ↗ somebody's family is affected somebody

1:54:28 ↗ who's concerned that he's tasting street

1:54:31 ↗ from Vancouver's coming to Aqua it all

1:54:33 ↗ makes sense

1:54:34 ↗ so let's have the community conversation

1:54:37 ↗ and let's make sure that the council

1:54:40 ↗ takes the break if they need the break

1:54:41 ↗ to hear out the community conversation

1:54:44 ↗ because we don't have any rules or

1:54:46 ↗ regulations I'm in favor of either a ban

1:54:48 ↗ or a moratorium whatever the council

1:54:51 ↗ decides tonight I think we do owe the

1:54:52 ↗ community a vote and I understand why

1:54:54 ↗ they're asking for it now I think we

1:54:56 ↗ need to follow through and do something

1:54:58 ↗ but for me it's not a vote against it's

1:55:00 ↗ just saying we don't know enough we're

1:55:03 ↗ not ready this is what we do when we're

1:55:05 ↗ not ready and we don't know and so let's

1:55:07 ↗ let's see what happens with the county

1:55:09 ↗ let's see what happens with our

1:55:10 ↗ community but for tonight I am in

1:55:12 ↗ supportive either moratorium or a ban so

1:55:14 ↗ if council member Ramos is more

1:55:16 ↗ comfortable with a ban

1:55:19 ↗ I would support that as well I'll wait

1:55:20 ↗ to see what language you come up with

1:55:22 ↗ but I you know what we need to step up

1:55:24 ↗ and say something tonight

1:55:39 ↗ so I agree with almost all the comments

1:55:42 ↗ that I've heard and totally I agree with

1:55:46 ↗ you about the science science is one

1:55:49 ↗ thing and if the science were to fall on

1:55:52 ↗ the side of this being something that

1:55:54 ↗ would be considered I still would not

1:55:59 ↗ would not want or support given the idea

1:56:04 ↗ of a tell side in Issaquah unless the

1:56:07 ↗ entire region everybody in the region

1:56:11 ↗ all the cities all the jurisdictions

1:56:13 ↗ took their fair share this is a it's

1:56:16 ↗ it's not just in a regional issue here

1:56:18 ↗ it's a huge issue everywhere

1:56:21 ↗ but locally this is a regional issue

1:56:23 ↗ this - Chelle site pilot project I don't

1:56:26 ↗ understand but this is an issue that

1:56:29 ↗ every community is dealing with and it

1:56:31 ↗ just makes no sense and I would never

1:56:34 ↗ support chello sites unless this way

1:56:37 ↗ everybody in the region was what was

1:56:39 ↗ participating though I an I agree with

1:56:42 ↗ Mary Lou I would support a ban but if

1:56:45 ↗ the rest of the council feels more

1:56:46 ↗ comfortable with a moratorium I would do

1:56:48 ↗ that as well it's I think what our

1:56:51 ↗ community is crying out for the vast

1:56:53 ↗ majority of the people is certainty and

1:56:57 ↗ it's it's not certain right now what

1:57:02 ↗ this council might do because we've sent

1:57:04 ↗ mixed signals

1:57:08 ↗ riah so this has been a really difficult

1:57:13 ↗ issue to think about we've received so

1:57:17 ↗ much feedback from from the public which

1:57:20 ↗ I really appreciate just on just on both

1:57:22 ↗ sides and I too agree with just about

1:57:27 ↗ everything that everyone's talked about

1:57:29 ↗ tonight one thing I think that the

1:57:32 ↗ original bill and talking about a ban

1:57:35 ↗ was unnecessary based based on the

1:57:38 ↗ language but where were where we're at

1:57:41 ↗ right

1:57:41 ↗ and now we've been talking about this

1:57:44 ↗ and getting all sorts of feedback from

1:57:47 ↗ the public so it also does feel it makes

1:57:53 ↗ it tough to carry this out for a long

1:57:55 ↗ period of time I'm I'm not in support of

1:57:59 ↗ having a shell site in Issaquah and I

1:58:02 ↗ and I would in in hearing council

1:58:07 ↗ president goods mint Goodman State

1:58:09 ↗ statements regarding if this became

1:58:12 ↗ something where the whole entire region

1:58:14 ↗ had to adopt that then we could we could

1:58:17 ↗ get more information at that time but

1:58:20 ↗ it's not something that I would be in

1:58:23 ↗ support of and I would either vote for a

1:58:26 ↗ moratorium or a ban

1:58:36 ↗ the language in this ordinance actually

1:58:42 ↗ directs the development services to

1:58:46 ↗ update our code including the central

1:58:50 ↗ Issaquah development and design

1:58:51 ↗ standards to ensure that shells are

1:58:55 ↗ prohibited the purpose of this bourret

1:58:58 ↗ aureum is to get things in place to

1:59:00 ↗ assure they're prohibited so this is

1:59:02 ↗ this moratorium is isn't about getting

1:59:07 ↗ it right like we did with recreational

1:59:09 ↗ marijuana or medical marijuana like

1:59:13 ↗ we're what zones within the city what's

1:59:16 ↗ what's the distance between potential

1:59:18 ↗ sites what's the distance between a

1:59:21 ↗ facility and say a park or a gathering

1:59:25 ↗ place that those other moratoriums were

1:59:29 ↗ about making adjustments so we could we

1:59:32 ↗ had the we had the legislative pieces in

1:59:35 ↗ place to make sure something unfolded in

1:59:39 ↗ a way that we wanted to do it that's not

1:59:41 ↗ what this does this is this is just a

1:59:44 ↗ moratorium to make sure nothing slips in

1:59:46 ↗ and I and so that we can officially

1:59:51 ↗ informally prohibit in in the city of

1:59:56 ↗ Issaquah is that everybody's common

2:00:00 ↗ understanding I heard some comments

2:00:04 ↗ tonight that suggested that there was

2:00:06 ↗ the more the concept of a moratorium was

2:00:09 ↗ different it was that we were going to

2:00:10 ↗ try to shape it correctly but this is

2:00:13 ↗ just about this is just about

2:00:15 ↗ establishing the prohibition and that's

2:00:18 ↗ what the first agenda bill that we

2:00:21 ↗ originally considered a number of weeks

2:00:24 ↗ back and and we just pulled back from

2:00:28 ↗ the Human Services Commission that's

2:00:30 ↗ what 7471 did had prohibited and and

2:00:36 ↗ the reason that but I just heard tonight

2:00:42 ↗ also that that action we just took

2:00:45 ↗ doesn't stop the Human Services

2:00:48 ↗ Commission from having a conversation

2:00:51 ↗ but but in effect we with this

2:00:58 ↗ moratorium the way this is written we

2:01:00 ↗ are completely taking it off the table

2:01:02 ↗ it says it says develop a way to

2:01:04 ↗ prohibit shells and and you know the

2:01:08 ↗ fact of the matter is actually what the

2:01:09 ↗ county said we should be clear that the

2:01:14 ↗ council has to pass some type of

2:01:19 ↗ resolution saying that we would that

2:01:24 ↗ they are interested in hosting one to

2:01:26 ↗ get access to county funds that's the

2:01:30 ↗ purpose for their ask so and I mean that

2:01:36 ↗ I think that's a technicality but I

2:01:38 ↗ think it's very very important it's not

2:01:39 ↗ just about whether or not you want one

2:01:41 ↗ it's it's actually very specifically to

2:01:44 ↗ have access to their funds you know I

2:01:47 ↗ think that the the other thing other

2:01:52 ↗ things that the task force that

2:01:53 ↗ originally read recommended this was

2:01:56 ↗ just one of many recommendations there's

2:01:58 ↗ many recommendations that deal with

2:02:00 ↗ education programs prevention programs

2:02:05 ↗ treatment programs and and when this

2:02:10 ↗ first came to us and I and I'm the one

2:02:13 ↗ who recommended we send it to the

2:02:14 ↗ Commission was you know the the you know

2:02:17 ↗ if we cut this conversation off and and

2:02:20 ↗ don't and make a policy decision without

2:02:23 ↗ the conversation then that that would be

2:02:26 ↗ a mistake because if we care about

2:02:30 ↗ making a difference in people's lives

2:02:33 ↗ we'll have a conversation about

2:02:35 ↗ education and prevention and and a

2:02:41 ↗ treatment making a big difference and

2:02:44 ↗ that the the the task force was very

2:02:46 ↗ clear about this and yet yeah

2:02:49 ↗ HL or safe injection site maybe another

2:02:52 ↗ tool to help help people and help save

2:02:58 ↗ lives but they also had quite a bit of

2:03:00 ↗ emphasis that was just one of the things

2:03:02 ↗ among a spectrum of things and that's

2:03:04 ↗ still my hope within the city physically

2:03:06 ↗ I think this community does a very good

2:03:08 ↗ job at having conversations about very

2:03:13 ↗ sensitive issues and I think it's a very

2:03:16 ↗ good policy and it's a very good idea

2:03:18 ↗ that when we have the time to have a

2:03:20 ↗ conversation because we're not faced

2:03:21 ↗ with any action anytime soon we're not

2:03:25 ↗ considering it nobody's considering it

2:03:27 ↗ that's let's take that time let's give

2:03:31 ↗ that conversation the time it should

2:03:34 ↗ have give the community the time to have

2:03:35 ↗ that conversation and and if through

2:03:38 ↗ this process more people realize oh my

2:03:43 ↗ gosh the Yoda program as part of the is

2:03:46 ↗ across schools foundation is about

2:03:49 ↗ teaching kids in way about certain

2:03:52 ↗ aspects of life that will help them

2:03:54 ↗ resist in the future wow I didn't know

2:03:57 ↗ about that I know about that now and I

2:03:59 ↗ want to get involved or I want to

2:04:00 ↗ support that

2:04:01 ↗ that would be a very good step if in

2:04:03 ↗ this conversation about the availability

2:04:06 ↗ of treatment and how difficult getting

2:04:08 ↗ that treatment is and what it means on

2:04:11 ↗ families here on the Eastside then and

2:04:16 ↗ and people step up and say my gosh

2:04:17 ↗ treatment is I understand it better and

2:04:20 ↗ it can work I understand what we're

2:04:22 ↗ where the science already is where it

2:04:24 ↗ works and people step up and say I'm

2:04:26 ↗ gonna I'm gonna somehow so I'm gonna

2:04:28 ↗ find a way to support that better then

2:04:29 ↗ that conversation will be worth it and

2:04:33 ↗ and the idea and and I have spoken to

2:04:37 ↗ quite a few people and I want to say

2:04:39 ↗ something else that I think I want to

2:04:41 ↗ repeat as heard that you know it is

2:04:42 ↗ really unfortunate it is it is tough

2:04:44 ↗ this is really engendered a lot of

2:04:46 ↗ emotion and I get it I spoke to a

2:04:49 ↗ gentleman a couple days ago who's 17

2:04:51 ↗ years into his recovery and and he felt

2:04:55 ↗ very very strongly

2:04:57 ↗ about this topic and in and boy the

2:05:01 ↗ emotions are pretty real we have

2:05:03 ↗ definitely hit a nerve and for good

2:05:06 ↗ reason I mean this is a this is a deadly

2:05:08 ↗ this is dangerous

2:05:10 ↗ and but the commune but society isn't

2:05:16 ↗ really very good yet at helping

2:05:19 ↗ ourselves or managing it and it was very

2:05:23 ↗ important to me that to make a

2:05:27 ↗ difference in people's lives both now

2:05:30 ↗ and in the future is that that that this

2:05:32 ↗ our community Issaquah regardless of

2:05:35 ↗ what happens here because this again

2:05:36 ↗ this is us the regarding a Chell that's

2:05:39 ↗ just one thing that I don't there I've

2:05:42 ↗ seen research that it does and that it

2:05:44 ↗ doesn't work I've seen some of that

2:05:45 ↗ foreign research that really didn't talk

2:05:47 ↗ at all about what the rest of the

2:05:49 ↗ community was doing about education

2:05:51 ↗ prevention and treatment and as our task

2:05:53 ↗ force was very comprehensive in doing

2:05:55 ↗ and it's and and but for me I also agree

2:06:01 ↗ that you know what this is the community

2:06:03 ↗ absolutely has to want this and and and

2:06:07 ↗ and it I think if one ever happens

2:06:12 ↗ anywhere and say it happens in Seattle

2:06:14 ↗ it has to be really clear that this

2:06:17 ↗ works it makes a difference and then

2:06:20 ↗ maybe the question of another facility

2:06:22 ↗ somewhere else in the county would come

2:06:25 ↗ up I think that's very many years in

2:06:27 ↗ into the future and so I and so to

2:06:31 ↗ summarize I think this action for this

2:06:35 ↗ moratorium which is really getting to a

2:06:37 ↗ place that we don't we prohibit

2:06:38 ↗ forevermore in our code will will end

2:06:43 ↗ the conversation and because because

2:06:48 ↗ we've ended it we've ended any chance

2:06:50 ↗ for this and at the same time we will be

2:06:53 ↗ missing the opportunity to really make a

2:06:56 ↗ difference in people's lives the

2:06:58 ↗ conversations about training about

2:07:01 ↗ education and about prevention will end

2:07:04 ↗ and that is what and and those are also

2:07:07 ↗ going to save people's lives and that's

2:07:09 ↗ what the task force was trying to

2:07:11 ↗ chief we would be ending the

2:07:13 ↗ conversation with the way that this is

2:07:15 ↗ currently structured and and and that's

2:07:19 ↗ very unfortunate that is not what we

2:07:21 ↗ want to do Stacey oh well I was I was

2:07:29 ↗ just gonna say that the agenda bill also

2:07:33 ↗ would establish a public hearing and so

2:07:36 ↗ after that public hearing the that

2:07:42 ↗ direction may be amended so it doesn't

2:07:47 ↗ necessarily stop the conversation so so

2:08:02 ↗ to continue --mess to me the

2:08:08 ↗ conversation shouldn't miss started

2:08:10 ↗ hearing his iguana and doesn't need to

2:08:11 ↗ you mentioned I'm gonna make some

2:08:13 ↗ comments on some things I've heard that

2:08:15 ↗ the county could change their direction

2:08:16 ↗ and direct someone to have a child site

2:08:19 ↗ I just I could never imagine King County

2:08:22 ↗ coming to a call and say you have to put

2:08:24 ↗ a safe injection site in your town I

2:08:25 ↗ just can't imagine that ever happened as

2:08:27 ↗ a direction it's not gonna happen and

2:08:30 ↗ it's I think Paul mentioned if anything

2:08:32 ↗ it would start somewhere else and it'd

2:08:34 ↗ be years into the future before it would

2:08:36 ↗ be considered for us so I you know and

2:08:39 ↗ if if the county did change something

2:08:42 ↗ guess what we can enact anything real

2:08:43 ↗ quick one with one council meeting we

2:08:45 ↗ could enact something and deal with it

2:08:47 ↗ at that time because then it's an issue

2:08:48 ↗ then it's an issue if they say they want

2:08:50 ↗ to do something in our town absolutely

2:08:53 ↗ there's another thing I mentioned that

2:08:55 ↗ the council was sending mixed signals

2:08:56 ↗ and I don't think this council is

2:08:59 ↗ sending you mixed signals at all I'm

2:09:00 ↗ gonna I'm gonna step on this one a

2:09:02 ↗ little bit because the council didn't

2:09:04 ↗ bring this up we did not desire to bring

2:09:07 ↗ this up and bring it as an issue before

2:09:09 ↗ the council and we had them when it did

2:09:12 ↗ come to us it came to me totally unknown

2:09:13 ↗ in an agenda first time I saw it

2:09:16 ↗ and

2:09:16 ↗ and how the council reacted was we don't

2:09:19 ↗ know we don't know what this is and we

2:09:22 ↗ need to have a community conversation

2:09:23 ↗ before that because we don't know and

2:09:25 ↗ that's what happened with the last one

2:09:28 ↗ so I think the council has been pretty

2:09:31 ↗ clear on we don't really know and we

2:09:34 ↗ should talk about it if we're going to

2:09:35 ↗ do something I think that part's been

2:09:37 ↗ clear talk about a moratorium and I've

2:09:41 ↗ seen more terms that were mentioned or

2:09:42 ↗ always used to fix something you're

2:09:44 ↗ going to implement now you stopped

2:09:46 ↗ something because you don't have the

2:09:47 ↗ rules in place you know you want to do

2:09:48 ↗ something but you got to get tracked

2:09:49 ↗ together first this again is not that

2:09:52 ↗ for me this is trying to take this from

2:09:55 ↗ you know what was a banned to a more

2:09:57 ↗ torn to put in six months to try to make

2:09:58 ↗ it a little more palatable that it's but

2:10:00 ↗ to me this is doing the exact thing as

2:10:04 ↗ 7471 did with a six month timeline

2:10:07 ↗ because it's saying we're prohibiting it

2:10:09 ↗ we're just do six months to do it but

2:10:12 ↗ the unfortunate part is it takes away

2:10:13 ↗ the community conversation because with

2:10:16 ↗ the previous one we said well let's have

2:10:18 ↗ a community conversation with human

2:10:19 ↗ services and all and and so forth and

2:10:21 ↗ that is what should happen if if the

2:10:24 ↗ community wants to do that and so when

2:10:27 ↗ you put the moratorium in and then you

2:10:29 ↗ take away the direction have a community

2:10:31 ↗ conversation now that's a mixed signal

2:10:33 ↗ and that I don't I just can't go along

2:10:37 ↗ with that whatsoever if you're going to

2:10:38 ↗ do something say you're going to do it

2:10:39 ↗ and say we're not you know directing

2:10:41 ↗ anybody to educate us a little bit on

2:10:43 ↗ this it's a long ways from making

2:10:45 ↗ something happen so again for for all

2:10:48 ↗ those reasons I think we should not take

2:10:51 ↗ an action here and let what action

2:10:54 ↗ started and stop and with what it is

2:10:56 ↗ versus making a legislation that

2:10:58 ↗ actually bans or temporary ban or a plan

2:11:02 ↗ to ban without further discussion a

2:11:11 ↗ couple of questions for Bob first and

2:11:13 ↗ then a comment so if I heard you during

2:11:17 ↗ your presentation

2:11:18 ↗ Human Services Commission which is

2:11:21 ↗ separate from Council which is a

2:11:22 ↗ citizen's Commission that's their own

2:11:25 ↗ agenda so whether or not we ask them to

2:11:27 ↗ look at something they can choose to

2:11:29 ↗ look at something and they have

2:11:30 ↗ expressed a desire to discuss this issue

2:11:33 ↗ with their community a conversation will

2:11:35 ↗ happen regardless of what we do tonight

2:11:38 ↗ yes that's absolutely accurate okay so

2:11:40 ↗ these two bills that we're talking about

2:11:42 ↗ do not shut down community conversation

2:11:45 ↗ with Human Services the other thing that

2:11:47 ↗ I'm hearing that I'm confused about is

2:11:50 ↗ that I realize that we get to sit here

2:11:52 ↗ for four years and then we go back to

2:11:54 ↗ the public and they decide to forget to

2:11:55 ↗ resume in our position in our chair or

2:11:57 ↗ not so when we if we were to if this is

2:12:01 ↗ a ban or a moratorium or however it

2:12:03 ↗ works out and the community in the

2:12:06 ↗ larger region as a whole

2:12:08 ↗ spends more time talking about this

2:12:09 ↗ could not the next city and council

2:12:11 ↗ actually change the code again to say

2:12:14 ↗ this is a viable option based on new

2:12:17 ↗ research you know working with the

2:12:20 ↗ county so this is not a done deal this

2:12:23 ↗ is what this council thinks could be

2:12:25 ↗ done at this period of time yes that's

2:12:28 ↗ true and I think the nice thing about

2:12:31 ↗ the approach that you mentioned is that

2:12:33 ↗ we would at least have an opportunity to

2:12:35 ↗ think about where in the if the council

2:12:38 ↗ at that time decided yes it would be

2:12:41 ↗ appropriate we would at least have an

2:12:44 ↗ opportunity to think about where it

2:12:45 ↗ should go

2:12:45 ↗ what zoning area it should be included

2:12:49 ↗ in right now if a private vendor came in

2:12:53 ↗ sided open one of these we don't have

2:12:54 ↗ any prohibition on where it could go and

2:12:56 ↗ could go pretty much anywhere because

2:12:58 ↗ it's not prohibited by the zoning code

2:13:01 ↗ Thanks so I guess after this discussion

2:13:04 ↗ and Bob's answers and I appreciate that

2:13:06 ↗ everybody is all over the place on this

2:13:09 ↗ just thank you here in the community I I

2:13:12 ↗ am still strongly in support of a

2:13:14 ↗ moratorium at least this evening and I

2:13:17 ↗ agreed with council president statement

2:13:20 ↗ earlier where yes the ordinance that

2:13:23 ↗ we're looking at definitely walks down

2:13:25 ↗ the path of we should have a more we

2:13:27 ↗ should put a moratorium in place we

2:13:28 ↗ should have a public

2:13:29 ↗ and it looks like the intention right

2:13:31 ↗ now is to go to a band I get that we're

2:13:34 ↗ the council and this is going to come in

2:13:36 ↗ a public hearing and you're going to

2:13:38 ↗ hear from lots of people again and so we

2:13:40 ↗ have been nimble enough in our

2:13:43 ↗ decision-making our deliberations to

2:13:45 ↗ change our mind so I don't feel like

2:13:48 ↗ this has tied our hands in any way if we

2:13:50 ↗ vote on this tonight I feel what it does

2:13:52 ↗ do is give the community some certainty

2:13:53 ↗ that we recognize this is complex

2:13:55 ↗ situation with not a lot of information

2:13:58 ↗ right now a lot of emotion and people on

2:14:00 ↗ all sides of the issue so I I'm

2:14:03 ↗ supportive of the ordinance in front of

2:14:06 ↗ us the outcome will be what the outcome

2:14:08 ↗ will be in six months so long term I'm

2:14:15 ↗ inclined to prohibit chell sites but I'm

2:14:18 ↗ not ready to do it tonight and one of

2:14:20 ↗ the reasons why I'm not ready to do it

2:14:22 ↗ tonight is that we have had some

2:14:24 ↗ residents not a majority but we have had

2:14:26 ↗ some residents and health care

2:14:28 ↗ professionals tell us that gel sites can

2:14:30 ↗ save lives and which is why the six of

2:14:33 ↗ us who are here tonight made the

2:14:36 ↗ decision that we did before to send it

2:14:38 ↗ to human services and services and

2:14:41 ↗ safety tonight doesn't decide chels if

2:14:44 ↗ we move forward with this bill I will

2:14:47 ↗ point out section 3 of the ordinance

2:14:49 ↗ which says the permanent regulations

2:14:50 ↗ shall be developed and presented to the

2:14:52 ↗ Planning Policy Commission for

2:14:54 ↗ recommendation and to the City Council

2:14:56 ↗ for action before expiration of the

2:14:58 ↗ Motoko moratorium and interim control

2:15:00 ↗ adopted by the ordinance so more than

2:15:02 ↗ just the November 6th public hearing

2:15:05 ↗ there would be a further touch point

2:15:07 ↗ from this council going forward to do

2:15:09 ↗ whatever this council decided to do what

2:15:11 ↗ this does is a pause just like when we

2:15:16 ↗ did a moratorium on medical marijuana it

2:15:18 ↗ wasn't clear that this council in its

2:15:20 ↗ heart of hearts wanted to do medical

2:15:21 ↗ marijuana we had questions when we did a

2:15:24 ↗ pause on recreational marijuana we had

2:15:26 ↗ lots of questions and we probably

2:15:28 ↗ defaulted to a no until we had those

2:15:30 ↗ questions answered so we got those

2:15:32 ↗ question answers that's what a

2:15:34 ↗ moratorium is it's a pause and so in

2:15:38 ↗ addition to the information that's

2:15:40 ↗ directed in this bill we

2:15:42 ↗ discussed tonight that there's potential

2:15:44 ↗ County and initiative action that could

2:15:47 ↗ further clarify the legal standing or

2:15:51 ↗ the environment for shale sites it may

2:15:54 ↗ well be that the county would come back

2:15:56 ↗ you know County could give back and say

2:15:58 ↗ you know what we just want to do one in

2:15:59 ↗ Seattle we don't know who knows they'll

2:16:02 ↗ do whatever they're gonna do the point

2:16:04 ↗ is I believe to take this time and

2:16:06 ↗ reevaluate this again the default if we

2:16:10 ↗ do nothing is we don't get chel sites

2:16:12 ↗ we're not on a path to get chel sites

2:16:14 ↗ I'm just not ready to say no tonight so

2:16:16 ↗ I'm gonna I'm gonna vote from my own

2:16:19 ↗ motion surprise surprise and if somehow

2:16:21 ↗ it were to fail and we were to consider

2:16:23 ↗ a band tonight I would a permanent ban I

2:16:27 ↗ would not be supporting that permanent

2:16:29 ↗ ban I'm just not ready

2:16:30 ↗ Thanks hey let's Mariah and then begin

2:16:37 ↗ to summarize we spent a lot of time on

2:16:39 ↗ this and it's an important topic so Ryan

2:16:43 ↗ so the more I think about this I would

2:16:49 ↗ agree that the moratorium does give us

2:16:52 ↗ time to pause and I think that that's

2:16:57 ↗ that's problem maybe become the key

2:17:00 ↗ issue for me when we're when we're

2:17:03 ↗ talking about not getting more

2:17:05 ↗ information that this gives us the

2:17:07 ↗ opportunity to hear more information

2:17:10 ↗ from the public and I think that that's

2:17:13 ↗ really important that both sides of this

2:17:16 ↗ issue are incredibly important and we've

2:17:20 ↗ heard a lot of people come forward and

2:17:22 ↗ talk about how they don't want to see

2:17:24 ↗ shale sites and a lot of people and some

2:17:27 ↗ people come forward that that have just

2:17:29 ↗ had some heartbreaking stories and I

2:17:31 ↗ want to make sure that we have a really

2:17:33 ↗ good opportunity to look at all of this

2:17:37 ↗ [Music]

2:17:38 ↗ so so I would say that I think the

2:17:45 ↗ moratorium is the best way to go so we

2:17:47 ↗ can take a pause we get more information

2:17:49 ↗ and then and then we can go forward from

2:17:52 ↗ there

2:17:54 ↗ are you a Stasi

2:17:57 ↗ couple things yes so the mixed signals

2:18:00 ↗ bill I can I can respond to that when

2:18:07 ↗ I'm responding to dozens and dozens and

2:18:10 ↗ dozens and dozens of emails from people

2:18:11 ↗ concerned that the City Council is

2:18:14 ↗ considering shell sites those are mixed

2:18:17 ↗ signals whether they're intentional or

2:18:18 ↗ not people were very very very very

2:18:21 ↗ concerned dozens and dozens and dozens

2:18:23 ↗ of people and you know as well as I do

2:18:24 ↗ when we get that many meme emails people

2:18:27 ↗ are really really concerned and so I had

2:18:30 ↗ to clarify to all of those people that

2:18:32 ↗ we are not considering shell sites and

2:18:35 ↗ we had to click the city clarify it on

2:18:37 ↗ its website and then I clarified it in

2:18:39 ↗ one of our regular meetings after that

2:18:41 ↗ that's the mixed signals it wasn't that

2:18:43 ↗ we did anything intentional or we're

2:18:44 ↗ flip-flopping back and forth that's what

2:18:46 ↗ I mean by mixing nose so the this isn't

2:18:52 ↗ something that I can support being in

2:18:54 ↗ our tool box right now the vast majority

2:19:00 ↗ of the comments that we've had from the

2:19:01 ↗ community is no and I don't think that

2:19:04 ↗ the community wants these the vast

2:19:07 ↗ majority of the community wants these I

2:19:08 ↗ am up here to represent the community

2:19:11 ↗ and I could not support this being in

2:19:16 ↗ our toolbox until the regional were the

2:19:18 ↗ region's I'm stood up and took

2:19:20 ↗ responsible

2:19:21 ↗ responsibility like I said before so I I

2:19:29 ↗ I am going to pose the Merrick

2:19:34 ↗ moratorium because I would support a ban

2:19:36 ↗ and if it fails I'm going to propose a

2:19:39 ↗ ban

2:19:43 ↗ varalu

2:19:45 ↗ hmm just from a process point of view

2:19:51 ↗ and thinking about what councilmember

2:19:53 ↗ Goodman just said and yet that we only

2:19:57 ↗ have six council members tonight that

2:20:00 ↗ are sitting not sure if I'm following

2:20:03 ↗ your logic here I'm thinking the vote we

2:20:12 ↗ had recently where we ended up having a

2:20:15 ↗ tie vote and then having another motion

2:20:17 ↗ come on the table and having it fail and

2:20:20 ↗ then not knowing where to go from then

2:20:22 ↗ and so I'm I'm a little concerned that

2:20:28 ↗ I'm a little concerned that you would

2:20:31 ↗ actually vote against a motion for a

2:20:34 ↗ moratorium in favor of a ban I'm just

2:20:39 ↗ concerned about that I just thought I

2:20:41 ↗ just wanted to say I'm not sure we're

2:20:44 ↗ gonna get to a good place tonight

2:20:45 ↗ finish your business

2:20:56 ↗ I was just gonna weigh in here and tell

2:20:59 ↗ you that the moratorium is in effect a

2:21:01 ↗ bad you know it's in order to do any

2:21:08 ↗ regulation on without going through your

2:21:12 ↗ Planning Commission in order to adopt a

2:21:15 ↗ regulation which is a land use control

2:21:18 ↗ which is in effect a ban of this as a

2:21:21 ↗ land-use the only way you can really do

2:21:24 ↗ that without going to your Planning

2:21:26 ↗ Commission is by enacting it as an

2:21:28 ↗ interim control or an interim regulation

2:21:30 ↗ and that's what this is it then allows

2:21:33 ↗ you to go through the Planning

2:21:35 ↗ Commission afterwards and in effect

2:21:39 ↗ decide whether you want to make this

2:21:41 ↗ regulation of permanent regulation as it

2:21:43 ↗ currently stands does prohibit these

2:21:48 ↗ facilities within the city of Issaquah

2:21:51 ↗ in all zoning districts so it's a zoning

2:21:54 ↗ regulation so it is an effective ban and

2:21:57 ↗ then you're given six months to hold a

2:22:02 ↗ public hearing and then decide whether

2:22:04 ↗ you want to make that the permanent

2:22:06 ↗ regulation or whether you want to do

2:22:08 ↗ something else so I'm not sure that if

2:22:10 ↗ you decide if you decide you don't want

2:22:13 ↗ to do a moratorium and you want to do a

2:22:16 ↗ ban I don't think there's really a

2:22:17 ↗ difference procedurally as to what

2:22:19 ↗ you're doing

2:22:20 ↗ at the present time there I think there

2:22:24 ↗ is I mean a ban is a ban a moratorium as

2:22:27 ↗ a temporary ban well and what I'm saying

2:22:30 ↗ is that you cannot enact a permanent

2:22:32 ↗ regulation tonight that what you need to

2:22:36 ↗ do because yes you need to you need to

2:22:42 ↗ in order to enact permanent amendments

2:22:45 ↗ to your zoning code you need to go

2:22:46 ↗ through your Planning Commission and

2:22:47 ↗ follow the ordinary process the way to

2:22:51 ↗ not do that and to put a regulation in

2:22:55 ↗ effect immediately is by doing the type

2:22:58 ↗ of ordinance that you have in front of

2:23:00 ↗ you

2:23:01 ↗ and then you hold a public hearing

2:23:02 ↗ afterwards on this regulation in order

2:23:07 ↗ to determine whether this regulation

2:23:09 ↗ remains in effect while you go through

2:23:11 ↗ the Planning Commission process so what

2:23:14 ↗ was the one that we considered on

2:23:15 ↗ September 5th in was just a policy

2:23:19 ↗ statement what you had before you on

2:23:22 ↗ September 5th as as I understand it was

2:23:25 ↗ a resolution okay

2:23:27 ↗ and the resolution that was put before

2:23:32 ↗ you was essentially because the King

2:23:38 ↗ County Council in its budget its

2:23:43 ↗ supplemental budget ordinance and in its

2:23:46 ↗ discussions in the supplemental budget

2:23:48 ↗ hoardes said that County funds would not

2:23:52 ↗ be spent on a shell within a local

2:23:56 ↗ jurisdiction unless the council

2:23:58 ↗ affirmative ly wanted it now some

2:24:01 ↗ jurisdictions have taken the position

2:24:03 ↗ that if we don't affirmatively want it

2:24:06 ↗ and take affirmative action to request

2:24:08 ↗ the county to have it here then there

2:24:12 ↗ won't be one because there won't be

2:24:13 ↗ County funds spent under that budget

2:24:16 ↗ ordinance the resolution that was before

2:24:20 ↗ you was more of an a an idea to make

2:24:24 ↗ that a positive statement I guess if

2:24:28 ↗ we're saying positive rather than saying

2:24:30 ↗ we're just going to wait and because we

2:24:33 ↗ didn't say anything the county won't put

2:24:35 ↗ one here it was a statement of we

2:24:38 ↗ opposed putting one here but again that

2:24:41 ↗ was a policy statement and it's a

2:24:45 ↗ resolution it's not a permanent

2:24:46 ↗ amendment to your code the only way to

2:24:49 ↗ amend your code and have that kind of

2:24:52 ↗ ban in effect is through this process

2:25:01 ↗ let's sort of wrap things up Paul well

2:25:04 ↗ thank you Fred

2:25:07 ↗ and I said it before I just there seems

2:25:10 ↗ to be different understandings of what

2:25:12 ↗ this is intending to do this so this is

2:25:14 ↗ this is about everything that Jim just

2:25:19 ↗ said and so and we would come out of

2:25:22 ↗ this the way this is written right now

2:25:24 ↗ and and our code would prohibit anywhere

2:25:29 ↗ within the city having a HL that's

2:25:33 ↗ that's what the intent that's here and

2:25:35 ↗ and to get and it says go through the

2:25:38 ↗ planning policy commission to do that

2:25:41 ↗ and and so this is this is more formal

2:25:46 ↗ than we were considering last time which

2:25:47 ↗ was a policy statement this is actually

2:25:50 ↗ enacting it in code and I still believe

2:25:54 ↗ that if with this being a very

2:25:59 ↗ definitive it's actually stronger than

2:26:01 ↗ what any other other jurisdictions have

2:26:03 ↗ done who have done at least I think

2:26:05 ↗ they've done policy statements I could

2:26:07 ↗ be wrong

2:26:08 ↗ I'm sorry sorry so that information from

2:26:13 ↗ David Fujimoto that they've done bans

2:26:15 ↗ moratorium soon so and so I you know I

2:26:19 ↗ okay we've got a lot on our plate it's

2:26:24 ↗ unfortunate and I'm not sure what's

2:26:26 ↗ magical about November 6 for a or public

2:26:30 ↗ hearing we are in budget season as well

2:26:34 ↗ and other and other activities and this

2:26:37 ↗ also note that this has just it says go

2:26:41 ↗ through planning policy so I was gonna

2:26:45 ↗ propose maybe also adding it that it

2:26:47 ↗ goes through Human Services Commission

2:26:49 ↗ because its land use but it's actually

2:26:51 ↗ Human Services as well so that's more of

2:26:55 ↗ an open comment and a direction anyone

2:27:00 ↗ else before we act

2:27:04 ↗ no I just want to clarify it just before

2:27:08 ↗ we go to vote once again I will be

2:27:10 ↗ voting no on this but I'm not supporting

2:27:12 ↗ shell sites or save injection sites in

2:27:14 ↗ any way shape or form in Issaquah it's

2:27:16 ↗ the process and and what we're doing and

2:27:18 ↗ how it's come about to us that that is

2:27:21 ↗ not working for me and I don't think we

2:27:23 ↗ need to take in this action to not have

2:27:26 ↗ channel sites here and I want to in the

2:27:28 ↗ conversation from us versus continuing

2:27:30 ↗ the conversation keeping that stirred up

2:27:32 ↗ in the community what we don't need to

2:27:34 ↗ be doing that from the council

2:27:35 ↗ perspective thank you they see that you

2:27:38 ↗ have I'll support it because it gets I

2:27:43 ↗ think I've made it pretty clear how I

2:27:44 ↗ feel and so I will be looking at the end

2:27:46 ↗ of this process but they're not allowed

2:27:49 ↗ Moriah briefly this is effectively a ban

2:27:53 ↗ but also giving the opportunity for

2:27:56 ↗ public feedback so I'll be supporting

2:27:58 ↗ the moratorium but I do want to say that

2:28:00 ↗ I believe that this whole entire process

2:28:03 ↗ has been incredibly confusing it really

2:28:07 ↗ does come down to a process issue for me

2:28:09 ↗ and I think that if we would have had an

2:28:12 ↗ opportunity to talk about this before it

2:28:14 ↗ came forward as a ban we probably would

2:28:18 ↗ be in a different place this evening

2:28:20 ↗ thank you had two or three times to

2:28:27 ↗ speak so please this might actually say

2:28:32 ↗ a little bit about the administration

2:28:34 ↗ because I think what I'm hearing about

2:28:35 ↗ process is that this was originated with

2:28:38 ↗ the administration and I think the

2:28:39 ↗ intention was very good I think what you

2:28:42 ↗ were trying to do was respond to a

2:28:43 ↗ community concern in a very quick manner

2:28:46 ↗ somehow it seems like the steps got out

2:28:48 ↗ of order but I think you were well

2:28:50 ↗ intentioned so process or no process I'm

2:28:53 ↗ in support of the motion tonight all

2:28:57 ↗ those in favor of adopting ordinance

2:29:00 ↗ number 281 one providing for a

2:29:02 ↗ moratorium and interim official control

2:29:06 ↗ prohibiting the location of community

2:29:08 ↗ help engagement locations comma safe

2:29:11 ↗ injection sites the all just owning

2:29:14 ↗ districts of the city

2:29:15 ↗ and set the required public hearing for

2:29:18 ↗ the council meeting of November 6 2017

2:29:21 ↗ signify by saying aye aye

2:29:23 ↗ I was opposed nay the boat carries five

2:29:28 ↗ there's six of us tonight five to one

2:29:30 ↗ with bill voting in the negative moving

2:29:36 ↗ now to our last item under regular

2:29:40 ↗ business agenda bill you've moved up

2:29:45 ↗ there just the right time didn't you

2:29:48 ↗ 71 to 2017 regional agenda for the

2:29:54 ↗ presentation Thank You Council remember

2:29:58 ↗ this has originally came to the council

2:30:01 ↗ on March 13 and they reviewed that draft

2:30:04 ↗ at the work session and so now it's been

2:30:09 ↗ routed through all the committees and

2:30:11 ↗ those committee adjustments and

2:30:14 ↗ recommendations have been modified and

2:30:16 ↗ now it's coming back to Council for its

2:30:20 ↗ final review at this point our

2:30:22 ↗ recommendation is given the fact that

2:30:24 ↗ it's mid-october and we'll be starting

2:30:28 ↗ 2018 regional agenda that and actually

2:30:33 ↗ if you probably saw in your packets that

2:30:35 ↗ on the status updates we actually got

2:30:37 ↗ quite a few of these items already

2:30:39 ↗ finished for this year that that this

2:30:42 ↗ that council simply receive the report

2:30:45 ↗ this evening and that we work towards

2:30:48 ↗ the 2018 regional agenda and we start

2:30:52 ↗ that process you know administrative

2:30:54 ↗ leave we'll start that process now and

2:30:56 ↗ then we'll have it in front of council I

2:30:58 ↗ think in January for there first so we

2:31:01 ↗ can kind of get it done at the at least

2:31:03 ↗ within the first quarter of the year as

2:31:04 ↗ we lay out kind of the work plan for the

2:31:06 ↗ upcoming year so I have it here in case

2:31:09 ↗ anyone wants to go through any of the

2:31:11 ↗ items on the regional agenda but I was

2:31:13 ↗ not planning on locking us through all

2:31:15 ↗ the committee adjustments because if

2:31:19 ↗ council simply receives a report then I

2:31:21 ↗ think it'll be done for this year and

2:31:24 ↗ then we can move forward to the 2018

2:31:25 ↗ regional

2:31:28 ↗ are that questions above all right yeah

2:31:33 ↗ I think there's a little bit more to the

2:31:35 ↗ read sieve it and and you speak a little

2:31:41 ↗ it's not just that it's late in the year

2:31:42 ↗ can you speak a little bit more about I

2:31:45 ↗ mean we had a conversation about what

2:31:48 ↗ you thought would be beneficial in that

2:31:51 ↗ we revisit regional agenda and what

2:31:54 ↗ we're trying to accomplish with it so

2:31:57 ↗ that the council would potentially be on

2:32:01 ↗ the same page because different elements

2:32:04 ↗ of the regional agenda were went to

2:32:07 ↗ different committees and those

2:32:08 ↗ committees had very different

2:32:09 ↗ conversations and even at land and shore

2:32:12 ↗ and you and I talked about this even at

2:32:14 ↗ Landon Shore when Paul and I were

2:32:16 ↗ talking and debating back and forth

2:32:18 ↗ about the regional agenda and there was

2:32:25 ↗ some confusion about whether we should

2:32:28 ↗ be recognizing compliments

2:32:30 ↗ accomplishments we want to achieve in

2:32:32 ↗ the region or what we want to accomplish

2:32:34 ↗ in Issaquah and so I think there's

2:32:39 ↗ confusion about what we're trying to

2:32:42 ↗ accomplish with this Paul and I you know

2:32:46 ↗ worked on this initially together a

2:32:48 ↗ couple of years ago and the regional

2:32:50 ↗ agenda was Paul's idea and so I but I

2:32:56 ↗ think over time there may be differences

2:32:58 ↗ of a opinion about what the regional

2:33:00 ↗ agenda supposed to accomplish and maybe

2:33:03 ↗ our initial opinions have changed but I

2:33:07 ↗ also think we have new council members

2:33:08 ↗ and I don't think it's clear to

2:33:09 ↗ everybody what we're trying to

2:33:10 ↗ accomplish so my understanding was that

2:33:13 ↗ you also thought it was an opportunity

2:33:16 ↗ for the council to review this again

2:33:21 ↗ about what we're trying to accomplish

2:33:23 ↗ with a regional agenda so I think that

2:33:25 ↗ was a great summary conversation and

2:33:27 ↗ that is true so you know couple things

2:33:29 ↗ one is what is what is it that we want

2:33:32 ↗ to accomplish as a city that's the

2:33:34 ↗ ultimate goal and then we do that for

2:33:36 ↗ the legislative agenda what do we want

2:33:38 ↗ to get out of Olympia

2:33:39 ↗ c'mere same for the regional agenda what

2:33:41 ↗ is it that we want to do with our

2:33:42 ↗ partners other regional entities the

2:33:45 ↗ county in trying to accomplish that but

2:33:47 ↗ the at the end of the day the focus is

2:33:49 ↗ you know what's best for Issaquah what's

2:33:51 ↗ the outcome that we want for our

2:33:52 ↗ community the second piece of this is as

2:33:55 ↗ it's kind of worked its way through the

2:33:57 ↗ process there ended up being variances

2:33:59 ↗ between the various committees and so

2:34:01 ↗ trying it was a challenge to try and get

2:34:04 ↗ it back into the format that originally

2:34:06 ↗ I presented and so so I think there's

2:34:10 ↗ that opportunity in January for that

2:34:12 ↗ conversation with the council to talk

2:34:15 ↗ about a common you know what we want to

2:34:18 ↗ accomplish with the regional agenda what

2:34:20 ↗ the outcome what the outcomes are and

2:34:22 ↗ the objective of it and then even

2:34:25 ↗ thinking about review we may want to

2:34:26 ↗ just kind of keep it at the work

2:34:28 ↗ sessions maybe it's a couple work

2:34:29 ↗ sessions because just I think going

2:34:32 ↗ through that committee process we ended

2:34:33 ↗ up with a lot of variances that I I

2:34:36 ↗ don't think we're intentional it just

2:34:38 ↗ kind of just happens when you go through

2:34:40 ↗ a kind of a process like that additional

2:34:46 ↗ kapal a couple things about the document

2:34:49 ↗ itself and then some comments actually

2:34:51 ↗ even in the updated one we should spell

2:34:55 ↗ out what why were eight okay just an

2:34:57 ↗ active and that's there and then in the

2:34:59 ↗ overview of the goals on that same page

2:35:02 ↗ which is a page to the it has just the

2:35:05 ↗ goals for each of the areas it doesn't

2:35:07 ↗ reflect actually the goals that are on

2:35:10 ↗ the tables down below so that still has

2:35:12 ↗ the original set of goals but if you

2:35:15 ↗ were to go to the overview on page 2 so

2:35:20 ↗ those still yes the original version and

2:35:23 ↗ a number of those were updated so that

2:35:26 ↗ that's just there that's just some

2:35:28 ↗ housekeeping I think so as far as the

2:35:30 ↗ process so you know um we have a lot of

2:35:33 ↗ big complex important things we're

2:35:36 ↗ responsible for and I'm not surprised

2:35:40 ↗ that when you when you talk when you

2:35:42 ↗ when you try to tackle something as big

2:35:44 ↗ as transportation or any one of those

2:35:46 ↗ public safety go on down the list

2:35:49 ↗ that that defining at a granular level

2:35:56 ↗ objectives and goals to achieve a

2:35:58 ↗ certain outcome we've never done that

2:36:00 ↗ before

2:36:01 ↗ we've never done that and and so the end

2:36:05 ↗ and you know things run really fast when

2:36:08 ↗ you've got seven people all on the same

2:36:09 ↗ page but that's not the way this

2:36:12 ↗ government form of government works

2:36:15 ↗ there's always diverse sets of opinions

2:36:18 ↗ and it takes longer you know to to get

2:36:22 ↗ that out to talk it through and then

2:36:24 ↗ come to an agreement what's what's what

2:36:26 ↗ is on a piece of paper it's and so I'm

2:36:30 ↗ not I'm not I'm disappointed that we

2:36:33 ↗ didn't get it done sooner and be able to

2:36:38 ↗ consider it formally adopt it but I but

2:36:41 ↗ I'm at the same time I think a lot of

2:36:44 ↗ really good work has been accomplished

2:36:46 ↗ by every one of the committees and

2:36:47 ↗ everybody who worked on it it's better

2:36:49 ↗ than it was before and and there's

2:36:53 ↗ probably not full agreement on every one

2:36:56 ↗ of the issues every one of the

2:36:57 ↗ objectives and the actions as well so by

2:37:01 ↗ definition this is gonna be a living

2:37:03 ↗ document and and and that's okay but I

2:37:06 ↗ think when it comes to action probably

2:37:09 ↗ the the timing element of this to maybe

2:37:11 ↗ take it up again the first quarter next

2:37:14 ↗ year is is and I don't know the whole

2:37:17 ↗ calendar year cycle I mean a lot of

2:37:20 ↗ these span many many years but we are

2:37:23 ↗ also serving on regional boards and

2:37:25 ↗ committees and other special task force

2:37:28 ↗ and and their work plans are yearly so

2:37:31 ↗ what we want to do is inform our own

2:37:33 ↗ participation of that to align with

2:37:36 ↗ those work plans and make sure that's

2:37:38 ↗ very very clear and so I like the idea

2:37:43 ↗ that we should challenge ourselves to

2:37:48 ↗ complete this as soon as possible after

2:37:50 ↗ the first of the year and I think we

2:37:54 ↗ have a I don't think it's going to take

2:37:55 ↗ as long because we have an amazing body

2:37:57 ↗ of work that wasn't here before

2:38:00 ↗ and so a lot of development and creative

2:38:03 ↗ thought went into what what's we're

2:38:05 ↗ we're looking at this evening so it's

2:38:09 ↗ good it's it's better than it was

2:38:11 ↗ receiving it means I'm not sure what but

2:38:15 ↗ because we're not going to make any more

2:38:17 ↗ appointments that's coming in front of

2:38:20 ↗ us and those work plans for these

2:38:23 ↗ regional boards and commissions will

2:38:24 ↗ take effect early next year and that's

2:38:26 ↗ when we need to get this implemented

2:38:28 ↗ Mary Lou thanks he did put the council

2:38:34 ↗ committees and the administration and

2:38:35 ↗ Maya in particular put a lot of work

2:38:38 ↗ into this I I agree with the council

2:38:42 ↗ president Goodman's assessment that it

2:38:44 ↗ seems like we are seven different

2:38:47 ↗ legislators up here and this is a hard

2:38:50 ↗ thing to get your head around and there

2:38:51 ↗ ends up being a lot of wordsmithing

2:38:53 ↗ but this is very far it's moved in a

2:38:56 ↗ direction very different than my

2:38:59 ↗ expectations and it would be interesting

2:39:01 ↗ actually in our January mean to settle

2:39:03 ↗ on expectations

2:39:04 ↗ just like the legislative agenda that

2:39:06 ↗ you put together with our lobbyist and

2:39:10 ↗ the mayor to me that's kind of our

2:39:12 ↗ walking papers so that when we agree on

2:39:14 ↗ that in January whoever goes to Olympia

2:39:17 ↗ whoever goes to Sound Transit whoever

2:39:19 ↗ goes anywhere has a common unified city

2:39:21 ↗ message so while we're individually

2:39:23 ↗ elected we're going to be the most

2:39:24 ↗ effective when when you unified in the

2:39:27 ↗ region I was from a format point of view

2:39:30 ↗ hoping that this document would be that

2:39:32 ↗ those kinds of walking marching orders

2:39:35 ↗ for council has were out in the region

2:39:38 ↗ and not at Olympia and that at the end

2:39:41 ↗ of the year we'd be able to sit down and

2:39:43 ↗ check the boxes and so this is turning

2:39:46 ↗ more into a kind of a a document versus

2:39:50 ↗ to me a tool in our toolbox and

2:39:53 ↗ especially for incoming we've got two

2:39:55 ↗ council members the you know two years

2:39:57 ↗ into their term we might have two or

2:40:00 ↗ three or more council members coming in

2:40:02 ↗ that are

2:40:03 ↗ I knew and this was to really bring them

2:40:05 ↗ up to speed regionally as we do at the

2:40:08 ↗ state level and so I'm not sure if we're

2:40:11 ↗ gonna end up with this format or a

2:40:12 ↗ different format but that's getting our

2:40:14 ↗ heads around expectations would be

2:40:16 ↗ important and making sure we're all

2:40:18 ↗ thinking we're gonna get the same thing

2:40:19 ↗ out of it and then actually being able

2:40:21 ↗ to come back in December before the year

2:40:24 ↗ is over and and go through and rate

2:40:26 ↗ ourselves on how we did regionally in

2:40:28 ↗ terms of the things we were trying to

2:40:29 ↗ achieve frisk WA we've really helped us

2:40:31 ↗ inform a January agenda setting session

2:40:35 ↗ so that's just my expectations of what I

2:40:38 ↗ hope we do next year make a motion any

2:40:46 ↗ other questions I wouldn't move to

2:40:48 ↗ receive the 2017 regional agenda as

2:40:50 ↗ presented second moved and seconded any

2:40:53 ↗ additional discussion all those in favor

2:40:58 ↗ signify by saying aye I was opposed that

2:41:01 ↗ carries unanimously

2:41:03 ↗ moving now to go to the order if anyone

2:41:07 ↗ has any urgent items under good of the

2:41:12 ↗ order I just a quick reminder about what

2:41:19 ↗ I talked about earlier so if you could

2:41:22 ↗ get a chance to take a look at that for

2:41:24 ↗ the Kim County Conservation Board and

2:41:28 ↗ all of the grant work that has been done

2:41:30 ↗ and you have any feedback let me know

2:41:33 ↗ thank you anything else

2:41:36 ↗ we will now move to executive session to

2:41:43 ↗ discuss potential acquisition of real

2:41:46 ↗ estate pending potential litigation and

2:41:50 ↗ collective bargaining sessions when we

2:41:54 ↗ have reassured after a five-minute break

2:41:58 ↗ please be back in your seats at Oh

2:42:06 ↗ 9:40 or

2:42:09 ↗ no that's an women that's a minute it

2:42:14 ↗ gave us a minute okay we we are

2:42:18 ↗ adjourned

2:42:19 ↗ temporarily

2:42:29 ↗ you

3:49:12 ↗ we are back in regular session coming

3:49:16 ↗ out of an executive session at 10:52

3:49:27 ↗ thank you I moved to authorize the

3:49:30 ↗ administration to sign the settlement

3:49:31 ↗ agreement and stipulation has discussed

3:49:33 ↗ an executive session subject to minor

3:49:36 ↗ non substance of edits as approved by

3:49:38 ↗ the city attorney moved in seconded any

3:49:42 ↗ discussion all those in favor of

3:49:48 ↗ approving the motion signify by saying

3:49:50 ↗ aye I was opposed I'd carries

3:49:54 ↗ unanimously there any other business to

3:49:59 ↗ come before the council this evening we

3:50:03 ↗ are adjourned

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (6)

Mariah Bettise

Stacy Goodman

Tola Marts

Mary Lou Pauly

Bill Ramos

Paul Winterstein

Excused

Eileen Barber

Motions and votes (8)

Adopt Ordinance No. 2808, amending the 2017 budget as set forth in Ordinance No. 2791 and amended in Ordinance Nos. 2795 and 2798 concerning revenues, expenditures and fund balance for various funds for the year 2017 and authorizing the Finance Director to make the necessary adjustments and approvin…

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 6-0

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

Adopt Ordinance No. 2809, adopting by reference amendments to the Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards including establishing a vertical mixed use development overlay; establishing the regulations for vertical mixed use development; and requiring structured parking for new development w…

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

Carried 6-0

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

Authorize the Mayor to enter into and execute an agreement with PerfectMind, Inc. in 2018 to provide implementation, training, and on-going support of the PerfectMind cloud-based Parks & Recreation software for an estimated first year amount of $96,012 and $45,012 annually over the remaining four ye…

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 6-0

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

Adopt Ordinance No. 2810, adopting by reference several amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Issaquah by updating the Land Use Element, the Transportation Element, and related maps; and amending the Land Use Designation Map and Zoning Map for Community Facilities properties and the K…

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

Carried 6-0

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

Discharge AB 7471 from consideration by the Human Services Commission and Council Services & Safety Committee; and, indefinitely postpone AB 7471. . e)

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by MARTS

Carried 6-0

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

Adopt Ordinance No. 2811, providing for a moratorium and interim official control prohibiting the location of Community Health Engagement Locations, Safe Injection Sites, in all zoning districts of the City; and set the required public hearing for the Council meeting of Nov. 6, 2017 [declaring an em…

Moved by MARTS · seconded by GOODMAN

Carried 5-1

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

Opposed: Ramos

Receive the 2017 Regional Agenda as presented. .

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 6-0

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

Authorize the Administration to sign the settlement agreement and stipulation as discussed in

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY