City Council Regular Meeting Auto captions

Monday, December 4, 2023

7:00 PM · 2h 48m · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

Topics tracked across meetings:

Cascade Water Alliance Conservation Programs (I) AB 9104 ››››› 3/6

City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 16, 2023 → City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 23, 2023 → City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 4, 2023 → City Council Committee of the Whole · Feb 12, 2024 → City Council Regular Meeting · Jan 20, 2026 → Environmental Board · Mar 11, 2026

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 23, 2023 View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Committee of the Whole · Feb 12, 2024 ▶

Inclusive Housing Investment n/a Pool (IHIP) Funding Recommendation AB 8953 ›››› 1/5

City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 4, 2023 → Services, Safety & Parks Committee · Jan 24, 2025 → City Council Regular Meeting · Jan 28, 2025 → Services, Safety & Parks Committee · Jan 28, 2025 → City Council Regular Meeting · Feb 24, 2025

View full lifecycle → Next: Services, Safety & Parks Committee · Jan 28, 2025 ▶

Public Records Policy & Fee Schedule AB 8553 ›››› 3/5

City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 9, 2023 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 6, 2023 → City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 4, 2023 → City Council Committee of the Whole · Jan 8, 2024 → City Council Regular Meeting · Jan 16, 2024

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 6, 2023 View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Committee of the Whole · Jan 8, 2024 ▶

2024 City Council Calendar AB 8663 › 1/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 4, 2023 → City Council Regular Meeting · Jan 2, 2024

View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Jan 2, 2024 ▶

2023-24 Mid-Biennium Budget Adjustment AB 8662 ››› 4/4

City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 7, 2022 → City Council Committee of the Whole · Oct 30, 2023 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 20, 2023 → City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 4, 2023

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 20, 2023 View full lifecycle →

Transportation Benefit District Councilmanic Sales Tax AB 8670 ››› 4/4

City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 12, 2023 → City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 5, 2023 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 20, 2023 → City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 4, 2023

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 20, 2023 View full lifecycle →

Central Issaquah Pioneer Program ID 1545 ››› 4/4

City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 24, 2023 → Services, Safety & Parks Committee · Sep 19, 2023 → Economic Vitality Commission · Nov 15, 2023 → City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 4, 2023

◀ Prev: Economic Vitality Commission · Nov 15, 2023 View full lifecycle →

Teamsters 117, Police Commanders Collective Bargaining Agreement AB 8666 ›› 3/3

City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 19, 2022 → City Council Regular Meeting · Jan 3, 2023 → City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 4, 2023

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Jan 3, 2023 View full lifecycle →

Hauling and Street Waste Disposal Contract AB 8736 ›› 3/3

City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 4, 2021 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 21, 2022 → City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 4, 2023

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 21, 2022 View full lifecycle →

Inclusive Housing Investment Pool (formerly Strategic Opportunity Fund) AB 8706 › 2/2

City Council Regular Meeting · May 22, 2023 → City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 4, 2023

View full lifecycle →

2024 Property Tax Levy AB 8672 › 2/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 20, 2023 → City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 4, 2023

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 20, 2023 View full lifecycle →

New Business Request: Credit Card Processing Fees Cost Recovery Preliminary Staff Response ID 1546 › 2/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 23, 2023 → City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 4, 2023

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 23, 2023 View full lifecycle →

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll of Dec. 4, 2023, $ 6,476,233.03 ID 1484

Approve · packet pp.7–45

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 12:52 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

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

Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, July 24, 2023

Approve · packet pp.47–50

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 17, 2023

▶ Watch from 13:07 Open packet at p.47 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR b) 07-24-23 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page (0000) CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Regular Meeting 7:00 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. July 24, 2023 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

Informational Update: Visit Issaquah Annual Report [n/a] ID 1516

Receive Report · packet pp.51–64

Topics: Tourism

▶ Watch from 13:23 Open packet at p.51 ↗

Staff report:

This informational report provides the annual report for Visit Issaquah’s 2023 contracted services through mid-November 2023. The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) has received quarterly reports from Visit Issaquah throughout the year. The Committee members were informed of the progress to “re-start” Visit Issaquah with a new focus on attracting meetings, extended stays for business and leisure travelers, and other efforts to attract visitors.

Informational Update: Facilities Condition Assessment ID 1506

Receive Report · packet pp.65–116

▶ Watch from 13:38 Open packet at p.65 ↗

Staff report:

This memo is to provide an update on the City’s Facility Condition Assessment (FCA).

Informational Update: Third Quarter Budget Report ID 1514

Receive Report · packet pp.117–119

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 13:54 Open packet at p.117 ↗

Staff report:

This

Japan Ginger Lease Addendum No. 2 (220 Front Street North) AB 8655

Authorize · packet pp.121–147

Topics: HousingTransportation

▶ Watch from 14:09 Open packet at p.121 ↗

Staff report:

The tenant has been leasing this City-owned building since 2005 and has been in good standing with the City for the entire term. The most current lease, signed in 2018 (Exhibit B), contains one five-year renewal option. The tenant provided written notice to exercise the renewal option more than 180 days prior to the expiration of the lease term.

2024 Master Salary Ordinance AB 8665

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.149–168

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 14:25 Open packet at p.149 ↗

Staff report:

Page 149 of 779 CONSENT CALENDAR g) The Administration recommends adoption of the 2024 Salary Ordinance including revised salary schedules for Non- Represented, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Issaquah Police Officers Association, Issaquah Police Support Services Association, Teamsters 117, representing Police Commanders and Sergeants and Teamsters 763, representing Administrative Services Fleet and Public Works Operations.

Teamsters 117, Police Commanders Collective Bargaining Agreement AB 8666

Approve · packet pp.169–187

Topics: Public Safety

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 19, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting · Jan 3, 2023

▶ Watch from 14:40 Open packet at p.169 ↗

Staff report:

Through the first half of 2023, the City was actively recruiting for two Police Commander vacancies. The City hired one Police Commander in July of 2023 and soon after began negotiations for a successor agreement. The parties reached a tentative agreement on a successor bargaining agreement at the beginning of November and, at the same time, hired the second and final Police Commander. The proposed Agreement is attached as an exhibit to this agenda bill and presented in brief below.

Amending Community Planning and Development Fees AB 8700

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.189–211

Topics: Land UseBudget

▶ Watch from 14:56 Open packet at p.189 ↗

Staff report:

Permitting fees are adopted in the Issaquah Municipal Code (IMC) Chapters 3.64, 16.04, and 16.06. IMC 3.64 establishes land use and site work permit fees, while the fees for building/plumbing/mechanical permits and inspections are in the Construction Administrative Code in IMC 16.04 and fees for fire permits and inspections are in the Fire Code in IMC 16.06.

Inclusive Housing Investment Pool (formerly Strategic Opportunity Fund) AB 8706

Authorize Funding · packet pp.213–218

Topics: HousingBudget

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · May 22, 2023

▶ Watch from 15:11 Open packet at p.213 ↗

Staff report:

The City of Issaquah adopted a 0.1% sales tax increase for affordable housing and has also received State pass-through revenues for affordable housing investments. Both revenue collections started in 2021. These two revenue sources are commonly referred to as HB 1590 and HB 1406, respectively, referencing the legislation that enacted them. Over the 2021-2024 period, the City anticipates collecting approximately $9.94M from these revenue sources.

Newport Way: Sunset to Maple Project (TR 023) Design Contract Extension AB 8711

Authorize · packet pp.219–223

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 15:27 Open packet at p.219 ↗

Staff report:

On March 5, 2018, City Council authorized a design contract with Perteet, Inc.(AB 7529) for the development of construction plans and specifications for the Newport Way - Maple to Sunset Project.

Municipal Court Judge Compensation AB 8712

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.225–230

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 15:43 Open packet at p.225 ↗

Staff report:

Historically the salary for the Municipal Court Judge was adopted annually with the City's annual Master Salary Ordinance, subject to the cost of living adjustments for employees in the Executive branch of government.

Issaquah Food and Clothing Bank Lease Addendum No. 2 (179 1st Ave SE) AB 8722

Authorize · packet pp.231–247

Topics: Housing

▶ Watch from 15:58 Open packet at p.231 ↗

Staff report:

The renter, Issaquah Food and Clothing Bank, is a local nonprofit group that has been leasing this City-owned building effectively since 1992, most recently via an executed lease in 2011 and a 2021 addendum that granted a two-year extension that expires December 31, 2023. The group has been in good standing with the City for the entire term. As per the terms of the 2011 lease (Exhibit B), the tenant has maintained the property and completed a variety of improvements to the building over the years.

Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with the University of Washington AB 8723

Authorize · packet pp.249–252

▶ Watch from 16:14 Open packet at p.249 ↗

Staff report:

The University of Washington is a public agency that provides for interlocal cooperative purchasing solutions with other public agencies in the interest of cooperatively sharing resources for mutual benefit. The University of Washington has a broad range of competitively-awarded contracts for supplies, materials, equipment and services, which compliments and may provide better value than those available through other purchasing channels.

City Facilities Extension of Janitorial Services Contracts AB 8724

Authorize · packet pp.253–264

▶ Watch from 16:29 Open packet at p.253 ↗

Staff report:

Custodial services for City facilities have been contracted since 2018. The City currently has two custodial contracts with Synergy Building Services that expire on December 31, 2023; one for the Public Works site, and one for the remaining City-occupied buildings. Synergy Building Services is a small, local (Redmond), woman and minority owned business that has provided good service for the duration of the current contracts and quickly resolves any issues as they arise.

Department of Commerce Middle Housing Grant AB 8732

Authorize · packet pp.265–280

Topics: Housing

▶ Watch from 16:45 Open packet at p.265 ↗

Staff report:

In 2023, the Washington State Legislature passed House Bill (HB) 1110 to implement middle housing across the state. Middle housing is defined as buildings that are compatible in scale, form, and character with single-family houses and contain two or more units per lot. Generally, homes are at a middle scale between detached single-family houses and large multifamily complexes. The State is requiring cities to allow middle housing in accordance with the bill by June 30, 2025.

Hauling and Street Waste Disposal Contract AB 8736

Authorize · packet pp.281–291

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 17:00 Open packet at p.281 ↗

Staff report:

Every two years the City establishes a contract with a vendor to accomplish this work. As the City has grown, the volume of material created has increased with additional infrastructure to maintain. The cost of disposal has also gone up with inflation. The current hauling contract with OMA Construction reached the authorized funding limit of $75,000 per year of a two-year agreement prior to the expiration date of April 30, 2024.

Police Worn Body Camera Contract AB 8740

Authorize · packet pp.293–518

Topics: Public Safety

▶ Watch from 17:16 Open packet at p.293 ↗

Staff report:

The 2023-24 adopted biennial budget including funding for a Body Worn Camera Program (BWC's) to include research in 2023, and implementation in 2024.

5. REGULAR BUSINESS

2023-24 Mid-Biennium Budget Adjustment AB 8662

Adopt Ordinance · 15 min · packet pp.519–552

Topics: Land UseBudget

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 7, 2022

▶ Watch from 17:31 Open packet at p.519 ↗

Staff report:

Budget amendments are required when the expenditures of a fund are forecast to exceed the adopted appropriation level or when changes are needed to interfund transfers - or transfers between funds. This budget amendment is the result of the mid-biennium budget forecast and adjustments, incorporating changes for both years of the biennium. This budget amendment includes 35 items adjusting 13 of the City's 22 financial funds. In total, these adjustments account for $5,614,404 in increased revenues and $7,621,371 in increased expenditures. The amendments to the General Fund total $1,078,877 of the increased revenue and $5,746,321 of the increased expenditures.

2024 Property Tax Levy AB 8672

Carried 6-0

Adopt Ordinance · 10 min · packet pp.553–576

Topics: Land UseBudget

▶ Watch from 17:34 Open packet at p.553 ↗

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 Washing (RCW) Chapters 84.52 and 84.55. The revenues from property tax are considered general government revenues, meaning that this money is placed in the General Fund and can be used for any basic governmental service or goods such as public safety, planning, parks, or administration.

Roll call:

Moved by WALSH · seconded by HALL

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Lindsey Walsh

Transportation Benefit District Councilmanic Sales Tax AB 8670

Carried 6-0

Adopt Ordinance · 15 min · packet pp.577–596

Topics: Land UseTransportationBudget

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 12, 2023

▶ Watch from 17:35 Open packet at p.577 ↗

Staff report:

The City Council approved an ordinance, forming a Transportation Benefit District (TBD) in 2018 (IMC 12.70.010). The formation of the TBD allows for a new, dedicated funding source for transportation and mobility projects within the City. To date, however, the City has not approved a new revenue tied to the TBD.

Roll call:

Moved by WALSH · seconded by HALL

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Lindsey Walsh

Public Records Policy & Fee Schedule AB 8553

Carried 5-1

Adopt Ordinance; Approve Resolution · 30 min · packet pp.597–709

Topics: Land UseBudget

▶ Watch from 17:37 Open packet at p.597 ↗

Staff report:

Under state law, local government agencies are required to provide public records upon request. In 2022, the City worked on 1,576 public records requests. Of these,  75% were for police records  15% were for land use records  10% were for other departmental records

Central Issaquah Pioneer Program ID 1545

Direct Administration · 45 min · packet pp.711–747

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 24, 2023 Services, Safety & Parks Committee · Sep 19, 2023 Economic Vitality Commission · Nov 15, 2023

▶ Watch from 17:41 Open packet at p.711 ↗

Staff report:

The

2024 City Council Calendar AB 8663

Direct Administration · 15 min · packet pp.749–772

▶ Watch from 17:47 Open packet at p.749 ↗

Staff report:

Each year the City Clerk's office schedules the City Council meetings, including any Committee of the Whole and Standing Committee meetings, based on the regular meeting schedules established in the Issaquah Municipal Code and City Council Rules of Procedure. Adjustments are made for City holidays. Special meetings are scheduled as needed, typically by polling the City Councilmembers for availability.

6. NEW BUSINESS

New Business Request: Credit Card Processing Fees Cost Recovery Preliminary Staff Response ID 1546

Carried 6-0

15 min · packet pp.773–779

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 2:35:49 Open packet at p.773 ↗

Staff report:

City Council President Walsh submitted a new business request for the credit card processing fee cost recovery. This item was introduced at the Oct. 23 City Council meeting. The City Council agreed that it would like to hear more about this proposal and requested a preliminary staff response.

Roll call:

Moved by WALSH · seconded by MARTS

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Lindsey Walsh

9. GOOD OF THE ORDER

Upcoming Council Meetings

▶ Watch from 2:39:37

3696 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ we good to

0:12 ↗ go welcome everyone I call the December

0:15 ↗ 4th city council meeting to order

0:17 ↗ council member Ry has an excused absence

0:20 ↗ this evening as a reminder we continue

0:22 ↗ to have a remote aspect to our meetings

0:24 ↗ and both staff and members of the public

0:26 ↗ may be participating in tonight's

0:28 ↗ meeting remotely via webx

0:30 ↗ the first item on the agenda is the

0:32 ↗ Pledge of Allegiance and I welcome all

0:34 ↗ those who would like to

0:53 ↗ join thank you uh the next item is

0:56 ↗ audience comments and this is the time

0:58 ↗ when members of the public can address

1:00 ↗ Council either in person here in the

1:02 ↗ room or virtually um those who signed up

1:05 ↗ in advance of the meeting tonight will

1:06 ↗ be called upon first um and if you are

1:09 ↗ joining us virtually and you would like

1:11 ↗ to make comments just raise your virtual

1:13 ↗ hand or send the host a chat

1:16 ↗ message if you're on the phone you can

1:18 ↗ use star three and if you've joined the

1:19 ↗ computer by computer or smartphone you

1:21 ↗ can look for the hand icon and if you on

1:24 ↗ in the room and did not sign up I will

1:25 ↗ still ask for other speakers before

1:27 ↗ closing this portion of the meeting C

1:29 ↗ clerk as anyone signed up to speak this

1:30 ↗ evening for General audience comments

1:32 ↗ yes thank you so if you are making

1:35 ↗ comments this evening um please and

1:38 ↗ address the uh whole Council uh

1:40 ↗ regarding matters that are directly

1:41 ↗ related to isqua programs and projects

1:43 ↗ services or events direct your comments

1:46 ↗ to the whole of council and not

1:48 ↗ individuals and while this is not a

1:50 ↗ question and answer session if we will

1:53 ↗ contact you to follow up if needed when

1:56 ↗ you are recognized virtually please

1:58 ↗ unmute your microphone if you're in this

1:59 ↗ room room please step up to the lect in

2:01 ↗ front of council state your name address

2:03 ↗ and relationship to the city and speak

2:05 ↗ clearly and pause frequently please

2:07 ↗ limit your comments to 5 minutes if you

2:09 ↗ are attending virtually and do not

2:11 ↗ respond after your name or phone number

2:12 ↗ is called or if your connection is lost

2:14 ↗ unexpectedly the meeting will need to

2:16 ↗ proceed and you are encouraged to rejoin

2:18 ↗ the meeting if you are able personal

2:20 ↗ attacks obscene language derogatory

2:22 ↗ remarks and disruptive behavior will not

2:24 ↗ be permitted public comments written and

2:26 ↗ verbal are an important aspect of the

2:28 ↗ public process and the city takes

2:30 ↗ comments seriously we thank you for

2:32 ↗ taking the time to address this this

2:33 ↗ evening city clerk can you please

2:35 ↗ identify the first person who has signed

2:37 ↗ up yes the first person is a virtual

2:40 ↗ attendee Jessica

2:42 ↗ clawen welcome Jessica

2:45 ↗ and Jesse I'm making you a panelist now

2:48 ↗ you should see the option to unmute and

2:50 ↗ can choose to turn your video

2:52 ↗ on I am doing both things hello

2:55 ↗ everybody can you hear me

2:57 ↗ okay yes we can great uh my name is

3:01 ↗ Jessica clawen my address is

3:04 ↗ 715th Avenue Suite 6600 Seattle

3:08 ↗ Washington um I uh I represent property

3:13 ↗ owners that are interested in item

3:16 ↗ number 5e on your agenda tonight the uh

3:20 ↗ Pioneer pilot program related to uh

3:23 ↗ multif family housing development in

3:25 ↗ central isqua um first we wanted to

3:28 ↗ thank staff um and uh Council in the PPC

3:32 ↗ for all of your thoughts and um uh

3:36 ↗ working on this

3:39 ↗ program um we uh the property owners

3:42 ↗ that we work with uh like option two

3:45 ↗ which is the 10% at 80% affordable

3:48 ↗ housing requirement um I think probably

3:51 ↗ many of you have already heard

3:54 ↗ uh development is tough right now and in

3:57 ↗ central isqua um the the uh development

4:01 ↗ that the council and you know all the

4:04 ↗ citizens were hoping for in Central

4:06 ↗ isqua just hasn't occurred um so the

4:09 ↗ idea behind this pilot Pioneer program

4:12 ↗ is to um see if uh reducing some of the

4:17 ↗ cost of developing housing uh can be

4:21 ↗ reduced um by uh reducing somewhat the

4:25 ↗ affordable housing requirement um I also

4:28 ↗ want to say that uh one of the the

4:31 ↗ um the uh recommendations of staff and

4:36 ↗ something that we're also supportive of

4:38 ↗ is implementing mfte um the eight-year

4:41 ↗ program uh for the 10% at 80% works very

4:45 ↗ well um and uh we think it's another way

4:50 ↗ that uh the city hopefully can get the

4:52 ↗ type of development that it was looking

4:54 ↗ for in the central isquat area so that's

4:56 ↗ all I wanted to say and um we look

4:59 ↗ forward to working with staff and the

5:00 ↗ council in the months ahead as you

5:02 ↗ continue to think about this thanks

5:05 ↗ thanks a lot Jessica city clerk who's

5:08 ↗ next the next person is Brian rumberg

5:11 ↗ but I don't see him in the room nor

5:13 ↗ online so we'll move to the next person

5:15 ↗ which is uh Paul

5:17 ↗ winterstein welcome

5:21 ↗ Paul hello thank you welcome or hello

5:25 ↗ Council

5:26 ↗ mayor I quick comments about agenda Bill

5:28 ↗ 86 62 it's the uh midb Anum update U I'm

5:33 ↗ here really to express my gratitude for

5:35 ↗ the inclusion of the um $30,000 toward

5:39 ↗ the repair of the Front Street crossing

5:42 ↗ detection

5:44 ↗ equipment uh and it's written in there

5:46 ↗ as um trolley detection equipment of

5:48 ↗ course it's really something that will

5:50 ↗ detect anything a a pump car uh

5:53 ↗ something that has to be put on the

5:55 ↗ rails to help repair a track or

5:57 ↗ something so um but it's an essential

6:00 ↗ piece of equipment uh if we were to ever

6:02 ↗ run that program again and um of course

6:05 ↗ we haven't determined that feasibility

6:07 ↗ and we will continue to work toward that

6:09 ↗ and look in the next couple months to

6:12 ↗ get I'll be back with an update where we

6:14 ↗ are on that but there is no um and and I

6:16 ↗ don't suspect the city would take any

6:18 ↗ action on the crossing until we had more

6:21 ↗ of an update at least that's makes sense

6:23 ↗ to me but anyway I just want to thank

6:24 ↗ you for that consideration we couldn't

6:27 ↗ if the program is ever going to be

6:29 ↗ feasible and run again we couldn't do it

6:31 ↗ without this so thank you very much

6:33 ↗ thank you Paul and

6:36 ↗ welcome and is there anyone else signed

6:39 ↗ up to speak this evening

6:41 ↗ no um so I will go to the room and see

6:46 ↗ if we have uh hands up sure um do you

6:49 ↗ want to come up to the microphone

6:50 ↗ identify

6:57 ↗ yourself my name is Stringer my address

7:00 ↗ is 14622 soueast 276 Kent Washington

7:06 ↗ 98042 I'm commonly known in isqua as the

7:09 ↗ isqua

7:10 ↗ wannabe I volunteer for the Downtown

7:13 ↗ isqua

7:14 ↗ Association my main role is bringing

7:17 ↗ artists and

7:19 ↗ people to our

7:22 ↗ community during some of the programs

7:24 ↗ that we put on and I'm happy to tell you

7:27 ↗ that this year was a stellar year

7:30 ↗ we brought so many new artists to this

7:33 ↗ community who also brought their friends

7:36 ↗ and their families and their

7:38 ↗ customers to shop in downtown and eat at

7:42 ↗ downtown restaurants so I just

7:44 ↗ appreciate the city support as always on

7:47 ↗ you know this wonderful program and I

7:50 ↗ love being a part of it thank you thank

7:52 ↗ you for the update are there others in

7:54 ↗ the room that would like to speak this

7:56 ↗ evening come on

7:58 ↗ up

8:05 ↗ hello and good evening I am leilon also

8:08 ↗ with the Downtown issaqua Association I

8:11 ↗ live at 200 Newport Way Southwest

8:15 ↗ Apartment 204 here in isqua over by the

8:18 ↗ fish

8:19 ↗ haty

8:21 ↗ and don't know if you recognize me

8:25 ↗ as no children Mrs Claus

8:30 ↗ but um in the last I've only lived here

8:33 ↗ for about a year and three months and in

8:37 ↗ that last year in three months because

8:40 ↗ of the Downtown issaqua

8:42 ↗ Association I have been welcomed into

8:44 ↗ the community

8:47 ↗ wholeheartedly and

8:49 ↗ became my

8:51 ↗ Persona and I want to welcome everybody

8:55 ↗ out to um the th thday I had it on my

9:00 ↗ phone and now I've lost it to caroling

9:03 ↗ at the Depot this

9:05 ↗ Thursday um for pictures with my two

9:10 ↗ Monon of the Year significant

9:13 ↗ other um and then again

9:17 ↗ on the 21st for make a music day put on

9:20 ↗ by uh Downtown isqua Association it's a

9:23 ↗ nationwide program that we're part of um

9:27 ↗ so come down and get pictures and sing

9:29 ↗ with us and but mostly I just want to

9:31 ↗ thank you for your support of the

9:33 ↗ Downtown isaa Association and and

9:35 ↗ everything that you help us do and that

9:38 ↗ we partnership with you in so thank you

9:41 ↗ for helping me feel part of

9:44 ↗ the the community that's been so much a

9:47 ↗ part of my life over the last year so

9:50 ↗ anyway thank you so much and come down

9:52 ↗ and say hi get a candy cane and see if

9:55 ↗ you're on the nice

9:57 ↗ list thank you for the update thank

10:00 ↗ you checking if anyone online has

10:03 ↗ indicated a desire to speak because I

10:04 ↗ think we might have a few more speakers

10:05 ↗ in the room

10:09 ↗ too no okay more speakers in the

10:14 ↗ room

10:21 ↗ Honey hi my name is Connie Marsh and I

10:24 ↗ live on squawk and I'm going to talk

10:26 ↗ about a couple of things I'm going to

10:28 ↗ talk about the expected thing first but

10:31 ↗ I have written to you about the fees for

10:34 ↗ public information request so now I'm

10:37 ↗ channeling Corey who finds it too

10:39 ↗ painful to come to speak at the council

10:41 ↗ meetings because it's it's hard right

10:44 ↗ and the feedback is not always smashing

10:47 ↗ so he re tiated for

10:51 ↗ hours after I had gone through and

10:54 ↗ looked at a bunch of old studies well we

10:56 ↗ already paid for those studies said yes

10:58 ↗ I know we paid paid for those studies

10:59 ↗ well why can't you just get those

11:01 ↗ studies well they aren't in the system

11:03 ↗ well then you mean in the future you

11:04 ↗ would actually have to pay for the

11:06 ↗ studies that we've already paid for and

11:08 ↗ we paid for the system that is supposed

11:10 ↗ to be tracking those studies and making

11:11 ↗ them available to you I said yes $9 and

11:15 ↗ then he lost it right and I can't say I

11:18 ↗ disagree you know I like the ability to

11:21 ↗ be able to know that I can access my the

11:25 ↗ information that the city provides I

11:27 ↗ think it's a core value he has outraged

11:30 ↗ that the C the community the citizens

11:32 ↗ the people who are trying to find the

11:33 ↗ information are like paying eight times

11:36 ↗ for the same exact thing and he does not

11:40 ↗ think that that is correct if we have

11:41 ↗ paid for it several times we shouldn't

11:44 ↗ have to pay then to look at it too um I

11:47 ↗ agree but you already got the rest of it

11:49 ↗ I'm not going to bore you with all of

11:50 ↗ that now

11:53 ↗ um these ladies back here downtown's

11:56 ↗ been looking great the last few years

11:58 ↗ very populated lots of stuff to do so I

12:00 ↗ actually have to get on board and say I

12:02 ↗ think Dia is doing great and I'm not

12:04 ↗ that great at saying that people are

12:06 ↗ doing great but here you go I'm saying

12:07 ↗ it there now that does bring me to the

12:11 ↗ visibility of nonprofits and in the

12:15 ↗ past they the nonprofits have come and

12:18 ↗ they've said to the council what they're

12:20 ↗ spending their money on and what their

12:22 ↗ goals are and so it's very transparent

12:24 ↗ to the world what to expect for the

12:27 ↗ nonprofits and the Council

12:30 ↗ considers if they should fund them and

12:32 ↗ what's working and what's not as a part

12:34 ↗ of the community benefit that is what

12:36 ↗ nonprofits do they are supposed to

12:38 ↗ provide things that the city can't pay

12:40 ↗ for unto itself and then if the city

12:42 ↗ wants to give them some money to elevate

12:44 ↗ that so we get more better without

12:46 ↗ having to do it they do it but right now

12:49 ↗ it's invisible I see here in two distant

12:52 ↗ things in the consent agenda are the

12:54 ↗ lease agreements for yet two more

12:56 ↗ nonprofits and I have yet to see a

13:00 ↗ holistic meeting on you know what is it

13:03 ↗ with nonprofits how do we want to use

13:05 ↗ them we don't have um comprehensive

13:08 ↗ planed language that talks about what

13:10 ↗ nonprofits are supposed to do for us we

13:12 ↗ don't have goals uh and I think that's a

13:15 ↗ real lack in the community because the

13:18 ↗ nonprofits are really doing a great job

13:21 ↗ for the community yet we never really

13:24 ↗ get to see how that interfaces with the

13:26 ↗ city and and enjoy how the city supports

13:29 ↗ right so I would encourage the council

13:31 ↗ to ask for such

13:34 ↗ visibility um I'm not a fan of the

13:36 ↗ trolley just saying and then um I was a

13:40 ↗ little disconcerted to see that we are

13:44 ↗ raising the

13:46 ↗ fees with the

13:49 ↗ um uh you know inflation and I went and

13:52 ↗ just read the ordinance and says well we

13:54 ↗ we can we don't have to and we're

13:57 ↗ rounding up

13:59 ↗ up to five from 4.6 which we don't have

14:04 ↗ to we could round down to four and when

14:07 ↗ we look at the world of people who are

14:09 ↗ trying to do things like we want to do

14:12 ↗ an mfte to allow people to be able to

14:17 ↗ build but we're going to raise their

14:19 ↗ fees at the same time it just doesn't

14:22 ↗ seem like we're going the right

14:24 ↗ direction there

14:27 ↗ so I I mean that's like putting it in

14:30 ↗ one pocket and taking it out of the

14:32 ↗ other pocket and expecting better

14:33 ↗ results and I don't understand it so I

14:36 ↗ don't people are not looking like they

14:40 ↗ are getting what I am saying and then

14:42 ↗ the uh Pioneer

14:45 ↗ project Central isqua plan we knew it

14:48 ↗ was going to be expensive we never

14:50 ↗ calculated the costs now we're surprised

14:52 ↗ that we are not achieving what we

14:53 ↗ expected when it was going to come in 30

14:55 ↗ years and we are looking at basically

14:59 ↗ paying people to come I don't agree let

15:03 ↗ time do it we don't have to pay

15:06 ↗ anymore look at what we could have

15:08 ↗ gotten if we would have waited for regen

15:11 ↗ C up in the isqua highlands That was

15:13 ↗ supposed to be a multi-level development

15:16 ↗ and if we had only had the patience that

15:18 ↗ what we that is what we would have

15:19 ↗ gotten but we didn't we caved so there

15:22 ↗ you go see how much fun Cory did not

15:25 ↗ have thank you than perfect thank you

15:29 ↗ um looking at a couple more members in

15:32 ↗ the audience to see if anyone wants to

15:33 ↗ do comments great well thank you um so

15:37 ↗ we appreciate all of our speakers this

15:38 ↗ evening we heard a couple of different

15:41 ↗ opinions on the Pioneer housing project

15:43 ↗ in central

15:44 ↗ isqua um the comments on the midb Anum

15:49 ↗ update including certain projects on the

15:52 ↗ Downtown isqua Association artists

15:54 ↗ update and special holiday event update

15:58 ↗ uh we ALS also heard comments on the

16:00 ↗ public fee for public information

16:02 ↗ requests the visibility of nonprofit

16:05 ↗ City relationships and the linkage of

16:08 ↗ inflation to fees and I think I covered

16:11 ↗ all of the topics we heard so we are

16:13 ↗ really grateful for those that came and

16:15 ↗ spoke tonight as a reminder uh written

16:18 ↗ comments can be submitted at any time to

16:20 ↗ the city council at city council at

16:23 ↗ s.gov we're going to move to the next

16:25 ↗ item of business which is the consent

16:27 ↗ calendar um mayor's remarks I do not

16:30 ↗ have any remarks on tonight's consent

16:32 ↗ calendar but I'm going to look down the

16:33 ↗ Das and see if there's any committee

16:35 ↗ chairs who want to have some comments

16:37 ↗ not seeing

16:39 ↗ any um the consent calendar was

16:41 ↗ distributed to Council in advance and if

16:43 ↗ authorized the items on the consent

16:44 ↗ calendar will be considered together and

16:46 ↗ approved by one motion have the payables

16:48 ↗ and payroll been reviewed they have

16:51 ↗ thanks I also received a note from um

16:53 ↗ our absent council member as well that

16:55 ↗ his review was

16:56 ↗ complete um does any council member

16:59 ↗ desire to remove any item from the

17:00 ↗ consent calendar and consider it under

17:01 ↗ regular

17:05 ↗ business not seeing it uh can I get a

17:07 ↗ motion council president I move to adopt

17:10 ↗ the consent calendar as

17:12 ↗ presented second it's been moved and

17:15 ↗ seconded to approve the consent calendar

17:17 ↗ as presented is there any Council

17:20 ↗ discussion not seeing any indication for

17:22 ↗ discussion all those in favor signify by

17:24 ↗ saying I I I all those opposed

17:29 ↗ that carries 6 and0 and the next item we

17:31 ↗ are moving into regular business will

17:33 ↗ start with AB 8662 the 20232 24 mid

17:37 ↗ banian budget adjustment and the ask

17:40 ↗ before Council this evening is to adopt

17:42 ↗ the ordinance a public hearing on this

17:44 ↗ item was conducted at the November 20th

17:46 ↗ city council meeting and tonight the

17:47 ↗ city council is requested to take action

17:49 ↗ on the agenda item there is not a

17:51 ↗ presentation for this item but Chief

17:53 ↗ Financial Officer Robert hammood is here

17:56 ↗ and available for your questions does

17:58 ↗ council have any questions on this

18:02 ↗ item not seeing Oh council president

18:05 ↗ okay okay let's go for a

18:08 ↗ motion uh I move to adopt ordinance

18:13 ↗ number

18:15 ↗ 3039 amending the 2024 2023 2024 budget

18:20 ↗ as set forth in ordinance number 2994

18:23 ↗ and amended in ordinance number

18:26 ↗ 30009 concerning revenues expenditures

18:29 ↗ and fund balance for various

18:32 ↗ funds second it's been moved and

18:35 ↗ seconded does council have any further

18:37 ↗ discussion

18:39 ↗ president thank you um I just wanted to

18:41 ↗ take a moment and once again say

18:44 ↗ goodness gracious our budget process has

18:47 ↗ gotten so efficient and I just I feel

18:52 ↗ heard by the administration I feel like

18:54 ↗ the community's needs are heard I think

18:58 ↗ think for the first time doing a midb

19:01 ↗ Anum budget we did a pretty darn good

19:04 ↗ job of not going too deep into things um

19:08 ↗ you know council members always like to

19:10 ↗ get their hands onto numbers and move

19:12 ↗ things around but I I think we did a

19:14 ↗ really good job and so I just wanted to

19:16 ↗ send a little note of thank you out to

19:18 ↗ those

19:20 ↗ involved council member hunt thank you

19:24 ↗ um well council president Walsh said it

19:25 ↗ very well I think that this has been a

19:27 ↗ smooth process and I will also be

19:29 ↗ supporting this I did want to flag one

19:31 ↗ item that I um had questions about that

19:34 ↗ um is a new position for the solid waste

19:37 ↗ program analyst um this is a position

19:41 ↗ that would manage the solid waste

19:43 ↗ franchise contract responsibilities um

19:45 ↗ and it would also help with customer

19:47 ↗ support and troubleshooting um and

19:50 ↗ helping us improve our diversion rates

19:53 ↗ and um help us reach our sustainability

19:55 ↗ goals as a community My Hope for this

19:58 ↗ position position is that it becomes

19:59 ↗ more of the ladder over time and less of

20:02 ↗ the contract management I um I have

20:05 ↗ experienced issues with uh not having my

20:08 ↗ garbage picked up and I know that we've

20:10 ↗ gotten a lot of um just a lot of uh

20:15 ↗ concerns from the community and and um

20:17 ↗ My Hope Is that we get that under

20:19 ↗ control then move towards um achieving

20:21 ↗ our other goals and helping people um

20:24 ↗ helping people recycle better Etc uh and

20:27 ↗ and answer questions um so I will be

20:29 ↗ supporting this but I will also say that

20:31 ↗ uh I'm I'm disappointed that we are

20:34 ↗ having to um take this particular step

20:38 ↗ and I hope that we can address those

20:40 ↗ ongoing customer concerns with um with

20:43 ↗ our waste huler first and then move on

20:46 ↗ to improving the situation rapidly thank

20:50 ↗ you council member are there any other

20:51 ↗ council members that would like to

20:53 ↗ comment before I go to the

20:55 ↗ motion not seeing any

20:59 ↗ uh the motion before council is to adopt

21:02 ↗ ordinance number 3039 amending the 20232

21:05 ↗ 24 budget as set forth in ordinance

21:07 ↗ number

21:08 ↗ 2994 and amended in ordinance number

21:11 ↗ 30009 concerning revenues expenditures

21:13 ↗ and fund balances for various funds all

21:16 ↗ those in favor signify by saying I I all

21:20 ↗ those

21:21 ↗ opposed that carries unanimously 6

21:24 ↗ and0 thank you very much and thank you

21:27 ↗ for the input as well that's you're

21:29 ↗ taking note the next item on regular

21:32 ↗ business this evening is AB 8672 the

21:34 ↗ 2024 property tax levy the request

21:37 ↗ before council is to adopt the ordinance

21:39 ↗ so a public hearing on this item was

21:41 ↗ conducted at the November 20th city

21:43 ↗ council meeting and tonight the city

21:45 ↗ council is requested to take action on

21:47 ↗ the agenda item again there is not a

21:49 ↗ presentation for this item but staff is

21:51 ↗ still available for questions council do

21:53 ↗ you have any questions on the property

21:55 ↗ tax

21:57 ↗ LEL

21:58 ↗ and can I get a

22:00 ↗ motion I move to adopt ordinance number

22:05 ↗ 3040 levying property taxes for the city

22:08 ↗ of isqua for the fiscal year commencing

22:10 ↗ January 1 2024 on all property both real

22:14 ↗ and personal in said city which is

22:16 ↗ subject to taxation for the purpose of

22:18 ↗ paying sufficient Revenue to carry on

22:20 ↗ the services of said City for the ensu

22:23 ↗ ensuing year as required by

22:26 ↗ law

22:28 ↗ okay uh it's been moved in second is

22:31 ↗ there any Council

22:33 ↗ discussion not seeing any indication um

22:36 ↗ therefore I will just call for the vote

22:38 ↗ all those in favor say I I I all those

22:42 ↗ opposed say

22:43 ↗ nay it uh passes unanimously 6

22:47 ↗ and0 we'll be moving on to the next item

22:50 ↗ which is AB 8670 the transportation

22:53 ↗ benefit District Council manic sales tax

22:56 ↗ a public hearing on this item was

22:57 ↗ conducted at the November 20th city

22:59 ↗ council meeting and tonight the city

23:00 ↗ council's requested to take action on

23:02 ↗ the agenda item there is again no

23:05 ↗ presentation for this item but staff is

23:07 ↗ available for questions council do you

23:08 ↗ have any questions on this

23:10 ↗ item not seeing any can I get a

23:14 ↗ motion I move to adopt ordinance number

23:17 ↗ 3041 imposing an additional sales and

23:20 ↗ use tax of 110th of 1% within the

23:23 ↗ boundaries of the isqua transportation

23:25 ↗ benefit district for the purpose of

23:28 ↗ financing the costs associated with

23:30 ↗ Transportation improvements in the

23:31 ↗ district as authorized by RCW

23:35 ↗ 82140

23:37 ↗ 455 and adding a new section

23:58 ↗ was one that has a long history it goes

24:01 ↗ back to the community funding trans task

24:05 ↗ force I always forget what the name of

24:07 ↗ that was but very well thought out um

24:10 ↗ we've already completed some of the

24:12 ↗ steps recommended in that task force

24:14 ↗ which was to spend down our general fund

24:16 ↗ balance um and to prioritize

24:19 ↗ Transportation projects and so this

24:21 ↗ being the next step of that again I

24:24 ↗ think is something that allows us to

24:28 ↗ meet the needs of the community it

24:30 ↗ brings us in line with a lot of the

24:32 ↗ other communities in the area who are

24:35 ↗ either have already adopted this or

24:37 ↗ considering adopting a similar um

24:40 ↗ funding mechanism and I think honestly

24:43 ↗ the communication and feedback that we

24:46 ↗ got from the community was even business

24:49 ↗ owners was a little bit of a okay kind

24:52 ↗ of makes sense and so as much as there

24:55 ↗ hasn't been a robust engagement M uh

24:58 ↗ people have busy lives and to have

25:01 ↗ people be asked and shrug on it um I

25:04 ↗ think is a good enough um response I'm

25:07 ↗ also appreciate that this spreads

25:10 ↗ the um fees out to all of the users of

25:13 ↗ our road since we are a commercial hub

25:17 ↗ um and so I will be supporting this

25:19 ↗ tonight uh Deputy council president and

25:22 ↗ then council member

25:23 ↗ hunt thank you uh and bear with me I'm

25:26 ↗ going to repeat some of what's already

25:27 ↗ been said and also things of course that

25:29 ↗ we've gone over many times um of here on

25:31 ↗ the dis and Via presentation just

25:33 ↗ because I think it's so important um I

25:35 ↗ am strongly uh in favor of adopting this

25:38 ↗ new Revenue tool for uh three major

25:40 ↗ reasons that I wanted to highlight so

25:42 ↗ first uh as the council president said

25:44 ↗ this proposal has been through a

25:46 ↗ rigorous process of review and

25:48 ↗ evaluation we had that Community task

25:49 ↗ force of residents and business owners

25:52 ↗ and board and commission members and

25:53 ↗ city council members that reviewed

25:55 ↗ previous uh infrastructure spending and

25:57 ↗ and our future Capital needs and the

25:59 ↗ community survey data and they

26:01 ↗ considered a number of options including

26:04 ↗ scaling back rep prioritizing

26:06 ↗ maintaining status quo and ramping up

26:08 ↗ our infrastructure Investments and after

26:09 ↗ seven months of hard work this group

26:12 ↗ came together in their recommendation

26:13 ↗ was clear that in order to better meet

26:15 ↗ the expectations of our residents and

26:17 ↗ our

26:18 ↗ businesses isqua Needs A Renewed

26:21 ↗ commitment to infrastructure spending

26:22 ↗ particularly particularly to support

26:24 ↗ Transportation products so that's the

26:26 ↗ first reason why I'm supporting this

26:28 ↗ second um I think we all know that

26:30 ↗ getting around town quickly safely

26:32 ↗ easily here in isqua is consistently a

26:34 ↗ top Community priority um if you look in

26:38 ↗ the budget in um or 2022 2023 2024

26:42 ↗ budget we're currently funding more

26:44 ↗ Transportation projects than any other

26:46 ↗ infrastructure category but given the

26:48 ↗ many safety improvements legal

26:50 ↗ requirements regular maintenance

26:52 ↗ associated with infrastructure planning

26:54 ↗ and financing in generally um we're just

26:57 ↗ just unable to make the kind of progress

26:59 ↗ that our residents and businesses want

27:00 ↗ to see so moving forward with this

27:02 ↗ Revenue tool will give us the means to

27:04 ↗ do right by them um third and this is a

27:07 ↗ line that I got from the national league

27:09 ↗ of cities Summit that I wanted to pull

27:11 ↗ into this as local elected leaders we're

27:13 ↗ in the future

27:15 ↗ business U we have to think not just

27:17 ↗ about the here and now though there

27:19 ↗ absolutely is a benefit in the near term

27:21 ↗ um now I'll also acknowledge that you

27:23 ↗ know this doesn't solve all our problems

27:25 ↗ we're talking about just over a little

27:26 ↗ um around $4 million every two years

27:29 ↗ right but we're not just talking about

27:32 ↗ just $4 million every two years to

27:33 ↗ support Northwest samamish road to

27:35 ↗ support its projects we're also talking

27:38 ↗ about the impact of that kind of

27:39 ↗ continued investment over 10 20 30 years

27:43 ↗ course assuming future councils

27:45 ↗ reauthorize the funding um and you know

27:47 ↗ moving the needle is always measured in

27:49 ↗ the long term so I think that that this

27:51 ↗ is an important consideration for um

27:53 ↗ this proposal so for those reasons I'll

27:55 ↗ be voting in favor tonight um I also

27:57 ↗ just want to take a moment to thank our

27:58 ↗ dedicated staff who who shephered this

28:01 ↗ proposal from the very beginning of the

28:03 ↗ community um Capital Finance and

28:05 ↗ Community task force that's it

28:07 ↗ especially our Deputy City administrator

28:09 ↗ Andrea Snyder for all her dedicated work

28:11 ↗ on it and of course all the community

28:13 ↗ members who engaged with us on the task

28:15 ↗ force at Council and Advisory board

28:16 ↗ meetings and while we were hosting

28:18 ↗ listening sessions so thank you and I'll

28:20 ↗ be voting in favor tonight you council

28:23 ↗ member

28:24 ↗ hun thank you I will also be supporting

28:27 ↗ um and wanted to highlight a few things

28:31 ↗ one is that we did the the communication

28:34 ↗ and the feedback we did receive from the

28:35 ↗ community I agree with council president

28:37 ↗ Walsh's characterization many people it

28:40 ↗ seemed um thought that this makes sense

28:43 ↗ this plan for um having this revenue and

28:46 ↗ using it in the way we've put forward

28:48 ↗ and I think it will have tremendous

28:50 ↗ Community benefits um I also had the

28:53 ↗ opportunity to talk with hundreds of

28:54 ↗ people at their doors and in communities

28:56 ↗ over the last several months and

28:58 ↗ transportation continues to be top of

29:00 ↗ mind for folks in this community and

29:03 ↗ especially um uh especially traffic

29:06 ↗ safety and the near-term improvements um

29:10 ↗ will will help address some of those

29:12 ↗ long-standing Traffic Safety priorities

29:14 ↗ that our community has um in the near

29:17 ↗ term this funding is Invision to go

29:19 ↗ towards um the samamish road

29:22 ↗ non-motorized connection as well as um

29:24 ↗ it intelligent transportation system

29:26 ↗ which I think is something that

29:27 ↗ Community has is uh will really benefit

29:30 ↗ from and and really sees will see a huge

29:33 ↗ benefit there um public benefit and then

29:35 ↗ in the future years squawk Mountain

29:37 ↗ multimodal Improvement so sidewalks on

29:40 ↗ squawk where they're needed most and

29:42 ↗ then also pavement management and concre

29:44 ↗ maintenance so um those are

29:45 ↗ forward-looking but uh in the future

29:48 ↗ business but also I think um it's

29:51 ↗ important that those are in established

29:53 ↗ neighborhoods that we really over years

29:55 ↗ of looking at our CIP we have really um

29:58 ↗ those projects that are uh important

30:01 ↗ projects for established neighborhoods

30:03 ↗ um long-standing been in the CIP for a

30:06 ↗ long time haven't had a funding

30:07 ↗ mechanism that the this will be the

30:09 ↗ funding mechanism for those so it is the

30:11 ↗ future business but it's also addressing

30:13 ↗ a longstanding historic need in our

30:15 ↗ community for those Transportation

30:16 ↗ improvements I am supportive and um

30:20 ↗ thank thankful that this is before us

30:22 ↗ tonight any other council members

30:24 ↗ wishing to comment this

30:26 ↗ evening on this item then I will uh

30:30 ↗ reread it thank you uh the motion before

30:32 ↗ council is to adopt ordinance number

30:34 ↗ 3041 imposing an additional sales and

30:36 ↗ use tax of 1/10th of 1% within the

30:39 ↗ boundaries of the ISA Transportation

30:40 ↗ benefit district for the purpose of

30:42 ↗ financing the costs associated with

30:44 ↗ Transportation improvements in the

30:46 ↗ district as authorized by RCW

30:56 ↗ 82.14%

30:57 ↗ Municipal Code all those in favor

31:00 ↗ signify by saying I I I those

31:03 ↗ opposed that carries that passes

31:06 ↗ unanimously it's a 6 and0

31:08 ↗ vote next on our regular business we're

31:11 ↗ going to move to AB 553 public records

31:13 ↗ and public records policy and fee

31:16 ↗ schedule uh the request before Council

31:18 ↗ this evening is to adopt the ordinance

31:20 ↗ and approve the resolution a public

31:22 ↗ hearing on this item was conducted at

31:23 ↗ the November 6th city council meeting

31:25 ↗ and tonight the city council is

31:27 ↗ requested to take action on the agenda

31:29 ↗ item I'd like to invite public records

31:31 ↗ analyst Tammy Mueller to make a

31:32 ↗ presentation welcome

31:36 ↗ Tammy thank

31:38 ↗ you I can get this to

31:56 ↗ present

32:03 ↗ okay there we are thank

32:05 ↗ you

32:06 ↗ um so as um may just pointed out uh we

32:11 ↗ um uh already presented to you on this

32:14 ↗ topic uh at the November 6th meeting

32:15 ↗ there was a public hearing um the

32:18 ↗ purpose was to approve a resolution

32:20 ↗ adopting a public records policy as well

32:22 ↗ as a public records Fe schedule and then

32:24 ↗ also adopting an ordinance to uh clean

32:26 ↗ up our your municipal code and um I get

32:29 ↗ rid of those redundant um sections of

32:32 ↗ the code that the policy would update

32:35 ↗ and

32:36 ↗ replace uh at the November 6th meeting

32:39 ↗ we heard back um uh the following

32:41 ↗ feedback from you I won't go into detail

32:43 ↗ because we'll be covering it throughout

32:44 ↗ the presentation um the one item that we

32:46 ↗ won't be having any material on because

32:49 ↗ there just isn't any is item number two

32:51 ↗ about whether there's a best practice

32:52 ↗ for um when more than one person

32:56 ↗ requests the same body warn camera

32:57 ↗ footage um that needs to be redacted um

33:01 ↗ if two people would request that they

33:02 ↗ would have to pay for it what's the best

33:04 ↗ practice and there isn't one yet this

33:07 ↗ does seem to be a very rare occurrence

33:08 ↗ we've reached out to our neighboring uh

33:10 ↗ agencies and um this is something that

33:13 ↗ is still being looked into it's kind of

33:14 ↗ gotten the attention of of more agencies

33:16 ↗ and we're just still waiting for some

33:18 ↗ feedback on how other agencies handle

33:20 ↗ this but so far from what we've heard

33:21 ↗ back there isn't a best practice yet but

33:23 ↗ it does seem to be a pretty rare

33:25 ↗ occurrence um regarding uh the process

33:29 ↗ of what records somebody is able to get

33:31 ↗ in Discovery versus the public records

33:34 ↗ request process um I apologize it's a

33:36 ↗ little small on the screen because there

33:38 ↗ is a lot of content there I won't go

33:39 ↗ over all of it

33:40 ↗ but in summary if there's somebody who

33:43 ↗ is a party to a case where the city is

33:46 ↗ also a party uh the city will provide

33:48 ↗ those records either to the

33:50 ↗ prosecutor uh or to the City attorney or

33:54 ↗ another uh legal representative of the

33:56 ↗ agency and then the other parties in

33:58 ↗ that case can have copies of those

33:59 ↗ records as

34:00 ↗ well if you are not a party to one of

34:03 ↗ those cases and you're interested in

34:04 ↗ those records or for any other records

34:06 ↗ that you want a copy of that's when you

34:08 ↗ go to the public records uh Records

34:11 ↗ request under the public records

34:15 ↗ act

34:17 ↗ um there have been some changes as you

34:19 ↗ may have noticed in the agenda bill um

34:22 ↗ based off the research that we've we've

34:24 ↗ done since the last meeting but I do

34:26 ↗ want to point out that body warn camera

34:28 ↗ redaction has not changed uh that is

34:30 ↗ still called out in the public records

34:32 ↗ act that parties involved or um

34:36 ↗ representatives of the parties involved

34:38 ↗ uh as well as some other groups that are

34:40 ↗ specifically called out in the

34:42 ↗ RCW cannot be charged for the redaction

34:45 ↗ of that body warn camera footage however

34:46 ↗ parties not directly involved as called

34:48 ↗ out in the

34:49 ↗ RCW um do pay uh the permane um per

34:54 ↗ minute time of the staff member doing

34:55 ↗ the redaction and we created an average

34:57 ↗ of 80 cents per minute among the staff

34:59 ↗ who would be performing the redactions

35:02 ↗ which translates to $48 an hour and in

35:06 ↗ looking more closely at this when we

35:09 ↗ started looking at how we had proposed

35:11 ↗ that we not charge the parties directly

35:13 ↗ involved for police reports or Collision

35:15 ↗ reports we found that there was no RCW

35:20 ↗ that would allow us to not charge those

35:23 ↗ fees um and because the public records

35:25 ↗ Act is very clear that we cannot disc

35:26 ↗ discriminate between requesters this was

35:29 ↗ determined to be discriminating against

35:31 ↗ parties involved versus not involved and

35:33 ↗ so therefore we're walking that back and

35:35 ↗ we are recommending that um everybody

35:38 ↗ who needs a copy of a police or

35:40 ↗ Collision report that's not in the

35:43 ↗ discovery process would be assess the $8

35:45 ↗ per report fee and the clearance letter

35:48 ↗ remains

35:51 ↗ unchanged um but that said we do have

35:53 ↗ the low uh income waiver to talk about

35:55 ↗ as well so there was um a request that

35:59 ↗ we be a little more clear and I realize

36:01 ↗ this is a very busy table I apologize uh

36:04 ↗ about the ways that somebody can receive

36:06 ↗ records

36:08 ↗ um if I can try to summarize this it

36:10 ↗ would be that there's no cost for

36:13 ↗ viewing records in person there's no

36:15 ↗ cost to inspect records and you'll see

36:17 ↗ there there are three exceptions and

36:18 ↗ those are related to non- copying

36:20 ↗ related fees such as the redaction of

36:23 ↗ the body warn cameras um the police

36:25 ↗ clearance letter and then the uh there's

36:27 ↗ technical expertise needed to uh prepare

36:31 ↗ or or provide records usually these are

36:33 ↗ like data requests where somebody's

36:36 ↗ requesting records or data that the city

36:39 ↗ just it technically has but we don't use

36:41 ↗ for anything but those are still

36:43 ↗ considered public records um provide

36:47 ↗ examples if that's not clear I apologize

36:50 ↗ um but those aren't related to copying

36:52 ↗ uh somebody can always get printed

36:54 ↗ records uh if they choose or they can

36:56 ↗ get them electronically we can send them

36:58 ↗ electronically uh via our gqa system or

37:01 ↗ we can send them on a USB drive the cost

37:04 ↗ of the USB drive would be subject as

37:06 ↗ well as any mailing fees um well as any

37:09 ↗ printing fees for the paper and uh the

37:11 ↗ time spent making those

37:15 ↗ copies to help make that a little bit

37:18 ↗ more relevant um this example should

37:20 ↗ look a little familiar uh we used it

37:22 ↗ last time it's um a request from a

37:24 ↗ resident looking for blueprints for the

37:26 ↗ house uh that they own in this example

37:29 ↗ uh the set of blueprints is 20 Pages

37:31 ↗ again these are you know very large

37:33 ↗ files this one in this example is over a

37:35 ↗ gigabyte under the proposed fees they

37:38 ↗ could view those records at City Hall

37:40 ↗ for no charge if we send them

37:42 ↗ electronically via the online portal

37:44 ↗ they would pay the $9 $9 electronic

37:47 ↗ records transmission fee and then the

37:49 ↗ 10cent fee because it's over a gigabyte

37:53 ↗ I will say that there aren't many

37:54 ↗ records that are over a gigabyte

37:56 ↗ sometimes plan sets are usually just

37:59 ↗ commercial um if they wanted those

38:01 ↗ printed because these are very large

38:04 ↗ size uh uh papers uh it equated out to

38:08 ↗ $81 and then um if they wanted those on

38:11 ↗ a USB drive I'm just taking some

38:13 ↗ Liberties here with looking at what a

38:15 ↗ USB drive kind of costs right now and

38:18 ↗ then um estimating some the time that it

38:20 ↗ would take a staff member to actually

38:21 ↗ copy those records and prepare the the

38:23 ↗ the USB drive I estimated $16 but that

38:26 ↗ would vary depending on how much we can

38:28 ↗ uh purchase a USB drive for if and when

38:30 ↗ we need it and then the amount of time

38:32 ↗ that it takes to actually copy those

38:33 ↗ records over verify that they've copied

38:35 ↗ correctly and they're not corrupted Etc

38:38 ↗ and if anybody wants anything mailed to

38:39 ↗ them it would be whatever those fees are

38:41 ↗ for actually making the copy plus the

38:43 ↗ shipping and handling the staff time it

38:45 ↗ takes to actually get everything in the

38:47 ↗ envelope get it packaged up and in the

38:50 ↗ mail and that staff time is um an

38:52 ↗ average of 83 cents per minute among all

38:55 ↗ of the staff who would process public

38:56 ↗ public record

38:59 ↗ requests in the next example and the one

39:02 ↗ after this um these are specific two

39:04 ↗ police records which is where we we were

39:06 ↗ wanting to add a little bit of clarity

39:08 ↗ in this example um this would be

39:10 ↗ somebody looking for a police um case

39:13 ↗ File either a collision report or a

39:15 ↗ police report um in this example there

39:18 ↗ would be one Collision Collision or

39:19 ↗ police report and then 10 additional

39:21 ↗ records in the file that could be um

39:24 ↗ photos or evidence it could be

39:27 ↗ um uh variety of things additional

39:30 ↗ statements and whatnot in this example

39:32 ↗ it totals 20 Pages um in addition to the

39:35 ↗ police uh reporter Collision report

39:38 ↗ again it costs nothing to view those

39:39 ↗ records at City Hall if somebody did

39:41 ↗ want a copy online they would pay the $9

39:44 ↗ electronic records transmission fee as

39:46 ↗ well as the $8 fee for the uh police

39:49 ↗ report or the Collision report the 10

39:51 ↗ records would be at no additional

39:53 ↗ cost they wanted paper copies it would

39:56 ↗ be $8 for the police report and then 30

39:59 ↗ cents time 20 for the um the additional

40:03 ↗ pages to be printed and then again

40:04 ↗ taking some Liberties about $23 for the

40:07 ↗ USB drive and again same same thing with

40:10 ↗ the mail the above plus shipping and

40:12 ↗ handling and staff

40:15 ↗ time and then it gets a bit more

40:17 ↗ complicated when we're talking about the

40:19 ↗ body warn camera footage because we do

40:20 ↗ have to look at um the fees charge for

40:22 ↗ an involved party as well as an

40:24 ↗ uninvolved party um um one thing to

40:28 ↗ note is that uh I won't go over every

40:31 ↗ feet because you've kind of got the

40:32 ↗ format down now but we in doing more

40:35 ↗ research in this we did find that um

40:38 ↗ among agencies who use the um redution

40:41 ↗ software and the programs for the body

40:43 ↗ War cameras that we will be using they

40:46 ↗ end up with a um that you don't have to

40:48 ↗ download the video and then upload it to

40:50 ↗ our gov QA system you can just create a

40:52 ↗ link to the website so that we can we

40:55 ↗ can share that at no cost to the to the

40:58 ↗ requestor and um they can just download

41:00 ↗ that video if they wish so again we

41:04 ↗ wouldn't be making the copy so we can't

41:06 ↗ charge a fee for it um so in this case

41:09 ↗ if somebody um was an involved party uh

41:13 ↗ they were only wanting their the body

41:15 ↗ warn camera footage we would redact that

41:17 ↗ at no cost and we would provide that

41:19 ↗ electronically giving them a hyperlink

41:20 ↗ to that video at no cost somebody who

41:23 ↗ was not an involved party who wants a

41:25 ↗ copy of the video video if this took 10

41:27 ↗ hours to redact again it's $48 an hour

41:29 ↗ it be

41:30 ↗ $480 under our low-income waiver program

41:33 ↗ we're only proposing as you'll see in a

41:34 ↗ moment that we um will we will be waving

41:38 ↗ the copy fees and this is not a copy fee

41:41 ↗ it's a redaction

41:48 ↗ fee okay so more on the low-income

41:51 ↗ waiver um this is something would be

41:53 ↗ available to everybody uh if they

41:58 ↗ um uh are at or below 50% of the uh

42:02 ↗ medium family income level based on

42:04 ↗ household size uh they can qualify for

42:06 ↗ the program we're requiring that they

42:08 ↗ attest that they meet that income income

42:10 ↗ requirement we will not be verifying

42:13 ↗ that um we will provide them 20 records

42:16 ↗ at no

42:17 ↗ charge and that's per public records

42:20 ↗ request so there's no cap on how many

42:22 ↗ requests they can make in a year um they

42:25 ↗ can be provided in paper or digitally

42:28 ↗ using the govqa

42:29 ↗ system uh and again this does not apply

42:32 ↗ to non- copy charges so the clearance

42:35 ↗ letter the redaction for police body

42:37 ↗ warn camera footage and Technical

42:39 ↗ expertise would not uh be

42:44 ↗ waved so one other thing that was um

42:47 ↗ asked of us was um specifically why

42:51 ↗ charge the $9 fee and as we discussed

42:54 ↗ this we um really landed on why charge

42:58 ↗ fees in general um which is to help

43:02 ↗ recover the growing cost of public

43:04 ↗ records requests as much as we are able

43:06 ↗ to um and one thing that I found in

43:09 ↗ discussing this throughout my research

43:11 ↗ with um my peer agencies was that an

43:15 ↗ unended but really good side effect of

43:18 ↗ charging fees for records requests is it

43:21 ↗ actually incentivizes the person making

43:22 ↗ the request to talk with the city

43:25 ↗ because they're incentivized to reduce

43:28 ↗ what um the number of records that they

43:30 ↗ will be receiving and so they're

43:32 ↗ incentivized to narrow their

43:33 ↗ request um as opposed to what frequently

43:36 ↗ happens is a very broad request is

43:39 ↗ made and maybe they don't feel

43:41 ↗ comfortable talking to us or maybe they

43:44 ↗ don't even give us their contact

43:46 ↗ information and um they're just

43:49 ↗ non-responsive so we end up giving them

43:50 ↗ a lot of stuff that they probably don't

43:52 ↗ want they end up getting really

43:53 ↗ frustrated by about the third month um

43:56 ↗ because of this dialogue that ends up

43:58 ↗ happening the customer ends up getting

44:01 ↗ um better service they end up getting

44:03 ↗ the records that they want more quickly

44:05 ↗ and um they're able to just get more out

44:07 ↗ of it and then of course pay fewer uh

44:09 ↗ dollars in fees or at least if they are

44:11 ↗ paying more they know exactly why and

44:13 ↗ they do understand that yes those are

44:14 ↗ the records that I

44:16 ↗ want um also as a result of some

44:20 ↗ requests being narrowed staff end up

44:22 ↗ spending less time processing the

44:23 ↗ requests and so there's a cost Savings

44:25 ↗ in terms of

44:29 ↗ that so um regarding what those costs

44:33 ↗ are we some of this was in your

44:35 ↗ presentation um on November 6th but just

44:38 ↗ to summarize this is according to 2022

44:40 ↗ is numbers because that's just what we

44:42 ↗ have available right now um staff time

44:46 ↗ was around um and this was

44:47 ↗ conservatively estimated around $200,000

44:51 ↗ and this includes the staff that are

44:53 ↗ dedicated uh to processing public

44:55 ↗ records requests like myself as well as

44:56 ↗ other staff that assists throughout the

44:58 ↗ year in finding those records and

44:59 ↗ providing them uh legal review and

45:02 ↗ consultation that's um an exact number

45:05 ↗ not an estimate $ 36,2 28 D is okay if

45:09 ↗ we take a question oh absolutely counc

45:10 ↗ member you want go

45:15 ↗ ahead slide um and the last couple so

45:19 ↗ the staff time for is the staff the

45:22 ↗ staff time is the same whether the

45:24 ↗ person goes into the

45:27 ↗ um the city hall to view the records or

45:30 ↗ not so on this slide for example um if

45:34 ↗ if everybody went into the city hall to

45:37 ↗ view records you would still have the

45:38 ↗ same estimate of Staff time cost is that

45:42 ↗ is that

45:43 ↗ right potentially

45:47 ↗ okay yes I suppose there's a lot of

45:49 ↗ variables that play there well I think

45:50 ↗ so another um if I hopefully this helps

45:54 ↗ and doesn't further confuse things but

45:56 ↗ for when people there are two options

45:59 ↗ people can either get their record

46:00 ↗ through the uh portal or they can go

46:02 ↗ into City Hall in the in that are those

46:05 ↗ are the two options that are laid out if

46:07 ↗ you go into city hall there's already

46:09 ↗ been some staff time that went into

46:12 ↗ selecting the record and getting it

46:14 ↗ ready for the person to view it is that

46:16 ↗ right yes okay thank you did you say

46:20 ↗ there was something further back on

46:22 ↗ slides or no okay great go back thanks

46:24 ↗ Tammy okay

46:26 ↗ all right Madame mayor just before we go

46:28 ↗ on council member hun mentioned two ways

46:30 ↗ there are multiple other ways to get

46:32 ↗ records you can get paper copies and

46:34 ↗ we've had the list there you could get

46:36 ↗ uh a disc uh drive with that as well so

46:41 ↗ there are multiple ways not just the

46:43 ↗ portal

46:46 ↗ and okay thank you um so then the staff

46:50 ↗ time would be the same for all of those

46:51 ↗ but then there might be a little bit of

46:53 ↗ additional time for putting in the mail

46:55 ↗ and I think think that was accounted for

46:56 ↗ in the earlier slides is that uh yeah so

47:00 ↗ for right now with no fee schedle in

47:02 ↗ place if somebody needs something mailed

47:03 ↗ we cannot charge them for that if

47:04 ↗ somebody needs a USB drive we cannot

47:06 ↗ charge them a fee for that we just have

47:07 ↗ to eat those

47:09 ↗ costs okay yeah

47:13 ↗ thanks thanks tamy um so one thing to

47:16 ↗ point out though is with the 2022 costs

47:19 ↗ um this does not take into account um

47:21 ↗ any of the body warn camera technology

47:23 ↗ because we that was just approved

47:25 ↗ tonight

47:26 ↗ at least the agreement um and um it also

47:29 ↗ does not include um one of the uh new

47:33 ↗ police record staff members so this we

47:36 ↗ will see a little bit of fluctuation in

47:38 ↗ the years to come um and so just noting

47:41 ↗ obviously the more the the more time

47:43 ↗ that it takes to process requests the

47:45 ↗ the more staff time it

47:48 ↗ takes and potentially there might be a

47:50 ↗ request for additional

47:54 ↗ positions so in ter in terms of who's

47:56 ↗ making the requests um we've seen this

47:58 ↗ before but we just wanted to elaborate

48:01 ↗ uh that um most of the requests are from

48:05 ↗ individuals narrowly in second place is

48:08 ↗ uh organizations some of which might be

48:10 ↗ working on behalf of those individuals

48:12 ↗ um others are just purely um seeking our

48:15 ↗ records and data for their own

48:16 ↗ commercial purposes um which there are

48:19 ↗ ways around that in the public records

48:21 ↗ act unfortunately that do allow for that

48:24 ↗ um but throughout this whole analysis of

48:28 ↗ uh developing the fee schedule and

48:30 ↗ especially in looking through the um the

48:32 ↗ possibility of a low-income waiver

48:34 ↗ program um we recognized that we have a

48:36 ↗ variety of requesters and we've tried to

48:39 ↗ come up with a fee schedule on the

48:40 ↗ waiver program that does not

48:42 ↗ discriminate between groups so therefore

48:44 ↗ it's it's all um in compliance with the

48:47 ↗ public records act we triy to make it as

48:50 ↗ transparent as possible um and um we

48:53 ↗ wanted a program that facilitates access

48:55 ↗ to public public records for anyone

48:56 ↗ seeking

49:00 ↗ them

49:03 ↗ so and summarizing um those three

49:06 ↗ examples that we saw and I know we got

49:08 ↗ two part threes because of the uh

49:10 ↗ involved party versus the uninvolved

49:12 ↗ party um I did want to compare to the

49:15 ↗ state default fee options these are the

49:18 ↗ fees that were

49:20 ↗ um originally developed around

49:23 ↗ 20156 um based on a city of Seattle uh

49:27 ↗ cost study at that time and then

49:30 ↗ further refined during um uh

49:33 ↗ deliberations before it uh was put into

49:35 ↗ the

49:36 ↗ rcws um so in the blueprints example um

49:41 ↗ we would charge the $910 and under the

49:43 ↗ state default option it would just be 10

49:45 ↗ cents and that's that same uh 10 cent

49:47 ↗ storage fee um for a police report or

49:50 ↗ Collision report um uh under the

49:54 ↗ low-income waiver program they paid

49:55 ↗ nothing um otherwise it would be $177

49:58 ↗ again the $9 plus the $8 under the state

50:01 ↗ default fee option this gets a little

50:03 ↗ tricky it would either be 10 cents

50:05 ↗ because it would be 5 cents for every

50:07 ↗ four records and then we have 10 records

50:09 ↗ in that example um but with the uh the

50:15 ↗ police report and collision report that

50:17 ↗ is something that's not under the public

50:18 ↗ recite act it is a separate uh RCW that

50:22 ↗ allows for that charge and it allows us

50:24 ↗ to charge a reasonable fee which we've

50:26 ↗ done the cost analysis for to figure out

50:27 ↗ that it's it's

50:29 ↗ $8 question

50:33 ↗ yes so why can we discriminate by

50:38 ↗ involved versus uninvolved party for the

50:41 ↗ body warn cameras versus the police and

50:44 ↗ collision report if it's both police

50:48 ↗ related yeah no that's a very good

50:50 ↗ question and we we asked ourselves that

50:53 ↗ question over and over again but it

50:54 ↗ really just comes down to the way that

50:55 ↗ the the rcws are written and that it is

50:57 ↗ very specific in the rcws that uh

51:00 ↗ involved parties um should be exempt

51:03 ↗ from paying for redution and there's no

51:06 ↗ such exemption in any RCW regarding the

51:09 ↗ police reports and police um Collision

51:13 ↗ reports so further on that have we found

51:16 ↗ any other cities that continue the

51:20 ↗ discriminating practice on police and

51:23 ↗ collision reports by party un involved

51:26 ↗ or versus

51:29 ↗ involved

51:31 ↗ yes I'm to answer um thank but it yeah

51:35 ↗ it was our it was our um I think based

51:39 ↗ off our the city's risk appetite that's

51:40 ↗ something that we we didn't want to

51:42 ↗ chance because it does open us up to

51:45 ↗ possible um claims of of uh

51:48 ↗ non-compliance with the public records

51:50 ↗ act thank you C Merz thanks couple

51:55 ↗ questions uh so if the average cost per

51:59 ↗ request is roughly

52:01 ↗ $160 and uh City cost for public records

52:05 ↗ request was about 240,000 so that's uh

52:08 ↗ roughly 1500

52:10 ↗ requests uh during the course of the

52:12 ↗ Year well it was less than that so the

52:16 ↗ um I can go back a few

52:18 ↗ slides the $9 charge for the um G hu

52:23 ↗ portal if that's what being at um was

52:26 ↗ based off of the base cost of the system

52:29 ↗ and not the full $177,000 that includes

52:33 ↗ other types of mechanisms that allow us

52:35 ↗ to do some reporting and redactions and

52:36 ↗ whatnot so those are optional modules

52:38 ↗ and they weren't taken into the equation

52:40 ↗ I believe there was around I want to say

52:43 ↗ around 1,200

52:44 ↗ requests um last

52:48 ↗ year might have been a little more so my

52:51 ↗ related question is what do we

52:53 ↗ anticipate the savings would be if we

52:55 ↗ pass this or pass this

52:58 ↗ order that is hard to quantify

53:07 ↗ um not entirely sure I do know that most

53:11 ↗ of the cost savings

53:13 ↗ um that cities generally realize is in

53:16 ↗ the um request being

53:18 ↗ narrowed um and then being able to

53:20 ↗ accomplish uh fulfilling more requests

53:22 ↗ in less

53:24 ↗ time

53:27 ↗ okay we um I'm just I'm just trying to

53:29 ↗ get a sense of you know is this going to

53:32 ↗ are we going to use this you know twice

53:34 ↗ a day 250 days a year is 500 by9 you

53:39 ↗ know is $5,000 out of

53:42 ↗ $250,000 I mean are we are we talking

53:45 ↗ about an exceedingly small amount of

53:47 ↗ money or order of magnitude is it like

53:50 ↗ 1% of the budget or 0.1% of the budget

53:53 ↗ this of this

53:57 ↗ 250k of of just the public records

54:00 ↗ request budget no just if if we pass

54:02 ↗ this ordinance this evening the

54:04 ↗ anticipated impact the costs associated

54:07 ↗ with public records request I'm just

54:09 ↗ trying to get a sense of how much this

54:11 ↗ actually moves the needle out of that

54:13 ↗ $250,000

54:16 ↗ total yeah what Tisha speaks about

54:19 ↗ council member Marts um this is Tisha

54:21 ↗ gizer city clerk uh to a large extent we

54:24 ↗ don't no because as you saw there are a

54:27 ↗ lot of avenues for people to get public

54:30 ↗ records I think where we can get more

54:32 ↗ concrete numbers if we were to return to

54:34 ↗ you next year is on the body Warren

54:36 ↗ camera program because those costs are

54:39 ↗ well they're significant and they're a

54:41 ↗ little more fixed whereas we have

54:43 ↗ individuals making other public records

54:45 ↗ requests we don't know if this fee

54:47 ↗ schedule is approved if they'll Trend

54:49 ↗ towards coming into City Hall if they'll

54:51 ↗ Trend towards the public records portal

54:54 ↗ um also the public records request

54:57 ↗ system is widely variable in the types

55:00 ↗ of requests we get from year to year we

55:03 ↗ have some predictable patterns um like

55:06 ↗ commercial entities and you know

55:08 ↗ residents doing work on their homes and

55:10 ↗ then we have some very unpredictable

55:13 ↗ elements um if there's something

55:16 ↗ um sort of uh I don't know how to how to

55:20 ↗ say it if there's some some conflict or

55:22 ↗ an area of interest in the city that

55:23 ↗ people if folks have interest in um I

55:26 ↗ mean it can the number of hours spent on

55:29 ↗ these requests and the cost could just

55:31 ↗ vary really significantly wanted to make

55:33 ↗ one more comment in response to the

55:35 ↗ question which is a lot of the staff

55:37 ↗ that are working on these public records

55:39 ↗ requests have other um fixed duties and

55:43 ↗ when they are spent providing uh working

55:47 ↗ on responding to these public records

55:48 ↗ requests it's detracting from some of

55:51 ↗ the other work that they could be doing

55:53 ↗ um in the case of the clerk's office

55:55 ↗ this means uh less work on proactive uh

55:59 ↗ records work uh expanding our online

56:02 ↗ portal um doing more uh proactive

56:05 ↗ preventative Innovative work in the area

56:07 ↗ of Records um instead of quering our you

56:10 ↗ know over 77 million uh emails in

56:13 ↗ response to a PR so there's some soft

56:15 ↗ costs there that um that we can't

56:18 ↗ account for it's a great question and if

56:21 ↗ the fee schedule is passed we will

56:23 ↗ definitely be capturing those metrics

56:24 ↗ moving

56:25 ↗ forward thank

56:29 ↗ you go ahead Timmy thank you so I was

56:33 ↗ about wrapped up um with this slide I

56:35 ↗ was just trying to highlight that the

56:37 ↗ the state default fees are they're

56:39 ↗ pretty nominal and um not always

56:43 ↗ transparent especially with regard to

56:44 ↗ the body warn camera footage um with our

56:47 ↗ cost study we we were able to come up

56:49 ↗ with that average amount of 80 cents per

56:51 ↗ minute um but just as it's written in um

56:55 ↗ in the public records act we are

56:57 ↗ supposed to without a fee study we can

56:59 ↗ charge the actual permanent cost of each

57:01 ↗ employee who's doing the

57:03 ↗ reductions every employee gets paid a

57:05 ↗ different amount um every employee is

57:07 ↗ going to have their own um speed at

57:10 ↗ which they work uh and that makes it

57:13 ↗ very difficult to come up with an

57:15 ↗ estimation um by taking the average

57:17 ↗ approach uh we found we can be a lot

57:19 ↗ more transparent and then that average

57:20 ↗ actually is on the lower side of the

57:22 ↗ costs um associated with with all the

57:25 ↗ staff who would be doing the

57:29 ↗ redactions so

57:32 ↗ um there were there are of course

57:34 ↗ Alternatives um instead of adopting the

57:36 ↗ fee schedule as proposed we could adopt

57:39 ↗ the uh the fees as outlined in the uh

57:42 ↗ public records act and um we would

57:46 ↗ recommend that we do adopt the police uh

57:48 ↗ body War camera fees and possibly the um

57:51 ↗ police report and collision report and

57:52 ↗ the clearance letter fees uh or we could

57:57 ↗ um you know further discuss uh the um

58:00 ↗ the approach to the Fe schedule and we

58:02 ↗ could modify that we canine fees we can

58:04 ↗ eliminate fees um just based off the

58:06 ↗ feedback that we received

58:11 ↗ tonight so with that we would um the

58:14 ↗ recommendation is to approve the

58:15 ↗ resolution adopting a public records

58:17 ↗ policy and a public record spe schedule

58:20 ↗ and adopting the ordinance repealing uh

58:22 ↗ the conflicting and then redundant

58:23 ↗ sections of the Squam IAL code and a bit

58:27 ↗ of a change from the November 6th

58:29 ↗ meeting we are now recommending uh that

58:31 ↗ the fees go into effect on February 1st

58:33 ↗ will allow us some more time

58:34 ↗ administratively to get just everything

58:36 ↗ up and

58:39 ↗ running thank you Tammy uh there were a

58:42 ↗ few questions during the presentation

58:44 ↗ let's to council member uh hunt thank

58:48 ↗ you um when you were doing the agency

58:51 ↗ comparisons were there other uh other

58:54 ↗ agents genes that charged for the

58:57 ↗ charged based on the

58:59 ↗ electronic um records software cost yes

59:03 ↗ there are okay and so of the neighboring

59:05 ↗ cities that adopted there were some of

59:07 ↗ them that that used that as the basis of

59:10 ↗ their cost that they were charging none

59:12 ↗ of our direct neighbors um most of our

59:14 ↗ direct neighbors are still investigating

59:16 ↗ the schedules themselves uh they're in

59:18 ↗ much the same Bo that we are um city of

59:21 ↗ Kenwick has had success in that model um

59:23 ↗ in particular they were the the pioneer

59:25 ↗ of doing that several years ago um and

59:28 ↗ they've gotten

59:30 ↗ um pretty good feedback overall from

59:32 ↗ from it um their Deputy city clerk

59:35 ↗ actually told me that strangely enough

59:37 ↗ before when they were charging the state

59:39 ↗ um default fees which are very nominal

59:42 ↗ um that people were very upset that they

59:45 ↗ were being charged you know a dime a

59:47 ↗ nickel a dollar uh and when they started

59:50 ↗ charging

59:51 ↗ more people felt they were getting

59:53 ↗ better service

59:55 ↗ okay um and then a second question of

59:59 ↗ the agencies that you compared to um did

1:00:03 ↗ the other ones that have a fee structure

1:00:04 ↗ did they have the same sort of thing

1:00:06 ↗ where it's capped at a certain number

1:00:07 ↗ and then above that it's the cost goes

1:00:11 ↗ down um to to nominal so right because

1:00:15 ↗ there's a $9 fee and then for more

1:00:17 ↗ records it's uh 25 cents per record uh

1:00:21 ↗ no that was something that we decided to

1:00:24 ↗ to do ourselves um to create as close to

1:00:27 ↗ a flat fee as we could recognizing that

1:00:29 ↗ we are charging $9 and that that might

1:00:30 ↗ be a lot to people we looked at how many

1:00:34 ↗ records are typically provided um that

1:00:36 ↗ are responsive to a request and for most

1:00:38 ↗ requests it's 10 or fewer so we thought

1:00:42 ↗ it would be fair to wave the 25 cents

1:00:44 ↗ per record um for those first 10 records

1:00:47 ↗ so that the majority of the requests

1:00:48 ↗ fulfilled would just be a flat $9

1:00:51 ↗ fee um and then anything over that would

1:00:55 ↗ be 25 cents per record the 25 cents per

1:00:58 ↗ record was a fee developed um looking at

1:01:00 ↗ the actual cost of the time it takes

1:01:02 ↗ staff to copy records over into the

1:01:05 ↗ portal and then release them to the

1:01:08 ↗ customer okay thank

1:01:11 ↗ you council member

1:01:13 ↗ Delle thank you on the lowincome waiver

1:01:17 ↗ are um are there other cities that are

1:01:19 ↗ doing it or are we the only one and the

1:01:21 ↗ other question is if there are other

1:01:23 ↗ cities doing it

1:01:24 ↗ um have they noticed that it has a

1:01:27 ↗ significant impact those would be my

1:01:30 ↗ questions thank you those very good

1:01:32 ↗ questions um to my knowledge we are the

1:01:33 ↗ only city who has um looked into a

1:01:36 ↗ program such as the low-income waiver

1:01:37 ↗ for public records fees um that said

1:01:42 ↗ other

1:01:43 ↗ agencies are maybe less risk adverse um

1:01:48 ↗ and uh they generally have it either

1:01:51 ↗ written or Unwritten um saying that they

1:01:54 ↗ will will wave fees at their discretion

1:01:56 ↗ which again causes the possibility of

1:01:59 ↗ discriminating and I do know of one

1:02:01 ↗ agency that has been sued for that um

1:02:03 ↗ where they charge one person a fee and

1:02:04 ↗ they weren't charging others fees and

1:02:06 ↗ they were sued and they

1:02:10 ↗ lost thank

1:02:12 ↗ you questions on the

1:02:15 ↗ presentation not can president that's

1:02:19 ↗ okay um is uh somebody prepared to make

1:02:22 ↗ a

1:02:23 ↗ motion counc

1:02:26 ↗ president thank you I move to approve

1:02:29 ↗ resolution

1:02:31 ↗ number

1:02:34 ↗ 20238 adopting a public records policy

1:02:37 ↗ and public records fee schedule and

1:02:38 ↗ ordering publication of this resolution

1:02:41 ↗ and the public records act rules and

1:02:44 ↗ adopt ordinance number

1:02:47 ↗ 3042 repealing chapter 1.28 public

1:02:51 ↗ records and chapter 3.60 charges for

1:02:55 ↗ Police Department reports and services

1:02:57 ↗ of the isqua municipal

1:03:01 ↗ code is there a

1:03:04 ↗ second council president uh deput oh

1:03:07 ↗ sorry been moved and seconded uh council

1:03:10 ↗ president you look like you have some

1:03:13 ↗ comments yeah I thought I was totally in

1:03:16 ↗ favor of this as of the last meeting and

1:03:20 ↗ uh I I've just come up with so many more

1:03:23 ↗ questions

1:03:25 ↗ um based on the fact that the police

1:03:28 ↗ records versus body War cameras have

1:03:30 ↗ changed um and based on the addition of

1:03:36 ↗ the um low income um V waiver and things

1:03:41 ↗ like that so um

1:03:45 ↗ I moved this so that we can talk about

1:03:48 ↗ it um but I would certainly be in favor

1:03:51 ↗ if there was an interest in mov moving

1:03:54 ↗ this to a committee of the whole or to a

1:03:58 ↗ particular committee um to discuss

1:04:01 ↗ further and so I'm interested to see

1:04:02 ↗ what my other council members have to

1:04:04 ↗ say thanks let's go to council member

1:04:09 ↗ hunt thank you um I I understand the

1:04:13 ↗ rationale completely for the body warn

1:04:16 ↗ camera redaction fee that seems like

1:04:19 ↗ it's uh that is going to be a new

1:04:21 ↗ program to isqua it's very labor

1:04:23 ↗ intensive we expect it to be um a lot of

1:04:27 ↗ work and and work that needs to be done

1:04:30 ↗ well for the privacy of people involved

1:04:32 ↗ and so um really important work and

1:04:35 ↗ completely understand that I think that

1:04:37 ↗ uh rationale is laid out very clearly I

1:04:39 ↗ think also that in that case is very

1:04:40 ↗ clear to me that we are recouping costs

1:04:44 ↗ specifically based on how much we expect

1:04:46 ↗ it to be for that um for that uh labor

1:04:50 ↗ that takes a certain person that has

1:04:52 ↗ that training um

1:04:55 ↗ um however uh and then and also I

1:04:59 ↗ understand and completely agree with all

1:05:00 ↗ of the costs for the printing and

1:05:03 ↗ um and that seems very straightforward

1:05:06 ↗ as well the one that I uh do have

1:05:10 ↗ some uh thoughts about is the the $9 and

1:05:15 ↗ the the reason is you mentioned that one

1:05:18 ↗ of the rationals for that in particular

1:05:20 ↗ was that people narrow their um that

1:05:24 ↗ there's a cost Associated then people

1:05:25 ↗ would narrow their requests I don't know

1:05:28 ↗ that this current fee structure would um

1:05:31 ↗ in my opinion just looking forward I

1:05:34 ↗ don't know that this

1:05:35 ↗ would get us that end result because of

1:05:39 ↗ the way it's structured such that you

1:05:41 ↗ have 10 responsive requests for the $9

1:05:44 ↗ flat fee and then it then the cost goes

1:05:46 ↗ down it seems to me like maybe there's a

1:05:48 ↗ different structure that might better

1:05:50 ↗ address that so if you have the one

1:05:52 ↗ person who wants the one blueprint and

1:05:53 ↗ it's pretty straightforward you would um

1:05:56 ↗ you would provide that but if you have

1:05:57 ↗ somebody who asks for a ton a very very

1:06:00 ↗ vague very expansive that's tons of

1:06:03 ↗ responsive records they actually get

1:06:04 ↗ that they're in that discount category

1:06:06 ↗ beyond the first 10 responsive records

1:06:09 ↗ so um I I think that the records

1:06:13 ↗ themselves are varied and how much time

1:06:16 ↗ needs to be accounted for and it seems

1:06:18 ↗ to me at a high level that this approach

1:06:21 ↗ doesn't um doesn't

1:06:26 ↗ necessarily uh scale with how much time

1:06:29 ↗ each how complicated each records

1:06:31 ↗ request would be and the cost is really

1:06:33 ↗ as shown here the cost is really based

1:06:36 ↗ on the staff time um also if a person

1:06:40 ↗ goes into City Hall they have the same

1:06:44 ↗ amount of staff time to get that record

1:06:46 ↗ or they have a lot of Staff time to get

1:06:48 ↗ that record ready in each case and it's

1:06:50 ↗ this and then in that case we aren't

1:06:53 ↗ recouping the cost so if we're trying to

1:06:55 ↗ recoup the staff time cost like with the

1:06:57 ↗ body warn camera it seems to me that

1:06:59 ↗ there might be a a different key

1:07:01 ↗ structure that we should that we should

1:07:04 ↗ consider um so I understand the

1:07:06 ↗ rationale for wanting to continue to

1:07:07 ↗ provide this important public service

1:07:09 ↗ and and do it in a economically

1:07:11 ↗ sustainable way um I think a lot of this

1:07:14 ↗ is laid out really clearly I do question

1:07:17 ↗ the this one particular um element of it

1:07:20 ↗ if it that gets us what we what we are

1:07:23 ↗ setting up to do so uh that all said I

1:07:27 ↗ think maybe another look in a committee

1:07:30 ↗ um would be would be good um or if

1:07:34 ↗ there's a different approach but it

1:07:35 ↗ seems to me that that one particular

1:07:37 ↗ piece we might benefit from

1:07:40 ↗ reconsidering thank you Council M Merz

1:07:43 ↗ thanks Madam mayor uh I'm against all

1:07:45 ↗ these fees I think that uh we live in a

1:07:49 ↗ state that uh puts a high premium on

1:07:52 ↗ transparency we all get to live that

1:07:55 ↗ with uh the various uh Finance laws that

1:07:59 ↗ that we were all subject to when we ran

1:08:00 ↗ for office and then we continue to be

1:08:02 ↗ subject to as elected officials um and

1:08:05 ↗ uh I love it I love that we are

1:08:08 ↗ accountable to our residents but I think

1:08:09 ↗ that requires to air on the L of

1:08:12 ↗ transparency and that also means that uh

1:08:15 ↗ we really need to be extremely cautious

1:08:17 ↗ about putting anything that perceived as

1:08:19 ↗ a barrier uh to the public being able to

1:08:21 ↗ get information on the on the work that

1:08:23 ↗ we do and you know if the public wants

1:08:25 ↗ to be reassured that uh the police are

1:08:28 ↗ operating safely and uh humanely I want

1:08:32 ↗ them to get that information I don't uh

1:08:35 ↗ I have not been presented with enough

1:08:36 ↗ information that this is a problem nor

1:08:38 ↗ that the particular problem would be

1:08:40 ↗ solved by the remedy that we have in

1:08:42 ↗ front of us this evening so I'm against

1:08:43 ↗ it all thanks additional

1:08:48 ↗ comments

1:08:50 ↗ Delle um I'm generally in favor of this

1:08:54 ↗ but uh particularly around the body

1:08:56 ↗ camera uh videos and uh it is very

1:08:59 ↗ expensive to have that work done um I

1:09:02 ↗ think maybe part of the problem maybe

1:09:04 ↗ the reason we do need to have a second

1:09:06 ↗ touch is to divide this into a two

1:09:10 ↗ motions one that has uh the body cameras

1:09:13 ↗ in it and the other one the public

1:09:15 ↗ records um and um uh I have you know

1:09:20 ↗ listened to the commentary we received

1:09:23 ↗ and also the emails that we received

1:09:25 ↗ today and uh understand that there's uh

1:09:28 ↗ still a lot of rationale uh to be had

1:09:31 ↗ for why we are planning to do this but

1:09:34 ↗ when you look at the cost of doing the

1:09:36 ↗ body cameras um and uh as uh I believe

1:09:40 ↗ council member hunt said very eloquently

1:09:42 ↗ the sensitivity that goes into that um

1:09:45 ↗ in terms of protecting the privacy of

1:09:47 ↗ the individuals that are in those body

1:09:50 ↗ camera uh videos uh I think that um it's

1:09:53 ↗ it's really reasonable to have the

1:09:55 ↗ public help pay for that because uh

1:09:58 ↗ that's a considerable obligation and we

1:10:00 ↗ owe the obligation to our citizens as

1:10:02 ↗ well for those to protect their privacy

1:10:05 ↗ so um uh I could go along with uh having

1:10:10 ↗ another look at this and as I said

1:10:12 ↗ possibly breaking this into two

1:10:14 ↗ different uh Parts um that we look at

1:10:17 ↗ one the body Camera and Video uh

1:10:20 ↗ production and the other the public

1:10:22 ↗ records requests

1:10:24 ↗ thank you thanks are there any other oh

1:10:28 ↗ of course sorry and I did want to thank

1:10:32 ↗ uh people for including the low-income

1:10:35 ↗ uh waiver fee um and thank you for being

1:10:37 ↗ bold about that uh if we are the only

1:10:40 ↗ one that's great let's be leaders on

1:10:42 ↗ that so um I think that's great but I

1:10:45 ↗ think there's bigger issues being

1:10:46 ↗ discussed here and I think we probably

1:10:48 ↗ need to address those in a little bit

1:10:50 ↗ more depth thank

1:10:52 ↗ you any other

1:10:54 ↗ comments that's

1:10:56 ↗ my um thank you it's a procedural

1:11:00 ↗ question so I had asked before the

1:11:01 ↗ meeting if we could break them apart uh

1:11:04 ↗ currently they're in I was thinking more

1:11:06 ↗ also just for discussion um but

1:11:09 ↗ currently they are in one ordinance and

1:11:11 ↗ so I'm wondering if the administration

1:11:13 ↗ could give us some options if the if the

1:11:15 ↗ timing is such I understand that we have

1:11:18 ↗ the February 1 intended deadline in any

1:11:20 ↗ event so if you could give us uh some

1:11:24 ↗ options as far as if we did want to have

1:11:27 ↗ another touch or a different option

1:11:29 ↗ presented that would break these apart

1:11:31 ↗ what that could look like procedurally

1:11:33 ↗ certainly thank you council member H

1:11:35 ↗ members of the council um we would

1:11:37 ↗ propose coming back to a committee of

1:11:38 ↗ the whole there is one scheduled on

1:11:40 ↗ January the 8th um we are very concerned

1:11:43 ↗ about the body work cameras we are going

1:11:45 ↗ to be starting a pilot program here in

1:11:47 ↗ the next several days uh we would like

1:11:49 ↗ to have that resolved uh and I think I'm

1:11:52 ↗ hearing from many many members of the

1:11:54 ↗ council willingness to agree to some

1:11:56 ↗ sort of schedule for that uh there are

1:11:58 ↗ other components of this uh that we also

1:12:01 ↗ feel very strongly about uh uh the the

1:12:03 ↗ material costs associated with the the

1:12:07 ↗ thumb drives the copies the postage

1:12:10 ↗ things like that um I think uh you know

1:12:13 ↗ many of you are concerned about uh staff

1:12:15 ↗ time about uh viewing it in City Hall

1:12:18 ↗ versus viewing it electronically so I

1:12:20 ↗ think we would like to go back uh

1:12:22 ↗ perhaps there's additional costs that

1:12:24 ↗ need to be levied for viewing it online

1:12:26 ↗ and so we'll go back and uh sharpen our

1:12:29 ↗ pencils for that so thank you for

1:12:30 ↗ raising those issues uh but we would

1:12:32 ↗ come back on uh the 8th with perhaps

1:12:35 ↗ some options so that um if there's a

1:12:38 ↗ desire to send it to a committee or have

1:12:40 ↗ further discussion on what might be the

1:12:42 ↗ basic request we could do that but also

1:12:44 ↗ have the ability for you to take action

1:12:45 ↗ on other pieces of this move

1:12:49 ↗ forward okay so if we if we did want to

1:12:53 ↗ um

1:12:54 ↗ to go forward with that one of us would

1:12:57 ↗ have to make a motion to continue this

1:12:59 ↗ to the January 8th Committee of the

1:13:02 ↗ whole

1:13:04 ↗ okay uh Deputy council president um just

1:13:07 ↗ a quick question is there any urgency to

1:13:09 ↗ the police in Collision reports in the

1:13:11 ↗ clearance letter Fe

1:13:13 ↗ schedule or is it just more of the body

1:13:16 ↗ warn cameras I think we'd like to come

1:13:18 ↗ back on the eth with with all the thing

1:13:21 ↗ I rather than come give you a give you a

1:13:23 ↗ laundry list off the top of her head of

1:13:25 ↗ the most urgent let us come back on the

1:13:29 ↗ eth um just based on the conversation I

1:13:33 ↗ I think U we've landed in a place where

1:13:36 ↗ council's ready to make a motion um is

1:13:38 ↗ there any particular wording that you

1:13:41 ↗ would propose for a motion maker or just

1:13:45 ↗ to refer the item to the January 8th

1:13:48 ↗ Committee of the whole would

1:13:50 ↗ work and just in taking notes um on all

1:13:53 ↗ your different comments I think for the

1:13:55 ↗ most part you're getting what you want

1:13:57 ↗ with that motion just looking back at

1:13:59 ↗ what

1:14:02 ↗ everybody um let here for a

1:14:05 ↗ motion president and uh council member

1:14:10 ↗ had

1:14:11 ↗ microphone there you go I would move to

1:14:14 ↗ refer AB 8553 the public records policy

1:14:18 ↗ and fee schedule to the committee of the

1:14:20 ↗ whole meeting on January 8th

1:14:24 ↗ second okay it's been moved to move it

1:14:26 ↗ to the committee of the whole uh Council

1:14:28 ↗ Merz yeah uh I'm going to pose this

1:14:31 ↗ because again um against these fees in

1:14:33 ↗ general I think the idea that we need to

1:14:36 ↗ get cost recovery on the oversight of

1:14:40 ↗ regulatory actions um by our by our city

1:14:45 ↗ is unpalatable if you start to think

1:14:47 ↗ about the ramifications of of doing that

1:14:50 ↗ everywhere this isn't you know a permit

1:14:52 ↗ fee right where people are coming in and

1:14:54 ↗ they're wanting to put a fence up in

1:14:56 ↗ their backyard or anything like that uh

1:14:58 ↗ this is Citizens trying to make sure

1:15:00 ↗ that we're doing our job and that our uh

1:15:03 ↗ our staff are doing their job I'm proud

1:15:06 ↗ of the ipd I'm eager to get this

1:15:08 ↗ information out in people's hands and

1:15:09 ↗ the idea that we're going to try to get

1:15:11 ↗ cost recovery on uh you know as I said

1:15:15 ↗ evidence that we're doing our job is uh

1:15:18 ↗ I think has unsavory conclusions if you

1:15:20 ↗ follow it to its natural conclusions

1:15:22 ↗ thank you

1:15:23 ↗ any other comments on the

1:15:25 ↗ motion so the motion was to move this

1:15:28 ↗ item to the

1:15:29 ↗ January January 8th Committee of the

1:15:31 ↗ whole all those in favor signify by

1:15:32 ↗ saying I I I those opposed nay the

1:15:37 ↗ motion carries 5 to one uh we'll move on

1:15:40 ↗ to the next item which is

1:15:42 ↗ ID 1545 Central Esa Pioneer program and

1:15:46 ↗ the city council is being asked to

1:15:48 ↗ provide some direction this evening on

1:15:50 ↗ this item typically these policy

1:15:52 ↗ questions would be considered a

1:15:53 ↗ committee of the whole meeting uh but

1:15:55 ↗ due to some timing considerations it was

1:15:57 ↗ scheduled for tonight's regular meeting

1:15:59 ↗ and I'd like to invite uh Jen Davis

1:16:01 ↗ Hayes our economic development manager

1:16:03 ↗ to make a presentation welcome Jen thank

1:16:06 ↗ you and I'm having some problem getting

1:16:07 ↗ into um WebEx so uh Tisha is going to be

1:16:11 ↗ my Vanna for the presentation thank you

1:16:14 ↗ very much Tisha again my name is Jen

1:16:16 ↗ Davis Hayes economic development manager

1:16:19 ↗ for uh the city of esqua and tonight

1:16:21 ↗ we're talking about the Pioneer program

1:16:24 ↗ um and so we uh we most recently were at

1:16:29 ↗ the planning policy commission and um

1:16:32 ↗ economic Vitality commission joint

1:16:34 ↗ meeting to Prov get some input on this

1:16:37 ↗ and uh here to to share that input and

1:16:40 ↗ to get additional input um from city

1:16:44 ↗ council uh yep and so um the input we're

1:16:48 ↗ going to be looking on is the the uh Pro

1:16:52 ↗ program limits and so this can be by

1:16:55 ↗ number of units number of projects a

1:16:57 ↗ timeline or location and so we'll ask

1:17:00 ↗ for a specific input around that and

1:17:02 ↗ then the second uh area of input will be

1:17:06 ↗ around affordability options so we have

1:17:08 ↗ two options that we work very closely

1:17:09 ↗ with Arch and developers to uh present

1:17:13 ↗ and uh again we'll talk about that more

1:17:16 ↗ later sorry tsha um the uh housing so we

1:17:20 ↗ always talk about where this Falls at

1:17:22 ↗ this program falls on the housing

1:17:24 ↗ Continuum and so this is something that

1:17:25 ↗ is more about Market uh rate development

1:17:28 ↗ happening and there is some

1:17:29 ↗ affordability so we're um in this area

1:17:32 ↗ of the housing

1:17:35 ↗ Continuum and um so this journey began

1:17:38 ↗ in April's uh committee the whole when a

1:17:40 ↗ public commenter requested to utilize

1:17:42 ↗ the um Pioneer program in the central

1:17:44 ↗ esol plan which was passed in

1:17:47 ↗ 2012 um Council wanted to explore it

1:17:50 ↗ more we came back at the committee of

1:17:51 ↗ the whole in May and then had several

1:17:54 ↗ conversations in our in our committee uh

1:17:56 ↗ the services safety and Parks committee

1:17:59 ↗ and um throughout this time we've been

1:18:02 ↗ working very closely with Arch to uh

1:18:05 ↗ develop this program look at what other

1:18:07 ↗ cities have done and also gathered uh

1:18:09 ↗ developer input as mayor Paulie

1:18:12 ↗ mentioned we're here tonight because

1:18:13 ↗ normally a code change would go to the

1:18:15 ↗ Planning Development and environment uh

1:18:18 ↗ committee but since we've been at one

1:18:19 ↗ committee we're here to kind of uh talk

1:18:22 ↗ to you all at one time so this we're not

1:18:24 ↗ asking for any uh action tonight but

1:18:26 ↗ again for

1:18:29 ↗ input okay so um really you know what

1:18:32 ↗ exactly is a Pioneer program so as I

1:18:34 ↗ mentioned it is to uh spur development

1:18:37 ↗ um in the central isqua uh specific

1:18:40 ↗ areas and it's meant to help balance the

1:18:42 ↗ risk for the first in market so we can

1:18:44 ↗ use um we can use uh changes in

1:18:47 ↗ regulations we can use incentives um and

1:18:51 ↗ again a lot earlier coners ation we've

1:18:53 ↗ had this was connected with the

1:18:54 ↗ affordable housing conversation but this

1:18:56 ↗ is really about uh the next slide talks

1:18:58 ↗ about the goals is to Spur uh

1:19:01 ↗ development in areas where our jobs our

1:19:04 ↗ amenities our Transit currently exist um

1:19:07 ↗ we're looking to create new

1:19:08 ↗ neighborhoods in our Central isqua uh

1:19:10 ↗ Urban core and and regional growth

1:19:12 ↗ Center area and um most importantly we

1:19:15 ↗ you know we want to do this so we um we

1:19:17 ↗ save our our historic downtown and our

1:19:20 ↗ as for as fored hillsides from um re

1:19:24 ↗ Redevelopment and that's what the

1:19:25 ↗ centralist equal plan Vision really is

1:19:27 ↗ about so um many of you may know in your

1:19:31 ↗ own industry when oh that's a guy when

1:19:34 ↗ um a first something that's first in

1:19:36 ↗ Market uh Spurs others to come in behind

1:19:39 ↗ them right so there's a risk to that so

1:19:40 ↗ that's again what the Pioneer program

1:19:42 ↗ will address so the general outline of

1:19:45 ↗ the pioneer program and um has been

1:19:48 ↗ scaled back to these items so we

1:19:50 ↗ originally in May's uh convers station

1:19:53 ↗ we had some different ideas about

1:19:55 ↗ providing additional sustainability and

1:19:57 ↗ additional um connections to the to the

1:20:00 ↗ natural environment um after uh looking

1:20:03 ↗ at more analysis we really uh discovered

1:20:05 ↗ that it would be a disincentive to the

1:20:07 ↗ program so if we're really trying to

1:20:09 ↗ create a program that's going to

1:20:11 ↗ encourage um the first projects in an

1:20:14 ↗ area to happen adding more requirements

1:20:17 ↗ was not the way to go so we'll talk

1:20:19 ↗ again about these elements um and we can

1:20:22 ↗ go to the first

1:20:23 ↗ one so um reminder we're not looking to

1:20:27 ↗ change development standards for all of

1:20:29 ↗ all of projects that come into um the

1:20:32 ↗ city from here on out um but uh it is

1:20:36 ↗ going to be again for the first what is

1:20:39 ↗ it the first few projects is it the

1:20:41 ↗ first so many units um and we uh want to

1:20:46 ↗ also get your input on um proposed

1:20:49 ↗ locations so we're looking right now at

1:20:51 ↗ the urban core and the mixed use areas

1:20:54 ↗ so Urban core is basically going to be

1:20:56 ↗ be on either side of I90 from tibits

1:20:59 ↗ Valley Park North to Costco area and

1:21:02 ↗ mixed use area includes sumon Gilman and

1:21:04 ↗ East Lake samamish uh

1:21:07 ↗ Parkway

1:21:09 ↗ next so as we talked to the planning

1:21:12 ↗ policy Commission in EVC about this um

1:21:15 ↗ they like the idea of limiting by number

1:21:18 ↗ of projects versus units itself because

1:21:20 ↗ they felt that it fit better for well

1:21:23 ↗ what if a project has 333 units and we

1:21:26 ↗ only allow 300 units um so looking at

1:21:29 ↗ that but one thing they did cons uh they

1:21:32 ↗ did have a discussion about is

1:21:34 ↗ considering minimum maximum numbers for

1:21:36 ↗ those projects so minimum that it's

1:21:38 ↗ large enough that you're going to Spur

1:21:40 ↗ that economic uh that next project so

1:21:42 ↗ having a a project of you know 15 units

1:21:45 ↗ may not actually spur because it didn't

1:21:47 ↗ prove in the market but they also talked

1:21:50 ↗ about um having a mega project come in

1:21:53 ↗ and you know I'm just going to make a

1:21:54 ↗ number 2,000 units that would um that

1:21:58 ↗ would one may open up the city to a

1:22:00 ↗ little bit more of uh 2,000 units that

1:22:04 ↗ don't aren't meeting the affordable

1:22:06 ↗ housing requirements for the for the

1:22:07 ↗ typical development multif family tax

1:22:09 ↗ exemption all those negative impacts

1:22:12 ↗ that maybe we're not ready for so there

1:22:14 ↗ was some uh conversation about that that

1:22:16 ↗ was suggested and again the I should say

1:22:18 ↗ again the PPC and EVC commissions did

1:22:21 ↗ were not asked to provide

1:22:23 ↗ a recommendation yet we'll be back to

1:22:24 ↗ them in January for that um and then

1:22:28 ↗ regarding the looking at a time or a

1:22:31 ↗ deadline date um I think really um they

1:22:35 ↗ they lean more towards looking at the

1:22:38 ↗ number of units because they just don't

1:22:40 ↗ know when um what's a good date to put

1:22:43 ↗ on there um and so knowing that we can

1:22:46 ↗ come back and look at this in two years

1:22:48 ↗ if nothing has happened um but going

1:22:50 ↗ through this work and not knowing when

1:22:53 ↗ the market will change or if something's

1:22:55 ↗ through the process and it doesn't get

1:22:57 ↗ you know to that that critical point

1:22:59 ↗ before the the madeup deadline um that

1:23:02 ↗ doesn't make sense and then uh for

1:23:04 ↗ geography area they really um they

1:23:08 ↗ recognize that different properties

1:23:09 ↗ within Central issaqua um have a

1:23:12 ↗ different Avail uh I won't say

1:23:14 ↗ availability but potential for

1:23:15 ↗ redevelopment right so um to be it was

1:23:19 ↗ really uh they didn't have a strong

1:23:21 ↗ opinion about where but they said that

1:23:23 ↗ you know providing it in those two mixed

1:23:26 ↗ zones allows um uh the flexibility to

1:23:30 ↗ see something happen more widely and to

1:23:32 ↗ again create these different

1:23:33 ↗ neighborhood

1:23:35 ↗ areasa thank

1:23:38 ↗ you so the next and I

1:23:41 ↗ apologize um the next uh area again is

1:23:45 ↗ we're going to be looking at these two

1:23:46 ↗ are conjoined so we're not looking at

1:23:48 ↗ them separately but the affordable

1:23:49 ↗ housing requirements with the multif

1:23:51 ↗ family taxes

1:23:53 ↗ exemption so as many of you know um that

1:23:57 ↗ uh we we as a city don't have very many

1:23:59 ↗ Financial incentives to provide uh

1:24:01 ↗ developers businesses such um but the

1:24:04 ↗ multif family tax exemption is one of

1:24:06 ↗ those projects so the state does allow

1:24:08 ↗ us to look at an 8-year 12E or 20 year

1:24:11 ↗ depending on number of units and and

1:24:14 ↗ affordability levels um and Home

1:24:16 ↗ Ownership so we as we did the analysis

1:24:20 ↗ um the the percentage of units that

1:24:23 ↗ would be uh required are not going to be

1:24:26 ↗ eligible for the 12E so we're we're

1:24:28 ↗ recommending the

1:24:29 ↗ 8year the eighty year does not by the

1:24:32 ↗ state require you have affordable

1:24:33 ↗ housing and have affordable housing for

1:24:35 ↗ the length of the project we are going

1:24:37 ↗ to put that on that requirement so units

1:24:40 ↗ that are created in the pioner program

1:24:41 ↗ would still have the lifetime

1:24:43 ↗ affordability Covenant that would be

1:24:44 ↗ created um through under a regular

1:24:47 ↗ development project and again would have

1:24:50 ↗ an eight-year um eight-year uh

1:24:54 ↗ mfte

1:24:57 ↗ next so um we're going to get into a

1:25:00 ↗ little bit more details about uh zoning

1:25:03 ↗ and what's currently required so in

1:25:05 ↗ these two zones there are two ways that

1:25:08 ↗ they can provide affordable housing one

1:25:10 ↗ is the inclusionary zoning that is

1:25:12 ↗ required and then one is the development

1:25:13 ↗ bonus which is optional um so we'll go

1:25:17 ↗ ahead and jump into we're just going to

1:25:19 ↗ show you the slide you don't need to

1:25:21 ↗ memorize number but this is what's

1:25:23 ↗ currently required um for uh under the

1:25:26 ↗ current code so um because we want to

1:25:29 ↗ make sure this is for the urban core um

1:25:32 ↗ so right now the developer has a choice

1:25:35 ↗ again in the inclusion area they're

1:25:36 ↗ required to do that um so they have to

1:25:39 ↗ select between one of these two options

1:25:41 ↗ to provide affordable housing in

1:25:43 ↗ addition um the development bonus uh

1:25:46 ↗ program um so you can build up to 60 ft

1:25:50 ↗ or a 3.0 z f which is floor area ratio

1:25:55 ↗ um and if you want to go higher which a

1:25:58 ↗ lot of the projects in this area want to

1:26:01 ↗ and have to because of the water table

1:26:03 ↗ not being able to um build uh too far

1:26:06 ↗ down with uh structured parking um you

1:26:09 ↗ must use our development uh bonus

1:26:11 ↗ program which has choices so there's a

1:26:15 ↗ certain portion that you have to provide

1:26:16 ↗ of 80% um area median income housing and

1:26:19 ↗ then you can choose to pay a fee to

1:26:21 ↗ provide more affordable housing or to

1:26:23 ↗ provide some open open um space and it's

1:26:26 ↗ all depending on how many square feet

1:26:28 ↗ that you provide in this development

1:26:29 ↗ bonus area so it's kind of hard to say

1:26:31 ↗ exactly because you don't the footprint

1:26:32 ↗ of the building really depends on what

1:26:34 ↗ you have to provide here but this is

1:26:36 ↗ what's currently

1:26:38 ↗ required and then we are looking at so

1:26:41 ↗ again we we are you know we are um

1:26:44 ↗ looking

1:26:45 ↗ at um two options one and again both of

1:26:49 ↗ these options have been analyzed by Arch

1:26:51 ↗ gotten feed back from developers so the

1:26:53 ↗ option one is looking at 8% of the units

1:26:57 ↗ have to be at 60% Ami um and again both

1:27:01 ↗ of these options have the eight-year uh

1:27:03 ↗ multif family tax exemption and you

1:27:05 ↗ heard tonight from the public commenter

1:27:07 ↗ they they prefer the option two which is

1:27:09 ↗ a 10% at at 80% Ami um one of the things

1:27:14 ↗ I wanted to uh mention the past slide I

1:27:16 ↗ forgot was that um the option one or two

1:27:21 ↗ means that they can they can build above

1:27:23 ↗ the base height so the 60 feet or the

1:27:25 ↗ 3.0 F so they're not re so this is

1:27:29 ↗ what's what is um required so we will

1:27:32 ↗ see higher buildings not going to be as

1:27:34 ↗ tall as uh potentially like the Costco

1:27:36 ↗ headquarters because they'll unlikely to

1:27:38 ↗ be building in in the steel construction

1:27:40 ↗ type but we will see taller buildings um

1:27:43 ↗ happening in the central isal area which

1:27:45 ↗ again is where we want to see that

1:27:49 ↗ density okay next going fast so those

1:27:53 ↗ percentages are percentages what does

1:27:55 ↗ that mean so here's an example of a 300

1:27:57 ↗ unit development so the first column on

1:28:00 ↗ the left is what it would currently be

1:28:02 ↗ and so the the Orange is that 60% Ami

1:28:06 ↗ the green is 80% Ami and then the the

1:28:10 ↗ blue which is a little hard to tell is

1:28:11 ↗ the 50% Ami so option one um again that

1:28:15 ↗ that 8% you're looking at 24 units at

1:28:18 ↗ 60% my option two you're looking at 30

1:28:22 ↗ units so it's a difference of six units

1:28:24 ↗ so when you're really talking about a

1:28:25 ↗ development of the size we will probably

1:28:28 ↗ see um it's not like we're talking five

1:28:31 ↗ units and 100 units difference we're

1:28:33 ↗ talking about six units in this

1:28:36 ↗ example um and so the the one thing I

1:28:40 ↗ did want to point out with the no change

1:28:42 ↗ so those 50% I think you've got a

1:28:44 ↗ question on this slide from Council Mark

1:28:46 ↗ oh yes sorry I I do do we know what we

1:28:48 ↗ think market rate is in terms of

1:28:51 ↗ Ami

1:28:52 ↗ so I don't have that that um yes I have

1:28:55 ↗ that information I don't have that slide

1:28:57 ↗ here in in this so but is it like 120%

1:29:00 ↗ of Ami or 150% of Ami um so I have heard

1:29:04 ↗ both uh 100 and and 120 and I think it

1:29:07 ↗ is more towards 120 yeah all right thank

1:29:11 ↗ yeah sorry got a little twisted there

1:29:14 ↗ but um so I was going to say that the

1:29:17 ↗ the blue the 50% Ami that's in this no

1:29:20 ↗ change that is not requ quired so that's

1:29:22 ↗ like assuming they chose that option so

1:29:24 ↗ that may never actually occur which

1:29:26 ↗ we've heard a lot of developers say that

1:29:28 ↗ it's really challenging to build that so

1:29:29 ↗ they would actually pay a fee in Li of

1:29:31 ↗ them instead of providing that so just

1:29:33 ↗ to FYI with

1:29:35 ↗ that okay next um so the pros and cons

1:29:38 ↗ like how do we look at these you know

1:29:40 ↗ each of these options um you know do do

1:29:43 ↗ provide affordable housing but again we

1:29:44 ↗ are looking really to try to get that

1:29:47 ↗ some development to happen so that we

1:29:48 ↗ can get that more um more housing or we

1:29:52 ↗ have zero housing right now in the urban

1:29:53 ↗ core into these areas that have these

1:29:56 ↗ amenities so you know looking at does

1:29:58 ↗ this improve housing feasibility option

1:30:01 ↗ one and two we've heard from developers

1:30:02 ↗ it does um the no change again we saw in

1:30:06 ↗ a diversity of housing report that

1:30:08 ↗ there's some calibration of our codes

1:30:10 ↗ that we need to look at for that um

1:30:12 ↗ again 50% Ami we're you know we're not

1:30:15 ↗ looking at getting that um as part of uh

1:30:19 ↗ these two options and it could be that

1:30:21 ↗ the developer chooses to do that but

1:30:22 ↗ it's not a guarantee in the no change um

1:30:25 ↗ looking at Workforce housing which King

1:30:26 ↗ County puts the 60 and 80% together so

1:30:29 ↗ we can't it's hard to kind of split out

1:30:31 ↗ between those but um that would be

1:30:33 ↗ provided in all these options and we do

1:30:35 ↗ know that there's an higher need as you

1:30:37 ↗ go down uh into more affordable units so

1:30:40 ↗ like a 60% Ami unit is needed there's

1:30:44 ↗ more need for that than an 70% or an 80%

1:30:47 ↗ Ami right now just because of what the

1:30:49 ↗ market has provided on its own um all of

1:30:52 ↗ these will you know increase the

1:30:54 ↗ diversity of housing well we have zero

1:30:56 ↗ housing there but it it does provide

1:30:57 ↗ some new options in the area um and then

1:31:01 ↗ Arch's analysis about the value of

1:31:04 ↗ obviously thinking about the more

1:31:06 ↗ affordable housing is more valuable so

1:31:08 ↗ you know kind of ranking these in order

1:31:11 ↗ um having that 60% Ami is a is a is a

1:31:15 ↗ good value for us um because again we

1:31:17 ↗ don't that's more that's needed more for

1:31:20 ↗ uh some of our uh entry level

1:31:25 ↗ employees so um the PPC and EVC um this

1:31:30 ↗ is a this is a very interesting

1:31:32 ↗ conversation because they basically I

1:31:34 ↗ was a challenge to col us around a

1:31:36 ↗ general agreement about the

1:31:37 ↗ affordability levels they felt they

1:31:38 ↗ didn't have enough information about

1:31:40 ↗ what um uh about the data and

1:31:44 ↗ information to make a a informed choice

1:31:47 ↗ so we're going to bring them some more

1:31:48 ↗ information about what careers and what

1:31:51 ↗ jobs make what levels of Ami so

1:31:53 ↗ hopefully they'll be able to um better

1:31:56 ↗ understand that but really um they did

1:31:58 ↗ support the reduction of affordability

1:32:00 ↗ to Spur the development which is the

1:32:02 ↗ Pioneer program's goal and they even um

1:32:05 ↗ voiced some of them voiced an opinion to

1:32:07 ↗ select the option that would better

1:32:08 ↗ ensure Redevelopment so like which one's

1:32:10 ↗ going to make this more likely that's

1:32:12 ↗ not every one but that's you know some

1:32:14 ↗ of the comments um regarding the

1:32:16 ↗ mfte they um you know they they saw that

1:32:19 ↗ this was something that 55 cities across

1:32:22 ↗ the state used thought it was valuable

1:32:25 ↗ some of them were you know brought up

1:32:26 ↗ about the concern about the get a

1:32:28 ↗ question on this from yeah I'm so sorry

1:32:30 ↗ I don't I'm just

1:32:31 ↗ going Michelle yes uh yeah I actually

1:32:34 ↗ was going to ask a question about the

1:32:36 ↗ previous yeah slide that's okay

1:32:41 ↗ yes so that last column the arch

1:32:44 ↗ analysis and value to the city and you

1:32:46 ↗ know the first one is medium and the uh

1:32:49 ↗ second one is low in the third one is

1:32:52 ↗ high so uh what is

1:32:55 ↗ what um prompted them to put a low

1:32:59 ↗ marking on that option to and is that

1:33:02 ↗ simply the amount is that the number

1:33:05 ↗ we're ranking in one two three so um

1:33:08 ↗ it's actually not that it's low if they

1:33:10 ↗ if it would compare it to 40 options it

1:33:11 ↗ may not be that that's a low but we were

1:33:13 ↗ ranking them one two three so a lot of

1:33:15 ↗ when they do their tool their analysis

1:33:18 ↗ looks at when you increase zoning what's

1:33:21 ↗ the value so this was a little it was a

1:33:24 ↗ little fitting a a round hole in a

1:33:26 ↗ square peg a little bit for that

1:33:27 ↗ analysis do so do you mean that one of

1:33:30 ↗ those options had to be the low is that

1:33:32 ↗ what you mean when you say you're doing

1:33:34 ↗ high medium and low yes oh one two three

1:33:38 ↗ yes sorry okay so one of those had to be

1:33:41 ↗ low okay all right thank

1:33:46 ↗ you H thank you I had a a question on

1:33:50 ↗ the same thing which was did did Arch

1:33:53 ↗ actually um was this your interpretation

1:33:57 ↗ of that Arch letter that's in our packet

1:33:59 ↗ yeah we we we've had uh lots of

1:34:01 ↗ conversations about it so and when we're

1:34:04 ↗ looking at how to how to compare these

1:34:06 ↗ again this is a really challenging thing

1:34:08 ↗ because we all want how the affordable

1:34:10 ↗ piece of it and putting a value on an

1:34:12 ↗ 80% family versus a 60% family is uh you

1:34:16 ↗ know housing is is challenging so this

1:34:19 ↗ is um that way to kind of find that a

1:34:22 ↗ little bit easier on a chart and to kind

1:34:25 ↗ of think about that

1:34:26 ↗ so okay thank you Deputy council

1:34:29 ↗ president um quick clarifying question

1:34:31 ↗ so but in terms of need option two would

1:34:35 ↗ be relatively low in terms of value

1:34:37 ↗ right I thought when Arch came to us

1:34:38 ↗ they showed us the little uh spectrum of

1:34:42 ↗ Ami and it was more 60 to 80% was the

1:34:44 ↗ greater need than

1:34:46 ↗ 80 yeah so that does include 80 so

1:34:49 ↗ that's the hard part is the 60 I know

1:34:51 ↗ yeah that that's in your packet as well

1:34:53 ↗ that chart um so the 60 to 80% isn't

1:34:56 ↗ it's a from King County so it's not

1:34:58 ↗ split up we can't split it between 60

1:35:00 ↗ and 80 so we can only

1:35:04 ↗ guess and and what Arch has said so

1:35:06 ↗ Lindy Masters has said you can assume

1:35:09 ↗ because as you go down that you know to

1:35:11 ↗ to the 50% 30 to 50 there's much bigger

1:35:14 ↗ need and so you can assume that the 60

1:35:16 ↗ is going to be more need than the 80 and

1:35:19 ↗ again just knowing what we know what has

1:35:21 ↗ been built here that makes sense

1:35:26 ↗ yeah and I have a question about the

1:35:28 ↗ next slide okay mfte yes uh services

1:35:33 ↗ safety and Parks had a question about

1:35:35 ↗ school district funding and mfte can you

1:35:39 ↗ speak to that and the concern that we

1:35:41 ↗ had about basically our speaking to

1:35:44 ↗ District revenues um by mfte ordinance

1:35:49 ↗ yeah so um I know that we so we're going

1:35:51 ↗ to talk as a tool for mfte more next

1:35:54 ↗ year when um our longrange planning

1:35:57 ↗ folks are going to look at it as a tool

1:35:58 ↗ uh potentially broader than the Pioneer

1:36:01 ↗ program so the mft when you have

1:36:03 ↗ foregoing Revenue it's not just for the

1:36:05 ↗ city it's for all the the property tax

1:36:07 ↗ um collectors and so while they the

1:36:10 ↗ school district would not receive for

1:36:12 ↗ the eight years that increased um

1:36:15 ↗ Property Tax Bill uh value um they would

1:36:19 ↗ still receive um uh impact fees they

1:36:22 ↗ would receive any other sales tax or

1:36:24 ↗ other kind of contributions they do get

1:36:26 ↗ from there and then um we actually have

1:36:28 ↗ a newly elected soon to be School Board

1:36:31 ↗ member on the economic Vitality

1:36:33 ↗ commission and reminded us that they

1:36:34 ↗ also get a perhe head capita so if

1:36:37 ↗ family moves in there they're still

1:36:38 ↗ receiving that per head um contribution

1:36:41 ↗ for their operations

1:36:43 ↗ so so is the is the net that it's not

1:36:46 ↗ that large of a problem for them I well

1:36:49 ↗ I I I don't know that I would say that

1:36:51 ↗ and and I don't we haven't done analysis

1:36:52 ↗ and that's where I'm saying like next

1:36:53 ↗ year we're going to we're going to

1:36:54 ↗ really dive in to show what that means

1:36:56 ↗ because I think the same thing for the

1:36:58 ↗ city of us getting construction sales

1:37:00 ↗ tax and permitting fees uh for for this

1:37:03 ↗ foro Revenue what is that Delta then I I

1:37:06 ↗ don't want to pretend that it's it's

1:37:08 ↗ okay or it's you know drastic I don't

1:37:10 ↗ really know because we haven't done the

1:37:12 ↗ analysis thank you yeah thanks Jen yeah

1:37:15 ↗ this is a limited um you know the mft

1:37:18 ↗ would be limited uh in this case and

1:37:20 ↗ that's why he felt comfortable moving

1:37:21 ↗ forward with it and the the um the value

1:37:24 ↗ of having it to actually allow

1:37:26 ↗ affordable housing which seems to be in

1:37:28 ↗ all the other cities is like it happens

1:37:30 ↗ because the

1:37:33 ↗ mfte um so yeah so the Commissioners

1:37:35 ↗ were definitely you know worried about

1:37:36 ↗ the forone revenue and thinking about

1:37:38 ↗ the city's infrastructure and again we

1:37:40 ↗ you know we did share with them that

1:37:42 ↗ again there's impact fees there's other

1:37:45 ↗ uh avenues for that but that is

1:37:46 ↗ something I think that again that went

1:37:48 ↗ into that um making sure we don't uh

1:37:51 ↗ have have a Pioneer project that's 2,000

1:37:52 ↗ units and we for all this Revenue that's

1:37:55 ↗ foro um for the city is not what we

1:37:59 ↗ expected so we are here tonight um next

1:38:03 ↗ we would uh go to have a public hearing

1:38:06 ↗ at PPC um in January come back um so

1:38:10 ↗ actually we be coming to the uh Planning

1:38:13 ↗ Development environment Committee in

1:38:16 ↗ February and then back to uh full

1:38:18 ↗ Council in March the beginning of March

1:38:20 ↗ if if everything flows the way that uh

1:38:23 ↗ we can bring you information and uh just

1:38:26 ↗ today I was talking to um Arch we have a

1:38:29 ↗ meeting every two weeks to talk about

1:38:31 ↗ this and the Str the U the inclusive

1:38:35 ↗ housing and investment pool um and so

1:38:38 ↗ the marketing is you know we already

1:38:40 ↗ started um you know making lists of of

1:38:44 ↗ uh developments and talking about

1:38:45 ↗ property owners for both programs to

1:38:47 ↗ kind of you know get the interest out

1:38:48 ↗ there and so we're going to be in

1:38:49 ↗ January creating a robust marketing um

1:38:52 ↗ program for this and really talking to

1:38:54 ↗ developers and Property Owners about the

1:38:56 ↗ potential for this so we want people to

1:38:57 ↗ know about it um so besides those that

1:39:00 ↗ that are aware of

1:39:02 ↗ it so the last few sides are the input

1:39:05 ↗ uh requested and I take any

1:39:10 ↗ questions great so no decisions this

1:39:13 ↗ evening um no formal action but you are

1:39:16 ↗ all asked to provide feedback on uh I

1:39:19 ↗ have a couple notes Here the approach to

1:39:20 ↗ limit the program number of units number

1:39:22 ↗ of projects or timeline Urban core and

1:39:25 ↗ our mixed CI zones in Central esqua and

1:39:29 ↗ secondly adjustments to affordability

1:39:31 ↗ requirements and the provision of

1:39:32 ↗ financial incentives you've heard about

1:39:34 ↗ option one and option two so I've got a

1:39:37 ↗ few microphones up I didn't see who was

1:39:40 ↗ first I'll go with council member hunt I

1:39:43 ↗ I have a question Oh okay that's the

1:39:45 ↗ question sorry forgot about

1:39:47 ↗ questions uh I just one question about

1:39:51 ↗ um so the the options that you would

1:39:53 ↗ like feedback on did it did you discuss

1:39:56 ↗ with any of the boards or has it has it

1:39:58 ↗ come up about

1:40:01 ↗ giving those options like giving

1:40:03 ↗ multiple options to developers to choose

1:40:07 ↗ for them to choose um we didn't that

1:40:09 ↗ could be um one of the things we proceed

1:40:11 ↗ with though okay thank

1:40:13 ↗ you

1:40:15 ↗ Merz so uh so so I I want to gently poke

1:40:20 ↗ at the under under Ling narrative that

1:40:22 ↗ there's anything wrong that we have to

1:40:24 ↗ fix here so we had so much development

1:40:28 ↗ in 2016 that we put a moratorium in

1:40:30 ↗ place and we had a moratorium in place

1:40:32 ↗ for two years because uh housing was

1:40:35 ↗ growing like rabbits in our Valley and

1:40:37 ↗ during that time Atlas went live and

1:40:39 ↗ then we lifted the moratorium in 2018

1:40:42 ↗ Veil went live in 2019 and Westridge

1:40:45 ↗ Town Homes went live in 2019 and then in

1:40:48 ↗ 2020 we had covid and the state of

1:40:52 ↗ emergency for covid was only lifted in

1:40:54 ↗ September of last year and so I think it

1:40:56 ↗ is far far too early for us to conclude

1:41:00 ↗ that there is anything wrong with the

1:41:03 ↗ options that we have in front of us and

1:41:05 ↗ that uh the recommended the policies

1:41:08 ↗ that we have in place that arch supports

1:41:11 ↗ uh that there's anything wrong with them

1:41:13 ↗ and the time is just not right to think

1:41:16 ↗ about relaxing that uh things were going

1:41:18 ↗ like Gang Busters for many years this

1:41:20 ↗ idea that somehow we've had 10 years of

1:41:22 ↗ like restrained development just isn't

1:41:24 ↗ just isn't borne out by the fact and so

1:41:27 ↗ I uh would like us to keep the uh

1:41:30 ↗ standards that we have in place

1:41:32 ↗ currently if we want to look at mfte

1:41:34 ↗ that's fine but you know the value of an

1:41:37 ↗ 80% Ami is no more than half the value

1:41:41 ↗ of a 60% Ami right and and possibly even

1:41:44 ↗ less than that um so it's really

1:41:46 ↗ valuable to us to be able to offer

1:41:49 ↗ housing to Folks at a lower income level

1:41:52 ↗ and I don't want to walk away from that

1:41:54 ↗ or the numbers when we're just so

1:41:56 ↗ recently out of covid um that I just

1:42:00 ↗ don't think we can conclude that we need

1:42:01 ↗ to take drastic action thank you counil

1:42:07 ↗ president I didn't realize it was next

1:42:09 ↗ sorry um I have to say I agree with

1:42:13 ↗ council member Mars um I am really

1:42:16 ↗ interested in having the full

1:42:17 ↗ conversation on

1:42:19 ↗ mfte and and um really would be very

1:42:24 ↗ concerned about adopting something on a

1:42:26 ↗ Pioneer program

1:42:28 ↗ basis when we could make adjustments to

1:42:32 ↗ not only mfte but also other things such

1:42:35 ↗ as parking and impervious surface and

1:42:39 ↗ the other things that the housing um

1:42:43 ↗ report that we received called out to

1:42:46 ↗ say this is why you're not getting this

1:42:48 ↗ development I really want to to solve

1:42:51 ↗ those problems and I would

1:42:54 ↗ be

1:42:56 ↗ concerned if we have a

1:42:59 ↗ developer who says you don't have to

1:43:03 ↗ solve those problems you just have to do

1:43:06 ↗ these things and it'll make it work that

1:43:10 ↗ doesn't make sense to me

1:43:14 ↗ um so I'd like to better understand that

1:43:19 ↗ option um if we are going to go through

1:43:22 ↗ with this um based on my work on the

1:43:25 ↗ affordable housing Committee of King

1:43:27 ↗ County uh strongly strongly prefer the

1:43:30 ↗ 60% Ami uh the data not only for isqua

1:43:35 ↗ but

1:43:36 ↗ regionally so much more need at the

1:43:40 ↗ lower levels um and looking at the

1:43:44 ↗ information that Arch provided you know

1:43:48 ↗ for a family of four the 80% Ami is

1:43:53 ↗ 117,000 for 60% it's 88,000 that's a

1:43:58 ↗ very big difference um and I think it's

1:44:02 ↗ something we really need to take into

1:44:04 ↗ account because the 100% has gone up so

1:44:08 ↗ much um that there is much more of a

1:44:11 ↗ stark difference um between

1:44:14 ↗ those um and then again if we're going

1:44:18 ↗ forward with this I

1:44:21 ↗ am very interested in seeing mixed use

1:44:24 ↗ development so I would be interested in

1:44:26 ↗ two projects per Zone um so that we can

1:44:30 ↗ prove out that concept as

1:44:33 ↗ well um so those are kind of my thoughts

1:44:37 ↗ I I'd really like to address the mfte

1:44:41 ↗ and the information provided by the

1:44:45 ↗ report on what's holding back

1:44:48 ↗ housing rather than responding to what a

1:44:51 ↗ developer said would make their project

1:44:55 ↗ pencil

1:44:58 ↗ out that's two of six who's

1:45:03 ↗ next Deputy council president and then

1:45:06 ↗ council member hunt I don't know I

1:45:08 ↗ disagree I just I see this as a tool to

1:45:11 ↗ complement other policy changes that

1:45:13 ↗ will have more of a long-term impact I

1:45:15 ↗ also don't think it seems right to

1:45:17 ↗ ignore the document or to ignore the um

1:45:20 ↗ Central Squad plan which envisioned this

1:45:22 ↗ program from the start and when was

1:45:24 ↗ Central Squad plan made 2012

1:45:27 ↗ 2014 2012 yeah I I don't know those

1:45:31 ↗ number of Apartments even given the

1:45:33 ↗ moratorium and Co does not seem like a

1:45:36 ↗ lot to me personally so I I I think that

1:45:39 ↗ pursuing um this program um is a good

1:45:44 ↗ tool in the tool chest for getting the

1:45:46 ↗ kind of vision that we want from the

1:45:47 ↗ central esqua plan um I agree with some

1:45:51 ↗ of the guard rails that um e economic

1:45:54 ↗ Vitality commission and planning policy

1:45:56 ↗ commission were talking about in terms

1:45:58 ↗ of limiting by numbers um and then

1:46:00 ↗ setting those minimum and maximums too I

1:46:03 ↗ don't necessarily know what that

1:46:05 ↗ appropriate number would be so I would

1:46:07 ↗ look for some some guidance there um and

1:46:11 ↗ then also you know I I do think if we're

1:46:14 ↗ going I mean we are giving up this is an

1:46:15 ↗ expense to the city we're giving up

1:46:17 ↗ Revenue so if we're doing that it would

1:46:20 ↗ make more sense in my mind to get the

1:46:22 ↗ more deeply affordable housing the 60%

1:46:24 ↗ Ami

1:46:26 ↗ um especially when it's like for 300

1:46:29 ↗ units it was a difference of six total

1:46:31 ↗ units so yeah again I I see this as as a

1:46:34 ↗ complimentary to our our other work that

1:46:37 ↗ we're doing um and I'd like to see us

1:46:40 ↗ move forward with it and I'd like to see

1:46:42 ↗ um them come back to us again with a

1:46:44 ↗ more formal recommendation

1:46:47 ↗ for I think council member hunt was next

1:46:55 ↗ thank you um well uh so does is this

1:47:01 ↗ going to the Planning Development and

1:47:02 ↗ environment committee as well or is this

1:47:05 ↗ it it will be after if if we go to to

1:47:07 ↗ planning policy uh committee for the

1:47:10 ↗ public hearing that we' be back to PD MH

1:47:13 ↗ okay and then currently it would

1:47:16 ↗ be um it's considered for Council

1:47:19 ↗ adoption in February 24 yeah we updated

1:47:22 ↗ that since then so it's actually um

1:47:23 ↗ beginning of March so of March okay um

1:47:27 ↗ well so one thing I just wanted to flag

1:47:28 ↗ for my fellow council members is if you

1:47:30 ↗ have um if you have questions now or

1:47:33 ↗ between now and then for the committee

1:47:35 ↗ to chew on that would be helpful because

1:47:38 ↗ it seems like there's a lot of um

1:47:40 ↗ there's a lot of different opinions here

1:47:44 ↗ um and so uh that that would help us

1:47:46 ↗ structure and make sure that we address

1:47:48 ↗ any um any

1:47:51 ↗ uh questions like big questions that

1:47:53 ↗ that other council members have that

1:47:54 ↗ aren't on that committee um so I was

1:47:59 ↗ thinking of this in reading the

1:48:02 ↗ materials uh that the arch the thing

1:48:04 ↗ that stood out for me in the arch report

1:48:06 ↗ wasn't so much that they thought one

1:48:08 ↗ thing would be higher benefit to the

1:48:10 ↗ city it was that their conclusion was

1:48:12 ↗ really none of this guarantees that you

1:48:14 ↗ will get affordable housing that was

1:48:16 ↗ their headline and the thing that they

1:48:18 ↗ kind of kept going back to and so

1:48:21 ↗ um for me it seems like yes one goal of

1:48:24 ↗ the program as it's stated in our

1:48:26 ↗ materials is to get this kind of housing

1:48:29 ↗ which we know that um our community

1:48:32 ↗ needs affordable housing uh but also it

1:48:35 ↗ seems to me like it's potentially an

1:48:37 ↗ opportunity

1:48:38 ↗ to to um prove out and to see what the

1:48:42 ↗ market would actually go for which is

1:48:44 ↗ why I asked about was it was it

1:48:47 ↗ considered that we might provide a

1:48:49 ↗ couple options for developers to see

1:48:51 ↗ which which one um they would go for any

1:48:55 ↗ of which would provide affordability um

1:48:59 ↗ which we which we need so that was more

1:49:02 ↗ what I was thinking potentially this

1:49:04 ↗ could be a a useful exercise

1:49:08 ↗ in providing options and then getting

1:49:11 ↗ actual information back about what um

1:49:15 ↗ what would be built uh we also recently

1:49:19 ↗ in Planning Development environment

1:49:20 ↗ committee looked at the work plan over

1:49:23 ↗ the next several years and for an entire

1:49:26 ↗ year there's uh envisions that the um

1:49:30 ↗ Community Development Department would

1:49:32 ↗ be looking at a whole Suite of things

1:49:35 ↗ including FTE parking other development

1:49:38 ↗ regulations the affordability uh levels

1:49:41 ↗ and and sort of all of those levers

1:49:43 ↗ together as well as the missing middle

1:49:45 ↗ um the missing middle requirements from

1:49:47 ↗ the state and uh so just just all of

1:49:50 ↗ those different things that we could

1:49:51 ↗ look at in all the different levers and

1:49:53 ↗ so um that's a big body of work but that

1:49:55 ↗ is expected to take a year from 2024

1:49:58 ↗ into middle of 2025 I believe and I was

1:50:02 ↗ thinking this could be some both getting

1:50:06 ↗ started on that work earlier but also

1:50:09 ↗ that information could feed into those

1:50:11 ↗ conversations while we look at the uh

1:50:14 ↗ Myriad combinations of all those

1:50:16 ↗ different levers that are

1:50:19 ↗ possible

1:50:21 ↗ so I think I think that's still where I

1:50:23 ↗ am and so I would be more inclined to to

1:50:26 ↗ use this um not just

1:50:28 ↗ to uh try to get affordable housing um

1:50:33 ↗ to get the kind of development that was

1:50:34 ↗ envisioned in the central isqua plan um

1:50:37 ↗ get that started but also to get

1:50:39 ↗ information for us about this much

1:50:42 ↗ bigger conversation about the

1:50:44 ↗ future did you have any comments on the

1:50:47 ↗ um affordability piece did you speak to

1:50:50 ↗ it uh so I didn't directly speak to it I

1:50:54 ↗ think I kind of spoke around the edges I

1:50:59 ↗ I think it would be uh I understand that

1:51:02 ↗ the need is more at those lower

1:51:05 ↗ affordability

1:51:07 ↗ um uh levels but I also think we have

1:51:11 ↗ need at all levels including 120% Ami

1:51:15 ↗ and so um I would therefore and then

1:51:19 ↗ that combines with thinking maybe we can

1:51:20 ↗ use this to get more information about

1:51:22 ↗ everything would be to have both as

1:51:25 ↗ options for the the developer to give

1:51:28 ↗ them a couple options um with tradeoffs

1:51:31 ↗ that would be that's where I am right

1:51:32 ↗ now council member D

1:51:36 ↗ Michelle thanks uh Jen can you go back

1:51:38 ↗ to the slide that showed um the three

1:51:43 ↗ bars with the affordable

1:51:46 ↗ housing U council member hunt said a lot

1:51:49 ↗ of what I I want to say but I think this

1:51:52 ↗ illustrates um you know you look at

1:51:54 ↗ those three bars and we're not getting a

1:51:56 ↗ lot of affordable housing with any of

1:51:59 ↗ them and so and so I think we have to go

1:52:02 ↗ back to what was the what was the whole

1:52:04 ↗ Central isqua plan about and the central

1:52:07 ↗ isqua plan is to develop more density so

1:52:10 ↗ that we are getting ourselves prepared

1:52:12 ↗ for the Light Rail station and for

1:52:15 ↗ Transit and for other things and um I

1:52:18 ↗ let me look I have to get my glasses

1:52:20 ↗ here or um so between option uh two and

1:52:25 ↗ option option one and option two we're

1:52:27 ↗ looking at the difference between six

1:52:29 ↗ units and so I really think that we you

1:52:32 ↗ know uh uh then we have to think about

1:52:35 ↗ the 276 or 270 other units which are

1:52:39 ↗ really the reason that we're talking

1:52:41 ↗ about this Pioneer project um we want to

1:52:44 ↗ uh we want to bring more density to that

1:52:46 ↗ area and at this point we haven't had

1:52:50 ↗ any density coming in so this is an

1:52:53 ↗ incentive program to uh introduce like

1:52:55 ↗ you said proof of concept that uh that

1:52:58 ↗ developments there would work um uh in

1:53:02 ↗ terms of the 60 60 or 50 or whatever the

1:53:06 ↗ Ami is I agree that we need 60 but we

1:53:10 ↗ also need 30 I mean that's really

1:53:13 ↗ lacking and then we hear from the school

1:53:16 ↗ district in uh Swedish and the fire

1:53:19 ↗ district and so on that they have a hard

1:53:21 ↗ time uh getting employees because they

1:53:24 ↗ have to commute so far because they

1:53:25 ↗ can't afford anything here so that 80%

1:53:28 ↗ is also important and it's really

1:53:31 ↗ something that's essential to our

1:53:33 ↗ economic development but also the the

1:53:35 ↗ mix of people who are coming into our

1:53:37 ↗ community and being in those service

1:53:39 ↗ jobs can they live in isqua a lot of

1:53:42 ↗ them can't live here so um so I am

1:53:45 ↗ willing to go with the 80 I I do have

1:53:48 ↗ the same question could we ask could we

1:53:50 ↗ offer a blend or options for

1:53:54 ↗ 60280 or something like that so that uh

1:53:58 ↗ developers would have that option so and

1:54:01 ↗ then uh to Echo uh council member Hall

1:54:04 ↗ we learned a lot in uh at the National

1:54:06 ↗ League of cities and I got to sit in on

1:54:09 ↗ a on a a presentation from Tempe Arizona

1:54:13 ↗ about a number of things that they had

1:54:15 ↗ done and also again kind of a proof of

1:54:18 ↗ concept that they did in uh Central area

1:54:20 ↗ of their city and uh they worked with

1:54:24 ↗ their developers and and the developers

1:54:26 ↗ said we have to make this pencil out we

1:54:28 ↗ hear that over and over again we have to

1:54:30 ↗ make that pencil out and so they worked

1:54:33 ↗ with their developers to see what was uh

1:54:36 ↗ what were they able to achieve and they

1:54:38 ↗ ended up with a development of about 300

1:54:41 ↗ units right in central downtown Tempe

1:54:45 ↗ serving seniors again another housing

1:54:47 ↗ option that we really need um with uh

1:54:51 ↗ small little units and then they were

1:54:53 ↗ able to make a lot more of those

1:54:54 ↗ affordable so there's a lot in the mix

1:54:57 ↗ it seems to me but um so generally I uh

1:55:01 ↗ to wrap up I support the idea the

1:55:03 ↗ concept of the pioneer project because

1:55:06 ↗ um I think that we haven't achieved our

1:55:09 ↗ goals in the central for the central

1:55:11 ↗ plan and we need to start to incentivize

1:55:14 ↗ those and so I would be um I would be

1:55:18 ↗ supportive of let's try something here

1:55:21 ↗ so and start working towards that uh

1:55:24 ↗ Vision that we have for the type of

1:55:27 ↗ Housing and Development we want in that

1:55:30 ↗ area thanks I'm going to go to council

1:55:32 ↗ member Joe before I come back to council

1:55:35 ↗ president thank you

1:55:38 ↗ um council member D Michelle um we

1:55:41 ↗ should try something I think is is one

1:55:44 ↗ of the central messages there um the

1:55:46 ↗ regional affordable housing dashboard

1:55:48 ↗ for King County um was put out recently

1:55:51 ↗ and and it can be found on the King

1:55:53 ↗ County website U looking at isqua you

1:55:56 ↗ can break it down by jurisdiction and in

1:55:59 ↗ 2019 we built 11 units 31 to 50% Ami in

1:56:05 ↗ 20120 we bu we built zero units in 2021

1:56:09 ↗ we built zero units um I think that if

1:56:12 ↗ we look at the chart that's up there

1:56:14 ↗ right now the way we get affordable

1:56:16 ↗ units is if we increase the General

1:56:18 ↗ Supply and build more housing overall

1:56:21 ↗ whether it's a 10% requirement like

1:56:24 ↗ Seattle puts on or other requirements

1:56:27 ↗ that work contemplating um we don't get

1:56:29 ↗ the affordable housing units unless we

1:56:32 ↗ um build uh you know a wide variety of

1:56:35 ↗ of units at other missing middle points

1:56:39 ↗ on the Spectrum and so I'm in favor of

1:56:42 ↗ us continuing to study this uh take it

1:56:45 ↗ back to um um our commissions and boards

1:56:49 ↗ that look at this um if you look at the

1:56:53 ↗ cost

1:56:55 ↗ burdened uh cost burden the burden of

1:56:59 ↗ housing on people here in the city that

1:57:01 ↗ that's also on there and um in the 50 to

1:57:05 ↗ 80% Ami

1:57:07 ↗ category you know uh we have 26% of the

1:57:11 ↗ people that are severely cost burdened

1:57:13 ↗ in

1:57:14 ↗ isqua 40% are cost burden which means

1:57:18 ↗ that they pay more than 33 or 35% of

1:57:22 ↗ their gross income per month um on

1:57:25 ↗ housing um those are people that live in

1:57:27 ↗ our community right now in isqua and so

1:57:32 ↗ I don't want to go through all the

1:57:33 ↗ numbers but the bottom line as as I'm

1:57:37 ↗ thinking about this is we need to

1:57:39 ↗ increase the General Supply of housing

1:57:40 ↗ in order to get the affordable housing

1:57:42 ↗ numbers up uh building zero is not an

1:57:46 ↗ option our citizens are telling us we

1:57:48 ↗ need more housing in our city City and

1:57:50 ↗ we're making these decisions not for my

1:57:53 ↗ kids that are 17 and 14 now um these

1:57:59 ↗ units will not be built by the time they

1:58:00 ↗ want to come back after graduating from

1:58:03 ↗ college we're talking about maybe my

1:58:05 ↗ grandkids if I have grandkids uh in the

1:58:09 ↗ future so we have responsibility from

1:58:12 ↗ where I sit that we continue to look out

1:58:15 ↗ to the Future and try to find solutions

1:58:17 ↗ for things that are coming

1:58:20 ↗ we see that the problem is is is here

1:58:23 ↗ now but we also need to think about the

1:58:25 ↗ future so I'm in favor of studying this

1:58:27 ↗ um more uh and I would hope that we

1:58:29 ↗ would continue this Pathway to find out

1:58:32 ↗ if the Pioneer project can be a a kind

1:58:35 ↗ of a a a springboard for other

1:58:38 ↗ affordable housing in the city but we

1:58:40 ↗ need a proof of concept thank you so

1:58:42 ↗ we're going to go for round two council

1:58:44 ↗ president followed by council member

1:58:46 ↗ Merz thank you um I absolutely agree

1:58:51 ↗ that we

1:58:52 ↗ need more housing in the central isqua

1:58:55 ↗ area that was what it was designed for

1:58:58 ↗ and providing density there around

1:59:00 ↗ Transit is absolutely where we should be

1:59:03 ↗ going my problem

1:59:06 ↗ is the concept of providing an

1:59:10 ↗ mfte that will cost the city multiple

1:59:14 ↗ millions of dollars worth of benefit per

1:59:18 ↗ project to get that like if we're just

1:59:23 ↗ talking about the 200 plus units of

1:59:27 ↗ market rate that's a problem for me I

1:59:30 ↗ think if we're looking to make a

1:59:32 ↗ development in this area cost effective

1:59:36 ↗ I would much much much much much rather

1:59:40 ↗ look at other regulatory options that we

1:59:44 ↗ have such as parking and the impervious

1:59:50 ↗ surface and F and any of those other

1:59:53 ↗ things that are driving up the cost of a

1:59:57 ↗ project rather than starting out

2:00:00 ↗ with giving

2:00:02 ↗ away money I think the reason that we

2:00:06 ↗ look at an mft program is to get

2:00:11 ↗ affordable

2:00:12 ↗ housing and

2:00:14 ↗ so if if we're trying to look at this

2:00:17 ↗ Pioneer project as hey there are two

2:00:20 ↗ benefits from it like I agree but I

2:00:24 ↗ don't think the benefit of

2:00:27 ↗ establishing new market rate housing in

2:00:30 ↗ this area is worthy of us giving up

2:00:34 ↗ Revenue which is what an mft program is

2:00:38 ↗ so I I really want to make sure that we

2:00:40 ↗ really recognize that the mfte

2:00:43 ↗ program if you're looking at 300 units

2:00:46 ↗ and you're talking about I believe the

2:00:50 ↗ memo said they would gain a benefit of

2:00:53 ↗ 12.5 or

2:00:55 ↗ 14.5 million do now some of that was

2:00:59 ↗ because they wouldn't have to develop

2:01:01 ↗ other um affordable housing so I'm not

2:01:03 ↗ sure how much of that is really reduced

2:01:06 ↗ revenue for us but that's a pretty

2:01:10 ↗ expensive price just because we want

2:01:13 ↗ this to happen in this area and so

2:01:17 ↗ that's why I really really really want

2:01:18 ↗ us to look at the overall costs and the

2:01:23 ↗ mft stuff at the same time so that we're

2:01:29 ↗ not just throwing our money when we

2:01:32 ↗ could be adjusting other levers um that

2:01:36 ↗ would make projects pencel outk you

2:01:39 ↗ councilman Merz so uh I don't believe

2:01:44 ↗ that residents are telling us to build

2:01:45 ↗ more housing um I believe residents are

2:01:48 ↗ telling us we built too much market rate

2:01:50 ↗ housing and we didn't recover the costs

2:01:52 ↗ of the infrastructure associated with

2:01:54 ↗ that market rate housing so we have

2:01:57 ↗ traffic and inability to pay for things

2:02:00 ↗ that will help manage that traffic we

2:02:02 ↗ built tons and tons and tons of housing

2:02:05 ↗ in the valley already that's why we have

2:02:08 ↗ low uh targets going forward because we

2:02:11 ↗ blew out our numbers over the last 20

2:02:14 ↗ years uh and thanks to our friends in

2:02:16 ↗ Olympia we've thrown open the Barn Door

2:02:19 ↗ and now people can build all sorts of

2:02:21 ↗ condos and uh duplexes up on the

2:02:24 ↗ hillsides uh so we'll get even more

2:02:26 ↗ market rate that we will be unable to

2:02:28 ↗ control so uh I don't want more market

2:02:32 ↗ rate but I'm willing to put up with more

2:02:34 ↗ market rate if we can get the workforce

2:02:36 ↗ housing that we so desperately need I

2:02:38 ↗ recognize this is we have quite

2:02:40 ↗ differences of opinion on this deis on

2:02:42 ↗ the subject of Workforce or market rate

2:02:44 ↗ housing and its importance but I think

2:02:47 ↗ what's critical to know here is that we

2:02:49 ↗ over the last 20 years have built an

2:02:51 ↗ incredible amount of market rate housing

2:02:53 ↗ in this town I'm proud of what we did

2:02:56 ↗ while we did it but we are now choking

2:02:59 ↗ on all the all the housing in that we

2:03:03 ↗ put in without the infrastructure to

2:03:05 ↗ support that housing so I want to be

2:03:07 ↗ really careful and I want to make sure

2:03:09 ↗ and I'm I'm all for doing this this this

2:03:12 ↗ pilot project but we have to know that

2:03:15 ↗ we're going to get the workforce housing

2:03:17 ↗ uh for which we're willing to pay the

2:03:19 ↗ price of more market rate housing thank

2:03:21 ↗ you any other second round

2:03:25 ↗ comments Deputy council president uh

2:03:27 ↗ just a few questions actually when this

2:03:29 ↗ goes back to um it's commission right or

2:03:32 ↗ even at committee

2:03:35 ↗ um are there any like timely examples of

2:03:38 ↗ cities who have adopted mfte and and

2:03:42 ↗ project is finished and there's kind of

2:03:43 ↗ a a better understanding of actual lost

2:03:47 ↗ Revenue over time that that that can be

2:03:50 ↗ studied or looked at or is it still kind

2:03:52 ↗ of early yeah well I know that um when

2:03:54 ↗ Shoreline was adopting their mfte they

2:03:56 ↗ did did an analysis and so um I could

2:03:59 ↗ you know show that example and I can

2:04:00 ↗ look at if uh bellw or some other city

2:04:03 ↗ has that analysis because all of them

2:04:05 ↗ have done you know a Fuller analysis um

2:04:08 ↗ when they uh adopted mfte and and the um

2:04:13 ↗ again the the when you were looking at

2:04:16 ↗ those numbers with Arch it wasn't all

2:04:19 ↗ income or or value to the developer but

2:04:22 ↗ it was um kind of balancing all those

2:04:24 ↗ different uh changes um so yeah so we

2:04:27 ↗ can get some more information on on mfte

2:04:29 ↗ I think that would be helpful to kind of

2:04:31 ↗ get a visualization of a few examples of

2:04:33 ↗ like what you're actually getting for

2:04:34 ↗ the cost because it is a cost I

2:04:36 ↗ appreciate yeah and I think there

2:04:39 ↗ there's some complicatedness with how

2:04:41 ↗ the tax shift happens and you know the

2:04:44 ↗ one% plus construction all that stuff so

2:04:47 ↗ so it is definitely um an ex you know a

2:04:50 ↗ guesstimate but a better guesstimate

2:04:52 ↗ than just me up here saying six okay

2:04:55 ↗ yeah um my other question was for um

2:04:58 ↗ council member hunt if that's okay so I

2:05:01 ↗ your part of your feedback was around

2:05:03 ↗ providing options and I'm not sure if I

2:05:05 ↗ followed could

2:05:07 ↗ you expand on that yeah so um the the

2:05:12 ↗ goal of the pioneer program in as as

2:05:16 ↗ stated is to get um get

2:05:19 ↗ a starting project or a couple projects

2:05:22 ↗ that uh meet the vision set out in the

2:05:24 ↗ central Esa plan um where we aren't

2:05:27 ↗ currently getting residential

2:05:28 ↗ development at that density that

2:05:30 ↗ supports walkability Etc um I think that

2:05:34 ↗ potentially another use of this program

2:05:37 ↗ would be to see what gets built um under

2:05:41 ↗ the Pioneer program to use that as a

2:05:44 ↗ proving um proving examples that we

2:05:47 ↗ could use for the next big comprehensive

2:05:50 ↗ study uh over the

2:05:52 ↗ 2024 2025 yearlong where we look at all

2:05:56 ↗ the different lovers so um if the right

2:05:59 ↗ now we have um developers who say for

2:06:02 ↗ example to us that a certain as as was

2:06:05 ↗ said today there's a certain level of

2:06:06 ↗ affordability that's more likely to

2:06:08 ↗ cancel for them um so I think just

2:06:12 ↗ getting that information about what

2:06:13 ↗ actually gets built on the ground could

2:06:15 ↗ feed into our conversation uh the bigger

2:06:18 ↗ conversation if we give them options

2:06:21 ↗ because then they'll have options to

2:06:22 ↗ choose from we'll see what gets built

2:06:24 ↗ and um and I'm not the expert on on that

2:06:27 ↗ but then we would have some actual

2:06:29 ↗ concrete examples of how they how they

2:06:31 ↗ built

2:06:31 ↗ it so that's that's why I was thinking

2:06:34 ↗ there's a potential benefit to and and

2:06:37 ↗ additionally as um as has been said by

2:06:39 ↗ some some um colleagues I don't think

2:06:43 ↗ there's that much of a difference here

2:06:45 ↗ from my perspective in terms of six

2:06:47 ↗ units when we know there's

2:06:49 ↗ uh we know there's need at all of these

2:06:50 ↗ levels and so to me it's you know this

2:06:53 ↗ one is meeting a need this one is

2:06:54 ↗ meeting a need they're

2:06:56 ↗ pretty there's a six unit difference but

2:06:59 ↗ um if there if that's a big difference

2:07:01 ↗ in terms of making it feasible or not

2:07:05 ↗ that seems like useful

2:07:11 ↗ information okay yeah no that seems like

2:07:13 ↗ it all be helpful in more data Drive

2:07:16 ↗ future policy decisions I you know I

2:07:18 ↗ guess that also makes me think too about

2:07:20 ↗ the placing minimums and maximums or at

2:07:22 ↗ least the maximums does that have an

2:07:24 ↗ impact on what

2:07:26 ↗ buil I don't know if that's helpful

2:07:28 ↗ for something to throw into the hopper

2:07:31 ↗ yeah so and I I will um I will add one

2:07:34 ↗ more thing if I can so I I think we

2:07:36 ↗ should make sure that all the options

2:07:37 ↗ are things that we are things that we

2:07:39 ↗ want and that meet the central esquad

2:07:41 ↗ vision um but that said if we do give

2:07:44 ↗ options then we get that additional

2:07:46 ↗ information about what gets what

2:07:48 ↗ developers choose within those

2:07:51 ↗ options council member de

2:07:53 ↗ Melle uh thank you I just uh wanted to

2:07:56 ↗ add that um I think council member Marts

2:07:59 ↗ and I were both surprised to find out

2:08:01 ↗ when we in our committee that if we uh

2:08:05 ↗ included in mfte that we were taking

2:08:07 ↗ money away from the school district and

2:08:09 ↗ so um uh I think that um and with all

2:08:14 ↗ due respect to the school board member

2:08:16 ↗ to be who I happen to know and I'm sure

2:08:19 ↗ he's knowledgeable but I would really

2:08:21 ↗ like to hear an official uh commentary

2:08:24 ↗ from the school district and uh some

2:08:27 ↗ analysis from them about what that might

2:08:29 ↗ mean to them in terms of uh impact on

2:08:33 ↗ their on their bottom line uh and you

2:08:36 ↗ know if we were ever to have a joint

2:08:38 ↗ meeting with the school board which

2:08:41 ↗ might be a nice thing for our 2024 work

2:08:44 ↗ program um I think this would be a great

2:08:46 ↗ item for us to chew on together

2:08:49 ↗ uh because there are more moving parts

2:08:51 ↗ and as he pointed out um yes the more

2:08:54 ↗ students they have the the more income

2:08:57 ↗ they get from the state of Washington so

2:08:59 ↗ there could be uh a very nuanced answer

2:09:02 ↗ to that question but uh I really would

2:09:04 ↗ like to have an official response

2:09:07 ↗ thanks um before I come back to you uh

2:09:12 ↗ council member Joe you want to jump in

2:09:14 ↗ and then I'll start round three thank

2:09:16 ↗ you uh for fear of putting something

2:09:19 ↗ else on our agenda we we do have the

2:09:22 ↗ comp plan that we're going to be looking

2:09:24 ↗ at next year for 2024 to 2044 and uh the

2:09:29 ↗ county cpps have have given us some

2:09:32 ↗ numbers uh that we need 3,000

2:09:35 ↗ approximately 3,500 net new houses in

2:09:38 ↗ isqua under the we need to plan for

2:09:41 ↗ those houses uh by uh 2044 so um as we

2:09:46 ↗ look at this is one element of of that

2:09:49 ↗ planning that's another reason why I I

2:09:52 ↗ would be in favor of us continuing to

2:09:54 ↗ study this uh along the way because the

2:09:57 ↗ county has said 3,500 more units should

2:10:00 ↗ be planned for um I think that we have

2:10:03 ↗ an obligation to uh do our planning and

2:10:06 ↗ if this is a tool that can can help us

2:10:08 ↗ uh get those additional units uh along

2:10:11 ↗ the entire Spectrum uh of Ami I think

2:10:15 ↗ that we should at least take advantage

2:10:17 ↗ of of studying it some more thank you

2:10:20 ↗ round three Deputy council president I

2:10:22 ↗ just remembered the question I forgot

2:10:25 ↗ um this is a spend decision for Council

2:10:29 ↗ and I I I've noticed I've noticed that

2:10:32 ↗ there's no the administration hasn't

2:10:34 ↗ provided any recommendation on whether

2:10:35 ↗ or not they think this is worthy of City

2:10:38 ↗ dollars so I would also expect at a

2:10:40 ↗ certain point that the administration

2:10:42 ↗ weighs in and says whether or not they

2:10:44 ↗ think that this is an appropriate use of

2:10:45 ↗ City funds given all our other needs so

2:10:48 ↗ on and so

2:10:50 ↗ forth round three is still open um lots

2:10:54 ↗ and lots of comments uh Jen from what

2:10:58 ↗ you've heard is there anything else that

2:11:00 ↗ you need is there anything else you want

2:11:02 ↗ to follow up on with the question of the

2:11:04 ↗ council or no no I think these are these

2:11:06 ↗ are all things that we've been

2:11:07 ↗ struggling with as well and so that's

2:11:09 ↗ where a little bit of like how do you do

2:11:11 ↗ the pros and cons with this it's like

2:11:13 ↗ one isn't low because it's important

2:11:15 ↗ still and so um there is a trade-off

2:11:18 ↗ again we think that the I think um as

2:11:21 ↗ council member hunt mentioned that this

2:11:23 ↗ will help give us some additional

2:11:24 ↗ feedback from the market as a pilot

2:11:26 ↗ towards the work we're going to be doing

2:11:28 ↗ in the next year and a half um making

2:11:31 ↗ those adjustments and we did hear one

2:11:33 ↗ thing I didn't mention is we did hear at

2:11:35 ↗ our EVC PPC meeting um mult different

2:11:38 ↗ developers come and talk about how mfte

2:11:41 ↗ is important and how they like this but

2:11:43 ↗ you know again so it wasn't just one

2:11:44 ↗ developer but um you know right now

2:11:47 ↗ that's the the um feedback we've

2:11:50 ↗ received so thank you I I think if

2:11:54 ↗ everybody's finished with this then um

2:11:57 ↗ we'll move on but I just wanted to check

2:11:59 ↗ in and see if anybody would like a break

2:12:00 ↗ we have several more items so uh five

2:12:03 ↗ minute break okay let's do it we're

2:12:06 ↗ gonna take a

2:12:17 ↗ break

2:20:49 ↗ hey chance uh I think we're ready to go

2:20:52 ↗ but you're going to have to maybe turn

2:20:54 ↗ off the on air and turn it back on so I

2:20:57 ↗ know that you actually hear

2:21:01 ↗ me okay that's just kind of

2:21:04 ↗ creepy um okay we're ready to come back

2:21:08 ↗ in so we are back from our break and

2:21:11 ↗ continuing to work our way

2:21:13 ↗ through uh back from our break and

2:21:15 ↗ continuing to work our way through our

2:21:17 ↗ regular business agenda we at AB

2:21:20 ↗ 8663 the 2024 city council calendar and

2:21:25 ↗ the administration is looking for some

2:21:27 ↗ direction and city clerk Tisha gizer is

2:21:30 ↗ going to make our

2:21:32 ↗ presentation good evening city council

2:21:34 ↗ this is Tisha gizer City Clerk and I'm

2:21:37 ↗ here to talk to you about your 2024 uh

2:21:41 ↗ calendar so uh we're not recommending

2:21:44 ↗ action tonight just your feedback on uh

2:21:47 ↗ the schedule for next

2:21:49 ↗ year so uh as a reminder last year was

2:21:53 ↗ the first year we adopted an annual

2:21:55 ↗ calendar uh this was in response to the

2:21:57 ↗ adoption of the uh cultural and

2:22:00 ↗ religious holiday calendar pilot which

2:22:03 ↗ was approved in the fall of

2:22:05 ↗ 2022 and went through uh this month

2:22:08 ↗ December 2023 and as part of the

2:22:11 ↗ adoption of that calendar the city

2:22:13 ↗ committed to not scheduling public

2:22:15 ↗ meetings on 15 holidays with significant

2:22:19 ↗ work

2:22:20 ↗ restrictions this posed uh some

2:22:22 ↗ operational challenges for uh the city

2:22:26 ↗ council and boards and commissions that

2:22:27 ↗ have these standard meeting dates that

2:22:29 ↗ occur at a prescribed uh day and time

2:22:32 ↗ each month and so to proactively prevent

2:22:34 ↗ a lot of rescheduling throughout the

2:22:36 ↗ year we adopted a 2023 City calendar uh

2:22:42 ↗ which uh look forward to hearing any

2:22:45 ↗ comments you may have later in the

2:22:46 ↗ meeting but certainly from the

2:22:48 ↗ administration's perspective was much

2:22:49 ↗ more efficient than having to pull

2:22:52 ↗ council members uh consistently it also

2:22:54 ↗ helped our other 13 advisory boards and

2:22:57 ↗ commissions plan as they are orbiting

2:22:59 ↗ around the city council's meetings and

2:23:02 ↗ schedule throughout the

2:23:04 ↗ year so uh the proposed calendar is a

2:23:08 ↗ similar approach to last year we uh

2:23:10 ↗ looked at meetings that conflicted with

2:23:12 ↗ the cultural and religious holidays with

2:23:14 ↗ significant work restrictions we also

2:23:16 ↗ looked at a other dates like election

2:23:18 ↗ night Valentine's Day of course any City

2:23:21 ↗ Hall closures and we prioritized moving

2:23:24 ↗ those meetings to Monday and Tuesdays

2:23:26 ↗ later in the month though occasionally

2:23:27 ↗ you'll see a few Wednesday committee

2:23:30 ↗ meetings um if there were challenges

2:23:32 ↗ with that

2:23:34 ↗ approach so uh just a few uh meetings of

2:23:38 ↗ note and again this is very consistent

2:23:40 ↗ with the 2023 schedule but there are a

2:23:42 ↗ three Saturday Retreats for the city

2:23:45 ↗ council that are proposed listed on

2:23:48 ↗ screen there are uh three Community

2:23:51 ↗ listening sessions really two Community

2:23:53 ↗ listening sessions which with the

2:23:55 ↗ farmers market uh touch point and again

2:23:57 ↗ this mirrors the approach taken in

2:24:01 ↗ 2023 uh there are some additional

2:24:03 ↗ Committee of the whole meetings

2:24:05 ↗ scheduled for September and October to

2:24:07 ↗ anticipate some additional time needed

2:24:10 ↗ for the budget deliberations as well as

2:24:12 ↗ the standard uh city council break

2:24:15 ↗ towards the end of August and December

2:24:20 ↗ so uh the cultural and religious holiday

2:24:23 ↗ calendar that was approved in September

2:24:26 ↗ 22 was a pilot program and we are uh

2:24:31 ↗ bringing the pilot program back to the

2:24:33 ↗ equity board on Wednesday to talk about

2:24:36 ↗ adoption of a permanent calendar along

2:24:39 ↗ with that we um are proposing a few

2:24:41 ↗ changes to that list of uh work

2:24:44 ↗ restricted holidays based on some

2:24:46 ↗ feedback back received from the bahai

2:24:48 ↗ community the Buddhist community and the

2:24:51 ↗ the broader um Christian Community and

2:24:53 ↗ so there there are some proposed changes

2:24:55 ↗ and certainly the equity board may be

2:24:56 ↗ bringing other changes forward at that

2:24:59 ↗ meeting so we what we baked into the the

2:25:02 ↗ City council's calendar are the current

2:25:05 ↗ um culturally sorry the current work

2:25:08 ↗ restricted dates as well as the few

2:25:11 ↗ changes we're recommending however uh if

2:25:14 ↗ they provide some different direction

2:25:15 ↗ when we bring this item back at your

2:25:17 ↗ January 2nd meeting will um Factor those

2:25:20 ↗ adjustments in to again try and minimize

2:25:24 ↗ rescheduling Meed as we move into

2:25:27 ↗ 2024 the cultural and religious holiday

2:25:30 ↗ calendar will be going to the equity

2:25:31 ↗ board this week and then over to the

2:25:33 ↗ services safety and Parks Committee in

2:25:35 ↗ January and should be coming back to the

2:25:37 ↗ full Council in February so it's a

2:25:39 ↗ little bit behind our 2024 Council

2:25:43 ↗ schedule but again think we can um think

2:25:45 ↗ we're close enough that we're able to

2:25:48 ↗ make the scheduling adjustments that we

2:25:50 ↗ anticipate being an

2:25:53 ↗ issue so uh real quick uh this process

2:25:57 ↗ sort of organically developed once the

2:26:00 ↗ uh cultural and religious holiday

2:26:01 ↗ calendar was approved and now that it

2:26:04 ↗ seems to be working well in a recurring

2:26:06 ↗ aspect of your scheduling we would like

2:26:09 ↗ to formalize it in the municipal code

2:26:11 ↗ and the city council rules it's touched

2:26:14 ↗ on but we would like to establish that

2:26:16 ↗ the date

2:26:17 ↗ that you adopt in adopting this calendar

2:26:19 ↗ are setting your regular schedule for

2:26:21 ↗ the year and then we'd like to provide

2:26:23 ↗ some default dates if a future Council

2:26:27 ↗ chooses not to go through this process

2:26:29 ↗ that would come into play in the absence

2:26:31 ↗ of an annual calendar so it's really

2:26:33 ↗ just baking it in and providing a little

2:26:35 ↗ more clarity on what your regular

2:26:37 ↗ meetings are versus your special

2:26:38 ↗ meetings and that's why uh we are

2:26:41 ↗ recommending adopting this at the

2:26:43 ↗ January 2nd meeting to give us time to

2:26:45 ↗ prepare that accompanying legislation to

2:26:48 ↗ make those

2:26:51 ↗ adjustments and so uh we are looking for

2:26:54 ↗ your feedback tonight and then we'll

2:26:56 ↗ plan to bring back an ordinance and

2:26:59 ↗ potentially two resolutions uh to again

2:27:02 ↗ formalize not not only this calendar but

2:27:05 ↗ this process of adopting an annual

2:27:08 ↗ calendar uh at the January

2:27:11 ↗ meeting and are just looking for your

2:27:13 ↗ input tonight as well as when this item

2:27:15 ↗ returns if you would like it to go on

2:27:17 ↗ the consent calendar or under regular

2:27:18 ↗ business thank

2:27:21 ↗ you thank you city clerk um does council

2:27:24 ↗ have any questions Deputy council

2:27:26 ↗ president um one question for you but

2:27:28 ↗ just as much for the other council

2:27:30 ↗ members as well is um the subject of

2:27:34 ↗ listening sessions is likely to come up

2:27:36 ↗ at our next Retreat for in evaluation

2:27:38 ↗ now that we've been trying it out for a

2:27:39 ↗ few years probably um need to discuss

2:27:42 ↗ whether or not we think it's been

2:27:43 ↗ successful whether that needs to change

2:27:46 ↗ do you think that it should stay in the

2:27:48 ↗ calendar and if something changes we

2:27:50 ↗ remove it or should we remove it and

2:27:52 ↗ then depending on what our evaluation is

2:27:55 ↗ of listening sessions we add whatever is

2:27:57 ↗ new

2:27:59 ↗ back I would recommend because there's

2:28:01 ↗ so many factors tied up with those

2:28:03 ↗ listening sessions where they're held

2:28:05 ↗ which can dictate time of year if

2:28:06 ↗ there's a particular topical Focus like

2:28:08 ↗ the budget or something else probably uh

2:28:11 ↗ I would recommend omitting them and then

2:28:13 ↗ we can always add them back in based on

2:28:15 ↗ the guidance um but open to suggestions

2:28:19 ↗ others

2:28:20 ↗ have okay well that oh we're in

2:28:24 ↗ questions council member marks yeah I

2:28:27 ↗ have a question if we're going to adopt

2:28:29 ↗ this on January 2nd why is it going to

2:28:31 ↗ services and safety and Parks after that

2:28:34 ↗ so we have two calendar items and it's a

2:28:37 ↗ it's a little bit confusing the cultural

2:28:39 ↗ and religious holiday calendar we'll be

2:28:41 ↗ coming to services safety and parks and

2:28:43 ↗ so that's looking at which dates the

2:28:46 ↗ city's committing to not holding any

2:28:48 ↗ kind of public meeting on and that is

2:28:51 ↗ running on a separate track from the

2:28:53 ↗ city council's calendar um we need to

2:28:56 ↗ start scheduling your City Council

2:28:57 ↗ meetings for the next year so we're

2:28:59 ↗ we're a few steps ahead of that calendar

2:29:02 ↗ but we've been keeping it in mind and

2:29:03 ↗ trying to keep them um aligned okay so

2:29:06 ↗ for tonight it's just the city council

2:29:08 ↗ calendar for 2020 thank

2:29:11 ↗ you any other

2:29:15 ↗ questions okay

2:29:17 ↗ yep we're going to go to you know there

2:29:19 ↗ is no action requested tonight but we

2:29:21 ↗ would like to hear from all of you on

2:29:23 ↗ the calendar so let's start with council

2:29:27 ↗ president I guess I just want to start

2:29:29 ↗ with a thank you um I've really really

2:29:33 ↗ truly appreciated not only having the

2:29:36 ↗ religious and cultural calendar and

2:29:39 ↗ having that as something that we're

2:29:41 ↗ leading on as a city but also just

2:29:43 ↗ having our meetings ahead of of time I

2:29:48 ↗ literally have it up on my refrigerator

2:29:51 ↗ so that my family knows when I'm going

2:29:53 ↗ to be gone and all of that um so super

2:29:57 ↗ helpful on on that aspect um regarding

2:30:02 ↗ listening sessions uh generally I don't

2:30:06 ↗ I'm not in favor of the October 24th

2:30:10 ↗ date just because it is so close to an

2:30:15 ↗ upcoming resident

2:30:17 ↗ election um and I just don't think that

2:30:21 ↗ would behoove us um and additionally to

2:30:25 ↗ that I'd like to consider having a

2:30:27 ↗ session in a warmer month perhaps at a

2:30:32 ↗ park or the park near City Hall so that

2:30:34 ↗ we could have something that's maybe a

2:30:36 ↗ little bit more familyfriendly which

2:30:38 ↗ would allow families to come and attend

2:30:42 ↗ and have their kids be able to be

2:30:44 ↗ entertained while they could interact I

2:30:46 ↗ I'm seeing thumbs up in the

2:30:51 ↗ audience thank you for that um but

2:30:54 ↗ generally you know I I think utilizing a

2:30:58 ↗ summer or warmer month so that we could

2:31:00 ↗ do something would be um more something

2:31:04 ↗ that I think would work for us thank you

2:31:07 ↗ I think it was Deputy council president

2:31:09 ↗ and then council member

2:31:11 ↗ hunt um feel like I I feel like Council

2:31:15 ↗ m d Michelle and I were lucky because we

2:31:16 ↗ came on well not lucky because of this

2:31:18 ↗ but we came on right before Co so our

2:31:20 ↗ schedule has always been planned out and

2:31:22 ↗ on our calendar and we've always known

2:31:24 ↗ when meetings are coming so I don't know

2:31:25 ↗ what it was like before that um but um

2:31:28 ↗ yeah no I think it I think it looks good

2:31:30 ↗ I personally think we remove the

2:31:31 ↗ listening sessions for now until we have

2:31:33 ↗ that evaluation though I do like the

2:31:35 ↗ idea of having more fun in the

2:31:38 ↗ sun um council member

2:31:40 ↗ hun thank you um also appreciate the uh

2:31:44 ↗ religious and cultural holiday calendar

2:31:47 ↗ I think that's been um it's been a great

2:31:49 ↗ addition to how we do our work and um

2:31:52 ↗ how the commissions do their work uh on

2:31:55 ↗ the lisening session that was the one

2:31:57 ↗ thing that I wanted to flag because I

2:31:59 ↗ think we I would like to see us do a a

2:32:04 ↗ look at that uh comprehensive look I

2:32:06 ↗ think I I like the way that a council

2:32:09 ↗ member Hall framed it that we should you

2:32:12 ↗ know think about what do we want to get

2:32:14 ↗ out of it and start there and and you

2:32:16 ↗ know how do we how do we um achieve that

2:32:20 ↗ um and do that better than the current

2:32:24 ↗ the current um way of doing that and I

2:32:26 ↗ think one likely outcome of that might

2:32:29 ↗ be different timings or different um you

2:32:31 ↗ know scheduling around different events

2:32:33 ↗ and so I think I also until we have that

2:32:35 ↗ conversation and it sounds like by the

2:32:37 ↗ recommendation of the clerk as well

2:32:39 ↗ sounds like it does make sense to remove

2:32:41 ↗ those and then add them back once we um

2:32:44 ↗ have have that conversation great

2:32:46 ↗ council member

2:32:48 ↗ Joe thank you I just want to thank the

2:32:51 ↗ administration and the clerk's office

2:32:52 ↗ for putting this together it I know it's

2:32:55 ↗ um a little bit of wacka sometimes um I

2:32:59 ↗ I would like to just acknowledge and

2:33:01 ↗ speak in favor of continuing to keep our

2:33:04 ↗ committee meetings on on those Tuesday

2:33:06 ↗ dates I think it's very helpful to have

2:33:09 ↗ those as a set date unless there is a

2:33:11 ↗ holiday on a Monday such as Labor Day or

2:33:13 ↗ New Year's Eve New Year's Day whatever

2:33:15 ↗ it might be um the reason is is that I

2:33:18 ↗ found that uh now Wednesdays and

2:33:20 ↗ Thursdays are other community events

2:33:23 ↗ whether it's the Historical Society or

2:33:24 ↗ the Oldtown uh update on on on projects

2:33:28 ↗ or whatever it might be uh the community

2:33:30 ↗ is able to schedule those events with a

2:33:33 ↗ little more certainty and we know uh

2:33:35 ↗ going into each week that if if it's

2:33:38 ↗ going to be a two or three or four night

2:33:40 ↗ uh commitment uh in a given week so

2:33:43 ↗ thank you for that and I really speak in

2:33:45 ↗ favor of keeping

2:33:46 ↗ that consistent whenever possible um but

2:33:49 ↗ overall I'm very pleased with um the

2:33:51 ↗ entire project and um um look forward to

2:33:55 ↗ seeing what comes out of the

2:33:56 ↗ conversation thank you Council Marts I

2:34:00 ↗ just have a knit um I'm hoping that the

2:34:02 ↗ retreat on Saturday February 3rd um if

2:34:06 ↗ there's any way we can have that be not

2:34:08 ↗ particularly late in the day that's the

2:34:10 ↗ opening weekend of the Seattle Boat Show

2:34:12 ↗ which for some people is a secular

2:34:13 ↗ holiday and I already have commitments

2:34:15 ↗ later afternoon on that day thank you

2:34:19 ↗ council member D

2:34:22 ↗ Michelle uh again I'll plus one uh I

2:34:26 ↗ just am so proud of the fact that we are

2:34:28 ↗ honoring religious and cultural holidays

2:34:30 ↗ and have had such wonderful feedback

2:34:32 ↗ from uh you know uh colleagues in other

2:34:35 ↗ cities who wish that they had this and

2:34:38 ↗ want to know more about it and um we are

2:34:41 ↗ so far ahead of of them and and I think

2:34:45 ↗ uh so respons POs to our community by

2:34:47 ↗ doing this so so thanks for all the work

2:34:49 ↗ that that goes into that uh plus one on

2:34:53 ↗ re-evaluating what we're doing on our

2:34:54 ↗ listening sessions and uh so I would uh

2:34:58 ↗ also like to see those removed and we'll

2:35:00 ↗ we'll put those back on as we can and

2:35:02 ↗ then just a personal wine because I

2:35:05 ↗ think I'm the only council member that's

2:35:07 ↗ on two committees and there have been

2:35:10 ↗ times when we they were backto

2:35:12 ↗ back so that's a uh yeah oh you too all

2:35:17 ↗ right so anyway there's more than one of

2:35:18 ↗ us that but that's just you know I mean

2:35:22 ↗ it's endurable but uh I just want to

2:35:24 ↗ bring it up so

2:35:27 ↗ thanks is great I think we have heard

2:35:30 ↗ from everybody um City Clark do we need

2:35:33 ↗ direction on whether this comes back on

2:35:35 ↗ consent or regular business that's in my

2:35:36 ↗ script but I'm not

2:35:38 ↗ thinking it sounds like it could return

2:35:41 ↗ on consent okay the feedback I heard was

2:35:43 ↗ at this point just remove the listening

2:35:45 ↗ sessions

2:35:46 ↗ okay sounds great well thank you very

2:35:49 ↗ much uh we have a new business item this

2:35:51 ↗ evening it's ID

2:35:54 ↗ 1546 um it is a new business request

2:35:57 ↗ credit card processing fees cost

2:35:59 ↗ recovery and um this evening you'll be

2:36:01 ↗ getting the preliminary staff response

2:36:04 ↗ at the October 23rd city council meeting

2:36:06 ↗ council president Walsh presented this

2:36:07 ↗ new business request item at that

2:36:09 ↗ meeting a majority of the council

2:36:11 ↗ approved moving this item forward to the

2:36:12 ↗ next stage in the process the

2:36:14 ↗ preliminary staff response Chief

2:36:16 ↗ Financial Officer Robert hammud Is Here

2:36:18 ↗ to briefly intro was here I sent him

2:36:21 ↗ home it's starting to rain pretty hard

2:36:23 ↗ so okay okay was here and has asked our

2:36:26 ↗ city administrator to fill in um so I

2:36:31 ↗ assume that you're and and yeah Robert's

2:36:34 ↗ listening in the car as he's driving

2:36:36 ↗ home but Madame mayor members of the

2:36:38 ↗ council uh you have a a memorandum from

2:36:41 ↗ Mr mood and Jennifer Ryan the deputy

2:36:43 ↗ Finance director reviewing our current

2:36:45 ↗ current processes for credit cards and

2:36:47 ↗ the administration's recommending uh

2:36:50 ↗ that we would uh talk about this further

2:36:52 ↗ during the first quarter at services

2:36:54 ↗ safety and Parks that's the

2:36:56 ↗ administration's recommendations happy

2:36:57 ↗ to answer any

2:37:00 ↗ questions okay uh does council have

2:37:03 ↗ questions does not look like Council has

2:37:05 ↗ questions can I get a motion uh council

2:37:07 ↗ president I move to request the

2:37:10 ↗ administration add consideration of a

2:37:12 ↗ credit card policy to the city's 2024

2:37:14 ↗ work plan and schedule it for an initial

2:37:16 ↗ services safety and Parks committee

2:37:18 ↗ meeting in the first quarter of

2:37:23 ↗ 2024 second it's been moved and seconded

2:37:26 ↗ is there any

2:37:28 ↗ discussion not seeing any um all those

2:37:31 ↗ in favor say I

2:37:33 ↗ I those opposed that carries six uh

2:37:37 ↗ unanimously six and0 we're going to move

2:37:39 ↗ on to our next item which is committee

2:37:41 ↗ and Regional reports and we'll start

2:37:42 ↗ with council member

2:37:44 ↗ Joe

2:37:46 ↗ thank you Madame mayor currently the

2:37:48 ↗ Cascade water Alliance board meeting is

2:37:50 ↗ scheduled for December 20th there's a

2:37:52 ↗ high likelihood that that will be

2:37:53 ↗ canceled uh the public affairs meeting

2:37:56 ↗ for Cascade water Alliance is

2:37:59 ↗ Wednesday 9:00 in the morning uh you can

2:38:02 ↗ consult the website if you'd like to

2:38:03 ↗ attend the December 11th uh contract um

2:38:07 ↗ briefing that was going to be conducted

2:38:09 ↗ has been canceled as I've heard and

2:38:12 ↗ they're moving it to the first week in

2:38:14 ↗ January um and I'll give additional

2:38:17 ↗ information to U the mayor and the

2:38:20 ↗ alternate for that date um but it is a

2:38:23 ↗ little bit off right now but you can

2:38:26 ↗ clear your calendar for December 11th at

2:38:27 ↗ this point Thank

2:38:31 ↗ You council member D Michelle thank you

2:38:34 ↗ mayor Paulie um I don't have any um

2:38:37 ↗ reports from previous meetings since uh

2:38:40 ↗ most of them were uh cancelled but uh

2:38:43 ↗ the East Side Transportation partnership

2:38:45 ↗ will be meeting me this Friday December

2:38:47 ↗ 88th and uh Eastside Human Services

2:38:50 ↗ Forum will have its uh last meeting of

2:38:52 ↗ the year on December the 14th and the

2:38:55 ↗ regional transit committee meeting for

2:38:58 ↗ December has been cancelled thank you

2:39:01 ↗ thank you council member hunt thank you

2:39:03 ↗ there were uh no items for the December

2:39:05 ↗ meeting of the Planning Development

2:39:07 ↗ environment committee so there will be

2:39:09 ↗ no December meeting and that concludes

2:39:10 ↗ my report thank you Council M Merz thank

2:39:13 ↗ you Madame mayor uh the sound ities

2:39:16 ↗ Association public issues committee will

2:39:17 ↗ be meeting on Wednesday December 13th

2:39:20 ↗ from 7: till 9:00 p.m. for an online

2:39:22 ↗ meeting action will include uh election

2:39:25 ↗ of a piic chair and vice chair regional

2:39:28 ↗ board and committee appointments and a

2:39:29 ↗ discussion of the sea legislative

2:39:31 ↗ priorities which I distributed to all of

2:39:33 ↗ you after the last council meeting which

2:39:35 ↗ I'm going to bring up again in for good

2:39:37 ↗ in good of the order the council

2:39:40 ↗ services safety and Parks committee will

2:39:41 ↗ be meeting Monday December 11th uh at

2:39:44 ↗ 6:30 p.m. here in council chambers we

2:39:46 ↗ have two items ID 1505 Municipal

2:39:49 ↗ Building decarbonization study

2:39:52 ↗ resolution uh will be presented by Stacy

2:39:54 ↗ Vin mckinstry and ID 1557 Julius bone

2:39:58 ↗ pool feasibility study uh Jeff wat is

2:40:01 ↗ going to be presenting on that exciting

2:40:03 ↗ topic um and this concludes my report

2:40:06 ↗ thank you Deputy council

2:40:08 ↗ president thank you uh just to say that

2:40:12 ↗ next Thursday at 4 pm. East Side Fire

2:40:14 ↗ and Rescue board of directors we'll have

2:40:15 ↗ its last board meeting of the Year

2:40:18 ↗ will'll be adopting our legislative

2:40:21 ↗ agenda for the next year which I just

2:40:23 ↗ bumped to the top of everyone's inboxes

2:40:25 ↗ and would like to bring up briefly at

2:40:26 ↗ good of the order also

2:40:33 ↗ um and that concludes my report I just

2:40:35 ↗ wanted to check if mobility and

2:40:37 ↗ infrastructure had anything since

2:40:38 ↗ council member ra is not here yes I was

2:40:40 ↗ going to mention too I skipped council

2:40:42 ↗ member Ray um he does have an excused

2:40:44 ↗ absence this evening

2:40:46 ↗ uh council

2:40:47 ↗ president thank you I have no report

2:40:51 ↗ thank you um for the mayor's report

2:40:54 ↗ there was no written report issued today

2:40:56 ↗ I'm just going to verbally give an

2:40:57 ↗ update on um an event that happened in

2:41:00 ↗ isqua so so grateful to all of those who

2:41:03 ↗ could attend the Moroccan earthquake

2:41:05 ↗ relief event that was hosted by the city

2:41:09 ↗ the Washington Moroccan Association and

2:41:12 ↗ the um Muslim Association fuget sown

2:41:15 ↗ really well attended the event was sold

2:41:16 ↗ out um don't have any final information

2:41:19 ↗ on um amount of donations both in cash

2:41:23 ↗ or in kind um but it was a very

2:41:25 ↗ successful event and and quite enjoyable

2:41:27 ↗ and got to meet some residents of isqua

2:41:30 ↗ I haven't met before so always fun to do

2:41:32 ↗ that um there will be some updates on

2:41:35 ↗ the relief projects as they go forward

2:41:37 ↗ but there is three there is one around

2:41:40 ↗ fresh produce one around computers and

2:41:41 ↗ this one around winter clothing so we'll

2:41:44 ↗ I'll just include some of those in my

2:41:46 ↗ future me report the next statem of the

2:41:48 ↗ business is good of the order and I did

2:41:50 ↗ hear from Deputy council president and

2:41:52 ↗ council member Merz that they both have

2:41:54 ↗ items so Merz do you want to go first oh

2:41:58 ↗ and counc Michelle okay council member

2:42:02 ↗ Michelle do you want go first all

2:42:05 ↗ right you want to back clean up all

2:42:08 ↗ right uh so there's a couple parts to

2:42:10 ↗ the uh draft sea uh sea State leg

2:42:15 ↗ legislative agenda draft there's a

2:42:18 ↗ priorities uh public safety tools and

2:42:21 ↗ resources to address auto theft and

2:42:23 ↗ property crime sustainable funding for

2:42:25 ↗ core local Services uh rep to replace

2:42:29 ↗ the 1% cap with a with a limit tied to

2:42:32 ↗ inflation and population growth this is

2:42:34 ↗ I would say a perennial interest of SCA

2:42:37 ↗ address behavioral health treatment

2:42:38 ↗ crisis by increasing capacity to crisis

2:42:41 ↗ response system continue to invest in

2:42:43 ↗ local infrastructure transportation and

2:42:45 ↗ mobility of course promote economic

2:42:47 ↗ Vitality by increasing support for

2:42:49 ↗ community revitalization and Workforce

2:42:50 ↗ Development programs allocate State and

2:42:53 ↗ fedal funding to cities to mitigate and

2:42:55 ↗ prepare for impacts of climate change

2:42:57 ↗ promote housing affordability by

2:42:58 ↗ providing resources to assist cities

2:43:00 ↗ with implementation of local affordable

2:43:02 ↗ housing plans um and then separately

2:43:05 ↗ legislative principles Advance racial

2:43:07 ↗ equity and social justice improve the

2:43:09 ↗ social safety net honor commitments to

2:43:11 ↗ Shared resources make no unfunded

2:43:13 ↗ mandates of cities that's also a

2:43:15 ↗ perennial one and preserve local

2:43:17 ↗ decision-making Authority also perennial

2:43:20 ↗ uh so does anyone have any feedback or

2:43:23 ↗ issues with any of those items that

2:43:25 ↗ they'd like me to bring forward to pick

2:43:27 ↗ at

2:43:30 ↗ the all right uh thank you all for your

2:43:32 ↗ timeing consideration thank you Council

2:43:34 ↗ Merz Deputy council president Hall yeah

2:43:37 ↗ that's a good one um okay so East Side

2:43:39 ↗ Fire and rescues I just bumped that up

2:43:41 ↗ to um they're looking at of course

2:43:45 ↗ contining to advocate for um posos

2:43:48 ↗ funding for the cleanup and Remediation

2:43:50 ↗ partnership for the um the isquad posos

2:43:53 ↗ partnership uh Wildland fire mitigation

2:43:55 ↗ response uh there's some more specifics

2:43:57 ↗ under each title so let me know if you

2:43:59 ↗ have any particular questions or

2:44:01 ↗ comments that we can pass along at the

2:44:03 ↗ board meeting next week uh EMS and the

2:44:05 ↗ General Health Care System coordination

2:44:08 ↗ um lithium ion batteries which POS a

2:44:10 ↗ serious fire risk um the State Fire

2:44:13 ↗ Marshall's office and then also ta incre

2:44:16 ↗ tax increments financing Tiff which is a

2:44:19 ↗ concern of um fire

2:44:22 ↗ district any concerns either

2:44:25 ↗ Administration

2:44:30 ↗ or member

2:44:32 ↗ Michelle uh I'll do a summary as well as

2:44:35 ↗ of the East Side Transportation

2:44:37 ↗ partnership legislative uh priorities uh

2:44:40 ↗ I think the biggest change is uh a much

2:44:44 ↗ stronger statement supporting um uh that

2:44:49 ↗ the state of Washington uh provides

2:44:51 ↗ stronger support for for Transit

2:44:54 ↗ infrastructure um there's a strong

2:44:56 ↗ statement urging the legislature to stay

2:44:59 ↗ on schedule with move ahead Washington

2:45:01 ↗ and uh I think everything else in here

2:45:04 ↗ uh aligns very well with our own

2:45:06 ↗ legislative priorities so um and is uh

2:45:11 ↗ pretty much what we um proposed last

2:45:14 ↗ year uh because this is a short session

2:45:17 ↗ uh there won't be any major changes uh

2:45:20 ↗ but um so I think those are the the two

2:45:23 ↗ things uh I think we all support the

2:45:25 ↗ strong statement about move ahead

2:45:28 ↗ Washington and then um much more

2:45:31 ↗ emphasis on support for Transit um and

2:45:36 ↗ everything else is pretty much what it

2:45:37 ↗ was before so is there any um objections

2:45:41 ↗ or changes that you'd like to see to

2:45:43 ↗ those uh we'll be voting on this at ETP

2:45:47 ↗ on

2:45:50 ↗ Friday everybody okay all right like it

2:45:54 ↗ any other items for good of the order

2:45:55 ↗ before I move on to some upcoming

2:45:57 ↗ meetings CC

2:45:59 ↗ president realized I have something on

2:46:02 ↗ there um first reminder is there's the

2:46:05 ↗ employee recognition breakfast coming up

2:46:08 ↗ on this Thursday please check to see if

2:46:10 ↗ you had

2:46:11 ↗ rsvped and make sure you have it on your

2:46:14 ↗ calendar

2:46:17 ↗ um trying to remember what the other one

2:46:24 ↗ was yeah we had two things on the item

2:46:31 ↗ there you want uh the legislative

2:46:34 ↗ breakfast is on December 12th at 88:

2:46:37 ↗ a.m. at Tibbits Manor I want to make

2:46:40 ↗ sure everybody has that on their

2:46:43 ↗ calendars um or or if they are not able

2:46:46 ↗ to make it have uh let people know about

2:46:49 ↗ it and then finally a reminder HR sent

2:46:53 ↗ us paperwork to fill out digital

2:46:57 ↗ paperwork um for our new benefits and

2:47:00 ↗ they have asked us to make sure that is

2:47:02 ↗ complete by December 15th so I want to

2:47:05 ↗ make sure that's on everybody's agenda

2:47:09 ↗ we like to make HR happy especially when

2:47:12 ↗ they're providing us with benefits and

2:47:13 ↗ such so um those were my items thank you

2:47:17 ↗ that's great um no other items I will go

2:47:21 ↗ through a couple of upcoming meetings

2:47:22 ↗ December 12th there is a special city

2:47:24 ↗ council meeting it is the legislative

2:47:27 ↗ breakfast and it will be held at 8: a.m

2:47:29 ↗ at tibits Greek Manor uh there will not

2:47:31 ↗ be a second regular city council meeting

2:47:33 ↗ in December as part of our winter break

2:47:36 ↗ on January 2nd the regular city council

2:47:38 ↗ meeting has some anticipated agenda

2:47:40 ↗ items including the swearing in ceremony

2:47:42 ↗ and Oaths of office for three of our

2:47:45 ↗ council

2:47:46 ↗ members uh an election of a council

2:47:49 ↗ president and Deputy council president

2:47:51 ↗ for the 2024 year um there is no

2:47:54 ↗ executive session this evening and if

2:47:56 ↗ there is no additional business we're

2:47:59 ↗ adjourned at

2:48:05 ↗ 9:49

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (6)

Barbara de Michele

Zach Hall

Victoria Hunt

Russell Joe

Tola Marts

Lindsey Walsh

Excused

Chris Reh

Motions and votes (7)

Adopt Ordinance No. 3039, amending the 2023-24 budget as set forth in Ordinance No. 2994 and amended in Ordinance No. 3009 concerning revenues, expenditures, and fund balance for various funds. . b) AB 8672 - 2024 Property Tax Levy

Moved by WALSH · seconded by HALL

Carried 6-0

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Lindsey Walsh

Adopt Ordinance No. 3040, levying property taxes for the City of Issaquah for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2024, 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 ensu…

Moved by WALSH · seconded by HALL

Carried 6-0

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Lindsey Walsh

Adopt Ordinance No. 3041, imposing an additional sales and use tax of one-tenth of one percent within the boundaries of the Issaquah Transportation Benefit District for the purpose of financing the costs associated with transportation improvements in the district, as authorized by RCW 82.14.0455 and…

Moved by WALSH · seconded by HALL

Carried 6-0

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Lindsey Walsh

Approve Resolution No. 2023-18, adopting a public records policy and public records fee schedule, and ordering publication of this resolution and the public records act rules; and adopt Ordinance No. 3042, repealing Chapter 1.28, Public Records and Chapter 3.60, Charges for Police Department Reports…

Moved by WALSH · seconded by HALL

Refer AB 8553 - Public Records Policy & Fee Schedule to the Committee of the Whole meeting on Jan. 8, 2023

Moved by WALSH · seconded by HUNT

Carried 5-1

Opposed: Marts

. e)

Moved by WALSH · seconded by HUNT

Request the Administration to add consideration of the credit card policy to the City's 2024 work plan and schedule it for a Services Safety and Parks Committee in the first quarter of 2024. .

Moved by WALSH · seconded by MARTS

Carried 6-0

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Lindsey Walsh