City Council Regular Meeting

Monday, October 15, 2018

7:00 PM · 3h 23m · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

Topics tracked across meetings:

Human Services Grant Review Follow Up - Applications, Review Card, Funding Allocation, (D) AB 7651 › 1/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 15, 2018 → Human Services Commission · Jun 15, 2022

View full lifecycle → Next: Human Services Commission · Jun 15, 2022 ▶

4Culture King County Sustained Support Grant AB 7678 › 1/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 15, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · May 20, 2019

View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · May 20, 2019 ▶

Amending School Impact Fees AB 7640 ›››› 4/5

City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 18, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Aug 6, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 4, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 15, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 3, 2018

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 4, 2018 View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 3, 2018 ▶

Olde Town Subarea Plan Update AB 7326 ››››››››››››› 13/14

Planning Policy Commission · Jan 28, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 7, 2016 → Planning Policy Commission · Feb 9, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 20, 2017 → Planning Policy Commission · Apr 27, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · May 15, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Aug 7, 2017 → Planning Policy Commission · Mar 1, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Mar 19, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 19, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · May 10, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 4, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 15, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 19, 2018

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 4, 2018 View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 19, 2018 ▶

Proposed Amendments to Central Standards Table 4.3B Permitted Land Uses AB 7661 ››››››› 7/8

City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 4, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 18, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Jul 18, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Aug 23, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Aug 23, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 4, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 15, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 19, 2018

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 4, 2018 View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 19, 2018 ▶

Central Issaquah Zoning for Old Route 10 (East Gilman Blvd.) and Intensive Commercial Areas AB 7643 ›››››› 6/7

City Council Regular Meeting · May 21, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Jun 26, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Jun 28, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 28, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 24, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 15, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 19, 2018

◀ Prev: Planning Policy Commission · Jun 28, 2018 View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 19, 2018 ▶

Proposed 2019 Budget: Levy and Revenue Sources AB 7611 ›› 1/3

City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 15, 2018 → City Council Special Meeting · Oct 22, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 5, 2018

View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Special Meeting · Oct 22, 2018 ▶

Amendments to IMC 13.24.090, General Facility Charge and Regional Supply and Treatment Charge - Water AB 7647 › 1/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 15, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 5, 2018

View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 5, 2018 ▶

Expedited Traffic Enforcement Pilot Project Summary Report & Extension AB 7655 › 2/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 4, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 15, 2018

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 4, 2018 View full lifecycle →

3. SPECIAL BUSINESS

Proposed 2019 Budget: Mayor's Presentation ID 0357

packet pp.5–7

Topics: Budget

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Executive Office 130 E. Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3020 issaquahwa.gov

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll of Oct. 15, 2018, $ 5,533,996.76 ID 0318

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.9–156

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 48:40 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

Pursuant to 42.24.080 RCW, I, Renee Wasisco, 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 Regular Meeting, Oct. 1, 2018

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.157–161

▶ Watch from 49:21 Open packet at p.157 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR b) 10-01-18 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page [0000]

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

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

Olde Town Subarea Plan Update AB 7326

Carried 7-0

Refer to Council Land & Shore Committee · packet pp.163–342

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jan 28, 2016 City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 7, 2016 Planning Policy Commission · Apr 27, 2017 Planning Policy Commission · Mar 1, 2018 Planning Policy Commission · Mar 19, 2018 Planning Policy Commission · May 10, 2018

▶ Watch from 50:02 Open packet at p.163 ↗

Staff report:

D. Response to Council Questions E. Revised Plan as of July 2017 Nov. 2017 Sept. 2018 (revised) F. Comparison Table (new)

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

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

Proposed 2019 Budget: Levy and Revenue Sources AB 7611

Carried 7-0

Set Public Hearing · packet pp.343–349

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 50:43 Open packet at p.343 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Finance 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

Local Government Investment Pool Authorization AB 7628

Carried 7-0

Approve Resolution · packet pp.351–367

▶ Watch from 51:23 Open packet at p.351 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Finance 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

Central Issaquah Zoning for Old Route 10 (East Gilman Blvd.) and Intensive Commercial Areas AB 7643

Carried 7-0

Refer to Council Land & Shore Committee · packet pp.369–442

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · May 21, 2018 Planning Policy Commission · Jun 26, 2018 Planning Policy Commission · Jun 28, 2018 City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 28, 2018 City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 24, 2018

▶ Watch from 52:04 Open packet at p.369 ↗

Staff report:

The City Council ended the development moratorium on May 21, 2018 following approval of the Central Issaquah District Vision update. The District Vision update included removing two areas (Exhibit B) from the Central Issaquah area that were determined to be different than the rest of Central Issaquah: 15 parcels zoned Intensive Commercial that do not have frontage on East Lake Sammamish Parkway SE

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

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

Amendments to IMC 13.24.090, General Facility Charge and Regional Supply and Treatment Charge - Water AB 7647

Carried 7-0

Refer to Council Infrastructure Committee · packet pp.443–452

Topics: Land UseWater

▶ Watch from 52:45 Open packet at p.443 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Engineering 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

Human Services Grant Funding Recommendations AB 7651

Carried 7-0

Refer to Council Services & Safety · packet pp.453–474

Topics: Public SafetyBudgetEquity

▶ Watch from 53:26 Open packet at p.453 ↗

Staff report:

SUMMARY STATEMENT

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

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

Expedited Traffic Enforcement Pilot Project Summary Report & Extension AB 7655

Carried 7-0

Authorize · packet pp.475–529

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 54:07 Open packet at p.475 ↗

Staff report:

At the March 19, 2018, Council meeting, Council authorized the Expedited Enforcement Pilot Project (AB 7563) as an interim option to address traffic concerns until the police department is up to full staffing, projected spring of 2019.

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

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

Proposed Amendments to Central Standards Table 4.3B Permitted Land Uses AB 7661

Carried 7-0

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.531–604

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jul 18, 2018 Planning Policy Commission · Aug 23, 2018 City Council Regular Meeting · Aug 23, 2018

▶ Watch from 54:47 Open packet at p.531 ↗

Staff report:

On May 21, 2018, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2837, limiting Self-Storage Units in specific zones within Central Issaquah.

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

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

4Culture King County Sustained Support Grant AB 7678

Carried 7-0

Accept Project · packet pp.605–606

▶ Watch from 55:28 Open packet at p.605 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Executive 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

9. REGULAR BUSINESS

Amending School Impact Fees AB 7640

Carried 7-0

Direct Administration; Refer to Council · packet pp.637–677

Topics: BudgetSchools

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 18, 2017

▶ Watch from 1:10:20 Open packet at p.637 ↗

Staff report:

UPDATED CITY COUNCIL AB 7640 - AGENDA BILL Regular City Council Regular Meeting - 15 Oct 2018 Business

Roll call:

Moved by REH · seconded by HUNT

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

10. GOOD OF THE ORDER

10a

Upcoming Council Meetings

▶ Watch from 2:31:39

3507 segments .txt ↗

0:14 ↗ good evening welcome everyone

0:17 ↗ I'm calling the October 15th regular

0:19 ↗ City Council meeting to order on our

0:22 ↗ agenda this evening

0:24 ↗ Pledge of Allegiance I'd like to ask

0:25 ↗ those who'd like to join the council and

0:27 ↗ myself in the pledge of allegiance to

0:28 ↗ please stand

0:33 ↗ [Music]

0:47 ↗ big crowd in the house tonight that's

0:50 ↗ gonna be kind of fun under special

0:53 ↗ business this evening we have one item

0:56 ↗ it is I do three five seven and it is

0:59 ↗ the proposed 2019 budget I'll be doing a

1:02 ↗ presentation this evening council did

1:05 ↗ receive the budget on Friday so good

1:10 ↗ evening and welcome City Council members

1:12 ↗ and members of the community both here

1:14 ↗ tonight and at home I'm excited this

1:17 ↗ evening to present to you the 2019

1:20 ↗ preliminary budget for the city of

1:22 ↗ Issaquah I've intentionally prepared

1:25 ↗ this preliminary budget as a maintenance

1:27 ↗ budget as we await the adoption of our

1:29 ↗ strategic plan in 2019 it is critical

1:33 ↗ that we continue to build upon our

1:35 ↗ commitment to financial stewardship as

1:38 ↗ we look to align future budget decisions

1:40 ↗ with community goals over the next five

1:42 ↗ years and a key piece of that work will

1:45 ↗ be to directly link budget proposals to

1:48 ↗ key strategic plan priorities this

1:51 ↗ year's work on the strategic plan tees

1:53 ↗ up our city for that important

1:54 ↗ transition as we plan next year for our

1:57 ↗ 2020 budget in this maintenance budget I

2:01 ↗ am proposing we hold the line on new

2:02 ↗ initiatives until the adoption of the

2:04 ↗ strategic plan it's still present a

2:07 ↗ reality-based budget there are many

2:10 ↗ competing and pressing needs that all

2:12 ↗ cities consider especially one like

2:14 ↗ Issaquah that is growing urbanizing and

2:16 ↗ modernizing it is critical we make wise

2:19 ↗ choices on how to allocate resources we

2:22 ↗ need to take care of what we have but we

2:24 ↗ also need to find ways to pay for our

2:26 ↗ growing needs in my first year as mayor

2:30 ↗ the budget development process made it

2:32 ↗ quite clear that we have two top

2:34 ↗ investment priorities

2:35 ↗ people and tools simply put our city

2:38 ↗ delivers services to the community and

2:40 ↗ the efficiency and the effectiveness of

2:43 ↗ those services depends on having the

2:45 ↗ tools and resources to deliver them yet

2:48 ↗ our staffing levels are still below

2:50 ↗ where they were prior to the Great

2:52 ↗ Recession in 2008 nearly ten years ago

2:55 ↗ even though our community has grown

2:57 ↗ nearly 40 percent since the

2:59 ↗ though as population growth has put

3:01 ↗ further pressure on demand for services

3:03 ↗ we have fewer staff to meet that demand

3:06 ↗ in other words we are doing far more

3:09 ↗ with far less it is unsustainable

3:12 ↗ without ongoing reductions in our city

3:13 ↗ service levels in addition to population

3:17 ↗ growth and increased demand for services

3:18 ↗ the city has assumed infrastructure from

3:21 ↗ new development and redevelopment that

3:23 ↗ infrastructure includes roads utilities

3:26 ↗ and parks built by developers and turned

3:29 ↗ over to the city we have assumed the

3:31 ↗ maintenance and operations that go along

3:33 ↗ with new developments and we have not

3:35 ↗ allocated additional resources or

3:37 ↗ identified increased revenues to cover

3:39 ↗ these additional ongoing maintenance and

3:41 ↗ operational expenses we need to invest

3:46 ↗ appropriately in order to meet these

3:48 ↗ growing demands before I move into a

3:56 ↗ deeper dive on the 2019 preliminary

3:58 ↗ budget I would like to share some

4:00 ↗ exciting news with you tonight by

4:02 ↗ looking back on the projects of 2018 and

4:05 ↗ the impact that they have had on

4:06 ↗ neighborhood character transportation

4:09 ↗ community engagement and government

4:11 ↗ transparency preserving our

4:13 ↗ neighborhoods is a priority new

4:15 ↗ development codes for central Issaquah

4:17 ↗ the Highlands and talus provided more

4:19 ↗ prescriptive language to guide

4:21 ↗ development to meet the community and

4:23 ↗ the neighborhoods expectations these new

4:26 ↗ codes have provided some muscle to

4:28 ↗ handle the future development and

4:29 ↗ redevelopment occurring in town we also

4:32 ↗ focused on traffic coming in established

4:35 ↗ neighborhoods to discourage cut through

4:37 ↗ traffic and speeding because these

4:39 ↗ driving behaviors negatively impact our

4:41 ↗ neighborhoods council also supported

4:44 ↗ enhanced police enforcement to address

4:46 ↗ the inappropriate driving behaviors to

4:48 ↗ take back our streets from those that

4:50 ↗ speed and block intersections our

4:53 ↗ residents also benefit from expenditures

4:55 ↗ to improve Central Park and the

4:57 ↗ community center providing outstanding

4:59 ↗ opportunities for recreation and

5:01 ↗ enjoyment of our amazing outdoors and

5:04 ↗ community facilities we're making

5:06 ↗ progress on our transportation needs

5:08 ↗ thanks to an aggressive schedule to

5:11 ↗ complete a suite of projects

5:13 ↗ including the under crossing of i-90 and

5:15 ↗ the Costco development these roadways

5:17 ↗ and trails in the north side of i-90 are

5:19 ↗ scheduled to be open by January of 2019

5:24 ↗ they will provide improved local

5:26 ↗ mobility options for residents and

5:28 ↗ businesses southeast 4th will again

5:31 ↗ connect the north and south sides of the

5:32 ↗ freeway the completion of the design a

5:35 ↗ southeast 43rd way intersection

5:37 ↗ improvements and the design work on two

5:39 ↗ sections of our longest unimproved

5:41 ↗ arterial Newport Way are important

5:43 ↗ investments in the network I'm excited

5:46 ↗ about the work we did this year to focus

5:48 ↗ on community engagement and government

5:50 ↗ transparency I think we can all be proud

5:53 ↗ of the broadcasting of additional

5:54 ↗ citizen boarding commission meetings

5:56 ↗ this year and the fact that our staff

5:58 ↗ hosted over 30 community meetings so far

6:01 ↗ in 2018 investment in technology and

6:05 ↗ staffing approved last year made all of

6:07 ↗ this possible it was much more work

6:10 ↗ completed and underway this year but

6:12 ↗ this short list was meant to provide an

6:14 ↗ example of the positive impacts of the

6:16 ↗ council investment in projects and

6:18 ↗ programs approved this current year I

6:20 ↗ also want to mention two other current

6:23 ↗ conditions that impact our future and

6:25 ↗ these are that first we are still

6:28 ↗ experiencing a strong local economy in a

6:30 ↗ region that is growing in second from

6:33 ↗ our city's own financial perspective we

6:36 ↗ have a healthy ending fund balance which

6:38 ↗ can be used to complete projects that

6:40 ↗ add value and benefit to our community

6:42 ↗ this position gives us some latitude to

6:45 ↗ think about how to use one-time

6:47 ↗ resources to pay for infrastructure

6:49 ↗ needs but at the same time we must

6:52 ↗ compel ourselves to look at how to meet

6:54 ↗ current and future maintenance and

6:56 ↗ operational demands it would be similar

7:04 ↗ to having money in a 401k and a savings

7:07 ↗ account and still needing additional

7:09 ↗ income to pay a monthly mortgage or to

7:12 ↗ buy a car that's the position we find

7:14 ↗ ourselves in today

7:15 ↗ so now let's look at the financial

7:17 ↗ realities we're facing

7:18 ↗ well we are stable and there is no

7:20 ↗ looming financial crisis we need to

7:22 ↗ acknowledge our funding limitations and

7:24 ↗ tackle them head on

7:25 ↗ we are not meeting the challenge of

7:27 ↗ funding our capital needs and our

7:29 ↗ ongoing operating expenses in a nutshell

7:31 ↗ we have a healthy cash balance account

7:34 ↗ but we do not have a plan to deal with

7:36 ↗ our capital and operating funding

7:37 ↗ shortfalls going forward and into the

7:39 ↗ future

7:40 ↗ we see relatively moderate forecasted

7:43 ↗ revenue growth in 2019 which is not

7:45 ↗ keeping pace with our growing community

7:47 ↗ and poses significant challenges for our

7:50 ↗ community in our city 2019 preliminary

7:53 ↗ budget does two things

7:55 ↗ Lance our ongoing expenses around

7:57 ↗ revenue sources and recognises the

8:00 ↗ healthy ending fund balance could also

8:02 ↗ be utilized in part to fund some limited

8:05 ↗ one-time expenses it also comes with an

8:08 ↗ era of restraint and a challenge to all

8:10 ↗ of us to work together in 2019 to

8:13 ↗ develop strategies to address the gaps

8:15 ↗ in both operating and capital

8:16 ↗ expenditures and ongoing revenue sources

8:19 ↗ in light of that I would like to outline

8:21 ↗ how our budget adoption process has been

8:23 ↗ determined and how resources were

8:25 ↗ identified for the 2019 preliminary

8:28 ↗ budget recommendations some aspects of

8:31 ↗ this year's budget process are new first

8:34 ↗ I submitted a budget and briefed to the

8:36 ↗ council on community in advance of the

8:38 ↗ delivery of this preliminary budget

8:41 ↗ second I plan to focus presentations on

8:44 ↗ those items of the 2019 preliminary

8:46 ↗ budget that present material differences

8:49 ↗ from the 2018 budget including changes

8:52 ↗ in personnel significant work plan items

8:55 ↗ and capital projects as well as changes

8:58 ↗ related to policy or regulatory drivers

9:00 ↗ we will be working from data produced by

9:03 ↗ quest Iike the new budget software

9:05 ↗ approved by council in 2017 ultimately

9:09 ↗ the software will allow us to run

9:10 ↗ scenarios report data that is tied to

9:13 ↗ strategic goals and give everybody

9:15 ↗ including community members greater

9:17 ↗ access to budget information this new

9:20 ↗ tool will help us make better informed

9:22 ↗ decisions about prioritizing our

9:24 ↗ investments third in the next few weeks

9:27 ↗ we will discuss reauthorization of 2018

9:30 ↗ allocated funds for priority project

9:33 ↗ work that was planned for completion in

9:35 ↗ 2018 but will carry forward to 2019

9:38 ↗ and we will update the council on the

9:40 ↗ impacts that this will have on the

9:42 ↗ estimated 2018 ending fund balance this

9:46 ↗ list of reauthorized allocations may not

9:48 ↗ have been as apparent in previous budget

9:50 ↗ presentations or I'm proud of the work

9:54 ↗ our council ad-hoc financial committee

9:56 ↗ completed this year in looking into our

9:59 ↗ capital funding constraints their work

10:01 ↗ will feed into your upcoming budget

10:03 ↗ deliberations this year is you discuss

10:06 ↗ funding for those capital projects that

10:08 ↗ were approved in the adopted capital

10:10 ↗ improvement plan for 2019 but did not

10:13 ↗ have identified funding sources such as

10:17 ↗ the intersection improvements at

10:19 ↗ southeast 40 Third Way and Central Park

10:21 ↗ in the highlands preliminary budget

10:24 ↗ before you tonight does not include the

10:26 ↗ impacts of fully funding those projects

10:28 ↗ and as Council deliver deliberates over

10:31 ↗ those preferred funding scenarios in the

10:33 ↗ next few weeks we will need to reflect

10:35 ↗ those expenditures into the tooth out in

10:37 ↗ the 2019 preliminary budget this will

10:41 ↗ feel different since we have now moved

10:42 ↗ to a two-year capital improvement plan

10:44 ↗ process if the 2019 preliminary budget

10:48 ↗ is all about the numbers in the past we

10:50 ↗ have spent a good amount of time

10:51 ↗ preparing the introductory and

10:53 ↗ supplementary sections which provided

10:55 ↗ community profiles and other narrative

10:57 ↗ pieces adopted by the budget when

11:01 ↗ published will include most of those

11:03 ↗ pieces so we can have a commute week so

11:05 ↗ we can have community context when it's

11:07 ↗ published with these slight

11:09 ↗ modifications to the budget deliberation

11:11 ↗ and adoption process the key elements

11:14 ↗ will remain familiar to those who have

11:17 ↗ participated in deliberations in

11:19 ↗ previous years we will answer questions

11:21 ↗ from Council members on any budget item

11:23 ↗ even though we will focus our

11:25 ↗ presentation on items that are

11:26 ↗ significant differences from the 2018

11:29 ↗ budget we will also track proposed

11:32 ↗ council adjustments to the budget using

11:34 ↗ the budget deliberation spreadsheet from

11:36 ↗ previous years that will be familiar to

11:39 ↗ most of those that have been part of

11:41 ↗ past budget approvals and with that I

11:44 ↗ would like to share with you the

11:45 ↗ highlights of this year's budget first

11:47 ↗ we are continuing continuing our

11:49 ↗ technology upgrades

11:51 ↗ in today's digital age in a region that

11:53 ↗ leads the evolving digital revolution

11:55 ↗ most of our residents and businesses

11:58 ↗ access information through our website

12:00 ↗ yet we have not had an upgrade since

12:02 ↗ 2012 our community has told us they want

12:06 ↗ an improved more intuitive online

12:08 ↗ interface with their government and we

12:10 ↗ will be investing in those improvements

12:12 ↗ this upcoming year including a new

12:14 ↗ online customer response management

12:16 ↗ system I'm particularly excited about

12:19 ↗ this project this new tool will enable

12:22 ↗ our residents and customers to send us

12:24 ↗ requests online and we'll be able to tie

12:27 ↗ those requests to mapping and reporting

12:29 ↗ tools so that the council and community

12:32 ↗ can view the information online in

12:35 ↗ addition we will enhance our customer

12:37 ↗ service practices to be in direct

12:39 ↗ alignment with this new tool and to help

12:41 ↗ us deliver the best possible responses

12:44 ↗ further we need to make it simple and

12:46 ↗ convenient for our community to engage

12:48 ↗ and connect business with the city for

12:50 ↗ example our community expects to be able

12:52 ↗ to complete transactions with the city

12:54 ↗ electronically meet those expectations I

12:58 ↗ proposed implementing self-service tools

13:00 ↗ in both utility billing and Recreation

13:03 ↗ program registration in tandem with

13:05 ↗ these deeper investments and online

13:07 ↗ services we must also be responsible by

13:10 ↗ investing in more advanced cyber

13:12 ↗ security systems to protect data

13:14 ↗ infrastructure and public funds in an

13:17 ↗ age of increasing threats website update

13:21 ↗ online customer billing opportunities

13:23 ↗ and the investments in cyber security

13:25 ↗ are three of the many technology

13:27 ↗ investments the city anticipates

13:29 ↗ implementing over the next several years

13:31 ↗ provide the community engagement and

13:34 ↗ customer customer service the community

13:35 ↗ expects second and proposing an

13:39 ↗ investment in staffing resources the

13:41 ↗ city has not kept pace with the growing

13:43 ↗ service demands and while there is a

13:45 ↗ significant list of required new

13:47 ↗ positions

13:48 ↗ I'm only proposing those positions this

13:50 ↗ year they can be funded by the limited

13:52 ↗ increase in ongoing revenues this was

13:55 ↗ probably the hardest part of my team's

13:57 ↗ work this year and they appreciate very

14:00 ↗ much their cooperation as we work

14:02 ↗ through the various

14:03 ↗ scenarios I propose adding five staff

14:07 ↗ five new staffing positions and

14:09 ↗ converting six existing staffing

14:11 ↗ positions these staff resources will

14:14 ↗ help us take care of our streets and

14:15 ↗ parks manage our budget track and

14:19 ↗ analyze our employment costs fill our

14:21 ↗ vacant positions more quickly through

14:23 ↗ our analytical and public reporting

14:25 ↗ capacities and provide greater

14:27 ↗ environmental protection lastly

14:30 ↗ following on the good work that has been

14:32 ↗ completed this year with the approved

14:34 ↗ space plan allocation for 2018 we must

14:38 ↗ continue to talk about our future

14:40 ↗ facility needs while maintaining the

14:42 ↗ aging facilities we currently occupy we

14:45 ↗ will continue to work on our city's

14:47 ↗ facilities inventory and continue the

14:49 ↗ conversation that has been gun the gun

14:51 ↗ this year with Council on what the

14:54 ↗ near-term and long-term facility plan

14:55 ↗ will look like in the years ahead we

14:59 ↗ have included expenditures in this

15:00 ↗ budget to maintain the facilities we

15:02 ↗ have now recognizing the council to

15:05 ↗ stock discussion is not yet complete it

15:08 ↗ should use restraint on the investments

15:10 ↗ in maintenance next year while

15:11 ↗ recognizing that due to the age of our

15:13 ↗ facilities we must invest to maintain

15:16 ↗ operations and functionality the

15:18 ↗ facility's discussion will continue

15:19 ↗ through 2019 and will require council

15:23 ↗ decisions and direction prior to the

15:25 ↗ development of the next capital

15:27 ↗ improvement plan which will be under

15:29 ↗ development next year the minor facility

15:32 ↗ improvements proposed in this budget

15:33 ↗ includes investment in our two city

15:35 ↗ halls so that we can more efficiently

15:37 ↗ house our staff improve security and

15:40 ↗ address code issues these are short-term

15:42 ↗ improvements that are meant to help us

15:44 ↗ get by they do not fully satisfy our

15:47 ↗ needs in these facilities over the

15:49 ↗ course of the next several months the

15:51 ↗ council will also be asked to consider

15:53 ↗ whether longer-term higher cost higher

15:56 ↗ cost lifecycle improvements should be

15:58 ↗ made to City Hall Northwest during this

16:02 ↗ year's budget presentations city staff

16:04 ↗ will also highlight significant items in

16:07 ↗ their 2019 work plan in particular they

16:10 ↗ will highlight which items include

16:12 ↗ budget allocations as the available new

16:15 ↗ revenue and our

16:16 ↗ staffing levels constrain what we can

16:18 ↗ afford to take on in 2019 we will also

16:21 ↗ highlight projects that are needed or

16:23 ↗ desired but lack a resource plan in 2019

16:26 ↗ the mother work plan items that are in

16:28 ↗ the preliminary budget include under

16:31 ↗ transportation develop a transportation

16:34 ↗ mobility master plan and continue to

16:36 ↗ work on school-based transportation

16:38 ↗ demand management work under land-use

16:41 ↗ update of the Old Town land-use codes in

16:44 ↗ continuing work with the state parks on

16:47 ↗ their environmental impact study for

16:49 ↗ Lake Sammamish state park under

16:51 ↗ financial sustainability finalize the

16:54 ↗ strategic plan and its implementation

16:56 ↗ framework update our mitigation and

16:58 ↗ impact fees and complete a utility rate

17:00 ↗ study

17:01 ↗ mutti in the environment develop a

17:04 ↗ healthy community strategy progress on

17:07 ↗ our housing strategy development develop

17:09 ↗ wayfinding Park signage and branding and

17:11 ↗ conduct urban forests and green Issaquah

17:14 ↗ planning any gain facilities develop a

17:17 ↗ long-term municipal facilities plan and

17:20 ↗ costing there is much more in the

17:22 ↗ preliminary budget for you to discuss

17:24 ↗ and deliberate then the highlights I

17:26 ↗ mentioned but I wanted to touch on some

17:27 ↗ of the high notes before moving to a

17:29 ↗ couple of other items related to this

17:31 ↗ year's budget first I want to point out

17:35 ↗ that we are not yet complete with our

17:37 ↗ ongoing move to better cost allocation

17:40 ↗ last year council reviewed a first

17:42 ↗ important step which was creation of the

17:45 ↗ new IT fund cost allocation is required

17:48 ↗ under state law and is a best practice

17:50 ↗ to ensure charges between funds and

17:53 ↗ departments are justified while this

17:55 ↗ preliminary budget does not contain any

17:57 ↗ new cost allocation methodologies this

18:00 ↗ year we do anticipate that next year we

18:02 ↗ will conduct a review of our fleet fund

18:04 ↗ and potentially other areas of operation

18:06 ↗ to ensure we have appropriate cost

18:09 ↗ allocation methods second during budget

18:12 ↗ deliberations we also are we also

18:15 ↗ prepared to make an important

18:17 ↗ recommendation regarding another city

18:19 ↗ program operations of the Senior Center

18:21 ↗ it is time that we move out of the

18:24 ↗ interim operations of the Senior Center

18:26 ↗ those who use that facility most have a

18:29 ↗ breasts a desire to see some stability

18:31 ↗ in place and have shared their

18:33 ↗ satisfaction with how city staff has

18:35 ↗ been operating their programs since

18:37 ↗ taking over to accomplish this I

18:39 ↗ recommend that city council direct staff

18:41 ↗ to install a long term city run

18:44 ↗ operational plan for the senior center

18:46 ↗ this edition will need to be added to

18:48 ↗ the 2019 primary budget and staff is

18:51 ↗ prepared to show a new revenue and

18:53 ↗ expenditure plan that would implement

18:55 ↗ this important policy decision you

18:58 ↗ accomplish all of these goals and

19:00 ↗ prepare us for the future

19:01 ↗ our 2019 preliminary budget includes a

19:03 ↗ three point four seven three point four

19:06 ↗ seven percent increase in revenue and a

19:08 ↗ less than 1 percent increase in

19:10 ↗ expenditures over the revised budget for

19:12 ↗ 2018 2019 preliminary budget does not

19:16 ↗ require any utilization of the general

19:19 ↗ fund reserves 2018 ended with a none

19:22 ↗ audited under expenditure of 4.4 million

19:25 ↗ which returns to our fund balance and is

19:28 ↗ available for one-time expenses or to

19:30 ↗ carryover as funding in 2019 for

19:33 ↗ incomplete and prioritized 2018 projects

19:36 ↗ currently our estimated ending fund

19:39 ↗ balance exceeds the maximum range

19:41 ↗ council established in our financial

19:43 ↗ management policies our policies enable

19:46 ↗ City Council to utilize extra fund

19:48 ↗ balance for certain types of

19:50 ↗ expenditures I am recommending that the

19:52 ↗ council discussed during budget

19:54 ↗ deliberations and throughout 2019 its

19:57 ↗ priorities for use of the fund balance

19:59 ↗ in addition to capital and one-time

20:01 ↗ projects Council could consider

20:03 ↗ establishing a practice of transferring

20:05 ↗ a portion of the balance into capital

20:08 ↗ funds or making start-up funding for new

20:10 ↗ initiatives such as a neighborhood grant

20:13 ↗ program these one-time uses of the fund

20:16 ↗ balances ethics have these one-time uses

20:19 ↗ of fund balance have historical

20:21 ↗ precedent in Issaquah and our ways many

20:23 ↗ cities across the country utilize excess

20:26 ↗ reserve funds to create added value for

20:29 ↗ their communities return to fund balance

20:32 ↗ is the result of a number of factors

20:34 ↗ which we will discuss in greater deal

20:35 ↗ with City Council during the upcoming

20:37 ↗ budget sessions but I will provide a

20:39 ↗ brief summary for you tonight nearly

20:41 ↗ half of the amount

20:42 ↗ is due to personnel cost savings

20:44 ↗ resulting from vacancies we have much

20:47 ↗ work to do in reducing the time to fill

20:50 ↗ vacancies and we'll provide counsel with

20:53 ↗ more detail during our budget discussion

20:54 ↗ in the next two months about how we will

20:57 ↗ improve on this front our ability to

21:00 ↗ fill positions in an expeditious manner

21:02 ↗ has a direct and consequential impact on

21:05 ↗ our ability to complete our work during

21:09 ↗ the remainder of the year I anticipate

21:11 ↗ the council will continue with community

21:12 ↗ and partnership discussions on projects

21:15 ↗ or proposals that have not yet been

21:17 ↗ thoroughly scoped or framed up including

21:20 ↗ transit area and development and open

21:22 ↗ space acquisitions and may consider

21:25 ↗ potentially using fund balance reserves

21:27 ↗ to pay for those at the appropriate time

21:29 ↗ next year there is just not enough

21:31 ↗ information or certainty on any of those

21:34 ↗ opportunities to include them in the

21:36 ↗ 2019 preliminary budget before you

21:38 ↗ however this does not mean that council

21:41 ↗ cannot act on them during 2019 we just

21:44 ↗ need to be mindful that these proposals

21:46 ↗ are in progress and could come forward

21:49 ↗ after the approval of this budget we do

21:51 ↗ have opportunities to invest in we do

21:54 ↗ have opportunities to invest in these

21:56 ↗ new and exciting proposals so as you

21:59 ↗ explore the details of the 2019

22:01 ↗ preliminary budget and the totals

22:03 ↗ presented this evening there are a few

22:05 ↗ items I want to call to your attention

22:06 ↗ that will tee up the 2020 budget work as

22:10 ↗ we continue to work to link our budget

22:12 ↗ process to our community priorities and

22:14 ↗ to just our financial approach to

22:17 ↗ include the long term impacts of our

22:19 ↗ funding traces of our current funding

22:20 ↗ choices impact of the strategic plan in

22:24 ↗ 2019 we will adopt our first-ever

22:27 ↗ citywide strategic plan and we will

22:30 ↗ build a framework that connects the plan

22:32 ↗ to the 2020 budget and to the capital

22:35 ↗ improvement plan developing performance

22:36 ↗ metrics and tools that will help us

22:38 ↗ monitor and report progress I was not

22:41 ↗ able to do that linkage this year with

22:43 ↗ the 2019 preliminary budget and I'm very

22:46 ↗ much looking forward to this step next

22:48 ↗ year cost allocation we will continue to

22:52 ↗ update cost allocation methods to ensure

22:54 ↗ right size chart chart

22:55 ↗ are being made in the right places and

22:57 ↗ that our funding models are sustainable

23:00 ↗ in the long-term auditing process

23:02 ↗ improvements in 2019 we will continue

23:06 ↗ with our budget process improvements as

23:07 ↗ we begin to use our quest occur budget

23:10 ↗ tool in new ways allowing council and

23:13 ↗ the public to have online access to

23:14 ↗ financial information in time for the

23:16 ↗ 2020 budget discussions developing our

23:20 ↗ long-term funding strategies for

23:21 ↗ operations and capital projects in

23:24 ↗ addition the ad hoc financial committees

23:26 ↗ work plan items for next year will

23:29 ↗ include discussion of how to enhance the

23:32 ↗ city's ability to maintain service

23:34 ↗ levels and infrastructure when current

23:35 ↗ revenue sources do not keep pace with

23:38 ↗ service demands and costs also ad hoc

23:41 ↗ will need to continue the discussion of

23:43 ↗ a long term funding strategy for capital

23:45 ↗ improvements that goes beyond just the

23:48 ↗ funding of transportation projects and

23:50 ↗ includes other capital investments in

23:52 ↗ parks open space community and municipal

23:55 ↗ facilities community's number-one

23:58 ↗ priority and lastly because it is a top

24:01 ↗ community issue next year's

24:03 ↗ transportation efforts will mark a

24:05 ↗ significant step forward for our

24:06 ↗ community we filled the senior

24:08 ↗ transportation planner position in

24:10 ↗ September thank you very much for

24:12 ↗ approving this critically important

24:14 ↗ position this position is required to

24:17 ↗ successfully launch the transportation

24:19 ↗ advisory board and the work on the

24:21 ↗ mobility master plan we will soon make

24:23 ↗ our final recruitment for board members

24:25 ↗ and we have already selected the firm

24:27 ↗ that will assist us with creating the

24:29 ↗ plan I say this in my address tonight

24:31 ↗ because as I have said earlier I have

24:34 ↗ presented a budget that is restrained in

24:36 ↗ its use of ending fund balance surpluses

24:38 ↗ even though the belts is in excess of

24:41 ↗ our recommended maximum as mayor I am

24:43 ↗ strongly supportive of expending some of

24:46 ↗ the balance on one-time expenditures but

24:49 ↗ our priority needs to be the community's

24:51 ↗ number-one priority and that is focusing

24:53 ↗ on traffic and transportation our

24:56 ↗ community throughout the strategic plan

24:57 ↗ process and years before have asked us

25:00 ↗ to deal with these impacts to use local

25:02 ↗ control to improve the reality on the

25:04 ↗ ground it's going to be hard and it's

25:06 ↗ going to require commitment and boldness

25:08 ↗ and I

25:08 ↗ know that we could do this together I'd

25:11 ↗ like to conclude this evening by

25:12 ↗ reminding counsel that we are in a very

25:14 ↗ good position to move forward with our

25:17 ↗ multi-year OVA overhaul of the budgeting

25:19 ↗ process and efforts to develop a

25:21 ↗ long-range funding strategy I'm excited

25:24 ↗ about our future and in many ways that

25:26 ↗ we will be able to address our

25:28 ↗ challenges and opportunities as a

25:30 ↗ growing vibrant diverse and extremely

25:33 ↗ beautiful community a natural treasure

25:35 ↗ at the edge of a growing urban community

25:38 ↗ you've all received my 2019 primary

25:41 ↗ budget in electronic or hardcopy this

25:43 ↗ evening and I see many good nights of

25:45 ↗ intriguing reading there for you to be

25:48 ↗ sure I am looking forward to your

25:50 ↗ questions and comments at our first

25:52 ↗ budget session on October 22nd and I

25:54 ↗ wanted to thank you for your time and

25:55 ↗ attention tonight and I'm gonna go a

25:57 ↗ little off script in case you were not

26:01 ↗ aware we have a lot of our directors

26:04 ↗ here tonight in support of the budget

26:08 ↗ message coming out but I also wanted to

26:10 ↗ make a special thank you to our finance

26:12 ↗ team who has been working very hard over

26:16 ↗ many months to get this done and so if

26:19 ↗ they would raise their hands so the

26:20 ↗ council can see who they are we have

26:22 ↗ with us tonight from finance Ruth riddle

26:24 ↗ Heidi niggler Christina eller and Kim

26:28 ↗ Holman

26:29 ↗ ladies thank you very much thank you for

26:37 ↗ the applause but it's okay if you don't

26:39 ↗ clap too because it is our business

26:41 ↗ meeting but thank you that was that was

26:43 ↗ very nice the next item on the agenda

26:45 ↗ this evening is audience comments so

26:47 ↗ audience members may address the council

26:49 ↗ at this time and the guidelines for

26:51 ↗ public participation will be placed up

26:54 ↗ on the screen if you've signed up to

26:56 ↗ make public comments tonight will call

26:58 ↗ upon you first and if you did not sign

27:00 ↗ up don't worry because before we close

27:02 ↗ it out I will check in to see if anybody

27:04 ↗ would like to speak that didn't have a

27:05 ↗ chance to sign up please keep your

27:08 ↗ comments to three minutes this evening

27:09 ↗ we have a lot of folks in the audience

27:12 ↗ if you're here is part of a group if you

27:15 ↗ can identify a spokesperson for your

27:17 ↗ group that would be fabulous and anybody

27:19 ↗ in our audience this evening that would

27:21 ↗ like to show support of a speaker's

27:23 ↗ comments please do so by raising your

27:25 ↗ hands so council can see the level of

27:28 ↗ support for the speaker's comments

27:29 ↗ there's also a public hearing tonight on

27:32 ↗ a b7 635 vacation of a portion of

27:35 ↗ Northeast Gilman Boulevard and if you

27:38 ↗ would like to make comments on that

27:39 ↗ topic you'll have an opportunity later

27:41 ↗ in the meeting tisha has anyone signed

27:44 ↗ up to speak this evening yes Ken Eastman

28:13 ↗ good evening my name is Ken Osmond

28:16 ↗ I live at two four seven three Northwest

28:19 ↗ Stoney Creek Drive I'm a resident of the

28:23 ↗ city of Issaquah and live on Cougar

28:25 ↗ Mountain and this evening I'm speaking

28:29 ↗ on behalf of the save Cougar Mountain

28:31 ↗ organization so first off I want to

28:37 ↗ thank a city council for resolution a b7

28:42 ↗ six six two of August 6th of this year

28:46 ↗ your resolution and your supportive

28:49 ↗ comments mean the world to us and all of

28:53 ↗ the supporters of Save Cougar Mountain

28:55 ↗ I'd also like to thank Mary Polly and

28:59 ↗ Parks director Watling for their

29:01 ↗ continued leadership and ownership of

29:04 ↗ the project to acquire this property and

29:06 ↗ save it from development so I'd like to

29:11 ↗ give an update on Saver cougar Save

29:14 ↗ Cougar Mountain activities in addition

29:18 ↗ to your unanimous support via the

29:21 ↗ resolution of August 6th we've been

29:24 ↗ working hard with the state and county

29:27 ↗ representatives as well as several

29:31 ↗ nonprofits and we're most proud of the

29:36 ↗ fact that we've got twenty five hundred

29:38 ↗ and ninety-six signatures on the

29:41 ↗ petition to save Cougar Mountain and

29:44 ↗ amount that increases virtually every

29:46 ↗ day so budget time is here we'd like to

29:56 ↗ encourage city council to keep the

29:58 ↗ Bergsma acquisition foremost on your

30:01 ↗ minds as you work the next budget cycle

30:03 ↗ please remember your resolution of

30:06 ↗ August 6th and these supportive words we

30:11 ↗ recognize that this acquisition may have

30:13 ↗ its challenges but there is wide support

30:16 ↗ and help to be had we've got partners at

30:20 ↗ the state and county level and the

30:22 ↗ nonprofit

30:23 ↗ we'll have development fees

30:25 ↗ for parks flow every time another new

30:28 ↗ housing unit is built in the city and

30:31 ↗ there's long term benefit from saving

30:34 ↗ this property so police consider a long

30:36 ↗ term debt as an option we ask you to

30:42 ↗ stay committed and get creative and get

30:46 ↗ the job done you have a choice the

30:49 ↗ acquisition of this land has lasting

30:51 ↗ benefit now and in the future it

30:54 ↗ reflects the will of the residents of

30:56 ↗ Issaquah and our expectations of saving

30:58 ↗ one of the most important features of

30:59 ↗ our community are Issaquah Alps

31:10 ↗ so in summary let's get it done and I

31:15 ↗ thank you for your time and attention

31:17 ↗ thank you Ken there's a lot of hands of

31:21 ↗ support going out for Ken and save

31:23 ↗ Cougar Mountain next on the signup West

31:25 ↗ Julie Clark

31:37 ↗ good evening mayor poly and city council

31:40 ↗ members my name is Julie Clark

31:43 ↗ I live at 905 bear Ridge Court Northwest

31:46 ↗ this evening I along with Jerry Potter

31:49 ↗ and Liz Taylor represent Save Cougar

31:52 ↗ Mountain our petition currently has one

31:57 ↗ more than what Ken had shown earlier two

32:00 ↗ thousand five hundred and ninety-seven

32:01 ↗ signatures and while there are not close

32:04 ↗ to 2600 people here in the council

32:06 ↗ chambers tonight we know that two

32:09 ↗ thousand five hundred and ninety-seven

32:11 ↗ signatures there's an amount that is

32:13 ↗ difficult to comprehend so we thought we

32:15 ↗ would help you with a visual we have a

32:18 ↗ scroll which includes the names of these

32:20 ↗ supporters and it's 84 feet long for

32:25 ↗ reference the front row of this audience

32:28 ↗ section seating here is 21 feet wide so

32:32 ↗ the scroll is four times that length

32:35 ↗ while Jerry and Liz are presenting our

32:38 ↗ scroll I would like to share a few of

32:41 ↗ the comments people have posted on our

32:44 ↗ petition back in June med a wrote I feel

32:50 ↗ so sad every time I look at the newly

32:53 ↗ constructed Apartments on i-90 exit 15

32:56 ↗ it's making the views so ugly let's not

33:00 ↗ make this happen to our gorgeous cougar

33:02 ↗ mountain and let's do our best to

33:04 ↗ preserve its wild beauty for future

33:07 ↗ generations

33:08 ↗ in July Jane wrote not every piece of

33:12 ↗ pristine land should be developed and

33:14 ↗ this is one of those areas save it for

33:18 ↗ our children and our children's children

33:20 ↗ save Cougar Mountain from unnecessary

33:24 ↗ destabilization woodland vistas and

33:27 ↗ recreational areas for urban and

33:30 ↗ suburban residents provides Sol sorely

33:33 ↗ needed respite from the stress created

33:35 ↗ by our high-tech and man-made

33:38 ↗ environment an Alex wrote I fully

33:42 ↗ support this petition as a

33:44 ↗ frequent user of the trail while I

33:47 ↗ support finding more ways to construct

33:49 ↗ housing for new residents this area

33:52 ↗ should be preserved given its unique

33:54 ↗ nature and placement in August Joyce

33:59 ↗ shared I have hiked this area many times

34:02 ↗ in a most always enchanted by the beauty

34:05 ↗ so close to a major metropolitan area

34:08 ↗ please preserve this natural asset for

34:12 ↗ future generations Alyssa said my group

34:22 ↗ likes hiking on this mountain as much as

34:24 ↗ we can please keep it preserved we the

34:28 ↗ safe Cougar Mountain representatives ask

34:30 ↗ that you please think of the voices of

34:33 ↗ these two thousand five hundred and

34:34 ↗ ninety-seven people while you are

34:36 ↗ working on the city's budget and

34:38 ↗ consider each person supporting this

34:41 ↗ initiative thank you

34:43 ↗ Thank You Julie I just had one question

34:45 ↗ for you are you leaving that with us or

34:48 ↗ taking it we were going to take it but

34:52 ↗ we can submit those it's completely up

34:54 ↗ to you if you think you have another use

34:56 ↗ for it and you want to keep it that's

34:58 ↗ fine we may thank you

35:00 ↗ and who has signed up next issue janet

35:03 ↗ Jablonski hands up in the air I'm sorry

35:06 ↗ yes Janet dubrovsky

35:22 ↗ good evening my name is Janet durbur

35:25 ↗ Wolski and I live on to100 3 southeast

35:28 ↗ 155th place Renton Washington I live in

35:32 ↗ the maple Hills area and I'm here

35:36 ↗ tonight to speak about the proposed

35:39 ↗ extensive plan that solid waste has put

35:42 ↗ forth they have recommended to expand

35:45 ↗ the existing Cedar Hills landfill we

35:48 ↗ recently had a town meeting with Reagan

35:51 ↗ Dunn and mr. Ramos was attend in

35:54 ↗ attendance there and there were over 200

35:56 ↗ people there that were in opposition of

36:00 ↗ the expansion of the landfill for

36:03 ↗ various reasons and I would the the

36:09 ↗ apparently that the process is for the

36:12 ↗ King County Council did a vote on it if

36:14 ↗ they approve it then it goes to the

36:16 ↗ cities so I'm here to kind of educate or

36:21 ↗ let you know that the document that the

36:24 ↗ the solid waste put out is full of false

36:29 ↗ no I wouldn't say false and misleading

36:31 ↗ statements and they're their primary

36:34 ↗ primary objective was to expand the

36:37 ↗ landfill they had two other alternatives

36:39 ↗ that the documents show some

36:44 ↗ exaggeration of costs and it's just it's

36:47 ↗ very misleading they cherry pick some

36:49 ↗ numbers and I would I would really

36:51 ↗ encourage you if it gets to the point

36:53 ↗ where the city cities have to vote on it

36:55 ↗ I encourage you to do your own research

36:58 ↗ do not take this document at face value

37:02 ↗ the landfill lies the solid waste you

37:06 ↗ know I hate to say it but they lie they

37:08 ↗ have gone to the extent of violating the

37:13 ↗ settlement agreement a lawsuit

37:14 ↗ settlement agreement in order to advance

37:17 ↗ their objective which is to expand the

37:20 ↗ landfill they have misrepresented to

37:23 ↗ devote the waste-to-energy idea that

37:27 ↗ it's

37:29 ↗ in greenhouse gases then at the landfill

37:32 ↗ it's totally the opposite all you have

37:35 ↗ to do is research Europe I'm not

37:38 ↗ proposing I'm for the waste of energy

37:40 ↗ and a vote that was taken at this 200

37:43 ↗ people said about 3/4 fans said they

37:45 ↗ would be happy to have a waste energy

37:47 ↗ plant

37:48 ↗ at the landfill rather than having the

37:51 ↗ landfill they want it closed and it

37:54 ↗ needs to be closed because the other

37:56 ↗ thing that was important that I think

37:57 ↗ was important for the Issaquah people

38:02 ↗ there was a there was a report issued on

38:05 ↗ water on a water issue at the Cedar

38:07 ↗ Hills landfill and it stated that

38:09 ↗ because the unlined areas of the

38:11 ↗ landfill they for 20 years they put

38:13 ↗ garbage in to unlined pits that the

38:17 ↗ aquifer under Cedar Hills will be

38:19 ↗ contaminated by 2058 from that leachate

38:23 ↗ from those that landfill so again I just

38:27 ↗ urge you to do your own research

38:30 ↗ don't don't believe everything Solid

38:33 ↗ Waste tells you it's rosy pictures okay

38:36 ↗ Janet thank you want to leave your

38:38 ↗ comments with the city clerk for the

38:40 ↗ record or not up to you what I have I

38:48 ↗ also would like to say that we stop and

38:52 ↗ they won't be able to hear you you every

38:54 ↗ time but if you come to the microphone

38:55 ↗ and just do a website that would be grab

38:57 ↗ the we have a website called stop

38:59 ↗ landfill expansion org and it gives a

39:03 ↗ lot of alternatives it's not advocating

39:06 ↗ for waste energy but it gives you some

39:07 ↗ research data that you can look at so

39:10 ↗ thank you Janet thank you it show next

39:13 ↗ on the list

39:13 ↗ no one further has signed up looking to

39:17 ↗ see if there's anyone in the audience

39:18 ↗ who would like to address council soon I

39:20 ↗ see a gentleman in the back if you'd

39:21 ↗ like to come up state your name and

39:23 ↗ address for the record

39:31 ↗ yes good evening honorable council my

39:33 ↗ name is philip schmidt Patman out of a 1

39:35 ↗ to 6 to 3 South East 83rd card Court and

39:39 ↗ Newcastle first of all it's kind of

39:42 ↗ interesting about almost a little over

39:45 ↗ 30 years ago as an exchange student in

39:47 ↗ Issaquah high school from Germany you

39:50 ↗ get to start over and I'm picking up on

39:59 ↗ on the same topic that Janet just talked

40:02 ↗ about I was I've been doing this for 20

40:05 ↗ years now working on solve the solid

40:08 ↗ waste issue here in in King County and I

40:13 ↗ was sat on the salt waste of Weiser

40:14 ↗ board for eight years and many of the

40:17 ↗ comments were just blown off in the wind

40:19 ↗ I've seen how the saw waste division who

40:21 ↗ was I believe what he presented to you

40:22 ↗ and trying to make the case how they

40:25 ↗ really don't care about anything else

40:27 ↗ but landfilling we have had

40:29 ↗ international experts that have reviewed

40:31 ↗ the salt waste management plan the

40:33 ↗ feedback was basically that everything

40:36 ↗ everything is landfill based here and

40:39 ↗ really in the rest of the world the

40:40 ↗ opposite is the case so we urge you to

40:43 ↗ actually Jenin said it kind of nicely I

40:46 ↗ would be more direct saying to basically

40:49 ↗ refuse that solid waste plan do not

40:51 ↗ approve it there's so much more to be

40:54 ↗ said and I have something here I don't

40:56 ↗ gonna read all of it I just want to give

40:59 ↗ you a couple of ideas I leave something

41:01 ↗ here with the clerk to so you can review

41:04 ↗ that there's a lot more information if

41:05 ↗ you like get back to me on this one so I

41:07 ↗ mean on the educational curve I think a

41:09 ↗ lot of stuff is needed that hasn't taken

41:11 ↗ place for just a consideration the coal

41:16 ↗ country of Germany landfills right now

41:19 ↗ about 200,000 tons all pre treated for

41:22 ↗ over eighty million people in Kane

41:24 ↗ County we land four five times that much

41:26 ↗ for two million people yet they have the

41:29 ↗ most like elaborate developed recycling

41:32 ↗ system anywhere in the world yes they do

41:35 ↗ use waste or energy - but it's a very

41:38 ↗ minimal impact to anything it's it's a

41:40 ↗ part of an integrated solid waste

41:42 ↗ management system

41:43 ↗ and the whole system doesn't cost the

41:45 ↗ average German citizen anything more

41:47 ↗ than the average King County residents

41:48 ↗ it's also not subsidized by any taxes or

41:52 ↗ anything like that so if we engage in an

41:54 ↗ integrated system based on recycling

41:57 ↗ upcycling building a better collection

42:01 ↗ system and everything else that you can

42:03 ↗ think about including waste energy which

42:05 ↗ delivers at least energy reduces

42:07 ↗ greenhouse gases recovers metals

42:09 ↗ non-ferrous glass and so on there are a

42:12 ↗ lot of things to be said about that and

42:13 ↗ I just leave a statement here that we

42:15 ↗ did and we left it I just adjusted it to

42:17 ↗ the council here but we left this also

42:20 ↗ with the King County Council we have

42:23 ↗ made also request to the King County

42:26 ↗ Council that they look at I was part of

42:28 ↗ that study team that did the waster

42:31 ↗ energy study for King County and we need

42:36 ↗ to consider or not consider we need to

42:40 ↗ pursue the 27 recommendations that we

42:43 ↗ gave which was looking at greenhouse gas

42:45 ↗ modeling from international model basis

42:47 ↗ we need to look at it from you know all

42:50 ↗ the different areas are listed like

42:51 ↗ recycling and so on so I urge you to

42:53 ↗ look at that and I'll leave this with

42:54 ↗ you and I appreciate your time thank you

42:56 ↗ thank you Phillip if you use my bring it

42:58 ↗ up for the clerk that would be great

43:02 ↗ see Brenda Havering good evening Mary

43:07 ↗ Polly and Council I'm Brenda Devore I

43:09 ↗ live at 835 well with Boulevard

43:11 ↗ Southwest and it's a quad and I'm here

43:14 ↗ representing myself as a resident

43:15 ↗ tonight but also as the community

43:17 ↗ engagement and Events Manager of the

43:19 ↗ chamber and we just came off of our 49th

43:22 ↗ salmon days so we've recovered we're

43:26 ↗ excited for the next one coming up it's

43:28 ↗ going to be our 50th year and we're

43:30 ↗ already in the planning stages but we

43:31 ↗ want to come back and to say thank you

43:33 ↗ so much for your ongoing support so that

43:35 ↗ we can continue to bring this festival

43:36 ↗ to our town and we just really thank you

43:39 ↗ and and being on a planning side this

43:41 ↗ year I have to say I was completely

43:43 ↗ blown away by the amount of community it

43:46 ↗ takes to put this together so thank you

43:48 ↗ again for supporting that and we look

43:50 ↗ forward to bring you a really fantastic

43:51 ↗ event next year thank you

43:53 ↗ Thank You Brenda anyone else wishing to

43:56 ↗ address this Eve

43:58 ↗ yeah actually tisha for you no oh

44:05 ↗ are you waiting actually if your your

44:09 ↗ comments are rated to related to the

44:11 ↗ vacation of the land

44:12 ↗ you can wait if they're related to any

44:14 ↗ other agenda item this evening you

44:15 ↗ should take this opportunity to speak

44:18 ↗ then I see Steve in line over there too

44:34 ↗ so I'd like to comment on the agenda

44:36 ↗ item on the miss quad school district

44:38 ↗ impact fees that you have this evening

44:40 ↗ in the outline that is handed out there

44:44 ↗ are four key points that I want to make

44:46 ↗ first of all the school district does an

44:49 ↗ excellent job on education my wife and I

44:52 ↗ had a son and daughter that went through

44:53 ↗ the south end schools and couldn't be

44:55 ↗ happier as as parents but when it comes

44:59 ↗ to impact fees the district has been

45:02 ↗ deficient

45:03 ↗ for at least 20 years and the result of

45:08 ↗ that deficiency essentially charging

45:10 ↗ less than they were authorized to charge

45:12 ↗ every year he has transferred a large

45:19 ↗ amount of wealth from family and

45:22 ↗ business taxpayers in the district to

45:25 ↗ development and building company profits

45:29 ↗ the city has visto qua has the authority

45:32 ↗ to end this deficiency now so we're not

45:35 ↗ in the same position 20 years from now

45:37 ↗ of not knowing how many tens of millions

45:41 ↗ or hundreds of millions of dollars have

45:44 ↗ been lost through this process so I'd

45:48 ↗ like to elaborate on some of those

45:50 ↗ points first of all the king county

45:55 ↗ ordinance doesn't give the school

45:59 ↗ district the latitude to decide what

46:01 ↗ parts of the impact fee formula it uses

46:06 ↗ and doesn't use the ordinance states

46:11 ↗ that the district shall use the formula

46:14 ↗ that's provided as an attachment to the

46:17 ↗ enabling ordinance the in your committee

46:23 ↗ report you'll see that this across rural

46:26 ↗ district has used specific parts of the

46:29 ↗ formula as specified but when it comes

46:33 ↗ to dividing the unfunded need by two

46:37 ↗ they're apparently saying that well

46:39 ↗ that's not a technical requirement we

46:42 ↗ can deviate from that you know

46:44 ↗ lessen the costs of housing projects and

46:48 ↗ keep developers building more in the

46:52 ↗ district than they might be able to

46:53 ↗ otherwise some points on that the

46:57 ↗ ordinance formula is just explicit as

47:00 ↗ explicit about dividing by 2 as it is on

47:04 ↗ all other stages of the calculation

47:09 ↗ nothing and the ordinance gives the qual

47:12 ↗ school school district the right to

47:14 ↗ select what parts of the formula they

47:16 ↗ will use and not use and in terms of

47:19 ↗ helping develop an industry their job is

47:23 ↗ education not taking care of developers

47:26 ↗ and builders and their markets the ISD

47:31 ↗ has a belief that by discounting the fee

47:36 ↗ further than it has to be if you want to

47:38 ↗ take a few seconds and sum up bill that

47:40 ↗ would be great ok they're wrong in this

47:44 ↗ assumption that they could impact the

47:48 ↗ cost or the price of homes if developers

47:51 ↗ were cost-plus contractors as some

47:55 ↗ businesses do with government but the

47:57 ↗ development of building industries are

47:59 ↗ for-profit corporations they're mandated

48:02 ↗ by shareholders to maximize profits if

48:05 ↗ you give them a $10,000 break on an

48:09 ↗ impact fee or any other aspect of their

48:11 ↗ cost it doesn't get passed along and

48:13 ↗ lower price thank you Bill

48:15 ↗ ok thank you Steve thank you

48:18 ↗ and there are some hints in support in

48:20 ↗ the audience I could do any manner Pali

48:24 ↗ City Council good to be here again

48:26 ↗ steeper era old town as well for about

48:28 ↗ 10 years so I'll add I think that's Sam

48:33 ↗ Davis's well done so good job to all

48:34 ↗ those involved moving quickly since I

48:37 ↗ only have three minutes item e on the

48:40 ↗ consent calendar

48:41 ↗ I'm sorry item D on consent calendar

48:45 ↗ I like the idea for the levy and public

48:47 ↗ sources but I disagree with the

48:49 ↗ designated official I think that should

48:51 ↗ be the mayor I think that should be the

48:52 ↗ city council in charge of funds I don't

48:53 ↗ think that should be the designated

48:55 ↗ position

48:56 ↗ so I would like to see that we worked

48:58 ↗ before it gets approved just before Adam

49:06 ↗ II a B 764 3

49:08 ↗ we've gone from a 65% permeable surface

49:15 ↗ to a 90% permeable surface I don't see

49:17 ↗ that change that was recommended I don't

49:19 ↗ think I was in a court we've got the

49:21 ↗ City Council approved when they brought

49:22 ↗ forward a removing him from the central

49:25 ↗ central as well plans so I'd like to see

49:26 ↗ that revert back

49:39 ↗ so I guess last issue I just want to

49:41 ↗ touch briefly on the budget it seemed

49:43 ↗ like there were two issues that were

49:44 ↗ brought forward in 2017 one was $100,000

49:48 ↗ for Old Town calming traffic and

49:51 ↗ $100,000 proposal for a dog park when I

49:54 ↗ looked at the figures that turned out

49:56 ↗ there was three hundred forty thousand

49:57 ↗ dollars for the Old Town common that was

50:00 ↗ I think a good thing and the right thing

50:01 ↗ to do

50:02 ↗ I kind of see the same thing maybe

50:04 ↗ happening with the dog park I'm one of

50:06 ↗ those that I would say I disagree with a

50:08 ↗ dog park but I don't think it's the

50:10 ↗ paramount issue we keep finding these

50:12 ↗ new things to do we need to look at our

50:14 ↗ budget and say what we're not going to

50:16 ↗ do this seems like a prime example I

50:17 ↗ want to be clear though I'm not while

50:19 ↗ I'm opposed to the dog park I'm thinking

50:21 ↗ of as an example of how we're doing our

50:24 ↗ budgeting priorities and setting

50:26 ↗ priorities and and scoping out we always

50:28 ↗ find more things to do and we're not

50:31 ↗ meeting those core competences that I

50:32 ↗ think is akua's saying that we want to

50:35 ↗ have so I would like to see that we

50:39 ↗ worked I know for example I would be one

50:41 ↗ of those who would say let's get rid of

50:43 ↗ this central park pad number one but I

50:45 ↗ know we get into the conversation of

50:46 ↗ everybody fights what they want we all

50:49 ↗ come forward we say well I want these

50:50 ↗ things I want these things that's what

50:51 ↗ people do become say we want more and we

50:54 ↗ want you to give us those things so

50:59 ↗ another example of that I think is the

51:02 ↗ it's actually item number II the truck

51:05 ↗ I'm just sorry item I the traffic

51:07 ↗ calming enforcement a lot of the survey

51:10 ↗ questions deal with the issues because

51:12 ↗ the city streets are to wire those to

51:13 ↗ pass through traffic the issue is just

51:16 ↗ pretty corn simple people are speeding

51:18 ↗ they're blaming on other things we

51:20 ↗ expand our scope to be more than just

51:22 ↗ what it should be and where it is so I

51:24 ↗ would like your help in kind of

51:25 ↗ narrowing the focus to what those things

51:27 ↗ are and should be with that I'm sure my

51:30 ↗ three minutes about up so all say no you

51:32 ↗ probably notice we never set the timer

51:34 ↗ but yes iPhone says three minutes are up

51:38 ↗ okay thank you David

51:44 ↗ thank you David Kepler 255 southeast and

51:48 ↗ Rose Street and not many people here

51:50 ↗ remember the era of when they tried to

51:52 ↗ put the incinerator at above the gravel

51:54 ↗ pits and we'll see incineration has

51:58 ↗ improved tremendously since those days

52:00 ↗ but I'm not sure it's the right thing

52:02 ↗ but let's get a good discussion on it

52:05 ↗ just might address a couple of the

52:06 ↗ partners city is working with the Trust

52:08 ↗ for Public Land in King County having to

52:11 ↗ do with the potential acquisition and

52:14 ↗ Trust for Public Land was involved in

52:17 ↗ acquisitions in Issaquah in the 70s and

52:20 ↗ 80s and when 1990 when we did the 5-day

52:24 ↗ mountain to sound marches co-ops trails

52:26 ↗ Club did we were broke and fortunately

52:29 ↗ Jim Ellis and others had the vision that

52:31 ↗ we got something big here let's go with

52:34 ↗ it

52:34 ↗ it was Trust for Public Land that came

52:36 ↗ in with office space and staffing to get

52:39 ↗ the mountain to sound Greenway going so

52:41 ↗ they've been a great partner and of

52:43 ↗ course Margaret's way they were the the

52:45 ↗ buyer of that property which then and

52:47 ↗ county bought from them

52:49 ↗ another great partner is King County

52:51 ↗ King County from this the whole Basin

52:54 ↗ Issaquah Basin has been vastly improved

52:57 ↗ by King County starting at the head of

52:59 ↗ the base and the Taylor Mountain County

53:03 ↗ forest which is really a County part but

53:05 ↗ it's a forest and managed well and then

53:08 ↗ they've made many acquisitions all

53:09 ↗ through the corridor right down here to

53:12 ↗ the west side and east side of squawk

53:15 ↗ Mountain King County has made major

53:17 ↗ acquisitions that allow us to go from

53:19 ↗ Lake Sammamish to squawk Mountain

53:21 ↗ there's still some gaps

53:23 ↗ they're working on we're working on but

53:25 ↗ it's been - there they've led that on

53:28 ↗ many cases King County did the Newcastle

53:32 ↗ plan which gave the vision and it got

53:34 ↗ the people thinking that an urban

53:36 ↗ village was ok the first one didn't

53:38 ↗ happen in the Newcastle planning area it

53:40 ↗ happened up here in Issaquah Highlands

53:42 ↗ and that was County leadership along

53:45 ↗ with this city I'm very important to

53:47 ↗ make that

53:49 ↗ so we got great partners they've done a

53:52 ↗ lot for us let's help them out thank you

53:55 ↗ thank you David and lots of hands up in

54:00 ↗ the audience would anybody else care to

54:02 ↗ address Council this evening hi I'm

54:11 ↗ Mindy person I live at two three eight

54:14 ↗ four seven southeast 59th Street just

54:16 ↗ off of old black nugget Road we also own

54:19 ↗ a property at 235 Northeast Juniper

54:21 ↗ Street which is it within the intensive

54:22 ↗ commercial which is a b7 643 which is

54:27 ↗ item F on the consent calendar was it

54:29 ↗ gonna speak tonight but I heard a

54:31 ↗ somebody that was against the 65 or

54:34 ↗ wanting to go back to the 65% and I just

54:37 ↗ want to say that I we are so

54:39 ↗ appreciative all of us that attended

54:40 ↗ those those Commission meetings of the

54:43 ↗ Commission and of Keith Niven for

54:45 ↗ listening to us because we're a small

54:48 ↗ business and frankly between my husband

54:50 ↗ and I we owned three small businesses in

54:52 ↗ Issaquah my husband has the biggest one

54:54 ↗ he employs 20 people here in in the city

54:57 ↗ of Issaquah and we put our life savings

55:02 ↗ into buying that property on juniper I

55:04 ↗ mean not entire but you know you get

55:06 ↗ that and if you reduce the use of that

55:09 ↗ property by 25% that's 25% of our nest

55:12 ↗ egg that just goes away so we are for

55:17 ↗ the the proposition is has been put

55:19 ↗ ahead it put to you to refer to the

55:21 ↗ Linden Shore committee so I just wanted

55:23 ↗ to say that thank you

55:25 ↗ thank you is there anyone else who would

55:27 ↗ like to address Council this evening

55:30 ↗ being none a second call anyone wishing

55:34 ↗ to address council last call for anyone

55:37 ↗ wishing to Jones council tonight seeing

55:40 ↗ no hands that ends audience comments

55:42 ↗ thank you so much for coming tonight

55:45 ↗ it's we appreciate all the information

55:47 ↗ that you share with us say save cougar

55:49 ↗ mountains request for property

55:51 ↗ acquisition comments on the school

55:53 ↗ district district impact fee comments on

55:56 ↗ King County Solid Waste Management Plan

55:58 ↗ Update

55:59 ↗ the successful salmon days event from

56:01 ↗ last weekend and also the last speaker

56:03 ↗ in support of the new standards so thank

56:06 ↗ you very much for coming we will move on

56:09 ↗ to committee and regional reports and

56:12 ↗ we'll start with councilmember hunt

56:13 ↗ thank you madam mayor I attended the

56:16 ↗ Cascade Water Alliance Resource

56:18 ↗ Management Committee on Thursday October

56:20 ↗ 11th there were two main items for

56:23 ↗ action that the committee made

56:24 ↗ recommendations on the first item was

56:27 ↗ replacement of a barrier near Lake Tapps

56:29 ↗ tunnel intake this would be a $58,000

56:32 ↗ cost and would be out of their current

56:34 ↗ budget and is a barrier that's required

56:37 ↗ for safety reasons and then also

56:40 ↗ replacement of a pork lift which we've

56:42 ↗ forty eight thousand dollars and also it

56:43 ↗ was a anticipated equipment cost and

56:46 ↗ then we also had a discussion around

56:48 ↗ water quality monitoring and this would

56:51 ↗ be a this would be a water quality

56:54 ↗ system that would monitor the quality of

56:58 ↗ water in Lake Tapps and the main

57:00 ↗ question here is how do we assess and

57:02 ↗ manage water quality from a recreational

57:04 ↗ perspective until it is used or until

57:08 ↗ which time it may be used as a water

57:11 ↗ supply as it is a reservoir the Cascade

57:15 ↗ Water Alliance board will meet October

57:16 ↗ 24th at 3:30 at Cascade office in

57:19 ↗ Bellevue and that concludes my report

57:21 ↗ Thank You councilmember hunt

57:22 ↗ councilmember Wray Thank You mayor

57:24 ↗ Pauley the services and Safety Committee

57:26 ↗ met on October 9th the Genda included a

57:30 ↗ presentation from imagine housing

57:32 ↗ related to issues arising from their

57:34 ↗ Rose crest property and Talas imagine

57:37 ↗ housing CEO Villette Nolan provided a

57:39 ↗ presentation on the underlying

57:41 ↗ challenges at Rose crest and the steps

57:43 ↗ in imagined housing has been taking to

57:45 ↗ improve communications and resident

57:46 ↗ satisfaction the committee was satisfied

57:48 ↗ with the steps that imagine housing has

57:50 ↗ taken this was a presentation that was

57:52 ↗ requested by full council that services

57:54 ↗ and safety meet with imagine housing to

57:58 ↗ talk about the Rose crest situation not

58:02 ↗ related to our last services and Safety

58:04 ↗ Committee but tonight agenda bill 76 55

58:08 ↗ expedited traffic enforcement pilot

58:10 ↗ project summary report an extension is

58:12 ↗ on

58:13 ↗ our consent agenda this was reviewed by

58:16 ↗ services and safety at our September

58:17 ↗ 18th meeting the committee recommended

58:23 ↗ that the pilot be extended through the

58:25 ↗ end of 2018 as the results from the

58:27 ↗ pilot we're showing promises in terms of

58:30 ↗ modifying driving behavior in the city

58:34 ↗ the administration hasn't indicated that

58:36 ↗ the pilot can be extended using existing

58:38 ↗ police department budget and that no

58:41 ↗ additional funding will be required this

58:43 ↗ agenda bill is on tonight's consent

58:46 ↗ agenda to extend the pilot through the

58:49 ↗ end of the year the next meeting of the

58:52 ↗ services and Safety Committee will be on

58:54 ↗ numbered November 14th at 6:30 p.m. in

58:57 ↗ Council Chambers services and Safety

58:59 ↗ Committee meeting was moved from our

59:01 ↗ normal Tuesday meeting to Wednesday to

59:04 ↗ accommodate the City Council budget work

59:05 ↗ session that is scheduled for November

59:07 ↗ 13 so just know that everyone is a

59:09 ↗ schedule change the agenda for the

59:13 ↗ meeting has not yet been sent the East

59:15 ↗ Side Fire Rescue Board met on October

59:18 ↗ 11th the agenda included the board

59:21 ↗ approving replacement of their existing

59:23 ↗ HRA with a voluntary employee

59:26 ↗ beneficiary Association health reinforce

59:30 ↗ reimbursement arrangement managed by a

59:32 ↗ third party administrator the esight

59:35 ↗ Fire and Rescue Board also adopted the

59:37 ↗ 2019 2020 revenue and expense budget

59:40 ↗ this budget was aligned to the

59:41 ↗ presentation presented by East Side Fire

59:44 ↗ and Rescue Chief Jeff Clark at the arc

59:46 ↗ the council's October 8th work session

59:49 ↗ the board also amended administrative

59:52 ↗ policy zero-zero-zero to budget

59:54 ↗ management and reserve policy to provide

59:56 ↗ for a smoothing of increases in annual

59:59 ↗ contributions to East Side Fire and

1:00:01 ↗ Rescue the smoothing approach was

1:00:03 ↗ presented by chief Clark at the October

1:00:05 ↗ 8th work session and finally the site

1:00:07 ↗ Fire and Rescue Board amended

1:00:08 ↗ administrative policy zero-zero-zero for

1:00:11 ↗ minimum staffing to provide for revised

1:00:13 ↗ staffing plan for station 81 to make

1:00:16 ↗ this an eight car only station this will

1:00:18 ↗ permit East Side Fire and Rescue to

1:00:20 ↗ provide better response times to other

1:00:21 ↗ parts of the service area and this too

1:00:24 ↗ was discussed by chief

1:00:26 ↗ at the October 8th meeting the next

1:00:29 ↗ meeting of East Side Fire and Rescue

1:00:30 ↗ Board will be on November 8th that he's

1:00:32 ↗ hired Fire and Rescue headquarters and

1:00:34 ↗ that concludes my very lengthy report

1:00:36 ↗ this evening Thank You councilmember Rey

1:00:38 ↗ that's my Ramos thank you

1:00:41 ↗ the council Infrastructure Committee

1:00:42 ↗ will be meeting this Thursday the 18th

1:00:44 ↗ right here in Council Chambers at 6:30

1:00:46 ↗ we have three action items on the agenda

1:00:48 ↗ a be 76 49 which is amendments to the

1:00:52 ↗ water sewer and stormwater recovery

1:00:54 ↗ contracts a be 76 47 amendments to the

1:00:58 ↗ general assembly charge and regional

1:01:00 ↗ supply and treatment charge for water

1:01:01 ↗ and a be 76 35 vacation of a portion of

1:01:05 ↗ the Northeast Gilman Boulevard which

1:01:07 ↗ there'll be a public hearing for this

1:01:09 ↗ shortly there was the reaction I was in

1:01:12 ↗ of course project updates that concludes

1:01:13 ↗ my report

1:01:14 ↗ Thank You councilmember winters time

1:01:16 ↗ thank you on October 4th GMP be met but

1:01:20 ↗ because I was unable to attend I do not

1:01:22 ↗ have a report they will meet again on

1:01:24 ↗ Thursday November 1st at 10:00 a.m. at

1:01:28 ↗ PS SC headquarters in Seattle and I'll

1:01:30 ↗ report on both the October and November

1:01:32 ↗ meetings at the next opportunity

1:01:34 ↗ and the lodging tax advisory committee

1:01:37 ↗ has not met since our last council

1:01:39 ↗ meeting so I have nothing to report

1:01:41 ↗ there either

1:01:41 ↗ thank you councilmember Goodman thank

1:01:44 ↗ you that is the Quad City Council's

1:01:46 ↗ Landon short committee will met on

1:01:48 ↗ October 4th and we had three items the

1:01:52 ↗ first was we were presented with this

1:01:54 ↗ 2017 Central Issaquah monitoring report

1:01:57 ↗ and dashboard so should you be

1:01:58 ↗ interested in reviewing that it's on the

1:02:00 ↗ city's website agenda bill 73 26 Old

1:02:04 ↗ Town sub area plan the committee would

1:02:06 ↗ like to take another look so it's on the

1:02:08 ↗ consent agenda tonight to be referred

1:02:10 ↗ back to Landon Shore because it was

1:02:12 ↗ scheduled to come to full council and

1:02:15 ↗ the committee didn't think we were quite

1:02:16 ↗ ready yet but for technical reasons that

1:02:18 ↗ needs to be referred back if that's if

1:02:20 ↗ the committee wants to take another look

1:02:22 ↗ also agenda bill 76 61 which is on the

1:02:27 ↗ consent agenda tonight Genda bills as he

1:02:29 ↗ proposed amendments to central standard

1:02:31 ↗ table 4.3 be permitted land uses and

1:02:35 ↗ that was recommended to adopt from the

1:02:40 ↗ committee

1:02:40 ↗ our next meeting is November 1st here in

1:02:43 ↗ Council Chambers at 6:30 the agenda has

1:02:45 ↗ not yet been set that's my report Thank

1:02:47 ↗ You councilmember Goodman deputy council

1:02:49 ↗ president batiste thank you madam mayor

1:02:50 ↗ no report this evening Thank You council

1:02:53 ↗ president Mertz

1:02:54 ↗ thank you madam mayor the sound cities

1:02:56 ↗ association public issues committee met

1:02:58 ↗ on Wednesday October 10th at 7 p.m. in

1:03:01 ↗ the Renton City Hall there were a couple

1:03:03 ↗ items that I want to draw your attention

1:03:05 ↗ to the first is that there was a

1:03:07 ↗ conversation about the 2019 SCA

1:03:09 ↗ legislative agenda which we've talked

1:03:11 ↗ about I would say there was a robust

1:03:14 ↗ conversation around people who wanted to

1:03:16 ↗ amend the legislative agenda and a

1:03:19 ↗ robust counter conversation amongst

1:03:21 ↗ people who wanted to leave it as it was

1:03:25 ↗ simplicity being a virtue so there's

1:03:29 ↗ going to be a further conversation down

1:03:31 ↗ the road I think it might be at the

1:03:34 ↗ business meeting for SCA but where

1:03:37 ↗ people are going to make potential

1:03:39 ↗ amendments to it I indicated that our

1:03:42 ↗ council thought that the sort of

1:03:45 ↗ simplicity of it and the fact that it

1:03:46 ↗ have tailed well with their own

1:03:47 ↗ legislative agenda was important I don't

1:03:51 ↗ know how many amendments would

1:03:53 ↗ potentially get much traction but you

1:03:57 ↗ know lots of cities had lots of things

1:03:59 ↗ they were interested in and as I have

1:04:00 ↗ often said a camel is a horse designed

1:04:03 ↗ by committee so we'll see where that

1:04:05 ↗ goes

1:04:07 ↗ a second issue that I have just

1:04:08 ↗ forwarded you information on is there

1:04:11 ↗ was a presentation on a regional

1:04:12 ↗ affordable housing task force draft plan

1:04:15 ↗ so I have sent it all on to you for you

1:04:19 ↗ to take a look at and what I would like

1:04:21 ↗ to do is bring it up again and for good

1:04:23 ↗ of the order I will also as soon as the

1:04:26 ↗ minutes are available from the SCA pic

1:04:29 ↗ meeting I will forward those as well

1:04:31 ↗ because I would say that there was also

1:04:34 ↗ an extremely robust conversation around

1:04:36 ↗ this plan and I will leave it at that

1:04:38 ↗ and I will let you take a look at the

1:04:40 ↗ gist of that conversation and then like

1:04:43 ↗ I said potentially get your thoughts on

1:04:44 ↗ this plan or will ask for your thoughts

1:04:47 ↗ on this plan at the next for good of the

1:04:50 ↗ order at the next regular City Council

1:04:52 ↗ meeting

1:04:54 ↗ I will mention that SCA appointments are

1:04:58 ↗ the end of this month and so mayor poly

1:05:01 ↗ has sent out a request from everybody

1:05:03 ↗ for their preferences for what they

1:05:06 ↗ would like to have names to be submitted

1:05:09 ↗ from the city to SCA executive director

1:05:12 ↗ Dawson has made it clear that she

1:05:14 ↗ expects cities to sort of get their own

1:05:16 ↗ house in order collectively instead sort

1:05:18 ↗ of one set of recommendations and

1:05:20 ↗ requests and that also these you know

1:05:24 ↗ people have requests on what they would

1:05:26 ↗ like to get hopefully you know hopefully

1:05:28 ↗ they'll be able to have those names

1:05:30 ↗ submitted we may also as part of the

1:05:33 ↗ discussions of dovetailing this to our

1:05:36 ↗ regional priorities ask you to consider

1:05:38 ↗ additional appointments as things go

1:05:41 ↗ forward so we shall see how that goes

1:05:43 ↗ this concludes my report Thank You

1:05:46 ↗ council president Mertz and that

1:05:48 ↗ completes the committee in regional

1:05:49 ↗ reports moving on to the mayor's report

1:05:52 ↗ there will be an executive session this

1:05:55 ↗ evening to discuss items related to

1:05:57 ↗ pending litigation per 42.3 0.11 o paren

1:06:01 ↗ one print I these items are expected to

1:06:04 ↗ have I got the right and potential

1:06:08 ↗ property acquisition these items are

1:06:11 ↗ expected to last at least 20 minutes no

1:06:14 ↗ action is anticipated to follow in open

1:06:16 ↗ session mayors month of concern

1:06:19 ↗ city staff donated time at local grocers

1:06:22 ↗ and also collected our own food

1:06:24 ↗ donations in September for the mayor's

1:06:26 ↗ month of concern for the hungry this is

1:06:28 ↗ a benefit for the Issaquah food and

1:06:30 ↗ clothing bank we dropped off 712 pounds

1:06:34 ↗ of food more than doubled last year's

1:06:36 ↗ record giving us a new donation record

1:06:38 ↗ for the city

1:06:39 ↗ regionally the food and clothing bank

1:06:40 ↗ received twenty three thousand two

1:06:43 ↗ hundred ninety two pounds of food and

1:06:45 ↗ toiletries that's eleven point six five

1:06:47 ↗ tons of goods I also wanted to talk a

1:06:51 ↗ little bit about salmon days and

1:06:53 ↗ appreciated that Brenda from the chamber

1:06:55 ↗ came tonight to tell you is a success we

1:06:58 ↗ estimate that approximately a hundred

1:07:00 ↗ and thirty thousand festival loving

1:07:03 ↗ friends came to and

1:07:05 ↗ shir there were 80 entries in the parade

1:07:07 ↗ 70 local nonprofits had fundraising

1:07:10 ↗ activities during the festival our local

1:07:13 ↗ Esquire robotics team added new and

1:07:15 ↗ exciting activities to the field of fun

1:07:17 ↗ we had 34 farmers market farmers market

1:07:20 ↗ vendors and 55 food vendors 298 artists

1:07:24 ↗ 14 wineries in the new wine tasting area

1:07:28 ↗ 932 paid attendees of the carnival over

1:07:32 ↗ at is Sequoia Elementary the score

1:07:34 ↗ Valley Elementary and 50 sponsors who

1:07:36 ↗ contributed over three hundred thousand

1:07:38 ↗ dollars to the event this event takes

1:07:41 ↗ 477 volunteers over the three days to

1:07:44 ↗ run it's quite quite an event to pull

1:07:47 ↗ off I want to thank the city's Parks and

1:07:49 ↗ Recreation Department police department

1:07:51 ↗ and all the city staff along with these

1:07:53 ↗ site Fire and Rescue who worked on this

1:07:55 ↗ chamber event with all of these amazing

1:07:58 ↗ sponsors and volunteers the last item in

1:08:01 ↗ the mayor's report today is a little

1:08:02 ↗ update on the 62nd Street project cannot

1:08:05 ↗ wait for this to I turned this project

1:08:09 ↗ on Friday October 5th and was thrilled

1:08:11 ↗ to see the progress a few of the

1:08:13 ↗ highlights pickering trail from fourth

1:08:15 ↗ to Pickering barn is already open to the

1:08:17 ↗ public the bridge construction is

1:08:19 ↗ completed and they are doing ongoing

1:08:21 ↗ finished work on the structure the King

1:08:24 ↗ County trail under crossing structure is

1:08:26 ↗ built and not only looks really cool but

1:08:28 ↗ provides separation of the trail users

1:08:30 ↗ from the roundabout and the numerous

1:08:33 ↗ utilities in the area have all been

1:08:34 ↗ reconstructed and our just waiting final

1:08:36 ↗ approval contractor is currently working

1:08:39 ↗ 6 10 hour days each week to try and get

1:08:42 ↗ the road bridge and King County East

1:08:44 ↗ Lake Sammamish Trail open by the end of

1:08:45 ↗ the year so we can get this critically

1:08:48 ↗ important under crossing reopened so

1:08:51 ↗ thank you for being patient I also just

1:08:53 ↗ wanted to add on a little update on that

1:08:57 ↗ Bergsma property since we had so many

1:09:00 ↗ members of the public this evening show

1:09:02 ↗ up from the SE Cougar Mountain group we

1:09:06 ↗ are still partnering with the Trust for

1:09:08 ↗ Public Land and exploring the

1:09:10 ↗ acquisition options for this parcel

1:09:12 ↗ known as Bergsma property it's a very

1:09:14 ↗ complex opportunity and it will take

1:09:16 ↗ multiple solutions

1:09:18 ↗ I had reported earlier in the summer

1:09:21 ↗ that there was an option to purchase

1:09:23 ↗ agreement that TPL had attained from the

1:09:26 ↗ owner and that agreement allowed for an

1:09:29 ↗ appraisal of the property to be

1:09:30 ↗ initiated while the appraisal work was

1:09:33 ↗ underway and now has been underway and

1:09:35 ↗ is now nearing completion the city and

1:09:37 ↗ the trust for public lands have

1:09:39 ↗ continued to identify and explore

1:09:40 ↗ numerous rendering opportunities that

1:09:42 ↗ would be needed for any acquisition

1:09:43 ↗ scenario and specific details of the

1:09:47 ↗ work cannot be publicly shared tonight

1:09:48 ↗ however we are hopeful that we will be

1:09:50 ↗ able to share details of this work

1:09:52 ↗ publicly in the coming month or two

1:09:54 ↗ should an acquisition be negotiated so

1:09:56 ↗ thank you for being patient and

1:09:58 ↗ proceeding to the consent calendar the

1:10:01 ↗ consent calendar was distributed to

1:10:03 ↗ council in advance if authorized the

1:10:06 ↗ items on the consent calendar will be

1:10:08 ↗ considered together and approved by one

1:10:09 ↗ motion of the payables and payroll been

1:10:12 ↗ reviewed yes thank you as any council

1:10:16 ↗ member desire to remove any item from

1:10:18 ↗ the consent calendar and consider it

1:10:20 ↗ under regular business yes member hunt I

1:10:23 ↗ would like to move down item J a B 766

1:10:28 ↗ one proposed amendments to central

1:10:30 ↗ standards table 4.3 be permitted land

1:10:33 ↗ uses second thank you council president

1:10:47 ↗ Mertz so we will put that on our regular

1:10:49 ↗ agenda after item a maybe 764 oh so that

1:10:57 ↗ will be our new item B under business

1:11:05 ↗ oh it says motion made and seconded so

1:11:10 ↗ maybe it didn't need to be seconded we

1:11:12 ↗ need to okay don't mistake another

1:11:14 ↗ you're not there's a lot of confusion

1:11:17 ↗ going around okay the next item on our

1:11:20 ↗ agenda whoa I move we adopt the consent

1:11:24 ↗ yeah

1:11:25 ↗ as listed in this evenings publishes a

1:11:27 ↗ second it's been moved and seconded to

1:11:29 ↗ approve the consent agenda as amended

1:11:31 ↗ all in favor say aye

1:11:34 ↗ Ares next item now on our agenda is

1:11:40 ↗ public hearing a b7 635 vacation of a

1:11:44 ↗ portion of North East Gilman Boulevard

1:11:45 ↗ we're going to conduct the public

1:11:47 ↗ hearing and this has been roof this will

1:11:50 ↗ be referred to council infrastructure

1:11:53 ↗ like to invite senior engineer John

1:11:55 ↗ Martinson to make presentation

1:12:24 ↗ thank you madam mayor and city council

1:12:27 ↗ good evening everyone I'm John Mortensen

1:12:30 ↗ senior transportation engineer in the

1:12:32 ↗ Public Works engineering department

1:12:34 ↗ tonight I'm here to give you a brief

1:12:36 ↗ presentation on agenda bill 76 35

1:12:40 ↗ vacation of a portion of North East

1:12:43 ↗ Gilman Boulevard before I get into the

1:12:46 ↗ details of this agenda bill just in case

1:12:48 ↗ anyone doesn't know so right away is a

1:12:51 ↗ an easement for the traveling public and

1:12:55 ↗ the city code and state law allow a

1:12:59 ↗ public agency like the city of Esquire

1:13:01 ↗ to vacate right away which extinguishes

1:13:04 ↗ that easement for the public

1:13:06 ↗ right-of-way when that happens the

1:13:08 ↗ right-of-way becomes under their sole

1:13:12 ↗ control of the adjacent property owner

1:13:13 ↗ owners state law and city code also

1:13:23 ↗ allow for an abutting property owner to

1:13:27 ↗ petition for a right-of-way vacation and

1:13:31 ↗ ask for council approval City Council

1:13:34 ↗ could also initiate the right-of-way

1:13:36 ↗ vacation process if the council chose to

1:13:40 ↗ in order to reduce the public burden if

1:13:43 ↗ there is no need for the right-of-way

1:13:46 ↗ so specifically about this agenda bill

1:13:49 ↗ the right-of-way that it's being

1:13:50 ↗ considered to be vacated is shown on the

1:13:52 ↗ map in yellow the adjacent property to

1:13:58 ↗ the south is owned by Kyle development

1:14:01 ↗ and it's shown in blue to the north and

1:14:03 ↗ to the east is the right-of-way for

1:14:05 ↗ interstate 90 if the City Council

1:14:13 ↗ decides to vacate the right-of-way the

1:14:15 ↗ city will receive just compensation for

1:14:18 ↗ the value of the land now if you feel

1:14:20 ↗ like you're having a moment of deja vu

1:14:22 ↗ you are and the reason for that is last

1:14:25 ↗ spring the City Council considered

1:14:27 ↗ vacating this property at the time there

1:14:30 ↗ is a lot of public comments about the

1:14:33 ↗ future use of

1:14:35 ↗ this property and the council decided to

1:14:39 ↗ vote one to four after deliberations and

1:14:42 ↗ wait till after the park strategic plan

1:14:44 ↗ was adopted since that time the 2008

1:14:51 ↗ park strategic plan was adopted in last

1:14:55 ↗ summer also if you remember from when

1:14:59 ↗ this agenda bill was presented last

1:15:01 ↗ spring both the city and state will

1:15:03 ↗ maintain an easement for the city

1:15:07 ↗ underground utilities and Faraj sought

1:15:09 ↗ to maintain their retaining wall this is

1:15:12 ↗ a picture looking Northwest on Gilman

1:15:15 ↗ Boulevard and as I said earlier right

1:15:19 ↗ away is an easement for traveling public

1:15:21 ↗ and at one time there were multiple

1:15:24 ↗ property owners along this section of

1:15:26 ↗ Gilman Boulevard right now there's only

1:15:28 ↗ one property owner and that's Kyle

1:15:30 ↗ development that they've consolidated

1:15:32 ↗ all the properties and so this public

1:15:36 ↗ right-of-way basically functions like a

1:15:39 ↗ private driveway except the city still

1:15:43 ↗ has the burden of ongoing maintenance

1:15:45 ↗ and liabilities and risks I went out

1:15:49 ↗ there last week and just kind of took a

1:15:51 ↗ look around the sidewalks really cracked

1:15:53 ↗ the it doesn't meet the current ata

1:15:56 ↗ standards the driveway slopes are too

1:15:58 ↗ steep the mailbox would prevent a

1:16:01 ↗ wheelchair from getting by so there's

1:16:02 ↗ some maintenance needs and ongoing

1:16:04 ↗ liabilities out there with this

1:16:07 ↗ right-of-way that we're talking about

1:16:09 ↗ here's another picture and this is

1:16:12 ↗ looking east onto their property on the

1:16:16 ↗ left you can see the retaining wall for

1:16:19 ↗ i-90 and as I was standing out there

1:16:21 ↗ last week I was observed that it's

1:16:24 ↗ really loud with the traffic for my 90

1:16:26 ↗ going by

1:16:31 ↗ tonight's recommended motion is to refer

1:16:34 ↗ to gender bill 76 35 to this Thursdays

1:16:38 ↗ counsel Infrastructure Committee for

1:16:40 ↗ review and recommendation in that way we

1:16:43 ↗ can respond to any comments or questions

1:16:44 ↗ that are brought up tonight and bring

1:16:46 ↗ the agenda bill back to the full Council

1:16:48 ↗ on November 5th for final action the

1:16:53 ↗ agenda bill from last spring was agenda

1:16:55 ↗ bill 74 85 and that was to vacate a

1:17:02 ↗ portion of the same portion of Gillman

1:17:06 ↗ Boulevard at the public hearing I began

1:17:08 ↗ on March 19th and that Sam Kyle from

1:17:13 ↗ Kyle Development gave a presentation he

1:17:15 ↗ gave a history of the right-of-way as of

1:17:21 ↗ Gilman Boulevard as i-90 was developed

1:17:23 ↗ and then on April 2nd there are several

1:17:27 ↗ comments about mostly concerning future

1:17:30 ↗ use and in the end as I mentioned that

1:17:33 ↗ council voted one to four and one to

1:17:35 ↗ wait until the strategic plan was

1:17:37 ↗ completed so it was more detail about

1:17:42 ↗ the the public comments the overall

1:17:45 ↗ theme was weight to make sure that we

1:17:47 ↗ don't have a future use for that

1:17:49 ↗ right-of-way and there are a bunch of

1:17:52 ↗ ideas suggested like movies on i-90 a

1:17:55 ↗ festival street maybe it could be a

1:17:57 ↗ community amenity what about the could

1:18:00 ↗ be a trail connecting over to High Point

1:18:02 ↗ and some concerns about future rezoning

1:18:07 ↗ on July 16th the council adopted the

1:18:11 ↗ state are this the parks strategic plan

1:18:15 ↗ and it did not identify a future park or

1:18:18 ↗ trail in this section of Northeast

1:18:20 ↗ Gilman Boulevard talking a little bit

1:18:23 ↗ about some of the specific comments that

1:18:25 ↗ were brought up a couple of the big

1:18:29 ↗ problems is if we convert it to a park

1:18:31 ↗ type facility whether it's for movies or

1:18:33 ↗ a festival street or anything like that

1:18:35 ↗ or linear park that it cuts off the

1:18:38 ↗ primary access to this property and

1:18:42 ↗ another thing is it's

1:18:45 ↗ this is just my personal opinion not a

1:18:47 ↗ very pleasant place to be with all the

1:18:49 ↗ noise from my 90 whip whizzing by I'd be

1:18:52 ↗ really hard to hear a movie and so then

1:18:56 ↗ talking specifically about the green

1:18:58 ↗ necklace or maybe a trail over de

1:19:01 ↗ highpoint trail

1:19:02 ↗ well this green necklace plan did not

1:19:04 ↗ identify a connection in this area the

1:19:08 ↗ same impact is doing a park that if we

1:19:10 ↗ put a trail there that we're going to be

1:19:12 ↗ cutting off access to the private

1:19:14 ↗ property and continuing along the trail

1:19:17 ↗ would have to primarily be in washed-out

1:19:20 ↗ limited access area and there's a lot of

1:19:22 ↗ environmentally sensitive areas as these

1:19:25 ↗ fork of Issaquah Creek goes through

1:19:26 ↗ there a final comment that I remember

1:19:29 ↗ from last spring was potential rezoning

1:19:32 ↗ so I talked to the city's long-range

1:19:35 ↗ planning manager and she said that there

1:19:38 ↗ shouldn't be a change in use out there

1:19:41 ↗ and that current uses I'm not going to

1:19:44 ↗ read through the table

1:19:45 ↗ but those are what the uses of the land

1:19:48 ↗ if Kyle development were to redevelop

1:19:51 ↗ the property and tonight's

1:19:54 ↗ recommendation it's to like I said to

1:19:57 ↗ refer it to the council infrastructure

1:20:01 ↗ committee and that concludes my

1:20:03 ↗ presentation

1:20:04 ↗ thank you John councilmember questions

1:20:09 ↗ there's no questions I'm going to open

1:20:11 ↗ the hearing but I'll look one more time

1:20:12 ↗ no questions for John okay so I now open

1:20:19 ↗ the public hearing at 8:22 has anyone

1:20:23 ↗ signed up to speak this evening no is

1:20:26 ↗ there anyone who would like to address

1:20:27 ↗ the council during the public hearing

1:20:29 ↗ Steve

1:20:37 ↗ hello again mayor Polly city council

1:20:40 ↗ good to be here again so I would live

1:20:43 ↗ off 170 northeast dogwood street which

1:20:45 ↗ is not too far from this complex several

1:20:47 ↗ thoughts occurred to me on this well I

1:20:49 ↗ guess I'm opposed the idea of vacating

1:20:50 ↗ the property my reasons are as follows

1:20:53 ↗ as the previous speakers said this is a

1:20:55 ↗ primary access for that property so it's

1:20:58 ↗ a primary ingress egress for cars going

1:21:01 ↗ to that business park there were only

1:21:03 ↗ two of those and you're cutting off one

1:21:05 ↗ of them so that seems like bad traffic

1:21:06 ↗ management bad emergency access policy

1:21:10 ↗ the other is that complex is at least

1:21:14 ↗ zoned or planned to be zoned as part of

1:21:16 ↗ the Old Town Hall plan it doesn't seem

1:21:17 ↗ to meet the character of that area so

1:21:21 ↗ allowing more growth in there I guess

1:21:23 ↗ I'd like to see that area moved or not

1:21:24 ↗ include the whole town Issaquah plan

1:21:27 ↗ area but it's not consistent with the

1:21:29 ↗ area and it's not maybe consistent with

1:21:31 ↗ the state route 10 going through there

1:21:35 ↗ for that reason I guess I have concerns

1:21:37 ↗ and reservations about traffic already

1:21:40 ↗ being impacted with what's taking place

1:21:44 ↗ now so thank you thank you Steve is

1:21:47 ↗ there anyone else who would like to

1:21:48 ↗ speak at the public hearing

1:21:50 ↗ second call anyone liking to speak last

1:21:54 ↗ call so we'll close the public hearing

1:21:57 ↗ at 8:24 and is there a motion that's

1:22:08 ↗ more interesting thank you madam mayor

1:22:10 ↗ I'm gonna make a motion and I hope

1:22:12 ↗ somebody seconds it so we can have a

1:22:14 ↗ conversation and unlike what is

1:22:17 ↗ recommended on the board in front of us

1:22:20 ↗ I'm going to go back to the motion that

1:22:22 ↗ was in the packet back in April 2nd that

1:22:25 ↗ was unfolded on and so this wording is

1:22:29 ↗ right from the same motion from the

1:22:32 ↗ agenda bill back in April second and it

1:22:34 ↗ reads I moved to adopt ordinance number

1:22:37 ↗ two eight four six through eight four

1:22:40 ↗ six vacating a portion of Street right

1:22:42 ↗ away adjacent to property located at

1:22:45 ↗ three hundred and 371 northeast Gilman

1:22:48 ↗ Boulevard

1:22:49 ↗ subject to easements and establishing

1:22:51 ↗ the compensation to be paid for such

1:22:53 ↗ vacation second it's been moved and

1:22:56 ↗ seconded council discussion

1:22:57 ↗ councilmember winter Sam restart yeah

1:22:59 ↗ thank you as was pointed out tonight

1:23:03 ↗ I appreciated the presentation from

1:23:05 ↗ staff thank you John the there have been

1:23:10 ↗ two and now three public hearings on

1:23:15 ↗ this and the council I reviewed the

1:23:20 ↗ meeting the the comments at those

1:23:23 ↗ meetings and the council's meet comments

1:23:26 ↗ on ape from April second and I think

1:23:28 ↗ they've been fairly summarized here that

1:23:31 ↗ those of us that were here those that

1:23:34 ↗ spoke against the vacation it was

1:23:37 ↗ primarily about we don't know yet there

1:23:39 ↗ we have time we don't know if the the

1:23:41 ↗ park strategic plan is going to call for

1:23:44 ↗ some potential use of this land

1:23:48 ↗ councilmember hunt did make another

1:23:50 ↗ recommendation about maybe it could be a

1:23:52 ↗ linear park or something like that and

1:23:55 ↗ and but the majority of the concerns

1:23:59 ↗ that were expressed were let's wait to

1:24:02 ↗ see if the park strategic plan calls for

1:24:04 ↗ something now we know that it does not

1:24:07 ↗ and I also do appreciate also staffs

1:24:12 ↗ comments tonight I've spent some time

1:24:14 ↗ out there as well and when it comes to

1:24:16 ↗ parks you know if there's any John can I

1:24:20 ↗ ask you to go put your second slide back

1:24:21 ↗ up there I like parks is not as much as

1:24:27 ↗ the next person I even like linear parks

1:24:29 ↗ I always spent quite a bit of time keep

1:24:32 ↗ going one more if you go southwest from

1:24:36 ↗ the yellow area at the inners and the

1:24:38 ↗ southwest intersection between dogwood

1:24:40 ↗ and 3rd Avenue it's hard to tell from

1:24:43 ↗ this diagram but the the North Fork of

1:24:47 ↗ Issaquah Creek kind of cuts at an angle

1:24:50 ↗ from Southeast to Northwest across that

1:24:54 ↗ property and there is 105 thousand

1:24:57 ↗ square feet of land owned by the city of

1:25:00 ↗ Issaquah currently it's occupied by

1:25:03 ↗ the previous owners and when they vacate

1:25:05 ↗ that land that'll be turning over and it

1:25:08 ↗ is within our plan to create a permanent

1:25:10 ↗ open space to all that land which is

1:25:13 ↗ significantly larger than what we're

1:25:14 ↗ talking about vacating here I think

1:25:18 ↗ that's gonna be great for the city it's

1:25:19 ↗ gonna be great for the creek it's gonna

1:25:20 ↗ be great for everybody who lives in

1:25:22 ↗ proximity it's gonna be great for the

1:25:23 ↗ businesses as well so I think that with

1:25:27 ↗ that in the pipeline and given the

1:25:31 ↗ plenty of opportunity that we've had

1:25:33 ↗ already at discussing and considering

1:25:36 ↗ this I don't think it was necessary to

1:25:40 ↗ spend any more time on the issue and I'd

1:25:43 ↗ like the council to consider just

1:25:45 ↗ completing this piece of business so we

1:25:47 ↗ can get one thing off our list all right

1:25:49 ↗ anyone else's comment councilmember

1:25:52 ↗ Goodman

1:25:53 ↗ councilmember hunt I agree with

1:25:55 ↗ councilmember winter Stein's

1:25:59 ↗ notion that we could that we should just

1:26:02 ↗ approve this tonight I don't see any

1:26:04 ↗ reason to refer it to committee it's

1:26:05 ↗ been before us before and I don't know

1:26:09 ↗ what else we would possibly do at

1:26:11 ↗ committee that we there's no more I mean

1:26:15 ↗ we have all the information and we've

1:26:16 ↗ seen it a couple times I - even though

1:26:18 ↗ it wasn't at the last meeting I did

1:26:19 ↗ watch it when I returned and so I

1:26:23 ↗ support the motion Thank You

1:26:26 ↗ councilmember hunt I actually like to

1:26:30 ↗ ask a clarifying question if I may

1:26:33 ↗ regarding the presentation and it has to

1:26:36 ↗ do with if there is more information

1:26:37 ↗ that could be considered so under the

1:26:40 ↗ rezoning my understanding of this part

1:26:44 ↗ of Gillman is that there are some also

1:26:47 ↗ on the consent agenda and a different

1:26:50 ↗ item there is a item that would consider

1:26:54 ↗ rezoning for businesses for this part of

1:26:58 ↗ Gilman not for a right-of-way but for

1:27:00 ↗ the businesses so with that and anyway

1:27:02 ↗ impacts the potential uses if this were

1:27:06 ↗ to be vacated I would think it it would

1:27:09 ↗ which is why I'm asking

1:27:12 ↗ I'm seeing a know being shaking in the

1:27:15 ↗ back and it's my understanding that the

1:27:18 ↗ use of the land would not change and

1:27:20 ↗ from what I've read and I think you guys

1:27:22 ↗ know better than I that you guys are

1:27:25 ↗ talking about impervious area and that

1:27:27 ↗ kind of thing so right now it's zoned

1:27:30 ↗ for destination retail the land uses oh

1:27:33 ↗ I'm gonna just turn it over to someone

1:27:35 ↗ who speaks this language good evening

1:27:39 ↗ Keith Niven director of development

1:27:40 ↗ services so right now

1:27:43 ↗ the property is right away so it

1:27:45 ↗ technically doesn't have uses if it's

1:27:49 ↗ vacated the zoning would be consistent

1:27:51 ↗ with the adjacent property and what

1:27:54 ↗ we're talking about is zoning that makes

1:27:56 ↗ you southside of central is a clause so

1:27:58 ↗ it would it would adopt that zone so

1:28:04 ↗ that would be contingent on the the

1:28:08 ↗ zoning that is currently being

1:28:10 ↗ considered by council for those

1:28:13 ↗ properties yes just which has not yet

1:28:17 ↗ been finalized yes and I was gonna look

1:28:23 ↗ at council member Ramos because his

1:28:24 ↗ committee was gonna be recipients if we

1:28:26 ↗ can get some comments sure and we talked

1:28:29 ↗ about this in getting ready for the

1:28:31 ↗ council Infrastructure Committee meeting

1:28:32 ↗ and this idea did get surfaced is the

1:28:35 ↗ possibility of did we want to just have

1:28:39 ↗ the council deal with it directly and I

1:28:41 ↗ my thought at the time was we have a

1:28:44 ↗ process we like to follow which is after

1:28:47 ↗ a public hearing we don't make an

1:28:48 ↗ immediate decision if we are not time

1:28:51 ↗ constrained and since there were a lot

1:28:54 ↗ of questions asked and a lot of

1:28:56 ↗ information coming back as count as

1:28:58 ↗ chair of that committee I thought we

1:29:01 ↗ should go through the regular process

1:29:02 ↗ which was would just take it back to

1:29:03 ↗ committee and then come back here and do

1:29:05 ↗ that so I was respectful of all of the

1:29:07 ↗ members on the on the council here in

1:29:09 ↗ the process to do that because there's

1:29:10 ↗ no rush to this happened at all so that

1:29:12 ↗ was my thought process behind my would

1:29:14 ↗ continue with the normal process even

1:29:16 ↗ though this has been back and forth a

1:29:17 ↗ couple times because of questions in the

1:29:20 ↗ beginning so the vet tells fellow

1:29:25 ↗ committee members

1:29:26 ↗ what what the thought was Thank You

1:29:28 ↗ council president Mertz

1:29:29 ↗ so in general I strive both as a council

1:29:35 ↗ member and his council president to

1:29:37 ↗ defer or at least to look for leadership

1:29:41 ↗ from the liaison person on the bill and

1:29:43 ↗ then in parallel to look for leadership

1:29:46 ↗ from the chair of the committee to which

1:29:48 ↗ the bill will be presented and so the

1:29:50 ↗ fact that council member Ramos would

1:29:52 ↗ like to see this able to come to

1:29:53 ↗ committee is why I will be voting

1:29:57 ↗ against the motion that's in there that

1:30:00 ↗ the the motion that comes from over

1:30:02 ↗ winter Stein has has put forward to

1:30:04 ↗ decided this evening thank you other

1:30:06 ↗ comments

1:30:08 ↗ that's a member hunt I also will not be

1:30:12 ↗ supporting the motion because I think

1:30:14 ↗ that there that this would be within the

1:30:18 ↗ purview of the council Infrastructure

1:30:20 ↗ Committee and I think that that is has

1:30:24 ↗ been our process so I would support the

1:30:26 ↗ original motion but not the current

1:30:28 ↗ motion on the table Thank You deputy

1:30:31 ↗ council president batise thank you I

1:30:34 ↗ will not be supporting the motion if we

1:30:37 ↗ don't have a time constraint I would

1:30:40 ↗ defer to the head of the Infrastructure

1:30:43 ↗ Committee comments any more comments at

1:30:50 ↗ - yeah it's kind of a tie gonna go with

1:30:51 ↗ council member ray and then back to

1:30:53 ↗ council member interesting I think that

1:30:55 ↗ we have worked this issue fairly

1:30:58 ↗ extensively it's been here before I

1:31:01 ↗ don't think that we would find that we

1:31:03 ↗ would learn much by spending more time

1:31:05 ↗ in committee and bringing it back so I

1:31:07 ↗ am inclined to move forward with making

1:31:10 ↗ a decision this evening Thank You

1:31:13 ↗ councilmember winter saying yeah in in

1:31:15 ↗ the case that maybe I've missed

1:31:17 ↗ something it was the comment was made

1:31:19 ↗ that we got some more information I

1:31:21 ↗ don't know what that is so if somebody

1:31:25 ↗ could fill me in what additional

1:31:26 ↗ information or additional questions that

1:31:28 ↗ we still have to address that was my

1:31:31 ↗ comment

1:31:32 ↗ well actually bill said that you can

1:31:35 ↗ both reply will start with councilmember

1:31:37 ↗ hunt and

1:31:38 ↗ council member Ramos would like to join

1:31:40 ↗ in that's fine it's a member had well I

1:31:44 ↗ think that it's a question of having a

1:31:49 ↗ different situation different context

1:31:51 ↗ and I do think that there is in general

1:31:56 ↗ the the vacation of a right away would

1:31:59 ↗ be something that the Infrastructure

1:32:02 ↗ Committee would discuss and I think the

1:32:04 ↗ context has changed since we last

1:32:05 ↗ discussed it comes my Brumos so again I

1:32:11 ↗ was I was looking mainly at the process

1:32:13 ↗ and being respectful of that there is

1:32:16 ↗ some answers that came definitely for

1:32:18 ↗ most of our questions there's another

1:32:20 ↗ one brought up as far as director Niven

1:32:24 ↗ addressed to we can talk here for about

1:32:27 ↗ 15 minutes about it or we can go back to

1:32:28 ↗ count committee for about 15 minutes to

1:32:30 ↗ come back under consent so I'm not it's

1:32:34 ↗ it's not a lot a big issue here for me

1:32:37 ↗ it's just the process and stick to it if

1:32:40 ↗ we unless there's a reason why not to

1:32:41 ↗ and that's all that's a member Goodman

1:32:44 ↗ oh I wasn't completely clear on the

1:32:48 ↗ answer or the response regarding

1:32:50 ↗ councilmember hunts question is the if

1:32:55 ↗ it goes to if the motion fails and it

1:32:58 ↗ gets referred to infrastructure is there

1:33:01 ↗ a zoning is it a zoning question okay so

1:33:09 ↗ then it would it means that we would

1:33:12 ↗ need to have somebody there from

1:33:14 ↗ development services to there's a zoning

1:33:17 ↗ question with a Gilman Boulevard so I'll

1:33:23 ↗ recognize council member Hunt next but I

1:33:25 ↗ think what we're trying to get at here

1:33:26 ↗ tonight is that what is the outstanding

1:33:29 ↗ question that would go back that would

1:33:31 ↗ make sense to have the infrastructure

1:33:33 ↗ meeting because there's some information

1:33:35 ↗ you don't have tonight to make a

1:33:36 ↗ decision and now go back to

1:33:38 ↗ councilmember hunt because it was her

1:33:40 ↗ question about additional information I

1:33:43 ↗ think that was that was correct

1:33:47 ↗ interpretation of what I did so maybe

1:33:50 ↗ I'll stay

1:33:52 ↗ been to this party that we're having up

1:33:53 ↗ here and I'll ask a question so I I tend

1:33:57 ↗ to agree with committee chair

1:34:00 ↗ Rommels that we have a process and we

1:34:01 ↗ should stick to it however and each time

1:34:04 ↗ we send something to committee does take

1:34:06 ↗ council resources in some sort of

1:34:07 ↗ direction on what information they would

1:34:10 ↗ be bringing and if there is an

1:34:11 ↗ expectation that there is an unanswered

1:34:14 ↗ question or new information to present

1:34:16 ↗ they do think it would be appropriate to

1:34:18 ↗ go to committee if the committee chair

1:34:21 ↗ and those that are here tonight would be

1:34:23 ↗ hearing exactly what they heard now I'm

1:34:25 ↗ not sure that we necessarily have our

1:34:27 ↗ hands tied you do have the option to go

1:34:29 ↗ with a motion to approve tonight if the

1:34:31 ↗ expectation is there would be nothing

1:34:32 ↗ new presented at committee so for

1:34:36 ↗ discussion let me address one more thing

1:34:40 ↗ yeah and I'm just new to the process I

1:34:43 ↗ think I'm I was trying to be respectful

1:34:44 ↗ council members to not have to have this

1:34:47 ↗ discussion up here tonight it looks like

1:34:48 ↗ we're having it anyway so yeah that that

1:34:51 ↗ was the whole point to not have to take

1:34:53 ↗ the time to do this and do that in the

1:34:56 ↗ regular process since we're all talking

1:34:57 ↗ about it if you two are just referring

1:34:59 ↗ to me because of my decision as chair

1:35:01 ↗ I'm okay with this either way if you're

1:35:03 ↗ comfortable with it now I'm fine with it

1:35:06 ↗ I was just I do not want to sort of the

1:35:08 ↗ process and say hey now I'm bringing

1:35:10 ↗ here I'm not thinking about the

1:35:11 ↗ committee I thought that would have been

1:35:13 ↗ not proper you you can take it away I'll

1:35:16 ↗ follow your suit here thank you for

1:35:18 ↗ explaining that

1:35:19 ↗ comments what's the president merits so

1:35:23 ↗ I just wanted to be clear that I

1:35:24 ↗ understand council member Ramos you now

1:35:26 ↗ support the motion that is in front of

1:35:28 ↗ us I'll go with majority on this one I'm

1:35:31 ↗ fine either way I mean seriously I just

1:35:33 ↗ I'm fine either way

1:35:34 ↗ all right well you preface your previous

1:35:37 ↗ comment as if this is if if other

1:35:40 ↗ council members are deferring to you and

1:35:41 ↗ I was deferring to you so I'm going to

1:35:44 ↗ if you are supportive of this motion

1:35:47 ↗ then I am also going to support this

1:35:49 ↗ motion as the chair of again I was

1:35:52 ↗ respectful of council members time on

1:35:55 ↗ the daya's here and not trying to change

1:35:57 ↗ the process without their consent if you

1:36:00 ↗ have the consent you want to change the

1:36:01 ↗ process I'm fine with that if you're

1:36:03 ↗ comfortable with the information you

1:36:04 ↗ have

1:36:05 ↗ with that that's the decision I was

1:36:09 ↗ trying to avoid this long conversation

1:36:10 ↗ now that we've just had Thank You chair

1:36:13 ↗ Ramos deputy council president batiste

1:36:16 ↗ I was also deferring to the committee

1:36:18 ↗ chair so I will support the motion and

1:36:23 ↗ if there are no other comments I have a

1:36:26 ↗ clarification that is just going to

1:36:28 ↗ drive you all crazy but it was pointed

1:36:31 ↗ out to me that the motion that was made

1:36:34 ↗ was in reference to maybe the motion is

1:36:39 ↗ to adopt the proposed ordinance in the

1:36:41 ↗ agenda packet the title and content of

1:36:43 ↗ the ordinance differs slightly from the

1:36:45 ↗ ordinance before council previously in

1:36:47 ↗ April motion that could be considered

1:36:51 ↗ this evening would be to adopt ordinance

1:36:54 ↗ number two eight four six vacating a

1:36:56 ↗ portion of Street right-of-way adjacent

1:36:58 ↗ to property located at three hundred and

1:36:59 ↗ 371 northeast Gilman Boulevard subject

1:37:02 ↗ to easements and establishing the

1:37:03 ↗ compensation to be paid for such

1:37:05 ↗ vacation it shows sorry to giving me the

1:37:09 ↗ nod that works yes that's not the exact

1:37:11 ↗ title but as long as it's clear that the

1:37:13 ↗ intent is to adopt the version of the

1:37:15 ↗ ordinance in tonight's council packet

1:37:17 ↗ there was a slight technical correction

1:37:19 ↗ made so I could hand this dog shaker so

1:37:23 ↗ that is those were the exact same words

1:37:25 ↗ of my motion and absolutely intent is

1:37:27 ↗ the if Ali was citing was the language

1:37:31 ↗ of the motion from the previous packet

1:37:33 ↗ applying it to tonight and the version

1:37:35 ↗ of the ordinance that's in tonight's

1:37:37 ↗ packet for clarity so I thank you

1:37:39 ↗ so the wording hasn't changed at all

1:37:41 ↗ this is the same wording

1:37:43 ↗ yeah I think we'll just it does not need

1:37:47 ↗ to be exactly what's in the packet now

1:37:49 ↗ that that clarification has been made

1:37:51 ↗ that that's the intention all right so

1:37:55 ↗ which one am i reading back there we go

1:38:04 ↗ it's a little show tonight the motion is

1:38:07 ↗ moved to adopt ordinance number two

1:38:09 ↗ eight four six vacating a portion of

1:38:11 ↗ Street right-of-way adjacent to property

1:38:13 ↗ located at three hundred and 371

1:38:15 ↗ northeast Gilman Boulevard subject to

1:38:16 ↗ easements and established

1:38:18 ↗ a compensation to be paid for such

1:38:20 ↗ vacation all those in favor say aye

1:38:23 ↗ all those opposed Hey the motion carries

1:38:25 ↗ six in favor and councilmember hunt

1:38:28 ↗ opposed thank you okay moving on to

1:38:40 ↗ regular business the next item on the

1:38:42 ↗ agenda is a b7 six for Oh amending

1:38:45 ↗ school impact fees looking for some

1:38:49 ↗ direction to the administration this

1:38:50 ↗ evening and then it will be referred to

1:38:53 ↗ council services and Safety Committee so

1:38:56 ↗ before this agenda bill presentation

1:38:58 ↗ starts I'd like to clarify that the

1:39:00 ↗ purpose of tonight's proposed action is

1:39:02 ↗ to provide direction to the

1:39:04 ↗ administration based on the

1:39:05 ↗ recommendation of the council services

1:39:07 ↗ and Safety Committee this will give the

1:39:09 ↗ administration a starting point and

1:39:11 ↗ allows us to prepare the legislation

1:39:13 ↗ needed to make changes to the fees or

1:39:15 ↗ the parameters around setting those fees

1:39:17 ↗ tonight's action does not obligate

1:39:20 ↗ council members to support a particular

1:39:22 ↗ fee or approach Council will have all

1:39:25 ↗ the usual options to amend and vote on

1:39:27 ↗ any proposed legislation when this item

1:39:29 ↗ returns to Council for decision so

1:39:32 ↗ unless there are any questions I'd like

1:39:34 ↗ to invite policy planning manager Trish

1:39:36 ↗ Heinonen to make a presentation oh good

1:39:39 ↗ Trish ready okay we're just gonna quit

1:39:42 ↗ give you a background of why we're here

1:39:44 ↗ tonight so that you can all talk amongst

1:39:46 ↗ yourselves you're seeing the impact fee

1:39:50 ↗ update again tonight just as a

1:39:53 ↗ background we've been doing this since

1:39:55 ↗ 1995 not this particular one although

1:39:58 ↗ there are moments all the way up until

1:40:02 ↗ 2016 we've always gone with what the

1:40:04 ↗ district has recommended in their six

1:40:06 ↗ year capital plan last year you

1:40:09 ↗ expressed some concern that they were

1:40:10 ↗ taking a double discount beyond a

1:40:14 ↗ discount beyond what King County's

1:40:15 ↗ formula sets and so you you let them

1:40:20 ↗ know that you had some concerns and you

1:40:21 ↗ had some discussions with them and you

1:40:23 ↗ ended up adopting the fee as established

1:40:28 ↗ in the capital plan of the school

1:40:30 ↗ district but

1:40:31 ↗ you had expressed that you wanted to

1:40:33 ↗ work it out this year and get more

1:40:34 ↗ understanding of why the school district

1:40:36 ↗ is doing the double discount so fast

1:40:39 ↗ forward to this year when the school

1:40:41 ↗ board came out with their six year plan

1:40:43 ↗ they took a smaller discount than they

1:40:47 ↗ did last year and they said it was in

1:40:50 ↗ response to you all having a concern

1:40:52 ↗ about the second discount you all had

1:40:57 ↗ talked with them about that and when we

1:40:59 ↗ talked the attorney about if there were

1:41:01 ↗ ways that you all could adopt a

1:41:03 ↗ different fee than the school district

1:41:06 ↗ sets in their capital plan the attorney

1:41:11 ↗ says that we have to change our

1:41:12 ↗ ordinance to do that and so remember

1:41:16 ↗ that because that's going to come up

1:41:17 ↗ again and so our agenda bill when it

1:41:20 ↗ originally came to you so many months

1:41:22 ↗ ago says that that's an option is to

1:41:24 ↗ change our code so that you all can have

1:41:27 ↗ more flexibility and approving impact

1:41:30 ↗ fee for schools in September one

1:41:33 ↗ services and safety met with the

1:41:35 ↗ district representatives they ended up

1:41:38 ↗ with two recommendations coming back to

1:41:40 ↗ you all tonight and those two trying to

1:41:43 ↗ paraphrase was ends up to be two

1:41:46 ↗ ordinances one that would allow you all

1:41:49 ↗ to have flexibilities to set the fees

1:41:52 ↗ higher or lower should you decide then

1:41:56 ↗ stated in the school districts six-year

1:42:00 ↗ capital plan the second recommendation

1:42:03 ↗ that came out wanted another ordinance

1:42:06 ↗ that just wanted the highest fee

1:42:08 ↗ possible which would only use the one

1:42:12 ↗ discount that is in the King County

1:42:14 ↗ formula so that would be the 50% there

1:42:16 ↗ would be no other discount allowed

1:42:18 ↗ that's the second ordinance and what

1:42:22 ↗ that Services Committee wanted to do is

1:42:25 ↗ to bring those both to you tonight to

1:42:28 ↗ talk about it before you figure it out

1:42:31 ↗ what you should direct the

1:42:32 ↗ administration to bring you back next

1:42:34 ↗ time so are there questions on that

1:42:39 ↗ questions

1:42:44 ↗ not seeing any questions Trish thank you

1:42:47 ↗ nice hang around oh sorry councilmember

1:42:50 ↗ Ramos says question so just because we

1:42:52 ↗ have another options here I just want to

1:42:54 ↗ make sure which ones we're looking at

1:42:57 ↗ okay so you know option option one which

1:43:01 ↗ is alternate alternate three and option

1:43:03 ↗ two which is option two

1:43:04 ↗ so just one off I'll see what are we

1:43:07 ↗ looking to have both of those done well

1:43:10 ↗ that's up to you all if you were to

1:43:14 ↗ direct the administration to draft

1:43:17 ↗ ordinance one there would be an agenda

1:43:19 ↗ bill at the next meeting that would be

1:43:24 ↗ just in time so that the Services

1:43:26 ↗ Committee would look at both ordinances

1:43:28 ↗ if that's what you all direct us to do

1:43:30 ↗ tonight or you could just pick one and

1:43:35 ↗ services would be able to look at one

1:43:38 ↗ ordinance at their meeting so my

1:43:41 ↗ question is one is one is very specific

1:43:45 ↗ it's it shall be always as formula and

1:43:49 ↗ there's no chance to change that no

1:43:51 ↗ matter what the school district says no

1:43:53 ↗ matter what we would not leave us room

1:43:56 ↗ for any kind of compromise sources one

1:43:59 ↗ says we have total control on where we

1:44:02 ↗ are what we decide to do on that pretty

1:44:04 ↗ much right okay just clarifying that

1:44:07 ↗ sure councilor ray can I give a little

1:44:10 ↗ report out from Sur I was gonna say

1:44:14 ↗ there's any general questions and then I

1:44:15 ↗ was gonna go right to you to start the

1:44:17 ↗ conversation with your yeah and and you

1:44:20 ↗ know council members and deputy

1:44:23 ↗ president batiste please chime in we had

1:44:25 ↗ a really good discussion with Issaquah

1:44:28 ↗ School District about impact fuels why

1:44:31 ↗ they set them the way they do how they

1:44:34 ↗ do funding for all the new construction

1:44:36 ↗ and how they're dealing with growth in

1:44:38 ↗ the region

1:44:39 ↗ we separated this into two questions

1:44:41 ↗ because it fundamentally had two quite

1:44:46 ↗ distinct parts the first was the IMC is

1:44:48 ↗ currently written does not provide City

1:44:51 ↗ Council the authority to do

1:44:54 ↗ anything other than to accept or reject

1:44:55 ↗ the impact fees as per as proposed by

1:45:00 ↗ the school district the first question

1:45:03 ↗ we wrestled with was should we direct

1:45:05 ↗ the administration to modify the imc to

1:45:09 ↗ give us the flexibility to either set an

1:45:11 ↗ impact fee higher or lower than what was

1:45:14 ↗ requested by the school district and we

1:45:17 ↗ as a committee I believe grade 3 oh that

1:45:20 ↗ that was something we wanted to pursue

1:45:22 ↗ we also had then had a very this is

1:45:29 ↗ taking president Marx's word robust

1:45:31 ↗ discussion around what to set the impact

1:45:36 ↗ fee at and listening to the public and

1:45:41 ↗ responding to issues around fairness and

1:45:48 ↗ current property tax burdens we

1:45:53 ↗ discussed whether or not we would like

1:45:54 ↗ the administration to draft a second

1:45:57 ↗ ordinance that would for this particular

1:46:01 ↗ request from the school district set the

1:46:04 ↗ impact fee equal to the king county

1:46:06 ↗ formula that's not to say that next year

1:46:09 ↗ or the following year we would do that

1:46:11 ↗ but just in this year so those are the

1:46:13 ↗ two things that we've brought forward on

1:46:16 ↗ the second question we did not come down

1:46:19 ↗ unanimously council member hunted myself

1:46:22 ↗ believe that we should set the discount

1:46:24 ↗ or the impact fees at the King County

1:46:27 ↗ 50% discount and no more and deputy

1:46:29 ↗ president batiste was more inclined to

1:46:34 ↗ go with a number provided by the school

1:46:37 ↗ district their statements so if there

1:46:45 ↗ are no questions

1:46:46 ↗ we're in deliberations so comments

1:46:49 ↗ questions would you like to discuss

1:46:51 ↗ council member Ramos followed by deputy

1:46:54 ↗ counsel so I guess I'm back to to you

1:46:58 ↗ councilmember Rea when we first last

1:47:02 ↗ talked about this with the school

1:47:03 ↗ district they had some very strong

1:47:05 ↗ feelings about some

1:47:07 ↗ these actions here and I'm not hearing

1:47:09 ↗ that they're having strong feelings now

1:47:10 ↗ could you give me a little bit more on

1:47:12 ↗ their position on this because one of

1:47:14 ↗ these locks us into whatever they figure

1:47:16 ↗ out it doesn't matter we're gonna go

1:47:17 ↗ with with the highest possible number

1:47:20 ↗ which is you say we can change it next

1:47:23 ↗ year which I guess is true but you put

1:47:25 ↗ that into IMC it's and I am seeing if we

1:47:27 ↗ don't change it we're gonna do that

1:47:28 ↗ forever which means we're not going to

1:47:30 ↗ listen to them no matter what they do so

1:47:33 ↗ that's that kind of sets up something

1:47:35 ↗ that I'm not so sure we want to have

1:47:37 ↗ some conversations around question I'm

1:47:42 ↗ not sure and please help me but I was

1:47:44 ↗ not in the impression that by

1:47:47 ↗ establishing the impact fee that's a

1:47:50 ↗ change to the Municipal Code yes okay so

1:47:54 ↗ we can adopt well we're gonna we're

1:47:56 ↗ gonna change the Municipal Code anyway

1:48:00 ↗ because we're going to adopt a different

1:48:01 ↗ rate than we had last year so we really

1:48:03 ↗ going to respond to the change with the

1:48:06 ↗ IMC at a rate that is different than

1:48:10 ↗ last year because that's what was

1:48:11 ↗ requested by the school district and or

1:48:15 ↗ something higher than that but it's

1:48:18 ↗ going to change and it's gonna be IMC

1:48:19 ↗ what you're Monday or the other right so

1:48:23 ↗ I guess I had kind of clarify my

1:48:25 ↗ question because I had two questions in

1:48:26 ↗ there there weren't sure yep okay I'll

1:48:28 ↗ come back to your handsome Aramis but

1:48:29 ↗ just looking at Trish to see if how it

1:48:32 ↗ was explained by councilmember Ray is

1:48:34 ↗ actually how the ordinances will work

1:48:36 ↗ there's an R because you will have to

1:48:38 ↗ change the impact fees unless you want

1:48:41 ↗ to keep last year's impact fees and

1:48:43 ↗ that's in the same section of IMC three

1:48:46 ↗ point six three that the impact fees

1:48:49 ↗ also reside okay great cancel my row so

1:48:52 ↗ it was your second question in there

1:48:53 ↗ there's two questions that one was a

1:48:57 ↗ better feeling for how his cross school

1:49:00 ↗ district is is I mean talking with us

1:49:04 ↗ about this because you know a year ago

1:49:06 ↗ this was a robust discussion and I'm not

1:49:09 ↗ hearing anything currently about a

1:49:10 ↗ robust discussion with ISD so I'm I'm

1:49:12 ↗ trying to get a feel for where they are

1:49:14 ↗ because once one of these ordinances

1:49:15 ↗ sets us up almost always in conflict

1:49:18 ↗ with ISD versus

1:49:20 ↗ coordinating with him is the way and

1:49:23 ↗ you're shaking your head but so I've got

1:49:25 ↗ a I've got a list of people who were to

1:49:27 ↗ speak tonight so I think what I would do

1:49:30 ↗ councilmember almost rather than have

1:49:31 ↗ councilmember race speak for the school

1:49:33 ↗ district make sure that we have an

1:49:35 ↗ opportunity to get that input or UI

1:49:38 ↗ tonight or in the future I see you Paul

1:49:42 ↗ I've got councillor Batista followed by

1:49:44 ↗ Hunt followed by winterside and then I

1:49:46 ↗ said Goodman just took her hand up as

1:49:48 ↗ well so we are on to councilmember

1:49:49 ↗ booties so just to follow up on

1:49:53 ↗ councilmember Ray's overview when when

1:49:58 ↗ we were talking at services and safety

1:50:00 ↗ we we really boiled this down into two

1:50:03 ↗ separate areas and I guess I was under

1:50:08 ↗ the impression as we were coming forward

1:50:10 ↗ we first would be talking about the

1:50:12 ↗ ability to to allow the council the

1:50:15 ↗ flexibility to set the impact fees

1:50:18 ↗ higher or lower and that is something

1:50:20 ↗ that I agreed with and voted for I think

1:50:24 ↗ that we should have that capability on

1:50:28 ↗ council to have that robust discussion

1:50:30 ↗ and be able to to make those decisions

1:50:33 ↗ as we go forward and without the change

1:50:36 ↗ to the ordinance we can't do that I

1:50:40 ↗ guess I would I think I was under the

1:50:42 ↗ impression we would talk about that

1:50:43 ↗ first and then that the the second piece

1:50:46 ↗ of that would be sort of the next step

1:50:49 ↗ and another discussion as opposed to

1:50:51 ↗ everything coming forward right now so I

1:50:54 ↗ will speak to I was a dissenting vote on

1:50:59 ↗ on the second the second item there and

1:51:03 ↗ I just wanted to start by saying I fully

1:51:06 ↗ understand the need and the want to have

1:51:08 ↗ the the full impact fees and I want to

1:51:12 ↗ have a conversation around that but I

1:51:14 ↗ did feel that the fees for this year

1:51:19 ↗ that having a conversation about it

1:51:22 ↗ would offer a slower-moving pathway that

1:51:25 ↗ it would allow the schools the school

1:51:27 ↗ district to actually adjust to this

1:51:31 ↗ I felt uncomfortable at the time and I

1:51:34 ↗ really really am still thinking about

1:51:36 ↗ this so I just want to be clear on why I

1:51:41 ↗ came out on a little bit of a different

1:51:43 ↗ pathway than my fellow council members

1:51:46 ↗ but that they are how they're dealing

1:51:50 ↗ with their capital budget and moving

1:51:53 ↗ forward at least when we're looking at

1:51:56 ↗ having a good partnership that we would

1:51:59 ↗ give them the time to adjust to this and

1:52:03 ↗ I will speak a little bit I I feel like

1:52:07 ↗ it was a really robust conversation last

1:52:11 ↗ year and I didn't I I guess I didn't

1:52:15 ↗ hear as much of that this year and and

1:52:19 ↗ that really led me down the path way of

1:52:22 ↗ saying with number one that we we should

1:52:26 ↗ have the capability to to look at both

1:52:29 ↗ sides of this and have a and have a good

1:52:31 ↗ conversation about it so I hope that

1:52:33 ↗ helps a little bit here not go to

1:52:37 ↗ council amber hunt next I was just going

1:52:42 ↗ to say that I also considered them very

1:52:44 ↗ much separate the first one allows us

1:52:47 ↗ the flexibility to set the impact fees

1:52:49 ↗ higher or lower which would be required

1:52:51 ↗ regardless of whether we choose to do

1:52:54 ↗ that or not and then the second one

1:52:56 ↗ would be making the change and we talked

1:53:01 ↗ about them separately in our services

1:53:03 ↗ and safety meeting and I think it would

1:53:06 ↗ probably I would think that it would

1:53:07 ↗ facilitate our conversations to separate

1:53:09 ↗ them in this discussion as well thank

1:53:13 ↗ you and then council member interesting

1:53:15 ↗ yeah I was getting confused by some of

1:53:20 ↗ what I heard I wasn't sure we were all

1:53:22 ↗ on the same page so let me let me say

1:53:26 ↗ what I would I understand this I'm just

1:53:28 ↗ gonna repeat what you just said the

1:53:29 ↗ first one is very clear we have an

1:53:30 ↗ existing IMC that says we're supposed to

1:53:32 ↗ do something this is giving us latitude

1:53:34 ↗ going forward to whatever we want to do

1:53:37 ↗ second one is okay now let's set next

1:53:40 ↗ year's fee just next year's fee it

1:53:43 ↗ doesn't it does it

1:53:44 ↗ not countered - but it would be working

1:53:46 ↗ with in the spirit of what we are

1:53:47 ↗ allowing us selves to do in number one

1:53:50 ↗ so they're not either/or and I thought

1:53:52 ↗ maybe there was an understanding

1:53:55 ↗ thinking that maybe that's the way that

1:53:57 ↗ they were so I just wanted to I wanted

1:53:58 ↗ to make that clear so having said that

1:54:01 ↗ we actually don't have a motion on the

1:54:03 ↗ floor and and you know I would really

1:54:07 ↗ I'll do it I wasn't there but I had a

1:54:11 ↗ couple more suggestions while there

1:54:15 ↗ isn't

1:54:16 ↗ we didn't set this up as a CO

1:54:18 ↗ presentation tonight the school

1:54:19 ↗ administration is here and would come

1:54:22 ↗ and provide some comments if the council

1:54:25 ↗ thinks that's a good idea tonight

1:54:27 ↗ because we're talking about them like

1:54:29 ↗ they're not even here that's a

1:54:32 ↗ possibility and then allow for questions

1:54:35 ↗ and then see if somebody would like to

1:54:37 ↗ propose a motion in early okay and I

1:54:47 ↗ would like to invite the reps from the

1:54:49 ↗ school district to come up thank you for

1:54:59 ↗ coming tonight it would be helpful for

1:55:02 ↗ you to introduce yourself before you

1:55:04 ↗ begin your comments and I believe with

1:55:06 ↗ the counsel questions tonight we're

1:55:09 ↗ about the differences between how does

1:55:11 ↗ the school district feel about the

1:55:15 ↗ information that's being presented

1:55:16 ↗ tonight because there was a very robust

1:55:19 ↗ conversation last year as well thank you

1:55:21 ↗ very much I'm Ann Moore current

1:55:23 ↗ president of the Issaquah School Board

1:55:26 ↗ thank you for having this conversation

1:55:28 ↗ around our impact fees the s-cross

1:55:31 ↗ school district sets the impact fees

1:55:33 ↗ through our capital facilities plan the

1:55:36 ↗ capital facilities plan looks at our

1:55:38 ↗ facility needs throughout the entire

1:55:40 ↗ district which includes space in the

1:55:42 ↗ City of Bellevue the city of Renton the

1:55:44 ↗ city of Issaquah the city of Sammamish

1:55:47 ↗ am I missing Newcastle thank you I

1:55:50 ↗ hadn't written down so I wouldn't forget

1:55:52 ↗ and King County so we have to take in to

1:55:55 ↗ account our student

1:55:57 ↗ NEADS across all of those jurisdictions

1:55:59 ↗ and we create one capital facility plan

1:56:02 ↗ with one set of numbers for impact fees

1:56:05 ↗ we adjust the impact fees at a minimum

1:56:08 ↗ the 50% discount is the local share

1:56:11 ↗ versus the developer share we did do an

1:56:15 ↗ additional discount after we had passed

1:56:17 ↗ our 2016 bond because the rate of the

1:56:21 ↗ impact fees went up significantly after

1:56:24 ↗ we had to take into account the land and

1:56:26 ↗ the construction of schools that were a

1:56:29 ↗ result of the passage of the bond and so

1:56:31 ↗ that's where you see the start of the

1:56:33 ↗ additional discount and part of that was

1:56:36 ↗ simply to avoid massive spikes in the

1:56:39 ↗ impact fees because had we not done a

1:56:42 ↗ reduction the single-family impact fee

1:56:46 ↗ would have gone up by a hundred and

1:56:47 ↗ eighty five percent and the multifamily

1:56:49 ↗ fee would have gone up by a hundred and

1:56:51 ↗ fifty nine percent so over time and

1:56:54 ↗ after our discussion with you folks

1:56:56 ↗ really looked at could we reduce it and

1:56:59 ↗ so what we've done is tried to smooth it

1:57:00 ↗ a bit and so although we had the higher

1:57:02 ↗ reduction or discount for a couple of

1:57:05 ↗ years we reduced the amount we had as

1:57:08 ↗ far a discount again had we not done the

1:57:12 ↗ additional discount that we did do this

1:57:14 ↗ year the single-family fee would have

1:57:16 ↗ gone up a hundred and eighteen percent

1:57:17 ↗ and the multifamily fee fifty nine

1:57:19 ↗ percent and up until our discussion with

1:57:22 ↗ all of you the only feedback we've

1:57:25 ↗ gotten from cities is reduce the fees

1:57:28 ↗ your fees are too high we don't want

1:57:30 ↗ your fees right we're going to super

1:57:32 ↗ impose upon you and reduce the fees so

1:57:34 ↗ never anywhere had we ever seen anyone

1:57:36 ↗ that suggested the fees should be higher

1:57:38 ↗ and we wanted our fees to be passed by

1:57:40 ↗ the cities and again it has happened in

1:57:43 ↗ the past that if we come forward with

1:57:45 ↗ fees they wouldn't necessarily adopt

1:57:47 ↗ them or they would reduce them right so

1:57:50 ↗ that's where we were coming from with

1:57:52 ↗ the fees the other part I would share

1:57:54 ↗ with you is that we go through the

1:57:56 ↗ creation of the capital facilities plan

1:57:58 ↗ in the April May time is where it

1:57:59 ↗ becomes public and goes out before the

1:58:02 ↗ board to actually adopt it it usually

1:58:05 ↗ comes before the board in two meetings

1:58:06 ↗ one where we discuss it and when we

1:58:08 ↗ readapt it and that would actually be

1:58:10 ↗ the perfect time

1:58:11 ↗ for any of you to come and give us

1:58:12 ↗ feedback on this plan before we actually

1:58:15 ↗ adopt it and send it forward to King

1:58:17 ↗ County it's the last cycle is where it

1:58:21 ↗ actually comes back to you as cities to

1:58:22 ↗ have the ordinance to collect the fees

1:58:25 ↗ for us so we would encourage your input

1:58:27 ↗ at that time as well and those are the

1:58:30 ↗ parts I was trying to hit on as far as

1:58:32 ↗ your questions I don't know Steve Steve

1:58:35 ↗ Crawford director capital projects risk

1:58:37 ↗ loss school district as Ann mentioned we

1:58:40 ↗ can we we tried to moderate the amount

1:58:42 ↗ of increase it's pretty significant and

1:58:44 ↗ school districts impact fees fluctuate

1:58:47 ↗ considerably over time as to whether or

1:58:50 ↗ not you have a capital program in place

1:58:52 ↗ and the bond money to fund those new

1:58:53 ↗ projects and when you run to the end of

1:58:55 ↗ that bond program and you're not

1:58:57 ↗ building anything new you don't have

1:58:59 ↗ projects and the costs for the land and

1:59:02 ↗ the costs for the building go down and

1:59:03 ↗ the impact fee goes way down that

1:59:06 ↗ balancing act also relates to the fact

1:59:08 ↗ that the home building industry is

1:59:10 ↗ opposed to impact fees they're out there

1:59:13 ↗ lobbying continuously to moderate things

1:59:17 ↗ Snohomish County has allowed the

1:59:20 ↗ builders to vest the impact fee at the

1:59:23 ↗ time of development application and

1:59:26 ↗ gives them a five-year window that that

1:59:29 ↗ holds for I can see the opers are going

1:59:33 ↗ to rush out in that five year window and

1:59:35 ↗ drop when rates drop knowing that

1:59:37 ↗ they've got five years and then they

1:59:40 ↗ don't have to pay now until building

1:59:43 ↗ permit and in some jurisdictions they'd

1:59:45 ↗ only have to pay half a building permit

1:59:47 ↗ and half when they close on the project

1:59:49 ↗ so it's years and years and the actual

1:59:52 ↗ funding that's available to the

1:59:53 ↗ districts has been delayed further and

1:59:56 ↗ further out so that the funding is not

1:59:58 ↗ there when you actually need it so it's

2:00:00 ↗ it's a balancing act between the rate of

2:00:02 ↗ increase the total and trying to

2:00:04 ↗ maintain the ability to collect impacts

2:00:06 ↗ ease and as Ann mentioned in the past

2:00:09 ↗ it's always been reductions again

2:00:12 ↗ Snohomish County held North Shore to a

2:00:14 ↗ seven thousand dollar limit that they

2:00:17 ↗ just increased this year to the full

2:00:18 ↗ requested ten thousand dollars we're

2:00:20 ↗ number two in King County with the rate

2:00:22 ↗ that we suggested

2:00:24 ↗ if that a 50% rate will be by far the

2:00:27 ↗ number one and King County Council took

2:00:31 ↗ up the issue of impact fees being too

2:00:33 ↗ high at the last and at last year's the

2:00:36 ↗ middle of the rates we all submit we all

2:00:40 ↗ go through the King County Schools

2:00:41 ↗ technical review committee which ends up

2:00:43 ↗ going to King County Council they set up

2:00:46 ↗ a committee last year to review impact

2:00:48 ↗ fees because federal way impact fee for

2:00:50 ↗ multifamily was listed as nineteen

2:00:53 ↗ thousand dollars they thought that was

2:00:55 ↗ just ridiculous Steve I'm gonna step in

2:00:57 ↗ here a little bit cuz we're sort of

2:00:59 ↗ turning into a committee meeting a

2:01:00 ↗ little bit I I would like you guys to

2:01:02 ↗ stay up there for one second

2:01:04 ↗ what I'd like to talk with the council

2:01:07 ↗ about today is you probably have heard

2:01:09 ↗ some new information that might likely

2:01:10 ↗ have been passed on to Council at the

2:01:14 ↗ committee level the question I'm trying

2:01:17 ↗ to get it is the one that council member

2:01:19 ↗ Ramos asked specifically which was last

2:01:21 ↗ year the school district when they came

2:01:24 ↗ to talk to council and committee talked

2:01:26 ↗ about not supporting the increase and

2:01:29 ↗ then the committee report out to council

2:01:32 ↗ this evening said this didn't seem to be

2:01:34 ↗ as big of issue this year is it why or

2:01:37 ↗ why not and I think that is if I'm

2:01:39 ↗ looking for a nod and he's given it I

2:01:41 ↗ think that's what councilman Ramos would

2:01:42 ↗ like to hear it and I would say it's a

2:01:44 ↗ lot of what's deep said it's really up

2:01:47 ↗ to you if you want to raise the impact

2:01:49 ↗ fees that I guess that is what a city

2:01:51 ↗ can do what we're saying is what we

2:01:54 ↗ recognize is given the environment of

2:01:56 ↗ King County the higher these fees are

2:01:57 ↗ the riskier it is that King County takes

2:02:00 ↗ action to eliminate or reduce our fees

2:02:03 ↗ okay it's not good at your sure can I

2:02:10 ↗ ask one more clarifying one yeah I think

2:02:13 ↗ what would be great is to stay on the

2:02:16 ↗ the topic of what's before us tonight

2:02:18 ↗ which is the two motions so I really

2:02:21 ↗ what I'm worried about is turning this

2:02:23 ↗ discussion onto motions into a

2:02:25 ↗ discussion on impact fees and so if it's

2:02:28 ↗ germane to the motions that are on the

2:02:29 ↗ table and the school district being in a

2:02:33 ↗ different position or the same position

2:02:34 ↗ as last year yes you can ask a question

2:02:36 ↗ that ok so last year the robust

2:02:40 ↗ discussion there was a whole lot of

2:02:41 ↗ folks from school board and school staff

2:02:44 ↗ that came here when we had this

2:02:45 ↗ discussion about the amount of the

2:02:48 ↗ impact fee so there's a lot of you know

2:02:50 ↗ robust discussion as we're referring to

2:02:54 ↗ now so now there you're here and I'm

2:02:57 ↗ hearing from you is you're okay with

2:03:00 ↗ whatever we do versus the message I got

2:03:03 ↗ very glad to clear last year was you did

2:03:05 ↗ not want us to do anything but what you

2:03:07 ↗ recommended and and that was a hard

2:03:09 ↗ discussion to have because of our

2:03:11 ↗ feelings so I want to clarify is you're

2:03:14 ↗ okay with whatever the council decides

2:03:15 ↗ that's that's bottom line yes yes

2:03:18 ↗ neither option council member almost as

2:03:21 ↗ well is to just make sure when this goes

2:03:24 ↗ back to committee that the school

2:03:25 ↗ district is aware of that question it

2:03:27 ↗ has a time to prepare an answer so we're

2:03:29 ↗ not putting the head of the school board

2:03:31 ↗ answering for her board without having

2:03:33 ↗ checked with them so we could note the

2:03:36 ↗ question allow them to prepare a

2:03:39 ↗ response for infrastructure services so

2:03:42 ↗ it could be shared with everyone and if

2:03:44 ↗ we're good with that I can let them sit

2:03:47 ↗ back down and I can continue with

2:03:49 ↗ questions and then I believe

2:03:50 ↗ councilmember winter Stein said he's

2:03:52 ↗ ready to make a motion

2:03:55 ↗ it wasn't I got some questions yep

2:04:05 ↗ gotcha councilmember Goodman had her

2:04:08 ↗ hand up nope accounts present marks I

2:04:10 ↗ want to ask Trish again I'm not sure I

2:04:12 ↗ understood there seems like there was a

2:04:14 ↗ question about whether and if we were to

2:04:17 ↗ go with the district's recommendation

2:04:21 ↗ whether there would necessarily I

2:04:22 ↗ thought I heard you say something to the

2:04:24 ↗ effect that we would need to have an IMC

2:04:25 ↗ change any Howard I don't believe that's

2:04:27 ↗ the case I believe we don't need an IMC

2:04:30 ↗ change if we are going to go with the

2:04:32 ↗ district's recommendation it's not as

2:04:34 ↗ much a change as we change the numbers

2:04:36 ↗ from last year and put in the new

2:04:38 ↗ numbers from this year see I'm seeing

2:04:40 ↗ the IMC so it's in 3.6 it's in the

2:04:43 ↗ school impact fee so I'm going to looked

2:04:46 ↗ at 363 and I don't see anything that

2:04:48 ↗ changed in 2017 is

2:04:50 ↗ there's very there's language that's

2:04:52 ↗ basically says that you pass through the

2:04:55 ↗ districts that there's a rate schedule

2:04:57 ↗ is developed and you pass through that

2:04:59 ↗ rate schedule but it's when changes

2:05:01 ↗ occur and I don't see any changes in

2:05:03 ↗ 2017 they're gonna gonna go to the

2:05:06 ↗ collar friend we're gonna head over a

2:05:08 ↗ city clerk can see the administrator

2:05:09 ↗ here to get an answer on does it require

2:05:12 ↗ a change to the imc the the eye and see

2:05:16 ↗ that school impact fuse it does because

2:05:19 ↗ we that's where we adopt we would put

2:05:22 ↗ the new fees fees aren't listed in the

2:05:24 ↗ items in the items they say they refer

2:05:26 ↗ to that the district should develop a

2:05:28 ↗ rate schedule and then it says that we

2:05:30 ↗ passed through that that rate schedule I

2:05:32 ↗ think our legal counsel it says both

2:05:38 ↗ section three point six three point one

2:05:40 ↗ hundred of subsection a of the IMC says

2:05:46 ↗ impact fee shall be imposed upon

2:05:47 ↗ development activity in the city as

2:05:49 ↗ follows eight thousand seven hundred and

2:05:52 ↗ sixty two dollars per single-family

2:05:53 ↗ residential unit and three thousand four

2:05:56 ↗ hundred and sixty one dollars per Multi

2:05:59 ↗ thing getting head nods all around so

2:06:01 ↗ it's right in the code I apologize if

2:06:04 ↗ indeed it is it's in a session and I

2:06:11 ↗ looking for more questions not seeing

2:06:14 ↗ anything I might have somebody who would

2:06:15 ↗ make motion I'd like to make a motion I

2:06:17 ↗ just want one clarification from the

2:06:19 ↗ clerk we'll be dealing with these

2:06:20 ↗ directions one at a time

2:06:25 ↗ let's take them one at a time let's make

2:06:27 ↗ a motion and then maybe another motion

2:06:29 ↗ rate so I'm gonna move to direct the

2:06:31 ↗ administration to draft an agenda bill

2:06:34 ↗ and ordinance proposing an amendment to

2:06:36 ↗ the aslam usable code to allow the City

2:06:38 ↗ Council to have discretion to adopt

2:06:40 ↗ school impact fees higher or lower than

2:06:42 ↗ proposed by the school district capital

2:06:45 ↗ facilities plan

2:06:46 ↗ returning to the council at the November

2:06:49 ↗ 5th 2018 council meeting for referral to

2:06:53 ↗ the council services and Safety

2:06:55 ↗ Committee is there a second second it's

2:06:59 ↗ been moved and seconded discussion

2:07:02 ↗ it's my break so this is this is the

2:07:06 ↗ first part of this and this says let's

2:07:09 ↗ change the IMC to give us the ability to

2:07:12 ↗ raise fees or to lower fees in the

2:07:14 ↗ future because right now we don't have

2:07:15 ↗ that flexibility so it doesn't say we

2:07:17 ↗ have to do it doesn't have to say we

2:07:19 ↗ have to go up or down but this ordinance

2:07:23 ↗ and IMC change would give us that

2:07:26 ↗ flexibility which I think would be a

2:07:28 ↗ powerful tool to have in the future

2:07:30 ↗ Thank You council president Mertz so

2:07:33 ↗ unfortunately I'm going to oppose this

2:07:34 ↗ motion this is not our money this is we

2:07:39 ↗ are collecting it on the behest of the

2:07:41 ↗ school district the school district is a

2:07:44 ↗ body of publicly elected officials like

2:07:47 ↗ ourselves they have to balance the needs

2:07:50 ↗ of their constituents against a funding

2:07:56 ↗ challenge that is so much harder than

2:07:59 ↗ our own because of the Byzantine nature

2:08:01 ↗ of state education funding I feel like

2:08:06 ↗ this is a very small dollar amount no

2:08:09 ↗ one has shown that the difference

2:08:12 ↗ between what we would collect and what

2:08:14 ↗ they would want to collect would have a

2:08:16 ↗ potential impact on anybody we've seen

2:08:19 ↗ that the amount that they would want to

2:08:20 ↗ collect represents point five half of 1%

2:08:23 ↗ of the capital outlay that they normally

2:08:27 ↗ do so it's a it's a small amount of

2:08:29 ↗ money and I feel like if the situation

2:08:31 ↗ were reversed and they were collecting

2:08:34 ↗ money on our behest and we had come to

2:08:36 ↗ an intelligent decision about why we

2:08:38 ↗ wanted to do what we would do I don't

2:08:40 ↗ think we would want to have to justify

2:08:42 ↗ ourselves to them and so I think that

2:08:45 ↗ for that reason I'm gonna oppose this

2:08:47 ↗ measure this evening in for

2:08:52 ↗ councilmember Goodman councilmember we

2:08:54 ↗ understand I'm going to support the

2:08:56 ↗ motion just for the very reason that

2:08:58 ↗ it's provides flexibility it doesn't it

2:09:02 ↗ doesn't require us to do anything but it

2:09:06 ↗ provides flexibility and that's the

2:09:09 ↗ reason I support it

2:09:10 ↗ council member we're interesting I agree

2:09:13 ↗ with what Stacy said

2:09:16 ↗ and I'm gonna add something a perception

2:09:19 ↗ that's been developing in my mind as we

2:09:23 ↗ sit here and the fees that we calculate

2:09:28 ↗ for parks for police for transportation

2:09:31 ↗ I've sat in this room numerous times

2:09:34 ↗ over the years and gone through the

2:09:35 ↗ process of trying to understand how we

2:09:37 ↗ calculate impact fees what are the state

2:09:40 ↗ laws governing our the calculation of

2:09:44 ↗ impact fees how they can be used and

2:09:46 ↗ I've seen enough from the school

2:09:48 ↗ district side of things to believe that

2:09:52 ↗ they're not they don't have the same set

2:09:57 ↗ of rules or constraints upon them for

2:10:00 ↗ their impact fees in fact there's

2:10:02 ↗ something in our packet tonight which is

2:10:05 ↗ really startling to me it was an answer

2:10:07 ↗ to one of the questions number three

2:10:09 ↗ that the committee got an answer to

2:10:11 ↗ about the question of a calculation of

2:10:15 ↗ the estimate of receiving five hundred

2:10:17 ↗ thousand dollars in on and on and on the

2:10:18 ↗ answer goes on the school district is

2:10:21 ↗ very conservative in estimating the

2:10:22 ↗ amount of impact fees received over a

2:10:24 ↗ six year period and here's the key part

2:10:26 ↗ for me by law the six-year capital

2:10:29 ↗ budget must be based on quote secured

2:10:32 ↗ funds unquote like the bond that passed

2:10:34 ↗ in 2016

2:10:36 ↗ since impact fees are not secured a low

2:10:40 ↗ amount was established for the six-year

2:10:41 ↗ capital budget that tells me that if I

2:10:48 ↗ was budgeting and I had a law that said

2:10:52 ↗ I must use secured funds for my capital

2:10:54 ↗ budget impact fees are one of these

2:10:56 ↗ things well they're available to me but

2:10:58 ↗ I cannot plan and a significant part of

2:11:03 ↗ my capital requirements based upon those

2:11:05 ↗ funds I have to look at these secured

2:11:08 ↗ funds so so I'm sure there's more to it

2:11:10 ↗ but what's very clear is that impact

2:11:12 ↗ fees have a role and are guided by law

2:11:14 ↗ for school districts different than what

2:11:16 ↗ we have here now I could be wrong and

2:11:18 ↗ somebody now hopefully will come forward

2:11:20 ↗ and clarify that for me so all of that

2:11:23 ↗ is is to say that I think we're having a

2:11:25 ↗ lot of conversation but we may

2:11:28 ↗ doing it from the wrong basis we're

2:11:29 ↗ going from the basis that we understand

2:11:31 ↗ as a city and there may be some there

2:11:33 ↗ may be different elements actually in

2:11:35 ↗ effect for school districts having said

2:11:37 ↗ that for all of the from the motion

2:11:39 ↗ that's on the table I do agree it gives

2:11:41 ↗ us flexibility I do also agree with what

2:11:45 ↗ Tola had to say and yet we've been

2:11:49 ↗ blessed with some very reasonable

2:11:51 ↗ leadership at the school district but

2:11:52 ↗ who knows what's gonna happen in a

2:11:54 ↗ couple years and they might come back

2:11:55 ↗ with something and we might really

2:11:57 ↗ disagree and now this law would give us

2:11:59 ↗ that capability so I am gonna support

2:12:01 ↗ the motion thank you any other comments

2:12:05 ↗ before I call for the vote

2:12:07 ↗ council member Ramos yes um in our last

2:12:10 ↗ discussion a year ago I was kind of

2:12:13 ↗ mentioned something similar to council

2:12:15 ↗ president is that I didn't want to

2:12:17 ↗ direct another entity on how to do their

2:12:19 ↗ business and I went along with that last

2:12:21 ↗ year my question is which as you present

2:12:24 ↗ is that your capital program is you've

2:12:27 ↗ come up with a hundred percent of the

2:12:28 ↗ cost of the program the school district

2:12:30 ↗ has and then they split that out by

2:12:32 ↗ shares of new development versus

2:12:35 ↗ existing development so the way I feel

2:12:38 ↗ is if you don't in County says half goes

2:12:43 ↗ to future development have two existing

2:12:46 ↗ folks if you change that proportion then

2:12:49 ↗ you're asking the existing folks to pay

2:12:51 ↗ more than their half their share for

2:12:53 ↗ development which is what part that

2:12:56 ↗ bothers me that means those of us who

2:12:58 ↗ live here I have to continue to pay an

2:13:00 ↗ increase part of the share for the

2:13:02 ↗ impact of others so if you take less

2:13:05 ↗ than that only that 50% discount then

2:13:09 ↗ that that bill shifts to us because you

2:13:12 ↗ have 100 percent of a budget yet your

2:13:13 ↗ your cost is not going down it's still

2:13:16 ↗ there someone's gonna pay that cost and

2:13:18 ↗ who is and it already splits it now

2:13:21 ↗ half-and-half between existing residents

2:13:23 ↗ and future residents and I think that's

2:13:25 ↗ a fair split and as you look at that

2:13:28 ↗ that ability to change that I'm gonna

2:13:30 ↗ have to go with that flexibility for us

2:13:32 ↗ to look at that more closely because I

2:13:34 ↗ don't want to have to explain that to

2:13:36 ↗ someone on the street why I just said

2:13:37 ↗ you have to pay more than the future

2:13:39 ↗ resident for the

2:13:40 ↗ impact dad I'd have a hard time

2:13:42 ↗ explaining so I'm gonna support this

2:13:44 ↗ thank you other comments before we call

2:13:47 ↗ for the vote

2:13:49 ↗ deputy council president parties so

2:13:52 ↗ after going through everything that we

2:13:56 ↗ had talked through and in the past years

2:13:59 ↗ regarding impact fees I did really

2:14:02 ↗ appreciate the robust conversation that

2:14:04 ↗ we had at services and as we start to

2:14:09 ↗ run through this and and better

2:14:11 ↗ understand what as a council we would

2:14:14 ↗ like to do but keeping everything in

2:14:16 ↗ mind including what council president

2:14:20 ↗ marts has talked about and what we've

2:14:22 ↗ heard from our partners on the school

2:14:25 ↗ board having the flexibility to to be

2:14:31 ↗ able to maneuver and make decisions on

2:14:35 ↗ on this council I think is important so

2:14:38 ↗ for that reason and because of the

2:14:40 ↗ flexibility I'll support the motion

2:14:43 ↗ additional comments nobody's hand up

2:14:48 ↗ I'll read the motion again it is to

2:14:50 ↗ direct the administration to draft an

2:14:52 ↗ agenda bill and ordinance proposing an

2:14:53 ↗ amendment to the Issaquah Municipal Code

2:14:55 ↗ to allow the City Council to have

2:14:57 ↗ discretion to adopt school impact fees

2:14:59 ↗ higher or lower than proposed by the is

2:15:01 ↗ request school district capital

2:15:03 ↗ facilities plan returning to Council at

2:15:05 ↗ the November 5th 2018 council meeting

2:15:08 ↗ for referral to the council services and

2:15:10 ↗ Safety Committee all those in favor say

2:15:12 ↗ aye aye opposed nay

2:15:14 ↗ it passed the six to one with council

2:15:17 ↗ president Mart's in opposition is there

2:15:20 ↗ a second motion there is I'd like to

2:15:24 ↗ move to refer agenda bill 7640 to the

2:15:28 ↗ November 14 2018 services and Safety

2:15:31 ↗ Committee meeting where the draft

2:15:33 ↗ ordinance amending imc 3.6 3.1 hundred

2:15:37 ↗ Herrin a closed parent to increase the

2:15:41 ↗ school impact piece is identified in the

2:15:43 ↗ is quest school districts 2018 capital

2:15:46 ↗ facilities plan except only applying a

2:15:49 ↗ 50% discount required by King County

2:15:51 ↗ formula returning to the full counter on

2:15:54 ↗ December 3rd 2018 for a final action is

2:15:57 ↗ there a second member hunt it's been

2:16:01 ↗ moved and seconded discussion

2:16:05 ↗ provide a little clarity on the 50% so

2:16:09 ↗ it's not 50% of the cost of new

2:16:11 ↗ construction of school facilities it's

2:16:15 ↗ 50% of the percentage of the new

2:16:17 ↗ construction that is attributable to new

2:16:20 ↗ people moving into the district so it's

2:16:23 ↗ not we are actually giving a 50%

2:16:26 ↗ discount to the developers for these

2:16:28 ↗ impact fees and so along the lines of

2:16:32 ↗ where council member Ramos was that is

2:16:36 ↗ money that has will be generated because

2:16:39 ↗ we need to pay for the new schools

2:16:41 ↗ because we have growth and so because

2:16:43 ↗ the school district has bonding

2:16:45 ↗ authority they will be able to collect

2:16:48 ↗ that money and it will it'll translate

2:16:50 ↗ into increase property taxes for the

2:16:52 ↗ estate

2:16:52 ↗ residents of Issaquah and so I think it

2:16:55 ↗ requires some additional discussion I

2:16:58 ↗ think sending it back to services and

2:17:00 ↗ safety for further investigation makes

2:17:04 ↗ sense and then bring it back for a final

2:17:06 ↗ decision on the 3rd December so that we

2:17:09 ↗ can make our obligation to final action

2:17:14 ↗ on this before the end of the year as a

2:17:17 ↗ president Mart's so I will actually

2:17:21 ↗ support this going to committee because

2:17:23 ↗ having said earlier that I believe that

2:17:26 ↗ committee chairs should have generally

2:17:28 ↗ speaking latitude on bills and how they

2:17:31 ↗ get routed I will support it but I will

2:17:33 ↗ be looking for a really compelling

2:17:35 ↗ argument about why we believe we know

2:17:39 ↗ better about how the district should be

2:17:40 ↗ funding its capital projects than the

2:17:42 ↗ district does you council president

2:17:45 ↗ Mertz is there anyone else who'd like to

2:17:46 ↗ make a comment councilmember winter

2:17:48 ↗ Stein councilmember Goodman I won't be

2:17:50 ↗ supporting this as well and I thought

2:17:54 ↗ Chris and bill gave very compelling

2:17:57 ↗ arguments why then no discount

2:17:59 ↗ beyond 50% but we'll wait to decide that

2:18:02 ↗ issue later but I will be supporting

2:18:04 ↗ this motion as a member winter Stein

2:18:07 ↗ I'll be supporting the motion as well I

2:18:10 ↗ did a little bit of math and you know

2:18:14 ↗ the difference for a single-family home

2:18:16 ↗ between 50 and 60 percent discount is

2:18:19 ↗ $3,800 and and I know already that this

2:18:23 ↗ is kind of a small percentage of the

2:18:26 ↗ overall capital budget there I say all

2:18:31 ↗ that because there feels like there's a

2:18:33 ↗ lot of symbolism in this move rather

2:18:36 ↗ than a practical financial stewardship

2:18:39 ↗ of public resources and I hope to avoid

2:18:44 ↗ symbolic moves I would much prefer that

2:18:50 ↗ we take an action that if it is you know

2:18:55 ↗ counter to what the school district has

2:18:58 ↗ carefully considered and proffered to us

2:19:01 ↗ that we have a very sound basis and it

2:19:04 ↗ not just be symbolism thank you

2:19:07 ↗ council member Ramos yeah I want to

2:19:10 ↗ clarify again for me that these two

2:19:12 ↗ motions the one we just pass it one more

2:19:13 ↗ talking about here are not decisions the

2:19:16 ↗ decision is to send them to committee

2:19:18 ↗ for further discussion and then I'm

2:19:21 ↗ hoping this work they'll have more

2:19:22 ↗ robust discussions and the school

2:19:25 ↗ district will be there and very involved

2:19:27 ↗ in explaining how they feel how they

2:19:30 ↗ work it all out and get that good

2:19:32 ↗ discussion going so that it's clear so

2:19:34 ↗ when it comes back those questions I all

2:19:36 ↗ have in my mind will get answered

2:19:38 ↗ because there are a lot like I say I

2:19:41 ↗ don't like to tell other people what to

2:19:42 ↗ do but at the same time I don't like to

2:19:44 ↗ I like to spread the tax burden out

2:19:46 ↗ fairly amongst all that are receiving

2:19:48 ↗ benefits and explaining that is a good

2:19:52 ↗ thing to do so this this one is a little

2:19:56 ↗ hard for me because as I say we'll get

2:19:58 ↗ the explanation but this one gives no

2:20:00 ↗ leeway it doesn't give a flexibility

2:20:04 ↗ like the first one did this just says

2:20:05 ↗ you shall and without consideration of

2:20:08 ↗ anything I don't like shells when we

2:20:10 ↗ don't need shells so I would be

2:20:13 ↗ supporting this but definitely looking

2:20:14 ↗ forward to a lot of good committee work

2:20:17 ↗ and answers coming

2:20:18 ↗ forward after that epidural president

2:20:22 ↗ batiste I'll I'll support the motion as

2:20:29 ↗ presented so we can go back to services

2:20:33 ↗ and safety and talk about this again I I

2:20:37 ↗ had already talked about what some of my

2:20:39 ↗ reservations were and I would one of the

2:20:43 ↗ questions that that I would like to see

2:20:47 ↗ answered is to better understand if this

2:20:49 ↗ were to go forward how does that impact

2:20:54 ↗ the school district and their capital

2:20:57 ↗ budget and and to have some information

2:21:00 ↗ about that and be able to go back to

2:21:02 ↗ services and talk this through one more

2:21:04 ↗ time now that we've gotten a chance to

2:21:06 ↗ pass this by full council thank you any

2:21:10 ↗ other comments before we go to vote I'll

2:21:13 ↗ read the motion again it is to move to

2:21:16 ↗ refer a B seven six four zero to the

2:21:18 ↗ November 14th 2018 council services and

2:21:22 ↗ Safety Committee meeting with a draft

2:21:24 ↗ ordinance amending imc 3.6 3.1 hundred

2:21:27 ↗ paren a to increase the school impact

2:21:30 ↗ fees as identified in his quest school

2:21:32 ↗ districts 2018 capital facilities plan

2:21:35 ↗ except only applying the 50% discount

2:21:37 ↗ required by the King County formula

2:21:39 ↗ returning to the full council on

2:21:41 ↗ December 3rd 2018 for final action all

2:21:45 ↗ those in favor say aye aye opposed that

2:21:48 ↗ passes unanimously they would like to

2:21:50 ↗ thank school board president and more

2:21:53 ↗ and Steve Crawford for coming in tonight

2:21:55 ↗ and taking the time to address the

2:21:57 ↗ council when there was a question thank

2:21:58 ↗ you very much

2:21:59 ↗ Thank You Trish thank you next item on

2:22:03 ↗ our agenda is under regular business

2:22:05 ↗ item B is now a b7 six six one proposed

2:22:11 ↗ amendments to central standards table

2:22:13 ↗ 4.3 be permitted land uses and are we

2:22:18 ↗ going to start with council member hunt

2:22:20 ↗ first and then how do you guys want to

2:22:25 ↗ proceed with this conversation council

2:22:26 ↗ member hunt

2:22:27 ↗ and I like to make a motion okay I had

2:22:31 ↗ moved to refer a B seven six six one

2:22:33 ↗ proposed amendments to central standards

2:22:36 ↗ Table four point three be permitted land

2:22:38 ↗ uses to the November 1st 2018 Council

2:22:42 ↗ and in short committee to allow the

2:22:43 ↗ administration the opportunity to

2:22:45 ↗ address housing density and diversity

2:22:46 ↗ concerns with prohibiting duplexes three

2:22:49 ↗ flexes and four flexes within the urban

2:22:52 ↗ core and mixed use zones of central

2:22:54 ↗ Issaquah returning to the full council

2:22:56 ↗ on or before December 17th 2018 is there

2:23:00 ↗ a second second I can did by

2:23:03 ↗ councilmember Goodman um councilman

2:23:06 ↗ Brown would you like to start the

2:23:08 ↗ discussion yes so I'm proposing to have

2:23:12 ↗ a more in-depth discussion about the

2:23:14 ↗ residential land uses in the central

2:23:17 ↗ Issaquah land use table there were a

2:23:20 ↗ number of changes that were proposed

2:23:23 ↗ within the agenda bill it did go through

2:23:25 ↗ the Planning Policy Commission and they

2:23:27 ↗ had a lot of a lot of discussion around

2:23:31 ↗ all of the land uses including the

2:23:33 ↗ residential land uses I think that in

2:23:36 ↗ particular I would like to have more

2:23:41 ↗ discussion around that the residential

2:23:42 ↗ land uses because in the current chain

2:23:45 ↗ in the current draft agenda bill there

2:23:48 ↗ are changes particularly regarding the

2:23:51 ↗ use of residential land uses other than

2:23:55 ↗ multifamily with five or more attached

2:23:57 ↗ so primarily that would likely be

2:24:01 ↗ apartment buildings and it would allow

2:24:06 ↗ the same residential and uses for the

2:24:08 ↗ urban core and the mixed use zone I

2:24:11 ↗ think that we would benefit from looking

2:24:14 ↗ at the intent of the different zones as

2:24:17 ↗ stated within the central Issaquah plan

2:24:19 ↗ the intent of the mixed use zone is

2:24:22 ↗ stated to be different in terms of the

2:24:24 ↗ residential density from the urban core

2:24:26 ↗ and I don't know that that's reflected

2:24:28 ↗ within the current land use within the

2:24:30 ↗ agenda bill so I think that warrants for

2:24:32 ↗ the discussion the mixed use zone

2:24:34 ↗ currently the description is that the

2:24:38 ↗ intent of the mixed use district is to

2:24:40 ↗ provide mix

2:24:41 ↗ use neighborhoods with Class A office

2:24:42 ↗ buildings retail uses high quality

2:24:44 ↗ medium density residential development

2:24:47 ↗ and existing service businesses whereas

2:24:49 ↗ the urban core the intent is to provide

2:24:50 ↗ a dense vibrant pedestrian friendly

2:24:52 ↗ urban environment uses our mixed

2:24:55 ↗ residential commercial and office with

2:24:56 ↗ active pursuers that provide pedestrian

2:24:59 ↗ interest and the mixed use zone is also

2:25:01 ↗ a very large stone it's 293 acres

2:25:04 ↗ relative to the urban core which is 248

2:25:07 ↗ acres and those may be approximate but I

2:25:11 ↗ think that we should look at those look

2:25:13 ↗ at the differences look at how we want

2:25:14 ↗ to meet those intended land zones and

2:25:16 ↗ then the intended zoning and then also I

2:25:21 ↗ would like to have a discussion and have

2:25:25 ↗ the administration prepare information

2:25:28 ↗ about how this might line up with our

2:25:31 ↗ housing strategy because the housing

2:25:34 ↗ strategy one of the considerations

2:25:37 ↗ strategy seven from the housing strategy

2:25:39 ↗ work plan is to mitigate or offset the

2:25:42 ↗ deterrence to condominium construction

2:25:43 ↗ and under that there's a policy

2:25:45 ↗ consideration the city should take an

2:25:47 ↗ interest in its housing having a

2:25:48 ↗ composition of both ownership and rental

2:25:50 ↗ including in central Issaquah and then

2:25:53 ↗ there's also strategy 8 which is

2:25:56 ↗ incorporate code provisions to increase

2:25:58 ↗ the potential diversity of housing types

2:26:00 ↗ built in the city and they go into

2:26:02 ↗ detail about how there are there's sort

2:26:06 ↗ of a disconnect between the need for

2:26:09 ↗ housing that's for one and two-person

2:26:12 ↗ households and smaller unit types and

2:26:16 ↗ then also just a need for very variable

2:26:20 ↗ different housing types and also the

2:26:22 ↗ missing middle housing types so I think

2:26:24 ↗ we need to look at that and I think we

2:26:26 ↗ need to look at how mixed-use would be

2:26:27 ↗ different in terms of land use from E

2:26:31 ↗ from the urban core so that's why I'm

2:26:33 ↗ proposing that this go back to the land

2:26:35 ↗ ensure thanks councilmember Goodman as a

2:26:38 ↗ chair of lineage sure I fully support

2:26:40 ↗ that and this is a perfect case for an

2:26:43 ↗ agenda bill that should be referred back

2:26:45 ↗ to committee it's a very interesting new

2:26:49 ↗ issue that has not been talked about at

2:26:51 ↗ all and it's been very thoughtfully Rea

2:26:54 ↗ and I think that it's important to have

2:26:58 ↗ that work at the committee level so the

2:27:00 ↗ committee can be can be briefed on it

2:27:02 ↗ and fully discuss it and then it can

2:27:04 ↗ come back to Council for a decision

2:27:07 ↗ Thank You deputy council president patís

2:27:11 ↗ I'll be supporting this this evening and

2:27:14 ↗ would just echo what council

2:27:18 ↗ councilmember Goodman just spoke to I

2:27:21 ↗ think that this is something that is new

2:27:23 ↗ and should come before committee and

2:27:25 ↗ glad that it was raised by councilmember

2:27:28 ↗ hunt council person emergence so I will

2:27:34 ↗ also be supporting it and that again the

2:27:38 ↗ concept of the committee chair I care

2:27:42 ↗ greatly what they think even though as

2:27:44 ↗ we already know Stacy's not going to be

2:27:46 ↗ there and I get to but I will ask I want

2:27:51 ↗ to make sure that when we see this in

2:27:53 ↗ committee I sort of want to reiterate

2:27:55 ↗ what I've heard earlier in terms of

2:27:57 ↗ information that should come before the

2:28:00 ↗ committee I think of this in terms of

2:28:01 ↗ there's urban core there's mixed use and

2:28:04 ↗ sort of cross that with what is the

2:28:06 ↗ central Issaquah plan say about these

2:28:08 ↗ spaces and also I want to understand

2:28:10 ↗ what our growth targets are and sort of

2:28:14 ↗ how we see this split and I want to make

2:28:15 ↗ sure that whatever we do we do within

2:28:18 ↗ the spirit of the central district well

2:28:20 ↗ plan and we also do within the spirit of

2:28:21 ↗ the growth management great any more

2:28:26 ↗ comments I have a question for the

2:28:29 ↗ council I think what I heard from Vicki

2:28:33 ↗ Vicki and both Tola was explaining the

2:28:37 ↗ difference between these different types

2:28:39 ↗ of zoning and then looking at in terms

2:28:42 ↗ of their zoning for urban core and mixed

2:28:44 ↗ juice also doing it in line with growth

2:28:46 ↗ targets and lining it up with a housing

2:28:48 ↗ strategy I did want to ask one

2:28:51 ↗ clarifying question and that is that

2:28:53 ↗ when you look at these zoning maps the

2:28:55 ↗ zoning designations look more like

2:28:57 ↗ blankets where they cover multiple block

2:28:59 ↗ areas and the reality is not every block

2:29:02 ↗ builds out the same way

2:29:04 ↗ I'm a question I guessed Ola is in

2:29:07 ↗ talking about growth targets and in

2:29:09 ↗ meeting the intent of central square

2:29:11 ↗ plan I assumed you would be expecting

2:29:13 ↗ staff to come back with some sort of

2:29:15 ↗ assumptions about build-out because it's

2:29:17 ↗ not a simple blanket theory it's going

2:29:19 ↗ to be there's a target that mass transit

2:29:22 ↗ supports and a density that mass transit

2:29:26 ↗ isn't supported and how would you get

2:29:28 ↗ that mix on the valley floor assuming

2:29:29 ↗ that you're approving something that's a

2:29:31 ↗ blanket however each person may build

2:29:33 ↗ out not all the same so I'm assuming

2:29:37 ↗ that's the kind of linkage you were

2:29:38 ↗ looking for I mean I'm not looking for

2:29:41 ↗ and thus you know here's a you know 3d

2:29:44 ↗ projection of what those will look like

2:29:45 ↗ but it's you know we are on track

2:29:49 ↗ towards a certain amount of development

2:29:51 ↗ in the valley and this might nudge it

2:29:55 ↗ one way or the other and it would make

2:29:57 ↗ it still reasonably easy to hit our

2:29:59 ↗ targets we think it might make it hard

2:30:00 ↗ to hit our targets you know just sort of

2:30:02 ↗ a broad level conversation I don't need

2:30:04 ↗ a as you say block by block analysis I

2:30:08 ↗ just want to understand

2:30:10 ↗ I'm also as much as you know I mentioned

2:30:13 ↗ the targets it's as much to me about

2:30:15 ↗ what this central Issaquah plan says

2:30:17 ↗ there was so much public engagement

2:30:21 ↗ around the central issue qua plan and we

2:30:23 ↗ have learned a lot since we put the

2:30:25 ↗ original plan in place and I want to

2:30:26 ↗ make sure that this is still that this

2:30:29 ↗ is moving forward in line with that plan

2:30:31 ↗ okay that helps a lot I was just

2:30:34 ↗ picturing your former discussions last

2:30:36 ↗ year where Council was talking about

2:30:38 ↗ density happening outside of the core

2:30:40 ↗ and whether or not that was an intended

2:30:42 ↗ or an unintended consequence and

2:30:44 ↗ assuming that the transitions at the

2:30:46 ↗ edges of central Issaquah are meant to

2:30:48 ↗ transition into single-family homes and

2:30:50 ↗ whether or not you could still meet the

2:30:52 ↗ density is something that councilmember

2:30:54 ↗ hunt was proposing was true plate it

2:30:58 ↗ thank you any other comments and I will

2:31:04 ↗ read the notion refer a b7 661 proposed

2:31:09 ↗ amendments to central standards table

2:31:10 ↗ 4.3 be permitted land uses to the

2:31:13 ↗ November 1st 2018 council and ensure

2:31:16 ↗ committee to allow the

2:31:18 ↗ the opportunity to address housing

2:31:20 ↗ density and diversity concerns with

2:31:22 ↗ prohibiting duplexes triplexes and for

2:31:25 ↗ plexus within the urban core and mixed

2:31:27 ↗ use zones of central Issaquah returned

2:31:29 ↗ to the full council on or before

2:31:31 ↗ December 17 2018 all those in favor say

2:31:34 ↗ aye aye

2:31:35 ↗ always opposed it carries unanimously

2:31:39 ↗ moving on to good of the order do

2:31:41 ↗ council members have anything for good

2:31:43 ↗ of the order I am going to provide a few

2:31:50 ↗ upcoming council meeting items on

2:31:53 ↗ October 27th there will be a special

2:31:55 ↗ council meeting at 6 p.m. it's a public

2:31:58 ↗ hearing on the 2019 budget and it will

2:32:00 ↗ be on levee and revenue sources on

2:32:03 ↗ October 22nd there is a council work

2:32:05 ↗ session at 6:30 p.m. it will be

2:32:08 ↗ deliberations for the 2019 preliminary

2:32:11 ↗ budget on October 23rd they'll be a

2:32:13 ↗ Council of the whole meeting at 6:30

2:32:15 ↗ p.m. the agenda items include the washed

2:32:18 ↗ I 90 Front Street interchange

2:32:19 ↗ justification report update squak tells

2:32:22 ↗ community connections King County Solid

2:32:25 ↗ Waste Comprehensive Plan on October 29th

2:32:28 ↗ will be a council work session at 6:30

2:32:30 ↗ p.m.

2:32:30 ↗ again deliberations for the 2019

2:32:32 ↗ preliminary budget you'll be very busy

2:32:34 ↗ this month and on November 5th at the

2:32:37 ↗ regular council meeting at 7:00 p.m.

2:32:38 ↗ agenda items include a public hearing on

2:32:41 ↗ guess what the 2019 preliminary budget

2:32:43 ↗ and adoption of the 2019 levy and

2:32:46 ↗ revenue sources and anyone interested in

2:32:49 ↗ the complete budget schedule can find it

2:32:50 ↗ online at is cuihua gov slash 2019

2:32:54 ↗ budget executive session I'm actually

2:32:58 ↗ going to propose a five-minute break

2:33:00 ↗ before we move into executive session so

2:33:03 ↗ we'll be recessed for five minutes

2:33:21 ↗ you

2:40:31 ↗ you

2:40:36 ↗ you

2:40:43 ↗ well okay we are back on the air and the

2:40:48 ↗ next item on our agenda this evening is

2:40:50 ↗ the executive session as earlier

2:40:52 ↗ announced there will be an executive

2:40:54 ↗ session held this evening to discuss

2:40:56 ↗ items related to pending and potential

2:40:59 ↗ litigation for RCW 42.3 0.11 o paren one

2:41:04 ↗ prayer an eye and property acquisition

2:41:06 ↗ per RCW 42.3 0.11 o / n 1 / n b these

2:41:12 ↗ items are expected to take at least 20

2:41:15 ↗ minutes no action is anticipated to

2:41:17 ↗ follow an open session we will now Rize

2:41:19 ↗ recess into executive session at 9:43

2:41:35 ↗ you

3:22:33 ↗ we are back in open session at 10:24

3:22:35 ↗ p.m. there being no further business the

3:22:38 ↗ meeting is adjourned at 10:24 p.m.

3:22:52 ↗ 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 (5)

Adopt Ordinance No. 2846, vacating a portion of street right-of-way adjacent to property located at 300 and 371 NE Gilman Boulevard, subject to easements and establishing the compensation to be paid for such vacation. . (Opponent: Hun

Moved by WINTERSTEIN · seconded by GOODMAN

Carried 6-1

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

Opposed: Victoria Hunt

Direct the Administration to draft an agenda bill and ordinance proposing an amendment to the Issaquah Municipal Code to allow the City Council to have discretion to adopt school impact fees higher or lower than proposed by the Issaquah School District Capital Facilities Plan, returning to Council a…

Moved by REH · seconded by HUNT

Carried 6-1

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

Opposed: Tola Marts

Refer AB 7640 to the Nov. 14, 2018 Council Services & Safety Committee meeting with a draft ordinance amending IMC 3.63.100(A) to increase the School Impact Fees as identified in the Issaquah School District's 2018 Capital Facilities Plan except only applying the 50% discount required by the King Co…

Moved by REH · seconded by HUNT

Carried 7-0

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

Refer AB 7661 to the Nov. 1, 2018 Council Land & Shore Committee to allow the Administration the opportunity to address housing density and diversity concerns with [0000] prohibiting duplexes, 3-plexes and 4-plexes within the Urban Core and Mixed Use Zones of Central Issaquah, returning to the full …

Moved by HUNT · seconded by GOODMAN

Carried 7-0

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

APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED (see item “j”)

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