City Council Regular Meeting · Monday, November 18, 2019 · City Council Digest

6. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll of Nov. 18, 2019, $3,258,724.86 ID 0397

Approve · packet pp.5–109

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 18:28 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Finance Department P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 PH: 425-837-3050 www.issaquahwa.gov

Minutes: Council Study Session, Oct. 22

Approve · packet pp.111–112

▶ Watch from 18:31 Open packet at p.111 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR b) 10-22-19 Council Study Session Minutes Page (0000)

Minutes: Council Budget Study Session, Oct. 28, 2019

Accept Project · packet pp.113

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 18:33 Open packet at p.113 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR c) 10-28-19 Council Budget Study Session Minutes Page (0000)

2019 Water Main Rehabilitation Front Street South Project AB 7747

Accept Project · packet pp.123–124

Topics: TransportationWater

▶ Watch from 18:36 Open packet at p.123 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends acceptance of the 2019 Water Main Rehabilitation - Front Street South project and release of the retainage to the contractor.

Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) AB 7830

Accept Grant; Authorize Agreement · packet pp.125–161

Topics: Public Safety

▶ Watch from 18:39 Open packet at p.125 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends authorizing submittal of the 2019 Emergency Management Performance Grant application for emergency network infrastructure connectivity equipment.

Interfund Loan for SE 43rd Signalization Project AB 7847

Approve Resolution · packet pp.163–166

▶ Watch from 18:42 Open packet at p.163 ↗

Staff report:

As part of the 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), the Council indicated its preference to begin work on the SE 43rd Way Signal Improvements in 2020. The SE 43 Signalization Project will realign the driveways to Providence Point and Forest Village and install a traffic signal at the new intersection.

King County Metro Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Connecting Corridor, Salmon Friendly Trips AB 7881

Accept Grant; Authorize Agreement · packet pp.173–205

Topics: TransportationWater

▶ Watch from 18:44 Open packet at p.173 ↗

Staff report:

State Statute (RCW 70.94.521-551) and City Code (IMC 10.46) set forth policies and requirements to reduce drive-alone trips and vehicle miles traveled in order to improve air quality and reduce travel impacts. In addition, the City has established policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, buildings and other sources by 80% by 2050 (from a base year of 2007). King County Metro partnership funding is available from grant resources from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (“CMAQ”) Section 5307 – TDM Corridor Strategies Supporting Centers. The funding is available to be used for multi-modal transportation project planning and demonstration programs in order to reduce drive-alone vehicle travel and increase high occupancy vehicle use to help reduce energy consumption, air pollution and traffic congestion.

FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant (East Lake Sammamish Parkway Conveyance Improvements) AB 7882

Authorize Submittal · packet pp.207–211

Topics: Parks

▶ Watch from 18:47 Open packet at p.207 ↗

Staff report:

The stormwater conveyance system along the west side of East Lake Sammamish Parkway (ELSP), between SE 56 Street and SE 51 Street (Exhibit A) has a history of flooding and drainage issues. These issues result in standing water within the travel lanes along East Lake Sammamish Parkway. During and after significant storm events, the existing stormwater conveyance system becomes overwhelmed, causing flooding of ELSP. Currently, during heavy storm events, one or more lanes may need to be closed and traffic flow is disrupted.

7. PUBLIC HEARING

2020 Levy and Revenue Sources AB 7757

Carried 6-1

Conduct Public Hearing; Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.213–252

Topics: Land UseBudget

Open packet at p.213 ↗

Staff report:

The City's authority to impose a property tax is derived from the Washington State Constitution and described in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapters 84.52 and 84.55. The revenues from property tax are considered general government revenues. That means that this money is placed in the General Fund and can be used for any basic governmental service or good such as public safety, planning, parks or administration.

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

Opposed: Winterstein

8. REGULAR BUSINESS

2020 Legislative Agenda AB 7831

Approve · packet pp.307–324

▶ Watch from 18:50 Open packet at p.307 ↗

Staff report:

The legislative agenda is a tool that communicates priorities and policy positions externally to the State Legislature and the Governor as well as internally to the Administration and City lobbyists. The Administration has prepared and the Council has adopted a legislative agenda annually for the past seven years.

Amendment to Interlocal Agreement & Modification of Covenant with King County Relating to Recreation Facilities AB 7864

Carried 7-0

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.433–441

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 57:35 Open packet at p.433 ↗

Staff report:

On March 23, 1994, King County and the City executed an Interlocal Agreement transferring the Julius Boehm Pool, located at 50 Southeast Clark Street, to the City. On March 6, 1995, King County conveyed the pool to the City pursuant to a Special Warranty Deed. Both the Interlocal Agreement and Deed restrict the City from charging differential pool-use fees based on residency status.

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

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

2020 Levy and Revenue Sources AB 7757

Carried 6-1

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.501–516

Topics: Land UseBudget

▶ Watch from 1:36:20 Open packet at p.501 ↗

Staff report:

A planning effort for the City-owned Hillside Cemetery kicked off as a 2019 Work Plan item in the first quarter of the year. Hillside Cemetery is comprised of the Lower Cemetery and the Upper Cemetery. The Upper Cemetery was completed in the 1990’s with two sections identified to manage sales of plots. The last major area of cemetery plots, Section 2 of the Upper Cemetery, is now eligible to be opened. Currently, Section 2 consists of 1,369 full size grave plots and 104 half size plots.

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

Opposed: Winterstein

Proposed 2020 Budget: Revenue Sources - Cemetery Fees AB 7870

Adopt Ordinance

Topics: Land UseBudget

▶ Watch from 2:15:05

Proposed 2020 Budget, including Salary Ordinance AB 7758

Carried 6-1

Adopt Ordinances

Topics: Land UseBudget

▶ Watch from 2:53:50

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

Opposed: Winterstein

9. GOOD OF THE ORDER

Upcoming Council Meetings

▶ Watch from 10:39

4384 segments .txt ↗

0:04 ↗ I'd like to call to order the Monday

0:07 ↗ November 18th City Council regular

0:09 ↗ meeting and invite everyone to that you

0:12 ↗ would like to join us in the Pledge of

0:14 ↗ Allegiance item on the agenda we are

0:39 ↗ going to do audience comments and this

0:41 ↗ will be your opportunity to talk to your

0:43 ↗ City Council public participation are

0:48 ↗ displayed on the screen behind the City

0:50 ↗ Council please limit your comments to

0:53 ↗ five minutes those who signed up on the

0:56 ↗ signup list to speak will be called

0:57 ↗ first and then I will give a couple of

0:59 ↗ opportunities for anyone who did not

1:01 ↗ have a chance to sign up to come up and

1:02 ↗ speak as well

1:03 ↗ speakers podium is to my right if you

1:07 ↗ are here as part of a group as a

1:09 ↗ spokesperson or representing a group can

1:11 ↗ you identify that in your comments and

1:13 ↗ if you are here this evening and hearing

1:15 ↗ a speaker make a point that you strongly

1:18 ↗ support you support please raise your

1:20 ↗ hands so council has an indication of

1:22 ↗ your thoughts on the matter they're also

1:25 ↗ going to be - public hearings tonight a

1:27 ↗ be seven seven five seven the 2020 levy

1:30 ↗ and revenue sources and a B seven seven

1:33 ↗ five eight that proposed 2020 budget

1:36 ↗ including salary ordinances if you want

1:39 ↗ to speak directly to one of those topics

1:42 ↗ please stay for the regular portion of

1:45 ↗ our meeting and you'll be able to make

1:46 ↗ comments on those specifically

1:49 ↗ some additional information about an

1:52 ↗ ongoing SEPA appeal as many of you know

1:57 ↗ the Providence Point umbrella

1:58 ↗ association has filed an appeal of the

2:00 ↗ State Environmental Policy Act

2:03 ↗ determination of non significance that

2:05 ↗ was issued by city staff for the

2:07 ↗ Comprehensive Plan REE designation and

2:09 ↗ rezone requests related to the s-cross

2:11 ↗ school district property because this

2:15 ↗ appeal is quasi judicial and will be

2:17 ↗ heard by the sequester D Council on

2:19 ↗ December 2nd 2019 the City Council may

2:22 ↗ not hear audience comments tonight on

2:25 ↗ any of the issues raised in the CEPA

2:27 ↗ appeal and if you are not sure and

2:31 ↗ Europe speaking our City Council legal

2:34 ↗ counsel will advise you advised me and

2:37 ↗ let me know that the comment I may have

2:39 ↗ to stop you in your comments if they are

2:42 ↗ in contradiction to what I I just stated

2:44 ↗ so for the city clerk has anyone signed

2:49 ↗ up to speak this evening yes and

2:50 ↗ Fletcher

3:01 ↗ my name is Ann Fletcher and I'm a

3:04 ↗ resident at 255 South East Andrews

3:06 ↗ Street in Issaquah I'm speaking as a

3:10 ↗ member of the people for climate action

3:12 ↗ in Issaquah and we urge the City Council

3:16 ↗ tonight to approve the resolution

3:18 ↗ standards and we remind individuals that

3:22 ↗ they can also send their own comments to

3:24 ↗ the clean energy agency as well clean

3:29 ↗ fuel standards are an important piece of

3:31 ↗ the puzzle to reducing carbon emissions

3:34 ↗ and are needed in building codes waste

3:41 ↗ management natural space preservation

3:44 ↗ etc to create the impact needed to turn

3:48 ↗ the climate crisis around the climate

3:52 ↗ action was formed to support the city in

3:55 ↗ creating a robust impact

4:00 ↗ we applaud all the efforts towards those

4:03 ↗ ends so far taken by the City Council

4:06 ↗ sustainability Department the council

4:09 ↗ has the power and our k4c agreement to

4:24 ↗ reduce our carbon emissions Energy

4:33 ↗ Agency requests the agency take care in

4:36 ↗ what the city calls an aggressive

4:39 ↗ timeline for implementation of the fuel

4:41 ↗ standards the reason is that the

4:43 ↗ standards would require a potentially

4:46 ↗ high cost for the necessary technology

4:49 ↗ and production in short term economics

4:55 ↗ there is

4:58 ↗ crucial concern if we do not prioritize

5:00 ↗ limited budgets to make rapid enough

5:04 ↗ changes to sustainment health of our

5:08 ↗ natural environment and avert the

5:11 ↗ potentially higher costs social and

5:17 ↗ economic consequences to learn and

5:32 ↗ assist with ideas from other successful

5:35 ↗ cities funded city toolkit we are here

5:42 ↗ to collaborate with the city so Jessica

5:45 ↗ can do its part and we are here to

5:50 ↗ communicate positively with our

5:52 ↗ residents about together for a

5:58 ↗ sustainable and high-quality way of life

6:02 ↗ for everyone in the community thank you

6:05 ↗ thank you man

6:07 ↗ and there are a lot of hands up in the

6:10 ↗ air

6:11 ↗ does anyone else signed up this evening

6:12 ↗ tisha yes Larry Frank's not blaring my

6:21 ↗ name is Larry Frank's I live at two four

6:23 ↗ zero zero one southeast 130 Street is a

6:26 ↗ quiet and I'm also supporting the people

6:30 ↗ for climate action my message is short

6:32 ↗ I'm thanking you in advance

6:34 ↗ for supporting the clean fuel standard

6:38 ↗ thank you

6:39 ↗ more than my grandchildren no one

6:48 ↗ further has signed up to speak is there

6:50 ↗ anyone else that would like to address

6:51 ↗ council this evening during audience

6:53 ↗ comments David 255 southeast and Rose

7:04 ↗ Street heard that address already

7:06 ↗ tonight and she speaks much more

7:09 ↗ directly task force that the city

7:20 ↗ sponsored we had citizens staff and two

7:23 ↗ council members myself being one of

7:25 ↗ those we couldn't call it climate change

7:29 ↗ in those days or even greenhouse gases

7:33 ↗ were mentioned in the report but you

7:34 ↗ couldn't have it on the cover so it had

7:37 ↗ to be air quality and atmospheric task

7:39 ↗ force issues and pretty much solving

7:50 ↗ that issue so climate change got some

7:53 ↗ other issues we had some things which

7:58 ↗ sound I think familiar to what we've

8:00 ↗ been doing reduce lighting and heating

8:03 ↗ conversion to energy funds conserving

8:07 ↗ streetlights increased tree planting

8:09 ↗ around city facilities purchased land to

8:11 ↗ preserve open space in parks

8:13 ↗ do more than that we did some great ones

8:15 ↗ lately protect future water supply

8:17 ↗ options cascade water Alliance consider

8:20 ↗ future climate and selecting tree

8:21 ↗ species acquire potential future habitat

8:25 ↗ areas and open space consider changes in

8:28 ↗ transportation plants and policies to

8:30 ↗ encourage public transportation stricter

8:34 ↗ tree preservation standards develop a

8:36 ↗ tree fund consider a utility rate

8:38 ↗ modifications to promote conservation

8:41 ↗ another one lobby Metro for increased

8:44 ↗ bus and shuttle service on the east side

8:46 ↗ and at that time was actually cutting

8:49 ↗ back east side transportation

8:53 ↗ developments which preserve a

8:55 ↗ substantial tree cover is violence and

8:58 ↗ Talas both guidelines the city

8:59 ↗ recognition encouraged private efforts

9:01 ↗ to preserve open space thinking about

9:04 ↗ Tibbits Tibbits restoration that was

9:07 ↗ happened on the rally property is an

9:08 ↗ example of DNR's community and urban

9:12 ↗ forest legislation to provide technical

9:14 ↗ support

9:16 ↗ thanks for staff this thank you hands in

9:30 ↗ the air

9:31 ↗ [Music]

9:33 ↗ the second call and a third and final

9:37 ↗ call if anyone would like to address

9:39 ↗ their City Council thank you I attended

9:49 ↗ the Eastside transportation partnership

9:52 ↗ meeting where we talked about the active

9:54 ↗ transportation plan that King County is

9:57 ↗ releasing and so they discussed you know

10:01 ↗ active transportation is anything that

10:03 ↗ requires your body moving so walking

10:07 ↗ biking even wheelchair movement anything

10:11 ↗ that's not in a vehicle

10:14 ↗ and they said the draft plan update will

10:17 ↗ be available in February with the final

10:18 ↗ in April and we also talked about the

10:23 ↗ airport capacity study but that has less

10:26 ↗ relevance I would say directly to is the

10:28 ↗ cost well I'll leave that off also just

10:31 ↗ as a side note I did get a chance to

10:34 ↗ visit the open window school and they

10:36 ↗ have sent some amazing thank-you notes I

10:39 ↗ will turn that around good of the order

10:41 ↗ for everyone to see

10:42 ↗ Thanks Thank You councilmember Hanna

10:44 ↗ thank you madam mayor earlier today

10:47 ↗ November 18th the Cascade Water Alliance

10:50 ↗ board had a workshop to discuss

10:51 ↗ strategic planning and I attended as

10:53 ↗ well as mayor Polly and we discussed the

10:55 ↗ mission and vision of cascade water big

10:59 ↗ picture as well as strategies for

11:01 ↗ achieving that and as a reminder for all

11:04 ↗ of us cascades mission is to provide

11:06 ↗ water supply to meet current and future

11:08 ↗ needs of our members in a cost-effective

11:10 ↗ and environmentally responsible manner

11:12 ↗ through partnerships water efficiency

11:14 ↗ programs acquiring constructing and

11:16 ↗ managing water supply infrastructure and

11:18 ↗ fostering Regional Water planning so we

11:21 ↗ discussed how we can achieve that

11:22 ↗ mission the next meeting of the cascade

11:25 ↗ water Alliance board will be later this

11:26 ↗ week on November 20th and that concludes

11:28 ↗ my report

11:29 ↗ Thank You councilmember ray I know

11:31 ↗ report this evening Thank You

11:33 ↗ councilmember winter stone

11:34 ↗ thank you on the first Thursday of the

11:36 ↗ month I attended the growth management

11:38 ↗ policy board meeting at PSC PSR C

11:41 ↗ headquarters in Seattle the only agenda

11:43 ↗ item was deliberations on amendments to

11:48 ↗ the draft vision 2050 plan and let me

11:52 ↗ tell you very lively deliberations and

11:55 ↗ there's a there is quite a lot of

12:01 ↗ pieceof nasaan and i however there are

12:07 ↗ there are still over 20 amendments for

12:11 ↗ the board to consider so they gonna meet

12:15 ↗ again this week on Thursday and then

12:16 ↗ again on in December which is not usual

12:19 ↗ for this group part of the reason for

12:21 ↗ that is that a

12:23 ↗ of the roughly 30 board members are not

12:25 ↗ going to be there next year so they want

12:28 ↗ to get this work done and that's just so

12:31 ↗ that we can make a recommendation of the

12:33 ↗ final set of policies and actions to the

12:38 ↗ PS RC executive board hopefully

12:40 ↗ targeting a spring time 2024 final final

12:43 ↗ adoption that concludes my report thank

12:47 ↗ you councilmember Goodman thank you

12:48 ↗ madam mayor council member ray and I

12:51 ↗ attended the Eastside Fire and Rescue

12:53 ↗ Board of Directors meeting on November

12:55 ↗ 14th and most notably I'm happy to

13:00 ↗ report that aside fire and fire district

13:02 ↗ 10 received clean financial audits for

13:05 ↗ years 2016 through 2018 those are the

13:10 ↗ most notable items from the agenda and

13:13 ↗ also that their site fire has a new

13:16 ↗ finance and administrative director Lisa

13:18 ↗ King so we welcomed her its concludes my

13:21 ↗ report

13:21 ↗ Thank You deputy council president PT's

13:23 ↗ thank you madam mayor no report this

13:25 ↗ evening Thank You council president

13:27 ↗ Mertz thank you madam mayor sun cities

13:30 ↗ Association met on Wednesday November

13:32 ↗ 13th how to explain

13:38 ↗ there was a about 70% of the entire

13:42 ↗ meeting was devoted to the issue of the

13:48 ↗ various homelessness plans that are

13:51 ↗ circulating in the county right now and

13:53 ↗ if I distill it down what I would say is

13:57 ↗ basically in the 48 hours ahead of that

14:00 ↗ meeting we received two modified plans

14:03 ↗ one from County councilmember Cole wells

14:05 ↗ and the other from County councilmember

14:07 ↗ Tim baski see this was remember this was

14:10 ↗ just last Wednesday afternoon SCA has

14:12 ↗ not finished evaluating those two plans

14:15 ↗ and the strong will of the body that

14:19 ↗ night was to not take a position on

14:21 ↗ either plan

14:22 ↗ rather to approve a general statement of

14:25 ↗ principles around homelessness and I'll

14:30 ↗ just read this the the high-level

14:31 ↗ briefly SCA recognizes that homelessness

14:34 ↗ is a regional crisis some regional

14:36 ↗ planning is key to the success of a

14:38 ↗ region-wide effort cities must be

14:39 ↗ involved in the development of a

14:41 ↗ regional action plan and five-year plan

14:43 ↗ SCA members have significant questions

14:45 ↗ about the value of forming a new

14:47 ↗ government a PDA to tackle the

14:49 ↗ challenges of fractured system there

14:52 ↗ needs to be high-level agreement among

14:53 ↗ policy makers across the county on the

14:55 ↗ objectives for a new entity before the

14:58 ↗ entity is formed if a new government

15:00 ↗ structure is established policy makers

15:02 ↗ elected officials should set policy and

15:04 ↗ finally that any board committee of

15:06 ↗ elected officials to have equitable

15:09 ↗ distribution of power between King

15:11 ↗ County Seattle and SCA cities

15:13 ↗ so what FCA is doing right now is it is

15:15 ↗ evaluating the coal wells and the

15:18 ↗ Dombrowski proposals as regards to the

15:21 ↗ principles that SVA has approved in how

15:24 ↗ to address homelessness in the county I

15:26 ↗ will forward on to Council as those as

15:30 ↗ more substantive responses come back on

15:33 ↗ these proposals I will forward them to

15:35 ↗ your perusal in the hope that in our

15:37 ↗ council meeting in two weeks we could at

15:38 ↗ four go to the order when also hopefully

15:41 ↗ the council meeting is a little bit

15:42 ↗ shorter than tonight's meeting review

15:44 ↗ that feedback from a CA and that you can

15:46 ↗ all give me a consensus view from this

15:49 ↗ body as to our response to the plans

15:51 ↗ that are in front of us but we're just

15:53 ↗ even if this wasn't a four-hour meeting

15:55 ↗ this evening those plans are have not

15:58 ↗ yet been evaluated to an extent that i

16:00 ↗ think we could have an intelligent

16:01 ↗ conversation this evening this concludes

16:04 ↗ my report

16:04 ↗ Thank You council president Mertz

16:06 ↗ fingers crossed we're less than four

16:08 ↗ hours but there will be an executive

16:13 ↗ session this evening to discuss pending

16:15 ↗ and potential litigation per RCW 42.3

16:18 ↗ 0.11 o paren one print I the item is

16:21 ↗ expected to last 20 minutes and no

16:23 ↗ action is anticipated to follow an open

16:26 ↗ session

16:27 ↗ Old Town traffic coming following public

16:29 ↗ testimony during the City Council's

16:31 ↗ November 4th meeting concerning Old Town

16:34 ↗ traffic calming measures and safety

16:35 ↗ we've posted a recap of questions and

16:38 ↗ concerns along with more information and

16:40 ↗ answers that can be provided

16:42 ↗ expeditiously those that either attended

16:46 ↗ the meeting or watching at home can

16:47 ↗ learn more about the Old Town traffic

16:52 ↗ calming old with an e on the end of it

16:55 ↗ as the city conducts a more thorough

16:57 ↗ review of the issues raised a

16:59 ↗ presentation and further recommendations

17:01 ↗ will be made at a city council study

17:02 ↗ session in early 2020 you can sign up

17:05 ↗ for Old Town updates

17:08 ↗ / notify me southeast 43rd signalization

17:13 ↗ project included on tonight's consent

17:16 ↗ agenda is legislation authorizing an

17:19 ↗ interfund loan from the sewer fund to

17:22 ↗ the capital fund to allow work to begin

17:24 ↗ on the southeast 43rd signalization

17:26 ↗ project the interfund loan will serve as

17:29 ↗ a bridge funding to allow work on the

17:31 ↗ project to commence prior to the C

17:33 ↗ issuing bonds in mid 2020 the 2020

17:36 ↗ budget that council is scheduled to

17:38 ↗ adopt later this evening does include

17:40 ↗ 7.6 million in funding for this project

17:43 ↗ southeast 43rd signalization project

17:45 ↗ will realign the driveways to Providence

17:47 ↗ Point and Forest Village and install a

17:50 ↗ traffic signal at the new intersection

17:52 ↗ it will also connect site from

17:54 ↗ Providence Point West to the existing

17:56 ↗ sidewalk in front of Providence Ridge it

17:59 ↗ will construct facilities to detain and

18:01 ↗ treat stormwater it will relocate

18:03 ↗ utilities for PSE wave and Sammamish

18:05 ↗ pots of water and finally an overlay for

18:08 ↗ the pavement along southeast 43rd to

18:10 ↗ repair the deteriorated pavement this

18:13 ↗ project will advertise for bids in late

18:15 ↗ fall 2019 and construction is expected

18:17 ↗ to begin in late winter early spring

18:20 ↗ 2020 the traffic signal and realigned

18:23 ↗ driveway are expected to open in fall

18:25 ↗ 2020 and that concludes the mayor's

18:28 ↗ report moving on to the consent calendar

18:31 ↗ the

18:32 ↗ consent calendar was distributed to

18:33 ↗ council in advance and if authorized the

18:37 ↗ items on the consent calendar will be

18:38 ↗ considered together and approved by one

18:40 ↗ motion have the payables and payroll

18:43 ↗ been reviewed thanks thank you does any

18:46 ↗ councilmember desire to remove any item

18:48 ↗ from the consent calendar and consider

18:50 ↗ it under regular business with someone

18:54 ↗ care to make a motion I am sorry about

18:58 ↗ that I move we adopt the consent

19:00 ↗ calendar is listed in tonight's meeting

19:01 ↗ agenda it's been moved and seconded all

19:05 ↗ those in favor signify by saying aye it

19:09 ↗ was opposed that carries unanimously

19:11 ↗ we're going to move on to the public

19:13 ↗ hearings portion of our meeting and

19:16 ↗ before we begin I'd like to clarify the

19:18 ↗ process for both hearings first there

19:21 ↗ will be a snap presentation followed by

19:23 ↗ council questions then reopen the

19:25 ↗ hearing hearings and the public can make

19:28 ↗ comments at that time after receiving

19:30 ↗ comments I'll proceed to close the

19:32 ↗ hearings council deliberation and action

19:35 ↗ on both public hearing items will occur

19:37 ↗ later on the agenda this evening under

19:38 ↗ regular business first is a b7 757 2020

19:45 ↗ Le'Veon revenue sources a public hearing

19:48 ↗ was conducted at the October 21st and

19:51 ↗ November 4th council meetings and was

19:53 ↗ continued to tonight's meeting and

19:54 ↗ finance director Beth Goldberg is

19:57 ↗ already up there for a brief

19:58 ↗ presentation good evening mayor and

20:03 ↗ council members we are hopefully on the

20:07 ↗ last evening with at risk of jinxing

20:10 ↗ this deliberations for 2020 hopefully we

20:14 ↗ made it I'm gonna give a brief overview

20:17 ↗ of the property tax and other revenues

20:21 ↗ as a reminder were required under state

20:24 ↗ law to hold a public hearing about

20:27 ↗ property tax and other revenues the

20:30 ↗ public hearing was opened on October

20:32 ↗ 21st and the council decided to continue

20:37 ↗ it November 4th

20:38 ↗ we had another public hearing on

20:39 ↗ November 4th continued it again to this

20:43 ↗ evening so tonight

20:45 ↗ continues the public hearing it was

20:47 ↗ opened on October 21st after discussion

20:52 ↗ and public comment tonight Council does

20:54 ↗ need to close the public hearing and

20:56 ↗ then as mayor Polly indicated during

20:59 ↗ regular business council will have an

21:02 ↗ opportunity to vote on the property tax

21:04 ↗ ordinance is a reminder the property tax

21:11 ↗ is proposed or it's currently configured

21:14 ↗ we've made some changes since the

21:16 ↗ proposed budget that I'll go into totals

21:18 ↗ an estimated nine point six million

21:20 ↗ dollars for 2020 which represents about

21:23 ↗ 19% of the general fund budget the pie

21:27 ↗ chart here does represent this is the

21:29 ↗ first time I believe you're all seeing

21:31 ↗ this pie chart this represents the

21:34 ↗ updated revenue figures based on the

21:37 ↗ direction we received from Council

21:39 ↗ during budget deliberations and the

21:42 ↗ revenues are a little bit lower than

21:44 ↗ what we had discussed originally we're

21:47 ↗ now at forty nine point six five million

21:49 ↗ dollars in terms of what we are

21:54 ↗ recommending for the property tax levy

21:56 ↗ for 2020 we are recommending one percent

22:00 ↗ taking the one percent increase

22:02 ↗ plus new construction and banked

22:04 ↗ capacity collectively that will generate

22:07 ↗ nine point almost six million dollars

22:10 ↗ for the city nine point one two from the

22:13 ↗ base levy

22:14 ↗ ninety one thousand dollars from the one

22:17 ↗ percent increase

22:19 ↗ 169,000 for new construction nine

22:22 ↗ thousand four reliving four prior year

22:25 ↗ refunds and then one hundred and sixty

22:29 ↗ almost $8,000 for banked capacity as we

22:35 ↗ have discussed in the past Bank capacity

22:37 ↗ would add roughly twelve dollars to the

22:39 ↗ average its acquire resident property

22:42 ↗ tax bill and the average estimated

22:46 ↗ property tax bill for 2020 the the

22:50 ↗ Issaquah portion would be six hundred

22:52 ↗ ninety seven dollars which is up from

22:56 ↗ $646 in 2019 also as we have discussed

23:00 ↗ throughout budget our budget discussions

23:02 ↗ this fall the levy rate is actually

23:05 ↗ dropping because of increases in

23:08 ↗ assessed value so the rate per thousand

23:11 ↗ that people are paying is lower than

23:14 ↗ what it has been traditionally but the

23:17 ↗ amount paid to the city is up slightly

23:21 ↗ the 2020 budget also includes some other

23:26 ↗ revenue actions an increase in the

23:29 ↗ utility tax rates last final budget

23:33 ↗ deliberations from the council directed

23:36 ↗ the administration to prepare an

23:38 ↗ ordinance that would raise utility tax

23:40 ↗ by two three percent rather than you

23:42 ↗ originally proposed six percent we've

23:45 ↗ talked about some changes in parks fees

23:48 ↗ as well as cemetery fees and there are

23:51 ↗ again separate actions that council

23:54 ↗ wants to take on each of these

23:55 ↗ ordinances during regular business and

24:01 ↗ that completes my overview Thank You

24:05 ↗ director Goldberg I'll see if council

24:06 ↗ has any questions on information as a

24:10 ↗ member we're interesting if it's easy

24:11 ↗ that I really would appreciate you know

24:14 ↗ you talked a little bit about the bank

24:16 ↗ capacity and we know the dollar amount

24:18 ↗ that we're looking at has reflects some

24:22 ↗ adjustments something about maybe not

24:25 ↗ using refunds Kirk accounting for them

24:28 ↗ correctly could you just give a quick

24:30 ↗ overview of that yes so each year the

24:39 ↗ this council makes a decision of a levy

24:42 ↗ rate and within that levy rate is it's

24:48 ↗ based one percent above the prior year's

24:53 ↗ property tax amount as King County which

24:58 ↗ assesses the property tax on our behalf

25:00 ↗ is making those assessments to

25:02 ↗ individual property owners there are

25:05 ↗ opportunities for people to come back

25:08 ↗ or refunds and disputing what the King

25:13 ↗ County Assessor's Office is assessing as

25:15 ↗ their property tax bill what I think

25:18 ↗ what you're getting at with your

25:19 ↗ question counselor or sign is that in

25:21 ↗ the past we have had banked capacity but

25:25 ↗ the city has has not in recent years

25:29 ↗ backed out those refunds from the base

25:31 ↗ rate so we have been slowly eating into

25:34 ↗ banked capacity by not backing out those

25:38 ↗ those refunds is that I couldn't see

25:43 ↗ where the refund is so we based upon

25:47 ↗ what legislation was set there was a

25:49 ↗ dollar amount but because we got refunds

25:53 ↗ we should have taken that out of thank

25:56 ↗ you are there any other questions none

26:03 ↗ the guidelines for citizen comments for

26:05 ↗ the public hearing portion are similar

26:07 ↗ as to what we had up before and it's

26:09 ↗ just a reminder if you're here is a

26:10 ↗ group just make sure you identify that

26:13 ↗ so I'm going to open the public hearing

26:16 ↗ 7:37 and ask the city clerk if anyone

26:20 ↗ has signed up this evening to speak no

26:22 ↗ is there anyone who would like to

26:25 ↗ address council during this public

26:27 ↗ hearing

26:29 ↗ second request anybody wishing to

26:32 ↗ address their counsel the third request

26:34 ↗ still seeing no hands will close the

26:37 ↗ public hearing at 7:38 and as stated

26:43 ↗ earlier there was no council action at

26:46 ↗ this point in time you'll be taking

26:47 ↗ action later on in the regular meeting

26:49 ↗ moving on to the next public hearing a

26:52 ↗ be seven seven five eight proposed 2020

26:55 ↗ budget including salary ordinance and a

26:58 ↗ game we're conducting a public hearing

26:59 ↗ on this ordinance I presented the

27:02 ↗ proposed 2020 budget on September 24th

27:05 ↗ and since that time council has held six

27:08 ↗ budget study sessions and deliberated

27:10 ↗ changes to the proposed budget the

27:12 ↗ public hearing on the proposed budget

27:13 ↗ was held on October 21st and tonight the

27:16 ↗ final public hearing will be conducted

27:18 ↗ and is there a brief presentation just

27:24 ↗ as brief or maybe even more brief than

27:27 ↗ the last one again how we got here is

27:32 ↗ mayor poly indicated she transmitted her

27:35 ↗ proposed budget on September 24th since

27:38 ↗ then we have had a number of

27:40 ↗ presentations from staff to counsel some

27:43 ↗ budget deliberation sessions come

27:45 ↗ concluding last or November 6th I guess

27:48 ↗ it was two weeks ago with final

27:50 ↗ direction from the council about what to

27:53 ↗ include in the package that is before

27:56 ↗ you this evening so that is how we got

27:58 ↗ to where we are tonight it's a reminder

28:02 ↗ when we began discussions with the

28:05 ↗ council over the proposed budget we did

28:07 ↗ pose a series of policy questions

28:10 ↗ related to the way the budget was

28:12 ↗ constructed and those policy questions

28:16 ↗ guided council discussions throughout

28:18 ↗ this process I won't read through them

28:20 ↗ all here but they are on the screen for

28:23 ↗ you to review as council deliberated

28:27 ↗ those questions they

28:29 ↗ council gave us direction to make a

28:31 ↗ number of changes to the proposed budget

28:33 ↗ the details of all of those changes are

28:36 ↗ included in your packet but I did want

28:39 ↗ to highlight I think we would all agree

28:43 ↗ on are the significant changes so that

28:45 ↗ there is an awareness the first of which

28:47 ↗ is the council asks the administration

28:50 ↗ to come back with a lower utility tax

28:52 ↗ rate proposal so what is before you

28:55 ↗ tonight is a 3% increase to the utility

28:58 ↗ tax on water sewer stormwater and cable

29:00 ↗ as opposed to the 6% that was originally

29:03 ↗ proposed we've also got included in the

29:07 ↗ package for you tonight a lower increase

29:10 ↗ on the senior Gold Pass fee lowering the

29:13 ↗ increase from 120 per year to $60 per

29:16 ↗ year for residents and then a similar

29:19 ↗ differential for non-residents we got

29:23 ↗ restored funding to maintain community

29:25 ↗ center in swimming pool hours at 2019

29:28 ↗ hours of operations the package before

29:31 ↗ you tonight also restores funding for

29:33 ↗ community grants and contracts for

29:35 ↗ services

29:37 ↗ it adds funds to support integration of

29:40 ↗ strategic plan environmental objectives

29:42 ↗ into the work on title 19 and does make

29:46 ↗ a modest draw on fund balance to support

29:50 ↗ the work of the citywide services

29:51 ↗ assessment that's a one-time function

29:55 ↗ that will draw on fund balance to

29:57 ↗ partially offset those costs so that's

29:59 ↗ the highlight of the changes again there

30:01 ↗ are more detailed changes in your packet

30:03 ↗ the overall budget with these changes

30:07 ↗ these are all funds totals 143 point 1

30:10 ↗ million dollars of which the general

30:13 ↗ fund represents forty nine point eight

30:15 ↗ million dollars this is down slightly

30:17 ↗ from the proposed budget in terms of the

30:21 ↗ general fund as I mentioned forty nine

30:23 ↗ point eight million dollars forty

30:26 ↗ percent of the budget goes to public

30:29 ↗ safety and law enforcement functions

30:31 ↗ it's the biggest portion

30:33 ↗ and then the next largest portion is

30:36 ↗ parks and and then the different service

30:39 ↗ areas go down from there so that's the

30:42 ↗ overview of the general fund budget in

30:46 ↗ terms of fund balance we spent quite a

30:47 ↗ bit of time talking about fund balance

30:49 ↗ throughout the deliberations based on

30:52 ↗ the direction we received from the

30:54 ↗ council on November 6th we project an

30:59 ↗ ending fund balance for 2020 of 13.5

31:02 ↗ million dollars which represents 27

31:05 ↗ percent of expenditures and then later

31:09 ↗ this evening counsel will be asked to

31:11 ↗ take action on the various pieces that

31:14 ↗ make up the 2020 budget including the

31:17 ↗ utility tax rate which I've mentioned

31:21 ↗ previously the property tax levy also

31:24 ↗ mentioned previously this evening parks

31:27 ↗ and recreations fees cemetery fees and

31:29 ↗ then last the salary ordinance and

31:32 ↗ finally the annual budget and all of

31:35 ↗ those will be before council as separate

31:37 ↗ action items under regular business and

31:41 ↗ with that I'm done with my remarks Thank

31:43 ↗ You director Goldberg this council have

31:45 ↗ any questions on presentation seeing

31:49 ↗ none the previous two opportunities to

31:54 ↗ comment so I will open the public

31:56 ↗ hearing at 7:30 three and ask if anybody

31:59 ↗ has signed up to speak yes Rachel

32:02 ↗ Krinsky

32:07 ↗ hello mayor and councilmembers thank you

32:10 ↗ so much for your service and for the

32:12 ↗ obvious considerable challenging times

32:18 ↗ we're dealing with which is to fund

33:52 ↗ Human Services

33:53 ↗ 20 21 22 biennium so we urge you to keep

33:57 ↗ moving in steps towards that to deepen

34:01 ↗ and sustain the funding to take action

34:04 ↗ in any ways that you can I know that you

34:07 ↗ are in the final moments of this budget

34:08 ↗ I would urge you to see if there's any

34:10 ↗ increase you can make in this year's

34:12 ↗ budget to move towards higher rates for

34:14 ↗ the next biennium but we also recognize

34:17 ↗ the challenging fiscal situation before

34:19 ↗ you recognition of the significant unmet

34:25 ↗ needs and the recommendations from your

34:31 ↗ community needs assessment thank you for

34:34 ↗ listening thank you for your commitment

34:36 ↗ to Human Services and I just want to

34:39 ↗ share our perspective that when you look

34:41 ↗ at infrastructure needs we think human

34:43 ↗ beings are the most important

34:44 ↗ infrastructure in any community thank

34:46 ↗ you very much thank you Rachel and thank

34:48 ↗ you and there's hands in the air

34:50 ↗ thank you also for the letter that the

34:52 ↗ council and I received last week I think

34:54 ↗ as well I just asked a question was

34:57 ↗ there restoration of Human Services

34:59 ↗ grant funds yes

35:02 ↗ which amount to who it was I believe

35:05 ↗ almost 70,000 and it restores it to the

35:11 ↗ 2019 levels he's just under 70,000 thank

35:15 ↗ you is there anyone else that would like

35:22 ↗ to address council this evening come on

35:24 ↗ up to the podium

35:29 ↗ my name is Dave Osmond I live at 3 4 3 3

35:32 ↗ South East Highland Lane and that's in

35:35 ↗ Providence Point and I'm just here to

35:37 ↗ thank you and is there anyone else who

35:46 ↗ would like to address the council during

35:47 ↗ this public hearing the second column

35:51 ↗ anyone wishing to address Council and a

35:54 ↗ final third and final call and seeing no

35:57 ↗ one else we will close the public and

36:04 ↗ there is no action right now because

36:06 ↗ council deliberation and action on this

36:08 ↗ ordinance will occur under regular

36:10 ↗ business as well so we're moving into

36:12 ↗ the regular business portion of our

36:14 ↗ meeting and we're starting first with

36:15 ↗ ab7 831 the 2020 legislative agenda this

36:19 ↗ item was heard by counsel at the October

36:21 ↗ 22nd council study session and Jean Paul

36:25 ↗ our management alice is at the lectern

36:27 ↗ to give a presentation good evening I'm

36:32 ↗ Jean Paul management lists in the

36:33 ↗ mayor's office and I'm here tonight

36:35 ↗ present on the 2020 and the state

36:37 ↗ legislative agenda there are two primary

36:40 ↗ reasons for the presentation first I'd

36:42 ↗ like to provide a brief overview of the

36:43 ↗ legislative agendas development and the

36:46 ↗ second reason is request council action

36:48 ↗ to approve the agenda at the October

36:52 ↗ 22nd study session the city's lobbyist

36:54 ↗ Shelley held her and I gave an initial

36:56 ↗ presentation on the legislative agenda

36:58 ↗ this included a general overview of the

37:00 ↗ upcoming legislative session the city's

37:03 ↗ legislative successes in the 2019

37:05 ↗ session and their proposed 2020 agenda

37:09 ↗ as a reminder we have three overall

37:12 ↗ priorities for the 2020 legislative

37:14 ↗ agenda two of these priorities fall

37:16 ↗ under a potential transportation funding

37:17 ↗ package the first is a request to

37:20 ↗ provide the funding needed to finish

37:21 ↗ widening state route 18 from his road to

37:24 ↗ raging river

37:26 ↗ second request is three million dollars

37:28 ↗ to begin the predesigned an

37:29 ↗ environmental documentation process for

37:32 ↗ an additional under overcrossing phi 90

37:34 ↗ the third priority is about providing

37:36 ↗ tools for the city to sustainably fund

37:38 ↗ transportation and basic services

37:44 ↗ positive feedback at the October 22nd

37:47 ↗ study session and there been no changes

37:49 ↗ to the document however I do want to

37:51 ↗ highlight an additional request as part

37:53 ↗ of the council action tonight the

37:54 ↗ administration seeking approval to

37:56 ↗ participate in the southeast area

37:58 ↗ legislative transportation coalition or

38:00 ↗ cotc this participation would include

38:03 ↗ the placement of the city's logo on that

38:05 ↗ Cruz legislative agenda this year the

38:08 ↗ communities of north have already joined

38:11 ↗ in Maple Valley Cummington and Black

38:12 ↗ Diamond to advocate for the completion

38:14 ↗ of state route 18 the administration

38:17 ↗ would like council approval to

38:18 ↗ participate in this effort the policy

38:22 ↗ manual is a second for the legislative

38:23 ↗ agenda this is the document that details

38:25 ↗ the city's positions for the full

38:27 ↗ spectrum of issues that may arise during

38:29 ↗ the legislative session the version

38:31 ↗ presented at the study session had

38:33 ↗ revisions for issues resolved during the

38:35 ↗ 2019 session and the addition of

38:37 ↗ positions for issues expected to emerge

38:39 ↗ during the upcoming session some of the

38:41 ↗ positions at prior to the October 27

38:43 ↗ 22nd study session include support for

38:46 ↗ the multifamily property tax exemption

38:48 ↗ support for a clean fuel standard

38:51 ↗ comprehensive plan to address fish

38:54 ↗ blocking culverts and opposition to

38:56 ↗ state what approaches to land-use

38:57 ↗ decisions that we believe should be

38:58 ↗ local decisions there been two changes

39:03 ↗ the policy manual since the study

39:04 ↗ session first is the addition of a

39:07 ↗ statement based on councils direction

39:08 ↗ that monitors the recent changes to the

39:10 ↗ landlord-tenant Act the second change

39:13 ↗ was also described in greater detail in

39:15 ↗ the agenda bill is to monitor the

39:17 ↗ development of medication assisted

39:18 ↗ treatment in local jails to ensure both

39:21 ↗ resources are provided and logistical

39:23 ↗ challenges are addressed all of the

39:25 ↗ changes documented have been highlighted

39:27 ↗ in a separate attachment to the agenda

39:28 ↗ bill

39:32 ↗ in terms of next steps where we are

39:34 ↗ requesting council action this evening

39:36 ↗ the next event for the legislative

39:38 ↗ agenda after approval is the legislative

39:40 ↗ breakfast which is scheduled for

39:41 ↗ December 9th

39:42 ↗ this will be an opportunity for meeting

39:45 ↗ with our state legislators in a

39:46 ↗ discussion about our priorities before

39:48 ↗ the 2020 session on January 13 2020 and

39:53 ↗ the ADC is holding at City action days

39:55 ↗ in Olympia on January 28 and 29 I

39:59 ↗ concludes my presentation are there any

40:01 ↗ questions Thank You Jane does counsel

40:03 ↗ have any questions 976 and the $30 card

40:13 ↗ tab does that in any way change our

40:16 ↗ priorities for the legislative agenda

40:19 ↗ from your perspective and is that

40:21 ↗ something we should consider in

40:26 ↗ conversations with our lobbyists it

40:28 ↗ probably increases the likelihood that a

40:30 ↗ transportation package will start coming

40:32 ↗ together during this session it likely

40:34 ↗ still won't be something they would vote

40:36 ↗ on till probably the 2021 session at the

40:38 ↗ earliest but just knowing now that

40:39 ↗ there's a greater need for resources

40:42 ↗ than before it increases the likelihood

40:44 ↗ for a transportation package to start

40:45 ↗ coming together and we would want those

40:47 ↗ projects to be part of that conversation

40:52 ↗ to me that with less money there be more

40:56 ↗ impetus for a transportation package can

40:58 ↗ you kind of explain how that what six

41:03 ↗ there would be less resources but it

41:05 ↗ also forced the legislature to really

41:07 ↗ take a step back and decide if there are

41:09 ↗ additional tools out there they would

41:10 ↗ like to use outside of vehicle license

41:12 ↗ fees to fund transportation and in the

41:15 ↗ effort that they would start looking at

41:16 ↗ additional resources outside of vehicle

41:18 ↗ license fees would start that

41:20 ↗ conversation of what projects then would

41:22 ↗ they need to fund and what kind of

41:23 ↗ resources they would need to find to do

41:25 ↗ that

41:26 ↗ initial questions hey did someone care

41:33 ↗ to make a motion oh sorry

41:36 ↗ councilmember had have it a point of

41:38 ↗ discussion actually sure so I had asked

41:42 ↗ a question of Jean yesterday about the

41:45 ↗ fish culvert statements there is a

41:49 ↗ statement under environment Natural

41:52 ↗ Resources that is sequester ports of

41:53 ↗ watershed be strategic plan to address

41:55 ↗ local fish blocking culverts along with

41:58 ↗ state culverts so I asked about that

42:01 ↗ because there are many watershed based

42:03 ↗ strategic plans and there are many

42:05 ↗ strategic plans around addressing both

42:08 ↗ salmon recovery as well as fish recovery

42:11 ↗ and so I wonder if that was a reference

42:14 ↗ to a specific plan or if it was a

42:17 ↗ reference to creating a plan that

42:19 ↗ doesn't yet exist so I received back

42:22 ↗ some information that that item is from

42:26 ↗ the Association of Washington cities and

42:31 ↗ it's not a specific plan but it is more

42:33 ↗ of an approach to addressing these fish

42:36 ↗ blocking culverts and in the statement

42:40 ↗ from Association in Washington cities

42:42 ↗ they also say a statewide approach is

42:43 ↗ the only way to achieve meaningful

42:45 ↗ salmon and Oregon work of recovery which

42:48 ↗ i think is more explaining why this item

42:51 ↗ is there in the broader context of this

42:54 ↗ item so I would like to propose and

42:56 ↗ because salmon are so dear to our city

42:59 ↗ and our residents I would like to

43:01 ↗ propose that we add a bullet about

43:04 ↗ supporting statewide efforts to achieve

43:06 ↗ meaningful salmon and Orca recovery

43:08 ↗ through funding strategic action

43:11 ↗ including habitat conservation and

43:13 ↗ funding also because this is about

43:15 ↗ culverts but it's we need the culverts

43:18 ↗ to get to habitat

43:20 ↗ so I'm gonna get you to hold that

43:22 ↗ thought and when we have a motion and a

43:26 ↗ second

43:26 ↗ I'd like you to present that as an

43:28 ↗ option for discussion maybe in the form

43:30 ↗ of an amendment okay

43:33 ↗ council president Marcus metameric moved

43:36 ↗ to approve the 2019 2020 legislative

43:39 ↗ agenda as presented

43:41 ↗ Anissa quest participation in the

43:42 ↗ southeast area legislative

43:44 ↗ transportation coalition okay it's been

43:47 ↗ moved and seconded discussion or

43:50 ↗ entertaining and amendment to the

43:53 ↗ document so I think generally the

43:57 ↗ priorities especially the high-level

43:59 ↗ priorities are good and I really

44:01 ↗ appreciate all the information that

44:02 ↗ we've been provided about the

44:05 ↗ legislative agenda I would like to make

44:07 ↗ this small amendment which is to move to

44:10 ↗ add a last bullet under environment

44:12 ↗ Natural Resources which is it's the

44:15 ↗ quest support statewide efforts to

44:16 ↗ achieve meaningful salmon and Orca

44:18 ↗ recovery through funding a strategic

44:20 ↗ action including habitat conservation

44:21 ↗ and funding moved and seconded to amend

44:31 ↗ the language in the legislative agenda

44:34 ↗ and to add this discussion and you may

44:38 ↗ start if you want but you have you have

44:40 ↗ expressed why you wanted to do it I

44:42 ↗ don't know if you have anything else you

44:43 ↗ want to add Vikki I'll just add one more

44:44 ↗ thing which is this also aligns well

44:46 ↗ with our riah eight salmon recovery

44:50 ↗ council efforts and it's ago as a member

44:52 ↗ of the salmon recovery council for ri8

44:53 ↗ which is our watershed and we talk a lot

44:55 ↗ about the importance of statewide action

44:57 ↗ to support salmon recovery

45:05 ↗ are we ready to vote on the amendment it

45:08 ↗ sounds like it so the amendment is moved

45:10 ↗ to add a last bullet under the

45:11 ↗ environmental Natural Resources section

45:13 ↗ it's called support statewide efforts to

45:16 ↗ achieve meaningful salmon market

45:17 ↗ recovery through funding of strategic

45:19 ↗ action including habitat conservation

45:21 ↗ and funding all those in favor of the

45:24 ↗ amendment opposed that carries

45:29 ↗ unanimously back to the main motion is

45:31 ↗ there any other information

45:32 ↗ any other discussion that you would like

45:34 ↗ to have on the main motion not seeing

45:38 ↗ anything call for a vote motion is to

45:41 ↗ approve the 2019 2020 legislative agenda

45:45 ↗ as presented as amended and did sequest

45:49 ↗ participation in the southeast area

45:51 ↗ legislative transportation coalition all

45:54 ↗ in favor signify by saying aye host that

45:58 ↗ carries unanimously

46:02 ↗ thank you the next item is a b7 eight

46:05 ↗ six nine consideration to support a

46:07 ↗ regional clean fuels standard the

46:11 ↗ resolution and provide direction to the

46:13 ↗ administration presentation seventh

46:18 ↗ Council meeting and requested the

46:20 ↗ opportunity to formally support the

46:22 ↗ standard so I'm asking to come up and

46:27 ↗ make a small brief presentation good

46:38 ↗ evening council members david Fujimoto

46:40 ↗ is sustainability director I'm here to

46:43 ↗ give a brief overview of the resolution

46:45 ↗ and a comment layer that's before you

46:47 ↗ regarding a regional clean fuel standard

46:49 ↗ you might recall that earlier this fall

46:51 ↗ council received a presentation from

46:54 ↗ Craig Kenworthy who is the executive

46:56 ↗ director of the Puget Sound clean air

46:58 ↗ agency about this particular rule and

47:00 ↗ that occurred before the rule is

47:01 ↗ released so there's some information out

47:03 ↗ the rule is currently under

47:06 ↗ comment period which extends through

47:07 ↗ January the six and so they're receiving

47:10 ↗ comments from a variety of folks at this

47:12 ↗ point in time the presentation today

47:16 ↗ will include a short overview of the

47:17 ↗ clean fuel standard describe the

47:20 ↗ resolution than accompanying letter I'll

47:22 ↗ talk a little bit about connection to

47:23 ↗ the city's climate goals and policies

47:26 ↗ and and how those things match and happy

47:29 ↗ to take questions along the way

47:31 ↗ understand that the presentation was

47:33 ↗ inadvertently excluded from the packet I

47:36 ↗ think that was updated but I apologize

47:38 ↗ for that if that happened so a little

47:47 ↗ bit about regional and local

47:49 ↗ transportation emissions as you think

47:52 ↗ you heard before to the transportation

47:54 ↗ sector is a critical element when

47:55 ↗ considering greenhouse gas emissions and

47:57 ↗ air pollution in the Puget Sound region

48:00 ↗ we consume about 1 billion gallons of

48:03 ↗ gasoline and 220 million gallons of

48:05 ↗ diesel fuel annually from past carbon

48:08 ↗ inventories we know that transportation

48:10 ↗ related greenhouse gas emissions in

48:12 ↗ Issaquah represents about 33% of

48:14 ↗ community-wide emissions and for the

48:16 ↗ region it's about 40% for the Puget

48:19 ↗ Sound area as a whole passenger vehicles

48:22 ↗ comprise the largest share of

48:23 ↗ transportation related emissions at

48:25 ↗ about 74 percent and followed by freight

48:28 ↗ and service vehicles which are about 14

48:30 ↗ percent pictured here on the

48:33 ↗ presentation is some information from

48:35 ↗ the Department of Health Washington

48:37 ↗ track tracking Network and this is an

48:40 ↗ online portal containing data from a

48:42 ↗ variety of environmental monitoring

48:44 ↗ sources and this particular data set is

48:46 ↗ showing diesel in particular matter

48:49 ↗ pollution and they rank these by deciles

48:52 ↗ and so it's showing a few the region

48:55 ↗ around Issaquah and there is some high

48:58 ↗ proximity to busy transportation

49:01 ↗ corridors which relates to in this case

49:05 ↗ nitrogen oxides and you can see if there

49:08 ↗ was a couple of census tracts which rate

49:11 ↗ in the heath decile as well as a seventh

49:14 ↗ in the six so there was some relevancy

49:16 ↗ to sephora in terms

49:17 ↗ of air pollution a clean fuel standard

49:22 ↗ in cleaning fuel standard back in 2018

49:27 ↗ the Puget Sound clean air agency

49:28 ↗ commissioned to report on actions to

49:31 ↗ reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the

49:33 ↗ transportation sector and they identify

49:36 ↗ the clean fuel standard as the largest

49:38 ↗ potential impact of reducing greenhouse

49:40 ↗ gas emissions also in their mind felt

49:42 ↗ had a high certainty of success in a

49:45 ↗ high certainty a pollution reduction it

49:47 ↗ also has some related air quality

49:50 ↗ benefits technology and fuel neutral

49:55 ↗ approach it also uses a

49:57 ↗ performance-based standard to achieve

49:59 ↗ results which means that doesn't pick

50:01 ↗ winners or losers by its very nature

50:04 ↗ it's kind of neutral in that respect and

50:06 ↗ then also builds upon and utilizes

50:08 ↗ frameworks that were established by

50:10 ↗ other states on the west coast so

50:12 ↗ Washington is the only state on the west

50:14 ↗ coast without a clean fuel standard

50:16 ↗ British Columbia as well as California

50:18 ↗ and Oregon also have clean fuel

50:20 ↗ standards in place how does a clean fuel

50:26 ↗ standard work as I mentioned before it

50:29 ↗ utilizes a market-based approach to

50:31 ↗ reduce the carbon intensity or the

50:34 ↗ carbon value if you will of fuel

50:36 ↗ transportation related fuels that's a

50:39 ↗ measure of greenhouse gas emissions over

50:41 ↗ the for fuel over the life cycle of that

50:43 ↗ fuel all the way from extraction to

50:46 ↗ combustion and an use under a clean fuel

50:50 ↗ standard the Puget Sound clear the air

50:52 ↗ agency takes on a regulatory role and a

50:56 ↗ consolidating role of data providing

50:59 ↗ technical resources and carbon fuel

51:02 ↗ intensity and then they enforce

51:03 ↗ compliance with the standard a standard

51:06 ↗ is set and changes over time they've

51:09 ↗ proposed a reduction of 25% in the

51:13 ↗ carbon intensity by 2030 it's designed

51:17 ↗ in such a way that the carbon intensity

51:19 ↗ standard is low

51:20 ↗ in the earlier years and higher in later

51:21 ↗ years and the goal with that is to

51:23 ↗ provide for ramping into the program so

51:26 ↗ the idea is that if you're generating

51:28 ↗ pollution above the standard then you

51:31 ↗ generate deficits if you're generating

51:33 ↗ below the standard you generate credits

51:36 ↗ so there's an opportunity early on to

51:38 ↗ generate and bank credits which can be

51:39 ↗ used later on through the program so in

51:43 ↗ that Wade's for some opportunities for

51:46 ↗ innovation and it also allows for

51:48 ↗ existing producers over some time to

51:50 ↗ start to transition away from higher

51:52 ↗ carbon fuels as well just electricity

51:58 ↗ natural gas renewable natural gas

52:00 ↗ biodiesel and things like that clean

52:06 ↗ area you can see also commissioned a

52:08 ↗ study from the consulting firm ICF IC

52:12 ↗ conducted the fuels analysis and here

52:15 ↗ are a few the key findings that there's

52:21 ↗ significant capacity for low carbon

52:22 ↗ fuels these are both kind of existing

52:25 ↗ capacity as well as a new capacity

52:27 ↗ that's coming online there's a

52:29 ↗ significant refining capacity coming

52:31 ↗ online and Grays Harbor County for

52:33 ↗ example that could supply the region but

52:36 ↗ there's also capacity for biofuels

52:38 ↗ that's blended into existing fuels

52:41 ↗ they've also identified that a good

52:44 ↗ portion or 10 to 16 percent of carbon

52:46 ↗ intensity reductions are possible in the

52:48 ↗ near term with modest or minimal

52:51 ↗ investments and they've also identified

52:53 ↗ the max maximum achievable reductions at

52:55 ↗ 26% in 2030 they didn't know that there

52:59 ↗ was a range of investments that will be

53:00 ↗ needed over time both from all the way

53:03 ↗ from refining transmission distribution

53:05 ↗ and end uses through vehicles so there's

53:07 ↗ significant investment and change that

53:09 ↗ needs to occur and they also model the

53:12 ↗ economic impacts of the proposed rule

53:15 ↗ over time

53:17 ↗ in an aggregate are very small less than

53:20 ↗ 0.1% over the time frame that they

53:23 ↗ studied and that was on time looking at

53:26 ↗ a 12% growth during that same time frame

53:29 ↗ and the air quality implications are

53:34 ↗ positive and in terms of the pollution

53:36 ↗ reduction potential as a result of the

53:38 ↗ clean fuel standard agency is an agency

53:47 ↗ which covers a four County area Kings

53:50 ↗ Pearce and kids have counties to that

53:57 ↗ that's a population of about 4.1 persons

54:01 ↗ which is close to the population of

54:04 ↗ Oregon which i think is about four point

54:06 ↗ one nine million population the

54:14 ↗ preference would be to adopt this at the

54:16 ↗ statewide level and as you know which

54:21 ↗ was just discussed but also with this

54:23 ↗ earlier this year as a part of the 2019

54:26 ↗ legislative process there was an agenda

54:28 ↗ or there was a House bill that was

54:30 ↗ brought forward it did pass through the

54:32 ↗ house but did not proceed through the

54:33 ↗ Senate so there is that consideration

54:36 ↗ it's anticipated that that's going to

54:38 ↗ come forward in the future as well so

54:40 ↗ there is another opportunity to take a

54:41 ↗ look at that as well one of the elements

54:48 ↗ that this issue about timing we clean

55:00 ↗ fuel standards across the western coast

55:02 ↗ each of them have different start times

55:05 ↗ and different targets the House bill

55:09 ↗ that was before the legislature in the

55:12 ↗ last legislative session called for a

55:14 ↗ 10% reduction by 2028 and ultimately a

55:17 ↗ 20% reduction by 2035 at that point in

55:20 ↗ time it was in terms of overall timing

55:22 ↗ was the most aggressive the different

55:24 ↗ fuel standards

55:25 ↗ California's wallet of Oregon and

55:29 ↗ Washington the initially targeted a 10%

55:33 ↗ reduction but increased that to a 20%

55:35 ↗ reduction basically over a 25 year time

55:39 ↗ frame

55:39 ↗ excuse me 20 year time frames at 20%

55:42 ↗ over 20 years from 2010 to 2030 or 2015

55:50 ↗ and has been targeting a 10 percent

55:52 ↗ reduction by 10 2025 so a 10 percent

55:55 ↗ reduction over 10 years the House bill

55:58 ↗ 10 11 10 have been targeting a 20%

56:02 ↗ reduction over approximately 15 years

56:05 ↗ and then the Clean Air Authority was in

56:08 ↗ terms of the overall target reduction

56:11 ↗ was aiming for 25 percent reduction but

56:14 ↗ over an even shorter time frame which

56:15 ↗ was 10 years so and we believe that's

56:18 ↗ important too that's important to be

56:22 ↗ pursuing an aggressive and their studies

56:24 ↗ have also identified that the potential

56:26 ↗ was for a 26% reduction over that time

56:29 ↗ so they've identified that it's feasible

56:31 ↗ they note that it's aggressive in terms

56:33 ↗ of the changes made one of the

56:36 ↗ considerations is how that might impact

56:38 ↗ the adoption of various technologies

56:40 ↗ related to the carbon fuel standard

56:45 ↗ quickly in terms of policy linkages the

56:49 ↗ city does you know have greenhouse gas

56:51 ↗ emission goals which are adopted in our

56:53 ↗ comprehensive plan we also similarly

56:55 ↗ have some goals which speak to the need

56:58 ↗ for regional and statewide collaboration

57:00 ↗ climate as you know cannot be solved at

57:02 ↗ the local level or even the regional

57:04 ↗ level requires a lot of collaboration

57:06 ↗ and actions at multiple levels

57:09 ↗ we also have a variety of transportation

57:11 ↗ related policies that speak directly to

57:14 ↗ alternative fuel vehicles multimodal

57:16 ↗ transportation looking at the benefits

57:19 ↗ of lower carbon travel and negative

57:21 ↗ effects of the climate and human health

57:24 ↗ we are also founding members of the King

57:26 ↗ County cities climate collaboration

57:28 ↗ which includes the low carbon fuel

57:30 ↗ standard as a policy investment and so

57:33 ↗ that's been identified there as well and

57:35 ↗ then we just just also could choose to

57:48 ↗ both of these the resolution is a

57:52 ↗ statement which articulates the support

57:54 ↗ for the clean fuel standard as a clear

57:57 ↗ interest on the part of the city it

57:59 ↗ references some of the community climate

58:01 ↗ values some of our goals and objectives

58:03 ↗ some of which I just mentioned and the

58:05 ↗ importance of mitigation and adaptation

58:11 ↗ with the city concern about timing and

58:17 ↗ its concern or consideration it's within

58:22 ↗ the study that the Puget Sound clean air

58:24 ↗ agency put forth there was didn't fully

58:28 ↗ consider the technology changes and

58:30 ↗ considerations that might be required

58:33 ↗ relative to the other states that have

58:35 ↗ carbon fuel standards within that time

58:38 ↗ frame and so it's really more of a

58:40 ↗ question and a consideration the clean

58:42 ↗ air agency to consider whether that

58:45 ↗ might need to be a mitigating factor or

58:47 ↗ if it's addressed in other means so it's

58:50 ↗ not providing any recommendations but

58:52 ↗ just a request for consideration going

58:57 ↗ forward

59:00 ↗ clean air agency will be holding a

59:02 ↗ public hearing on the clean fuel

59:04 ↗ standards the comment period closes in

59:06 ↗ early January and

59:08 ↗ following configuration of those

59:09 ↗ comments the clean-air agency expects to

59:12 ↗ take up the issue before the board of

59:14 ↗ directors and issue a decision in early

59:17 ↗ 2000 thank you David

59:23 ↗ any questions for Councilman Brent on

59:30 ↗ the timing issue when you're saying the

59:34 ↗ technology the timing issue and adoption

59:38 ↗ of the technology versus the other

59:41 ↗ states so it's the concern that

59:43 ↗ California also is trying to adopt or

59:46 ↗ California is also adopting this you

59:49 ↗ will be having more cleaner technologies

59:52 ↗ and so that will affect the marketplace

59:54 ↗ and that will affect the ability of

59:56 ↗ other states to also address the

59:58 ↗ technology needs I think it's a question

1:00:01 ↗ really so the most aggressive timeline

1:00:06 ↗ which is which the Clean Air Agency is

1:00:08 ↗ proposing which is the 25% reduction in

1:00:11 ↗ ten years a big part of that change is

1:00:13 ↗ the transformation in fuel switching to

1:00:16 ↗ electric vehicles renewable natural gas

1:00:19 ↗ and fuel cell vehicles and the

1:00:22 ↗ California marketplace has a significant

1:00:24 ↗ driver vehicle marketplace and this is

1:00:29 ↗ both light duty as well as heavy duty

1:00:31 ↗ and medium duty vehicles as well and so

1:00:33 ↗ that is in consideration is if we are

1:00:36 ↗ ahead of that curve relative to

1:00:37 ↗ California is that create an uncertainty

1:00:40 ↗ or is that addressed and other means

1:00:42 ↗ because of adoption rates and in this in

1:00:45 ↗ this area or other factors and I think

1:00:47 ↗ that was just not fully clear clear in

1:00:50 ↗ the study and it's a point where they

1:00:51 ↗ could provide some additional had some

1:00:53 ↗ additional light Kennedy the questions

1:01:00 ↗ their emotion accounts President marks

1:01:03 ↗ thank you madam mayor I moved to approve

1:01:06 ↗ resolution number 2019 - sixteen

1:01:10 ↗ supporting adoption of a clean fuel

1:01:12 ↗ standard and direct the administration

1:01:14 ↗ to transmit a comment letter to the

1:01:16 ↗ Puget Sound clean air and agency as

1:01:18 ↗ presented second I moved in second it is

1:01:22 ↗ raising suspicion

1:01:23 ↗ that's president Mertz so I believe that

1:01:28 ↗ the evidence is clear that anthropogenic

1:01:31 ↗ climate change is the largest threat

1:01:32 ↗ facing the human race after global form

1:01:35 ↗ global thermonuclear war and you don't

1:01:38 ↗ have to be a fancy scientist to see it

1:01:40 ↗ the United States has kept painstaking

1:01:44 ↗ climate and weather data for the last in

1:01:48 ↗ the case of the airport for about the

1:01:51 ↗ last 50 years

1:01:52 ↗ you can go back looked at the numbers

1:01:55 ↗ you can put him in Excel you can see the

1:01:57 ↗ trend line over the last 50 years as the

1:02:00 ↗ climates been warming up you don't have

1:02:03 ↗ to you don't have to be a rocket

1:02:05 ↗ scientist although I am so I very much

1:02:09 ↗ support this this effort yes we are one

1:02:14 ↗ part of a planet and yes there are other

1:02:18 ↗ large contributors to anthropogenic

1:02:21 ↗ climate change but we have to lead by

1:02:24 ↗ example I also hope that downstream that

1:02:28 ↗ we see further work I appreciate that

1:02:31 ↗ this measure directs in terms of carbon

1:02:36 ↗ emission I think there will come a time

1:02:38 ↗ when we will see a similar bill

1:02:40 ↗ revolving around diesel fuel carcinogens

1:02:43 ↗ we're at a point where both the

1:02:45 ↗ Department of Health and Human Services

1:02:47 ↗ and the EPA now classified diesel fuel

1:02:50 ↗ as a likely carcinogen the good news is

1:02:53 ↗ that biodiesels can have up to an 85

1:02:56 ↗ percent reduction in carcinogenic

1:02:58 ↗ compounds so I believe within a couple

1:03:01 ↗ of years there will be further

1:03:02 ↗ conversations clearly carbon as I said

1:03:05 ↗ with climate changes is the biggest

1:03:08 ↗ factor and that's

1:03:09 ↗ I'm super excited to be supporting this

1:03:11 ↗ tonight but I hope that we'll be seeing

1:03:13 ↗ something like this within a couple

1:03:14 ↗ years regarding diesel carcinogens thank

1:03:17 ↗ you thank you any other comments or

1:03:19 ↗ discussion that's member had thank you

1:03:25 ↗ I agree with council president Mertz I

1:03:27 ↗ think that climate change is is one of

1:03:31 ↗ the important challenges that we are

1:03:32 ↗ facing right now and I'm very glad to

1:03:36 ↗ see this resolution coming forward and I

1:03:38 ↗ was also glad to have the information

1:03:39 ↗ presented by the by the Puget Sound

1:03:42 ↗ clean air agency representative as well

1:03:45 ↗ I personally do not see why we are why

1:03:52 ↗ we as a city in support of this

1:03:54 ↗ resolution are requesting that the

1:03:57 ↗ agency take into consideration the

1:03:59 ↗ possible market effects of what a

1:04:02 ↗ different state is doing in terms of the

1:04:05 ↗ technology I don't think that this is I

1:04:08 ↗ think we're providing broad support for

1:04:10 ↗ this you're providing broad support for

1:04:15 ↗ this clean fuel standard in the letter

1:04:17 ↗ and we as a city have a number of goals

1:04:22 ↗ regarding reducing our carbon emissions

1:04:24 ↗ that this aligns with and we also know

1:04:27 ↗ that as a number of our communities are

1:04:30 ↗ along major roadways we know that we

1:04:33 ↗ have air pollution and air toxics

1:04:36 ↗ concerns that that directly impact our

1:04:39 ↗ residents so I see that as the more

1:04:43 ↗ pressing issue and I think that as the

1:04:46 ↗ city we should be broadly supportive but

1:04:49 ↗ I don't see why it's our role to urge

1:04:52 ↗ the agency to take into account some

1:04:55 ↗ fairly complicated market effects on

1:04:57 ↗ possible technology adoption especially

1:05:00 ↗ if we're arguing that we support we

1:05:03 ↗ support this effort and we support that

1:05:05 ↗ its aggressive we support that we need

1:05:07 ↗ to achieve this apartment reduction so

1:05:09 ↗ so I'm broadly supportive

1:05:12 ↗ move that we remove the paragraph it's

1:05:18 ↗ the second to last paragraph regarding

1:05:20 ↗ the taking into consideration the

1:05:23 ↗ timeline for implementation and the end

1:05:27 ↗ that the timeline is aggressive relative

1:05:29 ↗ to other states is there a second for

1:05:32 ↗ the amendment second it's been moved in

1:05:36 ↗ second I wonder if you want to address

1:05:40 ↗ that and provide some additional

1:05:41 ↗ information for why that is in the

1:05:43 ↗ letter I'm sure I think I explained it a

1:05:47 ↗ bit before and you know I think that it

1:05:50 ↗ was a note more than anything else and

1:05:53 ↗ for consideration in order to in a way

1:05:57 ↗ for the agency to be able to respond to

1:05:58 ↗ it and address that potential concern

1:06:00 ↗ but certainly if the city is wishing to

1:06:03 ↗ provide broad support and get into the

1:06:05 ↗ details I think removing that section

1:06:08 ↗ from the bladder would be it would still

1:06:10 ↗ carry the weight of the city's overall

1:06:13 ↗ intent just a question about the

1:06:18 ↗ implications of setting targets and then

1:06:21 ↗ not meeting those targets what's the

1:06:23 ↗ implication of that down the road

1:06:28 ↗ question I think that comes down to a

1:06:30 ↗ question of compliance and where the

1:06:33 ↗ agency sees the overall credit and

1:06:37 ↗ market relative to what they're seeing

1:06:40 ↗ in the various actors because it applies

1:06:45 ↗ to a whole variety of different

1:06:46 ↗ transportation fuels it's possible that

1:06:48 ↗ that might be the case with an

1:06:49 ↗ individual fuel producer as opposed to

1:06:53 ↗ an overall kind of in you know

1:06:55 ↗ production or fuel type I guess so I

1:06:59 ↗ don't have the

1:07:00 ↗ kind of appropriate answer for that but

1:07:01 ↗ in my assumption it would be that they

1:07:02 ↗ would look at that depending on the the

1:07:04 ↗ scenario that's involved and decide

1:07:07 ↗ whether or not it's kind of individual

1:07:08 ↗ action worth or systemic to the way

1:07:11 ↗ that's been addressed so would there be

1:07:13 ↗ the potential for fines or other actions

1:07:21 ↗ if we don't make collectively the

1:07:23 ↗ targets I believe it's the I don't have

1:07:27 ↗ all the details on their enforcement

1:07:28 ↗ mechanisms but I believe they do have

1:07:30 ↗ those to ensure compliance they're not

1:07:44 ↗ making an aggressive timeline but if

1:07:46 ↗ we're gonna establish and we're going to

1:07:48 ↗ not recognize that this is aggressive

1:07:50 ↗ and there's penalties for not making it

1:07:52 ↗ that's a whole different discussion that

1:07:55 ↗ I don't know that we're I don't know

1:07:58 ↗ that we as a body are collectively

1:08:00 ↗ prepared to have that becomes present

1:08:08 ↗ per tooth so in in regard to I think

1:08:13 ↗ maybe I'll speak to both and regard to

1:08:16 ↗ the mm and I I think that we're keying

1:08:19 ↗ in on a couple of areas that maybe we

1:08:21 ↗ should be so basically supplying broad

1:08:25 ↗ broad support at this point I'll come

1:08:28 ↗ back and talk to the main motion any

1:08:32 ↗ other comments

1:08:35 ↗ looking around to see if there's anybody

1:08:36 ↗ else before I go back to councilmember

1:08:39 ↗ hand councilmember Walsh so I think this

1:08:42 ↗ is one of those issues where we can

1:08:46 ↗ either choose to get down into the weeds

1:08:48 ↗ or we can recognize that we are not the

1:08:51 ↗ PSC AAA we are a city who is expressing

1:08:56 ↗ our values and our community's values to

1:09:00 ↗ an agency who is going to get deep down

1:09:03 ↗ into the weeds

1:09:05 ↗ I would rather not as a city who has

1:09:09 ↗ values very much in the Environmental

1:09:12 ↗ Protection and wanting to address

1:09:16 ↗ climate change I would not want us to

1:09:19 ↗ put up a stop sign unless we well and

1:09:23 ↗ truly understood that that stop sign was

1:09:27 ↗ a very necessary thing for our community

1:09:29 ↗ in particular I would rather allow a

1:09:32 ↗ larger agency that is going to be able

1:09:35 ↗ to get down into the weeds determine

1:09:38 ↗ what the individual levers are and I

1:09:42 ↗ think it is our opportunity to profess

1:09:44 ↗ our community values without putting

1:09:47 ↗ limitations on that that's my brand

1:09:53 ↗ I completely agree with councilmember

1:09:57 ↗ Walsh and that is the intent of the

1:10:00 ↗ amendment I also wanted to add I think

1:10:03 ↗ there's gonna be a lot of new

1:10:04 ↗ technologies a lot of changes to

1:10:06 ↗ existing technologies to meet any of

1:10:08 ↗ these goals that we're setting to

1:10:10 ↗ address climate change it's gonna be a

1:10:12 ↗ big challenge and I think to try to say

1:10:15 ↗ that there's this one area that I think

1:10:17 ↗ that they're gonna have to look at a lot

1:10:18 ↗ of things so I think taking a higher

1:10:21 ↗ level approach and saying we're broadly

1:10:23 ↗ supportive is is my preference it's

1:10:27 ↗ called for the vote on the amendment

1:10:29 ↗ which was to did have it open in front

1:10:33 ↗ of me thank you

1:10:36 ↗ amended her to remove the second to last

1:10:39 ↗ paragraph with respect to the

1:10:41 ↗ implementation timeline anything else or

1:10:45 ↗ I'll call for the vote

1:10:45 ↗ all in favor of the amendment say aye

1:10:48 ↗ opposed that passes unanimously

1:10:51 ↗ and back to the main motion is there any

1:10:53 ↗ additional discussion on the main motion

1:10:55 ↗ if he counts president batiste

1:10:58 ↗ so just briefly so many important things

1:11:01 ↗ have already been talked about tonight

1:11:03 ↗ but just the importance of us being able

1:11:06 ↗ to speak to this and bring this forward

1:11:09 ↗ and talk about climate change in general

1:11:12 ↗ being able to bring forward a resolution

1:11:15 ↗ and to actually talk about and continue

1:11:19 ↗ to talk about clean fuel standards I

1:11:21 ↗ think is incredibly important and I

1:11:24 ↗ think it's also incredibly important

1:11:25 ↗ that we that we lead by example thank

1:11:29 ↗ you additional comments all those in

1:11:34 ↗ favor of the main motion to approve

1:11:37 ↗ resolution number 2019 - 16 supporting

1:11:41 ↗ adoption of clean fuel standards and

1:11:43 ↗ directing the administration to transmit

1:11:44 ↗ a comment letter to the Puget Sound

1:11:46 ↗ clean air agency as amended signify all

1:11:51 ↗ those in favor signify by saying aye

1:11:53 ↗ opposed thank you that carries

1:11:56 ↗ unanimously council made a really good

1:12:04 ↗ point on we want to show broad support

1:12:07 ↗ and I appreciate staffs effort to

1:12:10 ↗ navigate between an agency and their

1:12:13 ↗ recommendation and our legislature who

1:12:16 ↗ made a decision not to go forward and to

1:12:18 ↗ try and find you some common ground so

1:12:20 ↗ it's a difficult dance to do some time

1:12:22 ↗ but I appreciate your effort and trying

1:12:24 ↗ to make that work with you thank you a

1:12:28 ↗ bee 786 o 2020 arts grant recommendation

1:12:33 ↗ this is the first time that this item is

1:12:35 ↗ before council and I'd like to ask our

1:12:37 ↗ arts coordinator Amy Dukes to make her

1:12:39 ↗ way up to the podium for a presentation

1:12:43 ↗ [Applause]

1:12:49 ↗ good evening council members and madam

1:12:51 ↗ mayor thank you for the opportunity to

1:12:53 ↗ present the 2020 arts grants

1:12:55 ↗ recommendations to you and I'm Amy Dukes

1:12:58 ↗ arts coordinator for the city before I

1:13:00 ↗ get started I would just like to

1:13:01 ↗ acknowledge the two arts commissioners

1:13:03 ↗ that are here tonight the chair of the

1:13:06 ↗ Arts Commission Julie Griffin and the

1:13:08 ↗ vice-chair of the Arts Commission Trish

1:13:09 ↗ blur and just thank them for all of

1:13:12 ↗ their work reviewing these grants and

1:13:14 ↗ making difficult decisions

1:13:21 ↗ so I'm here to present the 2020 arts

1:13:24 ↗ grant funding recommendations which are

1:13:25 ↗ being forwarded to you by the Arts

1:13:27 ↗ Commission after a considerable review

1:13:29 ↗ there are 27 recommended grants and the

1:13:32 ↗ grant amount total is $175,000 and just

1:13:37 ↗ before we get started I wanted to remind

1:13:39 ↗ everyone or just let you know that this

1:13:41 ↗ is actually not a general fund item the

1:13:43 ↗ arts grants are funded through the

1:13:46 ↗ municipal arts fund that is a special

1:13:48 ↗ fund and it is funded through two

1:13:50 ↗ sources five percent tax on non I'm

1:13:54 ↗ sorry for-profit admissions so that's

1:13:57 ↗ primarily our movie theaters and then a

1:14:00 ↗ half a percent on city capital

1:14:02 ↗ improvement projects and that those

1:14:04 ↗ funds generally go specifically to

1:14:06 ↗ public art projects but this is the

1:14:09 ↗ funding source for these arts grants and

1:14:12 ↗ then a little bit about our process and

1:14:14 ↗ timeline it's not much different than

1:14:17 ↗ other years we do try to get out the

1:14:19 ↗ application a little bit earlier each

1:14:20 ↗ year if able so this year it was

1:14:23 ↗ released at the very beginning of August

1:14:25 ↗ and then the deadline was October 4th in

1:14:28 ↗ between that time we are providing a lot

1:14:30 ↗ of technical assistance meeting with

1:14:32 ↗ applicants and checking in with previous

1:14:36 ↗ applicants

1:14:37 ↗ and then the Arts Commission reviews

1:14:39 ↗ they have about a month to review all of

1:14:41 ↗ the applications we had 29 this year and

1:14:44 ↗ then our grant panel was on November 4th

1:14:47 ↗ I was very well attended we had actually

1:14:50 ↗ 19 applicants came to watch the

1:14:52 ↗ deliberations provide public comment and

1:14:55 ↗ really see the process and the thought

1:14:57 ↗ that went into reviewing the

1:14:58 ↗ applications and then we're here tonight

1:15:00 ↗ to forward those recommendations to you

1:15:03 ↗ via the agenda bill 78-60 if all goes

1:15:07 ↗ well we will initiate contracts in 2020

1:15:11 ↗ and just to let you know the Arts

1:15:12 ↗ Commission does conduct site visits

1:15:14 ↗ throughout the year so that every funded

1:15:16 ↗ program receives a site visit evaluation

1:15:19 ↗ by the Arts Commission and then we also

1:15:21 ↗ ask a fairly thorough evaluation from

1:15:24 ↗ the arts program recipients and quickly

1:15:29 ↗ our criteria of course we want strong

1:15:32 ↗ artistic merit and quality very

1:15:35 ↗ interested in the fact that the grants

1:15:37 ↗ as a whole are reaching a broad sector

1:15:39 ↗ of our public also providing things to

1:15:43 ↗ draw tourism to the city as well we are

1:15:46 ↗ looking for fiscal stability managerial

1:15:50 ↗ and administrative capacity to handle

1:15:52 ↗ the grant and then also we hope that

1:15:55 ↗ this grant is leveraging additional

1:15:57 ↗ funds and then we also want to connect

1:16:03 ↗ to the city's other goals and priorities

1:16:05 ↗ this the Arts Commission actually is

1:16:09 ↗ guided by the cultural element of the

1:16:10 ↗ comp plan as well as its own strategic

1:16:13 ↗ directions and of course the city's

1:16:14 ↗ strategic plan so we're really looking

1:16:16 ↗ to see how these grants can further all

1:16:19 ↗ of the goals out laid in those plans and

1:16:22 ↗ just really quickly we're awesome

1:16:24 ↗ looking for sort of a good distribution

1:16:27 ↗ across different mediums so this is how

1:16:32 ↗ things fall out theatres always big this

1:16:34 ↗ is by dollars so village theatre of

1:16:36 ↗ course kind of skews the theatre

1:16:38 ↗ category a bit

1:16:42 ↗ and then although these grants haven't

1:16:45 ↗ happened yet we are able to kind of

1:16:47 ↗ estimate what some of the community

1:16:48 ↗ benefit would be so based on this late

1:16:51 ↗ of grants that are before you tonight

1:16:52 ↗ that represents about two hundred free

1:16:55 ↗ events and programs throughout 2020 in

1:16:58 ↗ Issaquah which would reach approximately

1:17:00 ↗ three hundred thousand people and then I

1:17:04 ↗ don't have a dollar figure for you but

1:17:06 ↗ all of them all of them are leveraging

1:17:07 ↗ additional funding for our nonprofit

1:17:10 ↗ sector and then of course there's the

1:17:12 ↗ sort of intangible qualitative factors

1:17:15 ↗ of bringing the community together so

1:17:20 ↗ I'm just here to answer any questions

1:17:23 ↗ that you have and of course the

1:17:25 ↗ recommended motion is to approve the

1:17:27 ↗ 2020 arts grants thank you is there any

1:17:31 ↗ questions from students

1:17:34 ↗ councilmember rate councilmember hunt so

1:17:36 ↗ I'm just curious on the Challenger

1:17:38 ↗ Elementary School the all inclusive

1:17:40 ↗ library their total project budget is

1:17:43 ↗ $2,000 they requested two thousand

1:17:46 ↗ dollars and we gave them 2500 school

1:17:53 ↗ provide us with a grant of an ask of no

1:17:57 ↗ more than $2,500 and we asked that they

1:17:59 ↗ only submit one application per school

1:18:02 ↗ and that they have the principal sign

1:18:04 ↗ off on their applications so that we

1:18:05 ↗ know that we're getting one application

1:18:07 ↗ per school and they some test to that

1:18:10 ↗ actually totaled like $35,000 $4,500

1:18:16 ↗ and so the Arts Commission did want to

1:18:18 ↗ give them the full funding for the

1:18:21 ↗ school that they were eligible for and

1:18:23 ↗ then we'll work with them on how they

1:18:25 ↗ want to distribute those funds that's my

1:18:29 ↗ brand thank you I wondered how how

1:18:34 ↗ stable this funding is is it always

1:18:37 ↗ surrounds this amount or in recent years

1:18:39 ↗ has it been around this amount or is it

1:18:41 ↗ is it changing over time so the revenue

1:18:44 ↗ is fairly stable and we're definitely

1:18:45 ↗ subject to what's playing at the movies

1:18:49 ↗ some years are better than others we are

1:18:53 ↗ consistently around 350 to $400,000 for

1:18:57 ↗ the portion of the fund our requests are

1:19:02 ↗ generally higher than they are this year

1:19:05 ↗ because we have lost artiste as an

1:19:08 ↗ organization so we didn't see a

1:19:10 ↗ reduction in requests this year we also

1:19:13 ↗ had village theatres only request the

1:19:15 ↗ amount of funding for which they're

1:19:16 ↗ actually able we cap how many how much

1:19:19 ↗ of funding one applicant can get and in

1:19:22 ↗ the past they've always asked for more

1:19:24 ↗ just in the off chance that something

1:19:26 ↗ different changes so this year they

1:19:27 ↗ actually only asked for what they're

1:19:29 ↗ eligible for so we did see a reduction

1:19:32 ↗ in the amount that was requested but it

1:19:35 ↗ is pretty stable around one hundred and

1:19:37 ↗ seventy-five thousand dollars of

1:19:39 ↗ granting other questions

1:19:43 ↗ that's president Mertz do we I'm struck

1:19:47 ↗ by this is just an amazing list it's

1:19:50 ↗ it's an amazingly eclectic and wonderful

1:19:54 ↗ list of organizations that we have in

1:19:56 ↗ the community and it seems a shame that

1:19:59 ↗ we don't have a mechanism to promote how

1:20:03 ↗ our how our spending is going I feel

1:20:06 ↗ like when we had the committee structure

1:20:08 ↗ we spent more time in committee and the

1:20:11 ↗ public could see this my obviously

1:20:13 ↗ public can go in and look at the same

1:20:15 ↗ document I'm looking at but do we have

1:20:17 ↗ any mechanism to highlight I mean some

1:20:21 ↗ of these just look really interesting

1:20:23 ↗ freehold theatre lab studio engaged

1:20:25 ↗ theatre influenced the choice video

1:20:29 ↗ contest I mean there's just I I would

1:20:33 ↗ love it if we had some way each month to

1:20:35 ↗ maybe highlight one of one of these

1:20:37 ↗ recipients on the city's website or

1:20:40 ↗ someplace so that we could draw

1:20:42 ↗ attention to the amazing arts community

1:20:45 ↗ that we have in this town you for that

1:20:47 ↗ suggestion we do have lots of the groups

1:20:49 ↗ will come and give presentations to the

1:20:51 ↗ Arts Commission so the arts

1:20:54 ↗ commissioners are well informed and of

1:20:55 ↗ course they're also making those site

1:20:57 ↗ visits but we should share the

1:20:59 ↗ information more broadly we do always

1:21:01 ↗ offer

1:21:02 ↗ the opportunity for the city to promote

1:21:04 ↗ the different events and activities that

1:21:07 ↗ are happening so that the broader public

1:21:08 ↗ knows about them and we are in the

1:21:11 ↗ process of redesigning our website we

1:21:13 ↗ just collected lots of pictures from all

1:21:15 ↗ these groups so that we can do a better

1:21:16 ↗ job and then finally the Arts Commission

1:21:19 ↗ is working on an annual report that we

1:21:21 ↗ can put out via the website that will

1:21:26 ↗ thank you I think City Administrator Bob

1:21:29 ↗ quits would like to add and we certainly

1:21:32 ↗ can do a press release with this and

1:21:34 ↗ make sure that it's publicized through

1:21:36 ↗ our social media outlets we can connect

1:21:38 ↗ it to our weekly news so I think all the

1:21:40 ↗ above additional comments or discussion

1:21:47 ↗ and I get a motion it's president Maris

1:21:51 ↗ I moved to approve funding for the 2020

1:21:55 ↗ art grants as recommended by the Arts

1:21:57 ↗ Commission for a total expenditure of

1:21:59 ↗ one hundred and seventy five thousand

1:22:00 ↗ dollars I just wanted to thank the Arts

1:22:13 ↗ Commission for all that for all that you

1:22:15 ↗ do nice thank you there is a motion to

1:22:20 ↗ approve the funding for the 2020 arts

1:22:22 ↗ grant is recommended by the Arts

1:22:23 ↗ Commission for a total expenditure of a

1:22:25 ↗ hundred and seventy five thousand

1:22:27 ↗ dollars all those in favor signify by

1:22:28 ↗ saying aye opposed that carries

1:22:31 ↗ unanimously

1:22:32 ↗ thank you thank you Amy next up is a b7

1:22:38 ↗ 864 amendment to interlocal agreement

1:22:40 ↗ and modification of covenant with King

1:22:42 ↗ County relating to recreation facilities

1:22:45 ↗ specifically Julie's bone pool this is a

1:22:48 ↗ request for authorization and this is

1:22:51 ↗ the first time that this item has been

1:22:52 ↗ before council and our parks director

1:22:55 ↗ mr. Watling is up at the podium for a

1:22:57 ↗ presentation there thank you good

1:23:00 ↗ evening Council this is a topic related

1:23:02 ↗ to our 2020 budget something you've

1:23:05 ↗ discussed and

1:23:08 ↗ quick staff report to provide some

1:23:10 ↗ context for this this agenda bill seeks

1:23:14 ↗ amendments to our agreements with King

1:23:16 ↗ County thereby giving us the ability us

1:23:19 ↗ the city of Vista quoi the ability to

1:23:21 ↗ charge resident non-resident race at the

1:23:25 ↗ city-owned Julius bones pool this would

1:23:29 ↗ thus allow us to be consistent within

1:23:32 ↗ our city facilities and programs and how

1:23:35 ↗ we charge resident non-resident rates

1:23:39 ↗ the city was built by King County and

1:23:42 ↗ was opened in 1972 this was part of

1:23:45 ↗ their forward thrust bond effort back in

1:23:48 ↗ the late 60s that pool was transferred

1:23:51 ↗ the pools transferred to the city fiscal

1:23:53 ↗ in 1995 since that time it's been

1:23:56 ↗ operated by the city and supported by

1:23:58 ↗ our city general fund that's the past 24

1:24:02 ↗ years that operations been going on as

1:24:06 ↗ well capital improvements made by the

1:24:08 ↗ pool have been made most recently by the

1:24:12 ↗ residents of Issaquah and the passage of

1:24:14 ↗ the 2013 park bond five million dollars

1:24:17 ↗ of those funds went towards the city

1:24:19 ↗ pool agreement that was signed and

1:24:28 ↗ entered into with King County in 1994

1:24:31 ↗ there that transferred the pool to us is

1:24:34 ↗ what needs to be amended also in this

1:24:37 ↗ agenda bill you'll notice there's a

1:24:39 ↗ modification that is needed within the

1:24:42 ↗ restrictive covenant of that agreement

1:24:48 ↗ the city's ability to charge a

1:24:52 ↗ differential rate resident non-resident

1:24:54 ↗ we approached King County as we've

1:24:57 ↗ pursued this 2020 budget request of

1:25:01 ↗ charging resident non-resident rates

1:25:02 ↗ seeking the county's approval all of

1:25:04 ↗ this they fully support this amendment

1:25:09 ↗ and modification in fact they recognize

1:25:12 ↗ that pool transfers that occurred

1:25:16 ↗ the city mr. qua transfer in 1994 there

1:25:19 ↗ were a number of pool transfers that

1:25:21 ↗ happened in the early 2000s within those

1:25:24 ↗ transfers the county allowed for

1:25:28 ↗ differential rates to to happen so this

1:25:31 ↗ will do will allow us to be consistent

1:25:34 ↗ with those other transfers that occurred

1:25:39 ↗ note this action in this agenda bill is

1:25:44 ↗ not seeking actual approval of the fees

1:25:46 ↗ this is merely authorizing or is the

1:25:50 ↗ authorizing amendment the city if we

1:25:55 ↗ chose if we choose to charge resident

1:25:58 ↗ non-resident rates at the pool thanks

1:26:00 ↗ Thank You director motley are there

1:26:02 ↗ questions is there a motion its

1:26:07 ↗ president I move to authorize the mayor

1:26:10 ↗ to enter into and execute the amendment

1:26:12 ↗ to the 1994 until local agreement with

1:26:15 ↗ King County related to the ownership

1:26:16 ↗ funding operation and maintenance of

1:26:18 ↗ parks open space recreation facilities

1:26:21 ↗ and the modification of the restrictive

1:26:23 ↗ covenant the julius bone pool to allow

1:26:25 ↗ for differential pool use fees for non

1:26:27 ↗ city residents okay moved in second and

1:26:30 ↗ is there discussion discussion no

1:26:36 ↗ comments call for the vote all those in

1:26:39 ↗ favor signify by saying aye opposed

1:26:43 ↗ thank you that carries unanimously

1:26:46 ↗ the next item on the agenda this evening

1:26:48 ↗ is a b 7 8 7 8 low income utility

1:26:52 ↗ discount program this will require

1:26:54 ↗ direction to the administration this

1:26:57 ↗ item was requested by the council during

1:26:58 ↗ budget deliberations tonight councils

1:27:01 ↗ being asked for high direction on the

1:27:03 ↗ proposed program typically this would

1:27:06 ↗ occur during a study session due to the

1:27:08 ↗ time sensitivity of this item the

1:27:10 ↗ administration is requesting policy

1:27:12 ↗ direction at tonight's meeting and we

1:27:15 ↗ have our sustainability director Mr

1:27:16 ↗ Fujimoto Beck

1:27:18 ↗ it made a mere baby before David starts

1:27:20 ↗ just give a little preamble to this the

1:27:24 ↗ council through the study session

1:27:25 ↗ process really said this was important

1:27:27 ↗ and so your staff and thinking caps on

1:27:32 ↗ and really hard to charge to get

1:27:36 ↗ something that we can put together for

1:27:37 ↗ January 1 the the program we have we

1:27:41 ↗ really feel confident is such that we

1:27:44 ↗ can't implement it that way

1:27:45 ↗ largely relying on the Puget Sound

1:27:48 ↗ Energy and their existing program we

1:27:50 ↗ don't think this is a final solution in

1:27:53 ↗ order to just counts but we do think

1:27:56 ↗ it's the one that's likely to have the

1:27:58 ↗ most success in helping people starting

1:28:00 ↗ January wants so we recognize that there

1:28:02 ↗ will likely be things that we will learn

1:28:04 ↗ during the course the year we don't want

1:28:07 ↗ you to feel that this is in any way we

1:28:10 ↗ felt was the best most complete way to

1:28:12 ↗ do this but we felt it was the way to

1:28:14 ↗ effect the change you were looking to

1:28:16 ↗ effect by January 1 so with that

1:28:19 ↗ preamble David a little thunder I

1:28:22 ↗ realize but I'll let you continue thank

1:28:27 ↗ you very much glad to be back

1:28:30 ↗ so as madam mayor and see administrator

1:28:35 ↗ box was mentioned we are here to get

1:28:39 ↗ some direction from City Council on how

1:28:42 ↗ to proceed with the low income utility

1:28:43 ↗ assistance program as was noted we

1:28:46 ↗ recognize that there has been a limited

1:28:48 ↗ time for analysis and collection of

1:28:50 ↗ additional details but we're happy to

1:28:52 ↗ walk through this and we'll take

1:28:54 ↗ questions along the way to help provide

1:28:56 ↗ some clarification needed so as I walk

1:29:02 ↗ through kind of the various components

1:29:04 ↗ of the utility assistance program you

1:29:07 ↗ might recall that earlier in this fall

1:29:09 ↗ on September 10th there was a memo that

1:29:12 ↗ was provided along with the

1:29:14 ↗ consideration the first consideration of

1:29:16 ↗ utility rates which initially spoke to

1:29:19 ↗ this issue I think it was thought at

1:29:21 ↗ that point in time that the

1:29:22 ↗ consideration could be made in 2000

1:29:24 ↗ there's a work for two thousand 2020

1:29:27 ↗ excuse me thank you

1:29:29 ↗ as a part of the work program but then I

1:29:32 ↗ think as through budget proceedings

1:29:34 ↗ continue there was a general desire to

1:29:36 ↗ trying to advance that work and have it

1:29:38 ↗ occur and to coincide with the

1:29:40 ↗ adjustments that would be happening with

1:29:41 ↗ the rate and utility tax increases for a

1:29:49 ↗ soli Assistance Program

1:29:51 ↗ there's several kind of goals and

1:29:54 ↗ objectives if you will that we

1:29:55 ↗ considered and looking for this both to

1:29:58 ↗ expand the number of eligible households

1:30:00 ↗ which we heard was something that was

1:30:01 ↗ desired we do have a current low income

1:30:04 ↗ senior discount program we want to look

1:30:06 ↗ at opportunities for expanding that

1:30:08 ↗ beyond that population as I mentioned

1:30:10 ↗ before taking opportunities to help

1:30:12 ↗ mitigate the impacts of utility costs so

1:30:15 ↗ it's providing some focus there in terms

1:30:17 ↗ of the benefit that's provided and then

1:30:19 ↗ we also know that the administration of

1:30:21 ↗ these types of programs from experience

1:30:23 ↗ from other utilities can be quite high

1:30:25 ↗ depending on how the program is

1:30:26 ↗ structured so keeping an eye to that and

1:30:29 ↗ then also because there is a loss of

1:30:32 ↗ revenue to the overall utility rate base

1:30:34 ↗ keeping that in consideration as well

1:30:36 ↗ and as was mentioned the primary one of

1:30:39 ↗ the key considerations was the timing

1:30:41 ↗ and implementation in January and as we

1:30:46 ↗ proceed forward there are some kind of

1:30:48 ↗ key considerations to keep in mind that

1:30:52 ↗ are important to the design of a utility

1:30:53 ↗ assistance program and those include

1:30:57 ↗ things such as the income level or

1:30:59 ↗ income threshold for qualification the

1:31:01 ↗ types of households that are covered

1:31:04 ↗ meaning and the population that's

1:31:06 ↗ covered so are they individuals with

1:31:08 ↗ disabilities is their income or age

1:31:10 ↗ restrictions does it apply to

1:31:12 ↗ single-family and multi-family ownership

1:31:15 ↗ and rental those are all important

1:31:17 ↗ considerations the assistance amount and

1:31:20 ↗ the form so the total benefit provided

1:31:22 ↗ as well as the shape and form so in this

1:31:25 ↗ case we one of the recommendations is

1:31:27 ↗ for a rebate and then as mentioned

1:31:29 ↗ before the complexity and the cost for

1:31:31 ↗ implementation of the program itself the

1:31:36 ↗ proposed utility assistance program has

1:31:38 ↗ two different parts

1:31:40 ↗ there is a low-income household

1:31:42 ↗ Assistance Program which was as

1:31:45 ↗ mentioned linked to a program from Puget

1:31:47 ↗ Sound Energy which is their heating

1:31:50 ↗ assistance program it's linked to it's

1:31:53 ↗ provided for both single and

1:31:55 ↗ multi-family and it comes in the form of

1:31:57 ↗ an annual you assistance rebate which

1:32:00 ↗ we'll talk further about and then the

1:32:03 ↗ second piece of that is an expanded

1:32:04 ↗ senior utility discount which is the

1:32:06 ↗ current program in terms of the

1:32:11 ↗ low-income household assistance program

1:32:13 ↗ as I mentioned before in terms of the

1:32:15 ↗ income qualification piece of this that

1:32:18 ↗ we really looked around to different

1:32:20 ↗ opportunities because one of the higher

1:32:23 ↗ administrative pieces is income

1:32:25 ↗ verification that if we could kind of

1:32:28 ↗ tag on to an existing program and

1:32:31 ↗ utilize that effectively that helps us

1:32:34 ↗ both to enroll participants quicker as

1:32:36 ↗ well as use that as a mechanism for

1:32:38 ↗ which the city can use for verification

1:32:39 ↗ so we wouldn't have to duplicate

1:32:41 ↗ verification Puget Sound Energy works

1:32:44 ↗ through a contract with the nonprofit

1:32:46 ↗ organization hope link and hope link

1:32:49 ↗ does that verification process on their

1:32:51 ↗ behalf they have quite an extensive

1:32:52 ↗ process of applications they collect

1:32:55 ↗ materials they verify income and look at

1:32:57 ↗ the documentation they also arrange

1:33:00 ↗ meetings with the applicants as well so

1:33:04 ↗ there's a fairly extensive process and

1:33:06 ↗ that's similar with other utilities as

1:33:07 ↗ well so that's a piece that if we were

1:33:10 ↗ able to use the same income threshold

1:33:12 ↗ then that saves the city from the need

1:33:15 ↗ to do that so if qualifiers from PSE

1:33:19 ↗ help they qualify for the city's program

1:33:21 ↗ essentially they're they have about

1:33:27 ↗ three hundred and fifty four households

1:33:29 ↗ currently enrolled in a quality in their

1:33:31 ↗ program their program is based on income

1:33:39 ↗ threshold of 150% of the federal poverty

1:33:42 ↗ level so that's important thing to keep

1:33:44 ↗ in mind

1:33:45 ↗ [Music]

1:33:46 ↗ a little bit more on income

1:33:48 ↗ qualification level there's a variety of

1:33:50 ↗ ways in which you can look at this I

1:33:52 ↗ provide some information here on

1:33:54 ↗ households and cost burdened by income

1:33:57 ↗ level just as one point of reference you

1:33:59 ↗ certainly could think about kind of cost

1:34:01 ↗ burdened by medical cost for example or

1:34:04 ↗ other things but just to get a sense of

1:34:06 ↗ how our households in this COIs land in

1:34:09 ↗ terms of one of their primary expenses

1:34:12 ↗ every month in terms of cost burden for

1:34:14 ↗ housing you'll see at the very extremely

1:34:16 ↗ low income levels less than or equal to

1:34:19 ↗ 30 percent of area median income that

1:34:23 ↗ nearly 70 80 % of households

1:34:26 ↗ excuse me are costs burned or severely

1:34:29 ↗ cost burdened and because the thresholds

1:34:35 ↗ are a little bit different than what's

1:34:36 ↗ being used for what we use for housing

1:34:39 ↗ affordability levels which is the area

1:34:41 ↗ median income provided a table here to

1:34:45 ↗ provide a little bit of cross reference

1:34:46 ↗ so the Puget Sound Energy Program 150

1:34:50 ↗ percent a federal poverty level it

1:34:52 ↗ varies by household size and so for

1:34:55 ↗ example a two-person household at the

1:34:58 ↗ 150% federal poverty level to qualify

1:35:01 ↗ income at twenty five thousand three

1:35:03 ↗ hundred sixty-eight dollars and that

1:35:06 ↗ falls below the thirty percent area

1:35:09 ↗ median income whereas at the four-person

1:35:11 ↗ household a thirty eight thousand six

1:35:12 ↗ hundred twenty-eight dollars is just but

1:35:14 ↗ is between 30% and 40% of area median

1:35:17 ↗ income

1:35:25 ↗ in terms of household coverage under the

1:35:28 ↗ low-income household assistance program

1:35:30 ↗ there would not be limitations based on

1:35:33 ↗ age or disability that would cover both

1:35:36 ↗ single-family and multi-family

1:35:37 ↗ households ownership and rental the the

1:35:41 ↗ kind of expansion of the program to

1:35:44 ↗ consider multifamily housing does have

1:35:47 ↗ some ramifications in terms of program

1:35:49 ↗ complexity and this is because the city

1:35:51 ↗ utility does not build individual units

1:35:54 ↗ for multifamily like we do for single

1:35:57 ↗ family households so it's not as simple

1:35:59 ↗ as providing a rate discount or a bill

1:36:01 ↗ credit there's a different mechanism

1:36:03 ↗ that's required in order to provide the

1:36:05 ↗ equivalent of the utility costs which

1:36:07 ↗ multi-family tenants would normally see

1:36:09 ↗ as part of their rent so this is

1:36:11 ↗ typically handled throughout the region

1:36:13 ↗ for programs that do have a multifamily

1:36:15 ↗ program through some form of rebate to

1:36:18 ↗ those households in this case we're

1:36:20 ↗ suggesting that qualifying residents

1:36:23 ↗ would need to be residents here in

1:36:24 ↗ Issaquah for the over the course of the

1:36:26 ↗ past year this is just to illustrate the

1:36:40 ↗ point that it is important to include

1:36:41 ↗ rental households which generally tend

1:36:44 ↗ to be in multifamily housing types about

1:36:50 ↗ 36% of cost burden or severely cost

1:36:53 ↗ burden households didn't present this in

1:36:57 ↗ this slideshow but if you were to break

1:36:59 ↗ down this by rental and owners instead

1:37:02 ↗ of all households you would see that at

1:37:05 ↗ 30% nearly all households are cost

1:37:07 ↗ burdened at 30% area median income and

1:37:10 ↗ 30 to 50% 69% of households are cost

1:37:15 ↗ burden or severely cost burdened and

1:37:16 ↗ even at 50 to 80 percent about 62% so

1:37:19 ↗ clearly with rental housing that is a

1:37:22 ↗ significant portion of their overall

1:37:24 ↗ costs

1:37:26 ↗ council member hon so I think the answer

1:37:31 ↗ is is in there with all the numbers that

1:37:33 ↗ you just said but what percentage of

1:37:36 ↗ cost burden approximately what

1:37:39 ↗ percentage of cost burdened families in

1:37:41 ↗ our community would we expect to be

1:37:44 ↗ eligible at this one hundred and fifty

1:37:46 ↗ percent of the federal poverty level

1:37:54 ↗ within the income threshold would be

1:37:57 ↗ eligible to participate in the program

1:37:59 ↗ so as long as those households met that

1:38:02 ↗ threshold depending on household size

1:38:04 ↗ then they would be eligible so it's the

1:38:07 ↗ income it's not about housing cost

1:38:09 ↗ burden so that so the intent of the

1:38:12 ↗ question is to understand of those

1:38:14 ↗ individuals that are cost burdened what

1:38:17 ↗ what percentage are we actually going to

1:38:21 ↗ with this 150% of the federal poverty

1:38:25 ↗ level approximately what percentage of

1:38:27 ↗ those individuals that we know in our

1:38:29 ↗ community or cost burdens would be

1:38:32 ↗ eligible for this discount I don't think

1:38:38 ↗ we have a finite number on that because

1:38:40 ↗ the household size variability but we

1:38:44 ↗ did provide some estimates for what we

1:38:46 ↗ thought would be covered and I believe

1:38:50 ↗ those are later or they're covered in

1:38:52 ↗ the table but it was between

1:38:53 ↗ twenty-three and twenty six hundred

1:38:54 ↗ households total households that doesn't

1:38:59 ↗ there is a portion of those that are not

1:39:01 ↗ severely or cost burdened but as I just

1:39:05 ↗ mentioned I think this is where it gets

1:39:06 ↗ to your point because that's pretty

1:39:09 ↗ close to thirty percent of area median

1:39:10 ↗ income nearly all of the rental

1:39:13 ↗ households are severely or either costs

1:39:17 ↗ burdened or severely cost burdened

1:39:24 ↗ numbers it's kind of I think the answer

1:39:28 ↗ is in there and

1:39:29 ↗ a little bit of trouble understanding I

1:39:31 ↗ think the so I'm trying to understand of

1:39:35 ↗ cost burdens households what percentage

1:39:37 ↗ should be hoping this per would be

1:39:39 ↗ helped by this program and I essentially

1:39:42 ↗ helped you know know what the adoption

1:39:44 ↗ is it's been low for some other period

1:39:46 ↗ though the potentially helped and I I

1:39:49 ↗ don't understand that but maybe I can

1:39:52 ↗ get there after I think it's a little

1:39:56 ↗ bit challenging because there are a

1:39:57 ↗ number of cost burden households and

1:40:00 ↗ severely cost burden households which

1:40:01 ↗ are higher than the income threshold and

1:40:03 ↗ we don't have all the numbers at kind of

1:40:06 ↗ all levels to be able to disaggregate

1:40:08 ↗ that but it's certainly something we can

1:40:10 ↗ take a little closer look at are there

1:40:14 ↗ any other questions in terms of the

1:40:21 ↗ household assistance as I mentioned

1:40:23 ↗ before with the addition of multifamily

1:40:28 ↗ housing and in an interest in trying to

1:40:30 ↗ provide for kind of a streamlined more

1:40:34 ↗ efficient kind of a program the

1:40:36 ↗ recommendation is to provide annual

1:40:38 ↗ rebate check to qualifying households

1:40:41 ↗ the intent is to try and reflect the

1:40:45 ↗ intent to help mitigate the increase in

1:40:47 ↗ utility costs the process and then there

1:40:57 ↗ would be an annual rebate check which

1:40:59 ↗ would be issued if the intent is to kind

1:41:04 ↗ of look towards utility costs that from

1:41:07 ↗ the recommendation was to have it be at

1:41:09 ↗ about a hundred dollars per household

1:41:11 ↗ that is more than the impact of the

1:41:15 ↗ rates and utility tax increases for both

1:41:18 ↗ single-family and multi-family homes but

1:41:21 ↗ we felt like as a starting point that

1:41:23 ↗ what that would be a good place to start

1:41:24 ↗ as a point of reference the average

1:41:27 ↗ multifamily building stormwater is about

1:41:31 ↗ four hundred dollars per year or per

1:41:34 ↗ unit per year and for single family

1:41:37 ↗ households the average bill is about

1:41:38 ↗ fourteen hundred and $45

1:41:40 ↗ per year so that what that translates

1:41:43 ↗ into is the hundred dollars for

1:41:46 ↗ multi-family households is about a 20

1:41:48 ↗ percent discount for single family

1:41:50 ↗ households it's significantly less it's

1:41:53 ↗ about I believe 6 percent in terms of

1:42:01 ↗ costs and early estimates the total cost

1:42:05 ↗ this is not for the program

1:42:08 ↗ administration cost this is just the

1:42:09 ↗ cost for the rebate program is depend on

1:42:14 ↗ participation and we've seen from other

1:42:17 ↗ utility programs that these can vary

1:42:19 ↗ widely the vast majority of utility

1:42:21 ↗ programs tend to fall in the range of

1:42:24 ↗ about 15 to 25 percent so we provide a

1:42:28 ↗ range of numbers here Puget Sound Energy

1:42:30 ↗ is estimate for their participation rate

1:42:32 ↗ which was 350 for households they've

1:42:35 ↗ estimated that that is 15 percent of

1:42:37 ↗ eligible households let's presume arts

1:42:43 ↗ the estimate for aqua is that 15 percent

1:42:47 ↗ of households are at a hundred and fifty

1:42:49 ↗ percent or less the federal poverty

1:42:51 ↗ level the estimate from Puget Sound

1:42:53 ↗ Energy on their participation rate which

1:42:55 ↗ is 150 the participation rate in the

1:42:59 ↗ program is 350 for households right yes

1:43:03 ↗ yes okay not the total number of

1:43:06 ↗ eligible households so how did we get

1:43:09 ↗ twenty three hundred to twenty-six

1:43:10 ↗ hundred households this was an estimate

1:43:14 ↗ that was and I might need to phone a

1:43:16 ↗ friend here but this was a preliminary

1:43:18 ↗ estimate looking at the income levels

1:43:21 ↗ and the households that would qualify

1:43:26 ↗ under the program so it's looking at

1:43:28 ↗ some data from American Community Survey

1:43:30 ↗ and how many households would fall

1:43:32 ↗ within those income thresholds

1:43:42 ↗ more questions even the loewen's second

1:43:48 ↗ part of the program is a low-income

1:43:50 ↗ senior discount program and as you are

1:43:53 ↗ probably aware that we do have a current

1:43:54 ↗ program it qualifies for households

1:43:57 ↗ which are 62 years of age or older it's

1:44:01 ↗ currently set at 50 percent of area

1:44:03 ↗ median income it is tied to the state

1:44:07 ↗ RCW

1:44:09 ↗ Revised Code of Washington that sets the

1:44:11 ↗ property tax exemption rate and there

1:44:14 ↗ are some recent changes of the state

1:44:15 ↗ legislature which moved that it was

1:44:18 ↗ previously frozen and so it's actually

1:44:20 ↗ going to be increasing in 2020 to 65% of

1:44:24 ↗ area median income our King County

1:44:26 ↗ Assessor has been reaching out to a

1:44:28 ↗ variety of communities and we've been

1:44:29 ↗ talking with them about opportunities

1:44:31 ↗ for jointly promoting that program will

1:44:36 ↗ be changing currently it only applies to

1:44:39 ↗ single-family owner-occupied households

1:44:41 ↗ and we have a proposal to increase that

1:44:45 ↗ to include rental households as well

1:44:47 ↗ just today we had received an email from

1:44:50 ↗ resident who was inquiring about it and

1:44:52 ↗ had been confused about it not applying

1:44:55 ↗ to her household in which case and she's

1:44:57 ↗ a rental household so it was good to

1:45:00 ↗ hear that there is an opportunity to

1:45:02 ↗ address that the discount with this

1:45:04 ↗ program is significantly greater it

1:45:07 ↗ provides for a 75% discount on water and

1:45:10 ↗ sewer costs and exemption from

1:45:12 ↗ stormwater fees thank you there's a

1:45:19 ↗ significant portion and our utility rate

1:45:23 ↗ users that goes to this pass through the

1:45:26 ↗ King County I assume it's not seventy

1:45:28 ↗ five percent off that it does provide

1:45:33 ↗ for seventy five percent off of that

1:45:35 ↗ full rate you know even the King County

1:45:37 ↗ passed through numbers okay thank you

1:45:42 ↗ continue

1:45:45 ↗ a little bit of information about area

1:45:48 ↗ utility discount programs this was

1:45:50 ↗ included in the memo in September and it

1:45:53 ↗ was updated with the current year income

1:45:56 ↗ thresholds I think the prior information

1:45:58 ↗ was from a study that was conducted by

1:46:00 ↗ the Cascade Water Alliance but couple

1:46:03 ↗ points to note here is that these

1:46:06 ↗ utility discount programs most provide

1:46:09 ↗ for a low-income discount for seniors

1:46:10 ↗ and individuals with disabilities fewer

1:46:13 ↗ number provide for either all low-income

1:46:15 ↗ households or multifamily residents

1:46:19 ↗ those include Bellevue Sammamish and

1:46:21 ↗ Seattle those programs themselves are a

1:46:24 ↗ little bit different Bellevue does

1:46:27 ↗ provide for a single family senior

1:46:31 ↗ household rebate as well as a

1:46:34 ↗ multifamily tax rebate they don't

1:46:38 ↗ provide a utility discount Sammamish

1:46:41 ↗ does provide for a utility discount for

1:46:44 ↗ all low-income households and then

1:46:46 ↗ Seattle provides for a disc or discount

1:46:50 ↗ but they're able to do that because they

1:46:52 ↗ work with seattle City Light to provide

1:46:54 ↗ a credit on those bills so each of them

1:46:56 ↗ is a little bit different based on their

1:46:58 ↗ circumstances

1:47:04 ↗ this table is provides a quick summary

1:47:07 ↗ of the utility assistance program as

1:47:09 ↗ currently designed as I mentioned before

1:47:13 ↗ it includes two parts both low-income

1:47:15 ↗ household program which is completely

1:47:17 ↗ new which is in the right-hand column

1:47:19 ↗ and kind of just a recap takes the form

1:47:23 ↗ of an annual rebate

1:47:24 ↗ there's no age or disability

1:47:26 ↗ restrictions it includes owners and

1:47:28 ↗ renters both single-family and

1:47:30 ↗ multi-family it is tied to the Puget

1:47:32 ↗ Sound energy health program at a hundred

1:47:35 ↗ and fifty percent of federal poverty

1:47:36 ↗ level and the estimated cost ranges from

1:47:39 ↗ 37 to 74 or further depending on

1:47:42 ↗ participation rates our estimate

1:47:45 ↗ initially is about 2,300 to 2,600

1:47:48 ↗ households would be eligible and would

1:47:49 ↗ provide a rebate check of a hundred

1:47:51 ↗ dollars per year the senior discount

1:47:53 ↗ program is substantially similar to the

1:47:56 ↗ current program with the exception that

1:47:58 ↗ it would be expanded to include rental

1:48:00 ↗ owners rental households as well

1:48:09 ↗ and then finally on to the

1:48:11 ↗ recommendations as was mentioned we

1:48:14 ↗ recognize that there's some additional

1:48:16 ↗ work that could be done on this and

1:48:18 ↗ understanding better some of the

1:48:20 ↗ participation rates as well as the

1:48:22 ↗ eligible household populations for

1:48:28 ↗ implementation of a program there's some

1:48:30 ↗ additional data that we'd love to look

1:48:32 ↗ at in terms of this relates to

1:48:34 ↗ affordability ratios and hours and

1:48:36 ↗ minimum wage that's some of the data

1:48:39 ↗ that we've requested but not have

1:48:40 ↗ received from the folks that conducted

1:48:42 ↗ the study on behalf of the Cascade Water

1:48:44 ↗ Alliance we also know that in

1:48:46 ↗ conversations with hope link which is

1:48:48 ↗ one of a couple of different nonprofit

1:48:51 ↗ providers they are interested in talking

1:48:53 ↗ with the city about potentially helping

1:48:55 ↗ to us to implement a program but they

1:48:57 ↗ really have no capacity to do that on a

1:48:59 ↗ shorter time frame this is their busy

1:49:00 ↗ time of the year they're quite busy

1:49:03 ↗ enrolling people in the program but they

1:49:05 ↗ would be happy to either respond to a

1:49:07 ↗ request for proposals or discuss further

1:49:09 ↗ options for what a program would look

1:49:11 ↗ like so we're recommending step approach

1:49:15 ↗ where the city could implement a program

1:49:17 ↗ in the near term but then take 2020 to

1:49:20 ↗ evaluate further considerations on that

1:49:22 ↗ and if we choose if you chose to make

1:49:24 ↗ some changes to the program those could

1:49:26 ↗ be implemented later in the year or at

1:49:29 ↗ the time if there were any future rate

1:49:31 ↗ adjustments that could be considered as

1:49:33 ↗ well so for this evening as was

1:49:38 ↗ mentioned we are looking for direction

1:49:40 ↗ whether to proceed with the program as

1:49:43 ↗ designed if you have some areas where

1:49:46 ↗ you'd like to see us consider some

1:49:48 ↗ modifications excuse me to one or more

1:49:51 ↗ components or if you would choose to

1:49:54 ↗ continue to evaluate options if we were

1:49:56 ↗ to continue to evaluate options that

1:49:58 ↗ would probably take us beyond the

1:49:59 ↗ January start time frame so please keep

1:50:02 ↗ that in mind

1:50:03 ↗ and as I mentioned the presentation some

1:50:06 ↗ key considerations are to think about

1:50:09 ↗ the customers covered that would be

1:50:11 ↗ covered so seniors individuals with

1:50:14 ↗ disabilities single and multi-family

1:50:16 ↗ residents ownership and rental the

1:50:20 ↗ qualifying income threshold under Puetz

1:50:23 ↗ on Energy's program that's one hundred

1:50:24 ↗ and fifty percent of federal poverty

1:50:26 ↗ level which is plus or minus 30% of ami

1:50:29 ↗ that contrasts with the senior program

1:50:32 ↗ which is at 65 percent 20/20 of AMI so

1:50:36 ↗ that difference their program complexity

1:50:40 ↗ when you consider we're recommending

1:50:43 ↗ essentially two different sub programs

1:50:45 ↗ both a Senior Program and a rebate

1:50:47 ↗ program that could be expanded or

1:50:50 ↗ separated into additional programs but

1:50:52 ↗ that complexity will likely increase

1:50:54 ↗ administration costs the assistance

1:50:57 ↗ amount in the form so a discount or

1:51:00 ↗ rebate or very different kind of ways of

1:51:02 ↗ providing a benefit back to the

1:51:04 ↗ customers considerations could include a

1:51:06 ↗ discount percentage or the rebate amount

1:51:10 ↗ and then the overall cost of the rate

1:51:12 ↗ base the initial estimates are that for

1:51:16 ↗ every hundred thousand dollars in cost

1:51:17 ↗ there's about a point five percent

1:51:19 ↗ impact on the combined water sewer and

1:51:22 ↗ stormwater rates and then in terms of

1:51:29 ↗ next steps we're looking for feedback

1:51:31 ↗ from Council this evening and depending

1:51:35 ↗ on that feedback we will proceed to

1:51:37 ↗ prepare an ordinance which could be

1:51:38 ↗ considered for the December 2nd council

1:51:41 ↗ meeting we would also start preparations

1:51:44 ↗ for promotion and roll out of the

1:51:45 ↗ program given the timing of it and then

1:51:48 ↗ the new utility rates will be going into

1:51:50 ↗ effect at that same time thank you David

1:51:54 ↗ I wonder if you could just leave the

1:51:56 ↗ previous slide up so that as council is

1:52:00 ↗ talking deliberating and providing

1:52:02 ↗ feedback we make sure we hit on every

1:52:04 ↗ single one of these points so to be a

1:52:06 ↗ council president patís so first of all

1:52:10 ↗ I just wanted to thank

1:52:11 ↗ start by thanking you and your entire

1:52:14 ↗ team for going forward so quickly as we

1:52:17 ↗ were talking through utility rates and

1:52:22 ↗ and everything that we've talked about

1:52:24 ↗ during budgeting this was a pretty fast

1:52:27 ↗ request and I so I really wanted to give

1:52:31 ↗ a big thank you to everyone who worked

1:52:32 ↗ on this I think that this is an

1:52:34 ↗ incredibly important program and I think

1:52:38 ↗ that a couple of components to it going

1:52:41 ↗ starting with this sort of the mirroring

1:52:44 ↗ of the pse eligibility seems to make

1:52:48 ↗ sense to me as a starting point and the

1:52:52 ↗ I was very happy to see with the

1:52:55 ↗ expanded low income senior discount

1:52:57 ↗ program that we now have a mechanism for

1:53:01 ↗ anyone who is renting and I think that

1:53:04 ↗ it's really important to have that

1:53:05 ↗ mechanism and the most important part to

1:53:09 ↗ me is I see this as a starting point and

1:53:13 ↗ the the ability for everyone to take a

1:53:15 ↗ look at this now give feedback now but

1:53:18 ↗ also to continue to work on this over

1:53:19 ↗ 2020 and then have council take a look

1:53:23 ↗ at this again and and talk about what

1:53:26 ↗ may be able to change or may be able to

1:53:28 ↗ be improved there are cities that have

1:53:32 ↗ all low income a complete low income

1:53:38 ↗ portion to it so how that would compare

1:53:42 ↗ would be something that I me I would be

1:53:44 ↗ interested in I'll be sitting out there

1:53:49 ↗ so and I think it's fantastic that hope

1:53:52 ↗ link they would be a great partner to be

1:53:56 ↗ able to help help make this an even

1:53:59 ↗ better program but I think having a

1:54:01 ↗ starting point is really critical and

1:54:04 ↗ just happy to see that at this point

1:54:07 ↗ Thank You council president Mertz

1:54:09 ↗ I'm wondering if I should move that

1:54:11 ↗ motion before we discuss it further I

1:54:14 ↗ think on the feedback part I think it's

1:54:16 ↗ I'm gonna check call a friend call my

1:54:19 ↗ parliamentarian friend I think it's okay

1:54:21 ↗ for you just to provide your feedback

1:54:22 ↗ outside of the motion because I believe

1:54:25 ↗ your motion is to prepare the ordinance

1:54:27 ↗ for the program but we really need to

1:54:29 ↗ hear from you on the items that David's

1:54:32 ↗ got listed up on the bullet points I

1:54:34 ↗ think it's fine so if you'd rather use

1:54:37 ↗ the motion either is fine okay well I'd

1:54:40 ↗ like to move the motion hoping that we

1:54:43 ↗ can continue the conversation I'd like

1:54:45 ↗ to move to direct the administration to

1:54:47 ↗ prepare an ordinance establishing the

1:54:49 ↗ utility assistance program as proposed

1:54:51 ↗ in agenda Bill's seventy eight seventy

1:54:52 ↗ eight returning to Council for adoption

1:54:54 ↗ at the December 2nd 2019 council meeting

1:54:57 ↗ okay it's been moved and seconded okay

1:55:00 ↗ let's continue with feedback and also

1:55:02 ↗ questions and deliberations is like

1:55:06 ↗ councilmember Walsh so I very much

1:55:09 ↗ appreciate the rapid response of the

1:55:12 ↗ administration in addressing this as a

1:55:15 ↗ council request I think this is a

1:55:17 ↗ starting point the questions I would

1:55:21 ↗ have is the administrative cost on our

1:55:25 ↗ end of doing $100 rebate check versus a

1:55:31 ↗ utility bill discount and how that comes

1:55:38 ↗ into play as we look at online utility

1:55:43 ↗ billing whether or not that makes it

1:55:45 ↗ easier or harder my preference I think

1:55:50 ↗ would be to look at a percentage

1:55:53 ↗ discount rather

1:55:55 ↗ just $100 rebate but I am sensitive to

1:56:00 ↗ the fact that you're responding very

1:56:02 ↗ quickly on this Walsh I think we want to

1:56:05 ↗ provide you some information on why

1:56:06 ↗ rebate versus disconnecting so the

1:56:11 ↗ discount could certainly be pursued for

1:56:14 ↗ seeing of the direct billed customers

1:56:15 ↗ which are single-family customers so

1:56:18 ↗ under this proposal for the non senior

1:56:21 ↗ single family households its proposed as

1:56:24 ↗ a rebate that is an area where that

1:56:26 ↗ discount could be considered there's a

1:56:28 ↗ little more administration cost for

1:56:29 ↗ doing that but for the multifamily

1:56:31 ↗ households that's a very different

1:56:33 ↗ situation so because we don't do the

1:56:35 ↗ direct billing some different form of

1:56:38 ↗ compensation back to those households

1:56:41 ↗ would be required that is where the

1:56:44 ↗ compensation would go back to the

1:56:45 ↗ apartment building owner and not

1:56:47 ↗ necessarily the tenants inside got it so

1:56:51 ↗ would we be able to pursue then for

1:56:54 ↗ single-family home owners a percentage

1:56:58 ↗ and then for multifamily a rebate yes

1:57:02 ↗ that can be done okay so I would say

1:57:05 ↗ from my perspective that would be my

1:57:08 ↗ preference and then as we continue to

1:57:13 ↗ evaluate options into 2020 just getting

1:57:16 ↗ a better sense of with what portion of

1:57:20 ↗ our community can benefit from this and

1:57:23 ↗ whether the 150 percent

1:57:25 ↗ FPL is the right approach for our

1:57:30 ↗ community or whether considering that is

1:57:33 ↗ a very small cost to us how we might use

1:57:38 ↗ this as a way to lower housing cost

1:57:42 ↗ burden as a city thank you

1:57:47 ↗ administrative codes did you want to add

1:57:48 ↗ in or director Fujimoto okay great thank

1:57:51 ↗ you

1:57:52 ↗ Thank You councilmember Walsh next

1:57:56 ↗ that's my bread I also appreciate that

1:58:00 ↗ this was a very quick turnaround and

1:58:04 ↗ this was something that was really

1:58:05 ↗ important

1:58:06 ↗ for me to have information on before

1:58:10 ↗ approving an increase in the utility

1:58:13 ↗ rates so I appreciate this quick

1:58:15 ↗ turnaround and having this information

1:58:16 ↗ tonight very much I I did want to point

1:58:21 ↗ out that in the cascade water Alliance

1:58:25 ↗ study which we've talked about several

1:58:27 ↗ several times we have the lowest

1:58:32 ↗ participation rate of all the

1:58:33 ↗ neighboring cities for the senior

1:58:34 ↗ discount program and I just noticed that

1:58:37 ↗ although it says as of November twenty

1:58:39 ↗ nineteen we have a few more participants

1:58:41 ↗ the number that's in our packet is

1:58:44 ↗ actually less than what they had when

1:58:46 ↗ they considered in the cascade water

1:58:48 ↗ Alliance program so we still have very

1:58:50 ↗ low participation it's something that I

1:58:51 ↗ think we still really need to work on

1:58:54 ↗ and I know we're taking steps in that

1:58:57 ↗ direction but especially as we are in

1:58:59 ↗ considering increasing utility rates I

1:59:01 ↗ think it's really important that we make

1:59:03 ↗ sure that those that are eligible know

1:59:04 ↗ about the program that it's also

1:59:07 ↗ accessible I also know that and one in

1:59:13 ↗ in the cascade water Alliance Commission

1:59:17 ↗ study they looked at the first time

1:59:20 ↗ application submission procedure and two

1:59:23 ↗ of the ms2 of the organizations that

1:59:28 ↗ were considered Sammamish and skyway do

1:59:31 ↗ have application process by email so i

1:59:34 ↗ wonder if we can do that for our senior

1:59:35 ↗ program a senior discount program if

1:59:38 ↗ that might increase our participation

1:59:39 ↗ because currently we don't have that as

1:59:41 ↗ an option really I think it's just

1:59:45 ↗ important that as we have these programs

1:59:47 ↗ that we make sure that the information

1:59:49 ↗ gets out there and that we have that

1:59:50 ↗ communication in place so that they're

1:59:53 ↗ eligible and then lastly I do have some

1:59:57 ↗ concerns about when you when you showed

2:00:00 ↗ the ami and you showed what percent of

2:00:04 ↗ one hundred and fifty percent federal

2:00:06 ↗ income level that translates to for our

2:00:09 ↗ areas area median income especially for

2:00:12 ↗ the single /

2:00:14 ↗ it was quite a bit lower than 30% ami

2:00:19 ↗ that work that we're putting this

2:00:20 ↗ threshold so I think there there will be

2:00:24 ↗ many families that are not eligible that

2:00:28 ↗ our cost burdens under these rates

2:00:30 ↗ because we have a very high cost of

2:00:32 ↗ living so I appreciate the information I

2:00:36 ↗ think there's more to be looked at I

2:00:39 ↗ would like to make sure that we really

2:00:41 ↗ understand what percent of cost burdened

2:00:44 ↗ households are eligible for this and

2:00:46 ↗ also that we're getting the word out but

2:00:49 ↗ I I appreciate that this is a good first

2:00:52 ↗ step I would like to look at a threshold

2:00:55 ↗ that's more tailored to the needs of our

2:00:58 ↗ community rather than set based on a

2:01:00 ↗ federal poverty level in the future

2:01:02 ↗ thank you here your point about the

2:01:05 ↗ promotion of the existing program is

2:01:07 ↗ well taken I think it's something that

2:01:09 ↗ we definitely want to improve upon we

2:01:12 ↗ didn't know that the we've asked the

2:01:14 ↗ authors for information about their

2:01:15 ↗ participation numbers we weren't able to

2:01:18 ↗ replicate their numbers for their total

2:01:20 ↗ eligible household so we want to

2:01:22 ↗ understand that a little bit further and

2:01:24 ↗ so that would be helpful for us we are

2:01:27 ↗ looking at providing for an online

2:01:29 ↗ application one of the issues that we

2:01:32 ↗ have is that we can ask them to submit

2:01:33 ↗ the base information but anything that

2:01:36 ↗ has personally identifiable information

2:01:39 ↗ we don't have the current capacity to

2:01:41 ↗ manage so that's why we can't handle a

2:01:44 ↗ fully online I would just respectfully

2:01:50 ↗ note that some some organizations are

2:01:54 ↗ used in the online system so it's

2:01:55 ↗ something I think we should consider

2:01:57 ↗ that and other ways that we can increase

2:02:00 ↗ the access for people who would benefit

2:02:05 ↗ from the program thank you additional

2:02:08 ↗ comments interesting thank you just the

2:02:11 ↗ general comment I don't believe for a

2:02:13 ↗ moment you just started working on this

2:02:14 ↗ I think it was had to be months ago

2:02:16 ↗ because this is there's too much here

2:02:17 ↗ but again my way of backhanded way of

2:02:21 ↗ saying appreciate the doesn't catch I

2:02:34 ↗ think there are many for the intent in

2:02:36 ↗ the spirit so is it a good place to

2:02:38 ↗ start can we use what PSAs PSC is doing

2:02:40 ↗ that's a nice creative way to start and

2:02:44 ↗ I would encourage that I won't be well

2:02:46 ↗ maybe I will be I don't know but

2:02:48 ↗ afterwards I won't you know I would

2:02:50 ↗ encourage you to find those other ways

2:02:51 ↗ but there's always admin costs right

2:02:53 ↗ there's every one of these I mean that

2:02:54 ↗ that way that whole idea of managing PII

2:02:57 ↗ or personally identifiable information

2:02:59 ↗ is non-trivial there's more IT costs

2:03:01 ↗ associated with that so none of this is

2:03:04 ↗ free but to get this started to

2:03:07 ↗ understand participation I think

2:03:09 ↗ focusing on driving and getting more

2:03:11 ↗ adoption to participation I would set as

2:03:13 ↗ a number one goal refining some of these

2:03:16 ↗ measures and and and taking care of you

2:03:19 ↗ know whether you know adjusting whether

2:03:21 ↗ it be a rebate fixed amount or something

2:03:25 ↗ else maybe a percentage would encourage

2:03:28 ↗ is you know I think there is a

2:03:31 ↗ disincentive for some multifamily owners

2:03:36 ↗ owners the people who do the renting if

2:03:39 ↗ there's you know for low-income tenants

2:03:42 ↗ and if maybe they knew that they were

2:03:45 ↗ going to get a discount that they could

2:03:48 ↗ then pass that on and there may be more

2:03:51 ↗ units available to low income

2:03:54 ↗ individuals and families something to

2:03:56 ↗ explore if that makes sense so thanks

2:03:59 ↗ David thank you additional comments I

2:04:03 ↗ want to thank you for all your comments

2:04:05 ↗ I know we're gonna have a vote but it's

2:04:07 ↗ really clear that the program is super

2:04:10 ↗ important to you that it be done really

2:04:12 ↗ quickly and that we make sure that it

2:04:15 ↗ suits our community at some point in

2:04:17 ↗ time when we have time to evaluate these

2:04:19 ↗ so that you are sure that we are

2:04:20 ↗ reaching out to those that are most in

2:04:22 ↗ need and that

2:04:23 ↗ are able to take advantage of these

2:04:24 ↗ programs so thank you your comments were

2:04:26 ↗ great and the second part to this was

2:04:31 ↗ the motion itself and is there any other

2:04:34 ↗ further discussion or comments before we

2:04:36 ↗ go to the vote on the motion the motion

2:04:41 ↗ is to direct the administration to

2:04:42 ↗ prepare an ordinance establishing the

2:04:44 ↗ utility assistance program as proposed

2:04:46 ↗ in a be 787-8 returning to Council for

2:04:49 ↗ adoption at the December 2nd 2019

2:04:51 ↗ council meeting all those in favor

2:04:55 ↗ signify by saying aye opposed that

2:04:59 ↗ carried unanimously thank you David

2:05:01 ↗ I was going to check in with Council and

2:05:05 ↗ see if you would prefer to have a

2:05:08 ↗ five-minute recess since we have several

2:05:12 ↗ items yet to go that's good okay we'll

2:05:16 ↗ take five minute recess

2:05:52 ↗ you

2:09:35 ↗ you

2:12:04 ↗ you

2:12:12 ↗ we are back from our recess and the next

2:12:16 ↗ item under regular business is a B 7 8 5

2:12:19 ↗ Oh proposed 2020 budget revenue sources

2:12:23 ↗ utility tax and this will be a proposal

2:12:26 ↗ to adopt the ordinance this item was

2:12:29 ↗ included in the budget discussions and

2:12:30 ↗ was forwarded to this meeting at the

2:12:32 ↗ November 4th council meeting Beth will

2:12:35 ↗ you be coming up for some introductory

2:12:37 ↗ comments doesn't sound like your

2:12:46 ↗ microphone is on before you is ordinance

2:12:49 ↗ that would increase the utility tax rate

2:12:51 ↗ on sewer stormwater and cable and water

2:12:55 ↗ to 3 percent

2:12:57 ↗ thank you we were not planning on

2:13:00 ↗ repeating previous presentations that

2:13:02 ↗ council had had but if you have any

2:13:06 ↗ questions at this time we could

2:13:08 ↗ entertain those that's why we're

2:13:11 ↗ interesting for clarification in the on

2:13:14 ↗ the agenda bill it's actually page

2:13:18 ↗ [Music]

2:13:19 ↗ actually page 3 in the agenda bill it's

2:13:24 ↗ where you have there's a table top of

2:13:27 ↗ your head the rightmost column says 2020

2:13:29 ↗ projected revenue at recommended rate I

2:13:34 ↗ think that's just for those utilities

2:13:37 ↗ but I know that elsewhere when we look

2:13:40 ↗ at general fund utilities there's a much

2:13:42 ↗ higher number for utility tax could you

2:13:44 ↗ explain the difference so we charge a

2:13:47 ↗ utility tax on electricity natural gas

2:13:51 ↗ solid waste telephone the city run

2:13:55 ↗ utilities that I mentioned and cable so

2:13:58 ↗ the electricity natural gas solid waste

2:14:02 ↗ telephone they're already at 6% so what

2:14:05 ↗ we're talking about here is raising the

2:14:07 ↗ 3%

2:14:08 ↗ just on those city run utilities and

2:14:11 ↗ cable which are below or either at zero

2:14:14 ↗ or two point three three percent in the

2:14:16 ↗ case of water I don't have that table in

2:14:19 ↗ front of me so if that's not addressing

2:14:22 ↗ your question no it is there's there's

2:14:24 ↗ there's a couple million dollars missing

2:14:26 ↗ right and I think just blue isn't clear

2:14:29 ↗ to me the way the bill is is that these

2:14:31 ↗ total amounts are just on these

2:14:33 ↗ utilities but when we look at overall

2:14:35 ↗ funds from utilities there are these

2:14:37 ↗ other sources they're just not mentioned

2:14:39 ↗ I believe it's like 4.8 million is what

2:14:42 ↗ we're projecting something something

2:14:44 ↗ like that in the 2020 budget and one

2:14:47 ↗ last thing it's a small little thing but

2:14:50 ↗ I took a look at my my gas natural gas

2:14:52 ↗ an electricity bill and they have an

2:14:54 ↗ interesting comment and their effective

2:14:56 ↗ rate of city sales tax and it's over 6%

2:15:00 ↗ it's like six and a quarter six and a

2:15:02 ↗ half fYI it's actually printed right on

2:15:05 ↗ the bill and that's actually what their

2:15:07 ↗ calculates that's not they're not using

2:15:09 ↗ a flat six percent so might want to

2:15:11 ↗ double check that I mean hopefully

2:15:13 ↗ they're doing the right thing but just

2:15:16 ↗ happened to see it on a recent bill and

2:15:18 ↗ it's a little bit different than what

2:15:19 ↗ we've been reporting thank you are there

2:15:23 ↗ any other questions if not I'll be

2:15:28 ↗ looking for a motion

2:15:30 ↗ what's president martin sorry i guess i

2:15:37 ↗ guess i do still have a question

2:15:38 ↗ question first

2:15:39 ↗ i'm looking at the proposed ordinance

2:15:46 ↗ the proposed promotion and it doesn't

2:15:52 ↗ say doesn't specify this six percent

2:15:56 ↗ versus three percent and there's a

2:16:02 ↗ there's recommended language above but

2:16:06 ↗ the actual the the actual motion doesn't

2:16:11 ↗ reference the rate

2:16:13 ↗ oh I'm worried that the council's intent

2:16:18 ↗ might not be clear in the language the

2:16:22 ↗ proposed motion in front of us to our

2:16:26 ↗ parliamentarian councilmember marks the

2:16:28 ↗ ordinance that you all should have in

2:16:31 ↗ your packet should specify it does

2:16:34 ↗ specify the 3% in section two and so

2:16:37 ↗ despite the title not including that

2:16:40 ↗ rate it is presumed when you make your

2:16:43 ↗ motion you're referring to the ordinance

2:16:45 ↗ that was distributed to you all in your

2:16:47 ↗ packet in which I have here thank you

2:16:49 ↗ then I move to adopt ordinance number

2:16:53 ↗ 283 amending chapter 5.3 to of the

2:16:57 ↗ assumed you knew Civil Code relating to

2:16:59 ↗ the utility business and occupation tax

2:17:01 ↗ for the cable television water sewer and

2:17:03 ↗ stormwater utilities providing for

2:17:06 ↗ referendum and establishing an effective

2:17:07 ↗ date there a second second it's been

2:17:12 ↗ moved and seconded is there a discussion

2:17:16 ↗ remember we're interesting I'm actually

2:17:20 ↗ gonna oppose this and I'll talk about it

2:17:22 ↗ at the last item on the agenda this

2:17:24 ↗ evening I do have one question for you

2:17:26 ↗ now since it's germane to utility tax

2:17:29 ↗ just to be clear as I mentioned earlier

2:17:32 ↗ asked a question I asked earlier an

2:17:33 ↗ evening that we collect the money for

2:17:37 ↗ the King County Metro sewer that's a

2:17:40 ↗ pass through and the tax on the sewer

2:17:45 ↗ that's we're intending here we would be

2:17:47 ↗ taxing that amount that we collect from

2:17:50 ↗ King we collect from residents and pass

2:17:52 ↗ through we would be taxing that amount

2:17:54 ↗ that's clear right it's a service

2:17:55 ↗ provided by King County we're collecting

2:17:58 ↗ for them but we're taxing that amount

2:18:00 ↗ courage is about two-thirds it's about

2:18:03 ↗ it's about more than twice as much as

2:18:06 ↗ the sewer amount for our residents just

2:18:10 ↗ yeah and perhaps maybe it's sort of

2:18:13 ↗ analogous to you know King County is

2:18:15 ↗ providing that service similar to how PG

2:18:19 ↗ sound energy is providing natural gas

2:18:22 ↗ and electricity service it just happens

2:18:24 ↗ to be this King County service is

2:18:26 ↗ passing through us but just because

2:18:29 ↗ someone else is providing the service

2:18:31 ↗ doesn't mean we can't tax it under the

2:18:33 ↗ utility tax laws did you have any more

2:18:41 ↗ comments okay any other comments from

2:18:44 ↗ any other council members mr. Pratt

2:18:46 ↗ remarks so this process is a little

2:18:52 ↗ funny if a member of the community

2:18:54 ↗ somebody moved to Issaquah today and saw

2:18:58 ↗ us all talking about this today didn't

2:19:00 ↗ understand the context where this whole

2:19:03 ↗ conversation happened that everybody has

2:19:06 ↗ to figure out how they're gonna roll up

2:19:09 ↗ the conversation that's occurred in the

2:19:10 ↗ last few weeks and I very much respect

2:19:12 ↗ how other council members are choosing

2:19:14 ↗ to do it for me I make no secret of the

2:19:16 ↗ fact that I opposed this time around and

2:19:23 ↗ thought that we should continue to that

2:19:26 ↗ we should go to our recommended ending

2:19:30 ↗ fund balance in our financial policies

2:19:32 ↗ but the way I'm moving forward this

2:19:36 ↗ evening is that I saw we got to a

2:19:40 ↗ consensus at the end we made a number of

2:19:44 ↗ choices at the end to try to get to a

2:19:48 ↗ final number that the majority of the

2:19:50 ↗ council supported and although I was I

2:19:53 ↗ did not prevail on this issue of going

2:19:56 ↗ to zero percent I'm gonna support this

2:19:58 ↗ bill in the spirit of the aggregate

2:20:03 ↗ package that the council chose as part

2:20:06 ↗ of the deliberation process still I

2:20:11 ↗ guess the one bit of scrappiness that I

2:20:14 ↗ will even though I'm gonna be supporting

2:20:16 ↗ this bill there was a conversation

2:20:18 ↗ earlier during deliberation about the

2:20:21 ↗ potential moving to 6% next year I think

2:20:24 ↗ there may be some council members who

2:20:26 ↗ are sort of assuming we're gonna go in

2:20:27 ↗ that direction I will continue to oppose

2:20:29 ↗ increasing mewtwo utility taxes and

2:20:33 ↗ we'll hope that next year we will find

2:20:34 ↗ solutions that will not be required

2:20:35 ↗ thank you thank you either comments from

2:20:39 ↗ other council members looking around not

2:20:43 ↗ seeing it that becomes president batiste

2:20:47 ↗ so this is certainly something that I

2:20:52 ↗ know but I don't take lightly I think I

2:20:56 ↗ could probably speak for all of the

2:20:58 ↗ council members here that we don't take

2:21:01 ↗ this situation lightly and it was tough

2:21:03 ↗ to be in the place where we were where

2:21:06 ↗ we were looking at what the city visit

2:21:09 ↗ paws done in the past what other cities

2:21:11 ↗ have had done and potentially moving

2:21:14 ↗ from zero to six percent so rapidly and

2:21:19 ↗ we the council was able to talk talked

2:21:24 ↗ us through and we proposed three percent

2:21:27 ↗ the the reason the rain goes right along

2:21:34 ↗ with this the reason that I will be

2:21:39 ↗ supporting this tonight is I you know I

2:21:42 ↗ wish there were a different solution but

2:21:44 ↗ I really do think that working on a

2:21:47 ↗ staggered approach is the way to go and

2:21:50 ↗ did not feel that going all the way to

2:21:53 ↗ six percent was something that was the

2:21:56 ↗ right decision so I'll be supporting

2:21:58 ↗ this this evening I'll be looking to

2:22:00 ↗ fellow council members in the future but

2:22:03 ↗ I think that taking a step approach was

2:22:07 ↗ was the right approach I I did consider

2:22:10 ↗ doing something a little bit less but

2:22:12 ↗ after our conversation decided to stay

2:22:14 ↗ with the three percent so for those

2:22:17 ↗ reasons I'll be supporting this this

2:22:19 ↗ evening thank you are there other

2:22:21 ↗ council members that would like to find

2:22:23 ↗ comments councilmember a so I think we

2:22:26 ↗ worked all very diligently to put

2:22:28 ↗ together the 2025

2:22:29 ↗ was that was quite a arduous exercise I

2:22:33 ↗ don't think anybody really enjoys

2:22:36 ↗ raising taxes of any sort and it was

2:22:38 ↗ just a part of our financial reality

2:22:41 ↗ right now and I think the three percent

2:22:42 ↗ tax increase that that's currently on

2:22:45 ↗ the table was really instrumental in

2:22:47 ↗ crafting and bringing that budget

2:22:48 ↗ together and I know there were

2:22:49 ↗ differences of opinions but I think we

2:22:51 ↗ got to something that that made sense

2:22:53 ↗ but I do concur with council president

2:22:56 ↗ Marx that I'm not sure that a six

2:22:58 ↗ percent tax rate next year is a foregone

2:23:00 ↗ conclusion I think there's still quite a

2:23:02 ↗ bit of work to do before we get anywhere

2:23:03 ↗ near making that decision thank you are

2:23:06 ↗ there comments looking around not seeing

2:23:11 ↗ any so if there is no further discussion

2:23:17 ↗ ordinance number two 8 8 3 amending

2:23:21 ↗ chapter 5.3 2 of the Issaquah Municipal

2:23:23 ↗ Code relating to the utility business

2:23:25 ↗ and occupation tax for the cable

2:23:27 ↗ television water sewer and stormwater

2:23:29 ↗ utilities providing for referendum and

2:23:32 ↗ establishing an effective date signify

2:23:34 ↗ by saying aye opposed the motion carries

2:23:38 ↗ 6 to 1 the next item on our agenda this

2:23:42 ↗ evening is a b7 757 the 2020 levee and

2:23:47 ↗ revenue sources the action here tonight

2:23:50 ↗ is to request adoption of the ordinance

2:23:53 ↗ and there will be a presentation or an

2:23:56 ↗ introductory comment introductory

2:23:58 ↗ introductory comments thank you so the

2:24:02 ↗ property tax levy ordinance before you

2:24:05 ↗ tonight would allow the city to levy the

2:24:08 ↗ 1% plus new construction and banked

2:24:12 ↗ capacity in 2020 and I'm available to

2:24:16 ↗ answer any questions that you may have

2:24:18 ↗ any questions for director Goldberg if

2:24:23 ↗ not would somebody care to make a motion

2:24:27 ↗ alright that just happened fast move to

2:24:36 ↗ adopt ordinance number 288 for living

2:24:41 ↗ property taxes for the city of face

2:24:43 ↗ o'clock for the fiscal year commencing

2:24:45 ↗ January 1st 2020 on all property both

2:24:48 ↗ real and personal in City which is

2:24:50 ↗ subject to taxation for the purpose of

2:24:52 ↗ paying sufficient revenue to carry on

2:24:54 ↗ the services of said city for the

2:24:56 ↗ ensuing year as wired by law is there a

2:24:59 ↗ second second

2:25:01 ↗ is there any discussion councilmember

2:25:05 ↗ winter saying I'm actually gonna be

2:25:09 ↗ opposing this for reasons I've given

2:25:12 ↗ before but I'll discuss them more later

2:25:14 ↗ on the final item on tonight's agenda

2:25:16 ↗ I think you can sustain any other

2:25:18 ↗ discussion seeing none all those in

2:25:24 ↗ favor of adopting adopting ordinance

2:25:27 ↗ number 288 for having property taxes for

2:25:31 ↗ the City Vista quote for the fiscal year

2:25:33 ↗ commencing January 1st 2020 on all

2:25:35 ↗ property both real and personal in said

2:25:37 ↗ city which is subject to taxation for

2:25:40 ↗ the purpose of paying sufficient revenue

2:25:42 ↗ to carry on the services of subsidy for

2:25:44 ↗ the insuring year that's required by law

2:25:46 ↗ signify by saying aye opposed nay motion

2:25:50 ↗ carries 6 to 1 next item on our agenda

2:25:54 ↗ this evening is item H a b7 849 proposed

2:25:58 ↗ 2020 budget revenue sources parks

2:26:01 ↗ recreation fees and the request is to

2:26:03 ↗ adopt the proposed ordinance this item

2:26:06 ↗ was included in the budget discussions

2:26:08 ↗ and was forwarded to this meeting at the

2:26:10 ↗ November 4th council meeting I'd like to

2:26:12 ↗ ask our director so this this ordinance

2:26:25 ↗ would raise a series of fees for

2:26:28 ↗ residents and

2:26:29 ↗ residents and like with the other

2:26:32 ↗ packages available to respond to

2:26:36 ↗ questions as is director Watling thank

2:26:39 ↗ you are there questions from the council

2:26:43 ↗ there are no questions is there a motion

2:26:46 ↗ yes yes I would like to move all right

2:26:59 ↗ number 2 8 8 5 amending certain

2:27:03 ↗ recreation center Pass fees and certain

2:27:05 ↗ recreation program fees and facility

2:27:08 ↗ facility rental fees established by

2:27:10 ↗ ordinance number 2 2 9 0 in order to

2:27:13 ↗ better reflect current costs discussion

2:27:23 ↗ that's member had so I appreciate that

2:27:30 ↗ we in our our councils revised budget

2:27:34 ↗ that we'll be considering we don't

2:27:35 ↗ reduce the hours of the communities

2:27:38 ↗ center we didn't reduce the services

2:27:40 ↗ that we're providing

2:27:41 ↗ so I think to continue providing these

2:27:44 ↗ services it is appropriate that we look

2:27:46 ↗ at this and adopts this fee increase and

2:27:49 ↗ I'm glad to see that it doesn't coincide

2:27:51 ↗ with the reduction in services I think

2:27:53 ↗ that's very important I also wanted to

2:27:56 ↗ urge us to consider the scholarships and

2:28:01 ↗ make sure that for scholarships for

2:28:03 ↗ individuals that are interested in

2:28:05 ↗ receiving those that the word gets out

2:28:06 ↗ there and again that we have the

2:28:08 ↗ communication set up so that eligible

2:28:10 ↗ families are eligible individuals

2:28:13 ↗ no we do offer scholarships of my

2:28:17 ↗ understanding is up to 100% with the $10

2:28:19 ↗ fee so those scholarships are available

2:28:22 ↗ and we I would are just to make sure

2:28:26 ↗ that we monitor that participation and

2:28:28 ↗ make sure that that word is out about

2:28:29 ↗ those scholarships especially in light

2:28:31 ↗ of increasing fees thank you other

2:28:34 ↗ council members

2:28:37 ↗ all right seeing none all those in favor

2:28:40 ↗ of adopting ordinance number two 885

2:28:43 ↗ amending certain recreation center paths

2:28:45 ↗ fees and certain recreation program fees

2:28:48 ↗ and facility rental fees established by

2:28:51 ↗ by ordinance number 2 to 900 in order to

2:28:54 ↗ better reflect current cost signify by

2:28:56 ↗ saying aye as opposed it carries

2:29:00 ↗ unanimously next item on our agenda this

2:29:03 ↗ evening is a b 7 8 7 o propose 2020

2:29:07 ↗ budget revenue sources cemetery fees and

2:29:11 ↗ the request would be to dump the

2:29:12 ↗ proposed ordinance this item was

2:29:14 ↗ included in the budget discussions and

2:29:16 ↗ was forwarded to this meeting at the

2:29:17 ↗ November 4th council meeting and we have

2:29:20 ↗ our parks director mr. Watling here for

2:29:23 ↗ some brief introductory comments brief

2:29:26 ↗ yes thank you mayor yeah as was stated

2:29:29 ↗ before this was discussed throughout the

2:29:32 ↗ budget process was introduced November

2:29:34 ↗ 4th the one item I wanted to add was

2:29:38 ↗ council expressed a strong interest in

2:29:40 ↗ having an assistance a financial

2:29:42 ↗ assistance program in place while we

2:29:44 ↗ enacted this we've been working hard and

2:29:46 ↗ diligently with the cemetery board and

2:29:48 ↗ with our operating partner you'll notice

2:29:50 ↗ within the agenda with the updated

2:29:54 ↗ section we have a plan in place to

2:29:58 ↗ finalize what that program looks like at

2:30:00 ↗ the December cemetery board meeting we

2:30:03 ↗ then are asking that we initiate

2:30:06 ↗ starting January 1st a pilot program

2:30:10 ↗ financial assistance program we know

2:30:13 ↗ we're going to be coming back to you

2:30:14 ↗ Council in the first quarter of next

2:30:16 ↗ year with our management agreement with

2:30:18 ↗ Flint offs at that time we would ask you

2:30:21 ↗ give you the opportunity to either

2:30:22 ↗ ratify that assistance program or

2:30:26 ↗ amended that pilot program and turn it

2:30:29 ↗ into a permanent program so we thought

2:30:32 ↗ this was the most effective way to work

2:30:34 ↗ with the cemetery board to get their

2:30:36 ↗ acceptance given their over side of the

2:30:39 ↗ cemetery fund and also honor that

2:30:41 ↗ January 1st date thank you are there any

2:30:45 ↗ questions

2:30:48 ↗ so I'm looking at the proposed ordinance

2:30:51 ↗ and the rates that are set in it so we

2:30:55 ↗ had it looked like it used to be a

2:30:58 ↗ thousand dollars and we're moving to a

2:31:03 ↗ variable amount based on whether it's a

2:31:06 ↗ full size or a half size and bilocation

2:31:08 ↗ is that correct is he instead of a

2:31:11 ↗ thousand I see twenty five hundred two

2:31:13 ↗ thousand fifteen hundred you know the

2:31:17 ↗ section I'm referring to yes we we've

2:31:21 ↗ always had a full plot plot rate the

2:31:26 ↗ variance that is in this would be

2:31:27 ↗ recognizing as we section two hillside

2:31:32 ↗ cemetery being the highest and

2:31:34 ↗ relatively most pristine area there

2:31:37 ↗ would be a increased fee for those plots

2:31:41 ↗ as opposed to other plots within the

2:31:44 ↗ cemetery and this pilot program would

2:31:47 ↗ basically be half that rate we're

2:31:51 ↗ looking at is fifty percent being the

2:31:54 ↗ rate for both full plot and half plot as

2:31:57 ↗ well as niche spaces yes and what are

2:31:59 ↗ these estate standards in the state

2:32:01 ↗ doubles because their honor they're a

2:32:03 ↗ whole different order of magnitude they

2:32:05 ↗ are and as you recall as we worked on

2:32:08 ↗ creating some variants in memorial

2:32:11 ↗ options operating partner is pointed out

2:32:16 ↗ flat tops there is a market for estate

2:32:19 ↗ plot so if you can imagine grouping four

2:32:21 ↗ plots together and creating a little

2:32:23 ↗ more private space that's what an estate

2:32:26 ↗ plot would be we don't see that those

2:32:28 ↗ would necessarily be eligible for the

2:32:30 ↗ financial assistance program but it's a

2:32:33 ↗ service we think there's a market for

2:32:35 ↗ thank you for that explanation

2:32:38 ↗ additional questions councilmember hunt

2:32:42 ↗ followed by councilmember Rea do I

2:32:44 ↗ recognize that it explains that

2:32:46 ↗ the discount program would be considered

2:32:51 ↗ by the cemetery board an upcoming

2:32:53 ↗ meeting and so that's why it's that's

2:32:55 ↗ part of why it's not completely detailed

2:32:58 ↗ but I did wonder about what plans are

2:33:01 ↗ for that proposal as a starting point

2:33:03 ↗ for eligibility who would be eligible

2:33:07 ↗ for that discount program that's to be

2:33:10 ↗ discussed we're looking at something

2:33:12 ↗ similar either utilizing AMI or the

2:33:16 ↗ federal poverty level to determine what

2:33:18 ↗ that eligible level would be again

2:33:22 ↗ that's something that's a cemetery board

2:33:23 ↗ when we met with them previously this

2:33:26 ↗ month still wanted to have some

2:33:27 ↗ discussion and deliberation over okay

2:33:31 ↗ I would urge that we consider something

2:33:33 ↗ like area median income because cost of

2:33:37 ↗ living in our area are different than

2:33:39 ↗ federal levels and so that seems to be

2:33:43 ↗ more appropriate to our cost of living

2:33:45 ↗ in our specific area and then I also had

2:33:49 ↗ a follow-up question there was public

2:33:51 ↗ comment earlier about the master

2:33:52 ↗ planning process around the cemetery and

2:33:55 ↗ that and how this these rates and these

2:34:00 ↗ burial types fit into that master

2:34:04 ↗ planning process so I wonder if you

2:34:05 ↗ could give us an overview of that and

2:34:08 ↗ next steps yes so these these fees are

2:34:12 ↗ are merely one step as has been noted

2:34:15 ↗ before the cemetery planning effort that

2:34:18 ↗ we have initiated and this work will

2:34:19 ↗ continue as we look at now having these

2:34:23 ↗ varied rates we will be working with the

2:34:27 ↗ cemetery board and the community on now

2:34:29 ↗ identifying spaces within the existing

2:34:32 ↗ footprint of the cemetery where these

2:34:34 ↗ type of plots or memorial spaces could

2:34:38 ↗ be created so that will be a key part of

2:34:41 ↗ that cemetery planning effort equally so

2:34:44 ↗ as I mentioned earlier we have been

2:34:46 ↗ working with our operating partner Flint

2:34:48 ↗ Thompson formalizing a management

2:34:50 ↗ agreement that will also be part of the

2:34:51 ↗ cemetery plan in its entirety that'll be

2:34:54 ↗ coming to you the first quarter

2:34:56 ↗ next year let's remember right the

2:35:04 ↗ increased rates generate significantly

2:35:06 ↗ more revenue than the current the

2:35:09 ↗ current rates I guess two times right

2:35:11 ↗ and the upside of that is twenty years

2:35:14 ↗ from now we will have sold all the plots

2:35:18 ↗ in the cemetery and we will have three

2:35:20 ↗ million dollars in the cemetery fund

2:35:22 ↗ that's the way I'm reading that and

2:35:24 ↗ million dollars and is intended to last

2:35:27 ↗ in perpetuity for ongoing maintenance of

2:35:30 ↗ the cemetery facility at the time we

2:35:34 ↗ would see how we would get to it being

2:35:36 ↗ in perpetuity but we felt in this first

2:35:38 ↗ effort of looking at the cemetery fees

2:35:41 ↗ and taking a long view at the fees as we

2:35:43 ↗ feel like this puts the cemetery fund in

2:35:45 ↗ a much better position when that when

2:35:48 ↗ that period at that point of time

2:35:49 ↗ arrives early so ten years from now

2:35:54 ↗ we're revisiting this and saying we've

2:35:57 ↗ sold sixty percent of our plots we've

2:35:59 ↗ got 20 left here's what the actual cost

2:36:02 ↗ look like we could see another change

2:36:05 ↗ and the cost of plots we've talked about

2:36:08 ↗ a similar to a park strategic plan we

2:36:10 ↗ think every five years probably a five

2:36:12 ↗ year window at least taking allocate how

2:36:14 ↗ are we doing where we at

2:36:16 ↗ at least review at that point in time

2:36:20 ↗ thank you

2:36:21 ↗ additional questions so I'm a little

2:36:25 ↗ concerned with the idea of us basically

2:36:28 ↗ approving a discount program when we

2:36:33 ↗ don't have the idea of how many people

2:36:37 ↗ would be qualified or what the impacts

2:36:39 ↗ would be my concern is if the city is

2:36:42 ↗ going to be a provider of cemetery

2:36:45 ↗ services that we be able to achieve this

2:36:48 ↗ fund balance to provide maintenance for

2:36:52 ↗ the service

2:36:54 ↗ so I'm not seeing anything here on how

2:36:58 ↗ how would that discount would affect our

2:37:02 ↗ ability to maintain that fun balance so

2:37:06 ↗ well I agree with all the planning

2:37:10 ↗ that's been done around the ideas of

2:37:12 ↗ increasing the fees in order to provide

2:37:16 ↗ this service I just don't feel like we

2:37:18 ↗ have enough information to go ahead with

2:37:22 ↗ a discount program so a good point one

2:37:29 ↗ of these things does not look like the

2:37:30 ↗ other you have received information on

2:37:33 ↗ various discount programs and not this

2:37:34 ↗ one I believe that our intent

2:37:37 ↗ administrative Lee was to honor what we

2:37:40 ↗ were hearing from all of you in all of

2:37:42 ↗ your deliberations is that any kind of

2:37:45 ↗ increase

2:37:46 ↗ there are many council members who feel

2:37:48 ↗ very strongly that we have to look at

2:37:50 ↗ affordability issues this one's not

2:37:52 ↗ fully baked so I would love to hear the

2:37:55 ↗ conversation between the seven of you

2:37:57 ↗ where your comfort level is on moving

2:37:59 ↗ something forward not fully baked

2:38:01 ↗ recognizing I do believe you'll have

2:38:03 ↗ some council members that will speak in

2:38:04 ↗ favor and some that will speak against

2:38:06 ↗ so that would be a great thing for you

2:38:07 ↗ guys all to put your pinions out there

2:38:10 ↗ so to continue with that I would be

2:38:13 ↗ perfectly fine with moving forward with

2:38:16 ↗ this without a low-income discount

2:38:19 ↗ component from my perspective when we're

2:38:22 ↗ looking ahead at the city services

2:38:25 ↗ assessment the cemetery I do not believe

2:38:30 ↗ is a critical core component of what the

2:38:35 ↗ city needs to provide as services based

2:38:38 ↗ on taxpayer so I'm not of the mindset

2:38:43 ↗ that this is something that we should

2:38:45 ↗ discount I'm willing to go with that

2:38:49 ↗ idea but only if it means that the

2:38:53 ↗ cemetery does not end up being a burden

2:38:57 ↗ to the city taxpayers so I'm gonna

2:39:00 ↗ request someone to put forward a motion

2:39:02 ↗ it sounds like we have a combination of

2:39:05 ↗ and things to talk about so council

2:39:08 ↗ president Mertz madam a I moved to adopt

2:39:09 ↗ ordinance number six adopting section

2:39:15 ↗ 2.2 0.040 of the municipal Issaquah

2:39:19 ↗ municipal code in order to increase

2:39:21 ↗ grave plot at maintenance fees create

2:39:23 ↗ new fees for additional memorial spaces

2:39:25 ↗ and establish a processing fee for

2:39:27 ↗ transfers and quitclaim deeds and direct

2:39:30 ↗ the parks and recreation director in

2:39:32 ↗ consultation with the cemetery board in

2:39:34 ↗ Flint AHS Funeral Home and Crematory to

2:39:37 ↗ develop and implement by January 1st

2:39:39 ↗ 2020 a pilot burial assistance program

2:39:42 ↗ operating the 50% discount on burial

2:39:45 ↗ services fees for low-income persons

2:39:47 ↗ with the eligibility requirements to be

2:39:50 ↗ determined by the director with the

2:39:51 ↗ required consultation and with the

2:39:54 ↗ program to be brought to the City

2:39:56 ↗ Council by February 28th 2020 for review

2:39:59 ↗ and ratification before change

2:40:05 ↗ so I appreciate council member Walsh

2:40:08 ↗ you're not wanting to sign a blank check

2:40:10 ↗ I don't think that's what this is I

2:40:12 ↗ think this is there was there were many

2:40:17 ↗ options open to the administration's to

2:40:19 ↗ attempt to address the question that

2:40:21 ↗ some of us asked during budget

2:40:23 ↗ deliberation the idea that they could

2:40:25 ↗ implement fees on January 1st implement

2:40:28 ↗ a pilot program that would come back to

2:40:31 ↗ us budget by February 28th was one of

2:40:34 ↗ the potential solutions to that and I

2:40:36 ↗ think that the questions around

2:40:38 ↗ financial viability by the cemetery

2:40:43 ↗ board and I expect would be addressed

2:40:45 ↗ such that we would be able to have the

2:40:47 ↗ sort of comprehensive discussion that

2:40:49 ↗ you want to have about making sure we

2:40:50 ↗ don't burden the residents of Issaquah

2:40:52 ↗ on February 20th I will also say that

2:40:55 ↗ you and I may be in disagreement on the

2:40:58 ↗ extent to which reasonably priced

2:41:01 ↗ cemetery services are part of what we

2:41:03 ↗ want to offer as a city other comments

2:41:07 ↗ councilmember Goodman councilmember a

2:41:09 ↗ this question is probably for Jeff so

2:41:14 ↗ the so the agenda bill talks about

2:41:16 ↗ bringing back the the burial assistance

2:41:22 ↗ program back to the City Council for

2:41:24 ↗ review and ratification and the motion

2:41:30 ↗ is for us to adopt a 50% discount as of

2:41:34 ↗ January 1st and then that would be in

2:41:35 ↗ effect until it comes back to us I don't

2:41:38 ↗ quite understand what we're seeking is

2:41:40 ↗ your approval to put a pilot program in

2:41:45 ↗ place that would start January 1st what

2:41:48 ↗ would come back to you would be that

2:41:50 ↗ program for your either ratification or

2:41:53 ↗ a later date so I guess the issue I see

2:41:58 ↗ with that is that we have a if we don't

2:42:00 ↗ if we don't know what the permanent

2:42:02 ↗ assuming we adopt a permanent assistance

2:42:05 ↗ program if we don't have one in place

2:42:07 ↗ for the first at least couple months of

2:42:10 ↗ the year then we have a potential

2:42:12 ↗ fairness issue after that if we change

2:42:16 ↗ the 50% so I'm wondering if if we just

2:42:24 ↗ raise the rates the question I'm only

2:42:28 ↗ given in my head is just raise the rates

2:42:30 ↗ and then and wait until we have an

2:42:33 ↗ assistance program I'm concerned about

2:42:35 ↗ selling plots at 50% and then we change

2:42:39 ↗ that after two months and maybe it's not

2:42:44 ↗ the same discount that's a member right

2:42:47 ↗ and then council member we're

2:42:49 ↗ interesting I'm very much aligned with

2:42:52 ↗ where councilmember Goodman is I don't

2:42:55 ↗ know that having a temporary and

2:42:59 ↗ unreviewed program in place for two

2:43:02 ↗ months makes a lot of sense we could

2:43:04 ↗ come back with a high

2:43:05 ↗ discount and then would we want to

2:43:07 ↗ retroactively Li get the three people

2:43:08 ↗ who signed up for the B number out of

2:43:12 ↗ the air I don't think it's I don't think

2:43:13 ↗ it can be a large number of people who

2:43:14 ↗ would be involved in that two-month

2:43:18 ↗ period of the pilot discount and I don't

2:43:21 ↗ feel like we're we have the pressure on

2:43:23 ↗ us to make that decision right now and

2:43:25 ↗ then happen

2:43:26 ↗ to back away from it and I don't

2:43:29 ↗ understand why we just can't say

2:43:31 ↗ bringing back a discount program to us

2:43:34 ↗ for review and approval later than the

2:43:39 ↗ 28th of February and let's take the time

2:43:42 ↗ to do it once and let's take the time to

2:43:43 ↗ do it right and then we don't have the

2:43:44 ↗ issues around around fairness that you

2:43:47 ↗ raised which I think we're we're spot on

2:43:49 ↗ let's Myra winter Stein phobic council

2:43:52 ↗ member hunt thank you the motion says

2:43:56 ↗ fifty percent so I was assuming that the

2:43:59 ↗ consideration by the director in

2:44:01 ↗ consultation with the cemetery board

2:44:03 ↗ would be the eligibility and that's it

2:44:05 ↗ that current we would be setting by

2:44:07 ↗ legislation what the discount rate would

2:44:09 ↗ be and my sense from this to because you

2:44:13 ↗ don't have an eligibility criteria well

2:44:17 ↗ nobody would be eligible until one was

2:44:19 ↗ adopted I don't see how you write how

2:44:23 ↗ could I mean we're saying 50% as of

2:44:26 ↗ January 1st but without any eligibility

2:44:28 ↗ criteria okay then we'll come forward

2:44:31 ↗ with criteria in the future and then we

2:44:33 ↗ then people could be eligible that

2:44:38 ↗ sounds to me like you know delaying an

2:44:40 ↗ implementation until we have eligibility

2:44:43 ↗ criteria I could clarify the motion as

2:44:46 ↗ it's written right now again in trying

2:44:48 ↗ to honor councils wishes of having

2:44:50 ↗ something in place January 1st is asking

2:44:53 ↗ for your approval for us to establish

2:44:56 ↗ those eligibility criteria with the

2:44:59 ↗ cemetery board they have a December

2:45:01 ↗ meeting happens to be after the December

2:45:04 ↗ account second council meeting so this

2:45:07 ↗ would be seeking the ability to have

2:45:09 ↗ something in place January 1st okay

2:45:11 ↗ thank you for that clarification and so

2:45:13 ↗ it's

2:45:14 ↗ and the criteria from this legislation

2:45:17 ↗ would be it's going to be 50% and the

2:45:19 ↗ key other variable would be what would

2:45:22 ↗ be the eligibility criteria okay thank

2:45:24 ↗ you I'm wondering if the two council

2:45:29 ↗ members who haven't had a chance to

2:45:30 ↗ comment would like to begin deputy

2:45:32 ↗ counsel has teeth oh sorry

2:45:35 ↗ next and then Deputy Council precipitous

2:45:38 ↗ and then councilmember Walsh I didn't

2:45:40 ↗ have you you were commenting before the

2:45:42 ↗ motion was made like to give you an

2:45:43 ↗ opportunity to come in after so hunt

2:45:46 ↗ first I think anyway we have if we don't

2:45:53 ↗ have our discount program Alliance with

2:45:56 ↗ our rate increase there's potentially a

2:45:58 ↗ fairness issue no matter what as I see

2:46:02 ↗ it because additionally if we delay

2:46:05 ↗ having any implementation of the

2:46:07 ↗ discount rate then there may be some

2:46:09 ↗ individuals that are eligible for the

2:46:11 ↗ discount rate but because they fall

2:46:13 ↗ within that window when we've increased

2:46:15 ↗ rates but not yet implemented a discount

2:46:17 ↗ program they will be not able to receive

2:46:20 ↗ the discount whereas if they were if

2:46:24 ↗ they were a few months later applying

2:46:26 ↗ for the discount program then they would

2:46:28 ↗ be eligible so I think no matter what as

2:46:31 ↗ long as they aren't aligns there's gonna

2:46:33 ↗ be a potential fairness issue which is I

2:46:36 ↗ think what we're all grappling with in

2:46:38 ↗ how to make that work so I wonder if

2:46:41 ↗ it's possible to do the rate increase in

2:46:44 ↗ February at the same time that we do the

2:46:48 ↗ implementation of the increase of the at

2:46:53 ↗ the same time as the discount program no

2:46:57 ↗ options without trade-offs so in that

2:46:59 ↗ case the trade-off here is we are really

2:47:02 ↗ at a critical point of needing to open

2:47:04 ↗ up that second section of the upper

2:47:08 ↗ cemetery and so given the long term

2:47:14 ↗ financial goal we're trying to achieve

2:47:16 ↗ and getting a cemetery fund in a healthy

2:47:18 ↗ place we do not want to

2:47:20 ↗ that second section of upper hillside

2:47:22 ↗ until the fees are approved would mean

2:47:25 ↗ delaying that opening and availability D

2:47:34 ↗ counts president Batista followed by

2:47:35 ↗ councilman rush so I just wanted to

2:47:38 ↗ start with a question about whether

2:47:40 ↗ there would be the the potential to go

2:47:46 ↗ forward with 50% coming January 1st and

2:47:53 ↗ with the understanding that the

2:47:56 ↗ eligibility requirements were still to

2:47:59 ↗ be determined and if people were to come

2:48:01 ↗ forward as of January 1st and they were

2:48:04 ↗ interested in the discount program that

2:48:06 ↗ they could be told that the eligibility

2:48:09 ↗ requirements would be coming forward and

2:48:11 ↗ if they were to meet those eligibility

2:48:13 ↗ requirements then they could

2:48:16 ↗ retroactively Li go back to the 1st of

2:48:19 ↗ the year and receive the discount if

2:48:21 ↗ they became if they were eligible I

2:48:26 ↗ think point of clarification is that the

2:48:29 ↗ request is that the cemetery board set

2:48:32 ↗ those eligibility requirements in

2:48:34 ↗ December and that's what the pilot

2:48:36 ↗ pursuits worth so there isn't a second

2:48:38 ↗ council touch on the eligibility rates

2:48:40 ↗ so we would have both I'm sorry I

2:48:43 ↗ misunderstood we'd have both the

2:48:45 ↗ eligibility and the 50% discount it

2:48:48 ↗ would go forward as the pilot program

2:48:50 ↗ January 1st

2:48:56 ↗ council member well that was a question

2:49:00 ↗ do you have a comment that you want to

2:49:02 ↗ provide council members I'm trying to

2:49:06 ↗ the hard part for me is that first of

2:49:09 ↗ all I wanted to start by thanking

2:49:12 ↗ council president marks for bringing

2:49:15 ↗ this forward and talking about the

2:49:17 ↗ discount program I think that this is

2:49:20 ↗ incredibly important and I understand

2:49:23 ↗ everything that we're trying to

2:49:24 ↗ accomplish with

2:49:26 ↗ Terry and and looking at looking

2:49:31 ↗ long-term at what we need to do

2:49:32 ↗ strategically but I think the discount

2:49:35 ↗ program is incredibly important as one

2:49:39 ↗ of seven is hard for me to go forward

2:49:41 ↗ with it without the discount programs so

2:49:44 ↗ I'd really like to better understand

2:49:47 ↗ maybe where we what we could do to get

2:49:51 ↗ the discount program as a part of the

2:49:54 ↗ plan this evening with councilmember

2:49:59 ↗ Walsh just to get your comments just in

2:50:06 ↗ general I think that our rates as they

2:50:10 ↗ currently are for a full-size plot of a

2:50:12 ↗ thousand dollars is the lowest of any of

2:50:16 ↗ the cities that we were presented and

2:50:18 ↗ much lower than obviously non city

2:50:21 ↗ related so from my perspective even

2:50:25 ↗ going up to the 2000 and the 2500 is a

2:50:30 ↗ relative discount compared to many of

2:50:34 ↗ the other options that people have

2:50:36 ↗ available so just other thoughts that

2:50:40 ↗ are going through my head as far as the

2:50:42 ↗ need to present a discount thank you for

2:50:47 ↗ that I wanted to just generally check in

2:50:50 ↗ with everybody our council of rules

2:50:53 ↗ generally follow Robert's Rules we've

2:50:55 ↗ gone around everybody's had a chance to

2:50:57 ↗ comment I still see hands going up in

2:50:59 ↗ the air and which makes me think that

2:51:00 ↗ there are folks who would like to follow

2:51:03 ↗ up with the second round of comments so

2:51:04 ↗ it's a council president marks Han

2:51:06 ↗ councilmember interestings hand I'm not

2:51:13 ↗ sure if this helps or not that City

2:51:16 ↗ ministry pointed out that in checking

2:51:18 ↗ the calendar for upcoming meetings at

2:51:21 ↗ the beginning of January that the

2:51:23 ↗ January 6th City Council meeting could

2:51:26 ↗ come with a proposal for the pilot

2:51:29 ↗ program

2:51:30 ↗ that has the discount rate and the

2:51:32 ↗ eligibility requirements for adoption by

2:51:33 ↗ council

2:51:34 ↗ it's only a six six days off of starting

2:51:37 ↗ at the beginning of the year and then

2:51:39 ↗ council would get that touch on the

2:51:40 ↗ pilot program as well so just add that

2:51:42 ↗ to the to the mix why wouldn't it be the

2:51:51 ↗ program from the cemetery board at the

2:51:58 ↗ end of December council member winter

2:52:09 ↗ Stein council president marks and then

2:52:11 ↗ we'll proceed through to make sure

2:52:13 ↗ everybody else gets a an additional

2:52:15 ↗ chance council member interesting my

2:52:16 ↗ this is lively it's shifting so I was

2:52:19 ↗ going to comment Jeff thank you for your

2:52:21 ↗ comments earlier that it did clarify I

2:52:23 ↗ did misunderstand the proposal I reread

2:52:26 ↗ the the motion and I can it's easy to

2:52:29 ↗ misunderstand but I got the program was

2:52:32 ↗ gonna be in place as originally proposed

2:52:34 ↗ January 1st and we would find out later

2:52:37 ↗ what the eligibility requirements are

2:52:39 ↗ but the the rates and the discount rate

2:52:42 ↗ that we would be establishing now we'd

2:52:44 ↗ find out later so it's all was planned

2:52:46 ↗ for January 1st having said that if if

2:52:50 ↗ we want to make we got to amend and this

2:52:54 ↗ part of it I'll think about that

2:52:55 ↗ language and move that to the first

2:52:56 ↗ business meeting in January then I'll

2:52:59 ↗ support that as well thank you council

2:53:03 ↗ president parts so I want to agree with

2:53:07 ↗ what everyone's saying most of the

2:53:11 ↗ options that we're hearing tonight have

2:53:12 ↗ some element of what constitutes passed

2:53:17 ↗ away on December 31st versus January 1st

2:53:20 ↗ versus February 28th versus March 1st

2:53:23 ↗ why rates should be I would say that

2:53:30 ↗ helped me understand so I wrote

2:53:33 ↗ what in the proposal I wrote down

2:53:35 ↗ several alternates that I heard but the

2:53:38 ↗ last one that I just heard was that let

2:53:42 ↗ me rephrase it and make sure it and see

2:53:44 ↗ if I understand it correctly that we

2:53:47 ↗ would move forward with this bill

2:53:54 ↗ understanding that we would be seeing

2:53:58 ↗ the program that proposed low-income

2:54:03 ↗ program on January 6 and that rates

2:54:08 ↗ would also go into effect after that

2:54:10 ↗ January 6 so let's say January 7th that

2:54:13 ↗ rates would go into effect January 7th

2:54:15 ↗ at the same time as a low-income

2:54:17 ↗ programs the to the rate change and the

2:54:21 ↗ low-income program would go into effect

2:54:22 ↗ at the same time and council would make

2:54:25 ↗ a decision at the January 6 the council

2:54:27 ↗ meeting is that what is amending

2:54:34 ↗ amending the motion tonight and

2:54:36 ↗ approving fees effective January 1st and

2:54:39 ↗ having the assistance program January 6

2:54:41 ↗ or I suppose bringing this agenda bill

2:54:44 ↗ back in its entirety I'm in adopting

2:54:48 ↗ both the fees and the assistance program

2:54:51 ↗ that same night is an option to consider

2:54:54 ↗ as well so I would be to propose that

2:54:59 ↗ amendment but I don't have the specific

2:55:02 ↗ language commentary in question do we

2:55:06 ↗ need to take a break to provide some

2:55:09 ↗ modified wording or are you comfortable

2:55:11 ↗ that the council someone on the council

2:55:14 ↗ will be able to propose a few changes to

2:55:16 ↗ these two points the dye is to make it

2:55:19 ↗ work

2:55:26 ↗ it depends on what your intent is if

2:55:29 ↗ your intent is to simply postpone this

2:55:31 ↗ matter to the January 6 meaning the

2:55:34 ↗ entire action then I think it's

2:55:36 ↗ appropriate to simply make a motion to

2:55:38 ↗ postpone to January 6

2:55:40 ↗ that's a subsidiary motion to the motion

2:55:43 ↗ that's on the table it just postpones

2:55:45 ↗ the matter until until January 6th and

2:55:48 ↗ the whole matter would come back if you

2:55:50 ↗ want to do the other option of making

2:55:53 ↗ things effective January 1 making the

2:55:56 ↗ rates effective January 1 and the in the

2:56:01 ↗ discount program come back January 6th

2:56:03 ↗ then that's a little bit different you

2:56:06 ↗ need to amend the current motion or

2:56:10 ↗ ministration if I can

2:56:12 ↗ there is additional ordinances this

2:56:15 ↗ evening and a council president letter

2:56:18 ↗ direction the administration is there

2:56:21 ↗ any impact that we're not saying to the

2:56:24 ↗ follow-on budget conversations by

2:56:27 ↗ deferring the vote on these rates so

2:56:30 ↗ January 6 the budget assumes the

2:56:38 ↗ revenues from the rate increase but I

2:56:41 ↗ think if we were just to wait until

2:56:42 ↗ January 6 that there would not be a

2:56:46 ↗ material impact to learn to change

2:56:49 ↗ that's great that's president Mertz

2:56:53 ↗ propose we postpone this agenda build

2:56:55 ↗ discussion until the January 6 2020

2:56:58 ↗ regular council meeting so say it moved

2:57:01 ↗ and seconded good men once a second

2:57:03 ↗ discussion deputy counsel present

2:57:08 ↗ parties it's because I won't be here

2:57:13 ↗ I just wanted to say I very much

2:57:17 ↗ appreciate having the discount program

2:57:19 ↗ and just want to say to my fellow camp

2:57:22 ↗ council members how incredibly important

2:57:25 ↗ I think this is I seen across friends

2:57:30 ↗ and family this kind of issue be

2:57:32 ↗ crippling at one of the most horrible

2:57:35 ↗ times for people and and I do believe

2:57:37 ↗ that this is something that that is

2:57:39 ↗ important for us to offer and think

2:57:42 ↗ about and the discount program is

2:57:44 ↗ incredibly important

2:57:46 ↗ this one does if that final word Thank

2:57:52 ↗ You councilmember we're interesting in

2:57:53 ↗ that same vein barb I do support this as

2:57:56 ↗ well

2:57:58 ↗ any other comments before I call for the

2:58:00 ↗ vote

2:58:00 ↗ councilmember Goodman I just wanted to

2:58:04 ↗ comment about the 50% discount and and

2:58:10 ↗ hope that the cemetery board can discuss

2:58:16 ↗ the just the program thinking about it

2:58:21 ↗ comprehensively and looking at rates

2:58:24 ↗ elsewhere so that we know I say it I

2:58:33 ↗ mean I support a discount program but I

2:58:35 ↗ also am mindful of what we charge

2:58:37 ↗ compared to other areas thank you any

2:58:41 ↗ other comments not seeing any all those

2:58:45 ↗ in favor to postpone the agenda bill

2:58:49 ↗ until the January 6 2020 that council

2:58:53 ↗ meeting say aye

2:58:54 ↗ as opposed that carries unanimously

2:59:01 ↗ MJ is a B 7 7 5 8 propose 2020 budget

2:59:06 ↗ including salary ordinances the request

2:59:09 ↗ is to adopt the proposed ordinance and

2:59:12 ↗ the presentation has previously been

2:59:15 ↗ provided under public hearing however we

2:59:18 ↗ can still we have Director Goldberg

2:59:21 ↗ available for any additional questions

2:59:23 ↗ that you

2:59:23 ↗ may have are there any questions for

2:59:25 ↗ director Goldberg would somebody care to

2:59:30 ↗ make a motion that's the president Mertz

2:59:32 ↗ thank you madam mayor adopting the

2:59:47 ↗ revised 2027 salaries 2020 salary

3:00:00 ↗ schedule for all city employees and

3:00:01 ↗ amending the salary schedules previously

3:00:03 ↗ adopted and amended by ordinance numbers

3:00:06 ↗ 2 8 1 9 - eight - eight - eight - nine -

3:00:09 ↗ eight three five and two eight five

3:00:12 ↗ three and adopt ordinance member I'm

3:00:17 ↗ sorry I'd like to make a correction the

3:00:19 ↗ first ordinance was number two eight

3:00:21 ↗ eight seven and the second ordinance now

3:00:23 ↗ is ordinance number two eight eight

3:00:25 ↗ eight adopting the 2020 budget setting

3:00:28 ↗ forth the estimated revenues and

3:00:30 ↗ appropriations for each separate fund

3:00:32 ↗ and it's an estimated impact and ending

3:00:35 ↗ fund balances for all such funds

3:00:36 ↗ combined of the city for the fiscal year

3:00:40 ↗ commencing January 1st 2020 second thank

3:00:44 ↗ you it's been moved in second I

3:00:45 ↗ apologize that council president marks

3:00:48 ↗ had to try and read under my scribbly

3:00:49 ↗ note makes it a little harder to see the

3:00:52 ↗ words when somebody writes over top of

3:00:53 ↗ them okay council discussion also member

3:01:01 ↗ Goodman so I'm going to support this and

3:01:04 ↗ I again want to say that I have I really

3:01:09 ↗ appreciate the team that worked on this

3:01:12 ↗ was particularly the finance department

3:01:14 ↗ I think that in my time doing this not

3:01:21 ↗ only as a council member but going all

3:01:24 ↗ the way back to I think probably my

3:01:25 ↗ first coverage of city council meetings

3:01:27 ↗ in either 1996 or 1997

3:01:30 ↗ in my personal opinion this was the best

3:01:35 ↗ presented proposed budget that I've ever

3:01:37 ↗ seen and the responses to the questions

3:01:39 ↗ that the council asked and to the issues

3:01:43 ↗ presented was the most thorough and

3:01:46 ↗ again my opinion comprehensive and my

3:01:53 ↗ opinion seemingly the most accurate and

3:01:56 ↗ in-depth and like I said before during

3:01:58 ↗ our sessions our budget deliberations

3:02:01 ↗ that there were many rocks that were

3:02:05 ↗ unturned turned over many things that

3:02:08 ↗ were stated to us that I appreciated all

3:02:16 ↗ of the candor and while I understand

3:02:20 ↗ that this was billed to be a very

3:02:24 ↗ difficult budget year with a potential

3:02:26 ↗ 5.2 million dollar shortfall for

3:02:29 ↗ next year I think that the way that this

3:02:32 ↗ was presented and for all the reasons

3:02:34 ↗ that I just mentioned even though there

3:02:38 ↗ were some tough decisions to for us to

3:02:40 ↗ make in my opinion and my perspective is

3:02:44 ↗ that work that you all did made that

3:02:46 ↗ much easier for us there are of course

3:02:50 ↗ differences of opinion about how you

3:02:51 ↗ close gaps and there was a proposed

3:02:54 ↗ budget budget from the administration

3:02:56 ↗ then there are several people seven

3:02:58 ↗ people sitting up here and then there's

3:02:59 ↗ also the community members also have

3:03:01 ↗ their opinions but I think that it was

3:03:05 ↗ an incredibly thoughtful process and I

3:03:09 ↗ really appreciate that we also received

3:03:11 ↗ some emails from some community members

3:03:15 ↗ who took an incredible amount of time

3:03:18 ↗ going through the budget and sending us

3:03:20 ↗ emails and I really really really

3:03:23 ↗ appreciate it that you know that's a lot

3:03:24 ↗ of time to go through a budget and send

3:03:27 ↗ us comments on what they think that we

3:03:30 ↗ should do with the budget so I I do

3:03:34 ↗ support the budget and this this budget

3:03:37 ↗ that we have landed on I

3:03:38 ↗ you think that we have even more

3:03:40 ↗ significant important and difficult work

3:03:42 ↗ to do next year as we figure out how

3:03:47 ↗ we're going to deal with the information

3:03:49 ↗ that we now know that we need to deal

3:03:52 ↗ with so for those reasons I'll support

3:03:55 ↗ it and again thank you very much thank

3:03:57 ↗ you additional comments accounts

3:04:01 ↗ president marks one of the most

3:04:14 ↗ challenging budgets we've had in my 10

3:04:17 ↗ years but only two superb presentation

3:04:22 ↗ and support from city staff and

3:04:24 ↗ thoughtful deliberation on the part of

3:04:27 ↗ counsel we have a we have arrived at a

3:04:32 ↗ solution I also plus one council members

3:04:37 ↗ could come in councilmember Goodman's

3:04:39 ↗ comments that we have some big

3:04:40 ↗ challenges in front of us next year and

3:04:43 ↗ I miss president Eason councilmember

3:04:48 ↗ winter Stein's contributions next year

3:04:50 ↗ because you know the city services

3:04:53 ↗ assessment which we still are gonna

3:04:55 ↗ figure out even the scope on that is

3:04:57 ↗ going to be critical we are dipping into

3:05:00 ↗ ending fund balance a little bit in a

3:05:02 ↗ way that we can't do over the long haul

3:05:04 ↗ if we adopt this budget this evening so

3:05:06 ↗ we know that we have to make some

3:05:09 ↗ challenging structural changes next year

3:05:11 ↗ but this is to me the right way to

3:05:16 ↗ balance things while still keeping the

3:05:20 ↗ door open to understanding that what the

3:05:23 ↗ budgetary environment next year may look

3:05:25 ↗ different hopefully look different in a

3:05:27 ↗ better way but if it looks different in

3:05:29 ↗ a worse way this city services

3:05:31 ↗ assessment is going to become one of the

3:05:32 ↗ most critical things that we accomplish

3:05:34 ↗ next year thank you additional comments

3:05:37 ↗ councilmember winter Stein and deputy

3:05:39 ↗ council president Matisse okay thank you

3:05:44 ↗ the same comments it was a lot of

3:05:47 ↗ discussion about substance and

3:05:49 ↗ no distractions about form which have

3:05:53 ↗ hindered us a little bit in the past so

3:05:55 ↗ I do I do appreciate that and do echo

3:05:57 ↗ the my appreciation for the quality and

3:06:00 ↗ the professionalism and the completeness

3:06:02 ↗ and the timeliness of the work I

3:06:05 ↗ appreciate that very much and and since

3:06:11 ↗ one of the things I believe as a council

3:06:13 ↗ member is to be I think the people who

3:06:19 ↗ put us here

3:06:20 ↗ and vote for us in the office right to

3:06:23 ↗ expect that we are kind of as

3:06:24 ↗ transparent as possible we explain our

3:06:27 ↗ thinking whether were for or against any

3:06:29 ↗ particular action and everybody knows

3:06:35 ↗ because we were all in these meetings

3:06:36 ↗ together you know I was kind of I've

3:06:38 ↗ been swimming upstream against the

3:06:40 ↗ majority of my council members and I

3:06:42 ↗ want to say that I'm a big fan of this

3:06:46 ↗ representative democracy this format we

3:06:48 ↗ have I accept the rules and that's

3:06:51 ↗ that's that is that's fine I sometimes

3:06:54 ↗ you're in the majority and sometimes

3:06:55 ↗ that you're not and so you know with

3:06:59 ↗ having that it's having said that as I

3:07:02 ↗ mentioned earlier there are elements of

3:07:04 ↗ this budget that I don't support and I

3:07:07 ↗ wish we were doing them different and

3:07:09 ↗ and I want to take a moment to be in

3:07:11 ↗ that spirit of being transparent and

3:07:12 ↗ help make sure everybody understands

3:07:15 ↗ I think it's preordained what direction

3:07:17 ↗ this is going based upon other work that

3:07:19 ↗ we've already done but but kind of for

3:07:22 ↗ the record I do want I did want to give

3:07:26 ↗ everybody a chance to better understand

3:07:28 ↗ where I was coming from so to help that

3:07:30 ↗ I have I have put something together to

3:07:33 ↗ help me you know with my comments and

3:07:36 ↗ I've and they're being projected on the

3:07:38 ↗ screen right now you know one of the

3:07:42 ↗ things that got my attention right away

3:07:43 ↗ and this is just goes back from 2017

3:07:47 ↗ it's got 18 on audited numbers

3:07:49 ↗ forecasted for 2019 and what's in the

3:07:52 ↗ budget proposal now I would say that

3:07:54 ↗ budget proposal some of those numbers

3:07:55 ↗ have been moving

3:07:56 ↗ little bit it's been hard to track them

3:07:58 ↗ throughout but what got my attention

3:08:00 ↗ when I looked at this is that a few

3:08:03 ↗ years ago this category of other

3:08:05 ↗ actually was our our greatest source

3:08:07 ↗ sales tax was blending up and then

3:08:10 ↗ eighteen and in nineteen we saw

3:08:12 ↗ significant decreases in other and now

3:08:15 ↗ it's flat there so I want to that got my

3:08:18 ↗ attention something has definitely

3:08:20 ↗ changing and so just a really quick as I

3:08:22 ↗ went through each of these I mean we

3:08:23 ↗ know about sales tax provided

3:08:25 ↗ information to us in August it has been

3:08:27 ↗ trending down since 2017 this plan is to

3:08:30 ↗ be flat overall from from 2020

3:08:34 ↗ it's from 2019 to 2020 a couple things

3:08:37 ↗ about property tax we've already talked

3:08:39 ↗ about these we are gonna be drawing down

3:08:41 ↗ our Bank capacity which has been passed

3:08:44 ↗ taxes not collected which at that time

3:08:46 ↗ was deemed as not needed by those

3:08:49 ↗ councils when we didn't we didn't take

3:08:51 ↗ that full 1% and even the number we got

3:08:54 ↗ tonight that the impact is an average of

3:08:58 ↗ $12 for homes at the average assessed

3:09:01 ↗ value within with in Issaquah so this is

3:09:05 ↗ this using that Bank capacity adds $12

3:09:08 ↗ to the bill a couple other numbers to

3:09:10 ↗ that were important I thought just to

3:09:14 ↗ share I have been tracking the property

3:09:16 ↗ tax quite closely over the years and

3:09:18 ↗ what's unique about this one and all the

3:09:19 ↗ years I've been tracking it it is a time

3:09:21 ↗ when the actual percentage growth of my

3:09:24 ↗ bill from my tax bill will be actually

3:09:26 ↗ higher than the percentage growth of my

3:09:28 ↗ assessed value of my house

3:09:31 ↗ then the bottom left the blue bars

3:09:33 ↗ represent the increased percentage of

3:09:36 ↗ assessed value and the red bars

3:09:38 ↗ represent the the increase or the

3:09:40 ↗ percentage change of my own tax bill so

3:09:42 ↗ this is one year where the tax bill is

3:09:44 ↗ going up greater than the for the city

3:09:49 ↗ then the actual assessed value and then

3:09:51 ↗ some of the patterns that are in here

3:09:53 ↗ and we've seen some of this there

3:09:54 ↗ certainly are some things changing and

3:09:56 ↗ this is just data we've we've been

3:09:58 ↗ getting all along I just aggregated it

3:10:00 ↗ here in the bottom right that if you do

3:10:02 ↗ the math - since kind of

3:10:05 ↗ property tax from new construction is

3:10:08 ↗ off by 30 38 percent since 2017 so

3:10:11 ↗ that's clearly there's something going

3:10:14 ↗ on when it comes to at least in that

3:10:17 ↗ number tells us something and I don't

3:10:20 ↗ know a lot or I can't tell you exactly

3:10:23 ↗ what that means but that's a trend I

3:10:25 ↗ think that's worth noting a couple

3:10:27 ↗ things about utility tax which is one of

3:10:29 ↗ our revenue sources as well it is the

3:10:31 ↗ overall lowest kind of percentage it

3:10:33 ↗ represents less than 10 percent it has

3:10:35 ↗ been trending down slightly we all know

3:10:37 ↗ that that's been reported to us I do

3:10:39 ↗ think so that trending as was reported

3:10:41 ↗ to us as well those sources some of that

3:10:43 ↗ is due to consumer choice and choices

3:10:45 ↗ that they've made and but it was a small

3:10:49 ↗ amount what's interesting to me the tax

3:10:52 ↗ on utility that we are proposing for

3:10:54 ↗ water sewer and stormwater you know

3:10:55 ↗ those really aren't discretionary

3:10:57 ↗ services people if they have a house

3:11:00 ↗ they need water they can maybe challenge

3:11:02 ↗ they can maybe adjust how much they have

3:11:04 ↗ but our sewer and stormwater prices are

3:11:06 ↗ somewhat fixed and a point I made

3:11:08 ↗ earlier to I just realized that this

3:11:11 ↗ evening that fourth bullet that that

3:11:12 ↗ mount that we collect and that's a

3:11:14 ↗ strange that's us capture from the bill

3:11:16 ↗ that I get where the sewer service for

3:11:19 ↗ residential from Metro is 90 dollars and

3:11:22 ↗ 66 cents a month and the sewer service

3:11:24 ↗ for the city is 30 to 30 so we are

3:11:26 ↗ taxing the the some of those so the $90

3:11:29 ↗ is part is gonna have a three percent

3:11:31 ↗ tax assessed to it as well and I was

3:11:34 ↗ kind of curious on how many would be

3:11:36 ↗ affected by this and we have eighty six

3:11:38 ↗ hundred and and twenty water customers

3:11:40 ↗ so this is just telling me more of the

3:11:42 ↗ story now back to that other revenue

3:11:45 ↗ category and these are numbers that are

3:11:46 ↗ right from the budget documents as well

3:11:49 ↗ they've moved around a little bit in the

3:11:52 ↗ 2020 numbers but I think the picture

3:11:54 ↗ hasn't really changed that I look at a

3:11:57 ↗ chart like this and obviously that top

3:12:00 ↗ blue line has been the one that's been

3:12:01 ↗ moving the most it's come down

3:12:03 ↗ dramatically that's from planning

3:12:04 ↗ permits and licensing and it's actuals

3:12:08 ↗ for 2017 actuals for 2018

3:12:11 ↗ it's the forecast I just did

3:12:15 ↗ 20:19 and in this particular category

3:12:17 ↗ planning permits and licensing it's

3:12:18 ↗ quite a bit less than the original

3:12:19 ↗ budget but we're currently forecasting

3:12:22 ↗ that number of five point five million

3:12:24 ↗ and then and then in for 2020 and i

3:12:28 ↗ think i heard tonight maybe this number

3:12:29 ↗ is a little bit higher than what i have

3:12:31 ↗ there but there's there's a two points

3:12:34 ↗ by these numbers there's a this area

3:12:36 ↗ alone this one area is down by 2.3

3:12:39 ↗ million in forecasted revenue since 2019

3:12:42 ↗ and in one of the questions that was

3:12:45 ↗ asked and there's a reply and i got the

3:12:47 ↗ reference to the document in here budget

3:12:49 ↗ questions and responses content 10 1819

3:12:51 ↗ there's a couple of places where the one

3:12:56 ↗ comment that was more or less repeated

3:12:58 ↗ that this was largely due to a large

3:13:00 ↗ number of large one-time outlier

3:13:02 ↗ projects ie costco in 2019 that are not

3:13:05 ↗ expected to continue in 2020 so so a

3:13:08 ↗ very dramatic lowering of forecasted

3:13:12 ↗ revenue at 2.4 million just from this

3:13:14 ↗ one source and i was I did ask as well

3:13:18 ↗ overall and I got this information from

3:13:19 ↗ staff and I think that was forwarded to

3:13:21 ↗ everybody on the council that we have

3:13:23 ↗ roughly there's roughly I think in this

3:13:25 ↗ might be 2018 numbers or 19 I'm not sure

3:13:29 ↗ about that we had roughly 2000 permit

3:13:32 ↗ holders and we conducted about 7500

3:13:35 ↗ inspections so you get an idea on how

3:13:38 ↗ the numbers of people and entities that

3:13:40 ↗ we are working with so what I you know

3:13:44 ↗ put that all together you know I this is

3:13:48 ↗ this is what I was thinking about that

3:13:51 ↗ we look at the property tax use of Bank

3:13:54 ↗ capacity that increases the average

3:13:57 ↗ household average of 12 dollars that was

3:13:59 ↗ the number it was reported this evening

3:14:01 ↗ the utility taxes the number that's in

3:14:05 ↗ the bill is for one month in tonight's

3:14:09 ↗ agenda bills for one bimonthly bill it's

3:14:11 ↗ $14 and change so that's that we get six

3:14:14 ↗ of those a year so that's a total of 89

3:14:16 ↗ dollars so the total new taxes between

3:14:19 ↗ Bank capacity and higher utility taxes

3:14:22 ↗ is just is 101 dollars per average

3:14:26 ↗ per household so I thought about that

3:14:28 ↗ okay you know you know that's a primary

3:14:32 ↗ source of the new revenue that we have

3:14:35 ↗ as I showed you earlier hands down the

3:14:38 ↗ biggest drop came from planning permits

3:14:40 ↗ and licenses and I've you know this is

3:14:42 ↗ not a one-to-one comparison but I do

3:14:44 ↗ think about how you know what we're

3:14:46 ↗ doing here is we are going and tapping

3:14:48 ↗ into property owners to make up a big

3:14:50 ↗ portion of the loss not all of it or the

3:14:52 ↗ decrease and what was really important

3:14:55 ↗ to me it was really one big provider but

3:14:58 ↗ you know the overall numbers were

3:14:59 ↗ roughly 2000 permit holders and again

3:15:03 ↗ that water customer number is about

3:15:05 ↗ eighty six hundred so I definitely

3:15:08 ↗ looked at it that way and saw that yeah

3:15:12 ↗ that planning permitting and licensing

3:15:13 ↗ is kind of volatile certainly the use of

3:15:17 ↗ water isn't going to be very volatile

3:15:19 ↗ and I understand needing to kind of

3:15:22 ↗ restructure a budget to be perhaps less

3:15:26 ↗ prone to volatility and but and I am all

3:15:33 ↗ in favor of that type of kind of fiscal

3:15:37 ↗ policy and goals that we have as a city

3:15:40 ↗ but these numbers really spoke to me and

3:15:43 ↗ this is just before I get to my summary

3:15:47 ↗ and just want to do overall summary of

3:15:50 ↗ deliberations is that the administration

3:15:54 ↗ did propose a balanced budget that did

3:15:57 ↗ not use any ending fund balance if you

3:16:00 ↗ all the council's actions the changes

3:16:02 ↗ that we took there was a net decrease in

3:16:05 ↗ revenue the big thing that we did as

3:16:07 ↗ Council we took the proposed six percent

3:16:09 ↗ took it down to three percent that was

3:16:12 ↗ the largest decrease in revenue we had a

3:16:16 ↗ net increase in expenses the council did

3:16:20 ↗ those were we restored the community

3:16:22 ↗ funds both for the contract services for

3:16:25 ↗ the grants for capacity building we also

3:16:30 ↗ there was one decrease which was not to

3:16:33 ↗ study the the City Hall option but then

3:16:37 ↗ that was there so what we did is a

3:16:39 ↗ council we actually increased the gap

3:16:42 ↗ between revenues and expenses by over

3:16:44 ↗ 1.2 million dollars that's what we did

3:16:46 ↗ in our deliberations and all these

3:16:48 ↗ numbers have been validated and they tie

3:16:49 ↗ out to everything that's in

3:16:51 ↗ councilmember marks letter now it was

3:16:54 ↗ interesting administration did react to

3:16:56 ↗ that and they did come forward with a

3:17:01 ↗ net increase in revenue now some of that

3:17:03 ↗ was updated information about property

3:17:05 ↗ tax so we didn't really do anything that

3:17:06 ↗ was just updated from the County

3:17:08 ↗ Assessor's we did use funds from other

3:17:10 ↗ there was the e-911 a hundred thousand

3:17:12 ↗ there is the there was a couple other

3:17:15 ↗ funds but all we did we didn't really

3:17:17 ↗ reduce we basically brought some more

3:17:20 ↗ money in from these other funds so that

3:17:24 ↗ was a use of other funds and there was

3:17:25 ↗ some really small net new revenue based

3:17:28 ↗ upon both I think the swimming hours and

3:17:31 ↗ and that charging court users for the

3:17:35 ↗ merchant fee is a small number as well

3:17:38 ↗ so those so the administration's

3:17:40 ↗ reaction was we got a little bit more

3:17:42 ↗ revenue from these different sources and

3:17:44 ↗ then there's a total net decrease in

3:17:48 ↗ expense via true cuts right there was

3:17:50 ↗ the 1% of personnel costs and there was

3:17:54 ↗ also a small little training for HR

3:17:58 ↗ there may have been some other those

3:17:59 ↗ were some real cuts that the

3:18:00 ↗ administration offered but then the

3:18:03 ↗ 432,000 were other decreases in expenses

3:18:05 ↗ that really were for updates the one key

3:18:08 ↗ update was we got an adjustment to our

3:18:09 ↗ number four yfir so that was really the

3:18:12 ↗ number bill was really 77 thousand

3:18:13 ↗ dollars less so that was an update but

3:18:15 ↗ then all the other kind of Corrections

3:18:17 ↗ were that one-time two hundred thousand

3:18:20 ↗ for double spending IT expenses for DST

3:18:24 ↗ and then for 20 that was for 2019 a 2020

3:18:28 ↗ number of 150,000 was there and there

3:18:31 ↗ were others as well which really were

3:18:33 ↗ just kind of Corrections and so the

3:18:37 ↗ administration's reaction to the

3:18:39 ↗ council's increase in the gap was two

3:18:41 ↗ degree decrease it by that

3:18:43 ↗ million dollars in hence that's how we

3:18:44 ↗ get to now which was a new zero now is

3:18:48 ↗ using 196,000 in ending fund balance

3:18:51 ↗ this is a pretty interesting kind of

3:18:55 ↗ summary because well these are the

3:18:57 ↗ numbers they are they they don't lie

3:18:59 ↗ they are what they are and then my way

3:19:02 ↗ we wouldn't raise the taxes we would

3:19:04 ↗ have reduced spending even more and we

3:19:07 ↗ would have used we would have

3:19:08 ↗ temporarily used fund balance because

3:19:11 ↗ this is very doable with we could have

3:19:12 ↗ done it without violating any policy so

3:19:14 ↗ I've done a screen captures of out of

3:19:17 ↗ our policy document and you can see the

3:19:18 ↗ URL right there where you can get it

3:19:20 ↗ that our range would be in the fifty to

3:19:23 ↗ twenty percent of expenditures as was

3:19:25 ↗ run over reported tonight and is in our

3:19:26 ↗ material even with these adjustments

3:19:28 ↗ this budget leaves us a ratio of twenty

3:19:31 ↗ seven percent so we're well above the

3:19:33 ↗ policy there and then the other one in

3:19:35 ↗ second section 2.3 down there is there's

3:19:38 ↗ three bullets in that section and it

3:19:41 ↗ talks about our key policy in one one I

3:19:43 ↗ really glad to hear because I think

3:19:45 ↗ there's a couple of us sitting at the

3:19:46 ↗ diocese evening where over the years we

3:19:49 ↗ really because the list last update was

3:19:51 ↗ made in 2017 to the financial management

3:19:53 ↗ policies we really did hammer in that we

3:19:57 ↗ wanted to make sure ongoing revenues

3:19:59 ↗ covered ongoing expenses I heard that

3:20:01 ↗ echoed from many of my colleagues up

3:20:03 ↗ there as a priority and I and I that is

3:20:05 ↗ that's good policy but there's another

3:20:08 ↗ bullet in there as well

3:20:10 ↗ which says provide temporary resources

3:20:12 ↗ this is in other words you can use the

3:20:14 ↗ balance or cash on hand to provide

3:20:16 ↗ temporary resources in the event of an

3:20:18 ↗ economic during downturn and that's I

3:20:22 ↗ think what we're seeing there's a shift

3:20:24 ↗ you know we know the sales tax is from

3:20:26 ↗ eighteen is down to nineteen we're

3:20:28 ↗ calling it flat through through 2020 you

3:20:32 ↗ know there was portrayed as there's

3:20:34 ↗ there's there's an economic change and

3:20:36 ↗ we need to we need to do something about

3:20:38 ↗ it but I think we envision this when we

3:20:40 ↗ updated the policies in 2017 we

3:20:43 ↗ envisioned something like this as

3:20:44 ↗ possible and just for your for your

3:20:46 ↗ benefit I did a calculation you know at

3:20:48 ↗ 27 percent we had an extra 3.5 million

3:20:51 ↗ to work with not saying we should have

3:20:53 ↗ used all of that

3:20:54 ↗ but but I think to balance the budget do

3:20:57 ↗ some additional cuts and temporarily use

3:20:59 ↗ those funds that's what I would have

3:21:01 ↗ liked to seen in other words without

3:21:03 ↗ raising any of the utility taxes now

3:21:05 ↗ earlier this evening I think what we did

3:21:06 ↗ with Parks's was right and and so it

3:21:09 ↗ wasn't across the board it was

3:21:10 ↗ definitely on a case by case basis and

3:21:12 ↗ I'd also mentioned about the property

3:21:15 ↗ and so this is this is my last my last

3:21:19 ↗ slide is I'm not going to be here in the

3:21:21 ↗ future and I would ask Future Council to

3:21:25 ↗ consider commit to reviewing until any

3:21:27 ↗ taxes next year because if our

3:21:29 ↗ traditional sources of revenue recover

3:21:31 ↗ then I would ask to consider just reset

3:21:34 ↗ it to their pre 2020 levels you know

3:21:37 ↗ that it's it's that sense of is this

3:21:42 ↗ temporary and just like our policies

3:21:44 ↗ envision it might be temporary so use

3:21:46 ↗ your cash on hand to float it through

3:21:48 ↗ that's what we're envisioning when we

3:21:50 ↗ wrote that policy and this was our year

3:21:52 ↗ to do that and so let's say it is

3:21:54 ↗ temporary and we get some numbers and we

3:21:56 ↗ and we're looking forward a year from

3:21:58 ↗ now and there's been a good recovery

3:22:00 ↗ well okay I would ask my colleagues to

3:22:02 ↗ consider resetting those rates and last

3:22:05 ↗ last assessment of city services and I

3:22:10 ↗ know full disclosure I have no stake in

3:22:13 ↗ any of this I've just gotten to know

3:22:14 ↗ this one service provider but you're

3:22:17 ↗ gonna do that assessment of city

3:22:18 ↗ services I would really encourage every

3:22:21 ↗ administration I did already mention

3:22:22 ↗ this to Mayor Polly and she was aware of

3:22:24 ↗ this that my suggestion to make sure we

3:22:26 ↗ we solicited multiple experts including

3:22:30 ↗ the pomegranate Center if you look at

3:22:32 ↗ their what they do about them a little

3:22:35 ↗ bit and I think that their approach is

3:22:38 ↗ exactly what this community should

3:22:41 ↗ experience when we do this assessment of

3:22:45 ↗ city services so that's it thank you for

3:22:48 ↗ offer for listening I just it should be

3:22:52 ↗ really clear about

3:22:53 ↗ why I'm going to be opposing this and

3:22:56 ↗ for these reasons but I respect the

3:22:59 ↗ process I'm one of seven and I'm as

3:23:05 ↗ proud of my city as I has ever been

3:23:07 ↗ thank you council president piece so I

3:23:12 ↗ just this budget session brought us many

3:23:17 ↗ decisions and sometimes you go down the

3:23:20 ↗ road and and some of those decisions you

3:23:22 ↗ face and some of those choices you have

3:23:24 ↗ you have a couple that aren't so great

3:23:27 ↗ and that and that was really it was

3:23:29 ↗ tough to go through and and did not take

3:23:33 ↗ any of any of that lightly and had lots

3:23:36 ↗ of nights of just sitting and thinking

3:23:38 ↗ about different pathways that we could

3:23:40 ↗ go down but I really wanted to thank all

3:23:43 ↗ of the community members that wrote and

3:23:46 ↗ and talked to all of us as we were going

3:23:48 ↗ through deliberations that's so

3:23:50 ↗ incredibly important than the whole

3:23:54 ↗ finance team and the such a great job

3:23:59 ↗ presenting the budget and have been gone

3:24:02 ↗ through different iterations it was just

3:24:04 ↗ really well done and so easy to follow

3:24:07 ↗ and understand and this was an

3:24:08 ↗ incredibly tough year lots of different

3:24:10 ↗ changes and

3:24:11 ↗ new people coming in and and being able

3:24:15 ↗ to get through it in that way is is

3:24:18 ↗ fantastic and I just wanted to thank all

3:24:22 ↗ of you wanted to thank the

3:24:24 ↗ administration and the mayor and all of

3:24:26 ↗ my fellow council members and this is my

3:24:29 ↗ last budget that I'll go through and I

3:24:32 ↗ it's just been an honor to work with

3:24:35 ↗ such a passionate committed team and I

3:24:39 ↗ feel so confident and happy as I go

3:24:45 ↗ forward knowing the mayor the

3:24:48 ↗ administration and this council will

3:24:52 ↗ will lead us through that'll be a lot of

3:24:55 ↗ there'll be a lot more tough decisions

3:24:58 ↗ but I have such great confidence and

3:25:01 ↗ faith we are solely in round one of

3:25:04 ↗ comments and I'm checking to see if

3:25:06 ↗ councilmember hunt mayor Walsh would

3:25:08 ↗ also like to participate I'm getting a

3:25:10 ↗ new from councilmember a councilmember

3:25:12 ↗ hunt I think I think it is important to

3:25:18 ↗ explain why I would support this and so

3:25:22 ↗ my comments are it's about effect I do

3:25:25 ↗ support the budget and I think that we

3:25:30 ↗ are in a better place to have more

3:25:35 ↗ conversations about how to balance our

3:25:38 ↗ revenue and expenditure in the coming

3:25:41 ↗ year I think we we are better positioned

3:25:43 ↗ to be thinking about that because of the

3:25:46 ↗ transparency and how the budget was was

3:25:50 ↗ shown to us this year and the amount of

3:25:52 ↗ questions that we received answers back

3:25:55 ↗ on and so I do really appreciate the

3:25:58 ↗ thoroughness of the budget this year and

3:26:00 ↗ I think it prepares us it's better for

3:26:02 ↗ the future conversations that we'll have

3:26:04 ↗ I I also wanted to echo councilmember

3:26:09 ↗ Goodman's thanks to the individuals in

3:26:12 ↗ the community that gave us feedback on

3:26:14 ↗ the budget and both an email and then in

3:26:18 ↗ in comments and the feedback is always

3:26:22 ↗ very welcome because we have our we have

3:26:26 ↗ our conversations but sometimes the

3:26:28 ↗ community sees things in the budget that

3:26:30 ↗ we don't see or it has a different

3:26:31 ↗ perspective so that input is always very

3:26:33 ↗ welcome and very much appreciated and

3:26:36 ↗ the last thing is I do support the way

3:26:43 ↗ that we're bouncing this budget because

3:26:46 ↗ I think that we needed to make

3:26:48 ↗ longer-term forward-looking

3:26:51 ↗ changes in how we're in in revenues

3:26:55 ↗ versus expenditures and I think we can

3:26:58 ↗ continue to make those adjustments with

3:26:59 ↗ the services assessment to make sure

3:27:01 ↗ that we're providing the value that the

3:27:04 ↗ community expects for the revenues that

3:27:06 ↗ we're collecting and that should be an

3:27:08 ↗ ongoing process of assessing that value

3:27:10 ↗ we're providing

3:27:11 ↗ services were providing against the

3:27:12 ↗ revenue we're collecting but I also see

3:27:15 ↗ that we needed to look at how look at

3:27:18 ↗ the way we've been balancing the budget

3:27:21 ↗ in the past and then look at our current

3:27:23 ↗ forecasts and make an adjustment so I

3:27:24 ↗ see this budget as one step in that

3:27:26 ↗ direction I'll be supporting it can't

3:27:30 ↗ some ivory walls would you like to make

3:27:31 ↗ some comments yes and I'm so glad I went

3:27:33 ↗ after because I get to just say plus one

3:27:43 ↗ the comments from all council members

3:27:45 ↗ I'm just checking back in before we move

3:27:48 ↗ to vote to see if anybody wants to

3:27:50 ↗ provide an additional round of comments

3:27:52 ↗ otherwise we are ready to move to vote

3:27:54 ↗ I'm not seeing any I did not write down

3:28:02 ↗ the ordinance numbers 8 8 7 and 2 8 8 8

3:28:08 ↗ [Music]

3:28:11 ↗ number 2 8 8 7 adopting a revised 2020

3:28:15 ↗ salary schedule for all city employees

3:28:17 ↗ and amending the salary schedules

3:28:19 ↗ previously adopted and amended by

3:28:20 ↗ ordinance numbers 2 8 1 9 2 8 - 8 - 8 -

3:28:25 ↗ 9 - 8 3 5 and 2 8 5 3 and adopting

3:28:29 ↗ ordinance number - 8 8 Oh adopting a

3:28:31 ↗ 2020 budget setting forth the estimated

3:28:34 ↗ revenues and appropriations for each

3:28:36 ↗ separate fund and estimated impact on

3:28:38 ↗ the ending fund balances for all such

3:28:40 ↗ funds combined of the city for the

3:28:43 ↗ fiscal year commencing January 1st 2020

3:28:46 ↗ say aye

3:28:48 ↗ suppose today motion carries six to one

3:28:54 ↗ I actually it's maybe a little bit

3:28:57 ↗ unusual but I feel like I would like to

3:29:00 ↗ express the administration's gratitude

3:29:02 ↗ for all your hard work this year this

3:29:04 ↗ was a difficult year it was apparent to

3:29:08 ↗ me watching the deliberations and

3:29:11 ↗ watching your study sessions that

3:29:13 ↗ council was proposing some themes and if

3:29:17 ↗ the public didn't pick up on them I

3:29:19 ↗ thought I might say what a few of them

3:29:20 ↗ were you wanted to maintain services you

3:29:24 ↗ wanted to minimize any increases so that

3:29:26 ↗ you would be moderating impacts to

3:29:28 ↗ ratepayers and tax payers you really

3:29:32 ↗ strove to address affordability issues

3:29:34 ↗ which is something that has arisen way

3:29:36 ↗ up in our citizens survey of concerns

3:29:39 ↗ and so I want to thank you for that and

3:29:41 ↗ you made it clear that you want us to

3:29:45 ↗ measure success for new affordability

3:29:48 ↗ initiatives by telling you how many

3:29:51 ↗ folks could qualify but also how many

3:29:53 ↗ are using them you're looking to make

3:29:55 ↗ sure that what you're proposing and what

3:29:57 ↗ you're approving is making a difference

3:29:59 ↗ in people's lives that came across in so

3:30:01 ↗ many of your conversations and also that

3:30:05 ↗ we're a work in progress and we're gonna

3:30:07 ↗ undertake a review of city services like

3:30:10 ↗ we've never done before so if the

3:30:13 ↗ community didn't pick up on that I

3:30:14 ↗ thought you did amazing work this year

3:30:16 ↗ and so I just want to thank you on

3:30:18 ↗ behalf of the administration the next on

3:30:23 ↗ our agenda this evening is good of the

3:30:24 ↗ order and councilmember hunt I believe

3:30:26 ↗ you had a item you would like to share I

3:30:29 ↗ did so I wanted to take a moment because

3:30:33 ↗ I will be switching to a different seat

3:30:35 ↗ on council so that means this will be my

3:30:37 ↗ last meeting working as a council member

3:30:40 ↗ with the council deputy president

3:30:41 ↗ batiste and councilmember winters dying

3:30:43 ↗ so I just wanted to take this moment to

3:30:46 ↗ publicly say how much I've appreciated

3:30:48 ↗ working with both of you and how much

3:30:50 ↗ and so thank you so much for the hard

3:30:53 ↗ work that you've done on behalf of the

3:30:55 ↗ community thank you thank you

3:30:58 ↗ we do have an odd

3:31:00 ↗ issues where we have a seated

3:31:03 ↗ councilmember who's going to leave us

3:31:05 ↗ for six weeks and come back on January

3:31:08 ↗ 1st so we will be welcoming you back

3:31:10 ↗ when you come I wanted to remain council

3:31:14 ↗ members that there was an invitation

3:31:15 ↗ that went out to celebrate some of our

3:31:16 ↗ amazing volunteers Thursday night

3:31:19 ↗ November 21st our boarding commission

3:31:21 ↗ members we have done thank yous in many

3:31:24 ↗ different ways and we're trying

3:31:25 ↗ something again different this year and

3:31:27 ↗ I hope you'll be able to make it does

3:31:29 ↗ anybody else have any items for good of

3:31:30 ↗ the order deputy council president

3:31:32 ↗ petites followed by councilmember walsh

3:31:35 ↗ so I will get a chance to speak later in

3:31:41 ↗ the year but since I won't get to speak

3:31:43 ↗ to councilmember hunt I just wanted to

3:31:46 ↗ tell you how much I've appreciated

3:31:47 ↗ working with you and I have a feeling

3:31:50 ↗ you'll be in the audience when I'm

3:31:52 ↗ speaking later but just wanted to get a

3:31:54 ↗ chance to say that to you as well thank

3:31:56 ↗ you counts my rush so I wanted to take a

3:31:59 ↗ moment to thank the open window schools

3:32:02 ↗ second grade who not only were fantastic

3:32:06 ↗ hosts but have sent us so very many

3:32:10 ↗ thank-you notes and I have created some

3:32:14 ↗ I sorted them with the ones that are

3:32:16 ↗ most legible I'm going to pass them

3:32:20 ↗ around so that everybody can enjoy

3:32:22 ↗ during the order thank you for doing

3:32:24 ↗ that any order I'm going to move on and

3:32:28 ↗ talk about a few upcoming meetings on

3:32:31 ↗ November 26 there would be a special

3:32:33 ↗ council meeting at 6:30 it'll be an

3:32:35 ↗ executive session followed by a city

3:32:38 ↗ council study session at 7:00 p.m. and

3:32:41 ↗ the potential agenda items for the study

3:32:43 ↗ session or the healthy community

3:32:44 ↗ strategy and the title 18 update

3:32:47 ↗ December 2nd will be a regular council

3:32:50 ↗ meeting at 7:00 p.m. and the potential

3:32:51 ↗ agenda items are tree canopy this will

3:32:54 ↗ be an informational update appeal

3:32:57 ↗ hearing for the state Environmental

3:32:58 ↗ Policy Act appeal of the 2019

3:33:01 ↗ comprehensive plan and zoning amendments

3:33:04 ↗ it's a quasi-judicial item

3:33:06 ↗ interlocal agreement with the Department

3:33:08 ↗ of Ecology this is in reference to the

3:33:11 ↗ pas groundwater modeling and interlocal

3:33:13 ↗ agreement with these site Fire and

3:33:14 ↗ Rescue which relates to the PFS study

3:33:17 ↗ partnership that we and potentially

3:33:20 ↗ amending IMC chapter 13.2 for utility

3:33:24 ↗ rates and charges so at this point in

3:33:27 ↗ time 10:35 everybody bright-eyed and

3:33:32 ↗ bushy-tailed will be heading into

3:33:33 ↗ executive session your night is not over

3:33:36 ↗ yet so as earlier announced there would

3:33:38 ↗ be an executive session this evening to

3:33:40 ↗ discuss pending and potential litigation

3:33:42 ↗ for RCW 42-point 3.11

3:33:45 ↗ Oberon one print this item is expected

3:33:48 ↗ to last I'm going to go with ten minutes

3:33:54 ↗ recognizing that we can add on

3:33:57 ↗ anticipated to follow an open session

3:33:59 ↗ and we will now recess into executive

3:34:02 ↗ session at 10:35

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

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh

Paul Winterstein

Motions and votes (15)

Approve the 2019-2020 Legislative Agenda as presented and Issaquah's participation in the South East Area Legislative Transportation Coalition.

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

Amend the 2019-2029 Policy Manual under Environment/Natural Resources by adding a last bullet to read: "Issaquah supports statewide efforts to achieve meaningful salmon and orca recovery through funding of strategic action including habitat conservation and funding." . MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED…

Moved by HUNT · seconded by MARTS

Carried 7-0

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

Approve Resolution No. 2019-16, supporting adoption of a clean fuels standard; and direct the Administration to transmit a comment letter to the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency as presented.

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

Amend the comment letter to remove the second to last paragraph regarding the implementation timeline. . MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED, 7-0. c) AB 7860 - 2020 Arts Grant Recommendations

Moved by HUNT · seconded by WALSH

Carried 7-0

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

Approve funding for the 2020 Arts Grants, as recommended by the Arts Commission, for a total expenditure of $175,000. . d)

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 7-0

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

Authorize the Mayor to enter into and execute the Amendment to the 1994 Interlocal Agreement with King County related to the ownership, funding, operation and maintenance of Parks, Open Space, Recreation Facilities and the Modification of the Restrictive Covenant for the Julius Boehm Pool to allow f…

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 7-0

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

Direct the Administration to prepare an ordinance establishing the Utility Assistance Program as proposed in AB 7878, returning to Council for adoption at the Dec. 2, 2019 Council meeting. . f)

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 7-0

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

Adopt Ordinance No. 2883, amending Chapter 5.32 of the Issaquah Municipal Code relating to the Utility Business and Occupation Tax for the cable television, water, sewer, and stormwater utilities; providing for referendum and establishing an effective date. (Opponent: Winterstein). g) AB 7757 - 2020…

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 6-1

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

Opposed: Winterstein

Adopt Ordinance No. 2884, levying property taxes for the City of Issaquah for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2020, on all property both real and personal, in said city which is subject to taxation for the purpose of paying sufficient revenue to carry on the services of said city for the ensui…

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 6-1

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

Opposed: Winterstein

Adopt Ordinance No. 2885, amending certain recreation center pass fees and certain recreation program fees and facility rental fees established by Ordinance No. 2290 in order to better reflect current costs. . i)

Moved by MARTS · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 7-0

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

Adopt Ordinance No. 2886, amending Section 2.20.040 of the Issaquah Municipal Code in order to increase grave plot and maintenance fees, create new fees for additional memorial spaces and establish a processing fee for transfers and quitclaim deeds; and Direct the Parks and Recreation Director, in c…

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

Postpone the motion to the Jan. 6, 2020 Council meeting. . j)

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 7-0

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

Adopt Ordinance No.2887, adopting a revised 2020 salary schedule for all city employees and amending the salary schedules previously adopted and amended by Ordinance Nos. 2819, 2828, 2829, 2835 and 2853; and Adopt Ordinance No. 2888, adopting the 2020 budget; setting forth the estimated revenues and…

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 6-1

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

Opposed: Winterstein

Main motion as amended: Amend the 2019-2029 Policy Manual under Environment/Natural Resources by adding a last bullet to read: "Issaquah supports statewide efforts to achieve meaningful salmon and orca recovery through funding of strategic action including habitat conservation and funding." . MAIN M…

Moved by (main motion as amended) · seconded by

Carried 7-0

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

Main motion as amended: Amend the comment letter to remove the second to last paragraph regarding the implementation timeline. . MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED, 7-0. c) AB 7860 - 2020 Arts Grant Recommendations

Moved by (main motion as amended) · seconded by

Carried 7-0

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