City Council Regular Meeting · Monday, May 19, 2025 · City Council Digest

3. SPECIAL BUSINESS

Keana Hunter Proclamation ID 1887

5 min · packet pp.5

▶ Watch from 0:51 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

SPECIAL BUSINESS b) CITY OF ISSAQUAH Mayor's Office WASHINGTON 130 E. Sunset Way I P.O. Box 1307 lssaquah,WA 98027 (425) 837-3020 issaquahwa.gov

National Safe Boating and Paddling Week Proclamation ID 1842

5 min · packet pp.7

▶ Watch from 4:59 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

SPECIAL BUSINESS c) CITY OF ISSAQUAH Mayor's Office WASHINGTON 130 E. Sunset Way I P.O. Box 1307 lssaquah,WA 98027 (425) 837-3020 issaquahwa.gov

Emergency Medical Services Week Proclamation ID 1839

5 min · packet pp.9

Topics: Public Safety

▶ Watch from 9:07 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

SPECIAL BUSINESS d) CITY OF ISSAQUAH Mayor's Office WASHINGTON 130 E. Sunset Way I P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah.WA 98027 (425) 837-3020 issaquahwa.gov

Public Works Week Proclamation ID 1841

5 min

▶ Watch from 13:16

Recognition of Jen Davis Hayes ID 1884

5 min

▶ Watch from 17:24

5. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll of May 19, 2025, $5,286,546.99 ID 1791

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.11–20

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 52:11 Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

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

Roll call:

Moved by Walsh · seconded by de Michele

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

Minutes: City Council Special Meeting, Jan. 30, 2025

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.21

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 7, 2025 City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 21, 2025

▶ Watch from 1:02:51 Open packet at p.21 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR b) 01-30-25 City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Special Meeting 7:30 AM Eastridge Church, 24205 SE January 30, 2025 Issaquah-Fall City Rd., Issaquah MINUTES WA

Roll call:

Moved by Walsh · seconded by de Michele

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

Minutes: City Council Committee of the Whole, April 28, 2025

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.23–24

▶ Watch from 1:13:31 Open packet at p.23 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR c) 04-28-25 City Council Committee of the Whole Page (0000) Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Committee-of-the-Whole 6:30 PM Council Chambers April 28, 2025 MINUTES 135 E. Sunset Way

Roll call:

Moved by Walsh · seconded by de Michele

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, May 5, 2025

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.25–29

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 7, 2025 City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 21, 2025

▶ Watch from 1:24:10 Open packet at p.25 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR d) 05-05-25 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page (0000) CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Regular Meeting 7:00 PM Council Chambers May 5, 2025 MINUTES 135 E. Sunset Way

Roll call:

Moved by Walsh · seconded by de Michele

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

Informational Update: Fiscal Year ID 1881

Carried 7-0

Receive Report · packet pp.31–41

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 1:34:50 Open packet at p.31 ↗

Staff report:

Purpose This staff report provides the City Council with an overview of the preliminary (unaudited) 2024 year- end financial results, as well as a preview of what we anticipate for 2025 based on limited first quarter data. While this informational update will primarily focus on the General Fund and Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) Fund,

Roll call:

Moved by Walsh · seconded by de Michele

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Video Analytics Grant AB 8949

Carried 7-0

Accept Grant; Authorize Agreement · packet pp.43–51

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 1:45:30 Open packet at p.43 ↗

Staff report:

This project is included in the adopted Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) plan (AB 8551) from 2023 under EN-05, titled Video Analytics Deployment. After the plan's adoption, the Administration conducted pilot deployments of different analytic cameras before selecting a preferred option.

Roll call:

Moved by Walsh · seconded by de Michele

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

2025 Crack and Surface Seal Project (TR030-SS) AB 9018

Carried 7-0

Award Bid · packet pp.53–57

▶ Watch from 1:56:09 Open packet at p.53 ↗

Staff report:

This roadway maintenance contract represents work associated with a type 2 slurry seal pavement treatment on various residential roadways citywide (Exhibits B, C), as well as crack seal operations. These routine pavement preservation projects will increase the service life of the treated roadways by maintaining or improving the current condition.

Roll call:

Moved by Walsh · seconded by de Michele

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

6. REGULAR BUSINESS

2024 Sanitary Sewer System Plan AB 8632

Approve Resolution · 30 min · packet pp.59–575

Topics: Water

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Feb 27, 2023

▶ Watch from 21:32 Open packet at p.59 ↗

Staff report:

The City's previous sewer plan was prepared in 2002. State law describes the required elements in the plan, including

Middle Housing Amendments to Title 18, Land Use Code AB 8972

Adopt Ordinances · 45 min · packet pp.577–848

Topics: HousingLand Use

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Jan 11, 2025 Planning Policy Commission · Mar 27, 2025

▶ Watch from 23:19 Open packet at p.577 ↗

Staff report:

B. Feasibility Study C. Buildable Areas Map D. Public Comment Report E. Pro Forma Model - Affordable Unit Feasibility F. Responses to Public Comments G. Change Matrix - Proposed Code Amendments H. Proposed Ordinance 1, House Bill 1110 I. Proposed Ordinance 2, House Bill 1337 J. Proposed Ordinance 3, Parking Amendments K. Presentation City Attorney Review Rachel Bender Turpin City Attorney Review Date: May 14, 2025

Street Standards Conforming Amendments AB 9021

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.849–1053

Topics: Land UseTransportation

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Jul 24, 2023 Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Nov 6, 2024

▶ Watch from 26:00 Open packet at p.849 ↗

Staff report:

The City of Issaquah Street Standards are adopted by reference by Issaquah Municipal Code 12.04.010. The City Council last adopted the Street Standards at the Regular City Council meeting on July 24, 2023 (AB 8454 and Ordinance No. 3029). The Street Standards provide guidance for design and construction of municipal streets, private streets, and public and private parking lots within the City of Issaquah. They are founded in City policy, codes, and standards of industry practice for transportation engineering design and construction.

City Council Vacancy Process, Amendments to City Council Rules of Procedure AB 9009

Approve Resolution · 30 min · packet pp.1055–1126

Topics: Boards & Commissions

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · May 5, 2025

▶ Watch from 26:18 Open packet at p.1055 ↗

Staff report:

Certain steps of the City Council vacancy appointment process are outlined in Chapter 2.03 of the City Council Rules of Procedure. The City Council Rules provide for:  an online application  a verbal presentation from the applicants  the method of making the final nominations and appointment

9. GOOD OF THE ORDER

Upcoming Council Meetings

10. EXECUTIVE SESSION

10a

Executive Session to discuss Collective Bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(4) ID 1874

15 min

▶ Watch from 2:06:49

4062 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ Good evening everyone. I welcome you all

0:10 ↗ as I call the May 19th city council

0:12 ↗ meeting to order. And as a reminder, we

0:15 ↗ still continue to have a remote aspect

0:17 ↗ to our meetings and both staff members

0:19 ↗ and members of the public may be joining

0:21 ↗ us tonight remotely via WebEx. First

0:23 ↗ item on our agenda this evening is the

0:25 ↗ pledge of allegiance and I invite you to

0:27 ↗ join.

0:30 ↗ I pledge algiance to the flag of the

0:33 ↗ United States of America and to the

0:35 ↗ republic for which it stands, one nation

0:39 ↗ under God, indivisible, with liberty and

0:42 ↗ justice for all.

0:46 ↗ Since it is the month of May, it is the

0:48 ↗ month of proclamations. So, we have a

0:51 ↗ lot of special business this evening.

0:53 ↗ Uh, first proclamation this evening is

0:56 ↗ ID1887, Kiana Hunter proclamation. And

0:59 ↗ I'd like to invite Kiana to join me over

1:01 ↗ here. And this is pretty exciting

1:03 ↗ because we have an Olympic champion in

1:05 ↗ the room

1:14 ↗ tonight. Not sure this has ever happened

1:16 ↗ before, so it's pretty exciting.

1:19 ↗ Whereas the city of Isiqua celebrates

1:21 ↗ the success of members of its community

1:24 ↗ and takes great pride in recognizing

1:26 ↗ individuals who bring honor and

1:28 ↗ inspiration through their outstanding

1:29 ↗ achievements. And whereas Kiana Hunter,

1:32 ↗ a cherished member of the Isawaqua

1:34 ↗ community and a former employee of the

1:36 ↗ city of Isiqua, has rechieved a

1:38 ↗ remarkable milestone by earning a silver

1:41 ↗ medal in artistic swimming in the 2024

1:45 ↗ Olympic Games. And whereas becoming an

1:47 ↗ Olympian requires tremendous dedication,

1:50 ↗ sacrifice, and unwavering commitment,

1:53 ↗ qualities that Kiana has exemplified

1:56 ↗ throughout her athletic journey. And

1:58 ↗ whereas to not only compete in the

2:00 ↗ world's most

2:06 ↗ prestig, talent, and relentless hard

2:09 ↗ work. And whereas Kiana Hunter serves as

2:12 ↗ a role model for aspiring athletes and a

2:14 ↗ source of immense pride for the entire

2:16 ↗ Isiqua community. Now therefore, I Mary

2:19 ↗ Lupali, the mayor of the city of Isqua,

2:21 ↗ do hereby proclaim May 19th, 2025 to be

2:25 ↗ Kiana Hunter Day in the city of Isiqua

2:28 ↗ and encourage all residents to join us

2:30 ↗ in celebrating her remarkable

2:32 ↗ achievements and the inspiration she

2:34 ↗ brings to our community. Would you like

2:36 ↗ to say a few words? Sure. Gosh. Gosh,

2:41 ↗ this is amazing. Uh, thank you so much

2:43 ↗ for having me here tonight. I feel so

2:45 ↗ welcomed. Uh, when I realized that this

2:47 ↗ is going to be put together by the pool

2:49 ↗ manager I grew up working with, Zach

2:51 ↗ Listen, I was like, "Wow, thank you so

2:53 ↗ much. This is amazing." Um, I want to

2:56 ↗ say I grew up here my whole life. Isqua

2:58 ↗ is my home. Um, I feel such an honor to

3:00 ↗ be here and to have represented my

3:02 ↗ country uh the past summer in 2024 at

3:04 ↗ Paris Olympics. It was an amazing

3:06 ↗ experience, something I will never

3:08 ↗ forget. I'm so proud. And it was our

3:12 ↗ first um time qualifying as a team for

3:14 ↗ the USA Artistics in 16 years. So, it

3:17 ↗ was a huge deal to be a part of that

3:19 ↗ team. I just felt so honored and proud

3:21 ↗ to be chosen. And um Isaakiqua was a big

3:25 ↗ part of that journey. So, thank you so

3:26 ↗ much. Thank you guys for being here. And

3:32 ↗ [Applause]

3:33 ↗ yeah, I know your parents are here as

3:36 ↗ well, so if they'd like to come up, we'd

3:37 ↗ like to do a picture with you all.

3:40 ↗ Come on up.

3:42 ↗ Yeah, we'll do it in front of the

3:43 ↗ castle.

4:08 ↗ Oh backward.

4:24 ↗ That works.

4:34 ↗ [Applause]

4:50 ↗ pretty thrilling. Pretty thrilling. The

4:53 ↗ next item under special business this

4:55 ↗ evening is

4:57 ↗ ID1842, National Safe Boating and

4:59 ↗ Paddling Week Proclamation. And I would

5:01 ↗ like to invite uh Coastg Guard

5:03 ↗ Auxiliarist Willis to the lectern uh to

5:05 ↗ meet with council member Martz and also

5:08 ↗ as I haven't got it written in front of

5:10 ↗ me. Council member Marts, who else would

5:11 ↗ you like to invite up? We also have

5:12 ↗ Coastg Guard Auxiliarist uh Blackstock.

5:15 ↗ Come on up. Join us as well. Come on up

5:17 ↗ front.

5:22 ↗ Whereas the National Safe Boating Week

5:25 ↗ is coordinated each year by the National

5:27 ↗ Safe Boating Council and its boating

5:29 ↗ safety partners across the United States

5:31 ↗ and Canada. Whereas over a 100 million

5:33 ↗ Americans boat uh for over 100 million

5:36 ↗ Americans, boating continues to be a

5:38 ↗ popular recreational activity and from

5:40 ↗ coast to coast and everywhere in

5:42 ↗ between, people are taking to the water

5:44 ↗ and enjoying time together boating,

5:45 ↗ sailing, paddling, and fishing. And

5:48 ↗ whereas on average 650 people die each

5:52 ↗ year in boating related accidents in the

5:54 ↗ in the United States with the vast

5:56 ↗ majority of those accidents caused by

5:58 ↗ human error and poor judgment. And

6:00 ↗ whereas this campaign serves to remind

6:02 ↗ us to keep sa safety front and center

6:05 ↗ all season long. And whereas a

6:08 ↗ significant number of boers who lose

6:10 ↗ their lives by drowning each year would

6:12 ↗ be alive today if they had worn their

6:13 ↗ life jackets. And whereas the city of

6:16 ↗ Isiqua is adjacent to Lake Seamish and

6:18 ↗ encompasses numerous other waterways.

6:20 ↗ Now therefore, Marylu Pauly, mayor of

6:22 ↗ the city of Isiqua, does hereby proclaim

6:24 ↗ the week of May 17th to the 23rd to be

6:28 ↗ National Safe Boating and Paddling Week

6:30 ↗ in the city of Isiqua. And uh she

6:33 ↗ encourages all community members to make

6:35 ↗ responsible decisions when taking to the

6:37 ↗ water for boating, sailing, paddling,

6:39 ↗ and fishing activities and to wear a

6:41 ↗ life jacket. In witness thereof, she did

6:43 ↗ set her sand hand and seal of the city

6:45 ↗ of Isiqua this 19th day of May, 2025.

6:49 ↗ Would you care to make some comments?

6:52 ↗ Yes, sir. Thank you very much.

6:56 ↗ Ladies and gentlemen, Mayor Pauly,

6:57 ↗ esteemed members of the Isiqua City

6:59 ↗ Council and fellow residents, thank you

7:01 ↗ for the opportunity to address you on

7:03 ↗ this important occasion. As a proud

7:05 ↗ resident of Isiqua myself and a

7:06 ↗ dedicated member of the US Coastg Guard

7:08 ↗ Auxiliary, I am honored to stand before

7:10 ↗ you today to accept the proclamation of

7:12 ↗ safe boating and paddling week. This

7:14 ↗ proclamation serves as a powerful

7:16 ↗ reminder of our shared responsibility to

7:18 ↗ ensure the safety of our waterways and

7:19 ↗ to foster a culture of responsible

7:21 ↗ boating and paddling within our

7:23 ↗ beautiful city. Safe boating and

7:25 ↗ paddling week is a valuable opportunity

7:26 ↗ to raise awareness about the importance

7:28 ↗ of proper safety measures such as

7:30 ↗ wearing life jackets, following

7:32 ↗ navigation rules, and ensuring vessels

7:34 ↗ are in good working order. By adhering

7:36 ↗ to these guidelines, we can greatly

7:38 ↗ reduce the risk of accidents and promote

7:39 ↗ a safer environment for all of those

7:41 ↗ that enjoy our waterways. I would like

7:43 ↗ to express my gratitude to Mayor Polly

7:45 ↗ and the city council for their

7:46 ↗ dedication in promoting a safe boating

7:48 ↗ and paddling week. Your proclamation not

7:50 ↗ only reflects your commitment to safety,

7:53 ↗ our residents, but also helps create a

7:55 ↗ safer and more enjoyable experience for

7:57 ↗ all those that use our waterways. To the

8:00 ↗ public, I encourage you to take this

8:02 ↗ opportunity to familiarize yourself with

8:03 ↗ voting and safety guidelines to make a

8:06 ↗ conscientious effort to prioritize

8:07 ↗ safety and all of your water-based

8:09 ↗ activities. Remember, a little

8:11 ↗ preparation goes a long way in ensuring

8:13 ↗ safe and enjoyable experience on the

8:15 ↗ water. In closing, I would like to

8:17 ↗ remind everyone while we enjoy the

8:19 ↗ beauty of our waterways, safety should

8:21 ↗ always be a top priority. Through

8:23 ↗ education awareness responsible

8:25 ↗ boating practices, we can work together

8:27 ↗ to pro protect our loved ones and

8:29 ↗ preserve the joys of boating and

8:30 ↗ paddling in Isiqua for generations to

8:32 ↗ come. Thank you and have a great safe

8:34 ↗ boating and paddling week.

8:37 ↗ Thank you.

8:39 ↗ And thank you, Council Member Mart.

8:45 ↗ Oh,

8:53 ↗ thank you very much.

8:55 ↗ Thank you for coming and sharing that

8:57 ↗ message. Uh, next up, I'd like to invite

9:01 ↗ for proclamation 1839, emergency medical

9:03 ↗ services week proclamation, uh, East

9:06 ↗ Side Fire and Rescue Deputy Chief of

9:08 ↗ Special Operations Doug McDonald to the

9:10 ↗ lectern. And Doug, why don't you bring

9:11 ↗ your team up as well because I see you

9:13 ↗ got a big team here.

9:16 ↗ And council member Hall, thank you for

9:17 ↗ doing the presentation. Yeah, of course.

9:19 ↗ Yeah, we have some members of I believe

9:21 ↗ station 71 across the street here. So,

9:23 ↗ come on

9:25 ↗ up. Uh, and while they do, um, I'll just

9:28 ↗ say, um, you know, as chair of the East

9:30 ↗ Side Fire and Rescue Board of Directors,

9:31 ↗ it's my honor to give, uh, this

9:33 ↗ proclamation today. It's uh equally

9:35 ↗ special to be giving it to Doug

9:36 ↗ McDonald, our deputy chief of special

9:39 ↗ operations, because he'll be retiring

9:41 ↗ later this year. Uh soon actually,

9:43 ↗ right? June 16th. Very soon. Um so um

9:46 ↗ you know, we're going to be having a

9:47 ↗ ceremony to honor him, of course, and

9:49 ↗ his years of service um soon. But I just

9:51 ↗ wanted to say um kind of on a personal

9:53 ↗ level, I've always enjoyed how eager you

9:55 ↗ are to answer my questions about

9:57 ↗ anything and everything. demystifying

9:59 ↗ EMS, how EMS is run in King County, um

10:02 ↗ apparatus procurement, um trail rescue

10:05 ↗ operations and things like that. And

10:06 ↗ just thank you very much for your years

10:08 ↗ of service. Appreciate you. Thank you.

10:10 ↗ All right. So, whereas in 1974,

10:13 ↗ President Gerald Ford announced and

10:15 ↗ authorized the first National Emergency

10:17 ↗ Medical Services Week. And whereas

10:19 ↗ medical services are a vital public

10:21 ↗ service. And whereas the members of East

10:24 ↗ Side Fire and Rescue stand ready to

10:25 ↗ provide life-saving care to those in

10:27 ↗ need 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

10:30 ↗ And whereas access to quality emergency

10:33 ↗ care dramatically improves the survival

10:34 ↗ and recovery rate of those who

10:36 ↗ experience sudden illness and injury.

10:39 ↗ And whereas emergency medical services

10:41 ↗ have grown to fill a gap by providing

10:43 ↗ important out of hospital care including

10:46 ↗ preventative medicine, follow-up care,

10:48 ↗ and access to tele medicine. And whereas

10:50 ↗ the members of the East Side Fire and

10:52 ↗ Rescue weather career reserves engage in

10:54 ↗ thousands of hours of specialized

10:56 ↗ training and continuing education to

10:58 ↗ enhance their life-saving skills. And

11:00 ↗ whereas it is appropriate to recognize

11:02 ↗ the value and the accomplishments of

11:04 ↗ emergency medical services provided um

11:06 ↗ by designating emergency medical

11:09 ↗ services week. Now therefore, Mary

11:11 ↗ Lupali, the mayor of the city, Isiqua,

11:14 ↗ um does hereby proclaim the week of May

11:16 ↗ 18th through 24th to be emergency

11:18 ↗ medical services week in the city of

11:20 ↗ Isiqua. And we all invite the community

11:22 ↗ to join us in thanking East Side Fire

11:24 ↗ and Rescue for their service and

11:25 ↗ outstanding contribution. Thank you very

11:27 ↗ much,

11:31 ↗ [Applause]

11:34 ↗ Madame Mayor, members of the council. On

11:36 ↗ behalf of East Side Fire and Rescue, uh

11:38 ↗ we'd like to extend our heartfelt thanks

11:40 ↗ to the community, to the council, uh to

11:42 ↗ the city, uh for their ongoing support,

11:44 ↗ your trust, and for standing behind our

11:46 ↗ first responders. It truly takes all of

11:48 ↗ us working together to ensure the health

11:50 ↗ and safety of our community. Thank you

11:52 ↗ again for this proclamation.

11:55 ↗ Would you say for a picture as well? I

11:56 ↗ think council member Hall would love to

11:59 ↗ It's a huge group. Did you want to Yeah,

12:01 ↗ let's go over here. Put them in the

12:02 ↗ center. Thanks.

13:06 ↗ Next item under special business is

13:09 ↗ ID1841 public works week proclamation.

13:12 ↗ And I'd like to invite public works

13:14 ↗ director Emily Moon to the lect with

13:15 ↗ council member Ray.

13:22 ↗ Um, thank you. Very exciting to do uh

13:25 ↗ public works proclamation. I am thinking

13:28 ↗ it's just fascinating um having just had

13:31 ↗ my 61st birth 65th birthday that this

13:35 ↗ year marks the 65th anniversary of

13:38 ↗ National Public Works Week. Um whereas

13:43 ↗ the 2025 national theme people, purpose,

13:46 ↗ and presence highlights how public works

13:49 ↗ makes communities safer, more vibrant,

13:51 ↗ and a better place to live. Whether

13:54 ↗ serving as first responders, responding

13:56 ↗ to electrical outages, or making roads

13:58 ↗ and sidewalks passable after winter

14:00 ↗ weather events, public works is always

14:02 ↗ there when people need them. And whereas

14:06 ↗ our public works professionals focus on

14:08 ↗ infrastructure, facilities, and services

14:10 ↗ that are of vital importance to sustain

14:13 ↗ and resilient communities and to public

14:17 ↗ health, high quality of life and

14:19 ↗ well-being of the people of the city of

14:21 ↗ Isqua. And whereas these

14:23 ↗ infrastructures, facility and services

14:26 ↗ could not be provided without dedicated

14:28 ↗ effort of public works professionals,

14:30 ↗ engineers, managers, employees of all

14:32 ↗ level of government and in the private

14:34 ↗ sector who are responsible for

14:36 ↗ rebuilding, improving and protecting our

14:38 ↗ transportation, water supply, water

14:40 ↗ treatment, solid waste systems, public

14:42 ↗ buildings and other infrastructure and

14:44 ↗ facilities essential for our community.

14:46 ↗ And whereas we pay tribute to the

14:48 ↗ substantial contribution these indual

14:50 ↗ individuals make to protect our health,

14:53 ↗ safety, and quality of life. Therefore,

14:55 ↗ Mary Lou Polly, the mayor of the city of

14:57 ↗ Isqua, does hereby proclaim May 18th

14:59 ↗ through 24th to be public works weeks in

15:02 ↗ the city of Isiqua and invites the

15:04 ↗ community to join us all in thanking

15:06 ↗ public works department for their

15:08 ↗ service and outstanding

15:11 ↗ contributions. Director Moon, thank you

15:13 ↗ very much. Thank you all for the

15:15 ↗ recognition on behalf of the

15:19 ↗ almost 70 employees in our department.

15:23 ↗ Those employees are responsible for

15:25 ↗ operations maintenance for streets,

15:28 ↗ water, sewer, storm water, our capital

15:32 ↗ projects, our engineering and

15:34 ↗ transportation and utilities, tons of

15:36 ↗ administrative functions, and an

15:38 ↗ environmental science group that is

15:40 ↗ responsible for all sorts of great

15:42 ↗ things including solid waste. So on

15:45 ↗ behalf of that big group who love to

15:48 ↗ come and serve this community every day

15:51 ↗ with hard work, devotion, and with the

15:54 ↗ city's goals in mind, I say thank you.

15:59 ↗ [Applause]

16:11 ↗ Thank you very much, Council Member Ray

16:13 ↗ and Director Moon. The last item under

16:15 ↗ special business this evening is ID

16:17 ↗ 1884, and it's the recognition of Jen

16:20 ↗ Davis Hayes, who uh has long worked for

16:23 ↗ our city and is moving on for a new

16:25 ↗ position. And I just want to say a few

16:27 ↗ words about that.

16:31 ↗ Yeah.

16:41 ↗ So today we are proud to recognize and

16:44 ↗ celebrate Jen Davis Hayes for her

16:45 ↗ outstanding service and dedication to

16:47 ↗ the city of Isiqua. Jen first joined the

16:50 ↗ city on September 16th, 2013 as our

16:52 ↗ economic development manager and since

16:54 ↗ then she's made an incredible impact

16:56 ↗ across multiple departments and

16:58 ↗ initiatives. In July 2018, Jen took on a

17:02 ↗ special assignment as a project manager

17:04 ↗ where she stepped in to oversee the

17:05 ↗ permit center in what was a unique job

17:07 ↗ switch with another manager. This role

17:10 ↗ showcased her versatility, leadership,

17:12 ↗ and deep commitment to cross department

17:14 ↗ collaboration. Jen returned to economic

17:16 ↗ development after the assignment,

17:18 ↗ continuing to help shape Isiqua's

17:19 ↗ business environment with innovation,

17:21 ↗ professionalism, and care. During the CO

17:24 ↗ 19 pandemic, Jen played a pivotal role

17:26 ↗ in supporting our local economy through

17:28 ↗ one of the most challenging periods in

17:30 ↗ recent memory. She worked

17:32 ↗ tirelessly and creatively to help local

17:35 ↗ businesses navigate constantly changing

17:37 ↗ regulations and to access critical

17:39 ↗ resources. Thanks to Jen's efforts,

17:42 ↗ Isiqua's business community emerged more

17:44 ↗ resilient and more connected. Jim worked

17:47 ↗ on creating policy that was adopted by

17:48 ↗ city council in 2023. This policy helped

17:51 ↗ create and allocate funding for the

17:54 ↗ inclusive housing investment pool IHIP.

17:57 ↗ This work is instrumental in guiding

17:59 ↗ funding from IHIP in into the

18:02 ↗ preservation and creation of affordable

18:04 ↗ housing units in Isiqua. In 2021, the

18:07 ↗ city of Isiqua adopted a 0.1% sales tax

18:11 ↗ increase for affordable housing and

18:13 ↗ received state passrough revenues for

18:16 ↗ affordable housing investments.

18:18 ↗ Recognizing the need for gap funding in

18:20 ↗ affordable housing project, this

18:22 ↗ creation of IHIP funding uh allows the

18:25 ↗ city to make direct investments for

18:27 ↗ affordable housing projects in Eiqua. In

18:30 ↗ 2024, Jen's role evolved once again to

18:32 ↗ meet the city's growing needs. Her

18:34 ↗ responsibilities expanded to include

18:36 ↗ housing policy and strategy. Reflecting

18:38 ↗ this broader scope, her title was

18:40 ↗ updated to economic and housing

18:41 ↗ development manager. This change

18:43 ↗ highlights not only her adaptability,

18:45 ↗ but also the city's confidence in her

18:47 ↗ ability to lead in areas that are

18:49 ↗ essential to our community's future. In

18:51 ↗ the aftermath of the November windstorm,

18:53 ↗ Jen and her team were immediately on the

18:55 ↗ ground checking in with businesses to

18:57 ↗ assess damage, offer help, and to

18:59 ↗ understand their needs during this

19:01 ↗ significant local emergency. Her focus

19:03 ↗ on the immediate safety of businesses

19:05 ↗ and the longerterm recovery demonstrated

19:07 ↗ her commitment and compassion for the

19:09 ↗ Isiqua community. Over more than a

19:11 ↗ decade of service, Jen has brought

19:13 ↗ thoughtful leadership, strategic

19:14 ↗ insight, and a collaborative spirit to

19:17 ↗ every role she's held held. Whether

19:19 ↗ strengthening the city's affordable

19:20 ↗ housing landscape or supporting the

19:22 ↗ economic resilience of local businesses,

19:24 ↗ Jen's dedication to our business

19:26 ↗ community will continue to have a

19:27 ↗ measurable impact. One other item I want

19:30 ↗ to mention is we all know during COVID

19:32 ↗ there was a significant uh uptick in

19:35 ↗ retail theft and Jen was my partner on

19:38 ↗ task force and created the only task

19:41 ↗ force that I know of locally to bring

19:43 ↗ businesses together so that they could

19:45 ↗ share their learned experiences and and

19:48 ↗ learn better about what the city can do.

19:50 ↗ And I tell that story about Jen every

19:52 ↗ time I go and talk about public safety

19:55 ↗ and retail theft. So, Jen, that was

19:57 ↗ fabulous work. Please join me in

19:59 ↗ recognizing Jen Davis Hayes for her

20:01 ↗ invaluable contributions, her continued

20:03 ↗ excellence, and her unwavering

20:05 ↗ commitment to the city of Isiqua. She

20:07 ↗ will be greatly missed, and we wish her

20:09 ↗ well in her new opportunity. Jim, would

20:11 ↗ you like to say anything?

20:14 ↗ I think the first thing I'm going to say

20:15 ↗ is going to bring you to my next job

20:18 ↗ interview. Thank you.

20:21 ↗ Um, so it's very bittersweet to be

20:23 ↗ standing here and saying goodbye to the

20:25 ↗ council, the mayor, and u, city

20:28 ↗ administrator Bakawitz and all the folks

20:30 ↗ that I've worked with over the 11 plus

20:32 ↗ years. Um, I've worked for four cities

20:34 ↗ so far, and this is the longest one, and

20:36 ↗ I I've had four different roles while

20:37 ↗ I've been here, and it's allowed me the

20:39 ↗ opportunity to grow and really work at a

20:42 ↗ level um, this size of government to

20:44 ↗ work across the whole uh, the whole

20:46 ↗ city, which has been amazing. And to be

20:48 ↗ able to work closely with the mayor on

20:50 ↗ one thing and work somebody with

20:51 ↗ somebody uh just the other day in public

20:54 ↗ works uh on the in the streets is just

20:56 ↗ that's you know that's who we are as

20:58 ↗ city employees. We are here to serve at

21:00 ↗ wherever level we need to do that. So um

21:03 ↗ I'll miss everybody and really

21:05 ↗ appreciate the opportunities you

21:08 ↗ provided. Little bit more.

21:12 ↗ I also want to present Jen with this

21:14 ↗ plaque that uh recognizes her years of

21:17 ↗ service and also our significant

21:19 ↗ appreciation for her. After this special

21:22 ↗ event, I'm going to call for a

21:23 ↗ fiveminute recess to allow the council

21:25 ↗ to come and speak with Jen before she

21:27 ↗ leaves. And also in case you want to

21:29 ↗ have your picture with an Olympic

21:30 ↗ athlete who's still here, we can do that

21:32 ↗ before we start our regular business.

21:35 ↗ But Jen, thank you so much. Thank you.

21:44 ↗ [Music]

21:46 ↗ So, city clerk, if it's all right, we'll

21:48 ↗ take a five minute recess.

27:55 ↗ Sadly, I'm moving us back into our

27:58 ↗ regular session. That was awfully fun.

28:02 ↗ The next item on our agenda this evening

28:05 ↗ is audience comments

28:08 ↗ and members of the public may address

28:10 ↗ council at this time in person or

28:13 ↗ virtually. Those who signed up in

28:15 ↗ advance uh will be called on first. And

28:17 ↗ if you're joining us virtually and would

28:18 ↗ like to chat, please make comments by

28:20 ↗ raising your virtual hand or sending the

28:22 ↗ host a chat message. If you're in the

28:25 ↗ room and you didn't sign up in advance,

28:28 ↗ lost my place.

28:30 ↗ [Laughter]

28:32 ↗ Um, I'll make sure to ask for any other

28:35 ↗ speakers that would like to come up. Uh,

28:37 ↗ city clerk, has anyone signed up to

28:39 ↗ speak for general audience comments or

28:40 ↗ indicated a desire to speak this

28:42 ↗ evening? Yes. Great. So, for those of

28:44 ↗ you that are making comments, you're

28:45 ↗ invited to address the council regarding

28:47 ↗ matters that are directly related to

28:48 ↗ Isqua's programs, projects, services, or

28:50 ↗ events. Comments related to political

28:53 ↗ campaigns are not permitted. Please

28:55 ↗ direct comments to the whole council and

28:56 ↗ not individuals. And while this is not a

28:58 ↗ cute question and answer session, we

29:00 ↗ will contact you to follow up if needed.

29:02 ↗ When you are recognized, if you're

29:04 ↗ virtual, please unmute your microphone.

29:06 ↗ If you're in the room with us, please

29:07 ↗ step to the lectern that's in front of

29:09 ↗ the council. State your name and address

29:12 ↗ or relationship to the city and speak

29:14 ↗ clearly and pause frequently. Please

29:15 ↗ limit your comments to 5 minutes. If

29:18 ↗ you're attending virtually and you do

29:19 ↗ not respond when you call your name, we

29:21 ↗ are still going to have to go ahead with

29:22 ↗ the meeting and we hope that you will be

29:24 ↗ able to rejoin if you can. Personal

29:26 ↗ attacks, obscene language, derogatory

29:28 ↗ remarks, and disruptive behavior will

29:29 ↗ not be permitted. Public comments, both

29:32 ↗ verbal and written, are an important

29:33 ↗ aspect of the public process, and the

29:35 ↗ city takes comments seriously. We thank

29:37 ↗ everyone who's taking time to address us

29:39 ↗ this evening. City clerk, can you please

29:41 ↗ identify the first person who signed up

29:43 ↗ to speak? Yes, Randy Harrison. And

29:45 ↗ Randy, you know the microphones, but

29:47 ↗ press the button on the base in order to

29:49 ↗ get the red light

29:51 ↗ on. Welcome, Madame Mayor, council

29:54 ↗ members. Thank you for this opportunity

29:56 ↗ to bring to you a concern that uh we

29:59 ↗ have up on Idlewood Drive. Um I would

30:02 ↗ also like to observe before I even start

30:05 ↗ uh to say that uh it's ironic that

30:08 ↗ public uh works uh Emily Moon is here

30:10 ↗ and that the East Side Fire and Rescue

30:13 ↗ was also here earlier because what I'm

30:15 ↗ going to talk about involves both of

30:17 ↗ them uh in a positive way.

30:20 ↗ Um, I have some pictures that I've

30:24 ↗ taken. So, this the uh subject of what

30:27 ↗ I'd like to talk to you about today is

30:28 ↗ the potential for a disastrous

30:32 ↗ uh it's been called a cat potentially

30:34 ↗ catastrophic fire situation that exists

30:36 ↗ on Idlewood Drive. For those of you who

30:39 ↗ are not familiar with it, uh Idlewood

30:42 ↗ Drive is built like a racetrack. It's

30:44 ↗ it's a loop and the city owns the median

30:48 ↗ strip and the city does not maintain the

30:52 ↗ median strip. It's very steep. So my

30:55 ↗ understanding in about 1998 when I moved

30:58 ↗ in and realized that I somebody had to

31:00 ↗ be mowing that. I was told it's just too

31:02 ↗ steep. It's not safe. So what we get as

31:05 ↗ a result of that is that some uh

31:07 ↗ residents of Idlewood Drive mow it or

31:10 ↗ pay somebody to mow it and some don't.

31:14 ↗ The problem with the some that don't is

31:16 ↗ that the grass on the median strip when

31:19 ↗ it gets to be about this high and it

31:22 ↗ gets to be the dry part of the year in

31:23 ↗ July turns to

31:25 ↗ hay. That's not a problem in and of

31:28 ↗ itself except that somebody, believe it

31:30 ↗ or not, is still smoking cigarettes. And

31:33 ↗ it is routine to find cigarette butts

31:35 ↗ that have been flicked out of a car

31:36 ↗ window on the driver's side onto the

31:39 ↗ median strip. That's okay now when it's

31:41 ↗ every everything's wet, but when that

31:43 ↗ stuff turns to hay and a cigarette hits

31:47 ↗ it, then we have a chain of events

31:49 ↗ that's not good. The hay lights up. The

31:54 ↗ hay reaches the duff that has

31:56 ↗ accumulated under the That's a new word,

31:58 ↗ by the way, that refers to all the fuel

32:01 ↗ that is laying at the bottom of the

32:03 ↗ trees that are 100 ft high at least in

32:06 ↗ the median strip. Um, couple years ago I

32:10 ↗ talked to the deputy chief of East Side

32:12 ↗ Fire and Rescue, just a a Safeway

32:14 ↗ parking lot. Hey, if you got a minute

32:16 ↗ conversation, we talked about that and

32:18 ↗ he said, "Oh, yeah. We've got a training

32:19 ↗ video on Idlewood Drive Median Strip."

32:23 ↗ Uh about a year later, I went in and had

32:25 ↗ an interview with the chief, now retired

32:27 ↗ Chief Clark, who said essentially the

32:29 ↗ same thing that the deputy chief told

32:30 ↗ me. And that is that in the unfortunate

32:35 ↗ event that we get an ignition of the

32:37 ↗ hay, the hay lights up the duff under

32:40 ↗ the trees. The tree the duff lights up

32:44 ↗ the lower branches of the trees. These

32:47 ↗ are the words that the deputy chief and

32:48 ↗ the chief used. The trees would turn

32:51 ↗ into torches.

32:52 ↗ And within two

32:54 ↗ minutes, that fire would be sending

32:56 ↗ embers up to two or three miles away,

32:59 ↗ depending on the wind

33:01 ↗ conditions.

33:02 ↗ So, this is an example. If you'll just

33:05 ↗ flip through this real quickly, this is

33:07 ↗ the stuff that I took last week, the

33:09 ↗ pictures I took last week to give you an

33:11 ↗ idea of the fuel that has accumulated

33:14 ↗ under these trees.

33:16 ↗ Uh, excuse me. The city about two years

33:20 ↗ ago, and Emily I'd defer to you on this,

33:22 ↗ did come in and cut the lower branches

33:25 ↗ on a lot of the trees. So, it it

33:27 ↗ increased the height of the flame would

33:30 ↗ have to get to light these guys up. Uh,

33:32 ↗ since then, the branches have regrown

33:36 ↗ and now some of them are down about this

33:38 ↗ high. So we have an ask and I don't

33:41 ↗ presume to speak for everybody in

33:42 ↗ Idlewood but I have talked to almost all

33:44 ↗ the residents there about this and it is

33:47 ↗ a shared concern. So what we'd like to

33:50 ↗ see first is for public works to come up

33:52 ↗ and just mow the left hand side of the

33:57 ↗ of the median strip the shoulder there

33:59 ↗ just to get the hay at least two or

34:03 ↗ three feet away from where people flick

34:05 ↗ cigarette butts out into it. So, if we

34:07 ↗ just do that on the loop, that's that's

34:09 ↗ the first part. The second part would be

34:12 ↗ a little bit more difficult, and that is

34:14 ↗ to remove that stuff, the duff, get it

34:17 ↗ out of there because it's getting deeper

34:20 ↗ and deeper and more tangled. And that is

34:24 ↗ the big the main source. If that catches

34:26 ↗ fire, then it doesn't matter how high

34:28 ↗ the branches are above it, it's going to

34:30 ↗ light them up. Um, excuse me.

34:34 ↗ Um the the problem that the both of the

34:40 ↗ deputy chief and the chief told us is

34:42 ↗ that it would be at least 3, four, five

34:46 ↗ minutes after they get notified that

34:50 ↗ these trees are somebody's burning up

34:52 ↗ there before and that the spread of the

34:55 ↗ embers would be before East Side Fire

34:58 ↗ and Rescue units could arrive on the

35:00 ↗ scene.

35:01 ↗ What we didn't talk I didn't talk about

35:03 ↗ it didn't come up in those two

35:05 ↗ conversations was the deaths in

35:07 ↗ California

35:09 ↗ uh were almost all from people trying to

35:13 ↗ get away get in their cars and drive out

35:16 ↗ and they didn't make it. There were

35:17 ↗ three ways off the north the north side

35:21 ↗ of Squawk Mountain. And so Randy just

35:25 ↗ take a second to wrap up if you had

35:27 ↗ additional thoughts. Uh they're three

35:29 ↗ ways off it. it's predictable that they

35:31 ↗ will be jammed and that will further

35:32 ↗ increase the difficulty get of the east

35:34 ↗ side fire unit getting up there. Uh I

35:38 ↗ understand and I'll leave it with this.

35:40 ↗ I understand that the city is in the

35:41 ↗ process right now of developing an

35:43 ↗ evacuation plan and that's great. So I'd

35:47 ↗ encourage you to keep doing that and see

35:49 ↗ if you can't just take a go up there and

35:52 ↗ take a look for yourselves and see if

35:53 ↗ you agree with this situation. It's bad.

35:56 ↗ Thank you. Thank you, Randy. Uh, city

35:58 ↗ clerk, who signed up next? Corby

36:01 ↗ Castler. Come on up, Corby.

36:06 ↗ Hi, everyone. I'm Corby Castler. I'm the

36:09 ↗ executive director of the Downtown Isqua

36:10 ↗ Association. And Tish is going to keep

36:12 ↗ me sane here by five minutes flipping my

36:16 ↗ slides. I just wanted to start out by

36:18 ↗ talking about

36:19 ↗ 2024. And that's because last time I was

36:22 ↗ here, we talked about budgets and a lot

36:24 ↗ of the questions you you came to me

36:25 ↗ saying you'd like to learn more about

36:27 ↗ what Dia has been doing. So that's why

36:28 ↗ we're here

36:30 ↗ today. Next slide. So we know where

36:34 ↗ we're going. We know what our mandate

36:35 ↗ is. It's very clear. And it's not just

36:37 ↗ about producing events. And I know a lot

36:39 ↗ of people say you you plan a lot of

36:41 ↗ parties. Well, what we're really doing

36:43 ↗ is building a thriving old town, a

36:45 ↗ downtown that has been in some cases

36:48 ↗ during COVID decimated by like a lot of

36:51 ↗ other businesses have. But because we

36:53 ↗ have unusual, very unique problems in

36:56 ↗ downtown, a a level of expertise is

36:59 ↗ important to understand what those

37:00 ↗ particular issues are. Next slide,

37:02 ↗ please.

37:04 ↗ We are very proud to announce, it'll be

37:06 ↗ announced tomorrow that the Main Street

37:08 ↗ America is announcing 300 affiliates of

37:11 ↗ Main Street tomorrow. This will be a

37:13 ↗ press release tomorrow. So, Downtown

37:14 ↗ Isqua Association is designated as a

37:17 ↗ 2025 affiliate. And this is so because

37:20 ↗ they look at all the programs we're

37:21 ↗ doing. They look at the results we're

37:23 ↗ doing and it's also based on um

37:25 ↗ Washington Main Street's recommendation

37:27 ↗ that we become an affiliate of across

37:30 ↗ the United States. So, we're very proud

37:32 ↗ of that. One of the things that came

37:34 ↗ into play here is we have a net promoter

37:36 ↗ score which when you subtract the people

37:38 ↗ who are naysayers and you add the people

37:41 ↗ who are really positive about the

37:43 ↗ programs we do, we're 4.6 which is very

37:46 ↗ high when you look at that kind of a

37:48 ↗ formula. Next slide

37:51 ↗ please. We really follow four pillars

37:54 ↗ and that's the Washington Main Street

37:55 ↗ approach. The pillar number one probably

37:57 ↗ the most important is economic

38:00 ↗ vitality. I'm sorry. Um, these pictures

38:03 ↗ here show you fenders on front, which is

38:05 ↗ coming up Father's Day, so I hope to see

38:06 ↗ you all there. Um, this is really a

38:09 ↗ major boon to the downtown businesses.

38:11 ↗ They You'll see people standing outside

38:13 ↗ in the mornings waiting to get into to

38:15 ↗ the restaurants. So, we're really

38:17 ↗ excited to bring it back. Last year, we

38:19 ↗ had 7,500 visitors. Um, we had almost

38:22 ↗ 500 classic cars. I counted lawn chairs

38:25 ↗ just because it shows that people are

38:27 ↗ coming down to stay. They're not just

38:28 ↗ coming to leave. They came, they brought

38:30 ↗ their picnics or they're buying takeout,

38:32 ↗ they sit down with their families. It's

38:34 ↗ multigenerational. It's really a a

38:36 ↗ community event that comes together and

38:38 ↗ people are are they come again and

38:40 ↗ again. It's really heartwarming. Next

38:42 ↗ slide,

38:44 ↗ please. I want to talk about promotion,

38:46 ↗ which is pillar number two. You'll see a

38:48 ↗ lot of the advertising that we do goes

38:50 ↗ to the Pacific Northwest. Um, not just

38:52 ↗ Isiqua. We want to make sure that people

38:54 ↗ know that we exist. This focuses on

38:56 ↗ this. We're a great place to come and

38:58 ↗ eat. So Isaqua Eats is something you'll

39:00 ↗ see again and again. This one in

39:02 ↗ particular was in 425 magazine. The next

39:04 ↗ slide please. We also look at front

39:07 ↗ street smarts and this is really showing

39:09 ↗ that you can learn and you can have fun

39:11 ↗ at the same time and some examples are

39:14 ↗ bombs. You can go and do a tour and

39:16 ↗ learn how to make chocolate or go to

39:18 ↗ experience tea. I know Zach you've been

39:20 ↗ there before where you learn about

39:21 ↗ what's going on with tea and you do

39:23 ↗ pairings and that kind of thing. Next

39:25 ↗ slide please.

39:27 ↗ Promotion also brings hours of music to

39:30 ↗ downtown. 270 hours of music, 153 bands,

39:35 ↗ 390 create creative places, and 464

39:38 ↗ performers. All of this is selling time

39:40 ↗ for the artists who make their living

39:42 ↗ here in Isqua. We provide them that

39:44 ↗ opportunity. Next slide,

39:46 ↗ please. This is another one. Experience

39:49 ↗ Isqua. You'll see again, it'll be

39:50 ↗ consistent because we're branding it in

39:52 ↗ a way that you come and you experience.

39:54 ↗ We want you to stay all day. In fact, if

39:55 ↗ you want to stay the night, we'd love to

39:57 ↗ have you and there's lots to do. Next

40:00 ↗ slide, please. The third pillar is

40:02 ↗ design. And I don't know if you've seen

40:04 ↗ some of the things that we're doing to

40:05 ↗ help support Village Theater, but we get

40:07 ↗ all kinds of calls when we do this. This

40:09 ↗ is grassroots marketing at its best, and

40:11 ↗ our volunteers are doing all of this.

40:13 ↗ But you'll see the the pink shoes here

40:14 ↗ are from Legally Blonde. Um, you'll see

40:17 ↗ the scarecrows on front. All the things

40:18 ↗ that we do to make it seem like we are a

40:21 ↗ beautiful, charming place to be, and we

40:23 ↗ really actually are. So, we're not just

40:25 ↗ talking about it, we're demonstrating

40:26 ↗ it. Next slide. This just shows you some

40:30 ↗ more where we're supporting um dialogue

40:32 ↗ for murder. We had a popup museum in

40:35 ↗ Shell Station showing telecom and how it

40:37 ↗ began. Next slide,

40:40 ↗ please. And flowers on front. Have you

40:42 ↗ seen the 102 um plants that have already

40:45 ↗ sprung up? Our volunteers did this 102

40:48 ↗ of these and they eventually grow to be

40:50 ↗ about 100 pounds. They really flourish.

40:53 ↗ Um it's this just gorgeous and it's all

40:55 ↗ by donation. Next slide

40:57 ↗ please. The power of partnerships. This

41:00 ↗ to me is one of the more important

41:01 ↗ slides is that none of what we do can be

41:04 ↗ done in isolation. And a lot of you here

41:07 ↗ partner with us all the time. These are

41:08 ↗ some of the partners that everything we

41:10 ↗ do, we make sure we reach out to them to

41:12 ↗ say, "How can we help you or how can you

41:15 ↗ be a part of something making isqua come

41:17 ↗ alive and make sure that downtown is

41:20 ↗ it's okay, Kirby, wrap up is the place

41:22 ↗ we want to be." I I think we're almost

41:24 ↗ done. Next slide. So, this is probably

41:27 ↗ the most important slide I have is 465

41:30 ↗ volunteers are are on our register who

41:33 ↗ are there doing something with us every

41:35 ↗ year. And this is the number of hours

41:37 ↗ they put in. These are just from this

41:39 ↗ from Thursday. Next slide,

41:42 ↗ please. Finally, this is something

41:44 ↗ that's near and dear to the council and

41:46 ↗ to the city. And when you look in terms

41:48 ↗ of isolation and people wanting to a

41:51 ↗ place to come and gather, we build

41:53 ↗ community. So, this will show you that

41:56 ↗ we bring people downtown. The foot

41:58 ↗ traffic, it's really an exciting thing

41:59 ↗ that um volunteers are doing. So,

42:02 ↗ there's only one staff member. This is

42:03 ↗ all done by people from the goodness of

42:05 ↗ their heart. And we'll be back in June

42:07 ↗ to talk more about 2025 and some of the

42:09 ↗ transformational strategies. Thank you

42:11 ↗ very much. Thank you, Corby. City clerk,

42:14 ↗ is there anyone else that has signed up?

42:19 ↗ No one else has signed up and there are

42:21 ↗ a few folks online, but I'm not seeing

42:24 ↗ that any of them wish to speak at this

42:25 ↗ point. I'm seeing a few hands up. Is

42:27 ↗ that Wendy? Come on up.

42:34 ↗ Welcome. Thank you. Um, thank you to all

42:38 ↗ the council and to the mayor and to

42:43 ↗ everyone for allowing the community to

42:46 ↗ weigh in

42:47 ↗ repeatedly over the course of the whole

42:51 ↗ middle housing discussion and I know and

42:53 ↗ your patience because this is like my

42:55 ↗ third time here. So

42:57 ↗ um regarding all the critical issues of

43:00 ↗ density and affordability as it relates

43:03 ↗ to Isiqua and particularly Oldtown and I

43:05 ↗ just want to kind of wrap up a few

43:07 ↗ thoughts on this before I know you're

43:09 ↗ deciding tonight. So when we speak of

43:13 ↗ wishing to retain the character of

43:15 ↗ Isiqua, I think what we're speaking

43:17 ↗ about is its unique and historic

43:21 ↗ nature as well as the culture and all

43:24 ↗ the charm that it's maintained over the

43:26 ↗ years and continues to hold.

43:28 ↗ Now, I think it's I find it very unique

43:32 ↗ and becoming increasingly rare to find a

43:36 ↗ downtown core within the major urban

43:39 ↗ suburban

43:41 ↗ interface that hasn't lost these special

43:44 ↗ qualities that Isiqua still retains. and

43:48 ↗ the drive that developed the and maybe

43:52 ↗ overdeveloped towns like Belleview and

43:55 ↗ Redmond has all but stripped them of

43:57 ↗ their characteristics of the past and of

44:00 ↗ their singularity.

44:02 ↗ I think it's wholly unnecessary to go

44:04 ↗ down this path and I know we we have

44:09 ↗ some competing voices with um master

44:13 ↗ builders um having sent in their

44:17 ↗ proposals the path they would have us

44:20 ↗ take of buying properties, tearing down

44:24 ↗ old, endearing yet still very intact and

44:27 ↗ usable homes and lobbying to put up or

44:31 ↗ two, four, six. Well, four, six or more,

44:35 ↗ I think often quickly built, often

44:37 ↗ aesthetically and possibly quality

44:40 ↗ challenge units in Oldtown lots, which I

44:44 ↗ believe would likely enrich the

44:45 ↗ builders, but not the heart of Isiqua

44:47 ↗ itself. It is also doubtful that these

44:49 ↗ units would be genuinely affordable, but

44:52 ↗ for the most part would be instead sold

44:55 ↗ at market rate. We have already been

44:58 ↗ over the the issues quite a lot that

45:00 ↗ this sea change to Oldtown would present

45:04 ↗ burdens on the environment and traffic,

45:06 ↗ pressure on infrastructure and

45:08 ↗ resources, loss of tree canopy and the

45:11 ↗ birds and the pollinators that visit our

45:13 ↗ trees and our gardens and the very

45:16 ↗ things that make Isqua so unique as a

45:18 ↗ confluence of local history, arts and

45:21 ↗ culture, natural beauty and indeed

45:25 ↗ charm.

45:27 ↗ We must ask ourselves, is this the fate

45:29 ↗ we wish to leave Oldtown 2, as in the

45:32 ↗ fate of Redmond, Belleview, and others

45:35 ↗ to go the way of so many overbuilt

45:37 ↗ neighborhoods and towns which sadly seem

45:39 ↗ to have no centers or no souls left. I

45:43 ↗ believe we can find a better way. We can

45:46 ↗ be Yimi.

45:48 ↗ Yes, in my backyard, literally by

45:51 ↗ allowing for more ADU structures in

45:53 ↗ Oldtown with fewer complicated mandates

45:57 ↗ and easier permitting processes which

45:59 ↗ are never the less in keeping with key

46:02 ↗ city building codes such as height

46:05 ↗ restrictions and permeability norms.

46:08 ↗ It's also my belief or hope perhaps that

46:12 ↗ greater care would be taken by

46:14 ↗ homeowners with their ADUs in both form

46:17 ↗ and

46:17 ↗ function, prioritizing compat

46:20 ↗ compatibility with their homes and

46:22 ↗ properties over the goals of mass

46:25 ↗ housing. These structures would allow

46:27 ↗ for greater but gentle density downtown

46:31 ↗ and allow the city to observe and assess

46:34 ↗ how it is working out over time.

46:37 ↗ We understand the need for more middle

46:38 ↗ and affordable housing in Isiqua as as

46:41 ↗ is true of our entire region. We are no

46:44 ↗ different and we are not advocating for

46:46 ↗ no growth at all. There appears to be

46:49 ↗ abundant space for large apartment and

46:52 ↗ condo complexes west of

46:55 ↗ downtown near the park and ride

46:59 ↗ transportation center and Gilman

47:01 ↗ Boulevard, which would offer newcomers

47:05 ↗ convenience, access to everything

47:07 ↗ downtown has to offer, and a great

47:09 ↗ quality of life. We welcome new people.

47:13 ↗ Let's just manage our growth

47:15 ↗ thoughtfully creatively and

47:17 ↗ sustainably while maximizing true

47:19 ↗ affordability for lowincome buyers and

47:23 ↗ and community and quality of life for

47:26 ↗ all the inhabitants of our muchloved

47:28 ↗ town. I think I forgot to mention my

47:31 ↗ name is Wendy Pickering. I live at

47:32 ↗ 2852nd Avenue Northeast, just down the

47:35 ↗ way. And thank you for your time. Thank

47:37 ↗ you, Wendy. Is I see a lot of other

47:40 ↗ folks in the room. Is there anyone else

47:41 ↗ who would like to come up? and come on

47:52 ↗ up. Good evening. My name is Anne

47:55 ↗ Fletcher and I am an Oldtown resident uh

47:59 ↗ of about 37 years. It's great to be here

48:03 ↗ tonight. Thank you so much for this

48:04 ↗ opportunity.

48:06 ↗ The comments I have already made to the

48:08 ↗ planning policy commission and the

48:10 ↗ community development um and environment

48:13 ↗ committee about middle housing still

48:15 ↗ stand and I won't uh go through and

48:17 ↗ repeat all of those things. Uh I know

48:20 ↗ you have access to those

48:23 ↗ but I would like to take a break till

48:26 ↗ the siren goes by. They're hard at work.

48:30 ↗ They're hard at work.

48:32 ↗ I'm used to that because I live down

48:34 ↗ here.

48:38 ↗ Um and uh uh they still stand and I do

48:42 ↗ agree with the recommendations that both

48:44 ↗ of those committees made. Um but I would

48:46 ↗ like to add a couple of things. Uh one

48:49 ↗ is that Oldtown has been and still is a

48:52 ↗ great example of an eclectic

48:54 ↗ neighborhood. Um almost some people

48:58 ↗ might say funky. Um and uh we have

49:02 ↗ really appreciated that it it's a mix of

49:05 ↗ historic and modern, single and multif

49:07 ↗ family and and

49:10 ↗ multigenerational. Uh it it it's

49:13 ↗ wonderful that way. And since we moved

49:15 ↗ here, uh we raised our family here. Uh

49:19 ↗ we stayed on as retirees and we hope to

49:21 ↗ stay here um a long time amongst a mix

49:24 ↗ of ages and different kinds of people.

49:28 ↗ Um but it has been duplex zoned for a

49:31 ↗ long time and many re residents have

49:33 ↗ chosen to add units additional um uh

49:38 ↗ detached and attached and to remodeled

49:40 ↗ and this has allowed a a natural

49:43 ↗ affordable and sort of common sense way

49:45 ↗ to grow this area. Um, as we walk around

49:49 ↗ the neighborhood, I see take a break. I

49:53 ↗ I see all sorts of uh things in

49:57 ↗ progress. And it's this kind of density

50:00 ↗ increase, if it could continue at a

50:03 ↗ reasonable pace, then the infrastructure

50:05 ↗ that is needed to support this growth

50:08 ↗ can be more easily dealt

50:10 ↗ with. And the mix allows for more

50:13 ↗ natural amenities, yards, gardens,

50:15 ↗ trees, and all of that is much healthier

50:18 ↗ and more beautiful. And people deserve

50:22 ↗ that health and that beauty.

50:25 ↗ So that is why two units per lot makes

50:27 ↗ sense for Oldtown and an allowance for

50:30 ↗ more units entices realtors, developers,

50:32 ↗ and investors to go to the limit

50:36 ↗ um on tear down and rebuild to get that

50:38 ↗ ground coverage and height to make the

50:40 ↗ desired profit.

50:42 ↗ uh we regularly receive letters from

50:45 ↗ outside investors wanting to buy our

50:47 ↗ house and that has increased since in

50:50 ↗ the last few months since they know this

50:53 ↗ discussion is going on. And so we um

50:58 ↗ we my my final thought is let's let

51:01 ↗ those in this special neighborhood guide

51:04 ↗ the density increase in a way that fits

51:07 ↗ our city regulations and our community

51:11 ↗ values

51:13 ↗ um as well as provide that greater

51:15 ↗ number and variety of middle housing

51:17 ↗ that we're looking for in this lovely

51:20 ↗ central location. Thank you. Thank you.

51:23 ↗ And is there anyone else in the room

51:25 ↗ that would like to speak? Just raise

51:27 ↗ your

51:28 ↗ hand. I'm not seeing anyone else in the

51:30 ↗ room. Tisha, is there anyone online that

51:32 ↗ has indicated a desire to

51:37 ↗ speak? Not seeing it. Okay. Thanks.

51:39 ↗ Well, I appreciate the the several folks

51:42 ↗ that stood up to talk about concerns I

51:44 ↗ would drive on the median strip hazards,

51:47 ↗ a report out on downtown Isiqua

51:49 ↗ Association, and uh comments on middle

51:52 ↗ housing from several folks. Thanks for

51:53 ↗ taking the time to uh come and talk to

51:56 ↗ the council. As a reminder, at any point

51:59 ↗ in time, you can write your comments to

52:01 ↗ the city council at city

52:04 ↗ councilwah.gov. The next item of

52:06 ↗ business this evening is the consent

52:08 ↗ calendar. Um, I don't have any remarks

52:11 ↗ myself on the consent calendar, but I'm

52:13 ↗ wondering if any committee chairs would

52:14 ↗ like to talk about any items that are on

52:16 ↗ there. Council member Ray, I don't know

52:19 ↗ that this is something um definitely

52:22 ↗ related to the mobile mobility

52:23 ↗ infrastructure committee, but I think

52:25 ↗ tangentially, so I'm taking advantage of

52:26 ↗ it. Super excited to see that we've got

52:29 ↗ the intelligent transportation system uh

52:31 ↗ video analysis grant um acceptance on

52:34 ↗ here. Um, as I think I've said at every

52:36 ↗ opportunity, this is one of the most

52:38 ↗ important things we can do moving

52:39 ↗ forward and um, having funding is a key

52:43 ↗ part of that. Key part of that. Thank

52:45 ↗ you for those words. I was looking for

52:46 ↗ them. Thank you, Council Ray. Thank you.

52:48 ↗ Are there any other committee chairs

52:50 ↗ that would like to speak to any of the

52:51 ↗ items? Okay. Uh, let's see. The consent

52:54 ↗ calendar was distributed to council in

52:56 ↗ advance, and if authorized, the items on

52:58 ↗ the calendar will be considered together

53:00 ↗ and approved by one motion. Have the

53:01 ↗ payables and payroll been reviewed? They

53:04 ↗ have. They have. Thank you. Uh, does any

53:06 ↗ council member desire to remove any item

53:08 ↗ from the consent calendar and consider

53:10 ↗ it under regular business? I'm not

53:12 ↗ seeing an

53:14 ↗ indication. Uh, is there a council

53:16 ↗ motion? I move to approve the consent

53:19 ↗ calendar as distributed. Second. It's

53:23 ↗ been moved and seconded. All those in

53:25 ↗ favor signify by saying I. I.

53:28 ↗ Opposed. That carries seven and no.

53:31 ↗ We'll move to our regular business items

53:33 ↗ and the first one this evening is

53:35 ↗ AB8632, the 20 sanitary sewer system

53:38 ↗ plan. And I'd like to invite utility

53:41 ↗ engineering manager Matt Ellis to

53:42 ↗ present the item. Welcome Matt.

53:46 ↗ Thank you.

54:07 ↗ Good evening, council members. Again,

54:08 ↗ Matt Ellis, utility engineer engineering

54:11 ↗ manager. Tonight, we are presenting the

54:13 ↗ sanitary sewer system plan for adoption.

54:16 ↗ I'm joined here tonight with Sandaria

54:19 ↗ Christian Morithi from BHC. She's our

54:22 ↗ consultant.

54:25 ↗ The purpose of the SL of the uh tonight

54:28 ↗ is to over provide an over overview of

54:31 ↗ the plan and engagement thus far,

54:33 ↗ provide a summary of the policies, a

54:36 ↗ list of the CIP of the CIPs, uh

54:39 ↗ direction received, and then provide

54:41 ↗ next

54:43 ↗ steps. Uh again for the agenda, we'll

54:45 ↗ provide a timeline to council and

54:47 ↗ community engagement on this project

54:48 ↗ because it's been a lengthy one. uh a

54:50 ↗ summary of the system plan, policy

54:52 ↗ summary and and capital improvement

54:54 ↗ plan. Uh direction received to date from

54:57 ↗ both council as well as external

54:59 ↗ agencies. Uh next steps, plan

55:02 ↗ implementation schedule and

55:07 ↗ recommendations. So this slide shows the

55:09 ↗ stops we made during uh while we

55:12 ↗ developed the sewer system plan. It has

55:14 ↗ been a while since we've been back to

55:16 ↗ council on this project. Uh since we

55:19 ↗ engaged with the council about a little

55:20 ↗ over a year ago, uh we

55:24 ↗ uh we uh la uh let's see went out for an

55:28 ↗ inter agency review and received quite a

55:30 ↗ few comments from the department of

55:31 ↗ ecology, King County Board of Health and

55:33 ↗ Smamish Plateau Water and Sewer

55:35 ↗ District. A few of their comments are

55:37 ↗ identified on a future slide. We also

55:40 ↗ went through the sea process and

55:42 ↗ received no comment on the plan. To

55:44 ↗ recap, our first set of conversations

55:46 ↗ regarding the plan was discussed with

55:48 ↗ the M&I committee and the environmental

55:50 ↗ board regarding on-site septic

55:51 ↗ inspection and connection. From these

55:54 ↗ touch points, we evaluated and revised

55:56 ↗ the consideration on policy for septic

55:58 ↗ system management.

56:00 ↗ At this point, we developed a policy and

56:02 ↗ CIP proposal to extend sewer into

56:04 ↗ unsured neighborhoods that are in or

56:07 ↗ adjacent to environmentally sensitive

56:08 ↗ areas where there's risk septic septic

56:11 ↗ fail failure could negatively impact the

56:13 ↗ environment and private extension is

56:15 ↗ cost prohibitive for the community.

56:17 ↗ Council and the community were largely

56:19 ↗ supportive of this

56:21 ↗ initiative. The biggest discussion

56:23 ↗ points or hurdles were on septic

56:25 ↗ violations and inspection requirements

56:27 ↗ after evaluation. These elements are

56:29 ↗ best covered as a code revision, not as

56:31 ↗ a policy

56:33 ↗ statement and will be coming back to

56:36 ↗ council as a code amendment to IMC title

56:39 ↗ 13 and 16 in a subsequent meeting later

56:42 ↗ this year. In November 23, we went back

56:45 ↗ to M&I to discuss the development of the

56:47 ↗ rest of the sewer system plan. We ran

56:49 ↗ through the hydraulic model, identified

56:51 ↗ the proposed capital improvement plan,

56:53 ↗ and discussed the policy statements that

56:55 ↗ did not center on subject system

56:56 ↗ management. This meeting discussed

56:58 ↗ capacity and management of the overall

57:00 ↗ system. The community agreed with the

57:03 ↗ proposed policy statements which

57:04 ↗ included increasing capacity when

57:06 ↗ sections of the sewer system are

57:08 ↗ experiencing searchcharging within sewer

57:10 ↗ manholes and requiring developers to

57:12 ↗ contribute costs for proposed

57:14 ↗ development will create capacity

57:15 ↗ concerns within a section of sewer.

57:18 ↗ Regarding a policy centered around fats,

57:20 ↗ oils, and grease or fog management, the

57:22 ↗ committee elected not to require a

57:24 ↗ one-year retroactive clause for

57:26 ↗ installing a grease interceptor for

57:27 ↗ commercial establishments and instead

57:29 ↗ recommended a three-year window to

57:31 ↗ comply, which will be established by

57:33 ↗ code. This allows existing commercial

57:35 ↗ establishments time to save up for and

57:37 ↗ the purchase and permitting of the

57:38 ↗ corrected size grease interceptor. A few

57:41 ↗ commercial establishments were concerned

57:43 ↗ with this

57:44 ↗ policy. For public outreach, we did

57:47 ↗ outreach early in this process. We

57:48 ↗ received positive support from the

57:50 ↗ community and the policies that we

57:52 ↗ presented to council and the

57:53 ↗ environmental board. We have not changed

57:55 ↗ the primary policy points and the public

57:57 ↗ have been largely supportive of the

57:59 ↗ initiatives we've proposed. We still

58:01 ↗ have a phase in the implementation piece

58:03 ↗ in implementing the red line code. This

58:06 ↗ phase will be the most impactful to

58:07 ↗ residents as it is it will dictate the

58:09 ↗ regulations. The draft code has gone

58:12 ↗ through CI process with the sewer system

58:14 ↗ plan.

58:16 ↗ including options for public engagement.

58:18 ↗ We received no comments. We're presently

58:20 ↗ going through the final attorney

58:21 ↗ concurrence to fine-tune the wording of

58:23 ↗ these code revisions and we'll plan we

58:25 ↗ plan to bring this comment this

58:27 ↗ component to council before the end of

58:28 ↗ the year.

58:33 ↗ So here is the primary components of the

58:36 ↗ sewer system plan includes the service

58:39 ↗ area characteristics within the city.

58:41 ↗ The population and growth projections uh

58:44 ↗ uh regulator regulations and policy

58:46 ↗ existing facility evaluation sewer flow

58:50 ↗ characteristics. conveyance system

58:52 ↗ analysis, wastewater reclamation and

58:54 ↗ reuse uh

58:56 ↗ evaluation, operations and maintenance

58:59 ↗ evaluation of our uh maintenance

59:01 ↗ division, capital improvement program

59:03 ↗ and financial

59:06 ↗ program. And as a summary, we're going

59:08 ↗ to go through the the uh goals uh of the

59:11 ↗ sewer system plan to give a a bit of a

59:14 ↗ recap. The goals are similar to existing

59:17 ↗ goals set in the previous 2002 sewer

59:19 ↗ system plan which is the last adopted

59:21 ↗ plan and also uh corresponding

59:24 ↗ comprehensive plans that have been

59:26 ↗ adopted uh since then. You may have

59:28 ↗ noticed that we have repeated these

59:30 ↗ first four goals in the first four

59:32 ↗ policy statements. Uh we just recently

59:34 ↗ realized this and we'll clean that up in

59:36 ↗ a few minor grammatical errors with

59:38 ↗ adoption and publication of the final

59:40 ↗ plan.

59:42 ↗ So goal one is to provide safe, reliable

59:44 ↗ and timely sewer service to its

59:46 ↗ customers at a fair and reasonable

59:48 ↗ price. Goal two is to provide reliable

59:51 ↗ levels of service and ensure adequate

59:53 ↗ capacity within the sewer system by

59:54 ↗ upgrading the system to protect the

59:56 ↗ natural environment as deemed necessary.

59:59 ↗ Goal three is to ensure the sewer system

1:00:01 ↗ infrastructure expansion provides an

1:00:03 ↗ adequate level of public service to

1:00:05 ↗ support new development consistent with

1:00:07 ↗ the city's policies, criteria, and

1:00:09 ↗ standards. And goal four is to develop

1:00:12 ↗ feasible and cost-effective collection

1:00:14 ↗ system alternatives and improvement

1:00:16 ↗ recommendations to effectively operate

1:00:18 ↗ the sewer system to serve existing and

1:00:20 ↗ future city customer needs.

1:00:24 ↗ Goal five is to replace or reline all

1:00:26 ↗ asbestous pipes within the next 20

1:00:28 ↗ years, and we're actually completed that

1:00:31 ↗ project already. Protect the health and

1:00:33 ↗ safety of the city's Isiqua residents,

1:00:35 ↗ businesses, and visitors. Protect the

1:00:37 ↗ environment and the quality of the

1:00:38 ↗ city's lakes, streams, and groundwater,

1:00:41 ↗ and be responsible water stewards for

1:00:42 ↗ future generations.

1:00:46 ↗ As I mentioned, uh, we just realized

1:00:49 ↗ that the policy statements are the same

1:00:52 ↗ for the first four goals. So, I won't be

1:00:54 ↗ re repeating these, but we will be

1:00:56 ↗ fixing

1:01:03 ↗ that. So, policy five is extend sewers

1:01:06 ↗ into unseured neighborhoods located

1:01:08 ↗ within with within or adjacent to

1:01:10 ↗ environmentally sensitive areas. And uh

1:01:13 ↗ to expand upon that uh tier one as we

1:01:16 ↗ had discussed a long time ago would be

1:01:18 ↗ the 100red-year flood plane shoreline

1:01:20 ↗ buffer boundary and commercial

1:01:22 ↗ industrial properties. And our goal is

1:01:24 ↗ to extend sewers or get people on sewer

1:01:27 ↗ within 20 years. Tier two is the stream

1:01:30 ↗ buffers, wetland boundaries and

1:01:32 ↗ documented areas with high groundwater.

1:01:34 ↗ And the goal would be to extend within

1:01:36 ↗ 30 years in that category. And then

1:01:38 ↗ category three would be the critical

1:01:40 ↗ aquifer recharge area or CARA uh in the

1:01:43 ↗ 1 to 10year wellhead protect capture

1:01:45 ↗ zone. Uh and that goal would be 40

1:01:48 ↗ years.

1:01:49 ↗ Policy six is upsize or remediate the

1:01:52 ↗ adjacent sewer system when the maximum

1:01:54 ↗ water surface within the conveyance

1:01:56 ↗ system generated during a 25-year

1:01:58 ↗ occurrence interval design storm is

1:02:00 ↗ predicted to become equal or greater

1:02:02 ↗ than the searchcharge criteria which is

1:02:05 ↗ a fancy way of saying uh when sewer

1:02:07 ↗ backs up into a manhole uh we fix it. Uh

1:02:10 ↗ so shallow pipes uh we'd have more

1:02:13 ↗ strict requirements because there's more

1:02:15 ↗ of a risk in especially during a storm

1:02:17 ↗ event. In deeper sections of pipe we'd

1:02:19 ↗ have less strict requirements because we

1:02:21 ↗ can allow the water to to rise within

1:02:23 ↗ the manhole uh because it wouldn't

1:02:25 ↗ impact

1:02:26 ↗ infrastructure. Uh policy seven

1:02:29 ↗ developers shall analyze the impacts of

1:02:31 ↗ the development on the existing sewer

1:02:32 ↗ system. If a city makes a determination

1:02:34 ↗ that the developments impacts to the

1:02:36 ↗ existing sewer system require upgrades,

1:02:38 ↗ the upgrades shall be made at cost to

1:02:40 ↗ the developer. So they pay their

1:02:43 ↗ contribution. Uh in policy 8 is to

1:02:46 ↗ ensure business businesses contributing

1:02:49 ↗ uh fats, oil and grease or fog to the

1:02:51 ↗ city's sewer system have appropriate

1:02:53 ↗ grease interceptors installed or best

1:02:55 ↗ management practices in place.

1:03:00 ↗ Um, as we did the analysis, we looked at

1:03:03 ↗ all the projects and the growth within

1:03:05 ↗ the city. Um, we found just a few spots

1:03:09 ↗ that had capacity concerns. One of those

1:03:12 ↗ is already on our capital improvement

1:03:14 ↗ plan, which is the SW18 South uh,

1:03:17 ↗ Newport and Wildwood sewer remediation.

1:03:20 ↗ Our design is in 26 and construction is

1:03:22 ↗ in 27. This is a large project estimated

1:03:25 ↗ at 1.2 2 million to upsize the sewer

1:03:27 ↗ line to reduce the search charging in

1:03:29 ↗ the system. Sewer is currently observed

1:03:32 ↗ during major storm events close to the

1:03:34 ↗ rim of the manhole. This is a uh this

1:03:37 ↗ causes the this is a conservative

1:03:40 ↗ measure uh upsizing the system. But as

1:03:42 ↗ we investigate further, we will be

1:03:44 ↗ looking to see if we can find the reason

1:03:45 ↗ for the search charging. Often times

1:03:47 ↗ there's a a a storm connection to the

1:03:50 ↗ sewer uh that we can fix. If this issue

1:03:52 ↗ can be addressed, we can fix this issue

1:03:54 ↗ economically and reduce the volume of

1:03:56 ↗ water entering the sewer and alleviating

1:03:58 ↗ the need to upsize the pipe. This would

1:04:00 ↗ significantly cut costs, help the

1:04:02 ↗ environment. Uh but for the planning

1:04:03 ↗ purposes, uh we want to plan for the

1:04:06 ↗ worst case scenario where we cannot find

1:04:08 ↗ an upstream issue and then and budget

1:04:10 ↗ for

1:04:11 ↗ that. Uh the other two projects are are

1:04:14 ↗ developmentdriven. So as the upstream

1:04:17 ↗ sections of of uh uh the city grow and

1:04:21 ↗ expand um we would need to upsize those

1:04:23 ↗ pipes. So these are 30 year time uh

1:04:26 ↗ timelines when these sections of area

1:04:28 ↗ these areas grow. So one of those is the

1:04:31 ↗ wild is on Wildwood between Gibson and

1:04:34 ↗ Heer Hepler Lane and the other is up in

1:04:37 ↗ the Highlands on fifth place between

1:04:39 ↗ Ellis Drive and Discovery Drive.

1:04:43 ↗ Uh we also have the sewer extension

1:04:45 ↗ program. Uh currently we're in the

1:04:47 ↗ design for the Sycamore neighborhood. Uh

1:04:49 ↗ the next one would be along Tibbitz

1:04:50 ↗ Creek and uh between Tibbitz and SR900

1:04:54 ↗ and that would coincide with a a street

1:04:56 ↗ project

1:04:57 ↗ TR22. Uh so we would be doing the the

1:05:00 ↗ design in 2029 and construction in

1:05:09 ↗ 2031. All right. direction to date. I

1:05:13 ↗ touched on this previously, but uh as a

1:05:15 ↗ summary of what we heard from committees

1:05:17 ↗ to date, to refresh your memory from a

1:05:19 ↗ long time ago, uh policy number five,

1:05:22 ↗ extend sewer into unseeded

1:05:24 ↗ neighborhoods. Um mobility and

1:05:25 ↗ infrastructure agreed to support sewer

1:05:28 ↗ extensions into unseeded neighborhoods

1:05:29 ↗ where sewer extensions were cost

1:05:31 ↗ prohibitive and and septic systems pose

1:05:34 ↗ a concern to environmentally sensitive

1:05:35 ↗ areas. For policy six, maintaining sewer

1:05:38 ↗ system capacity, the M&I agreed with the

1:05:41 ↗ INI capacity impact threshold. And for

1:05:45 ↗ developer capacity impacts, M&I agreed

1:05:47 ↗ with the developer contributions based

1:05:48 ↗ on amount of flow contributing to

1:05:51 ↗ searchcharging. For the uh uh fats,

1:05:54 ↗ oils, and grease management policy, M&I

1:05:56 ↗ elected not to require a one-year

1:05:58 ↗ retroactive clause for installing grease

1:06:00 ↗ interceptors. Uh the timeline for

1:06:02 ↗ compliance will be established in code

1:06:05 ↗ and that will come later but we are

1:06:06 ↗ proposing three years for

1:06:11 ↗ that. As I mentioned we went to uh inter

1:06:14 ↗ agencies uh after we touched base with

1:06:16 ↗ council last. Um below is a short

1:06:19 ↗ summary of com uh comments from ecology

1:06:22 ↗ and this is not an exhaustive list uh

1:06:24 ↗ but I captured the items that were uh

1:06:27 ↗ not simple corrections as we evaluated

1:06:29 ↗ external agency comments. Some were

1:06:31 ↗ grammatical, some were updating maps, uh

1:06:35 ↗ how we're showing our system, but these

1:06:36 ↗ are are more of the substantial

1:06:38 ↗ ones. So, how is the state

1:06:41 ↗ legislaturator's new measure on

1:06:42 ↗ multi-ousing affects zoning and

1:06:45 ↗ population

1:06:46 ↗ projections which I think will be the

1:06:48 ↗ next topic. Uh but growth projections

1:06:50 ↗ and capacity were evaluated with

1:06:52 ↗ assumptions of middle housing

1:06:54 ↗ development and current growth

1:06:55 ↗ forecasting. So, our system is fine. Our

1:06:58 ↗ system uh model can be revised in the

1:07:01 ↗ future uh as the policy is finalized for

1:07:03 ↗ middle housing though but uh from

1:07:05 ↗ current projections we're fine. How will

1:07:07 ↗ the city ensure private grinder pumps

1:07:09 ↗ are properly operated and maintained?

1:07:11 ↗ Grinder pumps will be privately owned.

1:07:14 ↗ There will be an inspection program

1:07:15 ↗ created to ensure grinder pumps are

1:07:17 ↗ functioning correctly. Additionally, the

1:07:19 ↗ city will require only one type of lift

1:07:21 ↗ station moving forward and will keep a

1:07:23 ↗ few spare parts on hand in the event a

1:07:25 ↗ home need homeowner needs a repair and a

1:07:27 ↗ service representative cannot uh cannot

1:07:30 ↗ make a fix in a timely manner. And this

1:07:32 ↗ is a uh this is in line with the current

1:07:34 ↗ ecology

1:07:36 ↗ policy. Uh and then uh provide detail on

1:07:40 ↗ how sewer overflows will be reported

1:07:42 ↗ ecology. Similar to other spills, sewer

1:07:44 ↗ overflows will be reported through the

1:07:46 ↗ Earth's system within 24 hours of a

1:07:52 ↗ spill. Uh here is again a uh shortened

1:07:57 ↗ version of comments from the Simmer

1:07:59 ↗ Plateau Water and Sewer District. Uh

1:08:02 ↗ will proposed policy for sewer

1:08:03 ↗ extensions adjacent to environmentally

1:08:05 ↗ sensitive areas be applicable only to

1:08:07 ↗ the city's service area or extend to

1:08:09 ↗ city limits and impact that portion

1:08:11 ↗ served by Seamish Plateau Water

1:08:14 ↗ District. And again to reminder uh the

1:08:16 ↗ city of Isiqua serves about twothirds of

1:08:20 ↗ the city. Uh but Seamish Plateau serves

1:08:23 ↗ the northeast quadrant. Um the city is

1:08:26 ↗ evaluating extensions only within our

1:08:28 ↗ service area. staff will coordinate on

1:08:30 ↗ planning and strategies that border or

1:08:32 ↗ extend uh into the semester

1:08:35 ↗ area. Uh district staff would like to

1:08:38 ↗ better understand how information

1:08:40 ↗ regarding septic system functioning and

1:08:42 ↗ failures is obtained by the city. An

1:08:44 ↗ inspection program will be created. It

1:08:46 ↗ will be the responsibility of the

1:08:47 ↗ property owner to report to the city

1:08:49 ↗ where the city will maintain an

1:08:50 ↗ inventory and provide reminders of when

1:08:53 ↗ an inspection is due. This is contrary

1:08:56 ↗ to current practice where only septic

1:08:57 ↗ systems adjacent to city sewer are

1:09:00 ↗ required to provide inspection records.

1:09:01 ↗ So we'll be requiring it for all septic

1:09:03 ↗ systems within the city including SM

1:09:06 ↗ plateau uh service

1:09:13 ↗ area. Uh the district has an agreement

1:09:16 ↗ to require property owners to extend to

1:09:18 ↗ sewer if sewer is available within 5

1:09:20 ↗ years. What is the city's requirement?

1:09:23 ↗ The city is requiring connection within

1:09:24 ↗ three years consistent with the city

1:09:26 ↗ code and DOH requirements for

1:09:28 ↗ inspections. So right now we require an

1:09:30 ↗ inspection to occur every 3 years. Uh

1:09:33 ↗ and that would be um consistent when

1:09:36 ↗ when an extension would be

1:09:37 ↗ required. Uh will single family projects

1:09:40 ↗ on existing lots located outside of

1:09:42 ↗ environmentally sensitive areas but

1:09:43 ↗ within 200 ft of sewer be required to

1:09:46 ↗ connect to

1:09:47 ↗ sewer? Yes. This will be uh clarified in

1:09:51 ↗ code as 200 feet from a building served.

1:09:53 ↗ This is more stringent than what is

1:09:55 ↗ currently proposed in code but less

1:09:56 ↗ stringent than the King County Board of

1:09:58 ↗ Health which is requiring 200 feet from

1:10:00 ↗ the property. Uh this favors large

1:10:04 ↗ topographically constrained properties

1:10:06 ↗ that may have sewer near the property

1:10:08 ↗ boundary but as a logistical challenge

1:10:10 ↗ to get sewer to a building that might be

1:10:12 ↗ further than 200 feet from uh where the

1:10:15 ↗ pipe currently resides.

1:10:20 ↗ Uh we also heard from King County uh uh

1:10:24 ↗ utilities review committee. Uh please

1:10:27 ↗ include additional information to

1:10:28 ↗ address odor and corrosion concerns. And

1:10:30 ↗ then a new section was developed to

1:10:32 ↗ address that in chapter

1:10:35 ↗ 4. There is an area within the urban

1:10:37 ↗ growth boundary but outside the city

1:10:39 ↗ limits currently not served by a

1:10:41 ↗ wastewater purveyor. Does the city

1:10:42 ↗ intend to provide sewer service to this

1:10:45 ↗ area if annexed? The area in question is

1:10:47 ↗ up on Squawk Mountain above the Cougar

1:10:49 ↗ Mountain Zoo. I'm sorry, that's Cougar

1:10:52 ↗ Mountain. I apologize. Uh, Isiqua is on

1:10:55 ↗ the downstream sewer is the downstream

1:10:58 ↗ sewer uh provider and all properties are

1:11:01 ↗ currently on septic, but IMC

1:11:04 ↗ 138810 provi uh prohibits extensions

1:11:07 ↗ outside of city limits. Sewer

1:11:09 ↗ availability would only occur if

1:11:10 ↗ annexation occurs. Mainly this con uh

1:11:14 ↗ the concern uh stems from the risk that

1:11:16 ↗ city has no control over zoning or

1:11:18 ↗ growth outside of the city and has less

1:11:20 ↗ control over proposed connections. So

1:11:22 ↗ currently we are not proposing unless

1:11:24 ↗ that area would be

1:11:29 ↗ annexed. So next steps our next steps is

1:11:32 ↗ to send uh to revise some those minor uh

1:11:35 ↗ edits uh and then send the plan to

1:11:37 ↗ ecology and King County for formal

1:11:39 ↗ adoption. Uh we also will be back here

1:11:42 ↗ but before the end of the year with uh

1:11:44 ↗ code revisions uh

1:11:47 ↗ uh relating to title 13 on-site septic

1:11:51 ↗ inspection requirements. Uh the new code

1:11:53 ↗ will add definitions relating to on-site

1:11:55 ↗ septic system maintenance to better

1:11:57 ↗ define uh the terms of failure

1:12:00 ↗ non-conforming systems and

1:12:03 ↗ repair. We'll we will revise connection

1:12:05 ↗ requirements to sewer and when septic

1:12:07 ↗ systems are not allowed and elaborate on

1:12:10 ↗ septic septic inspection

1:12:12 ↗ criteria. Under title 16, we'll be uh

1:12:18 ↗ uh revising our grease trap

1:12:20 ↗ requirements. Uh, the new code will

1:12:22 ↗ expand food service establishment def

1:12:25 ↗ definitions, increase requirements for

1:12:27 ↗ commercial grease trap installation,

1:12:29 ↗ include training requirements for grease

1:12:31 ↗ trap maintenance, and add recordeping

1:12:33 ↗ and compliance requirements for grease

1:12:35 ↗ trap

1:12:37 ↗ interceptors. So, our recommendation is

1:12:40 ↗ to adopt resolution number 20 2025 blank

1:12:44 ↗ adopting the sanitary sewer system

1:12:46 ↗ plan. Questions?

1:12:49 ↗ Thank you, Matt. We all know a lot more

1:12:51 ↗ about sanitary sewers than we did 20

1:12:54 ↗ minutes ago. Um, be before we do

1:12:57 ↗ questions, I just want to see Chairman

1:12:58 ↗ Ray, did you have any committee comments

1:13:00 ↗ you wanted to add to that? Um, I'm I

1:13:03 ↗ might be me chairmanitis, I think. Oh,

1:13:06 ↗ chairman emeritus. Who who is the mi

1:13:10 ↗ chair? Oh, how about council member Joe?

1:13:13 ↗ Do you have anything you'd like to add

1:13:14 ↗ before we go to questions? Thank you,

1:13:15 ↗ Madame Mayor. I yield the floor to the

1:13:18 ↗ chairman. He was the one that was

1:13:20 ↗ present in this meeting. I thought that

1:13:21 ↗ was going to happen. Okay. Chairman

1:13:23 ↗ Ammeritus. Yeah. Um back in February of

1:13:25 ↗ 2023, the Mobility and Infrastructure

1:13:27 ↗ Committee um spent a lot of time with

1:13:30 ↗ public works reviewing

1:13:32 ↗ um the proposed changes to the sanitary

1:13:35 ↗ sewer. Um and a lot of it revolved

1:13:38 ↗ around the extension of the sewer and um

1:13:41 ↗ requiring um some changes in the way

1:13:45 ↗ septic systems were managed. There was

1:13:48 ↗ in my notes, it's all caps, a lot of

1:13:50 ↗ comments. Um we we um you wouldn't think

1:13:53 ↗ it, but we packed um uh chambers um for

1:13:57 ↗ this meeting and it was really quite an

1:13:59 ↗ emotionally charged issue. Um I nothing

1:14:02 ↗ but kudos to public works and the

1:14:04 ↗ administration for really skillfully

1:14:06 ↗ planning how to respond to the questions

1:14:08 ↗ and really diffuse the passions that

1:14:11 ↗ were associated with the sewer

1:14:13 ↗ extensions and really brought down the

1:14:15 ↗ temperature. I think this plan um

1:14:18 ↗ reflects the conversations we had with

1:14:21 ↗ the community. It reflects the

1:14:22 ↗ commitments we made to the community at

1:14:24 ↗ that at those meetings about how we were

1:14:26 ↗ going to partner with existing owners,

1:14:30 ↗ homeowners who had septic systems to uh

1:14:32 ↗ move them uh forward. And I think we

1:14:36 ↗ also had a long uh fats, oils, and

1:14:40 ↗ grease fog um discussion too. And that's

1:14:43 ↗ why we we asked for the change of giving

1:14:46 ↗ a little bit of time to um particularly

1:14:48 ↗ business owners that um were going to

1:14:50 ↗ have some costs and this was also just

1:14:53 ↗ post pandemic and everybody was still a

1:14:55 ↗ little bit on their heels and we wanted

1:14:56 ↗ to provide some flexibility to

1:14:59 ↗ particularly some of our restaurants to

1:15:01 ↗ get them back on their feet before

1:15:02 ↗ implementing those changes. So, um

1:15:06 ↗ um I think that the plan um really does

1:15:10 ↗ reflect a lot of good discussions and it

1:15:12 ↗ was a long time ago, but um it was quite

1:15:16 ↗ um memorable.

1:15:18 ↗ Thank you, Chair Emiritis. Uh any

1:15:21 ↗ questions from council on this before we

1:15:23 ↗ move to a motion?

1:15:25 ↗ Council President,

1:15:28 ↗ thank you. Um I'm wondering, you know,

1:15:30 ↗ when we talk about areas that will be

1:15:33 ↗ provided with um sewer capacity in the

1:15:36 ↗ future but are currently on septic, um

1:15:38 ↗ what are the are there any requirements

1:15:42 ↗ of connection and use? Um and what are

1:15:46 ↗ kind of the what does that look like for

1:15:49 ↗ say a future resident if um that was to

1:15:53 ↗ be provided? That's a good question. So

1:15:55 ↗ that will be more identified in code.

1:15:57 ↗ But what it will do is is basically

1:15:59 ↗ we're not going to require a connection.

1:16:02 ↗ What we're going to do is provide the

1:16:04 ↗ opportunity for connection. However, we

1:16:06 ↗ want to make sure people are inspecting

1:16:08 ↗ and maintaining their system. If a

1:16:10 ↗ system is shown to be not functioning

1:16:13 ↗ anymore, then they are obligated to

1:16:15 ↗ connect because sewer would be within

1:16:16 ↗ 200 feet of their property.

1:16:20 ↗ Great. Any other

1:16:22 ↗ questions? Okay. Not seeing any. Um,

1:16:26 ↗ Chair Emiritis, would you like to make a

1:16:29 ↗ motion? Thanks. I I move to approve

1:16:30 ↗ resolution number 2025-1.

1:16:36 ↗ Uh, adopting the sanitary sewer system

1:16:38 ↗ plan.

1:16:40 ↗ Second. It's been moved and seconded. Is

1:16:43 ↗ there any council discussion?

1:16:45 ↗ Uh, Deputy Council President

1:16:52 ↗ there. Okay. Um the council has heard

1:16:55 ↗ this before but uh for the people in the

1:16:57 ↗ audience um in January I joined the uh

1:17:01 ↗ King County uh Seattle King County uh

1:17:04 ↗ board of health and the very first thing

1:17:06 ↗ we talked about was septic and sewer

1:17:08 ↗ systems and um because I was new. I also

1:17:12 ↗ received a briefing from uh King County

1:17:15 ↗ Public Health and during that briefing

1:17:18 ↗ um they mentioned that Isiqua is a quote

1:17:20 ↗ unquote shining light in the area of

1:17:23 ↗ septic and sewer uh planning and so and

1:17:27 ↗ I told uh uh director Moon or manager or

1:17:31 ↗ I'm sorry I told Emily Moon the same

1:17:33 ↗ thing that our reputation uh in this

1:17:36 ↗ greater field is is wellestablished and

1:17:39 ↗ very admired And um there is a a real

1:17:44 ↗ concern uh on the part of the port of

1:17:47 ↗ health and King County public health

1:17:49 ↗ about the state of our septic systems

1:17:51 ↗ and sewer systems in King County and

1:17:53 ↗ with real concern for the environmental

1:17:55 ↗ impacts. But uh Isiqua is well well well

1:17:58 ↗ ahead of the pack and so it it really

1:18:01 ↗ speaks well to our staff and the

1:18:04 ↗ planning that's been done by our

1:18:05 ↗ department. So, I just want to be sure

1:18:07 ↗ that people understand that and uh we

1:18:11 ↗ have a plan and it's a very clear,

1:18:13 ↗ wellthoughtout plan and I'm sorry that

1:18:15 ↗ it took so long for to get back all of

1:18:17 ↗ the um reviews, but uh here we are and

1:18:21 ↗ so I will be supporting the motion.

1:18:23 ↗ Thanks. Thank you for sharing that,

1:18:25 ↗ Deputy Council President. Any other

1:18:26 ↗ comments? Is that uh Council Member Joe?

1:18:30 ↗ Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, the sewer

1:18:32 ↗ system plan update was uh passed in

1:18:36 ↗ 2002 and uh there was a guy named Fred

1:18:38 ↗ Butler who was president at the time,

1:18:41 ↗ council member named Bill Connley,

1:18:43 ↗ council member Joe Forner, David Kappler

1:18:45 ↗ who's sitting in the audience tonight,

1:18:47 ↗ Nancy Davidson who made many comments on

1:18:50 ↗ the missing middle legislation before

1:18:52 ↗ you, and Hank Thomas as well as myself.

1:18:55 ↗ So, this is the second time I've had a

1:18:57 ↗ crack at this plan. And let me just say

1:18:59 ↗ that um I am so proud of Isiqua because

1:19:03 ↗ my kids can go and swim in the creek and

1:19:07 ↗ not be in danger of being exposed to

1:19:11 ↗ toxins because we've done a good job

1:19:13 ↗ getting rid of the septic fields and the

1:19:15 ↗ septic systems when they did fail before

1:19:17 ↗ they would uh pollute the river, pollute

1:19:20 ↗ the stream, and pollute our environment

1:19:21 ↗ in a way that was irreversible.

1:19:24 ↗ Um, so the plan in 2002 uh made some

1:19:27 ↗ progress. I'm pleased that the plan

1:19:30 ↗ today in 2025 is making that next step

1:19:33 ↗ uh to continue our environmental uh

1:19:37 ↗ protections for the city and uh I am

1:19:40 ↗ fully supportive of it in support of it

1:19:43 ↗ this evening. Thank you. Thank you. Any

1:19:45 ↗ other council members? Council

1:19:46 ↗ President, thank you. I won't repeat

1:19:49 ↗ what everybody said has said about our

1:19:51 ↗ transition from septic um to sewer and

1:19:54 ↗ how good of a job we've done on that,

1:19:56 ↗ but I do want to highlight the fat,

1:19:58 ↗ oils, and grease um fog and the fact

1:20:01 ↗ that we are addressing this and I'm sure

1:20:03 ↗ we will work with our local businesses

1:20:06 ↗ to make sure that they have the

1:20:08 ↗ information needed to help them come up

1:20:10 ↗ to um requirements for this. But I do

1:20:13 ↗ appreciate having an implementation

1:20:15 ↗ window that allows for time to make that

1:20:19 ↗ contact rather than to make a

1:20:21 ↗ requirement of reverse requirement of

1:20:25 ↗ the LA anybody who's made an adjustment

1:20:27 ↗ in the last year. Um because I think

1:20:30 ↗ that would have been much more difficult

1:20:32 ↗ to explain to businesses and have them

1:20:36 ↗ be comfortable with the idea of making

1:20:38 ↗ any of these changes. So, I just

1:20:40 ↗ appreciate the flexibility in that and I

1:20:43 ↗ think it will allow us to work with our

1:20:45 ↗ businesses in a way that will bring them

1:20:48 ↗ up to um what the requirements are

1:20:50 ↗ without any of the animosity. Thank you.

1:20:53 ↗ Any other comments? Council member Jen.

1:20:56 ↗ Um yeah, I won't repeat what others have

1:20:59 ↗ said. I agree with all of it. Um I also

1:21:00 ↗ wanted to just give a shout out to, you

1:21:02 ↗ know, um I really appreciate the

1:21:04 ↗ planning for future growth that's in

1:21:06 ↗ here. Um, it's heartening to see, you

1:21:09 ↗ know, even with all the planned growth

1:21:10 ↗ we have through 2044, it's not planned,

1:21:13 ↗ it's not projected to overload the

1:21:14 ↗ system, which is definitely something

1:21:16 ↗ that, you know, folks have expressed

1:21:17 ↗ concern with. Um, so I hope that that's

1:21:20 ↗ kind of a lens that we take to all of

1:21:21 ↗ our other infrastructure planning moving

1:21:23 ↗ forward, especially as we, you know,

1:21:24 ↗ figure out what growth is going to look

1:21:25 ↗ like in Isiqua as we prepare for light

1:21:28 ↗ rail and everything else coming down the

1:21:29 ↗ line in the next few decades. Fantastic.

1:21:32 ↗ Any other

1:21:34 ↗ comments? Not seeing any.

1:21:37 ↗ Uh the motion before council is to adopt

1:21:40 ↗ resolution number

1:21:41 ↗ 2025-11 adopting the sanitary sewer

1:21:44 ↗ system plan. And all those in favor

1:21:46 ↗ signify by saying I. I. Those opposed

1:21:50 ↗ that carries unanimously. Seven and no.

1:21:52 ↗ Thank you very much,

1:21:54 ↗ Matt. The next two items AB 8972 and

1:21:58 ↗ AB9021 will be presented jointly.

1:22:01 ↗ AB8972 is middle housing amendments to

1:22:03 ↗ title 18 land use code and AB9021 is

1:22:07 ↗ street standards uh conforming

1:22:09 ↗ amendments and the request before the

1:22:11 ↗ council this evening is to adopt the

1:22:13 ↗ ordinances. So welcome assistant

1:22:16 ↗ associate planner Valerie Porter. Uh

1:22:18 ↗ thanks for all your work on this and we

1:22:20 ↗ look forward to your presentation.

1:22:46 ↗ Just getting set up still. Give us a

1:22:59 ↗ minute. Thank you for your patience.

1:23:01 ↗ Good evening. My name is Valerie Porter.

1:23:03 ↗ I'm an associate planner with the

1:23:05 ↗ community planning and development

1:23:07 ↗ department and I'm here to talk to you

1:23:08 ↗ about the middle housing

1:23:10 ↗ regulations. So just to start um I have

1:23:13 ↗ a

1:23:14 ↗ clarific clarification. The

1:23:17 ↗ administration is seeking approval not

1:23:19 ↗ for one ordinance but for four. So um

1:23:22 ↗ there are three um related um three

1:23:24 ↗ ordinances related to

1:23:26 ↗ AB8792 and one associated with AB99 9021

1:23:31 ↗ and all of these are related to the

1:23:32 ↗ middle housing um

1:23:37 ↗ regulations. So just a little

1:23:38 ↗ background, Washington is projected to

1:23:40 ↗ need more than 1 million homes by 2044

1:23:44 ↗ to keep up with the anticipated

1:23:46 ↗ population growth to promote more

1:23:48 ↗ housing in 2023. House Bill 1110 was

1:23:52 ↗ passed which was later amended by House

1:23:53 ↗ Bill 2321 to increase middle housing in

1:23:57 ↗ areas traditionally dedicated to single

1:23:59 ↗ family detached housing. The bill

1:24:02 ↗ establishes lot density requirements

1:24:04 ↗ based on a city's population. So for

1:24:06 ↗ Isiqua, that means the city must allow

1:24:09 ↗ two dwelling units on one lot, four

1:24:12 ↗ dwelling units on one lot if that lot is

1:24:14 ↗ within a/4 mile walking distance of a

1:24:16 ↗ major transit stop or one unit is set

1:24:19 ↗ aside for an affordable housing. Also,

1:24:22 ↗ the regulations for middle housing um

1:24:25 ↗ may be more may not be more restricted

1:24:27 ↗ than those um for a detached single

1:24:29 ↗ family home.

1:24:32 ↗ This project is also addressing House

1:24:34 ↗ Bill 1337 which discusses accessory

1:24:37 ↗ dwelling units. Um this bill requires um

1:24:40 ↗ Isiqua to allow two dwelling units on

1:24:42 ↗ one lot um with a detach single family

1:24:45 ↗ home. It also limits regulations around

1:24:48 ↗ constructing ADUs and both bills are

1:24:50 ↗ required to um require the city to

1:24:53 ↗ update their regulations by June

1:24:56 ↗ 2025. So just a quick recap, what is

1:24:59 ↗ middle housing? Middle housing is a term

1:25:02 ↗ that refers to housing um that are on on

1:25:05 ↗ the building spectrum that sits between

1:25:07 ↗ a detached single family home and a

1:25:09 ↗ large-scale apartment building. Middle

1:25:11 ↗ housing is defined as buildings that are

1:25:13 ↗ compatible in scale, form, character

1:25:15 ↗ with single family homes. They contain

1:25:18 ↗ two or more units per structure that may

1:25:20 ↗ be attached, stacked, or clustered

1:25:22 ↗ homes. Middle housing types may include

1:25:25 ↗ a duplex, triplex, all the way up to

1:25:27 ↗ sixlexes, as well as town homes,

1:25:30 ↗ courtyard, and cottage

1:25:32 ↗ housing. So, this project began in

1:25:35 ↗ February of

1:25:36 ↗ 2024. And after understanding the

1:25:38 ↗ regulation and conducting a feasibility

1:25:40 ↗ study, um the project moved into this

1:25:42 ↗ next phase of public engagement, which

1:25:45 ↗ included educating the community about

1:25:47 ↗ the state regulations, um and also

1:25:50 ↗ trying to obtain feedback. So, in July

1:25:52 ↗ of 2024, um the middle housing um web

1:25:56 ↗ page went live and that's where we had a

1:25:58 ↗ lot of information about the

1:25:59 ↗ regulations. Um we had uh the documents

1:26:02 ↗ stored there as well as any events that

1:26:04 ↗ were um upcoming. In August, um we held

1:26:07 ↗ a middle housing workshop and in

1:26:10 ↗ September we also had an online survey

1:26:12 ↗ where we received approximately 280

1:26:15 ↗ participants.

1:26:16 ↗ staff also conducted um Q&A sessions and

1:26:19 ↗ then also had a neighborhood tour with

1:26:21 ↗ um the planning policy commission and um

1:26:24 ↗ council members. And this was um and

1:26:27 ↗ they were both open to the

1:26:29 ↗ public. Since October of 2024, the

1:26:32 ↗ administration has been posing questions

1:26:34 ↗ to the planning policy commission to

1:26:35 ↗ help guide the proposed amendments. So

1:26:37 ↗ these next two slides, I'm going to

1:26:39 ↗ summarize the policy questions that were

1:26:40 ↗ posed to PPC and their recommendations.

1:26:43 ↗ House Bill 1110 requires middle housing

1:26:45 ↗ projects to be streamlined and only be

1:26:47 ↗ reviewed administratively. The

1:26:49 ↗ administrator believed in order to

1:26:50 ↗ comply with this requirement and and not

1:26:53 ↗ impact single family developments too

1:26:55 ↗ much, a definition and a limit of

1:26:57 ↗ housing units needed to be established

1:26:59 ↗ for middle housing projects. PPC agreed

1:27:02 ↗ and a definition um PPC agreed that a

1:27:05 ↗ definition was needed. So we um created

1:27:07 ↗ one and they felt that that threshold

1:27:09 ↗ for the unit limit should be set at four

1:27:11 ↗ or less. They thought that anything more

1:27:13 ↗ than that would be very impactful, would

1:27:15 ↗ require noticing of the neighbors and

1:27:18 ↗ then also um a review by the development

1:27:21 ↗ commission. A question was also um posed

1:27:24 ↗ then regarding what um standards the

1:27:27 ↗ middle housing should be exempt from.

1:27:28 ↗ House Bill 1110 also states that middle

1:27:31 ↗ housing regulations cannot be more

1:27:33 ↗ restrictive than those required for a

1:27:35 ↗ detach single family home. The required

1:27:37 ↗ detach single family homes and middle

1:27:39 ↗ housing um basically needed to be

1:27:40 ↗ treated the same. And so we needed to

1:27:42 ↗ understand um should the city exempt

1:27:45 ↗ middle housing from requiring a land use

1:27:48 ↗ permit um and um frontage improvements

1:27:50 ↗ like a detached single family home. PPC

1:27:53 ↗ decided middle housing projects would be

1:27:55 ↗ exempt and only be required to obtain a

1:27:57 ↗ building permit and they should also be

1:27:59 ↗ exempt from constructing frontage

1:28:01 ↗ improvements if constructed on existing

1:28:03 ↗ lot. And so this is mainly so that

1:28:05 ↗ single family homes wouldn't be imp

1:28:07 ↗ impacted and require more permitting

1:28:09 ↗ than they do today. based on PPC's

1:28:12 ↗ decision the required uh this required

1:28:14 ↗ street standards to be amended which is

1:28:16 ↗ what's prompting this um change um which

1:28:19 ↗ is addressed in 9021 AB 9021 the middle

1:28:23 ↗ housing regulations do not consider a

1:28:25 ↗ detached single family home or an

1:28:28 ↗ accessory dwelling you to be considered

1:28:29 ↗ middle housing building types but the

1:28:31 ↗ bill does give cities the options to

1:28:33 ↗ determine how um an ADU should be

1:28:36 ↗ treated should it be outright allowed um

1:28:38 ↗ and used to achieve lot density

1:28:41 ↗ This question was um related to lot

1:28:44 ↗ density was posed to PPC and they

1:28:45 ↗ suggested that ADU should be allowed on

1:28:49 ↗ lots with middle housing but they should

1:28:50 ↗ be counted as a unit. And so basically

1:28:53 ↗ what this means is if there is a lot

1:28:54 ↗ that can have four units on one lot.

1:28:58 ↗ Someone can build a duplex and two ADUs.

1:29:01 ↗ They cannot build a forplex in two ADUs.

1:29:05 ↗ That would be considered six units.

1:29:08 ↗ There was also uh we also talked about

1:29:10 ↗ critical areas with House Bill 1110. The

1:29:12 ↗ city had the option to exempt lots

1:29:14 ↗ encumbered by critical areas from

1:29:16 ↗ building mental housing. And this

1:29:17 ↗ question was mainly um focused around

1:29:20 ↗ coal mine hazard areas or seismic hazard

1:29:22 ↗ areas. And PPC decided that the critical

1:29:24 ↗ area code should be applied to um middle

1:29:27 ↗ housing as it is today if the lot can

1:29:30 ↗ provide appropriate mitigation

1:29:32 ↗ measures. There was also a question

1:29:34 ↗ related to impact fees. the

1:29:37 ↗ administration um today the ADUs are

1:29:41 ↗ exempt from paying impact fees. Um with

1:29:44 ↗ these new regulations, staff wanted to

1:29:46 ↗ understand if if impact fees should

1:29:48 ↗ continue to be waved or if 50% of the

1:29:50 ↗ impact fees should be collected with

1:29:53 ↗ ADUs. PPC recommended that the fee be

1:29:56 ↗ continued to be waved and um and they

1:29:58 ↗ felt that this would encourage the

1:30:00 ↗ creation of more ADUs

1:30:05 ↗ during Hang on. Valerie, council member

1:30:08 ↗ Hall, can I ask a a quick question?

1:30:10 ↗ You're doing great. Sorry. Can I ask

1:30:12 ↗ just a quick question to highlight

1:30:13 ↗ something with the rest of the council

1:30:15 ↗ because it was something PPC and the

1:30:17 ↗ committee um got to kind of dive into a

1:30:20 ↗ little bit but the percentage of single

1:30:22 ↗ family lots that are encumbered by some

1:30:24 ↗ sort of critical area. Do you remember

1:30:25 ↗ that figure? It's close to 40%. Yeah, it

1:30:28 ↗ was quite a lot. So anyways, just wanted

1:30:30 ↗ to emphasize that. Thank you.

1:30:33 ↗ So during one of the um planning,

1:30:35 ↗ development and environment committee

1:30:36 ↗ meetings, there was discussion on

1:30:37 ↗ whether lot density should be four units

1:30:40 ↗ per lot versus the required two units

1:30:42 ↗ per lot. And there was a request um to

1:30:46 ↗ uh there was request for more

1:30:47 ↗ information around this topic and then

1:30:49 ↗ there was also another request to then

1:30:51 ↗ present this information to the planning

1:30:52 ↗ policy commission and have them weigh on

1:30:55 ↗ weigh in on this. PBC discussed this

1:30:57 ↗ topic and they decided to keep the um

1:30:59 ↗ lot density at two units per lot as this

1:31:02 ↗ allowed the city to comply with the

1:31:04 ↗ state regulations, allow for more

1:31:06 ↗ density and then evaluate the progress

1:31:08 ↗ and then see if additional changes need

1:31:10 ↗ to be um made at a later

1:31:12 ↗ date. PPC also PTE also wanted PPC to

1:31:16 ↗ discuss the size requirements for

1:31:18 ↗ accessory dwelling units. Many of the

1:31:20 ↗ requirements in the bill really blur the

1:31:22 ↗ lines between what is considered a

1:31:24 ↗ primary um primary home versus an

1:31:27 ↗ accessory dwelling unit. And so um PPC

1:31:30 ↗ decided to keep the 1,000 ft² um

1:31:33 ↗ requirement in place because they felt

1:31:36 ↗ that this was adequate um space for an

1:31:39 ↗ accessory dwelling unit and thousand

1:31:41 ↗ square ft is equivalent to a two-bedroom

1:31:44 ↗ apartment.

1:31:46 ↗ As the project progressed, policy

1:31:47 ↗ questions related to design were posed

1:31:49 ↗ to PPC. The administration wanted to

1:31:51 ↗ understand um if the requirements of

1:31:54 ↗ having a walkway separate from the

1:31:56 ↗ driveway should remain. PPC decided that

1:31:59 ↗ this requirement should um be removed

1:32:02 ↗ and as not to um requiring it would

1:32:04 ↗ allow a little bit more design

1:32:06 ↗ flexibility for the developer um

1:32:08 ↗ especially when trying to um design with

1:32:12 ↗ the impervious surface requirements.

1:32:15 ↗ The intent of House Bill 1110 is to

1:32:17 ↗ allow more housing options in single

1:32:19 ↗ family zones. Since new building types

1:32:21 ↗ are being introduced to single family

1:32:23 ↗ zones, the administration suggested two

1:32:25 ↗ requirements from the Oldtown design

1:32:27 ↗ standards be applied citywide. These

1:32:29 ↗ requirements were selected because

1:32:31 ↗ Oldtown is the only single family

1:32:33 ↗ neighborhood that allows multi-unit

1:32:34 ↗ structures along with single family

1:32:36 ↗ homes. PPC agreed um having the design

1:32:40 ↗ standards in place was needed and the

1:32:41 ↗ two requirements were appropriate.

1:32:44 ↗ So, a few years ago, the city added

1:32:46 ↗ definitions for cottage and courtyard

1:32:48 ↗ housing to the land use code, but they

1:32:50 ↗ didn't adopt any design standards. And

1:32:53 ↗ so, as a part of this project, design

1:32:55 ↗ standards were um developed, and it also

1:32:58 ↗ included dividing open space um for

1:33:00 ↗ these um two housing types. And so, the

1:33:02 ↗ proposed amendments require at least 20%

1:33:05 ↗ of the lot be set aside for open space,

1:33:07 ↗ which the um which PPC agreed with the

1:33:09 ↗ proposal.

1:33:13 ↗ staff took the feedback from PPC and PTE

1:33:16 ↗ and drafted amendments. The proposed

1:33:18 ↗ amendments revise lot density

1:33:20 ↗ requirements to allow two units on um

1:33:23 ↗ one lot if the lot is constructing a

1:33:25 ↗ middle housing building type. um four

1:33:28 ↗ units on one lot if the lot is within a

1:33:31 ↗ quarter mile walking distance of a major

1:33:33 ↗ transit stop or one unit will be set

1:33:35 ↗ aside for affordable as an affordable

1:33:37 ↗ unit and ADUs will count um as a unit

1:33:41 ↗ when constructing middle

1:33:43 ↗ housing as a quick update um those for

1:33:46 ↗ those tracking the project and Valerie

1:33:49 ↗ um deputy council president has a

1:33:50 ↗ question yes

1:33:52 ↗ uh thanks Valerie so it's my

1:33:54 ↗ understanding that there was some

1:33:55 ↗ confusion at one point about what a

1:33:57 ↗ major what constituted a major transit

1:33:59 ↗ stop and so and I my understanding is

1:34:02 ↗ that the legislature clarified that.

1:34:04 ↗ Could you explain and does this bus stop

1:34:07 ↗ out here uh uh serve as a major trans

1:34:12 ↗ major transit stop? So I think those are

1:34:14 ↗ my questions. Thanks. Yes. So um the

1:34:17 ↗ department of commerce um made an

1:34:19 ↗ interpretation that all routes serviced

1:34:21 ↗ by Sound Transit would be considered a

1:34:23 ↗ major transit stop. And so for us that

1:34:25 ↗ meant Sound Transit Route 554 and 556.

1:34:28 ↗ Um and also that impacted several

1:34:31 ↗ neighborhoods. So a and neighborhoods

1:34:33 ↗ like Oldtown would be required to or we

1:34:35 ↗ would have to require them to allow four

1:34:38 ↗ units on one lot regardless of lot size.

1:34:41 ↗ In addition, they wouldn't have to

1:34:42 ↗ provide parking. This was very

1:34:44 ↗ impactful. So staff work with state

1:34:46 ↗ representatives to revise the definition

1:34:48 ↗ which is reflected in House Bill 1441

1:34:51 ↗ which was recently passed. And so as it

1:34:54 ↗ relates to middle housing, we do not

1:34:56 ↗ have a major transit stop

1:34:58 ↗ currently. Yeah, no

1:35:04 ↗ worries. So state legislation requires

1:35:07 ↗ the city to allow um six middle housing

1:35:10 ↗ building types in all residential zones

1:35:13 ↗ residential zones to achieve lot

1:35:14 ↗ density. And so the table of permit uses

1:35:16 ↗ in the land use code was revised to

1:35:18 ↗ allow a duplex, triplex, forplex, town

1:35:22 ↗ homes, cottage homes, and stat flats in

1:35:24 ↗ all single family zones. The term um

1:35:28 ↗ middle housing has been added to the

1:35:29 ↗ code and it reflects the PPC's

1:35:31 ↗ recommendation of four units or less and

1:35:34 ↗ the permitting process for middle

1:35:36 ↗ housing building type was also revised

1:35:38 ↗ so that they are exempt from obtaining a

1:35:41 ↗ land use

1:35:43 ↗ permit. The proposed amendment showed

1:35:45 ↗ design standards for single family and

1:35:47 ↗ middle housing structures to ensure that

1:35:49 ↗ the building types fit seamlessly within

1:35:51 ↗ the existing neighborhoods. The parking

1:35:53 ↗ code was revised to align with state

1:35:55 ↗ legislation and PPC had a recommendation

1:35:58 ↗ of increasing the MAC maximum parking

1:36:00 ↗ requirement for detach single family

1:36:02 ↗ homes. And this is for those scenarios

1:36:04 ↗ where a lot has a garage that can

1:36:07 ↗ accommodate two house or two parking

1:36:09 ↗ stalls and a large um driveway that they

1:36:12 ↗ would also have um two parking stalls.

1:36:15 ↗ Today the maximum parking requirement is

1:36:18 ↗ two. So someone wouldn't be able to use

1:36:20 ↗ their driveway. So they upped up that

1:36:21 ↗ parking requirement.

1:36:24 ↗ Um there's also um design standards for

1:36:27 ↗ um and open space requirements um were

1:36:30 ↗ added for cottage and courtyard housing

1:36:32 ↗ like I previously

1:36:35 ↗ mentioned and um to ensure compliance

1:36:38 ↗ with House Bill 1337. The land use code

1:36:40 ↗ was revised to allow two ADUs on one lot

1:36:43 ↗ if constructed with a detached single

1:36:45 ↗ family home in multiple configurations.

1:36:47 ↗ So that could be detached, attached or

1:36:50 ↗ internal. Um, we removed all language

1:36:53 ↗ requiring the property owner to reside

1:36:55 ↗ on site as the bill states that this can

1:36:57 ↗ no longer be a requirement for approval.

1:36:59 ↗ Um, and then prior to the big code

1:37:02 ↗ update that we did in 2023, there was

1:37:04 ↗ code language that allowed someone to

1:37:07 ↗ basically create an internal ADU if the

1:37:10 ↗ size of that basement or their attic was

1:37:12 ↗ over 1,000 square feet, just as long as

1:37:14 ↗ they don't do any external additions.

1:37:16 ↗ And so this is really just allowing

1:37:18 ↗ someone to quickly create an ADU instead

1:37:21 ↗ of adding a wall or something just to

1:37:23 ↗ create to meet that minimum um 1,000

1:37:26 ↗ foot

1:37:27 ↗ requirement or excuse me the maximum

1:37:29 ↗ 1000 foot requirement. The code also um

1:37:32 ↗ has been updated to remove processes

1:37:34 ↗ that are just no longer used. Um

1:37:36 ↗ specifically the elimination of an

1:37:38 ↗ approved ADU. The code required

1:37:42 ↗ um what are now unnecessary steps. So

1:37:45 ↗ they would have to send a letter to the

1:37:46 ↗ planning department. They would have to

1:37:48 ↗ request an inspection um with the bill.

1:37:51 ↗ Um these things are just no longer

1:37:53 ↗ needed. So we took them out of the land

1:37:55 ↗ use

1:37:55 ↗ code. So PPC held a public hearing on

1:37:59 ↗ March 27th and unanimously approved the

1:38:01 ↗ proposed amendments. Hang on one sec.

1:38:04 ↗ Council member Martzwood has a question.

1:38:06 ↗ Thanks. Can you go back?

1:38:08 ↗ Um did I I guess it's not there. Um, did

1:38:13 ↗ I miss when you um definition of

1:38:16 ↗ affordable is up to 120% of AMI? For

1:38:21 ↗ middle housing def for there's two

1:38:23 ↗ definitions. So for ownership it's at

1:38:25 ↗ 80% AM AMI and then for rental it's 60

1:38:29 ↗ AMI. It's I'm sorry 60 60 60. Okay. So,

1:38:34 ↗ in this whole thing of talking about um

1:38:38 ↗ potentially four units on a lot um if

1:38:42 ↗ there's affordable, affordable would be

1:38:44 ↗ 80% at for ownership, 60% for uh rental.

1:38:49 ↗ Correct. Okay. Thank you. Yes.

1:38:54 ↗ All right. So PPC um approved the

1:38:58 ↗ proposed amendments, but they did have

1:38:59 ↗ one motion to revise a requirement in

1:39:01 ↗ the single family and middle housing

1:39:02 ↗ design guidelines. And this change is

1:39:04 ↗ intended to ensure that primary access

1:39:07 ↗ is gained from the street first. And if

1:39:09 ↗ there isn't a street available, then you

1:39:11 ↗ can gain access from an alley or an

1:39:14 ↗ other transportation

1:39:16 ↗ facility. And at this time, I'll take

1:39:18 ↗ any additional questions.

1:39:21 ↗ Great, Valerie. Thank you. Um, Council

1:39:25 ↗ Member Hall, this is your committee, I

1:39:27 ↗ believe. Did you want to add any

1:39:29 ↗ comments before we go to questions? Um,

1:39:31 ↗ yeah, I do, if that's okay. Um, I just

1:39:33 ↗ want to start by like assuring the

1:39:35 ↗ council that PTE was like very

1:39:37 ↗ deliberate on this issue. This, um,

1:39:40 ↗ presentation represents many, many

1:39:42 ↗ touches with the public, with PPC, with

1:39:44 ↗ PTE. Um, so we really took our time on

1:39:47 ↗ this. Um, I think the staff summary

1:39:50 ↗ captures our conversation very well. I

1:39:52 ↗ mean you were amazing throughout the

1:39:53 ↗ whole process. You walked us through

1:39:55 ↗ each cuz it's very complicated

1:39:56 ↗ especially how the two interact with

1:39:58 ↗ each other. So walking us through all

1:39:59 ↗ the policy questions one after one. Um

1:40:02 ↗ so I mean just at a high level we large

1:40:04 ↗ like was said we largely followed state

1:40:06 ↗ requirements here. There were a few

1:40:07 ↗ things that as a committee we did

1:40:09 ↗ highlight for staff and there was

1:40:10 ↗ captured in the memo to kind of monitor

1:40:12 ↗ and report back to us in the future um

1:40:15 ↗ if we need to consider future policy

1:40:17 ↗ changes around uh lot density and the

1:40:20 ↗ affordable unit. Right. There was a

1:40:21 ↗ financial analysis that was done to show

1:40:23 ↗ that that fourth affordable unit does

1:40:25 ↗ pencil out on paper. So the question

1:40:27 ↗ long term is does that pencil out in

1:40:28 ↗ reality? Right. Um the ADU size this

1:40:31 ↗ represents no change from 1,000 ft but

1:40:33 ↗ we did have some conversation about

1:40:35 ↗ whether that should go up to 1250

1:40:38 ↗ something like that right. Um so in the

1:40:40 ↗ future do do we want to consider that

1:40:42 ↗ again or not? Um and that was largely

1:40:44 ↗ driven by use cases as people coming in.

1:40:46 ↗ we weren't getting a lot of demand for

1:40:47 ↗ people wanting to build a thousand

1:40:49 ↗ except for maybe a couple people that we

1:40:50 ↗ heard um come speak to us at council. So

1:40:53 ↗ monitoring how that evolves in the

1:40:55 ↗ future. Impact fees which you already

1:40:57 ↗ mentioned um which are exempted for um

1:40:59 ↗ single family homes. So we had to exempt

1:41:01 ↗ them here but monitoring the um uh the

1:41:05 ↗ impact uh that that might have. And then

1:41:07 ↗ frontage improvements, right? That's

1:41:08 ↗ also exempted exempted from single

1:41:10 ↗ family homes. But also as we consider

1:41:13 ↗ some of these larger, broader

1:41:14 ↗ conversations around street standards,

1:41:16 ↗ is there an opportunity in the future to

1:41:18 ↗ have conversation about potentially

1:41:19 ↗ matching uh existing frontage

1:41:22 ↗ improvements? Exa, matching existing

1:41:24 ↗ mobility type and those kinds of things,

1:41:26 ↗ ease of path. Um, so anyways, yeah, but

1:41:30 ↗ beyond that, again, I I can't thank you

1:41:32 ↗ enough. Valerie Porter was amazing in

1:41:35 ↗ this. I mean, I want to thank Kristen

1:41:36 ↗ Leon and Director Dollywal and everyone

1:41:38 ↗ else who was involved in this and well,

1:41:39 ↗ but really you did an outstanding job

1:41:40 ↗ with us. Thank you. Thank you. Well

1:41:43 ↗ said. Questions? We had a few questions

1:41:46 ↗ during the presentation. Are there more?

1:41:47 ↗ Uh, Council Member Joe.

1:41:50 ↗ Thank you. Um, Valerie, I u echo the

1:41:55 ↗ compliments you received from Council

1:41:57 ↗ Member Hall. Um I also I also had the

1:42:01 ↗ opportunity to listen to the October

1:42:03 ↗ 22nd presentation that you and Steven

1:42:05 ↗ Padulla did. It was an excellent uh

1:42:08 ↗ rendition of the the restrictions etc

1:42:10 ↗ that were involved with this particular

1:42:12 ↗ legislation. Um you did some work to uh

1:42:17 ↗ kind of hone down the number of possible

1:42:19 ↗ buildable lots for middle housing during

1:42:22 ↗ this uh analysis and um ultimate

1:42:25 ↗ ultimately came down that there were a

1:42:27 ↗ total of

1:42:28 ↗ 4,113 parcels that are buildable areas

1:42:31 ↗ for middle housing potentially. Um but

1:42:33 ↗ then there's always that footnote that's

1:42:35 ↗ there which indicates one of the

1:42:37 ↗ limitations could be the CCNRs that are

1:42:40 ↗ out there and um those are conditions,

1:42:44 ↗ covenants and restrictions for uh

1:42:46 ↗ homeowners associations or or um planned

1:42:49 ↗ developments that might have gone up a

1:42:51 ↗ time during our our development. Do we

1:42:54 ↗ have any idea um or an estimate of how

1:42:57 ↗ much of that additional of that

1:43:00 ↗ 4,000 plus uh available sites gets

1:43:04 ↗ siphoned off by

1:43:07 ↗ CCRs? No. Um we do not have that

1:43:10 ↗ information. It's not something that we

1:43:12 ↗ track. We've tried very hard to kind of

1:43:14 ↗ keep a list of all the HOAs in the city,

1:43:16 ↗ but we just don't have that information.

1:43:18 ↗ Um but we do have a provision in the um

1:43:22 ↗ in the proposed um regulations that

1:43:25 ↗ states that um you have to provide uh

1:43:28 ↗ approval from your HOA just to ensure

1:43:31 ↗ that we're not allowing something that

1:43:33 ↗ would be in conflict with um approved

1:43:36 ↗ CCNRs.

1:43:37 ↗ That sounds like a pretty sound

1:43:39 ↗ precaution. Thank you there. The other

1:43:41 ↗ question I had is you touched on um the

1:43:46 ↗ kind of situation where you have a

1:43:47 ↗ duplex built and then uh you indicated

1:43:50 ↗ that um I think you said there were

1:43:53 ↗ there was an opportunity to build one AD

1:43:56 ↗ ADU with each of the duplex units. Is

1:43:58 ↗ that what you said? I think it was

1:44:02 ↗ related to lot density. I was trying to

1:44:04 ↗ provide an example and not confuse you

1:44:05 ↗ guys. So for um for so with lots zoning

1:44:11 ↗ requirements establish how many um units

1:44:13 ↗ you can have on a lot. So if a lot is

1:44:15 ↗ allowed to have four, you can have two

1:44:18 ↗ duplexes, a triplex, an ADU, you can do

1:44:21 ↗ any mix of the U metal housing building

1:44:23 ↗ types to achieve lot density. But if

1:44:26 ↗ today you're only allowed one unit on

1:44:28 ↗ your lot, you can get bumped up to two

1:44:31 ↗ if you build a duplex. It has to be a

1:44:34 ↗ middle housing building type because

1:44:36 ↗ alone a a detach single family home is

1:44:39 ↗ not considered a a middle housing

1:44:41 ↗ building.

1:44:43 ↗ Okay. Let's say the density was six just

1:44:47 ↗ hypothetically. If I built a duplex,

1:44:50 ↗ could I later add an attached ADU and

1:44:53 ↗ then a detached ADU on that property?

1:44:55 ↗ Yes, just as long as you do not exceed

1:44:58 ↗ um um six units. But there would

1:45:02 ↗ probably be a limit on your accessory

1:45:04 ↗ dwelling units just because House Bill

1:45:07 ↗ 133711 didn't mix very well. But um we

1:45:12 ↗ would just consider these units, but

1:45:14 ↗ then then the issue of impact fees comes

1:45:16 ↗ into play. And so we'd probably say that

1:45:18 ↗ you're only limited to two ADUs. All

1:45:20 ↗ right. And wouldn't it be true that uh

1:45:24 ↗ doing that type of density on a piece of

1:45:26 ↗ property would be made quite difficult

1:45:28 ↗ with the amount of setbacks you have,

1:45:31 ↗ the um potential that you couldn't get

1:45:34 ↗ too close to the alley and back and the

1:45:36 ↗ height restrictions that might be uh on

1:45:38 ↗ that piece of property. Yes. If someone

1:45:41 ↗ wanted to build more than two or more

1:45:44 ↗ than two units on a lot, it would be

1:45:46 ↗ extremely challenging due to the zoning

1:45:48 ↗ regulations would state how your

1:45:50 ↗ setbacks, your lot coverage, as well as

1:45:52 ↗ your building height. But with House

1:45:54 ↗ Bill 1337, there are some provisions

1:45:56 ↗ that we cannot require um on an ADU. So,

1:46:00 ↗ they do not have to meet the rear

1:46:02 ↗ setbacks if the lot isn't plowed, I

1:46:05 ↗ believe. Okay. Thank you. And just one

1:46:07 ↗ last question. Thank you to my

1:46:08 ↗ colleagues for indulging my long set of

1:46:11 ↗ questions that I didn't write down but

1:46:12 ↗ it and making up on the go. Um H uh

1:46:15 ↗ House be House Bill 1096 which is which

1:46:18 ↗ was just passed this session was a lot

1:46:21 ↗ spplitting bill. Um, and I don't want to

1:46:24 ↗ put you on the spot right now, but if

1:46:26 ↗ you can't answer it, I I would like to

1:46:28 ↗ know or the council's edification what

1:46:31 ↗ impact that lots splitting bill might

1:46:33 ↗ have on what we're going to pass today

1:46:35 ↗ and other future actions that we might

1:46:37 ↗ take.

1:46:39 ↗ I'm not completely familiar with the lot

1:46:41 ↗ splitting bill, but I am familiar with

1:46:42 ↗ the term. And so, how um, House Bill

1:46:45 ↗ 1110 was written, it was actually meant

1:46:47 ↗ to have it was meant for lot splitting

1:46:49 ↗ to have already been approved. And so we

1:46:52 ↗ do have language currently in the

1:46:53 ↗ proposed amendments to address lot

1:46:55 ↗ splitting. So we do not have to revise

1:46:57 ↗ the the um the code to address it. All

1:47:00 ↗ right. Thank you very much. Appreciate

1:47:02 ↗ it.

1:47:03 ↗ Other questions?

1:47:07 ↗ Okay. Um I'd be looking for a motion

1:47:10 ↗ then.

1:47:19 ↗ She's probably Yeah. Council President

1:47:21 ↗ has all the words. Yeah, it's it's four

1:47:23 ↗ different ordinances. So, I move to

1:47:25 ↗ adopt the following ordinances.

1:47:27 ↗ Ordinance number 3091 amending title 18,

1:47:32 ↗ the Isiqua Municipal Code to incorporate

1:47:35 ↗ a variety of changes to comply with HB

1:47:38 ↗ 1110 as amended in HB 2321. Council

1:47:42 ↗ President, um I did not pay attention to

1:47:44 ↗ the clerk's note, which is that she

1:47:46 ↗ would like to make some minor

1:47:47 ↗ modifications before you proceed. Um,

1:47:50 ↗ did you want to do that now? Sure. Sorry

1:47:52 ↗ for the interruption. This is Tisha

1:47:54 ↗ Gizer, city clerk. I just wanted to make

1:47:55 ↗ a quick comment that the ordinances uh

1:47:57 ↗ we've noticed in the packet are

1:47:59 ↗ indicating an earlier effective date

1:48:01 ↗ than we are technically allowed to

1:48:03 ↗ implement. And so uh with your motion,

1:48:06 ↗ council president, I'd uh be

1:48:08 ↗ recommending that we'll be editing the

1:48:10 ↗ ordinances to indicate the minimum

1:48:12 ↗ effective date, which would be May 27th.

1:48:15 ↗ And so we will assume that um in making

1:48:17 ↗ your motion, we'll assume that corrected

1:48:19 ↗ effective date. Thank you. Fantastic.

1:48:21 ↗ Thank you, city clerk. Okay. Um as

1:48:25 ↗ amended, I'm going to start over. Move

1:48:28 ↗ to adopt the following ordinances.

1:48:30 ↗ Ordinance number 3091 amending the title

1:48:33 ↗ 18. Title 18, the Isqua Municipal Code

1:48:36 ↗ to incorporate a variety of changes to

1:48:38 ↗ comply with

1:48:40 ↗ HB110 as amended in

1:48:42 ↗ HB2321 regarding middle housing and

1:48:46 ↗ ordinance number

1:48:48 ↗ 3092 amending title 18, the Isiqua

1:48:51 ↗ Municipal Code to incorporate changes to

1:48:54 ↗ comply with House Bill

1:48:56 ↗ 1337 regarding accessory dwelling units

1:49:00 ↗ and ordinance number 3093. Three,

1:49:04 ↗ amending title 18, the Isiqua Municipal

1:49:06 ↗ Code, chapter 18.604, 604 parking to

1:49:10 ↗ comply with the middle housing

1:49:12 ↗ requirements in House Bill 1110 and

1:49:14 ↗ House Bill

1:49:16 ↗ 1337 and

1:49:18 ↗ um ordinance

1:49:20 ↗ number

1:49:22 ↗ 3094 amending the street standards

1:49:24 ↗ adopted by ordinance 3029 to conform

1:49:28 ↗ with the city's middle housing

1:49:29 ↗ regulations regarding street frontage

1:49:32 ↗ improvements

1:49:34 ↗ in and in in accordance with an

1:49:37 ↗ implementation ation date as stated by

1:49:39 ↗ the city clerk in accordance with an

1:49:41 ↗ implementation date as stated by the

1:49:43 ↗ city clerk. Council member Hall second.

1:49:46 ↗ Okay, it's been moved and seconded. That

1:49:47 ↗ was a lot of words. Um, you've already

1:49:50 ↗ had some chance to ask questions. Is

1:49:53 ↗ there any discussion at this point?

1:49:55 ↗ Council President,

1:49:58 ↗ thank you. So, as uh Chair Hall

1:50:01 ↗ mentioned, um this has gone through a

1:50:03 ↗ long process. We have been very well

1:50:06 ↗ served by staff as we have come through

1:50:08 ↗ this and discussed the things that would

1:50:11 ↗ allow this legislation to reflect

1:50:14 ↗ Isiqua. This is a state requirement, but

1:50:17 ↗ that doesn't, you know, eliminate our

1:50:20 ↗ ability to implement this in a way that

1:50:24 ↗ addresses our community needs and

1:50:25 ↗ concerns. So, I want to note that this

1:50:28 ↗ allows for gentle density across many

1:50:31 ↗ neighborhoods in Isiqua. Um, I put a

1:50:34 ↗ note, is this perfect? No.

1:50:36 ↗ uh and the idea of HOAs with these CCNRs

1:50:41 ↗ um being able to limit the ability to

1:50:44 ↗ add additional housing units in their

1:50:47 ↗ particular area means that this type of

1:50:51 ↗ legislation is going to unduly impact

1:50:55 ↗ um neighborhoods and put pressure on

1:50:58 ↗ neighborhoods without HOAs such as

1:51:00 ↗ Oldtown and um Squawk. Yep. Um, so we

1:51:05 ↗ can't do anything about that, but we

1:51:07 ↗ will certainly be talking to our state

1:51:10 ↗ legislators about how how can we create

1:51:13 ↗ something that is an equitable solution

1:51:16 ↗ for our community and provides that

1:51:18 ↗ opportunity. Um, the good news is that

1:51:20 ↗ we did manage to take this state

1:51:22 ↗ requirement and make it work for Isiqua.

1:51:25 ↗ We kept development from impacting our

1:51:27 ↗ critical areas while also giving

1:51:30 ↗ flexibility for the rest of the lot.

1:51:32 ↗ Otherwise, we would have eliminated 40%

1:51:35 ↗ of the lots um as heard before. And we

1:51:39 ↗ also worked with the state to define

1:51:40 ↗ what a major transit stop is so that it

1:51:44 ↗ was more than just a bus stop that Sound

1:51:46 ↗ Transit or King County Metro could just

1:51:48 ↗ take away. Um, this uh legislation will

1:51:52 ↗ enable homeowners who want to add units

1:51:54 ↗ for those who need it, whether that be a

1:51:57 ↗ child or a grandparent or a renter or um

1:52:00 ↗ purchase. Uh but I will note because of

1:52:04 ↗ our law sizes and because we haven't

1:52:06 ↗ made adjustments to imper imperous

1:52:09 ↗ surface limits that really means if you

1:52:12 ↗ are going to add more units most of

1:52:14 ↗ those units will have to be smaller in

1:52:17 ↗ size than necessarily a single family

1:52:20 ↗ home. And that's the type of thing that

1:52:22 ↗ creates natural affordability. Just like

1:52:25 ↗ I wouldn't pay um for a 500 ft unit at

1:52:30 ↗ the same rate that I would for 2500

1:52:32 ↗ square ft, you will see those smaller

1:52:34 ↗ units end up at a more affordable price

1:52:37 ↗ point. That being said, some of them

1:52:40 ↗ will end up being developed as luxury or

1:52:43 ↗ high-priced units. And I know there's a

1:52:45 ↗ lot of concern about that. I would say

1:52:48 ↗ first of all we cannot control

1:52:51 ↗ developers or tell a land owner what

1:52:54 ↗ they can't do with their property that

1:52:56 ↗ would be considered taking. Um but I

1:53:00 ↗ will also note that even those

1:53:03 ↗ additional luxury units are additional

1:53:05 ↗ supply which decreases the pressure from

1:53:08 ↗ demand and it also gives more diversity

1:53:12 ↗ in our housing supply. right now what is

1:53:15 ↗ primarily available in Isiqua and around

1:53:18 ↗ the state you either have a choice

1:53:20 ↗ between single family homes or an

1:53:23 ↗ apartment and so this provides that

1:53:26 ↗ middle option for somebody who might

1:53:29 ↗ want a starter home or something like

1:53:31 ↗ that um and gives more choices and then

1:53:34 ↗ it also enables affordable housing in a

1:53:38 ↗ neighborhood friendly design um which is

1:53:41 ↗ either attached stacked or clustered um

1:53:44 ↗ where one of the four is affordable. So,

1:53:47 ↗ I will absolutely be supporting this. I

1:53:48 ↗ appreciate all of the work that we have

1:53:50 ↗ done to listen to residents and um we're

1:53:55 ↗ I'm absolutely in support of what went

1:53:57 ↗ through both PBC and PTE. Thank you. Any

1:54:01 ↗ other council comments? Uh Council

1:54:03 ↗ Member Jen. Great. Um thank you for all

1:54:07 ↗ your work on this, Valerie. I know it's

1:54:08 ↗ been uh quite the process. Um, and glad

1:54:11 ↗ that we're uh adopting our version of it

1:54:13 ↗ before the deadline, which is great. Um,

1:54:16 ↗ yeah, I also wanted to say thank you to

1:54:18 ↗ all the community members who've been

1:54:19 ↗ super engaged on this. It's really clear

1:54:21 ↗ to me, you know, even just walking

1:54:23 ↗ around in Oldtown and listening to your

1:54:24 ↗ comments. Um, Oldtown's a really special

1:54:26 ↗ place. You know, we've heard that from

1:54:27 ↗ you all. You can get a sense of it just

1:54:29 ↗ by walking around. Downtown Isakiqua

1:54:31 ↗ Association's highlighted by Main Street

1:54:33 ↗ America. Um, and so we do really want to

1:54:36 ↗ be intentional about how our community

1:54:37 ↗ grows. Um, I agree with Ann that, you

1:54:40 ↗ know, Oldtown really has an eclectic

1:54:42 ↗ feel with all the different houses that

1:54:44 ↗ have built over the years. I think it's

1:54:46 ↗ frankly a market failure that the

1:54:48 ↗ current, you know, housing market only

1:54:50 ↗ builds basically three types of housing.

1:54:51 ↗ On one end, you have single family

1:54:53 ↗ homes. On the other end, you have the

1:54:54 ↗ five over one apartments and in the

1:54:56 ↗ middle you have like the, you know,

1:54:58 ↗ super skinny town homes that were, you

1:55:00 ↗ know, kind of shoehorned into a lot in

1:55:01 ↗ Seattle. And so, you know, with middle

1:55:03 ↗ housing, I think we I think there's

1:55:06 ↗ potentially more work to be done to

1:55:07 ↗ figure out, you know, how can we

1:55:08 ↗ encourage more different types of middle

1:55:10 ↗ housing like stacked flats. My sister um

1:55:13 ↗ was in grad school in uh Cornell and she

1:55:16 ↗ lived in like this beautiful, you know,

1:55:18 ↗ old home where it was it was a stacked

1:55:20 ↗ flat situation and that that's middle

1:55:22 ↗ housing and I would I would love to see

1:55:23 ↗ how we can do more of that and encourage

1:55:24 ↗ that. Um, I do also want to acknowledge,

1:55:27 ↗ you know, as Valerie mentioned in her

1:55:29 ↗ presentation, we have a serious regional

1:55:31 ↗ shortage of housing. The Puget Sound

1:55:33 ↗ region is expected to add 1.6 million

1:55:35 ↗ new residents by 2050. For people my

1:55:38 ↗ age, housing feels, you know, incredibly

1:55:40 ↗ out of reach. I personally would love to

1:55:42 ↗ live in Oldtown. I don't have $1.5

1:55:44 ↗ million to buy like a 900 foot house.

1:55:49 ↗ Um, and so, you know, there we do need

1:55:52 ↗ more housing

1:55:53 ↗ options in the city, including in

1:55:56 ↗ Oldtown. Um, and I also really

1:55:58 ↗ appreciated, you know, the comments from

1:55:59 ↗ members of the public who supported

1:56:01 ↗ construction of ADUs and streamlining

1:56:02 ↗ those processes. I think, you know, the

1:56:05 ↗ honestly like looking at the places in

1:56:09 ↗ the world and in the country that have

1:56:10 ↗ the most charming feel. It is kind of,

1:56:13 ↗ you know, where there's like things that

1:56:14 ↗ have evolved over time that have, you

1:56:16 ↗ know, community, you know, someone's

1:56:17 ↗ like, "Oh, I wanted to change my house

1:56:19 ↗ into a um duplex or I decided that, you

1:56:23 ↗ know, my house is falling apart because

1:56:25 ↗ it's 120 years old and now I'm doing a

1:56:27 ↗ forplex where, you know, my grandparents

1:56:29 ↗ can live above me, my kids can live

1:56:31 ↗ below me, and, you know, those types of

1:56:33 ↗ things where you do see them in cities

1:56:35 ↗ that are older, but we actually have a

1:56:37 ↗ lot less of that here on the West Coast

1:56:38 ↗ with newer cities. Um, I also think that

1:56:41 ↗ the four units with one affordable unit

1:56:43 ↗ can potentially provide us with a unique

1:56:45 ↗ opportunity to develop to develop more

1:56:47 ↗ types of affordable housing. So all

1:56:49 ↗ basically all the affordable housing

1:56:50 ↗ projects that we see are like, you know,

1:56:53 ↗ massive apartment buildings because it

1:56:54 ↗ takes so much effort to stack all these

1:56:56 ↗ different funding sources, right?

1:56:57 ↗ They're like, "Oh, we got to get a

1:56:59 ↗ mortgage from the Amazon Housing Equity

1:57:02 ↗ Fund. We got to get the IHIP. We got to

1:57:04 ↗ get the Arch. We got to get the

1:57:05 ↗ Department of Commerce. We got to get

1:57:06 ↗ LITC." Well, so it's like, you know,

1:57:08 ↗ it's multiple people's full-time job to

1:57:10 ↗ set that up. And so, it's really hard

1:57:13 ↗ with smaller, you know, to get more

1:57:14 ↗ diverse options for affordable housing.

1:57:16 ↗ You know, not everyone necess I mean,

1:57:18 ↗ apartments are great, but we should have

1:57:21 ↗ more options for folks. So, I'm really

1:57:23 ↗ excited um about the potential that, you

1:57:25 ↗ know, the middle housing could result in

1:57:26 ↗ more um affordable units built with this

1:57:29 ↗ um you know, four with one affordable

1:57:31 ↗ unit. I would also say um I'm really

1:57:34 ↗ interested in looking into the potential

1:57:36 ↗ for IHIP to potentially help catalyze

1:57:38 ↗ that um especially because I mean you

1:57:41 ↗ know I've done some like back of the

1:57:42 ↗ napkin spreadsheet calculations the 60%

1:57:46 ↗ you know getting 60% affordable unit I

1:57:48 ↗ don't think you would need like a crazy

1:57:49 ↗ amount of subsidy and we could

1:57:51 ↗ potentially give you know a higher

1:57:53 ↗ subsidy if they create a 40% affordable

1:57:55 ↗ unit but that's something where we could

1:57:57 ↗ actually you know we have this IHIT

1:57:58 ↗ money we had one project that got funded

1:58:00 ↗ which was great And I would love to see

1:58:02 ↗ more of that. So I think, you know, I

1:58:04 ↗ want to I hope that we can look into

1:58:06 ↗ creative ways to leverage that to, you

1:58:08 ↗ know, get more different types of

1:58:10 ↗ affordable housing built in is because

1:58:11 ↗ frankly other people, you know, other

1:58:13 ↗ cities aren't really looking into that.

1:58:15 ↗ They're kind of just like, oh yeah, like

1:58:17 ↗ we're going to, you know,

1:58:19 ↗ do these same types of housing projects

1:58:22 ↗ that are happening everywhere else. Um

1:58:24 ↗ so ultimately you know I think it would

1:58:27 ↗ be it's time to ask questions like oh

1:58:29 ↗ what how can we use you know the IHIP to

1:58:31 ↗ have a streamlined process to

1:58:33 ↗ efficiently create affordable units

1:58:35 ↗ different types of affordable units in

1:58:36 ↗ Isiqua. What if we could, you know,

1:58:38 ↗ build those uh forplex like stacked

1:58:40 ↗ flats, you know, two on top, two on the

1:58:42 ↗ bottom that you don't have stairs taking

1:58:44 ↗ up half of your house, which I live in a

1:58:46 ↗ townhouse, there's a lot of stairs. Um

1:58:49 ↗ and it offers, you know, the ability for

1:58:52 ↗ folks to age in place while also

1:58:53 ↗ potentially providing affordable housing

1:58:55 ↗ to more people. So, I think um this is a

1:58:58 ↗ great start. Um, and I think it's just a

1:59:00 ↗ start of a conversation on middle

1:59:01 ↗ housing and how, you know, the our

1:59:03 ↗ neighborhoods in Isiqua can evolve um,

1:59:05 ↗ as our community evolves over time.

1:59:08 ↗ Thank you. Additional comments.

1:59:12 ↗ Um, and before we move on, would the

1:59:14 ↗ council mind if I added some comments as

1:59:16 ↗ well? I just really appreciate what's

1:59:18 ↗ been stated so far. Um, I think Valerie,

1:59:21 ↗ your work in this has been astounding.

1:59:24 ↗ Most cities have really struggled with

1:59:26 ↗ how to take these conflicting in some

1:59:29 ↗ degrees house bill language and um apply

1:59:33 ↗ it to their specific unique community.

1:59:37 ↗ Middle housing was designed to be a way

1:59:40 ↗ to look at the existing stock and see if

1:59:42 ↗ you can divide large spaces into small

1:59:45 ↗ spaces or if you're rebuilding to put in

1:59:47 ↗ more spaces with the same footprint. But

1:59:49 ↗ there's been a lot of pressure um um by

1:59:53 ↗ um several

1:59:55 ↗ uh groups lobbying the state um real

1:59:58 ↗ estate and master builders association

2:00:01 ↗ to turn this into just bigger homes. And

2:00:04 ↗ I think you've really navigated those

2:00:06 ↗ waters really well that and I heard it

2:00:08 ↗ in the comments tonight. It's got to be

2:00:10 ↗ smaller and the best thing we can do is

2:00:12 ↗ repurpose and reuse. And I think that

2:00:15 ↗ you know the job that you've done has

2:00:16 ↗ been really well reflected in the

2:00:18 ↗ comments that you heard from the council

2:00:19 ↗ tonight. So what a difficult task.

2:00:22 ↗ That's just astounding. Very very proud

2:00:25 ↗ of the work that you've done and from

2:00:27 ↗ the community comments to the council

2:00:29 ↗ comments. I think you really nailed it.

2:00:32 ↗ Any other comments or should I reread

2:00:34 ↗ the long long motion for you? I kind of

2:00:37 ↗ have to. It's up to the city clerk.

2:00:38 ↗ There's been too long of a p. Do I have

2:00:40 ↗ to read the whole thing? Okay. I got out

2:00:44 ↗ of it. Um so if there's no further

2:00:47 ↗ discussion, uh there are four um motions

2:00:50 ↗ before um there is one motion to adopt

2:00:54 ↗ four ordinances and all those in favor

2:00:57 ↗ if you could signify by saying I I I.

2:01:01 ↗ Those

2:01:01 ↗ opposed that carries unanimously. Thank

2:01:04 ↗ you so much for your hard work and thank

2:01:07 ↗ you for the community engagement on

2:01:08 ↗ this. It's great to hear the voices from

2:01:10 ↗ the people who live here.

2:01:12 ↗ Um the next uh item on regular business

2:01:15 ↗ this evening is

2:01:16 ↗ AB9009 city council vacancy process

2:01:19 ↗ amendments to city council rules of

2:01:21 ↗ procedure and the request of council

2:01:23 ↗ this evening is to approve the

2:01:24 ↗ resolution. Uh and our city clerk Disha

2:01:27 ↗ Gizer is here to present this item.

2:01:32 ↗ Welcome. Thank

2:01:34 ↗ you. Let me just launch this real quick.

2:01:41 ↗ All right, Tisha Gizer, city clerk, I

2:01:44 ↗ have a real quick presentation here just

2:01:46 ↗ because it's been a couple of meetings

2:01:48 ↗ um since you last discussed this topic.

2:01:50 ↗ Um so I'm here to uh share AB uh 90009,

2:01:54 ↗ the city council vacancy process

2:01:56 ↗ proposed amendments to your rules of

2:01:58 ↗ procedure and have them for you tonight

2:02:01 ↗ to review. So as a reminder, you last

2:02:03 ↗ discussed this item at the April 7th

2:02:05 ↗ council meeting. At that time you were

2:02:07 ↗ reviewing the survey results of some

2:02:08 ↗ applicants uh who had applied for the

2:02:10 ↗ council vacancy and you were sharing

2:02:12 ↗ your feedback and observations about the

2:02:14 ↗ experience. Um you provided a lot of

2:02:16 ↗ feedback which was included in the

2:02:18 ↗ agenda bill and the minutes for the

2:02:19 ↗ meeting. Um you kind of landed on a

2:02:21 ↗ motion providing direction to um I feel

2:02:23 ↗ like saying goodbye to our community

2:02:25 ↗ members over

2:02:26 ↗ there. Um and you provided uh direction

2:02:30 ↗ to uh us as staff, me as staff to

2:02:33 ↗ provide some proposed amendments in

2:02:34 ↗ three areas. That was the verbal

2:02:36 ↗ presentation length that was requiring

2:02:38 ↗ nominees to have a second and kind of h

2:02:41 ↗ narrowing uh nominees. And the third was

2:02:44 ↗ um discussing some of the some more of

2:02:48 ↗ the mechanics of the appointment process

2:02:51 ↗ before opening the applications and then

2:02:54 ↗ you had some other feedback uh that you

2:02:57 ↗ shared as well. So, uh, I'm going to

2:02:59 ↗ share those three proposed changes with

2:03:01 ↗ you quickly, and they're also included

2:03:03 ↗ your in your packet tonight, and these

2:03:05 ↗ are all again to your city council rules

2:03:07 ↗ of procedure. So, the first one, uh, the

2:03:10 ↗ first change here is to prompt the

2:03:12 ↗ council to talk about a few more things

2:03:15 ↗ at that meeting when you're approving

2:03:17 ↗ the schedule and timeline. So, you

2:03:19 ↗ remember that meeting, it was the first

2:03:20 ↗ meeting in December. It was a really

2:03:22 ↗ long meeting if you recall and you

2:03:24 ↗ provided input on the timing of the

2:03:26 ↗ various steps for the appointees but in

2:03:29 ↗ the proposed rules um I've added a few

2:03:31 ↗ things based on your feedback. So in

2:03:33 ↗ addition to just approving a timeline

2:03:35 ↗ and schedule you would also be prompted

2:03:37 ↗ to review and approve or delegate

2:03:41 ↗ approval of the application questions.

2:03:43 ↗ whether you'd like to provide guidance

2:03:45 ↗ to the applicants on the ver verbal

2:03:47 ↗ presentations, whether you'd like any

2:03:48 ↗ events such as the elected officials 101

2:03:51 ↗ 101 or a meet and greet and uh what your

2:03:54 ↗ vision for the question and answer

2:03:56 ↗ session is. So trying to air a little

2:03:58 ↗ bit more of that earlier in the

2:04:01 ↗ process. Uh also your feedback on April

2:04:04 ↗ 7th was you really wanted to make sure

2:04:05 ↗ all the applicants are getting the same

2:04:07 ↗ information and know that they can reach

2:04:09 ↗ out to you as their current elected

2:04:11 ↗ officials. And so uh language to that

2:04:13 ↗ effect has been added in the proposed

2:04:15 ↗ rules and the

2:04:17 ↗ SOP. Uh and then you know there were a

2:04:20 ↗ lot of applicants this time around 12

2:04:22 ↗ applicants and ultimately their the

2:04:24 ↗ length of their presentations was

2:04:25 ↗ reduced to trying to remember if it was

2:04:27 ↗ five or seven minutes or 5 to 7 minutes.

2:04:32 ↗ Anyways it was less than 10 minutes and

2:04:34 ↗ so um some of your feedback was to allow

2:04:37 ↗ some flexibility in the future. So

2:04:39 ↗ typically when the deadline for the

2:04:41 ↗ applications is not uh so far before the

2:04:46 ↗ the night where they're presenting to

2:04:48 ↗ you and so it felt problematic to have

2:04:50 ↗ the council weigh in on that. So the

2:04:52 ↗ proposed amendments would delegate that

2:04:54 ↗ to council leadership. So the clerk's

2:04:56 ↗ office would provide all of you a number

2:04:58 ↗ of the applicants and then council

2:05:00 ↗ leadership would be asked to provide the

2:05:02 ↗ presentation duration which could be a

2:05:04 ↗ range which we would then communicate to

2:05:06 ↗ the applicants 3 to 5 days. So it have

2:05:08 ↗ give them some time to adjust their

2:05:10 ↗ presentations. That's what's proposed.

2:05:12 ↗ Again, you're welcome to offer other

2:05:16 ↗ suggestions. The third thing that you uh

2:05:20 ↗ directed us to provide some language

2:05:22 ↗ around was that narrowing process. So

2:05:24 ↗ you kind of had two different types of

2:05:26 ↗ of feedback. Um one piece of feedback,

2:05:29 ↗ I'm starting at the bottom of the slide

2:05:31 ↗ here. One piece of feedback was you were

2:05:33 ↗ interested in making it a little more

2:05:37 ↗ um needing a little bit more support to

2:05:40 ↗ be nominated and so one of the ideas

2:05:43 ↗ that was floated that seemed to have

2:05:44 ↗ some agreement around it was requiring a

2:05:46 ↗ second of the nominations and so that

2:05:49 ↗ has been incorporated into the proposed

2:05:51 ↗ rule. So someone would suggest a nominee

2:05:54 ↗ and that would require a they would

2:05:56 ↗ require a second to be kind of to be

2:05:59 ↗ nominated to be nominated and voted on.

2:06:02 ↗ You also asked for some options around

2:06:04 ↗ narrowing the applicant. So there are

2:06:07 ↗ two options presented in the rules and

2:06:10 ↗ they're not, you know, they're not

2:06:11 ↗ terribly creative here, but there's the

2:06:14 ↗ two options would be one is you could

2:06:16 ↗ choose to uh nominate individuals and

2:06:20 ↗ then have them voted on. Um anyone who

2:06:22 ↗ got a majority would be forwarded on in

2:06:25 ↗ the process or like you did in this last

2:06:27 ↗ round, you could nominate a group of

2:06:30 ↗ people that would then be voted on

2:06:32 ↗ together. And again, if a majority vote

2:06:34 ↗ was received, that group would move

2:06:36 ↗ forward. And in the rules, it says that

2:06:39 ↗ the the mayor would or if I suppose if

2:06:42 ↗ it was a uh committee of the whole

2:06:43 ↗ meeting, but let's assume it's a regular

2:06:45 ↗ special city council meeting, the mayor

2:06:47 ↗ would facilitate that before. So, when

2:06:49 ↗ you came out of executive session, the

2:06:51 ↗ mayor would ask the council how they'd

2:06:53 ↗ like to proceed to narrow nominees, and

2:06:55 ↗ then you would provide input on which of

2:06:57 ↗ those two approaches you wanted to take.

2:06:59 ↗ Anything else you wanted to say? Um, and

2:07:01 ↗ that was some other feedback you had was

2:07:03 ↗ that uh you felt like it would be uh

2:07:06 ↗ good in the future to have a little bit

2:07:08 ↗ more um I guess verbalizing of some of

2:07:10 ↗ the processes you were following in the

2:07:13 ↗ meeting. And

2:07:15 ↗ so the language in the rules now

2:07:18 ↗ identifies those two paths to narrow

2:07:20 ↗ applicants. Before it didn't say

2:07:21 ↗ anything about narrowing applicants. So

2:07:23 ↗ I think it's helpful guidance for future

2:07:24 ↗ councils and again requires that second.

2:07:28 ↗ Council member Hall has a qu question.

2:07:31 ↗ Um, thank you very much. So, um, I

2:07:33 ↗ didn't think of this earlier. So, for

2:07:35 ↗ nominating,

2:07:37 ↗ um, if we're requiring a second to

2:07:39 ↗ nominate a candidate, is it the same as

2:07:42 ↗ like making a motion where you can't

2:07:44 ↗ speak to your motion until it's been

2:07:46 ↗ seconded? Is that how it would be? Yes.

2:07:50 ↗ You're okay. Thanks.

2:07:53 ↗ So, I've uh shared the proposal

2:07:56 ↗ regarding those three main areas that

2:07:58 ↗ you provided direction on, but you also

2:08:00 ↗ had some other feedback which was also

2:08:02 ↗ based on those survey responses. And so,

2:08:05 ↗ um that feedback and it's listed here on

2:08:08 ↗ the screen, but again, consistent

2:08:09 ↗ information, meeting layout, um kind of

2:08:13 ↗ uh consistent communication around about

2:08:15 ↗ the processes throughout the uh

2:08:19 ↗ application process. Those things are

2:08:21 ↗ all captured in an administrative

2:08:23 ↗ procedure that I attached to the agenda

2:08:24 ↗ bill, which I think will be a really

2:08:26 ↗ helpful document uh in the future. Um I

2:08:29 ↗ it captures some of the more minor

2:08:32 ↗ elements that you had feedback on that I

2:08:33 ↗ don't think necessarily warrant being in

2:08:35 ↗ your rules, but provides some guidance

2:08:36 ↗ to staff or at least things to think

2:08:38 ↗ about or ask for during the

2:08:40 ↗ process. So, there is a proposed

2:08:43 ↗ resolution that would make these changes

2:08:44 ↗ to your rules. And at this point, if you

2:08:46 ↗ have any questions, I'm available.

2:08:49 ↗ That's great. Any additional qu deputy

2:08:52 ↗ council president?

2:08:55 ↗ I'm having trouble with this button

2:08:57 ↗ tonight. Um so it's not clear to me on

2:09:03 ↗ um section H. So one and two uh the

2:09:07 ↗ mayor calls for nominations to be

2:09:08 ↗ nominated and applicant must be

2:09:10 ↗ suggested by one council member and

2:09:11 ↗ seconded by another. And then number

2:09:13 ↗ two, when there are no further

2:09:15 ↗ nominations, the mayor announces that

2:09:16 ↗ nominations are closed and asks if there

2:09:19 ↗ are any comments on the nominees. And

2:09:22 ↗ then number three, the nominees are then

2:09:24 ↗ voted on in the order the nominations

2:09:26 ↗ were made. The vote is taken by voice

2:09:28 ↗ and chill of hands. And supposedly at

2:09:30 ↗ that point, we're narrowing it down.

2:09:33 ↗ So let's just

2:09:35 ↗ say we have three candidates and the

2:09:38 ↗ first candidate gets four and the second

2:09:40 ↗ candidates gets three and the third

2:09:42 ↗ candidate candidate gets two votes. Is

2:09:45 ↗ that mean that that third candidate is

2:09:47 ↗ uh now out of the running

2:09:53 ↗ or do you see what I'm saying? How how

2:09:55 ↗ does that narrowing happen? and uh

2:09:58 ↗ because we wanted to eliminate the

2:10:00 ↗ problem of the first

2:10:03 ↗ nominee basically taking the vote away

2:10:07 ↗ from everybody else. So how does that

2:10:10 ↗ narrowing happen? Because to me it's not

2:10:12 ↗ clear in what we've what we've outlined

2:10:15 ↗ here exactly how that would happen if we

2:10:17 ↗ had three, four, five candidates and how

2:10:20 ↗ how uh we actually get to the narrowing

2:10:24 ↗ process. Does that make sense to you?

2:10:26 ↗ Does each

2:10:31 ↗ No not

2:10:35 ↗ necessarily. So, in council member DM

2:10:37 ↗ Michelle, there's not that the there's

2:10:40 ↗ not a huge distinction here, but there

2:10:41 ↗ section G is about

2:10:43 ↗ narrowing. Section I or H is that final

2:10:47 ↗ appointment. So, the language is a

2:10:50 ↗ little different in those two sections.

2:10:52 ↗ So G is the section that talks about the

2:10:55 ↗ new section that talks about the

2:10:57 ↗ narrowing of

2:11:00 ↗ applicants and what it says is anyone

2:11:03 ↗ receiving a majority would move forward.

2:11:06 ↗ And so but you're as a council member

2:11:08 ↗ you each you can each

2:11:13 ↗ um whether it's the slate or individual

2:11:15 ↗ nominees you can vote yes for multiple

2:11:19 ↗ or no for multiple. you each vote is up

2:11:23 ↗ to you. So under you know and that

2:11:27 ↗ wasn't a good example because four would

2:11:28 ↗ be a majority. So I'm sorry I wasn't

2:11:31 ↗ that wasn't a good example but um so

2:11:34 ↗ let's just say there's six of us voting

2:11:37 ↗ uh and so I like candidate number three

2:11:40 ↗ so I withhold my vote until candidate

2:11:43 ↗ number three. Maybe we need to, and I

2:11:46 ↗ think you talked a little bit about that

2:11:48 ↗ in here about withholding votes, but

2:11:50 ↗ maybe we need to make that explicit that

2:11:54 ↗ council members would only vote for the

2:11:57 ↗ candidate they were supporting or

2:11:59 ↗ something along that language so that

2:12:01 ↗ it's clear

2:12:03 ↗ that I guess what I'm trying to say is

2:12:06 ↗ the first person

2:12:08 ↗ nominated, gee, I don't want to vote

2:12:10 ↗ against that person. Yes, I want them to

2:12:12 ↗ continue, but I really like candidate

2:12:14 ↗ number three. So, how do we how do we

2:12:17 ↗ work that out so that the votes are

2:12:20 ↗ distributed in a way that reflects the

2:12:22 ↗ the priorities of each of the of the

2:12:26 ↗ voters? Maybe I'm struggling over this

2:12:28 ↗ too much. No, no, I don't I don't think

2:12:31 ↗ you are.

2:12:32 ↗ Uh so for narrowing you know it's

2:12:36 ↗ however many of the nom however many

2:12:39 ↗ people are nominated and then receive a

2:12:41 ↗ majority vote are moving forward. So in

2:12:43 ↗ the process of narrowing you know you

2:12:46 ↗ could move forward multiple people.

2:12:48 ↗ There's not there's not a limit that's

2:12:50 ↗ contemplated in these amendments because

2:12:52 ↗ in your discussion it felt like you

2:12:54 ↗ weren't real comfortable putting a cap

2:12:56 ↗ on the number. now, but when it gets to

2:12:59 ↗ the final, making that you've already

2:13:01 ↗ done your narrowing and now you're

2:13:02 ↗ planning to make your final appointment,

2:13:04 ↗ you're right, that gets tricky and and

2:13:06 ↗ and then order really matters. And I

2:13:08 ↗ know there was some discussion among the

2:13:10 ↗ council about that, about acknowledging

2:13:12 ↗ that order. And um I'll be honest that

2:13:14 ↗ I'm not sure how to how to work around

2:13:17 ↗ that. I mean, I did think about that

2:13:20 ↗ some, but it's a we need some mechanism

2:13:23 ↗ to vote on them and and a traditional

2:13:26 ↗ one and one in Robert's rules is just,

2:13:28 ↗ you know, it's nominated first, you're

2:13:30 ↗ voted on first. Um, but again, in that

2:13:32 ↗ case, certainly the first person who

2:13:34 ↗ receives that majority is your person.

2:13:38 ↗ Yes.

2:14:04 ↗ I move to approve resolution number

2:14:08 ↗ 2025-12 amending section 2.03 of the

2:14:11 ↗ city council rules of procedure

2:14:13 ↗ regarding uh filling a vacancy on the

2:14:16 ↗ city council.

2:14:25 ↗ second. Yeah, I'm I'm troubled by

2:14:27 ↗ section H because it creates a situation

2:14:31 ↗ where it's a first pass the post and so

2:14:35 ↗ there's a massive advantage for the

2:14:38 ↗ first person to get nominated um once at

2:14:41 ↗ once you get to the final appointment

2:14:43 ↗ process. Um, and we have had a um a

2:14:48 ↗ council that is generally uh uh

2:14:51 ↗ collegial, but I there's just a huge

2:14:55 ↗ advantage for the p first person

2:14:57 ↗ nominated. And so I think that um you

2:15:01 ↗ could the easy way,

2:15:04 ↗ well the easy way is when you get to the

2:15:07 ↗ final appointment process, you do

2:15:09 ↗ something where the lowest uh vote

2:15:12 ↗ receiver gets knocked out each round

2:15:15 ↗ until you until you get to a majority.

2:15:18 ↗ Um, the other way you could do it is you

2:15:21 ↗ could say all you would have to this way

2:15:24 ↗ I like less but it's a simpler change

2:15:26 ↗ which would be on line three the

2:15:27 ↗ nominees are then voted on in the order

2:15:29 ↗ of nominations. you just change that to

2:15:31 ↗ random or um by uh alphabetically. But

2:15:35 ↗ something that takes away the incentive

2:15:37 ↗ to be the first person to nominate

2:15:40 ↗ because I'll tell you it

2:15:42 ↗ was it has been a factor in some of the

2:15:46 ↗ appointments that I have seen over the

2:15:48 ↗ years um the order in which the

2:15:50 ↗ nominations are made and it shouldn't be

2:15:53 ↗ right. Um, so you know, it's late in the

2:15:57 ↗ game. Um, but this this was a concern

2:15:59 ↗ that I voiced a couple of couple of

2:16:01 ↗ times ago that we talked about this. Um,

2:16:03 ↗ I like I said, the the simplest,

2:16:06 ↗ although perhaps um least satisfying way

2:16:09 ↗ would be to either make them random or

2:16:11 ↗ alphabetical. Um I think the way to do

2:16:15 ↗ it is to just say um it you know if you

2:16:20 ↗ have a vote um and a clear majority is

2:16:24 ↗ not found um you eliminate the lowest

2:16:27 ↗ vote holder and re and revote. That's

2:16:31 ↗ how um when I was in Minnesota and we

2:16:34 ↗ had incredibly contentious u nominations

2:16:38 ↗ for in the DFL and that's the way we did

2:16:40 ↗ it was knocking out the lowest vote

2:16:41 ↗ holder each time. So, um I I don't have

2:16:45 ↗ a specific amendment to propose at this

2:16:47 ↗ moment, but I um really really this is a

2:16:51 ↗ this this this um what we have in front

2:16:54 ↗ of us is really good except for this one

2:16:56 ↗ particular point and it's a knit but I

2:16:58 ↗ still don't think we should pick we

2:17:00 ↗ should appoint somebody to council based

2:17:02 ↗ on who is the first person to get their

2:17:04 ↗ mic recognized in the um appointment uh

2:17:08 ↗ or in the nomination for final

2:17:10 ↗ appointment process. Thank you.

2:17:17 ↗ Um, maybe I'm just not following the

2:17:19 ↗ conundrum here because cuz by that last

2:17:22 ↗ vote, I mean, when you've nominated like

2:17:25 ↗ even if you're the first nominee, if you

2:17:28 ↗ you should already kind of know who

2:17:29 ↗ you're going to vote for, right? So, if

2:17:30 ↗ it's the third person, you're not going

2:17:32 ↗ to vote for that first person. So, I

2:17:33 ↗ guess I don't I'm not following how

2:17:35 ↗ there's a

2:17:37 ↗ Can I Can I Is that like a scenario?

2:17:39 ↗ Let's say you got Let's say you've got

2:17:40 ↗ three nominees. George Washington,

2:17:42 ↗ Abraham Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt,

2:17:45 ↗ right? That everybody likes all three of

2:17:47 ↗ them. The first one that gets nominated

2:17:49 ↗ is has a substantial chance of getting

2:17:52 ↗ um the appointment because they got

2:17:54 ↗ nominated first. But yeah, so I guess

2:17:56 ↗ this is the nature of my concern then.

2:17:58 ↗ If we're at the end, why would why would

2:18:00 ↗ you vote yes on everybody? Cuz because

2:18:03 ↗ we're not narrowing anymore now. We're

2:18:04 ↗ just this is who I want, right? Isn't

2:18:06 ↗ that the idea? or is the idea that we

2:18:08 ↗ are still giving council the opportunity

2:18:10 ↗ to vote yes on everybody in the end?

2:18:14 ↗ I'm I'm I'm just saying to the questions

2:18:17 ↗ of you know if you have if if you have

2:18:20 ↗ three really good candidates or two

2:18:22 ↗ really good candidates um if you are

2:18:24 ↗ voting

2:18:26 ↗ conscientiously you could get a m you

2:18:28 ↗ could get a simple majority on the first

2:18:30 ↗ one um merely because the first one

2:18:33 ↗ there's if you know yeah no I think I'm

2:18:36 ↗ following you then so so city clerk then

2:18:38 ↗ I'm is that is that how am I

2:18:40 ↗ interpreting that right then that we're

2:18:42 ↗ not placing any kind of limit on when a

2:18:45 ↗ council member can vote yes or or no on

2:18:48 ↗ any final nomination. Right. Okay. So, I

2:18:51 ↗ guess maybe I am seeing that. But but

2:18:54 ↗ that also seems like

2:18:58 ↗ um let me collect my thoughts on this

2:19:01 ↗ one a little bit longer. Yeah.

2:19:21 ↗ So I want to approach this by taking the

2:19:24 ↗ people portion out of it. If we had an

2:19:28 ↗ ordinance and there

2:19:31 ↗ was a an amendment proposed and you know

2:19:36 ↗ we always try and not surprise folks. So

2:19:38 ↗ often we might know that maybe there's

2:19:41 ↗ three amendments

2:19:44 ↗ um that are going to come up on that

2:19:46 ↗ piece of

2:19:48 ↗ legislation, but we know that all three

2:19:52 ↗ of them

2:19:54 ↗ are like can't be adopted together. They

2:19:57 ↗ all conflict with each other.

2:20:00 ↗ You have to evaluate all three of those

2:20:03 ↗ and make a decision to withhold your

2:20:06 ↗ vote until or vote no until the one

2:20:11 ↗ comes up that you are most interested

2:20:13 ↗ in. And I I think that's the

2:20:18 ↗ best example of this. Of course, it's

2:20:22 ↗ much more difficult when we have an even

2:20:25 ↗ number of folks and um making that vote

2:20:29 ↗ and so that complicates things. But in

2:20:32 ↗ general, yeah, I think it is our

2:20:34 ↗ responsibility

2:20:35 ↗ as council members

2:20:38 ↗ to be able to decide between two, three,

2:20:43 ↗ five conflicting concepts, whether they

2:20:47 ↗ be amendments or people, and be able

2:20:52 ↗ to make that withholding. So I I don't

2:20:55 ↗ see a problem

2:20:58 ↗ with order necessarily because and I

2:21:01 ↗ don't see what the benefit would be.

2:21:03 ↗ Let's say we end up with four people at

2:21:05 ↗ the

2:21:07 ↗ end of requiring a drop

2:21:11 ↗ off in order

2:21:14 ↗ to get us down to two

2:21:20 ↗ necessarily. So, I'm not seeing a

2:21:22 ↗ benefit from doing from completely

2:21:26 ↗ requiring a

2:21:37 ↗ narrowing. Yeah, I guess this whole

2:21:40 ↗ question about the, you know, I mean, I

2:21:44 ↗ was nominated first, so maybe that's why

2:21:46 ↗ I got in. Um but um I think the whole

2:21:51 ↗ like withh holding your vote thing is

2:21:52 ↗ very interesting cuz I think you know on

2:21:54 ↗ the first round of narrowing it does

2:21:55 ↗ make sense that you could vote multiple

2:21:56 ↗ times because you can advance multiple

2:21:57 ↗ people. I think the second time around

2:22:00 ↗ there's much more of a case to be made

2:22:01 ↗ that you only have one vote cuz there's

2:22:03 ↗ only one person that ultimately makes

2:22:05 ↗ it. And so then it's like okay it's

2:22:07 ↗ pretty clear you should withhold your

2:22:08 ↗ vote for the one person that you think

2:22:09 ↗ would be best. Um and then at that point

2:22:12 ↗ I think you know going down

2:22:14 ↗ from four or three to two by knocking

2:22:17 ↗ out the lowest vote getter I think then

2:22:19 ↗ makes it clear that okay you know that

2:22:21 ↗ person then has to pick essentially who

2:22:23 ↗ their second choice person is. So it's

2:22:24 ↗ like in some ways a form of rank choice

2:22:27 ↗ voting. Um and I think it would actually

2:22:30 ↗ potentially be better if we actually

2:22:32 ↗ just did rank choice voting was like oh

2:22:33 ↗ here's my one two and three and tally

2:22:35 ↗ the votes in that way. Um,

2:22:37 ↗ but you know, there's only there would

2:22:41 ↗ only be like six of us. Um, and that

2:22:43 ↗ requires more amendments. Generally, I I

2:22:45 ↗ think my and I'm not like 100% committed

2:22:48 ↗ to this, but just, you know, what I

2:22:50 ↗ think we could do is potentially in the

2:22:52 ↗ final round only allow one vote and then

2:22:55 ↗ do the narrowing down just cuz also, you

2:22:57 ↗ know, if you're the person who you got

2:22:59 ↗ one vote and it's pretty clear that

2:23:02 ↗ you're not going to be moving forward,

2:23:05 ↗ then not getting eliminated and then

2:23:07 ↗ having to only get one vote repeatedly

2:23:09 ↗ like three times is not a great feeling.

2:23:12 ↗ So, I think that, you know, also helps.

2:23:18 ↗ Yeah, I I think I agree almost

2:23:20 ↗ wholeheartedly with Council Member Jang.

2:23:23 ↗ It's uh it's really simply a matter if

2:23:26 ↗ it was if you only had one vote, then

2:23:28 ↗ it's really really simple. It's the idea

2:23:30 ↗ that you have multiple votes that makes

2:23:31 ↗ this complex. Um and all I know is I've

2:23:34 ↗ done three appointments and um I don't

2:23:37 ↗ know if it was the first one who was um

2:23:39 ↗ nominated was appointed. Um all I do

2:23:42 ↗ know is it came down to in each case two

2:23:44 ↗ candidates and much nashing and wailing

2:23:47 ↗ of teeth um and then a decision that

2:23:50 ↗ okay we're going to go this way or that

2:23:52 ↗ way. So I don't know that there's um you

2:23:56 ↗ know a notable advantage. Now if you're

2:23:58 ↗ nominated first and you are the choice

2:24:00 ↗ of four people and everyone gets one

2:24:03 ↗ vote then we just have a very fast

2:24:05 ↗ process and that's probably an okay

2:24:07 ↗ thing. So um you know I I think you know

2:24:10 ↗ this idea of one vote and low vote

2:24:13 ↗ person is um out of consideration and we

2:24:16 ↗ move forward.

2:24:29 ↗ So, uh maybe we um solve this by

2:24:32 ↗ inserting and I can make a motion to

2:24:34 ↗ that if if uh other people um but anyway

2:24:38 ↗ uh on number three, the nominees are

2:24:40 ↗ then voted on in the order the

2:24:42 ↗ nominations were made if we inserted a

2:24:43 ↗ sentence that said each council member

2:24:46 ↗ will have one vote. I mean, it sounds

2:24:48 ↗ pretty simple, but we don't explicitly

2:24:50 ↗ say it here. So, anyway, if that sounds

2:24:54 ↗ Okay.

2:25:00 ↗ Uh, mayor, I think, and I'll pull this

2:25:02 ↗ up on screen. I think we would need to

2:25:03 ↗ make a slight change to that section

2:25:05 ↗ before that talks about withholding a

2:25:07 ↗ vote because that wouldn't apply. So, I

2:25:09 ↗ can uh quickly make an adjustment and

2:25:11 ↗ show that on screen. for a minute or

2:25:13 ↗ two. Is there any

2:25:15 ↗ other comments or would

2:25:23 ↗ somebody break? I do have a comment on a

2:25:27 ↗ different topic if I could. Sure. If

2:25:29 ↗ we're done with that conversation, um I

2:25:31 ↗ was just wondering if uh having the fact

2:25:34 ↗ that we have to have a nominee seconded

2:25:38 ↗ um presents a little bit of a problem.

2:25:39 ↗ Let me just track through this. Um, if

2:25:42 ↗ there is a person that you want to stay

2:25:45 ↗ on the good side

2:25:47 ↗ of, like I have George out there and I

2:25:52 ↗ nominate him so that I stay on George's

2:25:54 ↗ good side, but he's not seconded. I look

2:25:57 ↗ good potentially and all the other five

2:26:01 ↗ look like they have black hats on

2:26:03 ↗ potentially. I don't know how to solve

2:26:04 ↗ that problem, right? But it's just

2:26:07 ↗ something that can come up and then we

2:26:09 ↗ might be pressured. Zach might feel,

2:26:12 ↗ well, I I better second him because I

2:26:15 ↗ don't want to wear a black hat. I'm a

2:26:16 ↗ white hat guy, right? And then we have a

2:26:18 ↗ problem of having too many nominees that

2:26:22 ↗ may not actually have support. I'll just

2:26:24 ↗ throw that question out. If it's a

2:26:26 ↗ problem that others see, that's great.

2:26:28 ↗ If it's something that we're all mature

2:26:30 ↗ enough

2:26:32 ↗ to sidestep, that's that's fantastic,

2:26:34 ↗ too. But I just wanted to throw it out

2:26:36 ↗ as a topic of of question for us.

2:26:41 ↗ No, it's interesting because I was going

2:26:43 ↗ to speak to this issue too and and and

2:26:46 ↗ even kind of I think it relates to the

2:26:48 ↗ issue we were talking about before too.

2:26:49 ↗ I think in my mind just not being um

2:26:53 ↗ overly prescriptive uh because the f the

2:26:55 ↗ reason I asked the question around is it

2:26:57 ↗ like does it does it have the power and

2:26:59 ↗ weight of like a motion where you need a

2:27:00 ↗ second before you can speak to it is

2:27:02 ↗ sometimes we make motions here and we

2:27:05 ↗ ask for a um nice second so we can

2:27:11 ↗ explain our thinking right where whether

2:27:13 ↗ or not you actually believe in whether

2:27:15 ↗ or not you're going to vote for that

2:27:16 ↗ particular motion right so it's almost

2:27:18 ↗ in my mind like norm setting like

2:27:21 ↗ council themselves will kind of decide

2:27:22 ↗ what the norm is for this kind of first

2:27:25 ↗ and second for nomination for whether or

2:27:28 ↗ not you have one vote or multiple votes

2:27:30 ↗ in the final vote. Um

2:27:32 ↗ and I don't know I go back and forth on

2:27:35 ↗ whether or not we want to be too

2:27:36 ↗ prescriptive there or let because one of

2:27:38 ↗ the kind of things we talked about too

2:27:40 ↗ um after we had the debrief from

2:27:42 ↗ candidates was we should just really

2:27:44 ↗ talk about things more up here on the

2:27:46 ↗ bias. So that also prevents presents an

2:27:48 ↗ opportunity for us to just talk about

2:27:50 ↗ here's how I'm thinking about how I'm

2:27:52 ↗ going to approach this final vote. I'm

2:27:54 ↗ going to withhold my vote and just vote

2:27:56 ↗ for the one person that I think has

2:27:58 ↗ risen above them all even though they're

2:27:59 ↗ all great. Does anyone feel differently?

2:28:02 ↗ And then have a conversation up here on

2:28:03 ↗ the day. So I don't know that's kind of

2:28:05 ↗ what I was thinking was like maybe this

2:28:07 ↗ is an opportunity for us to have kind of

2:28:08 ↗ norm based conversations. But um but you

2:28:11 ↗ bring up a a good point about the kind

2:28:13 ↗ of wanting people to to want to be in

2:28:17 ↗ like good graces with someone and if

2:28:19 ↗ there's not a second but you know that

2:28:20 ↗ problem exists for any motion as well

2:28:22 ↗ too. So um I know something to chew on.

2:28:25 ↗ Yeah.

2:28:54 ↗ I think the thing that we quite honestly

2:28:57 ↗ failed with on the last goround was

2:29:00 ↗ being way way too inclusive and far far

2:29:02 ↗ too nice and and you know and not

2:29:05 ↗ wanting to wear the black hat. But it's

2:29:07 ↗ a tough job we've got here and sometimes

2:29:09 ↗ you got to make the tough decisions

2:29:11 ↗ because it's in the best interest of the

2:29:13 ↗ city and it's in the best interest of

2:29:15 ↗ the applicants. And so trying to, you

2:29:17 ↗ know, let everybody down nice let a lot

2:29:20 ↗ of people down really hard. So we just

2:29:23 ↗ need to be, you know, rec, you know, own

2:29:26 ↗ it. Own it. You know, we own it. And so

2:29:29 ↗ let's let's uh let's be a little more um

2:29:33 ↗ direct in what we're going recognizing

2:29:35 ↗ only one person get that seat. Great.

2:29:40 ↗ Council President,

2:29:42 ↗ I will just throw it out there. or the

2:29:44 ↗ city of Olympia uses rank choice voting

2:29:46 ↗ when they are filling a vacancy process.

2:29:49 ↗ So I'm not what Yeah. Yeah. So they do

2:29:54 ↗ it. It might be something we look into

2:29:56 ↗ in the future. Um but I just wanted to

2:29:58 ↗ throw it out there. Thank you, Council

2:30:01 ↗ President. The um potential wording for

2:30:04 ↗ your amendment, Barb, is now up on the

2:30:06 ↗ screen or Council Member D.

2:30:17 ↗ SH. Council member D. Michelle, the

2:30:19 ↗ wording in

2:30:21 ↗ brackets might be slightly more clear.

2:30:25 ↗ Maybe you tell me. So, it could read,

2:30:27 ↗ "Each council member may vote for one

2:30:30 ↗ nominee per round of voting." I was

2:30:32 ↗ going to suggest that wording. Mhm. And

2:30:35 ↗ then in that second highlighted area,

2:30:38 ↗ just a little more clear, would not vote

2:30:40 ↗ on earlier nominees in order to reserve

2:30:43 ↗ their vote for their favorite nominee.

2:30:44 ↗ So, uh, quick point of explanation here.

2:30:47 ↗ So, this would mean you wouldn't be vo

2:30:49 ↗ voting yes and no on people. You would

2:30:53 ↗ just be voting for or not voting on

2:30:57 ↗ people.

2:30:59 ↗ Does this reflect what you were hoping?

2:31:01 ↗ Mhm. So, um I will move that um on

2:31:06 ↗ number two, if I'm reading that

2:31:07 ↗ correctly, Tisha, um you can Barb, if

2:31:10 ↗ you want, Council Member D. Michelle,

2:31:13 ↗ you can just say um make an amendment as

2:31:16 ↗ noted by the clerk's corrections. Oh, I

2:31:18 ↗ love that. Okay. I uh I uh move to make

2:31:22 ↗ an amendment as noted by the clerk. Is

2:31:24 ↗ that good? Okay. Is there a second?

2:31:26 ↗ Second. Council member Ray. Thank you.

2:31:29 ↗ Uh discussion on the amendment. Uh,

2:31:30 ↗ Council Member Martz and then Council

2:31:32 ↗ President. I like this. And I think this

2:31:34 ↗ is I think this is actually also nicer

2:31:36 ↗ because you're not voting against

2:31:38 ↗ anybody. You're voting for the person

2:31:40 ↗ that uh you think is the best uh uh

2:31:44 ↗ potential applicant. So, uh I think this

2:31:47 ↗ is both uh uh less arbitrary and nicer.

2:31:52 ↗ Thank Council President. Yeah. Um I

2:31:55 ↗ approve of this as an idea. I would be

2:31:58 ↗ interested to try out rank choice voting

2:32:00 ↗ in the future at some point, but um I

2:32:03 ↗ don't know if that's something that I

2:32:05 ↗ would push this idea down. Um do we have

2:32:10 ↗ the possibility of doing a friendly

2:32:12 ↗ amendment or I guess this is an

2:32:15 ↗ amendment?

2:32:18 ↗ No, no, no. I was saying just um kind of

2:32:21 ↗ include the amendment as a friendly

2:32:24 ↗ amendment within the original motion.

2:32:27 ↗ Oh, instead of taking a vote. Yeah.

2:32:29 ↗ Yeah. So, uh, mayor, you could say, is

2:32:31 ↗ there any objection to this amendment?

2:32:32 ↗ And if no one speaks up, then we can

2:32:34 ↗ assume that it's approved. Is there any

2:32:37 ↗ objection to this

2:32:38 ↗ amendment? Not seeing any. So, we can

2:32:41 ↗ assume that this amendment is

2:32:42 ↗ approved. Um, and so back to the main

2:32:45 ↗ motion. Is there any other discussion

2:32:47 ↗ you want to have? Council member Joe did

2:32:49 ↗ bring up another point. Any other

2:32:51 ↗ discussion? Council member Jen. Um, I

2:32:55 ↗ would like to propose another amendment

2:32:57 ↗ because I think there was another aspect

2:32:59 ↗ that we talked about which was um

2:33:01 ↗ eliminating the lowest vote getter. Um,

2:33:04 ↗ so is there I I don't know. Do city

2:33:08 ↗ clerk do you need some time to

2:33:09 ↗ potentially figure out or I guess maybe

2:33:11 ↗ someone else would need to second it

2:33:12 ↗ first and or is that necessary to put

2:33:16 ↗ in specifically?

2:33:19 ↗ So right now, uh, the process is, as you

2:33:23 ↗ observed, um, in February that if you're

2:33:26 ↗ nominated in this final round, you're

2:33:28 ↗ included in every round of voting, no

2:33:30 ↗ matter if you got no no vote. So I think

2:33:33 ↗ what you're proposing, council member,

2:33:35 ↗ would be to eliminate the lowest vote

2:33:37 ↗ getter in each round, would be require a

2:33:40 ↗ change. Okay.

2:33:42 ↗ Would you like to make that amendment,

2:33:44 ↗ Council Member Jen? Uh, I would like to

2:33:46 ↗ propose this amendment. Okay. Is there a

2:33:49 ↗ second?

2:33:52 ↗ Council member Ray and uh Council Member

2:33:54 ↗ Jen, did you want to speak to it or did

2:33:56 ↗ you just want to open it up for

2:33:57 ↗ discussion?

2:33:58 ↗ I mean, I spoke to it earlier, but

2:34:00 ↗ essentially it it does make the decision

2:34:03 ↗ more, you know, after the first round of

2:34:06 ↗ voting, it's pretty clear who the top

2:34:07 ↗ two are and having, you know, the third

2:34:09 ↗ or fourth or whoever person there. And

2:34:12 ↗ it is, you know, nicer when people

2:34:14 ↗ aren't, you know, it's not everyone

2:34:16 ↗ voting no on them repeatedly. But still,

2:34:18 ↗ I think, you know, for that person just

2:34:20 ↗ to be like, okay, well, I'm clearly out

2:34:21 ↗ of contention now. I think that's, you

2:34:23 ↗ know, it it is a kinder way to do it

2:34:25 ↗ ultimately. Council President,

2:34:28 ↗ um, looking over the um, council rules

2:34:32 ↗ of procedure, I do note that there is a

2:34:34 ↗ portion in there that says that a

2:34:36 ↗ candidate can withdraw um, at that

2:34:38 ↗ point. So that might be another way to

2:34:41 ↗ handle it is just to mention kind of

2:34:44 ↗ openly at that point. We've appreciated

2:34:47 ↗ hearing from everyone in order not to

2:34:51 ↗ continue that if someone does want to

2:34:52 ↗ withdraw so they don't have to sit up.

2:34:54 ↗ Um could be another option. I think

2:34:57 ↗ honestly the idea of eliminating the

2:35:00 ↗ lowest voter kind of sounds more like

2:35:02 ↗ rank rank choice voting to me. Um but

2:35:05 ↗ I'm not strongly in favor or against

2:35:09 ↗ Council member Ray, just plain corner

2:35:12 ↗ cases here. So, let's say we have four

2:35:14 ↗ candidates in the final round of voting

2:35:17 ↗ and one candidate gets three votes and

2:35:19 ↗ one gets three votes and then two get no

2:35:22 ↗ votes. Um, then how do I eliminate the

2:35:27 ↗ lowest the the the nominee because I

2:35:30 ↗ have now two nominees who are the

2:35:32 ↗ lowest.

2:35:40 ↗ Yeah, I you know I'm I'm just you know

2:35:43 ↗ playing the devil's advocate there.

2:35:44 ↗ Council President. Yeah. And the idea of

2:35:46 ↗ a tie you could end up with one

2:35:50 ↗ candidate with three votes and then

2:35:53 ↗ three other candidates with one vote and

2:35:56 ↗ so that could be problematic. So I don't

2:36:00 ↗ think we have

2:36:02 ↗ solved that.

2:36:04 ↗ I I appreciated council member Jen

2:36:07 ↗ saying it's nice to if someone's out of

2:36:09 ↗ contention and maybe it's just a simple

2:36:10 ↗ thing of offering them what it says in

2:36:12 ↗ the council rules which is the ability

2:36:14 ↗ to step away and if they want to stay in

2:36:18 ↗ and continue on a ballot and get no

2:36:20 ↗ votes that would be their option or they

2:36:22 ↗ could step off. So maybe the council

2:36:24 ↗ maybe the um council rules of procedure

2:36:26 ↗ already cover

2:36:28 ↗ this thoughts.

2:36:34 ↗ Yeah, I think that seems fine especially

2:36:36 ↗ with you know some of these edge cases

2:36:40 ↗ where it's like oh if you have three

2:36:42 ↗ 1111 that's a pretty tough situation. So

2:36:46 ↗ yeah I think giving folks the option to

2:36:48 ↗ withdraw probably resolved the

2:36:49 ↗ situation. So that would not would not

2:36:52 ↗ require a

2:36:57 ↗ change. I'm looking to see it. It sounds

2:37:00 ↗ like the withdrawal

2:37:01 ↗ is in the rules. I'm not recalling that,

2:37:05 ↗ but if it's there, it sounds like that's

2:37:07 ↗ a a viable option.

2:37:12 ↗ Um, who who then I guess they can I

2:37:15 ↗ withdraw my motion then or council

2:37:17 ↗ president Walsh? Okay. Sorry. Okay.

2:37:20 ↗ Yes, you can withdraw your motion.

2:37:23 ↗ Second has to agree.

2:37:29 ↗ I will just note it's in the section 8

2:37:32 ↗ final appointment

2:37:34 ↗ process

2:37:36 ↗ 5C. Um it says once nominated, no

2:37:39 ↗ candidate is removed from consideration

2:37:42 ↗ unless they withdraw. Yeah. So making a

2:37:45 ↗ comment to that effect after the first

2:37:47 ↗ ballot. Would anybody like to withdraw?

2:37:51 ↗ Yeah. Okay. So then that would not

2:37:54 ↗ require a change. Um are there any other

2:37:57 ↗ potential amendments or should I call

2:37:59 ↗ for the vote on the main motion which

2:38:02 ↗ includes the first amendment? How you

2:38:04 ↗ feeling? Let's go. Okay.

2:38:08 ↗ Uh, the motion on the table is to

2:38:11 ↗ approve resolution number

2:38:17 ↗ 2025-12-12 amending section 2.03 of the

2:38:20 ↗ city council rules and procedure

2:38:22 ↗ regarding filling a vacancy on the city

2:38:24 ↗ council as amended. All those in favor

2:38:27 ↗ signify by saying I. I. I. Those opposed

2:38:31 ↗ that carries unanimously.

2:38:34 ↗ Next item of business is regional

2:38:36 ↗ reports and we'll start with Council

2:38:38 ↗ Member Jen. Uh I have no report this

2:38:41 ↗ evening. Thank you, Council Member Joe.

2:38:43 ↗ Thank you. The Cascade Water Alliance

2:38:45 ↗ Board will be meeting on May 28th at

2:38:48 ↗ 3:30 in the afternoon. The public

2:38:50 ↗ affairs committee for Cascade Water

2:38:52 ↗ Alliance has canceled their June

2:38:53 ↗ meeting.

2:38:55 ↗ Um the mobility and infrastructure

2:38:58 ↗ committee met on May 14th to discuss the

2:39:01 ↗ CIP and utility rate study. Both those

2:39:04 ↗ will be coming back to council when

2:39:06 ↗ they're uh ready for further discussion.

2:39:09 ↗ And June 20th is the date of the next

2:39:12 ↗ Chamber of Commerce uh uh board where I

2:39:16 ↗ serve as liaison. and I will pass on

2:39:19 ↗ some messages from the Fourth of July

2:39:21 ↗ commission that were uh transmitted to

2:39:23 ↗ me today and hopefully we can get uh

2:39:26 ↗ some great participation uh on the 249th

2:39:30 ↗ anniversary of our country's birth.

2:39:32 ↗ Thanks, Council Member Joe. Council

2:39:33 ↗ member Hall,

2:39:36 ↗ thank you. I have two reports. Uh the

2:39:37 ↗ Planning, Development, and Environment

2:39:39 ↗ Committee last met on May 6th. Uh and

2:39:42 ↗ similarly, the only item on our agenda

2:39:44 ↗ was the CIP. Um in our committee scope

2:39:46 ↗ the CIP is pretty narrow. So we were

2:39:49 ↗ focusing on um storm water projects. Uh

2:39:52 ↗ responsive to our previous council

2:39:54 ↗ discussion around utility rate setting.

2:39:56 ↗ The strategy this time around is to fund

2:39:58 ↗ operations in only critical storm water

2:40:01 ↗ projects um and then delay non-critical

2:40:03 ↗ storm water projects to help keep storm

2:40:06 ↗ water rates low. Um, we were originally

2:40:08 ↗ told that this option would mean a 10%

2:40:10 ↗ increase to rates, but staff worked

2:40:11 ↗ really hard and came back and were able

2:40:14 ↗ to get that down to 6 and a/4%. Which is

2:40:17 ↗ huge for our rateayers and so we're

2:40:18 ↗ super thankful. Um, we also saw an

2:40:21 ↗ emphasis on maintaining our current

2:40:22 ↗ storm water infrastructure which we're

2:40:23 ↗ happily happy to see and supported and

2:40:26 ↗ the committee agreed with the approach

2:40:27 ↗ proposed by staff. Our next meeting is

2:40:29 ↗ on June 10th and we are going to look at

2:40:32 ↗ the 2025 title 18 policy amendments and

2:40:34 ↗ the title 18 tree code update. So, title

2:40:37 ↗ 18 night next month. Um, next report,

2:40:41 ↗ uh, Eastside Fire and Rescue. We last

2:40:43 ↗ met on May

2:40:44 ↗ 8th. We had a number of engineer

2:40:46 ↗ promotions and annual award

2:40:48 ↗ presentations to start us off. Uh, we

2:40:49 ↗ approved a new board policy to create

2:40:52 ↗ non- voting advisory seats, as you've

2:40:54 ↗ heard me say, on the board with our

2:40:55 ↗ contract agencies. So, that's the

2:40:57 ↗ Snowquami Tribe, Woodenville Fire and

2:40:58 ↗ Rescue, the city of Mercer Island, and

2:41:01 ↗ um, District 45 or Duval. Um, we also

2:41:04 ↗ approved some surplus to fix the

2:41:06 ↗ suspension of our reserve ladder truck.

2:41:08 ↗ I think I mentioned that previously,

2:41:09 ↗ too. So, once that's back in service,

2:41:11 ↗ our primary ladder truck that we operate

2:41:13 ↗ here out of Isco can get some much

2:41:14 ↗ needed repairs as well. Um, quick update

2:41:18 ↗ on fire chief recruitment. Stakeholder

2:41:19 ↗ interviews are about to start, so things

2:41:22 ↗ are about to go move into motion. So, if

2:41:23 ↗ you are identified as a major

2:41:24 ↗ stakeholder, you should have received a

2:41:26 ↗ scheduling email with GMP, our

2:41:27 ↗ consultants. Um um so I think from Isqua

2:41:31 ↗ that's um myself and and director Martz

2:41:34 ↗ and city administrator Bob Vquitz and

2:41:35 ↗ Mayor Paulie. Um so if you have any

2:41:37 ↗ particular feedback that you'd like um

2:41:39 ↗ in the process as we kind of develop

2:41:41 ↗ what the profile is of the candidate let

2:41:42 ↗ us know. Or if you would like to also be

2:41:45 ↗ kind of a stakeholder that they follow

2:41:46 ↗ up with also let me know that. Um, and

2:41:49 ↗ then once those interviews are complete,

2:41:51 ↗ our goal is to kind of approve this full

2:41:53 ↗ candidate profile at our June board

2:41:55 ↗ meeting and then things really, really

2:41:57 ↗ move into motion.

2:41:59 ↗ Um, a quick update on long-term policy.

2:42:03 ↗ So, as you may remember, we've got this

2:42:04 ↗ problem right now where we are limited

2:42:06 ↗ in our ability to take on debt on behalf

2:42:08 ↗ of the partnership. The or the ESI Fire

2:42:10 ↗ and Rescue, the agency is which has

2:42:12 ↗ paused our debt financing strategy of um

2:42:15 ↗ apparatus. We have three engines

2:42:17 ↗ currently that are paused and uh it's

2:42:19 ↗ causing quite a bit of um discussion and

2:42:22 ↗ conmation amongst uh kind of the rank

2:42:24 ↗ and file right now. Um so it's still

2:42:27 ↗ looking like having Fire District 10, I

2:42:30 ↗ believe, take on debt on behalf of the

2:42:32 ↗ partnership is the best immediate term

2:42:34 ↗ solution. So thankfully they are open

2:42:37 ↗ and willing to have the discussion of

2:42:39 ↗ what that might look like. So stay tuned

2:42:41 ↗ as we move forward on that. A couple

2:42:43 ↗ other things I just wanted to quickly

2:42:44 ↗ share from Chief Lane's briefing. There

2:42:46 ↗ is this emerging, speaking of apparatus,

2:42:49 ↗ emerging policy concern um in the US

2:42:52 ↗ Senate right now um around kind of

2:42:54 ↗ rising costs and long backlogs in delays

2:42:56 ↗ of fire app fire apparatus. So engines,

2:42:59 ↗ ladder trucks, even aid cars to some

2:43:00 ↗ extent. The market is really controlled

2:43:02 ↗ by like three main providers of these

2:43:04 ↗ kinds of vehicles. It was recently

2:43:05 ↗ highlighted in the New York Times and I

2:43:07 ↗ could send you the piece if you'd like,

2:43:08 ↗ but um you'll likely see some

2:43:09 ↗ conversation happening at the national

2:43:11 ↗ level. We've been encouraged to whenever

2:43:13 ↗ we bump into our federal delegation to

2:43:16 ↗ highlight this problem with them too

2:43:17 ↗ because this is something they'd like to

2:43:19 ↗ see kind of solutions happen at the

2:43:20 ↗ federal level. So just an FYI and if

2:43:22 ↗ you'd like to chat about it more, let me

2:43:24 ↗ know. Uh and then mark your calendars

2:43:25 ↗ for the Epher picnic on August 16th from

2:43:28 ↗ 12 to 4 at Reminger Farms this year. So

2:43:32 ↗ it'll be really fun. Anyways, that

2:43:33 ↗ concludes my report. Thanks. Okay,

2:43:35 ↗ Council Member Ray. Well, as mentioned

2:43:37 ↗ earlier, the 4th of July commission had

2:43:39 ↗ our first meeting on May 12th. The

2:43:41 ↗ commission is focused on planning the

2:43:43 ↗ 2026

2:43:45 ↗ semiquincentennial or the 250th

2:43:47 ↗ anniversary of the United States

2:43:49 ↗ Declaration of Independence. In addition

2:43:51 ↗ to the larger mission of planning for

2:43:52 ↗ this

2:43:54 ↗ semiquincentennial, the commission has

2:43:55 ↗ spun up a subcommittee that is focused

2:43:57 ↗ on planning the 2025 Fourth of July

2:44:00 ↗ celebration and parade. Uh we have much

2:44:02 ↗ work to do in a short time to get ready

2:44:04 ↗ for the 2025 celebration and are looking

2:44:06 ↗ for volunteers and parade participants.

2:44:09 ↗ The subcommittee is meet meeting on a

2:44:11 ↗ weekly basis until the 4th of July and

2:44:13 ↗ the commission is meeting on a monthly

2:44:15 ↗ basis with our next meeting on June 9th.

2:44:18 ↗ And that concludes my report. Thank you,

2:44:20 ↗ Council Member Mertz. Thank you, Madame

2:44:22 ↗ Mayor. Uh the

2:44:25 ↗ uh Sound Cities Association Public

2:44:27 ↗ Issues Committee met on Wednesday, May

2:44:30 ↗ 14th. Uh, however, I've only been back

2:44:32 ↗ for less than 48 hours, so I haven't had

2:44:34 ↗ a chance to watch or find out um how

2:44:36 ↗ that meeting went, but I will share it

2:44:38 ↗ with the council um uh to see if there's

2:44:41 ↗ anything that we need to provide

2:44:42 ↗ feedback on. Uh, tomorrow night, the

2:44:45 ↗ city council services, safety, uh, and

2:44:48 ↗ parks committee will meet here at 6:30

2:44:50 ↗ p.m. in council chambers. We will be

2:44:54 ↗ discussing

2:44:56 ↗ COOM0126 capital improvement plan. uh

2:44:59 ↗ Andrea Snyder, Jennifer uh Ryan Gileian

2:45:03 ↗ Stro, and Susie Manel uh will be

2:45:06 ↗ presenting and

2:45:08 ↗ COOM0144 Lake Sammer State Park Sports

2:45:11 ↗ Field conversation uh with Jeff Watling

2:45:14 ↗ and Rick Still. This concludes my

2:45:16 ↗ report. Thanks, Deputy Council President

2:45:18 ↗ D. Michelle. Thank you, Mayor Paulie. Uh

2:45:21 ↗ on April 8th, I attended the East Side

2:45:23 ↗ Human Services Forum meeting and uh we

2:45:26 ↗ uh approved a motion to suspend dues

2:45:29 ↗ payments uh until the impacts of federal

2:45:32 ↗ cuts are known. Uh and then uh we also

2:45:34 ↗ authorized the chair Paul Lewali to

2:45:36 ↗ contract with administrative services

2:45:39 ↗ and authorized the education committee

2:45:41 ↗ to plan for a summer or early fall

2:45:43 ↗ forum. So um it was actually a very good

2:45:46 ↗ thoughtful meeting. On April 9th, I

2:45:48 ↗ attended the East Side Transportation

2:45:50 ↗ Partnership

2:45:51 ↗ meeting. We heard an update on a lawsuit

2:45:54 ↗ filed by a national coalition of local

2:45:57 ↗ jurisdictions, including Metro, against

2:46:00 ↗ HUD and the federal transportation uh

2:46:03 ↗ agency to halt implementation of an

2:46:06 ↗ executive order preventing funds from

2:46:08 ↗ being spent on transit and homelessness

2:46:11 ↗ initiatives. As of last week, the

2:46:13 ↗ plaintiffs were granted a temporary

2:46:15 ↗ restraining order. So that's where that

2:46:17 ↗ is is in the court system. There was a

2:46:20 ↗ briefing on PSRC's regional

2:46:22 ↗ transportation plan development and a

2:46:24 ↗ briefing from PSRC's government affairs

2:46:27 ↗ director on federal and state

2:46:29 ↗ legislative developments. And the next

2:46:31 ↗ ETP meeting will be held in person uh in

2:46:35 ↗ Redmond in June. So it'll that those

2:46:38 ↗ inerson meetings are always just great.

2:46:40 ↗ Uh on April 15th, I attended the Seattle

2:46:43 ↗ King County Board of Health meeting and

2:46:45 ↗ Brad Feineg Good, who is a resident of

2:46:48 ↗ Isiqua, but also uh expert on opioid uh

2:46:51 ↗ use and overdoses, provided an update.

2:46:54 ↗ Uh while there was a decline in overdose

2:46:57 ↗ deaths in the last quarter of 2024,

2:47:00 ↗ there was an unfortunate upsurge in the

2:47:02 ↗ first quarter of 2025. So, we're still

2:47:05 ↗ not out of the woods there.

2:47:07 ↗ uh fine good reviewed all of the

2:47:09 ↗ programs supported by King County to

2:47:10 ↗ reduce overdose deaths. The board also

2:47:13 ↗ heard a report on HIV AIDS deaths and

2:47:16 ↗ that is where there is some very good

2:47:18 ↗ news. In 2024, King County saw the

2:47:21 ↗ lowest number of HIV AIDS deaths since

2:47:24 ↗ the inception of that epidemic in the

2:47:26 ↗ early 90s. Yeah. So, very, very good

2:47:29 ↗ news. Finally, we also heard an update

2:47:32 ↗ on a number of legal actions being taken

2:47:34 ↗ to stop the Trump administration from

2:47:36 ↗ enforcing cuts to healthc care funds

2:47:38 ↗ authorized by Congress. And as been and

2:47:42 ↗ has been heavily reported on in the

2:47:44 ↗ press, Congress is currently proposing

2:47:46 ↗ major cuts to Medicaid funds. So, we'll

2:47:49 ↗ see the outcome of that in the next

2:47:50 ↗ weeks. Um, on Wednesday, the regional

2:47:53 ↗ transit committee will be held with a

2:47:55 ↗ focus on a youth fair progress report

2:47:58 ↗ and pandemic service recovery results.

2:48:01 ↗ And that ends my report. Thank you,

2:48:03 ↗ Council President. Thank you. I have a

2:48:07 ↗ very short report which is on June 5th.

2:48:10 ↗ Both the um Puget Sound Regional Council

2:48:12 ↗ Growth Management Policy Board and the

2:48:14 ↗ King County Affordable Housing Committee

2:48:17 ↗ will be meeting, but the agendas have

2:48:18 ↗ not yet been released. Thank you. And

2:48:21 ↗ for the mayor's report this evening,

2:48:22 ↗ there will be an executive session to

2:48:24 ↗ discuss collective bargaining for

2:48:28 ↗ RCW42.3.140 PN4. Um, and as we approach

2:48:32 ↗ Memorial Day, I want to take a moment to

2:48:34 ↗ encourage all Esqua residents to join us

2:48:36 ↗ in honoring the men and women who made

2:48:39 ↗ the ultimate sacrifice in service to our

2:48:41 ↗ country. The Memorial Day ceremony is a

2:48:43 ↗ meaningful opportunity to come together

2:48:45 ↗ as a community and reflect on the

2:48:47 ↗ bravery, service, and sacrifice of our

2:48:50 ↗ veterans. The event is free and open to

2:48:52 ↗ the public, and I invite you all to

2:48:54 ↗ attend. This year's ceremony is hosted

2:48:57 ↗ by our local Veterans of Foreign Wars

2:48:59 ↗ post number

2:49:01 ↗ 3436, who continue to serve our

2:49:03 ↗ community with dedication and pride.

2:49:05 ↗ We're honored to welcome Rob Clark, a US

2:49:08 ↗ Navy submarine veteran, as our featured

2:49:10 ↗ speaker. His remarks will no doubt

2:49:13 ↗ remind us of the enduring strength and

2:49:14 ↗ courage of those who serve. The color

2:49:17 ↗ guard from Liberty High School will also

2:49:19 ↗ be present to open the ceremony with

2:49:20 ↗ dignity and respect. The service will

2:49:23 ↗ begin at 10:00 a.m. at Lower Hillside

2:49:25 ↗ Cemetery and is expected to last 45

2:49:27 ↗ minutes. If there is inclement weather,

2:49:30 ↗ the ceremony will be moved to the senior

2:49:32 ↗ center. Seating will be available for

2:49:34 ↗ those who need it and refreshments will

2:49:36 ↗ be provided. We also have two

2:49:38 ↗ opportunities for community members to

2:49:39 ↗ volunteer in support of the event.

2:49:42 ↗ Friday, May 24th from 9 to 11:00, you

2:49:44 ↗ can help decorate the headstones of

2:49:46 ↗ veterans in preparation for the Memorial

2:49:48 ↗ Day ceremony. And on Sunday, May 26th at

2:49:51 ↗ 6:00 p.m., you can assist with the

2:49:52 ↗ cleanup and removing of decorations

2:49:54 ↗ following the event. These acts of

2:49:56 ↗ remembrance and service reflect the

2:49:58 ↗ heart of Isiqua. Thoughtful, generous,

2:50:01 ↗ and community-minded. Let's come

2:50:03 ↗ together to honor our veterans and show

2:50:05 ↗ our gratitude for their

2:50:08 ↗ sacrifice. Uh the next item is the good

2:50:11 ↗ of the order and I do have some upcoming

2:50:13 ↗ council meetings. Does anybody have any

2:50:15 ↗ other

2:50:16 ↗ items? I'm just going to check in with

2:50:18 ↗ deputy council president. Um was there a

2:50:20 ↗ share out about the second convening of

2:50:24 ↗ um local human services providers? We

2:50:26 ↗ may not have done that yet. Okay. Did

2:50:29 ↗ you want to give a little summary of

2:50:31 ↗ what what happened?

2:50:34 ↗ Yes. And then you can add to it. Okay.

2:50:36 ↗ Uh so we did bring together I believe it

2:50:38 ↗ was 17 different organizations

2:50:41 ↗ uh that serve uh human services in in

2:50:44 ↗ Isiqua and we listened to updates. We

2:50:48 ↗ had convened them earlier about a month

2:50:50 ↗ earlier. So we this was a chance uh for

2:50:53 ↗ them to report to us after the end of

2:50:55 ↗ the legislative session. And uh what we

2:50:58 ↗ heard I think was uh is uh was pretty

2:51:02 ↗ devastating uh in terms of uh loss of

2:51:05 ↗ income uh not only from the federal

2:51:07 ↗ government but then some cuts also at

2:51:09 ↗ the state level. Um and real concerns

2:51:13 ↗ about the ripple effect that those cuts

2:51:16 ↗ are going to have because as uh

2:51:18 ↗ organizations are unable to serve their

2:51:21 ↗ full client load right now. the clients

2:51:25 ↗ that aren't going to be served will be

2:51:26 ↗ looking for help other places. And so

2:51:29 ↗ even for the organizations that haven't

2:51:31 ↗ been uh directly impacted yet, there

2:51:34 ↗ will be a uh ripple effect going through

2:51:37 ↗ our community as people uh try to

2:51:40 ↗ navigate the new landscape. Um and then

2:51:43 ↗ of course as I just said we're waiting

2:51:45 ↗ to find out what is going to happen to

2:51:47 ↗ Medicaid because that is going to have

2:51:49 ↗ absolutely if that goes away uh that is

2:51:52 ↗ just devastating to some like friends of

2:51:54 ↗ youth almost uh I think 80% of their

2:51:57 ↗ clients are uh people who are on

2:51:59 ↗ Medicaid. So that would have devastating

2:52:02 ↗ effects and a huge ripple effect across

2:52:04 ↗ other agencies. So do you want to add

2:52:06 ↗ anything? Yeah. No, that's a really

2:52:08 ↗ great summary. Um, Deputy Council

2:52:11 ↗ President and I are thinking of doing

2:52:12 ↗ this another three, four times this year

2:52:15 ↗ until we get through that first federal

2:52:17 ↗ budget cycle and really understand the

2:52:19 ↗ the um complete impacts. Um, and then we

2:52:24 ↗ are sending the information off to the

2:52:27 ↗ governor, our state reps, and our

2:52:30 ↗ federal reps. Um, so we send them the

2:52:32 ↗ summary table that gives them the

2:52:33 ↗ anecdotal information about what's going

2:52:36 ↗ on in their communities to share because

2:52:38 ↗ a lot of times they just they don't have

2:52:39 ↗ access to it and we do. So, it's been an

2:52:42 ↗ interesting process. Any other good of

2:52:44 ↗ the order? Uh, Council Member Joe,

2:52:48 ↗ thank you. um seems like 20 years ago uh

2:52:53 ↗ or so uh council members were asked to

2:52:56 ↗ go to the senior center and serve

2:52:58 ↗ breakfast uh once a year and uh we

2:53:01 ↗ volunteered as waiters and poured coffee

2:53:04 ↗ and served out the pancakes and the and

2:53:06 ↗ the eggs. Um there is a similar

2:53:08 ↗ opportunity available for us right now

2:53:10 ↗ though. There is a veterans breakfast

2:53:12 ↗ the third Monday of every month and it's

2:53:15 ↗ at 8:00 a.m. in the morning. It was this

2:53:17 ↗ morning. Um, it's an opportunity to

2:53:20 ↗ serve coffee, serve and breakfast, serve

2:53:23 ↗ those who have served. Um, some

2:53:26 ↗ light-hearted conversation goes on

2:53:27 ↗ between the Army and the Navy and the

2:53:29 ↗ Marines and all the other branches. It's

2:53:31 ↗ pretty entertaining. But, uh, if you're

2:53:33 ↗ looking for an opportunity to uh, help

2:53:37 ↗ our veterans and serve our veterans

2:53:39 ↗ breakfast, uh, check the calendar and

2:53:41 ↗ make sure it's on there and reach out to

2:53:43 ↗ Kirsten May at the senior center. let

2:53:45 ↗ her know you're coming and you'll be on

2:53:47 ↗ the way uh if you'd like that

2:53:49 ↗ opportunity. Thank you. Great. Any other

2:53:52 ↗ good of the

2:53:53 ↗ order? Okay. I'll talk about a few

2:53:55 ↗ meeting dates. Due to the Shivote

2:53:57 ↗ Shabvout holiday, next month's first

2:54:00 ↗ regular city council meeting will be on

2:54:02 ↗ the second Monday of June, June 9th. The

2:54:04 ↗ anticipated agenda items include the

2:54:06 ↗ public hearing on the capital

2:54:08 ↗ improvement plan, the Newport sewer

2:54:10 ↗ relocation project. There will be a

2:54:12 ↗ committee of the whole meeting on June

2:54:14 ↗ 16th. Anticipated agenda items include

2:54:16 ↗ capital improvement plan wildfire

2:54:19 ↗ evacuation time estimate study. Um the

2:54:22 ↗ next item on our and last item is the

2:54:25 ↗ executive session. So ID 1874 executive

2:54:29 ↗ session to discuss collective bargaining

2:54:31 ↗ for RCW

2:54:33 ↗ 42.30.140 print 4. This is an executive

2:54:36 ↗ evening session this evening to discuss

2:54:38 ↗ collective bargaining. Uh the item is

2:54:41 ↗ expected to take approximately 15

2:54:43 ↗ minutes. No action is anticipated to

2:54:45 ↗ follow an open session. It is 10

2:54:47 ↗ o'clock. Would you like a fivem minute

2:54:49 ↗ break before we go in? Okay, we'll um

2:54:52 ↗ take a break. So we will be taking a 5m

2:54:56 ↗ minute break and then going into

2:54:57 ↗ executive session at approximately

2:55:03 ↗ 10:57.

2:55:04 ↗ Uh 9:57. My computer is fast for some

2:55:08 ↗ reason.

2:55:09 ↗ Um, I ask the city clerk to move the

2:55:11 ↗ city council and any relevant staff into

2:55:13 ↗ a separate session within this meeting.

2:55:15 ↗ And anyone who's not part of the closed

2:55:16 ↗ session will remain in the main meeting.

2:55:18 ↗ You are welcome to stay in the meeting

2:55:21 ↗ until it is reconvened.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Barbara de Michele

Zach Hall

Kelly Jiang

Russell Joe

Tola Marts

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh

Staff (4)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator

Rachel Bender Turpin, City Attorney

Tisha Gieser, City Clerk

Motions and votes (1)

approve the consent agenda as presented. . a)

Moved by Walsh · seconded by de Michele

Carried 7-0

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh