City Council Regular Meeting · Monday, July 2, 2018 · City Council Digest

6. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll of July 2, 2018, $2,532,044.11 ID 0248

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.5–100

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 19:26 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Pursuant to 42.24.080 RCW, I, Jennifer Olson, Auditing Officer for the City of Issaquah, Washington, present all claims against the City by persons furnishing materials, rendering services or performing labor, or for any other full or partial contractual purpose and obligation. Such claims have been prepared for audit and payment on an authenticated form and in the manner prescribed by the state auditor. The claims are just, due and unpaid obligations against the City of Issaquah and are certified to be paid after approval of the Issaquah City Council.

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Minutes: City Council Special Meeting, June 18, 2018

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.101

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 4, 2018 City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 5, 2018

▶ Watch from 19:36 Open packet at p.101 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR b) 06-18-18 City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8055

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, June 18, 2018

Carried 7-0

Authorize · packet pp.103–108

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 4, 2018 City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 5, 2018

▶ Watch from 19:46 Open packet at p.103 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR c) 06-18-18 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8056

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

King County Funded Homeless Shelter and Services Outside Seattle Funding Request AB 7606

Carried 7-0

Refer to Council Services & Safety · packet pp.121–124

Topics: HousingPublic SafetyBudget

▶ Watch from 19:55 Open packet at p.121 ↗

Staff report:

The City works to prevent and end homelessness through policy, funding, and strategy. This includes participation in A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) and working toward alignment with the regional plan to make homelessness rare, brief and one-time. Efforts also include aligned funding with other jurisdictions for shelter capacity and related services on the Eastside, engagement in the Eastside Homelessness Advisory Committee, Eastside Human Services Forum, and the Coordinated Entry for All Policy Advisory Committee. Collaboration with other jurisdictions has been a critical component of the work and has helped to reduce barriers to accessing services and resources, address service gaps, and planning for system capacity at a sub-regional level. It is also called out in two elements of the City’s Housing strategy:

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

2017 Maintenance Overlay Project, Contract MC17-1 AB 7615

Carried 7-0

Authorize · packet pp.125–127

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 5, 2017

▶ Watch from 20:05 Open packet at p.125 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Operations Department:

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Professional Services Agreement for a Traffic Safety Camera System AB 7629

Carried 7-0

Authorize · packet pp.141–164

Topics: TransportationPublic Safety

▶ Watch from 20:15 Open packet at p.141 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Police Department:

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Per- and Poly-flouroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Pilot Study Funding Request AB 7637

Carried 7-0

Authorize Additional Funding · packet pp.165–166

Topics: WaterBudget

▶ Watch from 20:24 Open packet at p.165 ↗

Staff report:

Council Infrastructure Committee / Bill Ramos, Chair:

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Dept. of Commerce Grant for Sports Medicine Conference AB 7638

Carried 7-0

Accept Grant · packet pp.167–187

▶ Watch from 20:34 Open packet at p.167 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Economic Development Department:

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

7. REGULAR BUSINESS

Olde Town Traffic Calming Funding Request AB 7621

Carried 7-0

Authorize Contract · packet pp.189–212

Topics: Land UseTransportationBudget

▶ Watch from 20:44 Open packet at p.189 ↗

Staff report:

UPDATED CITY COUNCIL AB 7621 - AGENDA BILL Regular City Council Regular Meeting - 02 Jul 2018 Business

Roll call:

Moved by RAMOS · seconded by HUNT

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Amendments considered (2):

Amend the motion to read: "1) Approve the proposed permanent traffic calming layout for Olde Town; and 2) Direct the Finance Director to include $310,000 in a subsequent 2018 budget amendment for the Olde Town Traffic Calming Project, utilizing the School Zone Safety Fund; and 3) Authorize the Admin Failed 1-6

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by HUNT

Amend motion item 3 to read: "Authorize the Administration to enter into and execute construction contract(s) up to $310,000 $260,000 for removing the temporary traffic calming devices and installing traffic calming devices consistent with the approved layout." . . Carried 7-0

Moved by REH · seconded by RAMOS

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

8. GOOD OF THE ORDER

Upcoming Council Meetings

▶ Watch from 14:44

2160 segments .txt ↗

0:13 ↗ should be the motion that the committee

0:17 ↗ welcome everyone

0:19 ↗ I'm calling the July 2nd regular City

0:22 ↗ Council meeting to order and I'd like to

0:24 ↗ ask any of those who would like to join

0:26 ↗ the council myself and the Pledge of

0:27 ↗ Allegiance to please thank you the first

0:49 ↗ item on their agenda this evening is

0:51 ↗ audience comments this is your time to

0:53 ↗ come up and address the council the

0:56 ↗ guidelines for audience comments are on

0:58 ↗ the meeting agenda and those who have

1:00 ↗ signed up to speak will be called up

1:02 ↗ first if you didn't sign up I will still

1:05 ↗ ask for other speakers before I close

1:06 ↗ this part of the meter meeting when

1:09 ↗ recognized please come up to the lectern

1:11 ↗ in the microphone that your name address

1:13 ↗ and relationship to the city and limit

1:16 ↗ your comments to three minutes if you

1:18 ↗ brought written comments piece them up

1:20 ↗ and hand them to the clerk as well if

1:23 ↗ your here is part of a group or speaking

1:25 ↗ on behalf of a group please identify

1:26 ↗ yourself as the spokesperson for the

1:29 ↗ group and those in the audience

1:31 ↗ supporting the comments made tonight

1:32 ↗ during audience comments I can raise

1:34 ↗ your hand to show the council that you

1:36 ↗ were supporting what was said if anyone

1:40 ↗ signed up to speak this evening tonight

1:41 ↗ there are none even Kapler would you

1:45 ↗ like to address the council I would I

1:51 ↗ would need more than three minutes if I

1:53 ↗ outline the process we went through in

1:55 ↗ the Old Town on the traffic calming but

1:58 ↗ it's turned out nobody's here hardly to

2:01 ↗ talk about it so I think a lot of people

2:04 ↗ are very happy so it's taken taking a

2:06 ↗ while but it's there and I think it's a

2:08 ↗ good model for dealing with similar

2:11 ↗ problems that occur in the city in the

2:14 ↗ future or are occurring now and people

2:16 ↗ are expecting resolution so thank you to

2:19 ↗ the staff in City and all good work Eve

2:22 ↗ thank you very much

2:24 ↗ is there anyone else who would like to

2:25 ↗ address the council this evening Connie

2:29 ↗ Marsh

2:36 ↗ so I'm Connie Marsh and I live up on

2:39 ↗ squawk Mountain and by definition I hate

2:41 ↗ it when you say three minutes because

2:43 ↗ there's always more than three minutes

2:44 ↗ worth to say so I would rather have the

2:47 ↗ standard be five and then we could be

2:49 ↗ brief and feel like we're being good

2:51 ↗ people I'm here for Old Town it's taken

2:54 ↗ years and years and years and years to

2:58 ↗ get something changed in Old Town and so

3:04 ↗ I want to congratulate whoever thought

3:07 ↗ to say let's do something for temporary

3:09 ↗ and see how it works and see what the

3:11 ↗ community has to say awesome the

3:18 ↗ gentlemen one of whom is not here did a

3:23 ↗ pretty good job with the neighbors

3:25 ↗ communication is super hard and so if I

3:29 ↗ was going to say anything

3:33 ↗ they had a great walk about and then

3:36 ↗ after the walk about in the neighborhood

3:38 ↗ it sort of fell off because it's hard to

3:42 ↗ get notification out to the

3:44 ↗ neighborhood's it hasn't been going on

3:45 ↗ next door and so it would be it would be

3:49 ↗ good to practice a consistent system for

3:53 ↗ this type of a thing I like the speed

3:58 ↗ bumps humps the neighbors had said that

4:01 ↗ that is what they wanted the chicanes

4:03 ↗ are going away that's what they said

4:04 ↗ they didn't want I like the consistency

4:06 ↗ between all the streets for the speed

4:09 ↗ bumps I don't like the alleys sort of

4:14 ↗ being left up in the air so what I would

4:16 ↗ like to see is I would like to see a

4:17 ↗ time certain for the alleys to be

4:20 ↗ considered and then to finish off the

4:23 ↗ feedback loop I would like to have a

4:26 ↗ report back in six months notifying the

4:30 ↗ neighbors to say what do you think now

4:33 ↗ now that they're in for good is this the

4:35 ↗ right is this the right thing can we

4:37 ↗ refine it in some way shape or form I

4:40 ↗ don't know if there's any data that can

4:42 ↗ be at

4:43 ↗ on for that report thank you Thank You

4:46 ↗ Connie

4:47 ↗ Wow it flashed orange green is there

4:51 ↗ anyone else who would like to address

4:52 ↗ the council this evening alas the second

4:56 ↗ time anyone else wishing to address the

4:58 ↗ council even this evening in a final

5:00 ↗ time anyone wishing to address the

5:02 ↗ council seeing none we'll move on to

5:05 ↗ committee and regional reports again

5:07 ↗ we'll start with councilmember hunt

5:08 ↗ thank you madam mayor I attended the

5:11 ↗ June 27th board meeting for a cascade

5:14 ↗ water alliance with mayor poly we heard

5:17 ↗ updates on several topics for a cascade

5:20 ↗ water Alliance one is about reclaimed

5:21 ↗ water there's a cascade is engaging in

5:25 ↗ ongoing discussions with King County and

5:27 ↗ other water providers about reclaimed

5:29 ↗ water and the goal is to find the best

5:31 ↗ way to use and regulate reclaimed water

5:33 ↗ taking into account the water system

5:37 ↗ plans of the of the cities and long-term

5:40 ↗ planning considerations and it also

5:43 ↗ reclaimed water just to define what

5:45 ↗ we're talking about here reclaimed water

5:46 ↗ is water derived in any part from

5:48 ↗ wastewater treatment system that has

5:50 ↗ been adequately treated so that it's no

5:52 ↗ longer considered waste water

5:54 ↗ we also heard some project updates about

5:56 ↗ mud mountain dam fish passage project in

6:00 ↗ the Lake Tapps Reservoir ongoing

6:02 ↗ maintenance including herbicide

6:03 ↗ application and we heard about a

6:06 ↗ education campaign of Cascade Water

6:09 ↗ Alliance which is a we need water

6:11 ↗ because is so it's we need water because

6:15 ↗ and they take social media and they have

6:21 ↗ some different props to encourage

6:23 ↗ conversation about why we need water and

6:27 ↗ then for most of the meeting we talked

6:29 ↗ about budget and rates and there are two

6:31 ↗ big policy considerations that we are

6:34 ↗ considering and those are about moving

6:38 ↗ to a two-year budget for the budgets and

6:40 ↗ rates and a lot of cities are on a

6:42 ↗ two-year budget so it would coincide

6:44 ↗ with the cities and then the other thing

6:47 ↗ would be to move to a two-year our CFC

6:50 ↗ rates and this is the regional capital

6:53 ↗ facilities charge so this is the charge

6:55 ↗ for adding new can

6:56 ↗ to the water system the and so we've

7:02 ↗ been discussing that but the adoption of

7:04 ↗ budgets and rates is slated for

7:05 ↗ September so it's an ongoing discussion

7:07 ↗ and the next meeting is July 25th at the

7:11 ↗ cascade water Alliance office in

7:12 ↗ Bellevue and this concludes my report

7:14 ↗ Thank You councilmember Rea Thank You

7:17 ↗ mayor Polly the services and Safety

7:19 ↗ Committee will be meeting on July 10th

7:21 ↗ at 6:30 in Council Chambers the agenda

7:24 ↗ at this time includes agenda bill 76 o6k

7:27 ↗ county funded homeless shelter and

7:29 ↗ services outside of seattle funding

7:32 ↗ request and the site Fire and Rescue

7:36 ↗ board will be meeting on July 12th at 4

7:40 ↗ o'clock and that agenda has not yet been

7:42 ↗ set and that concludes my report thank

7:44 ↗ you

7:45 ↗ council member Ramos Thank You mayor

7:47 ↗ both items from this Infrastructure

7:50 ↗ Committee around the agenda tonight so I

7:51 ↗ have no report we'll talk about it then

7:53 ↗ thank you very interesting thank you

7:56 ↗ this coming Thursday on July 5th I'll be

7:59 ↗ attending a meeting of the Puget Sound

8:01 ↗ Regional Council's growth management

8:03 ↗ policy board and a number of items on

8:06 ↗ the agenda include we're gonna vote on

8:08 ↗ this PSR C staffs recommendation for

8:11 ↗ full designation for regional growth

8:13 ↗ Center status for University Place

8:15 ↗ University Place recently completed a

8:18 ↗ sub area plan the last requirement they

8:20 ↗ needed to meet in order to achieve

8:22 ↗ regional growth Center status also as

8:25 ↗ part of the work to update the four

8:27 ↗ county regions long term manifesto known

8:30 ↗ as vision 2040 the board will have an

8:33 ↗ extended in-depth discussion about

8:34 ↗ housing and housing affordability with

8:36 ↗ the eventual goal to identify what PSR C

8:39 ↗ can do to help expand housing

8:41 ↗ opportunities within the region the

8:42 ↗ current version of vision calls for

8:44 ↗ doing a needs assessment and developing

8:47 ↗ a housing strategy and programs to

8:48 ↗ implement it but these have not been

8:50 ↗ completed the task now is to update the

8:53 ↗ strategy with the latest information and

8:55 ↗ in consideration of the many effort

8:57 ↗ efforts member jurisdictions have

9:00 ↗ undertaken such as our city of Issaquah

9:03 ↗ and what we're doing with our housing

9:04 ↗ strategy entering new PS our C's efforts

9:07 ↗ to provide value-added contributions to

9:09 ↗ helping with housing

9:10 ↗ affordability will also get a review and

9:13 ↗ input from the regional transit oriented

9:16 ↗ development Advisory Committee on

9:18 ↗ housing and we're gonna also receive a

9:21 ↗ presentation on the recently completed

9:23 ↗ regional open space conservation plan

9:26 ↗ and then we haven't had a meeting of the

9:29 ↗ lodging tax Advisory Committee recently

9:31 ↗ but I did want to report that the

9:33 ↗ destination marketing organization board

9:35 ↗ selection committee got started last

9:38 ↗ Friday and I think they will be issuing

9:40 ↗ a call for board applicants in the very

9:42 ↗ near future that concludes my report

9:44 ↗ thank you thank you madam mayor the City

9:48 ↗ Council's land and Shore Committee

9:50 ↗ meeting will meet July 5th 6:30 right

9:53 ↗ here in council chambers we have two

9:54 ↗ items are an agenda they are companion

9:57 ↗ bills agenda bill 76 14 high street

10:01 ↗ conversion in Issaquah highlands and

10:02 ↗ gender bill 7480

10:04 ↗ the West Ridge North preliminary plat

10:06 ↗ which is a quasi-judicial closed record

10:09 ↗ matter and this is the second time that

10:12 ↗ those items have been before the

10:13 ↗ committee so it is anticipated that the

10:16 ↗ committee will make a recommendation

10:18 ↗ that's just anticipated doesn't mean

10:20 ↗ well that's my report thank you thank

10:22 ↗ you

10:23 ↗ deputy council president batise thank

10:26 ↗ you madam mayor the Eastside Human

10:30 ↗ Services forum Board met on Thursday

10:34 ↗ July 21st and there were a couple of

10:38 ↗ pretty large items on the agenda first

10:40 ↗ was just the update of the work plan I

10:43 ↗ was just going to run through the four

10:44 ↗ points that are included in their work

10:48 ↗ plan the first is to engage and advocate

10:51 ↗ and address emergent Human Services

10:54 ↗ needs on the east side the second is to

10:57 ↗ impact local funding and policies the

10:59 ↗ third is to impact state and federal

11:01 ↗ funding and policies and the fourth is

11:04 ↗ to enhance forum capacity and strengthen

11:06 ↗ and develop new partnerships we also

11:09 ↗ went through a new report that has taken

11:13 ↗ oh I know over a year maybe two years to

11:18 ↗ to put together which is a funding

11:21 ↗ landscape assessment all across the east

11:23 ↗ side and I just pulled out a few because

11:26 ↗ way I know we've we've talked about this

11:28 ↗ when we've been looking at our own Human

11:31 ↗ Services needs so I just pulled out a

11:33 ↗ few key points that I was going to go

11:36 ↗ over respondents reported on average an

11:40 ↗ increase of 95 percent to their budgets

11:43 ↗ to fully achieve their missions having

11:45 ↗ to add that there was a 30% gap in

11:49 ↗ expenses of what is needed versus what

11:52 ↗ they need what what they are getting I'm

11:55 ↗ sorry

11:57 ↗ compliance is one of the the biggest

12:01 ↗ growth factors that they're experiencing

12:04 ↗ from a financial perspective is having

12:07 ↗ to do a lot more compliance and 70

12:09 ↗ percent of the agencies reported budgets

12:11 ↗ have not kept up with the service

12:14 ↗ demands so those were the key points

12:16 ↗ that came out of that East Side funding

12:19 ↗ landscape so that was interesting to go

12:22 ↗ through and that concludes my report

12:24 ↗ thank you council president marks thank

12:28 ↗ you madam mayor

12:29 ↗ so Sound City is the Association public

12:31 ↗ issues committee is going to meet next

12:32 ↗ Wednesday and that would be the 11th and

12:39 ↗ there is going to be a pre pick workshop

12:44 ↗ that I think council members might be

12:45 ↗ particularly interested in on vision

12:47 ↗ 2050 I mean now in 2050 the Puget Sound

12:50 ↗ metropolitan is projected to grow up by

12:52 ↗ 1.8 million people I was looking that up

12:54 ↗ that means that we would be by 2050 the

12:58 ↗ size of Philadelphia's metropolitan area

13:00 ↗ keeping up with the needs of our

13:02 ↗ region's fast growing population will

13:03 ↗ require a thorough planning and wise use

13:05 ↗ of resources to plan for that growth PSR

13:08 ↗ C recently launched two-tier effort to

13:10 ↗ extend the region's growth plan vision

13:12 ↗ 2040 to the year 2050 provide a path

13:14 ↗ towards sustaining a healthy environment

13:16 ↗ thriving communities and strong autonomy

13:18 ↗ as region continues to grow we'll

13:19 ↗ identify challenges the region should

13:21 ↗ tackle together and lay the foundation

13:22 ↗ for local comprehensive plans the guide

13:24 ↗ how each city plans to for growth the

13:26 ↗ July pre pic workshop will continue will

13:29 ↗ provide sorry as CA members with an

13:31 ↗ overview of the scope of the 2050

13:32 ↗ planning update information on how

13:34 ↗ cities can stay involved in highlight in

13:37 ↗ Meishan trends that are shaping the

13:38 ↗ region and I will point out that the pre

13:40 ↗ picked meetings are open to anyone not

13:42 ↗ just the pic representatives or

13:44 ↗ alternates and we typically get many

13:46 ↗ representatives for instance our

13:47 ↗ neighbors to the north Sammamish always

13:49 ↗ sends a big crew not that we should be

13:51 ↗ competitive with Sammamish but I will

13:53 ↗ just point out this topic seems

13:54 ↗ particularly meaty there also then at

13:57 ↗ the regular pic meeting will be a

13:59 ↗ discussion on responsible recycling task

14:01 ↗ force updates on the healthy housing

14:03 ↗ guideline and recommendations the

14:05 ↗ regional affordable housing task force

14:07 ↗ and there will be a homelessness update

14:08 ↗ and if there are any action items to

14:10 ↗ come out any potential action items to

14:12 ↗ come out of that meeting I will report

14:14 ↗ back to Council that concludes my report

14:16 ↗ thank you now for the mayor's report

14:20 ↗ it's a little bit long this evening so

14:22 ↗ bear with me

14:24 ↗ meetings over the last couple of weeks

14:25 ↗ on June 20th they attended cascade water

14:27 ↗ alliances finance and management

14:29 ↗ committee meeting this preceded that

14:31 ↗ board meeting that I attended with

14:32 ↗ councilmember hunt last week I did send

14:35 ↗ you some questions or proposed budgeting

14:37 ↗ changes that cascade would like each of

14:39 ↗ its members to review with their boards

14:42 ↗ or councils so we can do that for good

14:44 ↗ at the good of the order this evening On

14:47 ↗ June 21st I attended the King County

14:49 ↗ members of the Parc transportation

14:52 ↗ policy board meeting almost the longest

14:54 ↗ name we reviewed a list of projects on

14:57 ↗ the 2018 king county wide grant program

15:00 ↗ and fund and the funding recommendations

15:02 ↗ and support does not have a program on

15:05 ↗ this particular list this list accounts

15:07 ↗ for about 35% of the money that PSR C

15:10 ↗ spends is in the in the countywide

15:12 ↗ bucket On June 28th I attended a WCS

15:17 ↗ annual business meeting in Yakima some

15:20 ↗ fun community outreach over the last few

15:22 ↗ weeks I was up in the highlands and did

15:24 ↗ a short video at Blakely hall for our

15:28 ↗ Issaquah an update on our strategic plan

15:31 ↗ I think that's available on the

15:32 ↗ Highlands Network June 19th I attended

15:35 ↗ one of the Highlands pop-up parties it

15:37 ↗ was at the brownstone Plaza it's a new

15:39 ↗ series of events that they're starting

15:41 ↗ this year with councilmember booties now

15:43 ↗ that I looked up June 20th I attended

15:47 ↗ the strategic planning community open

15:48 ↗ house at the is square deep

15:50 ↗ and on June 21st was there with several

15:52 ↗ other councilmembers councilmember

15:54 ↗ winter Stein attending the association

15:56 ↗ of volleyball professionals kickoff at

15:58 ↗ Lake Sammamish State Park on June 26th I

16:01 ↗ co-hosted a neighborhood meeting with

16:03 ↗ superintendent Ron Thiele II and it was

16:05 ↗ with the Darce neighborhood community

16:07 ↗ and we met at the Eskimo middle school

16:08 ↗ we talked about impacts over the last

16:12 ↗ five or more years to that neighborhood

16:15 ↗ due to the construction of the schools

16:17 ↗ and the capacity of the schools on June

16:20 ↗ 27th I was a speaker at the East quad

16:22 ↗ comp

16:22 ↗ Kiwanis Club and on the 29th a guest

16:25 ↗ speaker up at Tallis for the a timber

16:29 ↗ bridge for the residents of timber Ridge

16:30 ↗ on July 2nd today I attended and gave

16:33 ↗ remarks at the oath of office ceremony

16:35 ↗ welcoming four of our new cadets we

16:38 ↗ welcomed four new police officers and

16:40 ↗ one new corrections officer today police

16:42 ↗ officers are headed to the Academy

16:44 ↗ they'll see them in about a year it's a

16:46 ↗ long haul for them provide an update on

16:50 ↗ a few of the issues that we have been

16:52 ↗ dealing with over the last several

16:53 ↗ months

16:53 ↗ cougar mountain Bergsma Update we have

16:56 ↗ been partnering with the trust for

16:57 ↗ public lands in exploring acquisition

16:59 ↗ options for the parcels known as the

17:00 ↗ Burke's my property but I have no new

17:02 ↗ information to provide this evening

17:04 ↗ squak talus community Metro project

17:07 ↗ update this is a project that several of

17:09 ↗ our council members have been interested

17:11 ↗ in tracking it's about transportation

17:13 ↗ options in in talus and on squad the

17:17 ↗ city has been supporting the King County

17:19 ↗ Metro Community Connections partnership

17:21 ↗ work with our squawk in Taos communities

17:23 ↗ to help develop solutions for mobility

17:25 ↗ that are well suited to the specific

17:27 ↗ needs of those hillside communities 540

17:30 ↗ residents and workers responded to a

17:32 ↗ survey to identify community specific

17:35 ↗ mobility needs the needs that were

17:37 ↗ identified from the survey are now being

17:38 ↗ applied to help shape concept solutions

17:40 ↗ with the intention that they include

17:43 ↗ providing frequent and reliable 24-hour

17:45 ↗ service they are well promoted in

17:48 ↗ multiple languages and that they're

17:50 ↗ focusing on connecting people to transit

17:52 ↗ centers right now the group is working

17:54 ↗ on the concepts and they will be

17:56 ↗ surveying the community and early

17:57 ↗ tonight July to get some input on the

18:00 ↗ options that they bring for it

18:02 ↗ update on Taos parcel 9:30 in late

18:05 ↗ November 2015 movement was detected in

18:08 ↗ the parcel nine hillside with safety as

18:10 ↗ our top priority immediate and ongoing

18:12 ↗ mitigation measures have been taken on

18:15 ↗ June 18 2018 the city of Issaquah filed

18:18 ↗ a two point eight eight million dollar

18:20 ↗ claim against the property owner of

18:22 ↗ parcel nine for the damages and cost

18:24 ↗ incurred by the city related to the

18:26 ↗ hillside movement the city has is

18:28 ↗ working with the law firm Skell injure

18:30 ↗ bender to represent our interest in this

18:32 ↗ matter

18:32 ↗ parties are agreeing to try mediation

18:34 ↗ which is tentatively scheduled for this

18:36 ↗ fall an update on the Northwest Gilman

18:40 ↗ Boulevard corridor project this is the

18:42 ↗ portion of Gilman that runs from State

18:44 ↗ Route 900 to Front Street City is

18:47 ↗ hosting a community workshop on July 11

18:49 ↗ 2008 een at 6:00 p.m. and the Pickering

18:51 ↗ burn the purpose of the workshop is to

18:53 ↗ Scott to discuss the goals for Gilman

18:56 ↗ Boulevard existing corridor assets that

18:58 ↗ should be protected or enhanced and

19:01 ↗ challenges and opportunities that could

19:03 ↗ be addressed with this project if you

19:05 ↗ can't attend the workshop you can see

19:07 ↗ the project's webpage at WWE so our van

19:12 ↗ and you can take our online survey

19:15 ↗ before it closes on July 13th purpose of

19:18 ↗ the survey is to document the project

19:20 ↗ goals and identify the range of possible

19:22 ↗ improvements for Gilman Boulevard and

19:25 ↗ that concludes the mayor's report

19:26 ↗ proceeding to the consent calendar the

19:29 ↗ consent calendar was distributed to

19:31 ↗ council in advance if authorized the

19:33 ↗ audit items on the consent calendar will

19:35 ↗ be considered together and approved in

19:37 ↗ one motion of the payables and payroll

19:40 ↗ been reviewed okay is it okay to approve

19:53 ↗ the consent calendar with it it is okay

19:56 ↗ there's any councilmember desire to

19:58 ↗ remove any item from the consent

19:59 ↗ calendar and consider it under regular

20:01 ↗ business is there a request to

20:10 ↗ you want could you make wouldn't you

20:13 ↗ care to make emotion comes pretty right

20:14 ↗ it's just some extra words hey I don't

20:15 ↗ think I need yes I the consent calendar

20:19 ↗ as listed in today's agenda second is

20:25 ↗ there a request to move anything from

20:27 ↗ the consent calendar no I have this one

20:32 ↗ here it's been moved and seconded all in

20:36 ↗ favor signify by saying aye

20:38 ↗ aye as opposed motion carries

20:42 ↗ unanimously

20:44 ↗ we have one item under regular business

20:46 ↗ this evening a B 761 old town traffic

20:50 ↗ calming funding request this is a

20:52 ↗ request to approve and authorize

20:53 ↗ additional funding and authorize a

20:55 ↗ contract this is coming out of the

20:57 ↗ council Infrastructure Committee and I'd

20:59 ↗ like to invite ritzy men I have John

21:03 ↗ Martinson written down but it looks like

21:04 ↗ Curt is here to make a presentation

21:11 ↗ thank you Mary Polly it's a quad council

21:15 ↗ happy to be here I've got a fairly brief

21:19 ↗ presentation to go through that just

21:22 ↗ what it goes through the old town

21:24 ↗ traffic calming story very briefly and

21:26 ↗ gets us quickly to where we are tonight

21:29 ↗ so as you all know as it's been

21:33 ↗ mentioned by many folks we've been

21:35 ↗ working in Old Town with traffic calming

21:39 ↗ issues for many years probably starting

21:41 ↗ where the sunset interchange maybe

21:43 ↗ before that left turns put on sunset all

21:47 ↗ those kinds of things and most recently

21:50 ↗ we've heard a lot of neighborhood

21:52 ↗ feedback now's the time to get serious

21:55 ↗ about traffic calming in Old Town both

21:58 ↗ for traffic speeds through Old Town and

22:02 ↗ traffic volume so we began a pilot

22:06 ↗ project that was meant to gather

22:11 ↗ neighborhood feedback collect traffic

22:14 ↗ data and most important try some devices

22:16 ↗ that we thought would have

22:19 ↗ a good opportunity for success to

22:22 ↗ address both a speeding and the cut

22:24 ↗ through traffic in old town so we began

22:27 ↗ the pilot project with a variety of

22:29 ↗ traffic calming devices there's a

22:32 ↗ variety of speed hump type devices some

22:35 ↗ of them have passed like this one that

22:38 ↗ you can see that allow like fire trucks

22:40 ↗ to go through we experiment with

22:42 ↗ different spacing we had no left turn

22:46 ↗ signs covered put bags over them about

22:49 ↗ halfway through the process and all

22:51 ↗ through this process we were gathering

22:53 ↗ data both speeds volumes and also

22:59 ↗ probably most importantly community data

23:01 ↗ I think we received well over 300

23:03 ↗ community comments on this project I

23:07 ↗ think was very successful in terms of

23:11 ↗ getting the devices out there giving

23:13 ↗ people a chance to see how they work as

23:16 ↗ we mentioned the the speed humps are the

23:20 ↗ preferred device out there this gives

23:23 ↗ you it's a little bit hard to read but

23:24 ↗ it gives you an idea that we try to wear

23:27 ↗ a variety of devices out here in the

23:30 ↗ pilot program now we're looking at so

23:32 ↗ this was table speed tables humps

23:34 ↗ chicane so less popular device traffic

23:38 ↗ circle and that's about it so out of

23:43 ↗ that all that work we are proposing a

23:48 ↗ more permanent traffic calming

23:53 ↗ installation in old town which this

23:55 ↗ would entail removing the temporary

23:57 ↗ devices and coming back immediately and

24:00 ↗ installing permanent devices and these

24:02 ↗ these devices are all based on all of

24:05 ↗ the input we got from the from the pilot

24:08 ↗ project both the speed data and the

24:11 ↗ citizen data we are adding a couple

24:13 ↗ devices you'll see here in your map

24:17 ↗ that's in your packet I'm not sure how

24:18 ↗ well this will come up on the screen

24:19 ↗ that we are really streamlining the

24:21 ↗ devices were going with speed humps

24:24 ↗ generally throughout old town with the

24:27 ↗ exception of

24:29 ↗ the ones traffic circle which could look

24:32 ↗ something like this

24:33 ↗ and we are proposing it's our

24:36 ↗ recommendation to permanently remove the

24:39 ↗ no left turn signs we felt that when we

24:42 ↗ bagged them halfway through the pilot

24:43 ↗ program there was no special significant

24:47 ↗ change in either speeds or cut through

24:51 ↗ traffic

24:52 ↗ in addition based on input we received

24:54 ↗ from council Infrastructure Committee

24:56 ↗ and the public last week we are

24:59 ↗ proposing an additional speed hump on

25:01 ↗ Andrews Street so here they are perhaps

25:07 ↗ a little bit hard to read but pretty

25:09 ↗ simple to read really the purple

25:11 ↗ oval-shaped devices are all speed humps

25:16 ↗ and they are there's three of them along

25:17 ↗ alder Street on the north in the

25:20 ↗ vicinity here basically one per block

25:22 ↗ and then one at the entrance to the

25:24 ↗ North sunset

25:26 ↗ neighborhood and then a few more devices

25:30 ↗ this is where we saw the bulk of our

25:32 ↗ speeds and cut through traffic on the

25:34 ↗ south side of Sunset

25:35 ↗ so for device is actually on Bush along

25:38 ↗ here two devices on Andrews this was

25:42 ↗ where we added one there was previously

25:44 ↗ two to see I see there was one device in

25:47 ↗ this vicinity czar now we're pulling to

25:50 ↗ have we've always proposed to have a

25:52 ↗ traffic circle at the location here

25:55 ↗ because it it has a great impact on

25:58 ↗ speed and cut through in all four

26:00 ↗ directions there's an additional speed

26:02 ↗ hump proposed on fourth and then two on

26:05 ↗ six which was another Street that had a

26:08 ↗ lot of a lot of the cut through volumes

26:11 ↗ and speeds so there's been some

26:15 ↗ conversation about the alleys and

26:18 ↗ although this wasn't really a focus of

26:20 ↗ our initial pilot program we appreciate

26:24 ↗ that alley speeding and volumes may

26:27 ↗ continue to be an issue out there so we

26:29 ↗ are proposing to gather data traffic

26:33 ↗ counts and speeds for the alleys both

26:36 ↗ north and south of Sunset starting this

26:39 ↗ summer

26:40 ↗ getting a baseline of what's going on

26:42 ↗ out there this summer we know that

26:43 ↗ things change after school so then

26:45 ↗ coming back early fall after schools

26:47 ↗ back in session with a second set of

26:49 ↗ data and then analyzing that data and

26:52 ↗ determining what mitigation measures may

26:55 ↗ be appropriate if they're warranted and

26:57 ↗ our plan is to come back to CIC to

26:59 ↗ counsel CIC committee this fall with

27:02 ↗ those findings and recommendations

27:03 ↗ specific to the alley and most

27:07 ↗ importantly we're recommending to

27:09 ↗ council that we move forward in

27:12 ↗ approving its agenda bill which will

27:13 ↗ allow us to move forward and installing

27:16 ↗ these devices and that's all I have

27:21 ↗ Thank You Kurt a lot of questions hurt

27:24 ↗ its member Goodman thank you I have two

27:27 ↗ questions we heard a comment tonight

27:31 ↗ about there was a plan to follow up to

27:35 ↗ see how it's working I check back in can

27:38 ↗ you tell me what if that's so possible

27:40 ↗ and why are why not so I thought that

27:44 ↗ was a great idea we hadn't honestly we

27:45 ↗ hadn't planned to do that but it's a

27:47 ↗ great idea and we have enough data out

27:48 ↗ there certainly both from the pilot

27:52 ↗ program and going forward and data that

27:55 ↗ we'll have from the alleys certainly it

27:57 ↗ would be worth our while I'd honestly be

28:00 ↗ interested in hearing how the community

28:02 ↗ feels that it's working in six months so

28:04 ↗ we'll certainly I'll work with a

28:06 ↗ communications group here and see what

28:08 ↗ we can do to go back and pull the

28:10 ↗ community about how we're doing that's

28:11 ↗ always helpful to us as well thank you

28:14 ↗ we also received a comment since CI

28:17 ↗ since infrastructure about the word

28:20 ↗ permanent sure I'm interested I don't

28:24 ↗ have that and that seemed didn't seem to

28:27 ↗ be didn't seem to rise to a concern for

28:30 ↗ me but I want to hear what what you're

28:34 ↗ thinking about the use of the word

28:35 ↗ permanent what that means sure so it's a

28:39 ↗ great question so permanent we're using

28:41 ↗ the word permanent as in as opposed to a

28:48 ↗ pilot program when temporary devices so

28:50 ↗ permanent meaning we're going to remove

28:52 ↗ those temporary

28:53 ↗ devices which are typically rubber

28:55 ↗ rubber curbing and rubber bumps that are

29:00 ↗ nailed into the pavement removing those

29:02 ↗ and replacing them with permanent

29:05 ↗ asphalt becomes like you see in the

29:07 ↗ picture here I think if I heard some of

29:12 ↗ the comments from the community I think

29:13 ↗ one of the concerns with permanent was

29:15 ↗ this idea that we're going to do this

29:17 ↗ work in Old Town and then we'll say ok

29:20 ↗ we're done Old Town we're never coming

29:22 ↗ back and working with you in any way and

29:24 ↗ so that's just simply not the case are

29:27 ↗ any in Old Town anymore than anywhere

29:30 ↗ else in town and so where we feel I feel

29:32 ↗ like we've built a good relationship

29:34 ↗ with the Old Town Committee we certainly

29:36 ↗ want to maintain that and I think this

29:38 ↗ six-month idea of doing a follow-up is a

29:40 ↗ great one great way to do that but

29:42 ↗ certainly even in a shorter time than

29:45 ↗ the six months if there are things that

29:47 ↗ come up or things that we need to adjust

29:49 ↗ or change we're always looking for ways

29:54 ↗ to improve our transportation system

29:56 ↗ citywide in every community so permanent

29:59 ↗ in no way means we're done see you good

30:03 ↗ luck it means we're installing these

30:05 ↗ devices Thanks and then one more

30:07 ↗ question the removal of the signs yes

30:11 ↗ the no signs what's the harm in keeping

30:15 ↗ them there so yeah that's a good

30:18 ↗ question

30:19 ↗ I guess I would answer that by saying

30:23 ↗ the harm is well first of all as I

30:28 ↗ mentioned we did not our data didn't

30:31 ↗ show that they provide any additional

30:33 ↗ benefit the speeds and the cut through

30:36 ↗ traffic were reduced with a pilot

30:38 ↗ program with the signs there there were

30:42 ↗ no changes when we covered the sign so

30:44 ↗ our conclusion there is that the signs

30:46 ↗ really had no impact I guess to answer

30:49 ↗ your question about the harm a couple of

30:54 ↗ things come to mind one we don't really

30:56 ↗ want to have a lot of extra signs we've

30:58 ↗ got so many signs around the city as it

31:00 ↗ is we don't want science that really

31:02 ↗ don't

31:03 ↗ that aren't obeyed or followed if these

31:07 ↗ signs for them to really have impact

31:10 ↗ probably needs some some police

31:14 ↗ enforcement which has not been happening

31:17 ↗ in the past so I guess the short answer

31:20 ↗ is I don't think we need them I think

31:22 ↗ this this program that we have planned

31:25 ↗ the permanent installations works to

31:27 ↗ reduce traffic and so they're not

31:29 ↗ necessary they limit local behavior as

31:32 ↗ well if they're left in place well

31:35 ↗ that's another that's another good point

31:37 ↗ if one of the advantages of not having

31:41 ↗ them there is it allows local traffic to

31:43 ↗ make turns into their neighborhood in a

31:45 ↗ more direct way than they might have to

31:47 ↗ if they have to go down the second and

31:49 ↗ come back around let's say so so no

31:52 ↗ one's breaking the law with the signs

31:54 ↗ covered or gone and they can move they

31:57 ↗ can drive around their neighborhood on

31:59 ↗ the grid that was established for them

32:02 ↗ to drive around the neighborhood on so

32:05 ↗ that's another that's a that's a great

32:06 ↗ point actually of a reason to not have

32:10 ↗ the side place going forward thank you

32:18 ↗ thank you the traffic circles in council

32:23 ↗ Infrastructure Committee we talked about

32:25 ↗ some different options for what a

32:27 ↗ traffic circle could look like in the

32:29 ↗ final product and so I wondered if you

32:32 ↗ could explain the process that you will

32:35 ↗ use to decide what option they what

32:39 ↗ option you go with for the traffic

32:40 ↗ circle sure that's that's a really good

32:42 ↗ question I did we did discuss that a bit

32:45 ↗ in CIC and so one of the exciting

32:47 ↗ opportunities with this traffic circle I

32:49 ↗ think is we have an opportunity to

32:51 ↗ engage the neighborhood going forward

32:53 ↗ not so much in the design but of the

32:57 ↗ circle itself and the diameter and those

32:59 ↗ kinds of things will be relying on

33:02 ↗ traffic engineering judgment for that

33:05 ↗ but what happens on the inside of the

33:07 ↗ circle has some options and one of the

33:09 ↗ things that other jurisdictions City of

33:11 ↗ Seattle for example do

33:13 ↗ say if there's enough interest and

33:15 ↗ enough commitment from the neighbors

33:17 ↗ especially adjacent to the traffic

33:19 ↗ circle to maintain the traffic circle

33:22 ↗ we'd like to be open to that we'd like

33:25 ↗ to explore that opportunity for some

33:27 ↗ kind of a landscaping or some kind of a

33:29 ↗ treatment that we would work together

33:30 ↗ with a neighborhood to do in the center

33:33 ↗ we are not proposing irrigating the the

33:38 ↗ circle just because of the cost but

33:40 ↗ certainly if the neighbors were

33:41 ↗ interested in putting some low plants

33:44 ↗ there that wouldn't obstruct sight

33:45 ↗ distance and that they would maintain I

33:47 ↗ think we would be open to that we

33:48 ↗ haven't done to my knowledge haven't

33:50 ↗ done anything like that before but it

33:52 ↗ sounds interesting and certainly if we

33:54 ↗ can get some interest from the

33:56 ↗ neighborhood we'll be exploring that

33:58 ↗ going forward as we design this circle

34:00 ↗ thank you and I have one more question

34:02 ↗ there is a lot of other neighborhoods

34:05 ↗ around that have traffic issues and

34:07 ↗ similar concerns as the this old town

34:10 ↗ neighborhood had as far as the need for

34:12 ↗ traffic calming and as I understand it

34:15 ↗ the temporary devices can be moves

34:16 ↗ that's one of the benefits of using a

34:18 ↗ temporary devices in a pilot system and

34:21 ↗ so I wondered if you could talk a little

34:23 ↗ bit about next steps for the temporary

34:25 ↗ devices what what's the plan as far as

34:27 ↗ using them elsewhere in the city so

34:29 ↗ you're right those those that is a great

34:32 ↗ benefit of having these temporary pilot

34:35 ↗ program devices one thing that we know

34:38 ↗ that we need to do citywide is have a

34:42 ↗ more current more I would say useful and

34:47 ↗ more applicable traffic calming program

34:50 ↗ citywide so we're in the we're in the

34:52 ↗ process of updating our citywide traffic

34:54 ↗ calming program which currently the one

34:57 ↗ we have on the books now I think dates

34:59 ↗ to the early 2000 so that's getting

35:02 ↗ pretty old so we're in the process of

35:04 ↗ looking at best practices in the region

35:07 ↗ and taking those best practices and

35:10 ↗ applying to applying them to what we're

35:12 ↗ going to do here as well as all of the

35:16 ↗ good things that we've learned on this

35:17 ↗ pilot program so short answer is we're

35:20 ↗ going to be updating our traffic calming

35:23 ↗ program citywide

35:25 ↗ yes there may be opportunities to use

35:27 ↗ these devices in other parts of town but

35:29 ↗ we feel like the first most important

35:32 ↗ step initially is to update that traffic

35:34 ↗ calming program that's a work item a

35:37 ↗ 2018 work item still left to do so we're

35:41 ↗ hopefully planning to come back to

35:44 ↗ council CIC with more to come on that

35:48 ↗ traffic calming citywide program this

35:50 ↗ fall great so Kurt on page 197 of the

35:57 ↗ packet there's a financial breakdown of

35:59 ↗ all the costs associated with with

36:02 ↗ putting in the permanent traffic calming

36:04 ↗ measures could you just walk through

36:05 ↗ that I can and and you can skip over

36:07 ↗ from my point of view what speed humps

36:10 ↗ and traffic circles are but I'm kind of

36:12 ↗ curious about what the other things

36:13 ↗ include I'm gonna find it here without

36:22 ↗ going through hundred ninety-seven pages

36:24 ↗ so sure it's a short list and it's an

36:27 ↗ engineer's estimate and pretty standard

36:31 ↗ stuff there's unit prices for speed amps

36:33 ↗ and traffic circles as you mentioned

36:35 ↗ traffic control is the amount that we'll

36:38 ↗ need to pay the contractor to provide

36:41 ↗ traffic control during the installation

36:42 ↗ of the of the devices removal of

36:46 ↗ temporary devices is pretty

36:49 ↗ self-explanatory our plan there is to

36:53 ↗ somewhat sequentially or mostly

36:55 ↗ sequentially remove devices as we

36:57 ↗ install new ones so that we're never

36:59 ↗ really without traffic calming devices

37:01 ↗ on any of the streets a minor change is

37:04 ↗ a is a standard contract item that is in

37:07 ↗ there too just to cover any unforeseen

37:10 ↗ conditions and then mobilization is a

37:13 ↗ standard item as well that that

37:16 ↗ compensates the contractor for showing

37:18 ↗ up bringing all their equipment and

37:19 ↗ getting the site ready for construction

37:21 ↗ and then there in addition there is some

37:23 ↗ contingency on that estimate as you can

37:25 ↗ see and construction management is from

37:28 ↗ RN to manage the contract and the

37:31 ↗ construction thank you interesting thank

37:37 ↗ you

37:38 ↗ a couple of my questions already this

37:41 ↗ won't be a fantastic one however just so

37:44 ↗ I understand the data that's in the

37:46 ↗ report on the tables where you have the

37:47 ↗ data summary where you have the counts

37:50 ↗ just tell me a little bit about that I

37:52 ↗ you have are those I imagine that are

37:55 ↗ those are like average per day in some

37:57 ↗ window of time just where do those what

37:59 ↗ are those counts right so without

38:02 ↗ getting into all the messy details there

38:07 ↗ what you saw I don't know exactly all

38:10 ↗ what you have in your packet but just

38:11 ↗ looking at what I have in the agenda

38:13 ↗ bill that's what I have okay so that's

38:15 ↗ theirs it looks like what we've

38:18 ↗ summarized here and there's a lot more

38:20 ↗ data behind what you see here is just to

38:24 ↗ pick an example Bush Street so there was

38:28 ↗ three times where we collected data

38:29 ↗ April 2017 November 2017 and January

38:34 ↗ 2018 this we put a variety of speed

38:39 ↗ counters throughout the neighborhood so

38:41 ↗ we can find out exactly where this

38:44 ↗ location was but in general it's a long

38:47 ↗ Bush and it measures both the number of

38:52 ↗ cars number of vehicles and then the

38:54 ↗ 85th percentile speed which very briefly

38:57 ↗ is the speed at which 85% of the cars

39:01 ↗ are going or or less so 85% of cars for

39:06 ↗ example in this eastbound Bush Street

39:08 ↗ example are going 29 miles an hour or

39:10 ↗ less is that a does that know that

39:14 ↗ doesn't answer okay the next column over

39:17 ↗ there are the counts right so those are

39:20 ↗ the those like per day or in a window of

39:22 ↗ time during the day those would be

39:24 ↗ typically date those would be typically

39:26 ↗ average daily counts so X 200 vehicles

39:29 ↗ that day I believe yes okay so that's a

39:32 ↗ full 24-hour le that's that's all I was

39:35 ↗ wondering okay and we can certainly

39:38 ↗ provide any more data if you'd like I

39:39 ↗ just wanted to understand the numbers I

39:41 ↗ look at counts and there's 20-some trips

39:43 ↗ is that for a two-hour period or is it a

39:46 ↗ 24-hour period

39:48 ↗ thank you was it emotes thank you madam

39:51 ↗ mayor I'm two questions so I come from

39:54 ↗ Minnesota and they don't do these speed

39:56 ↗ hump things because it's bad for plows

39:58 ↗ so I have a question about we don't get

40:03 ↗ snow a lot but we do sometimes get snow

40:05 ↗ do we have any operational concerns I

40:07 ↗ mean oh I know we have a couple other

40:08 ↗ places the city we have speed humps but

40:10 ↗ if you have any operational concerns

40:12 ↗ about adding these speed humps to in

40:14 ↗ terms of the city's response to snow

40:16 ↗ events we we do we've worked closely

40:19 ↗ concerns is a fair word we work closely

40:21 ↗ with our operations folks and they have

40:23 ↗ concerns as you mentioned snow is not a

40:26 ↗ huge big deal here but when it snows

40:29 ↗ we like to plow our streets this is not

40:31 ↗ these are not our primary streets first

40:34 ↗ of all and but yes they're going to have

40:36 ↗ to use an additional amount of care on

40:38 ↗ these speed humps that they would not

40:40 ↗ have to if they weren't there so it's a

40:42 ↗ trade-off it's it's a similar kind of

40:44 ↗ embedded in your question but there's

40:46 ↗ similar concerns with a East Side Fire

40:49 ↗ and Rescue in response time same idea

40:52 ↗ they would prefer all else being equal

40:55 ↗ to not have them but they also

40:58 ↗ understand the pluses and minuses so I

41:01 ↗ think that in some ways applies both to

41:03 ↗ e4 and to our operations folks and then

41:07 ↗ the second part of my question is around

41:09 ↗ quality control so some of us have low

41:12 ↗ slung cars and if I was going to go over

41:14 ↗ to my friend council member Ramos his

41:17 ↗ house and how would I be confident that

41:21 ↗ I wouldn't be scraping the underside of

41:23 ↗ my car on these things so first of all

41:30 ↗ talk about so the typical speed hump is

41:36 ↗ a pretty standardized design nationwide

41:39 ↗ and it's not so this is a speed hump

41:42 ↗ that would be installed and right away

41:43 ↗ it's a very gradual I think it's about a

41:45 ↗ four inch height over about twelve feet

41:48 ↗ I'm not exactly those numbers may not be

41:51 ↗ exactly right but that's sort of the

41:52 ↗ scale of things so these are not what

41:54 ↗ you would see in a parking lot which are

41:56 ↗ fairly typically fairly short maybe only

41:59 ↗ a foot wide and maybe six inches tall

42:01 ↗ those are the

42:02 ↗ ones that will condemn Ajay loan cars

42:04 ↗ and really give you a jar that is not

42:06 ↗ what we're building here in an old town

42:09 ↗ but thank you for both those answers I

42:14 ↗ just have a follow-up on the cost number

42:17 ↗ so the construction management

42:19 ↗ that's our staffs time to manage the

42:22 ↗ work yes correct

42:25 ↗ yes are those resources new are those

42:29 ↗ already in the organization so those are

42:31 ↗ those are resources that we have are

42:34 ↗ typically the the way we do things is we

42:37 ↗ are inspectors in our engineers bill

42:39 ↗ against projects so I guess what I'm

42:44 ↗ really driving in there are those it's

42:46 ↗ part of what's coming before us is an

42:48 ↗ ask for new money net new money and I

42:51 ↗ think that those dollars already exist

42:53 ↗ right now so I think this ask is a

42:54 ↗ little bit inflated by that $50,000 okay

42:58 ↗ yeah I mean this is typically how we've

43:00 ↗ presented budgets so project budget yes

43:04 ↗ just so that the council can understand

43:06 ↗ the full costs what I was thinking is

43:12 ↗ that I think this makes sense I like

43:13 ↗ capturing all the costs including the

43:15 ↗ ones that are internal costs sure I

43:17 ↗ think when we get to the point of the

43:18 ↗ discussion about how many net new

43:20 ↗ dollars do we need to put into the

43:22 ↗ budget to fund this I don't think we

43:23 ↗ need that $50,000 I think those

43:25 ↗ resources are currently bad yes they are

43:27 ↗ those resources are budgeted thank you

43:34 ↗ thank you I just had a question

43:37 ↗ regarding the finances we have this the

43:42 ↗ recommendation is that this comes from

43:45 ↗ the school's own safety fund as opposed

43:47 ↗ to going forward in to the request for

43:50 ↗ the 2019 budget I and I'm not sure if

43:53 ↗ you have the answer to this but are

43:54 ↗ there other large projects that we would

43:59 ↗ be looking at that might be coming out

44:01 ↗ of that school's own fund safety fund

44:06 ↗ coming forward not that I'm not

44:08 ↗ immediately that I'm aware of this is

44:10 ↗ the only one

44:11 ↗ with a substantial amount of dollars

44:14 ↗ that's come and in fact I don't think

44:15 ↗ we've used this school this school fund

44:19 ↗ budget before so this is money that's

44:20 ↗ accumulated over the last few years and

44:23 ↗ it seemed like a good candidate seemed

44:25 ↗ like a good use of that money seems

44:27 ↗ consistent with the description of what

44:29 ↗ that money could be used for so that's

44:31 ↗ why we're proposing to take it from the

44:34 ↗ school we don't have if your question is

44:37 ↗ do we have other projects lined up to to

44:42 ↗ go against that money the answer's no

44:44 ↗ not not at this time

44:50 ↗ promise if you want to make a motion and

44:52 ↗ then as chair maybe provide a few

44:54 ↗ comments after yes I'll do there because

44:57 ↗ there was a few things in committee that

45:00 ↗ we didn't have absolutely 100% ironed

45:02 ↗ out so I'll read in motion here and then

45:05 ↗ I'll explain some of that parts of it so

45:08 ↗ move to approve the proposed

45:10 ↗ traffic-calming layout for Old Town as

45:13 ↗ one and to direct the finance director

45:16 ↗ to include three hundred ten thousand in

45:18 ↗ a subsequent 2018 budget amendment for

45:21 ↗ the Old Town traffic-calming project

45:23 ↗ utilizing school zone safety fund and

45:25 ↗ three authorize the administration to

45:28 ↗ enter into an execute construct

45:30 ↗ construction contract up to three

45:33 ↗ hundred ten thousand for removing the

45:35 ↗ temporary traffic calming devices and

45:36 ↗ installing traffic calming devices

45:39 ↗ consistent with the approved layout for

45:42 ↗ a second second it's been moved and

45:45 ↗ seconded and council member Ramos if

45:47 ↗ you'd like to give me so it's a little

45:49 ↗ more in-depth on because there's a few

45:50 ↗ things that from the committee meeting

45:53 ↗ three that I'll talk about first was

45:57 ↗ when we looked at the layout it was it

46:02 ↗ became obvious with with the there was

46:05 ↗ an additional from the temporary pilot

46:08 ↗ project there was an additional three

46:09 ↗ devices added and when we looked at all

46:12 ↗ that the it looked like Andrew Street

46:15 ↗ had much less devices than other streets

46:19 ↗ and it looks like I had a balance where

46:21 ↗ Andrews might be more attractive

46:24 ↗ folks then Bush so if you went around

46:26 ↗ the the 6th the bush way there was six

46:29 ↗ speed humps if you went the Andrews way

46:31 ↗ there was only two look at that and

46:34 ↗ there was a decision there we asked him

46:36 ↗ to look at Andrews and see if they could

46:38 ↗ consider doing something additional

46:40 ↗ Andrews which they did they added an

46:44 ↗ additional speed hump from what we

46:45 ↗ looked at it committee and that would be

46:48 ↗ between so between fourth and second

46:50 ↗ there be two versus one speed hump

46:52 ↗ everything else remaining the same so

46:54 ↗ that's the first item there was a change

46:56 ↗ their second item I did ask staff at

46:59 ↗ that time also to remove the word

47:02 ↗ permanent from being used and and that

47:05 ↗ was my request that wasn't done so it

47:08 ↗ was still there so I dropped those words

47:10 ↗ out of here because it gave the feeling

47:13 ↗ to two folks that this is a permanent

47:15 ↗ finished thing a hundred percent done

47:17 ↗ never gonna have to come back again and

47:19 ↗ look at it and things aren't permanent

47:21 ↗ you build them an asphalt nothing's

47:23 ↗ permanent an asphalt and so it the

47:25 ↗ difference is it's it's going from

47:27 ↗ temporary to more structural definitely

47:30 ↗ but permanent to me it gave a different

47:33 ↗ feel for that to the community and and

47:36 ↗ mr. Stevens talked about that and said

47:38 ↗ yes that's not correct we're we're not

47:40 ↗ gonna walk away and forget about this

47:41 ↗ neighborhood and so forth so he backed

47:43 ↗ that up so that was the second item and

47:45 ↗ the third one came after the fact where

47:50 ↗ Sheldon came to me and and mentioned

47:52 ↗ that the way this was written that they

47:56 ↗ would the city would have to come back

47:58 ↗ to Council for an additional agenda bill

48:00 ↗ just to execute the contract because we

48:03 ↗ didn't have the right wording in there

48:04 ↗ so item three of this motion is

48:06 ↗ basically just fixing that technical

48:09 ↗ glitch where we don't have to do an

48:11 ↗ agenda bill to actually authorize the

48:14 ↗ next contract and it may even not even

48:16 ↗ be it's some contract they may be added

48:18 ↗ on to an existing contract and and and

48:21 ↗ so that may happen as well so it would

48:24 ↗ be completed tonight with the addition

48:26 ↗ of item three on there and not have to

48:28 ↗ come back to Council for an additional

48:29 ↗ thing so those three changes of some

48:31 ↗ added additional device I took the word

48:34 ↗ permanent out and

48:36 ↗ we added item three to save us

48:39 ↗ approving another gender bill so those

48:42 ↗ are the three things that came kind of

48:44 ↗ after the committee met its member

48:48 ↗ Goodman thank you so I have questions so

48:51 ↗ my understanding and Billy he can

48:54 ↗ probably answer it sounds like one in to

48:57 ↗ where the recommendations that came out

48:59 ↗ of committee and number three was after

49:03 ↗ the fact right so it would seem to me

49:05 ↗ procedurally that one and two should be

49:07 ↗ the motion because that would be the

49:09 ↗ recommendation that came out of the

49:10 ↗ committee and that if a committee member

49:12 ↗ wanted to make a motion to amend the

49:15 ↗ recommendation that that would be that

49:17 ↗ would be procedurally the way to go

49:19 ↗ because the recommendation from the

49:20 ↗ committee was unanimous

49:23 ↗ as I recall right but there were a

49:26 ↗ couple other it wasn't a totally

49:29 ↗ complete because we had two items that

49:32 ↗ weren't complete as far as the devices

49:34 ↗ being at things are going to be added to

49:36 ↗ this so what we had but we asked him to

49:38 ↗ go back and do those things and I also

49:40 ↗ requested the word permanent be removed

49:42 ↗ so I mean check was that clerk on that

49:44 ↗ you know does it make sense to move one

49:48 ↗ in two as the main motion and then have

49:51 ↗ somebody amended or is it the way it's

49:52 ↗ structured still meeting your

49:54 ↗ requirements

49:59 ↗ it's fine

50:13 ↗ I saw the floor after you I guess my my

50:17 ↗ objection is that I understand what

50:18 ↗ you're saying bill but my understanding

50:21 ↗ and being on the committee is that it

50:24 ↗ was you did have a question about

50:25 ↗ permanent but the recommendation that

50:29 ↗ comes forward from the committee should

50:31 ↗ be the should be the motion that's made

50:33 ↗ and then there are amendments to the

50:35 ↗ motion that to me procedurally should be

50:37 ↗ though the way that it's done and then

50:40 ↗ the third item to kind of clean things

50:43 ↗ up number three that would that would be

50:46 ↗ an additional motion that's the way I

50:48 ↗ think it's proper because that's the way

50:50 ↗ the committees work and so I don't think

50:53 ↗ it's I don't think it's the right way to

50:56 ↗ go about it because I don't think that

50:57 ↗ it respects the committee's work to do

50:59 ↗ that so your path forward would be to

51:03 ↗ propose an amendment to the motion and

51:05 ↗ see if you get a second motion right now

51:09 ↗ includes all three parts I would propose

51:12 ↗ Kay that I would propose I would make a

51:14 ↗ memo I would move to amend the motion to

51:18 ↗ add the word permanent back in the

51:21 ↗ number one and to delete number three to

51:25 ↗ be a separate motion after we decide on

51:28 ↗ the committee's recommendation which was

51:31 ↗ be number one and two with the word

51:34 ↗ permanent it's been moved to amend the

51:37 ↗ motion is there a second second

51:44 ↗ I'm interested to hear about the current

51:49 ↗ the word permanent I think to me it was

51:51 ↗ to distinguish temporary devices from

51:57 ↗ longer term devices I do also to some

52:01 ↗ degree understands that concern about

52:02 ↗ permanent and the feeling that it's done

52:06 ↗ but I seconded the motion because I

52:10 ↗ think we could discuss it and if we're

52:13 ↗ gonna have a lot more traffic calming

52:15 ↗ devices using these temporary devices it

52:17 ↗ would be good to know how we how we go

52:19 ↗ forward using the correct terminology

52:21 ↗ for permanence if that's

52:24 ↗ if there's concerns about using that

52:26 ↗ terminology so I I don't have any

52:34 ↗ heartburn over the word permanent I

52:36 ↗ think it's just just like councilmember

52:38 ↗ Han said it's to distinguish between

52:40 ↗ temporary and not temporary and then we

52:42 ↗ heard from Curt seaman that the

52:44 ↗ intention is not to turn turn back on a

52:47 ↗ community but its we now have a

52:49 ↗ permanent plan permanent a way to

52:53 ↗ address traffic calming and it's not

52:55 ↗ just calling the police and hoping

52:58 ↗ they'll come or flagging down people and

53:00 ↗ asking them to slow down it's actually a

53:01 ↗ permanent a permanent installation so

53:05 ↗ that we it's a permanent plan that we've

53:07 ↗ installed it's no longer temporary it's

53:09 ↗ no longer a pilot and so I don't have

53:12 ↗ any heartburn over the use of the word

53:14 ↗ per minute at all I don't know and I

53:22 ↗ would like to comment before we vote as

53:26 ↗ president marts I'll comment so I will

53:31 ↗ be voting against this amendment I think

53:34 ↗ there's there's two separate issues here

53:36 ↗ right one is the use of the word

53:38 ↗ permanent I think because we've had some

53:41 ↗ public comment concerning use of the

53:44 ↗ word permanent I think it's fine to take

53:46 ↗ it out you know in terms of when a you

53:50 ↗ know there's a there's I believe without

53:53 ↗ looking it up that there's a lot of

53:55 ↗ precedent for bills that have

53:56 ↗ essentially what's effectively

53:59 ↗ housekeeping between coming back from

54:01 ↗ committee in and full council where the

54:04 ↗ intent permanent changes the intent I

54:06 ↗ will agree but number three seems to be

54:09 ↗ a housekeeping piece to basically

54:12 ↗ implement the policy that we that was

54:14 ↗ recommended out of committees so based

54:17 ↗ on that I would for not to set a

54:19 ↗ precedent that says that any changes

54:21 ↗ that come back I feel like this would if

54:23 ↗ we move forward this amendment that part

54:25 ↗ of it would set a precedent that says

54:26 ↗ that you know essentially any

54:28 ↗ housekeeping changes after committee

54:31 ↗ would have to come in as an amendment

54:33 ↗ and

54:34 ↗ I'm I don't think we need to do that so

54:36 ↗ but I do recognize the permanent pieces

54:39 ↗ is policy change thank you

54:42 ↗ that's a member a I'm struggling with

54:46 ↗ this a bit but when I think about it if

54:49 ↗ we amend it and take out part number

54:52 ↗ three we're going to just turn around

54:54 ↗ and amend it and put it back in because

54:56 ↗ it's it's good structure so as opposed

54:59 ↗ to getting all kind of caught up in the

55:01 ↗ process

55:02 ↗ I would rather move ahead with the

55:04 ↗ motion as currently offered and I think

55:09 ↗ it is our right to make as a council

55:13 ↗ member to make whatever motion we choose

55:15 ↗ to make on any issue that we choose are

55:19 ↗ we that we are talking about so I think

55:21 ↗ this was in council member Ramos --is

55:25 ↗ purview to make the motion the way he

55:27 ↗ did thank you I will call so what we are

55:34 ↗ voting on is an amendment to the main

55:36 ↗ motion that would remove the word

55:38 ↗ permanent from number one and remove the

55:41 ↗ third bullet authorized the

55:43 ↗ administration to enter into an executed

55:45 ↗ contract up to three hundred ten

55:46 ↗ thousand for removing the temporary

55:48 ↗ traffic calming devices and installing

55:50 ↗ permanent traffic calming devices

55:51 ↗ consistent with the approved layout

55:53 ↗ that's what's being removed all those in

55:56 ↗ favor of the amendment say aye aye

55:59 ↗ opposed amendment fails six to one

56:03 ↗ before going back to the main motion

56:06 ↗ councilmember may I just wanted to check

56:08 ↗ in with you on number three you had

56:10 ↗ talked about the $50,000 at this staff

56:14 ↗ time I would like to make a amendment to

56:18 ↗ the motion on point number two I'd like

56:21 ↗ to strike where it says three hundred

56:23 ↗ and ten thousand dollars and replace it

56:25 ↗ with two hundred and sixty thousand

56:26 ↗ dollars for the subsequent budget

56:28 ↗ amendment because the $50,000 is already

56:30 ↗ in the 2018 budget in in Public Works on

56:34 ↗ engineering budget and on section number

56:37 ↗ three I'd like to strike the three

56:39 ↗ hundred and ten thousand dollars and

56:40 ↗ replace it with two hundred sixty

56:42 ↗ thousand dollars as the contract

56:44 ↗ limit per the budget we looked at is

56:47 ↗ really only 260 thousand dollars not

56:49 ↗ $310,000 a second second maybe it's a

56:53 ↗ canker can I get you to come up and

56:55 ↗ address that I want to make sure that

56:57 ↗ that change isn't actually doing

56:58 ↗ something we didn't intend it to do it

57:04 ↗ so I think so I think that's fine I

57:05 ↗ think

57:06 ↗ as as I mentioned earlier our standard

57:09 ↗ way of preparing capital project budgets

57:13 ↗ is to show our time in the budget as we

57:16 ↗ have here the 50,000 but that's not it

57:19 ↗ we're not hiring anybody we're not

57:21 ↗ having to bring new people on to cover

57:23 ↗ that 50,000 that is staff that's

57:25 ↗ currently here at the city that would be

57:27 ↗ doing that construction inspection and

57:31 ↗ managing that construction project so no

57:35 ↗ new staff is involved no new dollars are

57:38 ↗ involved for that it's just it's just

57:41 ↗ simply the way we've shown our budgets

57:43 ↗ and maybe we want to maybe we want to

57:45 ↗ relook at that going forward but that's

57:47 ↗ that's what it is

57:49 ↗ I actually I think that's good I do

57:50 ↗ think the Council of Ages before it did

57:54 ↗ like to see full project cost so that

57:56 ↗ they understood both the internal and

57:58 ↗ external but under our financial

58:00 ↗ information section of our agenda bill

58:02 ↗ we can clarify what the contract ask is

58:04 ↗ yes thank you

58:05 ↗ so that's been moved and seconded as

58:08 ↗ their discussion councilmember winter

58:11 ↗ saying followed by some resident Mart's

58:13 ↗ and councilmember hen it's a little

58:17 ↗ unclear to me so I I thought we did

58:19 ↗ capex versus op x-type budgeting which

58:22 ↗ means you when you do capital projects

58:25 ↗ you authorized a budget for the entire

58:27 ↗ expenditure and we want to note that

58:29 ↗ this is coming from the the safety

58:32 ↗ camera fund we don't do it that way then

58:35 ↗ your accounting department doesn't have

58:37 ↗ a way of actually keeping track of the

58:39 ↗ internal staff time charged against that

58:41 ↗ fund so this is al this enables the type

58:45 ↗ of accounting that we do internally

58:48 ↗ doesn't it doesn't authorize additional

58:50 ↗ spend because there so I think this my

58:56 ↗ interpretation has always been that this

58:57 ↗ is

58:58 ↗ the type of accounting that we do that's

59:00 ↗ why it's in there and so III think it

59:03 ↗ should stay in there I don't think it

59:04 ↗ should be amended it's a person it

59:07 ↗ merits can you say that again I'm

59:12 ↗ confused

59:15 ↗ it's it's my understanding that and I

59:20 ↗ wish the someone finance was here that

59:22 ↗ we do for public works engineering the

59:25 ↗ type of account and we do what's known

59:27 ↗ as cap X versus op X capital versus

59:31 ↗ operational also capital expenditures

59:35 ↗ also sometimes known as project

59:37 ↗ expenditures where you identify when you

59:41 ↗ authorize a project and identify the

59:42 ↗ full funding source for that project you

59:45 ↗ consider the entire funding requirement

59:48 ↗ for that and in this case the with the

59:53 ↗ proposed money coming from the safety

59:56 ↗ camera fund by authorizing even that

1:00:00 ↗ online item for that amount into this

1:00:03 ↗ project budget then when the state's

1:00:07 ↗ Keith excuse me Kurt's staff whoever in

1:00:09 ↗ the staff works on this project and

1:00:11 ↗ allocating record their time it will go

1:00:14 ↗ against those dollars that came from

1:00:16 ↗ that fund and that's that because we

1:00:19 ↗ choose to do accounting that way and if

1:00:22 ↗ it doesn't then then their time would

1:00:26 ↗ just be come from the general fund and

1:00:30 ↗ we would lose visibility into how much

1:00:33 ↗ staff time was spent on this project got

1:00:37 ↗ it okay so my comments are I suspect

1:00:40 ↗ this is a larger issue than this one

1:00:43 ↗ particularly well and fortunately

1:00:45 ↗ several of the people who have brought

1:00:47 ↗ up questions here tonight are on the

1:00:48 ↗ ad-hoc Finance Committee they can

1:00:50 ↗ discuss it

1:00:51 ↗ my concern around my concern around this

1:00:58 ↗ issue is that we have many things that

1:01:01 ↗ come before us that involves staff time

1:01:04 ↗ and if we're gonna have two different

1:01:07 ↗ kinds of staff staff that we expect to

1:01:10 ↗ be able to recover

1:01:12 ↗ funds for and staff we don't then we

1:01:16 ↗ should plan accordingly but my concern

1:01:18 ↗ really revolves around getting to a

1:01:21 ↗ point where council has something that

1:01:23 ↗ we want to do and we say okay well

1:01:26 ↗ that's gonna take you know 10% of Chief

1:01:28 ↗ beer bombs time at you know some rate

1:01:31 ↗ and you know an FTE worth of the

1:01:34 ↗ communications department you know for

1:01:38 ↗ two months at some other rate and and

1:01:40 ↗ things that are expected to be part of

1:01:44 ↗ staffs normal operations getting

1:01:47 ↗ monetized in an attempt to show cost

1:01:53 ↗ where historically we haven't done that

1:01:55 ↗ right and this issue came up when we

1:01:58 ↗ discussed fireworks a couple years ago

1:02:00 ↗ and the city was thinking about doing

1:02:03 ↗ fireworks and we sort of monetized staff

1:02:07 ↗ time and said how much it was going to

1:02:10 ↗ cost in a way that didn't seem

1:02:13 ↗ consistent with how we normally consider

1:02:16 ↗ policy in the city so I don't know what

1:02:20 ↗ to do about this evening to be honest

1:02:23 ↗ with you but I think that we do need to

1:02:24 ↗ have a conversation about where we want

1:02:27 ↗ to track costs and its specifically

1:02:29 ↗ around people that are not billable and

1:02:31 ↗ making sure that however we do this we

1:02:34 ↗ don't all of a sudden attempt to you

1:02:38 ↗ know conflate policy costs with

1:02:41 ↗ non-billable staff I see that the

1:02:45 ↗ mayor's having a chat with our acting

1:02:49 ↗ City Administrator on this subject and

1:02:52 ↗ thinking maybe they have some thoughts

1:02:54 ↗ checking in with the acting interim City

1:03:00 ↗ Administrator and director of

1:03:01 ↗ sustainability there's a couple things

1:03:04 ↗ to think about

1:03:05 ↗ I believe councilmember winter stone is

1:03:07 ↗ right in the way we do our projects and

1:03:08 ↗ that all of the costs both our internal

1:03:11 ↗ and contract costs will come out of the

1:03:13 ↗ traffic-calming fund just meaning that

1:03:16 ↗ it's a bookkeeping thing the way they do

1:03:17 ↗ it however councilmember Ray

1:03:20 ↗ has a good point the contract itself

1:03:23 ↗ that's awarded which is mentioned once

1:03:24 ↗ is only 260 so it may not be a matter of

1:03:28 ↗ changing every time you see 310 to 260

1:03:31 ↗ but the award of the contract should not

1:03:34 ↗ exceed 260 so if I have this right David

1:03:38 ↗ direct the fight it would it would read

1:03:41 ↗ approve the proposed traffic calming

1:03:43 ↗ layout for Old Town number one number

1:03:45 ↗ two direct the finance director to

1:03:47 ↗ include three hundred ten thousand

1:03:49 ↗ dollars in a subsequent 2018 budget

1:03:51 ↗ adjust amendment for the Old Town

1:03:53 ↗ traffic calming project utilizing the

1:03:56 ↗ school safety fund and three authorize

1:03:59 ↗ the administration to enter into an

1:04:01 ↗ execute construction contract up to two

1:04:03 ↗ hundred and sixty thousand and that

1:04:05 ↗ might get you all where you want to be

1:04:07 ↗ like Anna councilmember Rea I don't

1:04:11 ↗ think that's right I still don't think

1:04:13 ↗ that's right because when we're asking

1:04:15 ↗ for a budget amendment we're actually

1:04:16 ↗ saying in my understandings we're asking

1:04:19 ↗ for new money from existing funds that

1:04:23 ↗ didn't exist in the 2018 budget is that

1:04:25 ↗ a correct assumption I'm making it's

1:04:32 ↗ adjusting the budget but it was not

1:04:35 ↗ money that was proposed was approved in

1:04:37 ↗ the 2018 budget yeah Kurt might be able

1:04:41 ↗ to help us here try calling a friend

1:04:42 ↗ when pwe tracks their time against

1:04:47 ↗ different projects in the end did a

1:04:52 ↗ salary cost line up with a salary item

1:04:54 ↗ in the budget so that this is not

1:04:55 ↗ actually asking for additional salary is

1:05:01 ↗ that your concern is we're actually

1:05:03 ↗ changing well I think what we're doing

1:05:04 ↗ is we're double accounting for this

1:05:06 ↗ $50,000 we've already put it in the

1:05:08 ↗ budget for pwe staff and now we're

1:05:12 ↗ asking for it again

1:05:14 ↗ so we're double counting for it and if

1:05:18 ↗ it's an issue of moving funds around I'm

1:05:20 ↗ okay with authorizing finance to move

1:05:23 ↗ funds around there they move between

1:05:25 ↗ fund balance I'm not okay with saying

1:05:28 ↗ here's an additional $50,000 for staff

1:05:30 ↗ time that you already have

1:05:32 ↗ so I think I get myself in trouble here

1:05:37 ↗ because I'm not don't know that much

1:05:39 ↗ about I can speak to how as I mentioned

1:05:42 ↗ earlier how Public Works engineering

1:05:45 ↗ tracks their cost which is what we've

1:05:47 ↗ shown here in this budget it's it's

1:05:49 ↗ along the lines of what mr. winter Stein

1:05:53 ↗ has spoken to which is it's a way of us

1:05:56 ↗ tracking our costs are real costs our

1:05:59 ↗ staff time against projects so that's

1:06:03 ↗ why we typically have it in our budgets

1:06:05 ↗ that's why it's shown here so that as we

1:06:07 ↗ move forward this project our inspectors

1:06:10 ↗ our our construction engineer all of

1:06:12 ↗ those folks will build to this project

1:06:14 ↗ and we will be able to track of the end

1:06:16 ↗ of day our real cost to that so that we

1:06:18 ↗ have a way of knowing how much time

1:06:20 ↗ projects take and also you're also right

1:06:27 ↗ that we're not to be clear not hiring

1:06:30 ↗ new staff or a new construction

1:06:33 ↗ inspection firm to do this work this is

1:06:36 ↗ work being done internally by our folks

1:06:38 ↗ in pwe or I think also councilmember is

1:06:41 ↗ say also not increasing an authorized

1:06:44 ↗ salary line already be in the budget

1:06:47 ↗ that's right as this concern it's a

1:06:49 ↗ track it's a it's an accounting it's a

1:06:51 ↗ tracking mm-hmm mechanism that's where

1:06:55 ↗ we're interesting councilmember ray I

1:06:58 ↗ might suggest that we go forward with

1:07:06 ↗ the way the mayor kind of rephrase that

1:07:08 ↗ potential change I think that was a

1:07:10 ↗ change on what the current motion on our

1:07:12 ↗ amendment is because it and and I would

1:07:18 ↗ vote in favor of that fully knowing that

1:07:24 ↗ there already has been appropriated in

1:07:28 ↗ some fund and maybe the general fund

1:07:30 ↗ maybe somewhere else

1:07:31 ↗ for the salaries of at least a portion

1:07:36 ↗ of the salaries of the employees that

1:07:39 ↗ would be included knowing fully well

1:07:41 ↗ that we're saying okay now money out of

1:07:43 ↗ this traffic safety fund we're going to

1:07:44 ↗ hear my

1:07:45 ↗ this for this project charge your time

1:07:46 ↗ against that not charge and therefore

1:07:48 ↗ don't burn the other dollars that have

1:07:50 ↗ already been allocated knowing I know

1:07:52 ↗ because that happens all the time but

1:07:55 ↗ then ask that finance could come back

1:07:59 ↗ and just answer that question for us and

1:08:01 ↗ then the council can decide if it wants

1:08:03 ↗ to take another corrective step in and

1:08:07 ↗ upping or lowering some amount of

1:08:10 ↗ approval in one of the funds aside

1:08:12 ↗ rather I think I think the chances are

1:08:15 ↗ that it's a normal and and there's no

1:08:18 ↗ harm to this practice but would ask that

1:08:22 ↗ we can come back and get clarification

1:08:23 ↗ and at that time decide if we need to

1:08:25 ↗ make an adjustment that's where I would

1:08:27 ↗ stand it's one clarification the motion

1:08:29 ↗ on the table right now uses 310,000 in

1:08:32 ↗ both parts okay right so I was

1:08:34 ↗ commenting about your version of that

1:08:37 ↗ should we amend the amendment where

1:08:41 ↗ should the amendment fail it's all never

1:08:43 ↗ had I have a clarifying question I'm not

1:08:46 ↗ sure who but does the does the amendment

1:08:51 ↗ to making this 260 thousand dollars

1:08:54 ↗ would that change the amount of money

1:08:56 ↗ that's taken from the school's own

1:08:59 ↗ safety fund for this project sounds like

1:09:04 ↗ a simple question I don't know I do

1:09:07 ↗ think that's kind of what I

1:09:09 ↗ councilmember winter Stein is saying

1:09:11 ↗ there's some accounting going on here

1:09:13 ↗ but tell us what Jack what is actually

1:09:14 ↗ going on here is that an allocation that

1:09:17 ↗ is taken out of the fund as well I don't

1:09:19 ↗ have that answer that is what I believe

1:09:22 ↗ we were being asked to bring back okay

1:09:24 ↗ that because that seems like that

1:09:26 ↗ fundamentally changes whether this is a

1:09:30 ↗ a amendment that is actually just

1:09:34 ↗ clarifying how the money is being moved

1:09:36 ↗ around versus actually saying that we're

1:09:38 ↗ gonna take less money from a specific

1:09:41 ↗ funds that is separate from the existing

1:09:43 ↗ fund system balance I believe if the

1:09:46 ↗ budget adjustment says 310 thousand

1:09:49 ↗ dollars which is point number two that's

1:09:52 ↗ the one where I have to come back and

1:09:54 ↗ tell Council whether or not that's three

1:09:56 ↗ hundred and ten thousand out of that

1:09:57 ↗ and or if the salary stay where they are

1:09:59 ↗ on the second the third point though I

1:10:02 ↗ believe what we're trying to do the

1:10:03 ↗ council member raised to make sure we

1:10:05 ↗ don't award a contract in excess of two

1:10:08 ↗ hundred and sixty thousand dollars which

1:10:09 ↗ seems to be the outside external

1:10:11 ↗ contract cause if I might a

1:10:18 ↗ clarification question what is a two

1:10:21 ↗ thousand eighteen budget amendment what

1:10:24 ↗ is it I mean what does that document do

1:10:26 ↗ I mean I think it's really at the heart

1:10:29 ↗ of this question because if what we're

1:10:31 ↗ really asking to do is to move funds

1:10:33 ↗ around and that's all the amendment does

1:10:35 ↗ then that's a different question if this

1:10:37 ↗ is saying this is going to be an

1:10:38 ↗ increase to our 2018 budget of some

1:10:41 ↗ amount I just can't get I can't get

1:10:43 ↗ there because there's there's cost

1:10:45 ↗ accounting which is what Kurt's talk to

1:10:47 ↗ which is I tracked my costs and I know

1:10:48 ↗ what goes where and I can I can do good

1:10:50 ↗ reporting and that's just good practice

1:10:52 ↗ and I'm all for that but then there's

1:10:54 ↗ Financial Accounting which is a

1:10:56 ↗ completely different beast which says

1:10:57 ↗ this is what money comes in and this is

1:10:59 ↗ what money goes out and here's what it

1:11:01 ↗ went out to do and you know and in that

1:11:03 ↗ financial accounting there's the fund

1:11:04 ↗ accounting so I'm okay if we want to

1:11:06 ↗ move move things around from funds but

1:11:11 ↗ I'm not okay with authorizing another

1:11:12 ↗ three hundred and ten thousand dollars

1:11:14 ↗ for this project cuz that's overstates

1:11:17 ↗ the cost of the city of doing this work

1:11:19 ↗ so I think there's three parts to that

1:11:21 ↗ one is the the project budging I think

1:11:26 ↗ everybody's kind of getting that now why

1:11:28 ↗ we try and put all the costs in there

1:11:30 ↗ the budget amendment and you're you are

1:11:33 ↗ giving the administration you are

1:11:35 ↗ authorizing us to spend this amount from

1:11:38 ↗ this account and it is in addition to

1:11:40 ↗ the other authorizations you've given

1:11:42 ↗ under the 2018 budget so yes it's added

1:11:45 ↗ on it's an add-on so I would be okay if

1:11:48 ↗ we said and we're going to take fifty

1:11:49 ↗ thousand dollars in an a doing negative

1:11:53 ↗ entry coming out of the pwe salary fund

1:11:57 ↗ part of the bookkeeping I cannot give

1:12:00 ↗ you the answer on tonight I assume

1:12:01 ↗ that's what you want yeah but I don't

1:12:03 ↗ have that answer for you tonight

1:12:05 ↗ you're right that is the that is the

1:12:07 ↗ finance system versus

1:12:10 ↗ budget amendment which is so much that's

1:12:13 ↗ not so not something I can answer

1:12:15 ↗ tonight so that may may be hard for you

1:12:18 ↗ to vote so I think and I'm hardly

1:12:22 ↗ chairing this meeting but I think we

1:12:24 ↗ have a couple of options I think if it

1:12:27 ↗ is the will of the council to make point

1:12:32 ↗ number two read $310,000 we can amend

1:12:37 ↗ the amendment change that or I would be

1:12:43 ↗ happy to take these two things

1:12:45 ↗ separately and withdraw the amendment

1:12:47 ↗ that's currently on the table and make

1:12:50 ↗ make two separate amendments and and

1:12:52 ↗ deal with these two line items

1:12:53 ↗ separately okay so I believe there is no

1:12:57 ↗ amendment on the table right now we're

1:12:58 ↗ doing the main motion okay so you'd like

1:13:04 ↗ to remove that with the agreement of

1:13:05 ↗ your second and then vote on these

1:13:07 ↗ individually I think that would be

1:13:08 ↗ cleaner and and I think it would make

1:13:10 ↗ for an easier discussion okay so the

1:13:13 ↗ proposed amendment to adjust dollar

1:13:16 ↗ amount in point three from three hundred

1:13:18 ↗ ten thousand to two hundred and sixty

1:13:20 ↗ thousand the maker of the motion and the

1:13:22 ↗ second are agreed to withdraw the

1:13:23 ↗ amendment yeah was it was it was in

1:13:26 ↗ point to destroy three point right to

1:13:28 ↗ and replace it with sixty and in point

1:13:31 ↗ three to strike 310 and replace it with

1:13:33 ↗ juices so both of those yes and the

1:13:35 ↗ maker of the motion and the second

1:13:37 ↗ degree

1:13:37 ↗ reisi which they were you were drawing

1:13:39 ↗ it I'm withdrawing the motion I'm gonna

1:13:41 ↗ and I'm gonna make another amendment

1:13:43 ↗ i'm ii agree easier i'm at least least

1:13:50 ↗ tied here so I'd like to move to amend

1:13:53 ↗ the motion on the table to strike

1:13:56 ↗ three hundred and ten thousand dollars

1:13:58 ↗ from point number three for the contract

1:14:01 ↗ construction contract and replace it

1:14:04 ↗ with two hundred and sixty thousand

1:14:06 ↗ dollars second we have been seconded and

1:14:10 ↗ we'll deal with this amendment first

1:14:12 ↗ discussion that's right we're

1:14:14 ↗ interesting yeah I think this would be a

1:14:16 ↗ mistake I think it's it's your

1:14:20 ↗ the negative the this but I said earlier

1:14:24 ↗ about maybe having the finance come back

1:14:27 ↗ and tell us kind of how they would do

1:14:29 ↗ this but by authoring the 3:10 that

1:14:32 ↗ allows the the budget amendment would

1:14:34 ↗ come through and said let's take you

1:14:36 ↗ know fifty of this out of that fund and

1:14:38 ↗ we'll move it to whatever fun pays the

1:14:40 ↗ salaries for occurred staff and then

1:14:43 ↗ they could charge against it that will

1:14:45 ↗ happen and that's what we want to have

1:14:47 ↗ happen now is they're already fifty and

1:14:50 ↗ a fun somewhere to pay for those

1:14:52 ↗ salaries perhaps and that's what I'm

1:14:53 ↗ saying let's have let's get a

1:14:55 ↗ clarification and then at that time we

1:14:57 ↗ think we need to make some adjustment we

1:14:59 ↗ do it then but by this proposal you're

1:15:01 ↗ not allowing you're basically saying

1:15:03 ↗ Kurt you and your team can't do cost

1:15:05 ↗ accounting that's not right no that

1:15:08 ↗ that's not what I'm saying because

1:15:09 ↗ that's why I'm talking about point three

1:15:11 ↗ I'm saying that we are not only we

1:15:13 ↗ should only authorize the mayor or the

1:15:16 ↗ the administration to sign a

1:15:19 ↗ construction contract up to two hundred

1:15:21 ↗ sixty thousand dollars because that

1:15:22 ↗ contract does not include any - didn't

1:15:26 ↗ you know I was taking the easy one first

1:15:30 ↗ I thought so I just want to be clear

1:15:33 ↗ that the contract award would be capped

1:15:35 ↗ at 360 not 260 thank you not at 310 so

1:15:39 ↗ so I apologize I misunderstood that

1:15:42 ↗ motion so if your so the motion is to

1:15:46 ↗ change number three to 260 correct okay

1:15:49 ↗ I did misunderstand that I understand it

1:15:53 ↗ okay so I guess I see the law what's

1:16:02 ↗ going on here and this is historically a

1:16:04 ↗ problem I've had continue with the

1:16:06 ↗ budget also and it is a reason why at

1:16:08 ↗ the end of the year we always have way

1:16:10 ↗ under spent our budgets because we add

1:16:13 ↗ amendments that always add all these

1:16:15 ↗ full costs that have already been

1:16:17 ↗ accounted for somewhere else and we

1:16:19 ↗ never take out amendments only add they

1:16:21 ↗ never take out they're never balance

1:16:22 ↗ they never do that and I see in this

1:16:25 ↗ case it's critical because it's shifting

1:16:27 ↗ to a different fund so in this case we

1:16:29 ↗ really have to show it because we do

1:16:31 ↗ want to pay those

1:16:32 ↗ folks out of this fund not uh the other

1:16:34 ↗ funds it would be shown for our normally

1:16:37 ↗ charged you so this is a problem I like

1:16:40 ↗ to really take on in a long term here

1:16:42 ↗ hopefully finance community folks are

1:16:45 ↗ working on that because this is it is it

1:16:48 ↗ is very misleading because it always

1:16:50 ↗ looks like we're adding all this extra

1:16:52 ↗ money to the budget often we are not so

1:16:55 ↗ in this case today I would be supporting

1:16:57 ↗ this amendment as we've gotten it now

1:16:59 ↗ but I do want to work in the future to

1:17:01 ↗ show those that we don't keep adding

1:17:03 ↗ costs in or an amendment budget

1:17:05 ↗ amendments could also take costs out if

1:17:07 ↗ we're moving them around or doing

1:17:08 ↗ something with it so we can be a little

1:17:09 ↗ more accurate and not have a whole bunch

1:17:11 ↗ of under spent budget at the end of the

1:17:12 ↗ year and it looks like we didn't do

1:17:15 ↗ something whatever it looks very strange

1:17:16 ↗ thank you thank you any other comments

1:17:20 ↗ it's my good man I just think it's been

1:17:22 ↗ a very long time if ever that we've seen

1:17:25 ↗ a project that shows the staff time for

1:17:28 ↗ design and construction management so I

1:17:29 ↗ think that's part of the confusion and I

1:17:32 ↗ think that the other confusion was just

1:17:33 ↗ a simple language and the agenda thought

1:17:36 ↗ that could have cleared that I don't

1:17:37 ↗ it's unfortunate that it was that

1:17:39 ↗ convoluted thanks more comment I'm gonna

1:17:44 ↗ call for the vote on the amendment and

1:17:46 ↗ the amendment is 4.3 authorize the

1:17:50 ↗ administration to enter into an execute

1:17:52 ↗ construction contracts up to two hundred

1:17:54 ↗ and sixty thousand dollars for removing

1:17:56 ↗ the temporary traffic calming devices

1:17:57 ↗ and installing traffic calming devices

1:17:59 ↗ consistent with approve layout all in

1:18:01 ↗ favor of the amendment I those passes

1:18:05 ↗ unanimously

1:18:06 ↗ did you have a second amendment do not

1:18:08 ↗ okay are there other any other

1:18:11 ↗ amendments or additional discussion

1:18:13 ↗ let's member Goodman thank you so I

1:18:18 ↗ wanted compliment staff for the work

1:18:21 ↗ that you did on this pilot project I

1:18:23 ↗ think it was fantastic and we've heard

1:18:25 ↗ almost nothing but positive comments

1:18:27 ↗ about how this project to how this

1:18:30 ↗ temporary pilot project went down and I

1:18:33 ↗ also want to thank the community for

1:18:36 ↗ somebody mentioned 17 years that's been

1:18:39 ↗ way longer than 17 years it's been since

1:18:40 ↗ the 90s that this community this

1:18:43 ↗ area of town has been concerned about

1:18:45 ↗ traffic through the neighborhoods and so

1:18:48 ↗ I want to thank the community for being

1:18:49 ↗ patient and diligent and what I think

1:18:52 ↗ has been very respectful in facing some

1:19:00 ↗ really not good conditions for a long

1:19:03 ↗ long long long period of time so I'm

1:19:05 ↗ very excited about this for the for the

1:19:07 ↗ neighborhood and just really happy that

1:19:11 ↗ we're finally getting this done thank

1:19:13 ↗ you other comments

1:19:15 ↗ council member Ramos followed by

1:19:17 ↗ councilmember hunt yeah yes I too would

1:19:20 ↗ like to thank everybody involved in this

1:19:22 ↗ it was it was a while incoming I think

1:19:25 ↗ we've got something that everybody's

1:19:26 ↗ gonna feel pretty good with just a

1:19:28 ↗ little aside that thank you also for

1:19:30 ↗ getting the chicane Zout as quickly as

1:19:33 ↗ possible I would just mention that when

1:19:36 ↗ they came out that day and the speed

1:19:37 ↗ hump went in and the first few cars that

1:19:39 ↗ flew down the street didn't see the

1:19:41 ↗ chicanes and they hit that hump pretty

1:19:42 ↗ hard and got some air but other than

1:19:44 ↗ that they were surprised and it didn't

1:19:46 ↗ happen a second time but yeah I think

1:19:50 ↗ it's gonna be a great addition the

1:19:51 ↗ neighborhood I think is really working

1:19:52 ↗ well as you can see we don't have a lot

1:19:54 ↗ of people here trying to change it again

1:19:58 ↗ so I think that shows the good work and

1:20:00 ↗ thanks to staff and all the the data

1:20:03 ↗ collection and analyzing all that stuff

1:20:05 ↗ to show what we had and get something's

1:20:07 ↗ gonna work for the long term and it's my

1:20:09 ↗ neighborhood so I'm behind it as well

1:20:13 ↗ that's member hunt thank you I want to

1:20:16 ↗ echo a lot of things that councilmember

1:20:18 ↗ Goodman and Councilman Ramos said I

1:20:19 ↗ think this was a pilot in a number of

1:20:21 ↗ ways and it it showed in the data a

1:20:26 ↗ reduction in speeds and a reduction in

1:20:28 ↗ number of cars so it was successful in

1:20:29 ↗ that way and I think it was also

1:20:30 ↗ successful in terms of engagement with

1:20:33 ↗ the community and it's something that

1:20:35 ↗ it's really important that the community

1:20:36 ↗ engages on because there are traffic

1:20:38 ↗ devices right in front of their homes

1:20:40 ↗ potentially and they affect day to day

1:20:42 ↗ life so I thought it was a successful

1:20:45 ↗ pilot in a number of ways that I think

1:20:48 ↗ we learned a lot and I'm excited that

1:20:50 ↗ these are temporary devices that were in

1:20:52 ↗ the pilot and the

1:20:53 ↗ they can be used in other places and

1:20:54 ↗ that we can use the lessons learned in

1:20:57 ↗ other parts of the city where they have

1:20:59 ↗ similar ongoing concerns and I did want

1:21:03 ↗ to mention one other thing from the

1:21:06 ↗ council Infrastructure Committee which

1:21:08 ↗ is that the staff really took into

1:21:11 ↗ account our concerns about the alleys

1:21:14 ↗ and I think that that for me is the

1:21:16 ↗ remaining piece here for this particular

1:21:18 ↗ neighborhood because the alleys there is

1:21:21 ↗ is this concern I'm glad that we're

1:21:23 ↗ going to collect and evaluate the data

1:21:26 ↗ and see if we can do something about

1:21:28 ↗ that it was not in the original plans

1:21:30 ↗ but it's one of the things that we

1:21:32 ↗ learned about again the process of

1:21:35 ↗ learning from this pilot was that there

1:21:36 ↗ is this ongoing concern about the alleys

1:21:39 ↗ and so I would like to see that

1:21:40 ↗ addressed and again I just wanted to

1:21:43 ↗ thank the community for coming out and I

1:21:45 ↗ think this was a good example of the

1:21:46 ↗ community being engaged and listening

1:21:49 ↗ respectfully on all sides thank you we

1:21:53 ↗ understand quickly I want to echo those

1:21:56 ↗ comments and those made earlier about

1:21:58 ↗ thanking the community for their

1:21:59 ↗ participation I did that walkabout and

1:22:03 ↗ to get to this point you know it's a

1:22:05 ↗ really good example of very active

1:22:07 ↗ participation in your local government

1:22:09 ↗ and your voices were part of this

1:22:11 ↗ solution so thank you very much I also

1:22:15 ↗ remember last year when this is being

1:22:17 ↗ proposed occurred and I sat in an

1:22:20 ↗ infrastructure meeting down at one of

1:22:21 ↗ these tables with you and you seemed

1:22:23 ↗ kind of generally excited about this

1:22:25 ↗ idea of doing a pilot because I think in

1:22:29 ↗ your experience you hadn't done

1:22:30 ↗ something like this and I hope that the

1:22:34 ↗ way that this is concluding or at least

1:22:35 ↗ where it is at this stage right now what

1:22:38 ↗ you you got out of that what you learned

1:22:39 ↗ you'll be able to you know take that

1:22:40 ↗ back and and kind of reapply I think

1:22:43 ↗ some of the practices and the approaches

1:22:45 ↗ that we learned here and applied here in

1:22:47 ↗ in future projects so I'm grateful you

1:22:50 ↗ had that chance as well my last comment

1:22:51 ↗ would simply be I think this is we can a

1:22:55 ↗ we can check one box

1:22:56 ↗ I think our to-do list related to old

1:22:59 ↗ town there's a number

1:23:00 ↗ of other things and I for one am very

1:23:01 ↗ very interested in and sidewalks and

1:23:05 ↗ stormwater and other things about the

1:23:08 ↗ mobility infrastructure in that area and

1:23:10 ↗ look forward to discussing and doing

1:23:13 ↗ something about that with the rest of

1:23:15 ↗ you in the near future thank you I just

1:23:19 ↗ wanted to echo what a lot of council

1:23:22 ↗ members have already said I just wanted

1:23:24 ↗ to thank the community for all of the

1:23:27 ↗ input and the patience this has been a

1:23:30 ↗ long time coming and it's something that

1:23:31 ↗ I'm excited to see going forward and

1:23:33 ↗ also just in regard to the pilot project

1:23:36 ↗ being able to look at that and seeing

1:23:38 ↗ that be a success and a model that we

1:23:41 ↗ can use going forward I think that's

1:23:42 ↗ really important Thanks thank you any

1:23:46 ↗ other comments before we vote I am gonna

1:23:49 ↗ read the motion because it was changed

1:23:51 ↗ many times I want to make sure I have

1:23:53 ↗ all the words right it was moved to

1:23:55 ↗ approve the proposed traffic calming

1:23:57 ↗ layout for Old Town and direct the

1:24:00 ↗ finance director to include three

1:24:01 ↗ hundred and ten thousand dollars in a

1:24:03 ↗ subsequent 2018 budget amendment for the

1:24:06 ↗ Old Town traffic calming project

1:24:08 ↗ utilizing the school's own safety fund

1:24:11 ↗ and authorizing the administration to

1:24:13 ↗ enter into and execute construction

1:24:16 ↗ contracts up to two hundred and sixty

1:24:18 ↗ thousand dollars or removing the

1:24:20 ↗ temporary traffic calming devices and

1:24:23 ↗ installing traffic calming devices

1:24:25 ↗ consistent with the approved layout all

1:24:28 ↗ those in favor say aye all right those

1:24:31 ↗ motion carries unanimously thank you and

1:24:34 ↗ Kurt please make sure to pass on praise

1:24:38 ↗ to John Martinson as well this was his

1:24:40 ↗ project and he wasn't able to be with us

1:24:42 ↗ tonight but it's it's been good thank

1:24:45 ↗ you

1:24:45 ↗ next order of business this evening is

1:24:47 ↗ good of the order does anybody have

1:24:49 ↗ anything for good of the order I have a

1:24:53 ↗ couple of items anybody else okay

1:24:57 ↗ July 9th council work session the agenda

1:25:01 ↗ items will include the water system plan

1:25:03 ↗ again permitted land uses in central

1:25:06 ↗ Issaquah development and citywide

1:25:09 ↗ strategic plan the July 16th regular

1:25:12 ↗ Council

1:25:12 ↗ the potential and Genda items include

1:25:14 ↗ the consideration to adopt the perk

1:25:17 ↗ strategic plan consideration to approve

1:25:20 ↗ the West Ridge north preliminary plat

1:25:21 ↗ and that one is the quasi-judicial

1:25:24 ↗ closed record item I had a couple of

1:25:28 ↗ items I wanted to go over from the

1:25:29 ↗ Cascade Water Alliance Finance Committee

1:25:32 ↗ Vickie mentioned a couple of them

1:25:34 ↗ briefly but they are going to be making

1:25:35 ↗ some changes to their financial policies

1:25:38 ↗ and they wanted us to bring it back to

1:25:40 ↗ each of the governing bodies just to run

1:25:42 ↗ them by you I sent it out earlier by

1:25:44 ↗ email the first one was cascade was

1:25:48 ↗ desiring to adopt two-year rates with

1:25:51 ↗ the truing up in the second year prior

1:25:53 ↗ to the presentation of the next two-year

1:25:56 ↗ draft budget and there are some pros and

1:26:01 ↗ some cons to that which I put in the

1:26:03 ↗ email we're not on a two-year budget

1:26:05 ↗ cycle yet but many of our partners

1:26:08 ↗ cities and agencies are but we are

1:26:11 ↗ likely headed that way the one concern

1:26:13 ↗ that I had heard is that if their rates

1:26:16 ↗ are not as accurate as they could be in

1:26:21 ↗ the second year the city may actually be

1:26:24 ↗ paying ahead for that year until the

1:26:26 ↗ truing up occurs later on in the year so

1:26:28 ↗ any concerns with that or any comments

1:26:30 ↗ on that one that's a member Goodman it

1:26:32 ↗ does the finance director have any had

1:26:35 ↗ did she have any comments on it I have

1:26:38 ↗ not had comments back from the finance

1:26:40 ↗ director yet I have just had comments

1:26:42 ↗ back from executive office and public

1:26:45 ↗ works so if she has concerns with it

1:26:48 ↗ I will I can put those bring those back

1:26:50 ↗ to the Cascade board thank you the

1:26:53 ↗ second one was whether or not cascade

1:26:56 ↗ should adopt two-year are CFC rates

1:27:01 ↗ which are the fees that we charge folks

1:27:03 ↗ to join into our system this one seemed

1:27:05 ↗ to not be very controversial the number

1:27:08 ↗ of connection charges per new service

1:27:12 ↗ has been fairly consistent and their

1:27:14 ↗ pricing has been fairly consistent for a

1:27:15 ↗ very long time this did not generate a

1:27:17 ↗ lot of discussion

1:27:18 ↗ he concerns men

1:27:23 ↗ the last item what level of seismic

1:27:25 ↗ resiliency should cascade budget to did

1:27:27 ↗ cause quite a discussion in the finance

1:27:29 ↗ committee right now cascade is proposing

1:27:34 ↗ $200,000 per year to fund this new item

1:27:38 ↗ which would be a way to prepare for

1:27:43 ↗ emergencies by stockpiling high pipes

1:27:46 ↗ and parts on the east side so that

1:27:49 ↗ during an earthquake or another major

1:27:51 ↗ event

1:27:51 ↗ our crews cascade crews could our

1:27:55 ↗ seattle crews could work together to

1:27:58 ↗ repair infrastructure get it back online

1:28:01 ↗ faster the concerns that we heard and I

1:28:05 ↗ did get this from both Public Works

1:28:07 ↗ operations and engineering is that we do

1:28:09 ↗ that already for our system and concern

1:28:12 ↗ that this might be a duplicative effort

1:28:14 ↗ where everybody's stockpiling stuff

1:28:16 ↗ everywhere to a higher degree than we

1:28:18 ↗ need to this one said it was a bit

1:28:21 ↗ controversial and it reminds me of when

1:28:24 ↗ he said Fire and Rescue was looking to

1:28:26 ↗ set up an emergency fund a few years ago

1:28:28 ↗ and the partners all came forward and

1:28:30 ↗ said we have reserve funds and we don't

1:28:32 ↗ want to be using taxpayer rates or fees

1:28:35 ↗ to set up duplicative funds so your

1:28:38 ↗ thoughts on this one that's better than

1:28:41 ↗ marks my thoughts would be you said it

1:28:44 ↗ was $200,000 per year the bogie so my

1:28:47 ↗ question is do we have an understanding

1:28:50 ↗ of what we think the fiscal or I

1:28:53 ↗ shouldn't say fiscal risk do we think we

1:28:55 ↗ have an understanding of what the

1:28:56 ↗ resiliency needs would be and how does

1:28:59 ↗ this compare if we think that you know

1:29:02 ↗ there's going to be in the event of

1:29:05 ↗ either you have to think right two

1:29:06 ↗ different scenarios one's a Cascadia

1:29:08 ↗ subduction fault the other as a surface

1:29:10 ↗ fault and I don't know which has larger

1:29:13 ↗ implications because I think a

1:29:14 ↗ subduction fault causes more Ridge

1:29:17 ↗ failures but a surface fault might cause

1:29:19 ↗ more bomb ruptures local ruptures so I

1:29:23 ↗ don't know but if you consider those and

1:29:25 ↗ you say okay there's some risk

1:29:27 ↗ associated with it and let's say it's

1:29:29 ↗ ten million dollars a year or ten

1:29:31 ↗ million bucks right for the system well

1:29:34 ↗ it might be that you know 200

1:29:35 ↗ thousand from cascade water plus

1:29:38 ↗ whatever we're doing are both steps in

1:29:41 ↗ the right direction but maybe neither

1:29:42 ↗ sufficient but if we feel like we

1:29:45 ↗ understand the risk and we as a city are

1:29:49 ↗ stockpiling to a sufficient level for

1:29:52 ↗ that risk than I do then I could see the

1:29:54 ↗ concern about being duplicative so to me

1:29:57 ↗ it's really how do these two efforts

1:29:58 ↗ compare to the assess risk and does that

1:30:02 ↗ risk do we know more as a result of

1:30:05 ↗ cascading rising which looked

1:30:07 ↗ specifically at a subduction fault so I

1:30:09 ↗ believe right now because it's strictly

1:30:11 ↗ from the financial point of view they do

1:30:13 ↗ not have that risk

1:30:14 ↗ all right mount that you're talking

1:30:16 ↗ about nor the information about what

1:30:18 ↗ various jurisdictions or Seattle is

1:30:20 ↗ doing I think the thought was to just

1:30:22 ↗ this was a financially responsible thing

1:30:25 ↗ to do so a great suggestion if they do

1:30:27 ↗ not have the number would be to say that

1:30:29 ↗ we asked them to do more homework and

1:30:32 ↗ come back when they have the picture to

1:30:34 ↗ starts doing this instead of starting to

1:30:36 ↗ do this before we have the true number

1:30:38 ↗ sure the other number and I think they

1:30:40 ↗ could do that partially by looking at

1:30:41 ↗ historically comparable earthquakes like

1:30:43 ↗ Northridge and see how Northridge

1:30:45 ↗ affected these sorts of infrastructure

1:30:48 ↗ okay any other comments I would I would

1:30:53 ↗ kind of 10-degree was looking at that

1:30:55 ↗ what is the true thing being on the

1:30:56 ↗ emergency management committee those are

1:30:58 ↗ the kind of things you look at

1:30:59 ↗ regionally because it's all connected

1:31:01 ↗ right and if it's just I mean to just by

1:31:05 ↗ stockpile pipes is you know by itself is

1:31:08 ↗ a little we need a little more than that

1:31:11 ↗ to go with it and then when it happened

1:31:14 ↗ when those things happen what do we

1:31:15 ↗ really need to respond it's going to be

1:31:18 ↗ not just pipes right thank you those are

1:31:21 ↗ really good comments I'll take those

1:31:22 ↗ back the last four good of the order

1:31:24 ↗ item that I had was I Sheldon from

1:31:28 ↗ Public Works out engineering has been

1:31:30 ↗ meeting frequently throughout the 62nd

1:31:32 ↗ Avenue project with Sammamish plateau

1:31:34 ↗ water to discuss a water main

1:31:36 ↗ replacement are a sewer replacement that

1:31:39 ↗ the city agreed to cost share was

1:31:40 ↗ Sammamish plateau during the

1:31:42 ↗ construction of 62nd Avenue so I know

1:31:45 ↗ it's come to infrastructure occasionally

1:31:47 ↗ for updates

1:31:48 ↗ all through their project and including

1:31:50 ↗ the pre-loading on their project our

1:31:52 ↗ public works director has been

1:31:54 ↗ collecting data with a hope to go back

1:31:56 ↗ to Sammamish plateau water and ask if

1:31:59 ↗ they would reconsider the ILA if data

1:32:01 ↗ showed that settlement was not causing a

1:32:03 ↗ problem for their installation and that

1:32:06 ↗ the pipe itself had significant amount

1:32:09 ↗ of life left I attended the Sammamish

1:32:11 ↗ putzi Water District Board meeting today

1:32:13 ↗ I asked them if they would consider a

1:32:16 ↗ opener and they said yes

1:32:20 ↗ it's a three hundred and sixty thousand

1:32:22 ↗ dollar project one hundred and eighty

1:32:23 ↗ thousand each to secuence summit and

1:32:25 ↗ Spanish I'm not sure within our

1:32:28 ↗ timeframe to stay on schedule we can

1:32:30 ↗ actually get this done

1:32:32 ↗ so I talked with the public works

1:32:34 ↗ director today about a parallel track so

1:32:37 ↗ we will continue to plan for and begin

1:32:40 ↗ pre-construction on the replacement of

1:32:41 ↗ the pipe while over the next two to four

1:32:43 ↗ weeks we work on whether or not they're

1:32:46 ↗ willing to leave the installation as it

1:32:48 ↗ is which would be a cost savings of

1:32:50 ↗ three hundred and sixty thousand dollars

1:32:51 ↗ to two jurisdictions so I'm marginally

1:32:54 ↗ hopeful I think it's a good idea and I

1:32:57 ↗ just want to let you know that that was

1:32:59 ↗ sort of in play right now anybody else

1:33:04 ↗ have any other items okay

1:33:10 ↗ there will be no executive session this

1:33:12 ↗ evening so there being no further

1:33:14 ↗ business we are adjourned at 8:30 for

1:33:29 ↗ you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Mariah Bettise

Stacy Goodman

Victoria Hunt

Tola Marts

Bill Ramos

Chris Reh

Paul Winterstein

Motions and votes (4)

1) Approve the proposed traffic calming layout for Olde Town; and 2) Direct the Finance Director to include $310,000 in a subsequent 2018 budget amendment for the Olde Town Traffic Calming Project, utilizing the School Zone Safety Fund; and 3) Authorize the Administration to enter into and execute c…

Moved by RAMOS · seconded by HUNT

Carried 7-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by HUNT

Failed 1-6

Moved by REH · seconded by RAMOS

Carried 7-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 7-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein