← Back to City Council Digest

City Council Regular Meeting Auto captions

Monday, October 20, 2025

7:00 PM · 2h 29m · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Topics tracked across meetings:
2025-2026 Mid-Biennium Budget Adjustment AB 9053 3/6
2026 Property Tax Levy AB 9052 2/3
American Public Works Association Heroes Award, Washington Chapter ID 1917 2/2
Sole Source Authorization for SCADA and Telemetry Projects AB 9088 2/2
Highlands and Front Street Lift Station Improvement Projects (SW011 and SW015) AB 9050 2/2
Utility Rate Study & Utility Rates AB 8991 2/2
Section
Topic
3. SPECIAL BUSINESS
3a
World Town Planning Day Proclamation ID 1864
5 min · packet pp.5
Staff report:
CITY OF Mayor's Office
3b
American Public Works Association Heroes Award, Washington Chapter ID 1917
5 min · packet pp.7–8
Staff report:
Recognize the City’s Public Works employees as recipients of the Washington State Chapter of the American Public Works Association’s (APWA) Chapter Heroes Award.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5a
Accounts: Payables and Payroll of Oct. 20, 2025, $8,143,138.28 ID 1799
Carried 7-0
Approve · packet pp.9–33
Topics: Budget
Staff report:
Finance Department P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 PH: 425-837-3050 www.issaquahwa.gov
Roll call:
Moved by Council President Walsh · seconded by Deputy Council President de Michele
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
5b
Minutes: City Council Committee of the Whole, Sept. 8, 2025
Carried 7-0
Approve · packet pp.35–36
Staff report:
CONSENT CALENDAR b) 09-08-25 City Council Committee of the Whole Page (0000) Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Committee-of-the-Whole 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. September 8, 2025 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Roll call:
Moved by Council President Walsh · seconded by Deputy Council President de Michele
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
5c
Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, Sept. 15, 2025
Carried 7-0
Approve · packet pp.37–41
Staff report:
CONSENT CALENDAR c) 09-15-25 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page (0000) CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Regular Meeting 7:00 PM Council Chambers September 15, 2025 MINUTES 135 E. Sunset Way
Roll call:
Moved by Council President Walsh · seconded by Deputy Council President de Michele
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
5d
Sole Source Authorization for SCADA and Telemetry Projects AB 9088
Carried 7-0
Approve Resolution; Authorize · packet pp.43–47
Staff report:
On October 6, 2025, City Council approved Resolution 2025-17, waiving competitive bidding requirements for S&B for Project TC017, Upgrade SCADA System, to upgrade the City’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. During the 2025-2026 biennium and in the current Capital Improvement Plan for 2027-2032 adopted on June 23, 2025, the City has approved projects involving or related to the City’s SCADA system, and may have other SCADA and/or telemetry related projects that arise during the same time period. The City anticipates the need to utilize S&B as the service provider on the same grounds outlined in Resolution 2025-17.
Roll call:
Moved by Council President Walsh · seconded by Deputy Council President de Michele
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
5e
Highlands and Front Street Lift Station Improvement Projects (SW011 and SW015) AB 9050
Carried 7-0
Award Bid; Authorize Funding · packet pp.49–56
Topics: TransportationBudget
Staff report:
City Attorney Review Ann Marie Soto City Attorney Review Date: September 18, 2025
Roll call:
Moved by Council President Walsh · seconded by Deputy Council President de Michele
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
5f
Water Leak Adjustment Policy AB 9065
Carried 7-0
Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.57–62
Topics: Land UseWater
Staff report:
Historically, the City applied an informal leak adjustment policy that was minimally defined on the City website. The policy, as previously administered, left the City at risk of an audit finding of gifting public funds due to the lack of definition outlining the policy limits and methodology. Staff identified the policy was out of alignment with neighboring jurisdictions and left the City open to large adjustments for non-essential water use like irrigation and boat lifts. In recent months, multiple customers have escalated their cases to the Administration when their leak adjustment requests were denied by staff according to the implementation of policy parameters and conditions per the guidance of the City’s attorney.
Roll call:
Moved by Council President Walsh · seconded by Deputy Council President de Michele
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
5g
Appointment of Municipal Judge AB 9076
Carried 7-0
Confirm · packet pp.63–69
Topics: Boards & Commissions
Staff report:
Judge N. Scott Stewart is currently the Judge of the Issaquah Municipal Court, and his term expires on Dec. 31, 2025.
Roll call:
Moved by Council President Walsh · seconded by Deputy Council President de Michele
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
6. PUBLIC HEARING
6a
2026 Property Tax Levy AB 9052
Conduct Public Hearing · 20 min · packet pp.71–84
Topics: Budget
Staff report:
The City's authority to impose a property tax is derived from the Washington State Constitution and described in the Revised Code of Washing (RCW) Chapters 84.52 and 84.55. The revenues from property tax are considered general government revenues, meaning that this money is placed in the General Fund and can be used for any basic governmental service or goods such as public safety, planning, parks, or administration.
6b
2025-2026 Mid-Biennium Budget Adjustment AB 9053
Conduct Public Hearing · 20 min · packet pp.85–110
Topics: Budget
Staff report:
Budget amendments are required when the expenditures of a fund are forecast to exceed the adopted appropriation level or when changes are needed to interfund transfers - or transfers between funds. This budget amendment is the result of the mid-biennium budget forecast and adjustments, incorporating changes for both years of the biennium. This budget amendment includes 26 items adjusting 9 of the City's 25 financial funds. In total, these adjustments account for $4,333,175 in increased revenues and $9,480,131 in increased expenditures. The amendments to the General Fund total $307,092 of the increased revenue and $2,447,077 of the increased expenditures.
7. REGULAR BUSINESS
7a
Utility Rate Study & Utility Rates AB 8991
Carried 7-0
Authorize; Adopt Ordinances · 30 min · packet pp.111–254
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
At previous Committee of the Whole and Mobility and Infrastructure Committee Meetings, City staff and consultants presented on the following topics:  The March 10, 2025 Committee of the Whole included review of the study’s purpose, the utilities’ budgets and revenue requirements, and rate-setting guidance objectives.  The May 14, 2025 Mobility and Infrastructure Committee Meeting focused on evaluating cost-of-service requirements. The cost-of-service assessment evaluated how existing revenues compare to the forecasted cost recovery by customer class of service. This analysis established a defensible basis for assigning cost shares and defining “cost equity” among the City’s customers in a way that is tailored to the unique characteristics of the City’s utility systems and customers.  The June 17, 2025 Mobility and Infrastructure Committee Meeting discussed General Facilities Charges…
Roll call:
Moved by Councilmember Joe · seconded by Council President Walsh
In favor: de Michele, Hall, Jiang, Joe, Marts, Reh, Walsh
7b
Further Discussion: Public Safety ID 1923
Direct Administration · 45 min · packet pp.255–277
Topics: Public Safety
Staff report:
According to a 2023 Space Needs Assessment, Issaquah Police and Municipal Court had urgent facility needs and inadequate space for operations. Community members also wanted more indoor meeting space, and to conduct business with the City both online and in person.
10. GOOD OF THE ORDER
10a
Upcoming Council Meetings
0:00 to turn on our camera. That would be
0:02 great.
0:09 Welcome everyone. I'm calling the
0:11 October 20th city council meeting to
0:12 order and I am going to start with an
0:15 apology. I am so sorry that the Mariners
0:18 are playing in one of the most important
0:20 series they've ever had, but we still
0:23 must start our meeting at 7 o'clock. So,
0:25 if there is a big announcement, I'll
0:27 leave it to city administrator Bob
0:29 Kowitz to give you the information that
0:32 you need. So, as a reminder, we continue
0:35 to have a remote aspect to our meetings,
0:37 both staff members and members of the
0:38 public participating in tonight's
0:40 meeting uh remotely via WebEx. The next
0:44 item on the agenda is the pledge of
0:45 allegiance. And I invite you to join me.
0:50 >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
0:52 United States of America. and to the
0:55 republic for which it stands, one nation
0:58 under God, indivisible, with liberty and
1:01 justice for all.
1:06 >> Thank you. So, we do have an item of
1:09 special business this evening and um
1:12 it's a sad one. So, before we begin
1:15 working through our agenda items, I'd
1:18 like to acknowledge the passing of a
1:20 former city council member and community
1:21 volunteer, Eileen Barber.
1:24 Eileen was a longtime resident, a
1:27 business owner, an active member of the
1:29 Chamber of Commerce, and one of the
1:31 original organizers of the Salmon Days
1:34 Festival. Eileen was also a city council
1:37 member. She served on the city council
1:39 in position number three from 2006 to
1:43 2017.
1:44 She served as chair of the services and
1:46 safeties committee and the city's
1:48 representative to Rya 8 among other
1:51 regional groups. There will be a
1:54 memorial service held for Eileen on
1:56 November 22nd at Flinttos and we will
1:58 have more details and I just wanted to
2:01 say when I came on to council, Eileen
2:05 was a great friend and a great mentor to
2:07 me and I got to work with her not only
2:10 on committee level work but also at
2:11 Eastside Fire and Rescue and also at the
2:14 Friends of Isqua Salmon hatchery board.
2:17 So, I will miss her dearly. And I'd like
2:21 to ask if any other council members
2:23 would like to make a remark before I do
2:25 a moment of silence. Council member
2:26 Mertz.
2:28 >> Thank Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um, I had
2:30 the honor of serving with council member
2:32 Barber for eight years on council, the
2:34 first eight years that I had. And, uh,
2:37 she always showed up with impeccably
2:42 representing a certain kind of point of
2:45 view, which as a small business owner,
2:47 um, she loved being that voice. And
2:50 there were more than a few times where
2:53 if she was on uh the the lower side of a
2:57 6 to1 or a 5-2 vote, she was always
3:00 graceful about it. I can't think of one
3:02 time where she let it bother her. And I
3:04 like to and I always like to think of
3:06 her if I find myself um you know on a
3:10 one or two in a vote because she just
3:13 thought it was an honor to serve and she
3:16 was presenting a a point of view and how
3:18 it went was how it went. So I I missed
3:22 that and that point of view is is
3:25 essential to a high functioning council.
3:27 So, I I learned a lot from her and uh
3:30 our community is uh poor for for her
3:33 being gone. Thank you.
3:34 >> Thank you, Council Member MS. Deputy
3:36 Council President,
3:39 >> uh I think Tola said it very very well.
3:41 I will just say that um I just highly
3:44 highly respected her. She was a
3:47 wonderful kind person. Um she did her
3:51 homework. You you knew that she had read
3:54 everything that she knew the topic. uh
3:57 many times we talked over things that
3:58 happened at council when I was on the
4:00 school board and she knew her homework
4:03 and she just was so thorough and so
4:06 complete but also she listened so well.
4:08 So yes, we are going to miss her. She
4:11 was a guiding force for salmon days and
4:14 also for so many community activities.
4:17 So uh she was really a force to reckon
4:19 with.
4:20 >> Yeah, we're going to miss her.
4:21 >> Thank you, Deputy Council President.
4:23 That's member Joe.
4:26 >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. I'm gonna talk
4:29 a little bit about Eileen.
4:31 Um,
4:33 she uh when I first came to town in 1999
4:38 and started activities with the Chamber
4:40 of Commerce, Eileen Barbara was already
4:42 an institute, an institution there and a
4:46 solid contributor. Um, I always remember
4:49 the way that she would come to every
4:51 meeting. uh our lunch meetings were at
4:53 the holiday at the time and uh
4:56 contributed all the time to what was
4:58 going on as a small business owner. I
5:00 also had the pleasure of serving with
5:01 her on the precursor to DIA. Um it was
5:05 the Yiqua Downtown Association and uh
5:08 those board meetings were always um a
5:11 little contentious with one uh area of
5:15 of town with certain businesses uh kind
5:18 of having a different interest uh but
5:20 the other area of town but Een was
5:22 always a broker, always a peacemaker
5:25 that helped us. She was instrumental in
5:27 getting the GKO tree recognition done uh
5:31 during that time as well. And uh that
5:33 memorial out there I think is a memorial
5:36 to her at times when I pass by.
5:39 Um finally Eileen is a person that would
5:42 give her shirt off her back for you if
5:45 you needed it. Um as you know I
5:48 announced the parade for Salmon Days.
5:51 And uh I was up there at the stand and I
5:53 realized that I didn't have a Salmon Day
5:55 shirt and
6:09 Eileen went to the golf cart that was
6:12 there and she uh took the extra shirt
6:16 that she had and she gave it to me so
6:18 that I could have one as I was
6:20 announcing the parade. And I'll just
6:22 never forget the love and care that she
6:24 showed for this community. And I'm going
6:26 to miss her quite a bit. Thank you.
6:29 Thank you, Council Member Joe. Anyone
6:31 else?
6:33 Well, I just want to say if you don't
6:35 know what business she owned, she was
6:36 known in my family as the Ben Franklin's
6:39 lady. So, um Eileen has just totally
6:43 left her mark on our community, and I am
6:45 so grateful that you were able to add
6:47 some more um stories to that. So, if
6:51 you'll all join me in a minute of
6:52 silence. Thank you very much.
7:49 Thank you very much everyone.
7:52 I also have uh one more announcement
7:55 before we move into tonight's agenda.
7:57 AB9026,
7:59 the washd transfer of development rights
8:02 development agreement extension for
8:04 Belleview College, was initially
8:06 scheduled for the September 8th
8:08 committee of the whole and has
8:09 subsequently been delayed. It is now
8:11 scheduled to come back to the city
8:13 council at the November 10th council
8:15 meeting. The next item of business is ID
8:19 1864, World Town Planning Day
8:22 Proclamation. And I'd like to invite
8:24 Kristen Leon to come over to the
8:26 lectern.
8:40 So I am a total land use planning geek
8:42 and I think this celebration is totally
8:44 worth it. I think the way you build
8:47 great cities is by being hyperfocused on
8:51 how the buildout happens. And Kristen
8:53 Leon has been with the city long before
8:56 I joined the council or the mayorship.
8:58 And so it's really fun for me tonight to
9:00 do this award with her.
9:02 Whereas the international organization
9:04 of world town planning day was founded
9:07 in 1949
9:08 to advance public and professional
9:11 interest in planning both locally and
9:13 abroad and to create a special day to
9:16 recognize and promote the role of
9:18 planning in creating livable
9:20 communities. And whereas celebration of
9:23 WTPD is promoted each year by the
9:26 American Planning Association and its
9:29 professional institute, the American
9:31 Institute of Certified Planners. And
9:34 whereas urban planners play a critical
9:36 role in creating livable, sustainable
9:38 communities, and we celebrate the
9:40 valuable contributions sound planning
9:42 makes to the quality of life in our
9:45 local communities and all levels of
9:47 government. And whereas planning
9:49 provides an opportunity for all
9:51 community members to be meaningfully
9:53 involved in making better choices that
9:56 determine the future of their community.
9:58 And whereas the celebration of WTPD
10:00 gives us the opportunity to publicly
10:03 recognize the partition participation
10:06 and dedication of the members of
10:08 planning policy commission and community
10:11 members who have contributed their time
10:12 and expertise to the improvement of the
10:15 city of Esiqua Washington. And whereas
10:18 the city of Washington wishes to show
10:20 appreciation for the many valuable
10:22 contributions made by dedicated planning
10:25 professionals in the city of Isqua and
10:27 extend our heartfelt thanks for the
10:29 continued commitment to public service
10:31 by these professionals. Now therefore, I
10:34 Mary Lupali, mayor of the city of Isqua,
10:36 do recognize November 8th, 2025 to be
10:39 Worldtown Planning Day in the city of
10:41 Isiqua. And I invite the community to
10:43 join me in thanking Isqua's community
10:45 planning and development department for
10:47 their service and outstanding
10:49 contributions. Kristen,
10:54 >> thank you, Mayor Paulie. I appreciate
10:55 it. And yes, we you were a uh an
10:58 honorary planning geek with us. We're
11:00 happy to have you. Um, I just want to
11:02 say that in all of my time here, I have
11:05 worked with very, very good planners who
11:07 work hard with the community to not only
11:09 establish visions and policies and
11:12 goals, um, but then to ensure that those
11:15 get implemented and put onto the ground
11:17 so that that community who lives here
11:18 has what they want and what they need to
11:20 see now and later.
11:25 >> Let's take out here.
11:49 Next item on the agenda is ID197,
11:54 the American Public Works Association
11:57 Heroesport.
11:59 for the Washington chapter. The American
12:00 Public Works Association Chapter Heroes
12:03 awards and recognizes individuals or
12:06 groups for outstanding service to their
12:08 communities by frontline first responder
12:11 public works employees. This is not
12:14 among the chapter's annual awards, but
12:16 is instead reserved for the most
12:19 deserving demonstrations of service. The
12:21 APWA recently presented the city's
12:25 public works team with the awards for
12:27 its exemplary response to the November
12:30 2024 bomb cyclone. And I'd like to
12:33 invite public works director Emily Moon,
12:35 senior maintenance worker John White,
12:37 and maintenance senior lead Kenny Steel
12:40 to come up and be recognized.
12:48 So,
12:53 I'm gonna hand this over to Director
12:55 Moon to talk about our staff and the
12:59 amazing job that they did during the
13:00 bomb cyclone while they're holding their
13:07 >> Thank you very much, Mayor Paulie and
13:09 city council. It is hefty.
13:10 >> It's hefty.
13:11 >> More than you would think.
13:13 >> Yeah, we're really proud of this. um
13:15 more so we're really proud of the effort
13:17 that went into uh the actions behind uh
13:21 this award. We removed over 440 tons of
13:26 debris. That's just one of the
13:28 statistics I could give you uh during
13:31 and after the bomb cyclone. And it took
13:35 hours of concentrated effort by this
13:39 team to respond to that event. And I
13:42 could not be more proud of the team. In
13:46 particular, John and Kenny led some of
13:49 our teams that were working uh on site
13:52 in neighborhoods. They were the first
13:54 responders. People literally came out of
13:57 their houses and asked for status
13:59 updates and told us what they were
14:01 experiencing. And this team responded,
14:06 made sure that our community members
14:08 have what they needed to get through
14:09 this event. So, I want to say thank you
14:12 on behalf of uh the community and also
14:16 uh on behalf of your colleagues that
14:19 couldn't be here tonight. Um thank you
14:21 for being here and uh accepting this
14:24 award from APWA.
14:27 >> Would you join me in standing up and
14:29 giving these a standing ovation?
14:38 We are so blessed to have staff like
14:40 this. Thank you, Director Mary.
14:44 >> Absolutely.
14:59 >> Thank you, Emily.
15:07 We are now going to move into the
15:09 audience comments portion of our
15:10 meeting. And this is the time where
15:12 members of the public may address the
15:13 council in person or virtually. And
15:16 those who signed up in advance to make
15:18 comments will be called on first. If
15:20 you're joining us virtually and would
15:21 like to make comments, please raise your
15:23 virtual hand or send the host a chat
15:25 message. If you're in the room and did
15:27 not sign up, I will ask for other
15:29 speakers before closing this portion of
15:31 the meeting. There is also a public
15:33 hearing tonight on AB9052,
15:37 the 2026 property tax levy, and AB9053,
15:41 the 2025 2026 midbayenium budget
15:45 adjustment. Comment on these items
15:48 should be made during the public hearing
15:49 occurring later in the meeting. Clerk,
15:52 has anyone signed up to speak for
15:53 general audience comments or indicated
15:55 desire to speak this evening?
15:56 >> Yes.
15:57 >> Thank you.
15:59 So, if you're making comments this
16:01 evening, you're invited to address the
16:02 council regarding matters that are
16:04 directly related to programs, projects,
16:07 services, or events. Comments related to
16:10 political campaigns are not permitted.
16:13 Please direct comments to the whole
16:14 council and not individuals. And while
16:16 it's not a question and answer session,
16:19 we will continue. We will contact you to
16:21 follow up if needed. So when you are
16:23 recognized, if you are virtual, please
16:25 unmute your microphone. If you're in the
16:27 room, please stand uh come up to that
16:29 lectern in the center and uh press the
16:32 button on that pad to make your
16:34 microphone active. Please state your
16:36 name and address relationship to the
16:37 city. Speak clearly and pause frequently
16:41 and please limit your comments to five
16:43 minutes. If you are attending virtual
16:45 and you do not respond after your name
16:46 is called uh or your phone number um or
16:50 if your connection is lost unexpectedly,
16:52 the meeting will still need to proceed.
16:54 So, you're encouraged to rejoin the
16:55 meeting if able.
16:57 Personal attacks, obscene language,
16:59 derogatory remarks, and disruptive
17:00 behavior will not be permitted. Public
17:03 comments written and verbal are an
17:05 important aspect of the public process.
17:07 The city takes comments seriously, and
17:09 we thank you for taking the time to
17:10 address us. City Clerk, can you please
17:13 identify the first person who signed up
17:14 to speak this evening?
17:16 >> Yes, the first person is Paul Quinn, but
17:18 I don't believe Paul is with us in the
17:20 room, nor do I see him online, unless he
17:24 is the phone in caller. So Paul, if that
17:27 is you, please raise your virtual hand
17:29 by pressing star three. Um, the next
17:32 person signed up to speak is Anand,
17:34 who's here in the room.
17:37 >> Welcome, Mr. Mut.
17:44 It's right on the pad. Thank you.
17:47 Not yet.
17:50 >> Oh,
17:50 >> thanks so much.
17:51 >> Thank you. First of all, thank you for
17:53 making the time to hear my and my wife's
17:57 uh application here. Really appreciate
17:59 that. I'll keep this brief uh within 5
18:03 minutes for sure. Uh we had sent you an
18:06 email with some details. Um, you know
18:09 what I'm going to do is to give you a
18:10 summary of what we had sent. This is
18:13 about the water leak adjustment policy
18:16 that the city council I'm assuming is
18:19 considering for a modification. Uh, we
18:22 are a resident uh of Isqua. We live in
18:25 Grand Ridge. Um, and we had an
18:29 unfortunate situation. uh July 15th uh
18:33 we got a notice which is a written
18:35 notice hanging in our door saying there
18:38 was an um unusual amount of water that
18:42 was going into our property. Um we were
18:46 on vacation so we came on 18th I think
18:48 it's a Friday. Uh we kind of first
18:51 looked inside the home because the water
18:53 inside the home has been a big issue for
18:55 us in the past. So thankfully there was
18:57 none. Then we called somebody in on the
18:59 19th and we were able to detect that it
19:02 was part of a infrastructure that we had
19:05 outside the home to feed um basically
19:08 the grass lawn and also we had like a
19:12 water fountain. It was the
19:14 infrastructure that was feeding into the
19:15 fountain as well. Um there was a it was
19:18 under the ground. We detected it. Took a
19:20 while to diagnose it. We detected it and
19:23 then we fixed it the same day. uh but
19:25 unfortunately by the time this came to
19:28 our attention about almost I think more
19:31 than 30 days had passed and uh the city
19:34 recorded a consumption of about close to
19:37 915,000 gallons of water and u you know
19:42 we just could not uh reckon where the
19:45 water went because there was no visible
19:48 evidence of that water anywhere outside
19:50 as we were driving the car by or walking
19:52 around that case. Uh so it was very
19:55 difficult for us to detect it and uh u
19:58 the city's intimation to us was only
20:00 through the written tag that was posted
20:02 at the door. Uh we did not get any email
20:05 or um you know phone call which could
20:07 have helped us possibly to jump in a
20:09 little earlier if that was possible. So
20:11 uh that is the situation and what I'm
20:14 here uh to basically seek uh your help
20:17 is to consider uh the situation and I
20:20 have the following remarks to make.
20:24 So um the leak occurred in the
20:27 underground line feeding the outdoor
20:28 fountain a part of our irrigation
20:30 infrastructure. The leak itself did not
20:33 happen in any of the pipe that was a
20:37 decorative or a discretionary feature.
20:39 It was part of an irrigation um
20:41 apparatus that is required to feed the
20:44 water in the lawn. Um, the city's
20:47 digital metering system logged a massive
20:49 spike in water usage weeks before the
20:52 door tag was issued. Yet, no phone call,
20:55 text or email notification was made to
20:57 alert us. This um lack of timely
21:01 outreach eliminated any opportunity to
21:03 intervene earlier or reduce the loss
21:06 because we there was no way humanly one
21:08 could notice that so much amount of
21:10 water was going inside the drain. Um
21:13 there was no sound or no soil erosion or
21:15 any of that kind. Um
21:18 the meter recorded approximately 915,000
21:22 gallons equal to nearly 19 full-sized
21:25 swimming pools. Despite this figure,
21:28 there was no visible evidence of
21:29 flooding, saturation, or erosion.
21:32 U request for equitable adjustment.
21:35 Given the delayed notification, absence
21:37 of visible leakage and immediate repair,
21:40 we respectfully request the city council
21:42 authorize an equitable adjustment
21:44 specifically by reclassifying block five
21:47 charges
21:48 um which is about 95% of our bill. So we
21:53 had an abnormal bill of about $38,000
21:55 because of this water consumption and
21:58 almost 90% of that has been charged at
22:00 block five charges. So what we are
22:02 seeking here is an equitable adjustment
22:05 to charge us for that amount of water
22:07 but at the base rate um or at a lower
22:10 rate. So that's our ask. Uh we also
22:13 looked at uh the situation with
22:15 neighboring uh cities Belleview,
22:17 Kirkland, Redmond and all of them as you
22:19 can see in my note um have a much more
22:24 um you know understanding point of view
22:26 in terms of how to look at these uh
22:28 leaks. So I'll stop there. I think I
22:30 have just 25 seconds left. Uh I don't
22:32 want to overshoot that. Uh but uh we
22:35 have sent you an email with all the data
22:38 and the artifacts. Um and I want to
22:40 thank um a mayor and her office too for
22:43 patiently listening to us and giving us
22:45 this opportunity. And uh I hope you will
22:48 consider our situation and u give it a
22:51 fair hearing. Thank you very much.
22:52 >> Thank you, Mr. Aman. Is there anyone
22:54 else signed up for com um public
22:57 comments tonight? Yes, Corby Castler.
23:00 >> Corby, come on up.
23:03 >> I'm going to touch on budget adjustments
23:05 if you want. I can wait until the public
23:07 hearing. I I
23:08 >> Do you want to talk about a multitude of
23:10 things or mostly budget adjustments?
23:12 >> Uh, a multitude of things.
23:14 >> Oh, well, take this time to talk about
23:15 any of the general items you want to
23:17 talk about and then come back up when we
23:19 have the
23:19 >> Okay. Um, I'm Corby Kler. I'm the
23:22 executive director of the Downtown Isqua
23:23 Association. And I sent you a letter
23:25 today listing our accomplishments. So,
23:27 I'm not going to get into details about
23:29 that, but I hope you read it and um
23:31 understand the the vast work that our
23:33 volunteers are doing. That's doing
23:35 incredible things for our downtown
23:36 businesses and for our downtown charm.
23:39 Um we do um have a 100 vendors who have
23:43 successfully sold items because of the
23:46 markets that we've um been able to give
23:48 them opportunities to participate in.
23:50 So, it's been really rewarding to see
23:52 artists and vendors and especially food
23:54 markets be able to to make a living
23:56 because of the things that we are doing
23:59 and a lot of what we are doing is
24:00 because of the Main Street tax credit
24:02 incentive program of which the city is a
24:05 funer. So, we thank you and appreciate
24:07 you for participating in that program.
24:10 Just a little background on that again.
24:11 It's a program where um BNO taxes or in
24:14 the city's case the utility taxes um are
24:18 um are pushed aside essentially. So if
24:21 you invest 25 cents in DIA 75 cents
24:25 you'll get a tax credit um through this
24:28 program. So the investment is
24:30 phenomenal. It's really a powerhouse
24:32 tool to get to help us diversify which
24:35 we're intending to do. Um, but I do want
24:37 to come back and talk a little bit more
24:39 about what the city can possibly do for
24:41 us and and and what we might want to do
24:43 with that kind of money. But I did want
24:45 to just let you know that we've had a
24:47 great time bringing foot traffic into
24:49 our businesses. Um, we're creating a
24:51 sense of belonging at the Isquos apples
24:53 on Saturday. It was just so heartfelt to
24:56 see people just having a good time and
24:58 no matter who they are, everybody felt
25:00 welcomed and it was really a great sense
25:02 of belonging and that's what we intend
25:04 to do through all of the different
25:05 programming that we do. And I'll come
25:07 back later to talk about
25:08 >> Thank you.
25:09 >> Thank you.
25:10 >> Uh city clerk, has anyone else signed up
25:11 this evening?
25:13 >> No.
25:13 >> Can you check if there are any online
25:15 folks?
25:17 >> We do have a few members of the public
25:18 with us virtually, but they're not
25:20 indicating a desire to speak at this
25:22 time.
25:23 >> Thank you. So, I appreciate those that
25:24 did speak this evening.
25:27 Hand just went up. Okay, we'll take it.
25:30 Okay. Uh, Ken, I see that you just
25:33 raised your hand, so I'm going to make
25:35 you a panelist now.
25:40 You should be able to unmute.
25:48 >> Okay, I think I successfully pushed the
25:49 right buttons. Can you hear me?
25:51 >> Yes, we can.
25:53 So, my name is Kent East and I reside
26:01 comment on a few topics tonight. I've
26:03 read the document that the island
26:06 community association executive director
26:09 sent to the city council members
26:10 regarding the W college development
26:13 agreement.
26:15 Troubled by the lack of community
26:16 involvement in the process and the works
26:18 in the development
26:21 master plan communities such as the
26:23 islands and talis had a long-standing
26:26 role in the community regarding
26:28 architecture review compliance
26:30 development agreements.
26:32 Previously any a development agreement
26:35 was a process that solicited community
26:37 input and HOA input and the city
26:41 responding with the proposed and
26:44 adjusting it as warranted from that
26:47 feedback.
26:48 Rushing forward to end this agreement
26:50 without involving the community members
26:51 is wrong and disrespectful to the
26:53 residents that will be directly
26:56 impacted.
26:58 The second topic that I'd like to
26:59 comment on is proposed sales tax
27:01 increase targeted at improving community
27:04 safety. Uh increasing spending in this
27:08 area is a welcome idea. However, I'm
27:10 doubtful the city has done a thorough
27:11 job of reviewing all the current
27:13 spending and taking the difficult steps
27:16 cancelling programs that provide minimal
27:18 value cost the taxpayers more than they
27:21 provide benefit. Metroflex is one of
27:24 these programs. Its advocates say that
27:27 it provides help for low-income people,
27:29 but the statistics simply don't bear
27:31 that out. 75% of the trips are non EPA.
27:35 They also say it helps the environment,
27:37 but it's hourly average is only two,
27:41 three mile
27:43 distance trips. So, there's a lot of
27:45 dead time there. So, when it's cold
27:47 outside, the van sits idling. And I see
27:49 that in my community. And when it's warm
27:52 outside, it sits idling and running the
27:55 air conditioner. 45% of the rides are
27:58 single user. One of the most popular
28:00 ride start points is the high school.
28:03 So, we've got kids that are using it.
28:05 Cost taxpayers over $40 a ride. It's
28:08 Metroflex is among the worst performing
28:11 routes in terms of the efficiency in the
28:13 Metrlex system. So, Metrflex, it's an
28:17 interesting idea, but in a lot of cases,
28:20 it's simply a taxpayer subsidized Uber
28:23 for affluent residents and kids. County
28:27 is also looking at increasing taxes as
28:29 is the state. So lowincome residents
28:32 will be impacted by higher taxes to pay
28:35 for programs that are not working.
28:37 School families have to manage their
28:39 household finances and make tough
28:41 spending decisions and so should the
28:44 city. Thank you for considering my
28:47 comments.
28:49 >> Thank you, Ken. City clerk, is there
28:51 anyone else online before I go to the
28:52 room?
28:54 >> No. Thank you. So, I'm looking around
28:56 the room. Is there anyone else who would
28:57 like to make a comment this evening?
29:00 Not seeing an indication of that. Well,
29:03 I thank those that did choose to speak
29:04 tonight. We heard about the city
29:07 council's water leakage policy that is
29:09 being discussed right now. We heard
29:11 about um our downtown is association's
29:14 list of accomplishments which was sent
29:15 to council. And we heard about the
29:18 Belleview College development agreement
29:20 and concerns about community engagement.
29:23 also concerns about the sales tax
29:25 increase um and not um sorry yes
29:29 concerns about the sales tax increase
29:31 but also in conjunction with an ongoing
29:33 review of existing expenditures. Um so
29:36 thanks to everybody who testified
29:38 tonight. I think that's very helpful for
29:40 the council and as a reminder you can
29:43 always submit to council at any point in
29:46 time your comments through the city
29:47 council at isquawwa.gov email address.
29:50 We are going to move into the consent
29:53 calendar and I do not have any remarks
29:56 on the consent calendar this evening but
29:58 I'd like to open it up to committee
30:00 chairs or chair design who would like to
30:03 report on the consent calendar items.
30:06 Council member Marks.
30:09 Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh so last month
30:13 the service services safety and parks
30:16 committee did uh take a second look at
30:21 uh the
30:23 water adjustment uh policy that was
30:26 referenced earlier. um water leak
30:29 billing adjustments uh IMC proposed
30:32 language uh that we were presented with
30:38 uh comparable cities um to see how other
30:41 cities were handling it. Um ours of
30:44 course would be uh leak adjustment
30:46 criteria leak in the service line
30:48 repaired within 30 days of discovery or
30:50 notification by the city. the adjustment
30:52 calculation would be adjusting the U
30:57 factor back to the third tier. So
30:59 basically it would still be billing
31:01 folks for the water but at um a not a um
31:07 proflegate rate but um but a careful
31:09 rate.
31:11 No adjustment for irrigation systems,
31:13 pools or boat docks as was noted by the
31:15 public earlier. And then this was a
31:17 onetime adjustment per owner per
31:19 property. So it would be a onetime deal.
31:21 So, uh, based on all of that, the
31:23 committee did, uh, recommend 3 to 0 for
31:27 to move this forward to council as part
31:30 of the packet.
31:33 >> Thank you. Um, chair marks, u, are there
31:36 any other council members or council
31:39 chairs that would like to provide
31:41 comments?
31:43 Not seeing any.
31:48 The consent calendar was distributed to
31:50 council in advance and if authorized the
31:52 items on the consent calendar will be
31:54 considered together and approved by one
31:55 motion. Have the payables and payroll
31:57 been reviewed?
31:59 >> They have.
31:59 >> They have.
32:00 >> Thank you. Does any council member
32:02 desire to remove any item from the
32:04 consent calendar and consider it under
32:05 regular business?
32:09 Not seeing any indication.
32:11 Um is there someone who would like to
32:13 make a motion? Council President,
32:16 >> I approve. Um, I move we approve the
32:18 consent calendar as distributed.
32:21 >> Second.
32:22 >> It's been moved and seconded. All those
32:24 in favor signify by saying I.
32:26 >> I.
32:27 >> I.
32:28 >> Those opposed.
32:29 >> Those opposed. That passes unanimously.
32:32 7 and0. We're now going to move into a
32:35 public hearing, AB9052, the 2026
32:38 property tax levy. Um this evening we
32:41 will be conducting the public hearing
32:42 and I'd like to invite uh budget manager
32:44 Susie Manel to present this item and
32:49 after that I'll open the public hearing.
32:50 Susie.
32:52 >> Thank you Madame Mayor. I'm just going
32:54 to pull up the presentation here.
33:20 Thank you. Um I'm here tonight to
33:22 present on two public hearings. Uh the
33:24 first is starting with the 2026 proposed
33:26 property tax levy. Um, RCW84.55
33:31 requires jurisdictions levying property
33:34 tax to hold a public hearing on revenue
33:35 sources prior to adopting the property
33:37 tax levies. So, we will be conducting
33:39 the public hearing tonight and we will
33:41 be asking for a vote on the property tax
33:43 levy at the November 17th meeting.
33:48 Uh, state law allows jurisdictions to
33:50 increase the amount of property tax
33:51 received annually by just 1% plus the
33:54 value of new construction. So, as that
33:56 table shows, our base levy, our 20 uh of
33:58 2026 is about 10.8 million. We are
34:01 allowed to increase it by 1% or about
34:04 108,000. The value of new construction.
34:07 There are some prior year refunds. So,
34:09 our total 2026 levy um with that 1%
34:12 increase is about 11 million.
34:15 And compared to our 2025 levy, that's
34:18 approximately 164 64,000 larger.
34:25 The property values for 26 are expected
34:27 to decrease uh minimally. Um so the
34:31 median household value was 1.3 million
34:34 in our last uh our last forecast and it
34:38 is currently 1.1 million. So the
34:41 estimated regular levy due to the city
34:43 would would decrease for the average
34:44 household from $84 to $652 or a saving
34:48 of about $152.
34:53 All right. So this just represents the
34:55 median um house the at various property
34:59 values what would the household have to
35:01 pay for property tax in both regular
35:03 levy and excess levy. So as you can see
35:05 there that 1.1 million average um they'd
35:08 be paying $652 in the regular levy and
35:12 92 in the excess or voted levy for a
35:14 total of 744.
35:16 If the city does not take a 1% increase,
35:18 that's represented by the table down
35:20 below um and represents a $10
35:24 difference.
35:28 Uh so where does the property taxes go?
35:30 Um approximately only nine cents on the
35:33 dollar of total property tax comes to
35:35 the city of Isiqua. This chart is from
35:37 2023, but I checked it this morning. It
35:39 is still true. Um, so just want to keep
35:42 that in mind as we look at the overall
35:44 property tax levy that goes to each
35:46 household.
35:48 And with that has to open the public
35:50 hearing.
35:52 Thank you.
35:54 So I'm going to open the public hearing
35:57 at 7:37.
36:00 And if you're joining us virtually and
36:02 would like to make comments, please
36:04 raise your virtual hand or send the host
36:05 a chat message. And if you're in the
36:07 room and did not sign up, I will ask for
36:09 other speakers before we close this
36:10 portion of the meeting. Clerk, has
36:12 anyone signed up to speak or indicated a
36:14 desire to speak?
36:15 >> No one has signed up to speak and I'm
36:17 just looking at our virtual attendees
36:19 here.
36:21 Not seeing anyone indicated desire to
36:23 speak.
36:24 >> Thank you. Is there anyone in the room
36:26 this evening who would like to speak
36:27 during this public hearing?
36:30 I'm not seeing an indication of that. So
36:33 if there is is there any objection to
36:36 closing the public hearing looking at
36:38 council?
36:40 Seeing none uh the public hearing is
36:42 closed and this item will return to the
36:44 city council on November 17th for
36:46 potential action.
36:48 The next one Susie still up here is
36:50 AB9053
36:52 2025 2026 midbanium budget adjustment.
36:56 Again we're holding a public hearing
36:58 this evening and Susie is back up to
37:00 present.
37:03 Thank you.
37:08 >> Thank you. Um, so I'm going to keep this
37:10 very brief tonight because much of this
37:11 information or really all of this
37:13 information was presented to the council
37:14 last week. Um, but just leading into the
37:17 public hearing, we'd like to uh
37:18 reiterate some of that information. We
37:21 are required to hold a public hearing
37:22 prior to adopting the budget. There are
37:24 still two more meetings um ahead of when
37:26 we um are bringing this to a vote. Um
37:29 and we'll have more on that later in the
37:31 presentation.
37:33 We are operationally balanced, meaning
37:35 our ongoing expenses um match our
37:38 ongoing revenues. Um so with increased
37:41 revenue coming in 26, particularly sales
37:43 tax and BNO tax um with limited ongoing
37:47 additions, the general fund is balanced.
37:49 Uh the proposed budget adjustments along
37:51 with the planned use of fund balance in
37:52 2025 as budgeted will decrease fund
37:55 balance over the 2526 bienium.
38:00 uh general fund forecasts. Looking at
38:02 the unrestricted fund balance, the
38:03 adopted budget assumed an ending fund
38:05 balance as a percent of expenditures of
38:07 approximately 15% in both 25 and 26.
38:10 We're currently forecasting an ending
38:12 fund balance of 7% at the end of 2026.
38:16 Uh the difference between the 26 budget
38:18 and the 26 forecast as we show now is uh
38:21 three three buckets primarily 1.4
38:23 million budgeted use of fund balance the
38:26 25 budget. So that was budgeted ongoing
38:29 needs. Um 2.2 million for an ARPA
38:32 correction reducing the actual
38:33 unrestricted fund balance and then 1.6
38:36 million in proposed adjustments uh for
38:39 25 and 26 not funded by any other
38:41 resources.
38:44 Uh this table just uh is a numerical
38:47 representation of what I was just
38:48 sharing. So I'm going to keep moving.
38:52 going to briefly run through the
38:53 adjustments that are proposed as part of
38:55 this um bienium adjustment. So this
38:57 includes some previously approved items
39:00 so already approved by the council
39:01 including a bucket truck communication
39:03 specialist or a dispatcher and um the uh
39:07 isal housing investment plan uh
39:10 contribution to the life enrichment
39:11 options Emily program. Apologies. The
39:15 utility fund adjustments um are also for
39:18 a couple of capital projects to Newport
39:20 sewer relocation program and Highwood
39:22 reservoirs reservoirs and retrofit. Um
39:25 and again those were previously approved
39:26 by council. And then there are a few
39:29 grant adjusted items. So for video
39:31 analytics, for solar PV system and
39:33 storage at the senior center, and for uh
39:36 Gilman well
39:40 and uh the new spending proposed, we're
39:43 looking at uh approximately uh 188,000
39:47 for employee leave payouts for known
39:49 employee leave payouts. Um an increase
39:51 in public defense contracts. uh an
39:54 increase to street operating needs
39:56 particularly with LED lighting, copper
39:57 theft and b the uh result of this bomb
40:01 cyclone
40:02 uh about 12,000 to close out ARPA and
40:06 30,000 for electronic monitoring devices
40:08 for defendants. There is one capital
40:10 project adjustment as well and that's
40:12 the pavement uh preservation project
40:14 east lakes mamish preservation project.
40:17 Uh general fund adjustments, there are
40:19 just a few. Um a portion of those leave
40:22 payouts hits the general fund at about
40:24 75,000. There are two additional parks
40:26 positions. Um then there are an inc
40:30 there's a larger increase in 2026 to the
40:33 public defense contracts. Um and there
40:36 are uh affordable housing study, a few
40:38 other items as well that the council
40:39 would have seen last week.
40:42 Um and then a few proposed adjustments
40:44 outside of the general fund. um a grant
40:47 in the ART fund, um station improvements
40:51 in the sewer fund, and um closing out a
40:54 bond uh series from 2020 um around
40:57 strategic small capital projects in
40:59 transportation.
41:02 Looking forward, our plans for 2026 are
41:04 to move large restricted revenues out of
41:06 the general fund. So mainly this is
41:08 going to be the affordable housing sales
41:09 tax and then we're reconciling capital
41:12 project the capital project fund to
41:14 identify undesated funding. And so
41:15 that's a a project we're working on
41:17 currently and plans for the next bianual
41:20 budget which will be developed next
41:21 year. Continued operational balancing,
41:24 so balancing ongoing revenue and
41:25 expenditures, consideration of how
41:27 one-time ads can impact fund balance and
41:30 the update on the long range financial
41:32 plan.
41:34 Uh, as I mentioned, staff will be back
41:36 next week um to discuss several topics
41:39 related to this adjustment, including
41:40 the public safety sales tax, the
41:43 proposed amendments um that I just ran
41:45 through Metrolex um emergency management
41:48 and the 4th of July and World Cup.
41:53 And that says what I just said again
41:56 except we have one more meeting um on
41:58 November 17th where we are uh bringing
42:01 it to a vote.
42:04 And that is my presentation.
42:10 >> Thank you again, Susie. So, I'm going to
42:12 open the public hearing at 7:44.
42:17 And again, if you're joining us
42:19 virtually, you'd like to make comments,
42:21 please raise your virtual hand or send
42:23 the host a chat message. And if you're
42:25 in the room and did not sign up, I'll
42:27 ask for other speakers before closing
42:29 this portion of the meeting. Clerk, has
42:30 anyone signed up to speak or indicate a
42:32 desire to speak?
42:34 >> Uh, no, aside from our earlier speaker.
42:37 >> Thank you. Is there anyone in the room
42:39 that would like to speak to this item?
42:42 >> Come on up, Corby.
42:52 >> Executive director of the Downtown Isco
42:54 Association. Last year was a tough
42:56 budget year. We all went through it. It
42:57 was very painful. And the nonprofits did
43:00 take a a hit, Dia more so than some of
43:03 the other nonprofits. And I totally get
43:05 trying to pay your bills and making
43:08 budget. I understand that. But when you
43:10 look at the things that really create
43:12 the ROI in downtown Isiqua and the MA
43:15 main street tax credit incentive program
43:18 where the impact to the general fund is
43:20 a lot less than if you didn't have the
43:22 tax credits. Um, I think looking at that
43:25 holistically, I'd love to look at the
43:28 budget for DIA again. We went from
43:31 120,000 a year to little more than
43:33 90,000. And for next year, it was
43:36 proposed that we go down to in the 60s.
43:38 So, that would cut us in half. And I
43:40 just want to take a look at it again,
43:42 take a look at the all the different
43:44 things that we've been doing to
43:45 downtown. um talk to the businesses,
43:47 find out from them what it is they need
43:49 and and how useful having an association
43:52 like DIA is to be their advocate and
43:53 their connector. Um so that's all I'm
43:56 asking is to take a look at the budgets
43:57 again for this year and for next year
43:59 understanding that everybody's strapped
44:02 and understanding that it's a tough call
44:04 but just take a look at it again is all
44:06 I ask.
44:07 >> Thank you Corby.
44:08 >> Thank you.
44:08 >> Is there anyone else in the room who
44:10 would like to speak this evening?
44:13 Not seeing any indication.
44:15 Um, I will close the
44:20 Let's see.
44:24 Are we just kind checking through the
44:26 notes?
44:28 Okay. So, City Council, since you will
44:30 be deliberating the mid bayanium budget
44:32 adjustment at the October 27th city
44:34 council special city council meeting, it
44:36 is recommended you keep the public
44:38 hearing open so the public can comment
44:40 on any changes that come out of that
44:41 meeting. Is there any objection to
44:43 continuing the public hearing to
44:45 November 17th city council meeting? I'm
44:47 not seeing any objection. Hearing none,
44:50 the public hearing is continued and I
44:52 thank uh Corby for talking about
44:54 reconsideration of the allocation for
44:56 DIA. Thanks, Corby. We're going to move
44:59 into regular business AB8991, the
45:02 utility rate study and utility rates and
45:04 charges. The request before council this
45:07 evening is to authorize and adopt
45:10 ordinances. And we're going to have
45:12 public works director Emily Moon and
45:14 utility engineering manager Matt Ellis
45:16 and consultant Sergey Terasov to present
45:18 this item. Sergey, I hope I said your
45:20 name right.
45:23 Director Moon.
45:27 >> Good evening everyone.
45:53 Great. Happy to be here tonight to
45:57 hopefully present to you a final version
46:00 of the utility rate study. And I have
46:04 just a couple introductory slides and
46:06 then Sergey is going to walk through our
46:10 final results from that study and all
46:13 the good work that council committees
46:15 put into this effort.
46:25 Sorry, slide issue.
46:30 So tonight, our recommendation is that
46:34 city council approve the ordinances that
46:36 would adopt the new rates beginning in
46:39 2026 and that you authorize the mayor to
46:42 accept the study which is in draft form
46:45 and your packet as we're making some
46:47 final minor edits and no substantive
46:50 changes.
46:52 Wanted to just quickly review kind of
46:54 the framework for the utility rate
46:56 study. We had a goal to develop uh the
47:00 rates for all of our utility funds,
47:02 water, sewer, storm water that would
47:04 fund all of our operating and capital
47:06 needs for a five-year period, but taking
47:08 a longer look into the future about uh
47:11 what needs are around the corner as
47:13 well.
47:15 Our objectives for the utility rate
47:18 study was to ensure that the future
47:20 rates were uniform or predictable, that
47:24 they were defensible, and that they
47:26 covered the full cost of providing
47:28 utility services both now and in future
47:30 years, and that we had sufficient
47:33 operating reserves to protect the funds
47:36 and make sure that if something
47:38 unforeseen were to happen, we had the
47:40 ability to withstand that. We also
47:44 wanted to make sure that we could afford
47:46 all the capital infrastructure
47:48 investments. These funds are heavily
47:51 weighted by the amount of capital
47:54 infrastructure that they need to uh pay
47:57 for over the next five years and well
48:01 into the future as we maintain these
48:03 critical infrastructures.
48:09 We had a lot of meetings talk about the
48:12 utility rate study. We did start with
48:14 committee of the whole back in March and
48:17 we talked about the big picture of
48:18 revenue requirements. Sergey is going to
48:21 talk a little bit about uh what that
48:23 term means. But really we took a step
48:26 back and we said what is it we think we
48:28 need to fund.
48:30 Then this body of work went to the
48:34 mobility and infrastructure committee.
48:36 That committee did a deep dive over a
48:38 series of three substantive substantial
48:42 meetings and then reviewed the final
48:45 product in September and made those
48:47 final recommendations to the full
48:49 council which are being heard tonight.
48:52 And with that, I'll invite Sergey
48:54 Terasov.
49:00 Good evening, mayor. Good evening,
49:01 council. and uh thank you for taking the
49:03 time to meet with me this evening to
49:06 continue our discussion regarding the
49:08 multi-utility rate study. Now before we
49:11 dive in, I just wanted to provide you
49:12 with a brief outline. We're going to go
49:14 over just a highle discussion of what is
49:17 a race study, what goes into a rate
49:18 study, just the process on the technical
49:20 side. We're going to do a very brief
49:22 background. I think Emily did a great
49:24 job providing a summary of the education
49:26 and discussions that we've had uh
49:28 throughout this rate study. And then
49:30 we'll uh get into the dis the the the
49:33 key policy guidance that we received
49:35 from the mobility and infrastructure
49:37 committee as we went along as well as
49:38 the final rates and proposed
49:40 recommendations. U feel free to ask
49:42 questions as we go along. Now in terms
49:45 of the study itself, the technical
49:47 aspect of the study can be really
49:48 summarized into three key analytical
49:50 steps which have to be performed
49:52 sequentially. Step number one is
49:54 referred to as revenue requirement. This
49:55 is where we zoom out a little bit. we
49:57 take a look at the big picture making
49:59 sure that we can uh sustain our
50:01 obligations individually by utility on a
50:04 multi-year basis. So here we want to
50:06 make sure that whatever expenditures
50:08 that we have our water utility can cover
50:09 itself, our sewer utility can cover
50:11 itself. There's no cross utility
50:13 subsidizations that's occurring. Then we
50:15 dive a little bit deeper in the second
50:17 step which we refer to as a cost of
50:19 service. Uh really you can refer to it
50:21 as a interclass cost allocation. And
50:23 here what we're really trying to do is
50:25 identify if there are differences to
50:26 provide service to different types of
50:28 customers. So residential customers
50:30 versus commercial versus irrigation and
50:32 so on. If you think of step one as
50:34 identifying the size of the pie of costs
50:36 that we have to cover, step two really
50:38 looks at slicing that pie into pieces
50:40 and identifying how big the each piece
50:42 really has to be. Lastly, once we've
50:45 identified the total targets of revenues
50:47 by class, by system, we developed actual
50:49 fixed and variable charges that are
50:50 assessed to our customers through rate
50:52 design.
50:55 Now, a quick background again, the last
50:57 study completed for the city was in
50:59 2020. A multi-year plan was developed
51:02 and adopted by the council at that time.
51:04 You can see the plan uh on the slides
51:06 hopefully that was implemented. As that
51:09 plan came to an end, the city engaged
51:11 FCS to perform an update to that to the
51:14 study to see what the next five years or
51:16 so would look like from a
51:19 self-sufficiency perspective and can our
51:22 utilities and rates sustain our expenses
51:23 and if not, what do we need to do about
51:25 it? As Emily mentioned, we've held one
51:28 meeting uh one meeting back in March
51:29 with the comm the council committee as a
51:31 whole and then after that we had
51:33 approximately four meetings with the
51:34 mobility infrastructure uh committees or
51:37 committee discussing all the topics at
51:39 hand. The key policy that came out of it
51:42 and I'll go through each elements of the
51:44 study are as following. On the revenue
51:46 requirement side, when we met with the
51:48 committee of the whole, really the big
51:49 guidance that we received is that we
51:50 want to limit our impacts to our
51:52 customers to at or below 6%. Is number
51:56 one. And number two is that we do want
51:58 to plan for the future. We don't want to
52:00 be short-sighted. We don't want to just
52:02 hone in on the next 3 to 5 year period.
52:04 We want to make sure we can cover
52:05 obligations. Our system is in good
52:07 repair and functioning uh out into the
52:09 future. So, we did perform a 20-year
52:11 rate study. We're only focusing on a
52:13 five-year plan, but we did look out into
52:15 the future to make sure you don't float
52:16 off a cliff, so to speak, after that
52:18 five years is over. Uh there was some
52:21 discussion regarding the FI financing
52:23 methodology. The the main guidance was
52:25 try to uh minimize the borrowing aspect
52:28 of funding of capital. Don't defer it
52:30 alto together, but try to minimize it as
52:32 possible. And that's what we were able
52:33 to accomplish through this study as
52:35 well. On the second step, the cost of
52:37 service. The main guidance we received
52:39 is that we do want to be costbased. uh
52:41 at the same time we want to limit any
52:43 one class impact uh and mitigate
52:46 significant increases as much as
52:47 possible. So the cost of service
52:49 identified there are differences we want
52:51 to incorporate those adjustments to get
52:53 them every class to cost of service but
52:55 we we want that adjustment to be
52:56 gradual. So a phase in was preferred as
52:59 an approach to address any differences
53:01 identified
53:03 on the rate design front. We addressed
53:05 two items. Number one is that uh we
53:08 consolidated two classes into one. So
53:10 currently you have a single family
53:11 class, a duplex and a multitude of other
53:14 classes. When we reviewed the design
53:16 criteria and usage patterns for the
53:18 duplex class of service, it was very
53:20 similar in nature to the single family
53:22 class of service to so to simplify the
53:24 structure. Uh we proposed consolidating
53:27 duplex into single family for both water
53:30 and sewer customer classifications of
53:32 service. The second edit we proposed to
53:34 the committee was to recalibrate the
53:37 minimum usage criteria for sewer
53:40 customers. Currently, the
53:41 non-residential customers are assessed a
53:43 volume rate to to recover the pass
53:45 through cost from King County. And the
53:48 way King County builds us is based on
53:49 residential customer equivalents, which
53:51 they define as 700 cubic feet of water
53:53 per month or 1,500 cubic feet bimonthly
53:57 since the city bills on a bimonthly
53:59 basis. Currently, the minimum charge for
54:01 the city assumes 12.2 CCF or to uh per
54:06 by monthly period. So, we propose just
54:08 simply recalibrating and tying it to the
54:10 King County definition of 15 CCF.
54:14 Lastly, on the general facility charges,
54:15 these are slightly different than
54:17 ongoing fees. These are one-time fees
54:18 imposed on new development or certain
54:20 capacity upsizing redevelopment as a
54:22 condition of service. We've updated
54:24 these charges based on appropriate
54:26 information and methodology supporting
54:29 these charges and proposed uh the
54:32 updated charges to the committee. The
54:34 committee agreed to move the sewer and
54:35 storm water charges to the costbased
54:37 levels. Uh starting in 2026
54:41 for the water utility because the
54:42 increases were a bit higher. Uh they the
54:45 committee proposed doing a gradual
54:47 multi-year phase in so a 10-year phase
54:50 in was proposed instead. Then lastly for
54:52 the GFC's or general facility charges,
54:54 the current methodology for an approach
54:57 for the city is to adjust these charges
54:59 with inflation because these charges are
55:00 calculated in today's dollars and
55:02 they're strictly tied to capital. So as
55:04 assets and values of infrastructure go
55:06 up, you're allowed to increase them with
55:08 an accredited construction cost
55:10 inflation index and the committee
55:11 proposed to continue that practice into
55:13 the future.
55:15 So that's the key policy. Now the next
55:17 couple slides I apologize will have
55:19 numbers a lot of numbers in them but
55:20 this is simply a summary of your
55:22 proposed rate structures. Here you're
55:25 seeing the summary of the water
55:27 utilities rates focusing on a single
55:29 family and duplex. The upper table shows
55:31 you the fixed charges. You'll notice
55:33 that the single family and duplex uh
55:35 rates are slightly different but as soon
55:36 as we get into 2026 they're going to be
55:38 identical by meter size. Similarly the
55:41 second table provides you a summary of
55:43 all the volume rates. There's a fourb
55:45 block structure for duplex customers and
55:47 a fiveb block structure for the single
55:48 family customers. Again, starting in 26,
55:51 they're going to be aligned into the
55:52 same five block structure. And the
55:54 combined class will collect the cost of
55:56 service identified revenues. There's not
55:58 going to be loss of revenue or increase
55:59 of revenue. It's going to strictly tie
56:02 to the cost of service analysis for for
56:04 the combined class of service.
56:07 Moving on to the water utilities
56:09 non-residential customers, you'll see
56:10 that the non-residential classification
56:12 is made up of several subcategory
56:16 subcategories including apartments, uh
56:18 commercial uh customers, public
56:20 authority and large users. Similarly,
56:22 the upper table shows you fixed charges
56:24 and you'll notice every class the all
56:26 the classes have the same fixed charge
56:28 and we'll continue to have that
56:30 simplified approach uh in the proposed
56:32 rate structure. So the adjustment for
56:34 the fixed charges will be the same no
56:35 matter what subcategory you're in. The
56:38 usage charges uh are adjusted based on
56:41 the cost of service uh specific class
56:43 targets. So whatever the class specific
56:45 target was, we're simply collecting that
56:47 revenue uh through those volume rates.
56:49 And again, we're making the cost of
56:51 service phasing as gradual and as close
56:53 to the average increase as much as
56:54 possible.
56:57 Lastly for the water utility, we have
56:59 the irrigation classes. We have the
57:00 parks and rightaway irrigation kind of
57:02 the public irrigation class of service
57:04 as well as the private irrigation class
57:05 of service. Here similarly the fixed
57:08 charges in the upper table are
57:09 consistent between the two classes. The
57:11 main difference comes between the
57:13 charges by tier or block of service.
57:16 Currently the parks and rightway
57:17 irrigation is lower than the private
57:19 irrigation rates. Based on the findings
57:21 of cost of service uh we are proposing
57:23 to align them but to mitigate the
57:25 significant impacts that would uh that
57:27 will cause in year one we are taking a
57:30 more gradual approach and working to
57:32 align them over time. So we get about
57:34 halfway or so there by 2030 during the
57:37 next cycle. Uh that that should be
57:40 revisited and if everything stays on
57:43 course would get a get everybody within
57:45 cost of service by the end of the next
57:47 rate cycle. But again that should be
57:49 revisited based on most accurate usage
57:51 patterns at that time.
57:54 Moving on to the sewer utility here the
57:56 charges are broken down between the
57:58 local charges the charges that you have
57:59 control over the collection system the
58:01 maintenance and so on of the local
58:03 infrastructure and those charges are
58:05 made up of a fixed charge which is the
58:07 same for all customers no matter what
58:09 class they're in and a volume rate uh of
58:11 249 again the same for every class of
58:14 service. performing the cost of service
58:15 analysis. There are minor cost
58:17 differences between classes. So we are
58:19 applying the differential to get
58:20 everybody within cost of service to the
58:22 volume charges. So again keeping the
58:24 fixed charges the same and the
58:25 volumetric charges will start to deviate
58:28 slightly starting in 2026. You'll notice
58:30 that the single family class will have
58:32 the lowest increase compared to the out
58:34 of the classes and so on, but the
58:35 differences are very minor but by class
58:38 of service.
58:39 The second slide will show you the
58:41 summary of both the local charges plus
58:43 the King County pass through charges.
58:45 Here the upper table shows you the fixed
58:47 charges. You'll notice that the single
58:48 family class has a pretty high fixed
58:50 charge. This is because under the
58:52 current structure, the fixed charges
58:53 from King County are recovered through a
58:56 fixed charge on a bimonthly basis. For
58:58 duplex and everybody else, currently
59:01 those King County charges are recovered
59:03 through a volumetric charge. So when you
59:05 look at the middle table, you'll see the
59:07 volume rates are much higher for duplex
59:08 through non-residential customers. Our
59:11 proposal, as we talked about in the
59:12 introduction, is to condense the single
59:15 family and duplex together. So you'll
59:16 notice starting in 26, the duplex fixed
59:19 charges will mimic single family and
59:20 their volutric charges will mimic single
59:22 family as well. All other classes will
59:25 keep the current methodology where the
59:27 fixed charges from King County are
59:29 passed through the volume Volutric rate
59:31 and the only difference is really coming
59:33 from that local portion of the charge.
59:36 Lastly, the minimum charges are adjusted
59:39 as we talked about in introduction as
59:40 well uh increasing from 12.2 CCF by
59:43 monthly to about 15 CCF strictly to tie
59:46 to King County uh treatments definition
59:49 of residential customer equivalents or
59:51 RCES.
59:54 Then finally for the stormwater utility
59:56 here the charges are assessed on an
59:58 equivalent service unit basis which is
1:00:00 either one single family home or parcel
1:00:03 or 2,000 square ft of non residential
1:00:06 impervious surface area. So all homes uh
1:00:09 all non-residential ESUs are assessed
1:00:12 the same fee. The undeveloped parcels
1:00:14 are assessed slightly reduced uh fee as
1:00:16 well. So again there's no class
1:00:18 differentiation. is just a charge per
1:00:20 equivalent service unit and that'll just
1:00:22 go up across the board by the average
1:00:23 increase.
1:00:26 So to wrap everything up for the ongoing
1:00:28 fee segment of the presentation here, we
1:00:30 brought back the the residential survey
1:00:33 here. Again, I always caution that this
1:00:34 is a little bit of an apples and oranges
1:00:36 comparison because every utility is
1:00:37 different. Every policy decision makers
1:00:40 choices are different. Our costs for
1:00:43 supply and treatment are different
1:00:44 depending on the neighboring utility.
1:00:46 But in general, this question does get
1:00:47 asked. And lastly, we're comparing our
1:00:50 rates today toward the proposed rates
1:00:51 for next year versus everybody else's
1:00:53 rates today as well. So again, a little
1:00:55 bit of an apples and oranges comparison,
1:00:57 but in general, you're on the lower end
1:00:58 of the comparison. You would be moving
1:01:00 up one tick if nobody else does anything
1:01:02 with the rates. And we know for a fact a
1:01:04 lot of these utilities would be going up
1:01:07 just simply by the fact that a lot of
1:01:08 them also receive King County treatment
1:01:10 and those rates are going up. So a lot
1:01:12 of these utilities will be implementing
1:01:15 rate adjustments at the same time.
1:01:19 And then to finish things off, we'll
1:01:20 switch gears a little bit to the
1:01:22 one-time fees imposed to new development
1:01:24 or upsizing redevelopment, the general
1:01:26 facility charges or short for GFC's. Uh
1:01:29 here we calculated the costbased rates
1:01:31 for all utilities. Uh again on the sewer
1:01:33 and stormwater side, the proposed
1:01:34 charges uh that were presented to the
1:01:37 mobility infrastructure committee would
1:01:39 be going up to the costbased levels
1:01:42 starting in 2026, which would be
1:01:44 approximately a $2,000 increase per
1:01:46 residential customer equivalent for the
1:01:48 sewer charge about a $2,800 with some
1:01:51 rounding there increase for the sewer uh
1:01:54 for the storm water utility uh which
1:01:56 would be going up $2,800 for the
1:01:58 costbased charge there as well for ESU.
1:02:01 Now on the water side, the charges are
1:02:03 actually separated into class of service
1:02:06 because there are different facility
1:02:07 sizing requirements depending on what
1:02:09 class you're in. The highest fireflow
1:02:11 requirements are actually associated
1:02:13 with non-residential multif family type
1:02:15 of accounts. So the charges you'll
1:02:16 notice in the middle table are currently
1:02:18 the highest out of the three connection
1:02:20 type of charges. Single family is the
1:02:22 second lowest. Their fireflow
1:02:24 requirements are the lowest in terms of
1:02:27 the classes that do have fire protection
1:02:29 service benefits. And then lastly,
1:02:31 irrigation at the bottom currently does
1:02:33 not require any fireflow requirements.
1:02:35 So their charges are the lowest because
1:02:37 they do not include any fire protection
1:02:40 sizing in that infrastructure. As we
1:02:42 talked about, the committee felt that a
1:02:44 more uh spread out approach was
1:02:46 appropriate for this utility. So we
1:02:48 developed a 10-year phase in for this
1:02:50 utility. Now, one item to note is that
1:02:52 these charges represented are in today's
1:02:54 dollars because we uh if we do adjust by
1:02:57 inflation, it has to be by an accredited
1:02:59 index and we're not foreseeing what the
1:03:01 index would actually be. So, one item to
1:03:03 note is that whatever is listed here
1:03:05 would also have to be adjusted by that
1:03:07 index when that inflation occurs.
1:03:11 And that's it. That's uh my portion of
1:03:13 the presentation.
1:03:15 >> Thank you, Sergey.
1:03:17 Director Moon, do you have additional
1:03:18 information?
1:03:20 >> I do not. Just want to recap.
1:03:21 Recommendation is to adopt the new rates
1:03:24 that would take effect on the first of
1:03:26 the year and to authorize the mayor to
1:03:29 accept the study. Happy to answer any
1:03:31 questions.
1:03:32 >> That is great. I'm going to go to the
1:03:34 chair of mobility and infrastructure
1:03:36 committee and give him his degree in
1:03:39 rate study analysis along with the other
1:03:41 two committee members. Uh the
1:03:42 presentation was fantastic, but uh chair
1:03:45 Joe, would you like to summarize the
1:03:47 committee's recommendation on this item?
1:03:49 >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. My dad is Dr.
1:03:51 Joe. He's a psychologist. Taught at
1:03:54 Idaho State University for about 40
1:03:55 years. I would uh probably not be able
1:03:58 to follow in his footsteps, but thank
1:04:00 you for the honor. Um city staff and FCS
1:04:03 Consulting, I want to thank them both
1:04:04 for um taking the time to walk uh us
1:04:08 civilians, I'll call it, through this uh
1:04:11 minefield of of uh water rates and sewer
1:04:14 rates. Um, as many of you know, it's a
1:04:17 process that we go through every five
1:04:18 years to do a rate study. And that
1:04:20 started in 2024.
1:04:23 And that study involved the collection
1:04:24 and scrutiny of a great deal of data,
1:04:26 including each customer's class use of
1:04:28 the systems, asset replacement pan plan,
1:04:31 assumptions, and maintenance and
1:04:33 operations expenditures.
1:04:35 Um the team, our committee and staff in
1:04:39 FCS evaluate how to provide for the
1:04:41 continu continued performance of our
1:04:43 utility systems while ensuring
1:04:45 affordability for customers. Uh during
1:04:48 2025,
1:04:50 um the city's
1:04:52 uh our council committee of the whole
1:04:54 and the mobility and infrastructure
1:04:56 committee met a combined five times to
1:04:58 discuss the policy options and rate
1:04:59 design considerations. I want to thank
1:05:01 uh staff and FCS for taking our
1:05:04 questions uh coming back with
1:05:06 information so that we could make
1:05:07 accurate uh decisions on uh each of the
1:05:10 pieces that were involved here. And in
1:05:13 uh September at our last meeting for the
1:05:14 mobility infrastructure committee, we
1:05:16 reviewed and voiced support for the
1:05:18 final recommendations are being
1:05:20 presented this evening. Um I think that
1:05:23 director Moon pointed out that uh
1:05:25 they're predictable. They're smooth in
1:05:27 uh the way that they are going to
1:05:29 increase over time. And um if those that
1:05:32 are doing uh development can see the
1:05:36 future in terms of what those charges
1:05:38 might be um with an inflation index on
1:05:40 them or just in as they are in the table
1:05:43 and chart. uh they can plan for uh their
1:05:46 development and do their analysis before
1:05:48 they're deciding to put projects into
1:05:51 Isiqua or to uh not put projects into
1:05:54 DISQUA. So um that concludes kind of the
1:05:57 committee summary and I'll look to my
1:06:00 other uh committee members if they would
1:06:02 like to add uh anything else to um add
1:06:06 to their um
1:06:09 accolades as fellow doctors. Thank you.
1:06:26 Yeah, I have uh three questions on this.
1:06:30 Um really appreciate the presentation
1:06:32 since I didn't get a doctorate. I just
1:06:34 I'm looking for maybe bachelor's level
1:06:37 questions, but um
1:06:41 in land use um one of the adjustments
1:06:44 that we made this year was recognizing
1:06:47 that some of this middle housing um is
1:06:50 very similar to single family. And so I
1:06:52 appreciate the idea of single family and
1:06:55 duplex here. Um in land use, we also
1:06:58 included triplex and quadplex in that
1:07:01 designation. kind of any of the
1:07:03 requirements about um street or sidewalk
1:07:07 updates. And so I'm wondering if there
1:07:09 was any consideration there um whether
1:07:12 there was any reason just to combine uh
1:07:15 single family and duplex or um if there
1:07:17 are any other options there.
1:07:23 >> So we did have some discussion about
1:07:24 that. We certainly had a lot of
1:07:26 discussion with the community planning
1:07:28 and development group as well so that we
1:07:30 could watch how the codes were coming
1:07:31 together or diverging and under the
1:07:35 water code and our utility billing uh
1:07:37 those larger unit more multiple unit uh
1:07:42 residences were considered multifamily.
1:07:45 And so as we looked at usage
1:07:47 characteristics
1:07:49 uh and distinct classes as they already
1:07:52 existed uh it was apparent to us that
1:07:55 duplex and single family was a a good
1:07:58 good thing to combine. Um triplex and
1:08:02 quads we don't necessarily have the same
1:08:05 level of uh detailed information because
1:08:07 those weren't distinct classes to begin
1:08:09 with.
1:08:11 >> Great. Um, second question, uh, general
1:08:15 facilities charges. So, I've heard
1:08:17 concerns from residents, um, about, you
1:08:20 know, if they're doing a residential
1:08:22 addition having to upgrade to like a
1:08:25 2-in water line rather than the 1 in and
1:08:27 how much more expensive that is. That
1:08:31 decision about whether or not a 2 in
1:08:33 versus a 1 in doesn't have to do with
1:08:35 our utility rate study. There's other
1:08:38 requirements. Correct.
1:08:41 That is correct. It's it's based on on
1:08:43 the proposed land use.
1:08:45 >> Okay. Just making sure because looking
1:08:47 at this, you know, there is a very big
1:08:49 difference in the general facilities
1:08:51 charge, but that's not something that we
1:08:52 are necessarily adopting as a decision
1:08:55 point here. Um and then third question,
1:08:58 um irrigation. I am interested why for
1:09:02 both the parks and rightaway and private
1:09:04 irrigation why the fixed and usage
1:09:07 charges are so much less than other
1:09:09 users such as commercial or residential.
1:09:12 I would think if we are looking to
1:09:15 reduce water usage, one of the ways that
1:09:19 we could do that is to recognize that
1:09:23 users of irrigation aren't as
1:09:27 much highly needed as someone who is
1:09:30 drinking water and such. Um, so is there
1:09:33 any justification or reason why that is
1:09:36 so much lower?
1:09:40 >> Mic microphone. Sorry about that. So the
1:09:42 charges are set for each class in the
1:09:44 class of service and you have to see
1:09:46 what portion of the water consumption is
1:09:48 actually going into each tier. So
1:09:50 majority of the irrigation is in the
1:09:51 upper tiers while residential is
1:09:53 probably significantly less in the lower
1:09:56 tiers which is significantly less
1:09:57 expensive. So on average the irrigation
1:09:59 rate is a lot more expensive and you'll
1:10:01 see the upper tier is quite a bit uh
1:10:04 pricey. Uh overall we set the total
1:10:07 target for the class based on the cost
1:10:08 service analysis and which is per unit
1:10:11 is the probably one of the most
1:10:12 expensive classes of service that you
1:10:15 have for the water utility.
1:10:19 >> Okay, I want to just go back to
1:10:23 the slide that is showing that um
1:10:25 because I'm trying to understand the
1:10:28 fixed rates I believe are much lower. So
1:10:32 the fixed charges typically recover the
1:10:34 fireflow compartment and portion of the
1:10:37 system which includes oversizing of
1:10:39 facility mains, oversizing of uh booster
1:10:42 pump stations uh all all the fire
1:10:45 hydrants assets and the irrigation class
1:10:47 of service does not benefit from fire
1:10:49 protection whatsoever. So their fixed
1:10:51 charges do not include any fire flow
1:10:54 recovery in them.
1:10:55 >> That is a great explanation. That makes
1:10:57 me feel a lot better about it.
1:10:58 Appreciate it. Good having an expert on
1:11:01 hand who can answer bachelor level.
1:11:03 >> I was gonna say we're going to give you
1:11:04 your bachelors. They got your doctorate.
1:11:06 We're going to give you your bachelors.
1:11:07 Additional questions. Council member
1:11:08 Hall.
1:11:10 >> Um thanks. Yeah, I was actually just
1:11:11 curious if we um had had an opportunity
1:11:14 to connect with the county at all as
1:11:15 they increase their own rates and
1:11:17 charges around sewer. Particularly when
1:11:19 we first talked about this, you know, we
1:11:22 were wanting to be sensitive to
1:11:23 rateayers and and wanting to kind of
1:11:25 share our story with the county. So I'm
1:11:26 just curious if we did that or if we
1:11:28 plan to. Yes, we've had we've been part
1:11:31 of some discussions. We will be
1:11:33 continuing to take part in many
1:11:35 discussions. There are even some on a
1:11:37 regional level that will involve elected
1:11:40 officials as well. And I I expect that's
1:11:44 going to be a continuing conversation
1:11:46 about how King County charges are
1:11:49 escalating or projected to escalate over
1:11:51 time. Uh so we we certainly are trying
1:11:55 to keep that in mind. our system though
1:11:58 and it's it's half of the components
1:12:00 shall we say is uh distinct and and we
1:12:04 need to plan for the replacement of
1:12:06 those things as well. So um we'll
1:12:09 continue to monitor that but we are
1:12:12 vocalizing that uh it becomes
1:12:15 increasingly difficult to pay when
1:12:18 year-over-year increases are in double
1:12:20 digits.
1:12:22 >> Thank you. Addition mad mayor,
1:12:25 >> if I can just add, some of your neighbor
1:12:27 city councils are very upset about the
1:12:30 county's rate rate setting. Um, and the
1:12:34 efforts that Director Moon referred to
1:12:36 is is coming from those communities. I
1:12:39 think Kirkland has been the leader in
1:12:42 this trying to get all of the parties
1:12:44 together uh to say how can the county uh
1:12:49 stand alone and how can the county
1:12:51 continue to set rates uh that rateayers
1:12:54 don't have the ability to pay and to do
1:12:56 it without really any consideration of
1:12:58 that. And so Kirkland has been trying
1:13:00 for several months to get a meeting
1:13:02 together. I think there finally is a
1:13:03 date uh set uh for that meeting. Um and
1:13:07 we'll see what happens. But again, uh uh
1:13:09 as your colleagues around the county are
1:13:12 having very similar discussions, um
1:13:15 there are councils that are much more um
1:13:20 agitated about this than others. And so
1:13:23 we'll see where that goes. I think that
1:13:25 the issue of ability to pay is a serious
1:13:28 one. And as we look at other, uh, fees
1:13:31 for service that are controlled by other
1:13:32 agencies, uh, coming up, uh, we're going
1:13:35 to have to, you know, come to grips
1:13:37 with, um, that balance of how much can
1:13:41 people pay and do these agencies that
1:13:44 are a step or two removed from, uh, the
1:13:48 payers, um, you know, what kind of guard
1:13:51 rails are there? And I think that's the
1:13:54 intent of the city of Kirkland and
1:13:55 trying to get uh partners together is to
1:13:58 talk about you know should there be more
1:14:00 guard rails.
1:14:02 >> Well and if I might madam mayor and
1:14:04 council too I mean they should be upset
1:14:06 you know and in beyond just ability to
1:14:08 pay too there's also I mean back when
1:14:11 this all started we were even talking
1:14:13 about well reduce of scope to to just
1:14:15 most urgent needs in infrastructure but
1:14:18 then also talking about using debt and
1:14:21 things like that. So, if these aren't
1:14:22 tools and if these aren't strategies
1:14:24 that the county is a willing partner to
1:14:26 kind of be at the table with us um to
1:14:30 keep rateayers in mind, then those are
1:14:33 conversations we need to have. It's very
1:14:35 challenging.
1:14:36 >> If you're here January 1st,
1:14:40 >> um that's a great comment. We weren't
1:14:43 actually in comments. We're still in
1:14:44 questions. But I appreciate the context
1:14:47 for the public to understand that you
1:14:50 all are the ones they're going to call
1:14:52 when their utility bills get
1:14:53 unaffordable. And it doesn't matter if
1:14:55 you say it's the county portion that
1:14:57 went up by double digits and yours that
1:14:59 went up by six. Doesn't really matter.
1:15:00 So great uh context for everybody.
1:15:03 Additional questions. Council member
1:15:04 Jiang.
1:15:06 >> Um so I remember you know originally
1:15:08 there were a few different um scenarios
1:15:10 for how much debt versus you know cash
1:15:13 to pay for some of these capital
1:15:14 improvements. Um, and then I think
1:15:15 recently we also, you know, had to do
1:15:17 this Newport sewer relocation that was
1:15:18 $3 million. So I'm curious how that
1:15:21 affected kind of what we're seeing
1:15:23 today, if at all.
1:15:30 So if you're referring to total debt
1:15:31 borrowing in the short term just to uh
1:15:34 coincide with the policy guidance from
1:15:36 the first meeting in March 10th the
1:15:38 first five years don't include any uh
1:15:41 borrowing for any of the utilities for
1:15:43 the revenue requirement. We are
1:15:44 forecasting some borrowing outside of
1:15:47 the five-year in the next five-year
1:15:48 period because we are taking a look at
1:15:50 the full consolidation. I don't have the
1:15:52 exact numbers in front of me uh but I
1:15:54 can definitely uh provide that
1:15:56 information once I have access to it.
1:15:58 But the first five years don't include
1:16:00 any borrowing whatsoever.
1:16:02 >> Great. Thank you. Additional questions
1:16:05 from council.
1:16:08 I'm not seeing uh chair Joe. Would you
1:16:10 like to make a motion if you have it in
1:16:12 front of you?
1:16:13 >> Thank you. I'd like to authorize the
1:16:14 mayor to accept the utility rate study
1:16:16 report in substantially the same form as
1:16:19 the attached draft report as approved by
1:16:21 the as the final by the public works
1:16:23 director and adopt ordinance number
1:16:27 >> 3116
1:16:29 >> 3116 amending water general facility
1:16:32 charges and bimonthly rates and adopt
1:16:34 ordinance number
1:16:36 >> 3117
1:16:37 >> 3117 amending storm water general
1:16:39 facility charges and bimonthly rates and
1:16:42 adopt ordinance number
1:16:44 >> 3118.
1:16:45 >> 3118 amending sewer general facility
1:16:48 charges and bimonthly rates.
1:16:52 >> Is there a second?
1:16:53 >> Second.
1:16:56 Couple of lights went on there. It has
1:16:57 been moved and seconded. How about
1:16:59 council discussion?
1:17:03 >> If I could go first.
1:17:04 >> Council member Joe.
1:17:05 >> Um again, I really appreciate the work
1:17:08 that was done by staff and our
1:17:10 consultant on this. um the fact that
1:17:13 we're trying to smooth this out and to
1:17:15 consolidate rates so that they're
1:17:16 simple, more simple to understand both
1:17:20 by the public and those that are trying
1:17:21 to build projects in the city, I think
1:17:23 is is a a a laudable and great
1:17:27 achievement by by staff and the
1:17:29 consultant here. Um no one likes to see
1:17:31 the rates go up, but uh we tried to do
1:17:33 everything we could to um make sure that
1:17:35 those rates were reasonable at 6% most
1:17:38 of the time as was pointed out. And uh
1:17:41 we can um we also have the ability to
1:17:44 account for the projects that are going
1:17:46 to be associated with these rate
1:17:48 increases and why the system needs uh
1:17:52 the rate increase to stay um functional
1:17:55 and stay up to date. And it and it also
1:17:58 does charge reasonable amounts to people
1:18:00 that are trying to uh come into to our
1:18:02 system and use our infrastructure as
1:18:05 well. And so um overall I would support
1:18:07 this uh agenda bill tonight. Thank you.
1:18:09 Thank you, Council President. Then
1:18:10 Council Member Ray.
1:18:12 >> Yeah, thank you. Um, just really great
1:18:15 work on this. Um, I think this was a
1:18:18 good example of how we work together
1:18:21 with staff and consultants and
1:18:23 committees and everything. I
1:18:25 particularly appreciated starting out
1:18:27 with kind of a point in time um
1:18:31 conversation about where we are, what
1:18:33 our experience was with some of our
1:18:35 other recent increases and how we wanted
1:18:39 to design and kind of what our policy
1:18:41 questions were for this. So I think that
1:18:44 was a great starting point. really
1:18:46 appreciate the committee for digging
1:18:49 deep into this and really, you know,
1:18:51 asking those questions around who should
1:18:54 be paying, what are the appropriate
1:18:57 classes, how do we want to approach that
1:19:00 billing, and then um finally looking at
1:19:04 our projects and really tightening our
1:19:07 belts on that. I think we did a
1:19:09 wonderful job keeping to that idea and
1:19:12 saying yes, we know we need to do a lot
1:19:14 of these things, but our rateayers are
1:19:16 hurting. We need to be as,
1:19:20 you know, appropriate as possible um
1:19:23 with all of our needs. Um and I think it
1:19:26 was quite amazing really that we were
1:19:28 able to keep to this small level of
1:19:32 increase considering all of the needs
1:19:34 out there and our economic situation.
1:19:36 So, a lot of um appreciation on that.
1:19:39 Thank you.
1:19:40 >> Thank you, Council Member Ray.
1:19:43 >> Thank you. Uh Mayor Paula, you mentioned
1:19:45 that you were I can't recall if you were
1:19:47 a land use geek or a land use nerd.
1:19:49 >> Uh geek or nerd. Both.
1:19:51 >> Um I got to tell you the most fun I've
1:19:53 had in my eight years on council
1:19:55 >> is doing utility rate setting. Um and I
1:19:58 I now want to call myself a rate setting
1:20:01 geek. um not with the uh PhD that uh
1:20:04 council member Joe has, but I am uh I am
1:20:08 looking forward to um you know
1:20:10 additional growth in this area. Um first
1:20:14 I want to thank Sergey for the
1:20:16 incredible journey he took us on with
1:20:18 staff. We could not do without the help
1:20:21 of of someone like Sergey who really
1:20:25 understands this and he did such a
1:20:26 really great job and we saw it again on
1:20:28 display tonight of explaining all of the
1:20:31 underlying factors in such a way that
1:20:33 it's like oh yeah that makes perfect
1:20:34 sense and yeah I get it. Um and then we
1:20:38 um when we had um desires and things
1:20:41 that we wanted to capture um like
1:20:44 simplifying the structure, like keeping
1:20:46 the rates uh at a minimum level, I like
1:20:50 making them smooth um and and like one
1:20:53 of the things that we didn't talk about
1:20:55 today was we actually did some moving of
1:20:58 rates around to make people's uh rates
1:21:02 conform to what they consume because we
1:21:04 were out of balance a little bit on that
1:21:06 initially. So, uh, we accomplished that
1:21:08 and we did it in such a way that, um, it
1:21:12 was just kind of fun and it was like a
1:21:14 big jigsaw puzzle we got to put together
1:21:15 and I really just so appreciate all the
1:21:18 effort from staff and from um, our
1:21:21 consultants that helped us u, from FCS
1:21:23 that helped us get through that. So, um,
1:21:26 I think this is um, this is a real win
1:21:29 for the city of Isqua.
1:21:31 >> Great. Additional comments? Maybe we'll
1:21:34 just land on that happy note right
1:21:36 there. If there's no further discussion,
1:21:39 u it has been moved and second to
1:21:41 authorize the mayor to accept the
1:21:42 utility rate study report in
1:21:45 substantially the same form as the
1:21:46 attached draft report is approved as
1:21:48 final by the public works director and
1:21:51 adopt ordinance number 3116 amending
1:21:54 water general facilities charges and
1:21:56 bimonthly rates and ordinance number
1:21:59 3117 amending storm water general
1:22:01 facility charges and bimonthly rates.
1:22:03 and ordinance number 3118 amending sewer
1:22:07 general facilities charges and by
1:22:09 monthly rates. All those in favor
1:22:10 signify by saying I.
1:22:12 >> I.
1:22:12 >> I. Those opposed. That carries 70 and I
1:22:16 I got to just add on to what they have
1:22:18 said. Director Moon and Sergey,
1:22:20 wonderful job. It's a difficult concept
1:22:23 for many of us to understand and I think
1:22:26 you really really just hit it out of the
1:22:27 park. Thank you so much for all of your
1:22:29 work on this.
1:22:32 So, I have a little bit of sad news for
1:22:35 Mariners fans. The game is over. The
1:22:39 Mariners are not going to the World
1:22:40 Series.
1:22:42 >> Just in case everybody wasn't scrolling
1:22:44 on their phone at this time. And with
1:22:47 that bad news, we'll move into ID 192.
1:22:54 >> ID 1923. This is Autumn's uh item
1:22:58 tonight. Further discussion of the
1:23:00 public safety and civics facilities and
1:23:03 the ask of council tonight is to provide
1:23:05 some direction for the administration.
1:23:07 Welcome Autumn, our administrative
1:23:10 services director. Thanks for presenting
1:23:12 this item tonight.
1:23:13 >> Thank you, Madame Mayor, members of the
1:23:14 council. What better way to be cheered
1:23:16 up than to talk about city facilities.
1:23:19 >> Good job.
1:23:20 >> Right,
1:23:22 >> we'll reset the night here.
1:23:25 >> Good meeting.
1:23:25 >> Uh, great. So, I'm here just to um just
1:23:28 to collect some feedback and talk a bit
1:23:30 about next steps around public safety
1:23:31 and civic facilities. Um so, first just
1:23:35 um we had our public safety and civic
1:23:37 facilities task force provide its
1:23:39 recommendations to you last month. Now,
1:23:41 you've had some time to let those soak
1:23:43 in. Uh and tonight, we'd like to hear
1:23:45 some feedback from the council on their
1:23:47 recommendations. Also, um I'm really
1:23:50 grateful that our uh Spanish director um
1:23:53 is here as well to review some potential
1:23:55 funding tools and then um looking for
1:23:58 your feedback on our uh information
1:24:00 that's needed and some next steps. So,
1:24:03 direction needed is what feedback does
1:24:04 the council have on the task force
1:24:06 recommendation? Uh what other
1:24:08 information is needed? Uh administration
1:24:10 is working on what a recommendation will
1:24:13 be as far as next steps and we'll come
1:24:15 back to the council in Q1 of next year.
1:24:18 uh when we will have a new mayor. Um so
1:24:20 as we're working with that
1:24:21 administration on what our
1:24:23 recommendations will be, um we also want
1:24:25 to hear from you on what other
1:24:26 information or research we can bring
1:24:28 back to you in that time. And then does
1:24:30 the city council agree with our proposed
1:24:32 next steps.
1:24:34 As always, I'd like to ground us in what
1:24:36 the project goals are um that have been
1:24:38 um uh affirmed by the council now for
1:24:42 several years on ensuring safety,
1:24:44 responsibly, stewarding public dollars,
1:24:46 providing community accessibility and
1:24:47 convenience, supporting economic
1:24:49 development, delivering enhanced
1:24:51 community amenities, and embodying
1:24:52 environmental stewardship. Just as a
1:24:55 reminder, the task force
1:24:56 recommendations, and this was a
1:24:57 community task force that spent the best
1:24:59 part of a year really um working on
1:25:01 these recommendations. because it was
1:25:03 one of the largest task forces um in
1:25:04 recent memory that we've had with really
1:25:06 great engagement. Um they came to you
1:25:08 last month and their recommendations
1:25:10 including addressing p police space and
1:25:12 operational needs as soon as possible
1:25:14 that really emerged early in their work
1:25:16 as a top priority, relocating city hall
1:25:19 operations and developing a plan to
1:25:21 construct a new city hall on city-owned
1:25:22 property and then remodeling the 130
1:25:25 East Sunsetway building exclusively for
1:25:27 police use.
1:25:29 Uh there were two options identified as
1:25:32 preferred locations for building a new
1:25:33 city hall. One of them is this property,
1:25:35 City Hall South, uh which uh the
1:25:37 majority of the task force was in favor
1:25:39 of. But a very close second was our
1:25:41 Pickering site next to Pickering Barn on
1:25:44 the other side of town.
1:25:46 Uh the task force also recommended
1:25:48 developing a comprehensive funding
1:25:49 strategy of again tonight we'll start
1:25:51 touching on a bit of what those funding
1:25:52 tools could be and then phasing the
1:25:54 project if needed.
1:25:57 continuing robust public outreach and
1:25:59 remaining flexible and open to new
1:26:00 opportunity as they arise.
1:26:03 And again, as a reminder, here are the
1:26:04 two locations and some some draft
1:26:06 renderings just to give folks an idea of
1:26:08 what a new city hall could look like as
1:26:10 far as space uh both at the Pickering
1:26:12 location and the city hall south site.
1:26:16 The estimated timelines, the renovations
1:26:18 for police at the 130 East Sunset Way
1:26:20 building would be anywhere from 2 and a
1:26:21 half to three and a half years. Building
1:26:23 a new city hall is anywhere from three
1:26:26 and a half to four years and then
1:26:27 relocating city hall would take about 13
1:26:30 months from its current location.
1:26:33 Uh cost estimates police renovations are
1:26:35 anywhere from 15 to $26 million. We
1:26:38 think would probably be in the middle of
1:26:39 that range uh as we go through further
1:26:42 design with police. City hall built on
1:26:44 this site would be anywhere from 44 to
1:26:46 53 million. And then city hall built at
1:26:48 Pickering was 48 to 57 million.
1:26:53 Uh this slide I put together just there
1:26:55 have been some questions from council
1:26:57 members throughout this process around
1:26:59 options for leasing even in uh the short
1:27:01 term to move city hall out city hall
1:27:04 staff out of the 130 building and to
1:27:06 give it completely to police for
1:27:08 exclusive use. So right now currently
1:27:10 city hall administration space so that
1:27:13 is top floor of city hall that is eagle
1:27:16 room which we've turned into a permit
1:27:17 center. Uh that is city hall south top
1:27:19 floor of this building and council
1:27:21 chambers together is about 14,000 square
1:27:23 feet. So that is the bare minimum that
1:27:25 we need right now and that's what we're
1:27:27 using uh to operate. We've checked in
1:27:29 with our uh real estate brokers. Current
1:27:31 lease costs in Isiquar are about 35 to
1:27:33 $49 per square foot a year. And
1:27:37 potential lease costs then would, you
1:27:39 know, factor in about half a million to
1:27:41 probably more than that. Um, closer to
1:27:43 700 or even more thousands per year. And
1:27:46 a lot of that will be based on the
1:27:47 availability of property in Isiqua.
1:27:49 We're not going to get exactly 14,000
1:27:51 square feet. Um, but I just wanted to
1:27:53 provide you just an estimate of kind of
1:27:55 what that looks like as far as um, what
1:27:57 leasing would be for current city hall
1:27:58 uses.
1:28:00 And now I'll invite up um our finance
1:28:03 director Kristen Garcia to provide an
1:28:05 overview of some funding tools.
1:28:10 Thank you, Director Monahan, and good
1:28:12 evening, Mayor and Council. So, I'm just
1:28:14 going to walk through some of the tools
1:28:15 that council has available to fund um
1:28:18 capital facilities. So, one of the tools
1:28:20 is voter approved debt. So, what that
1:28:22 means is you would go out to the
1:28:24 property taxpayers and ask them to
1:28:26 approve an increase in tax levy. um
1:28:29 estimated death debt issuance about $80
1:28:32 million. So, we just kind of looked at
1:28:33 the estimated ranges for the IPD
1:28:36 renovations and what the cost of a new
1:28:38 city hall would be just to give an
1:28:40 illustration of if you decided to do a
1:28:42 bond levy, what what would that
1:28:44 potentially look like? So, we assumed an
1:28:47 $80 million debt issuance. Um a bond
1:28:49 measure approval would require about a
1:28:51 60% vote yes to pass. Annual debt
1:28:54 service about 6.4 4 million. That was
1:28:58 based on an interest rate of 5%. We we
1:29:01 would probably get a little lower than
1:29:02 that, but not knowing when or if we
1:29:04 would issue bonds, we wanted to be a
1:29:06 little bit conservative. So, we assumed
1:29:07 a 5% interest rate over a 20-year term
1:29:10 that came out with an a debt service of
1:29:12 6.4 million. And then looking at the
1:29:16 2025 assessed valuation, that would be
1:29:19 an increase of about 36 cents per
1:29:21 thousand. And that would bring our total
1:29:23 levy rate um to about a$1.7 and then an
1:29:27 estimated impact to the household at 437
1:29:30 per year. And that is based on the
1:29:32 average median home value of 1.2
1:29:35 million. So if someone had a home value
1:29:38 more than 1.2 million, their dollar
1:29:40 increase would be more than 437. But if
1:29:42 their home value was less than 1.2
1:29:44 million, they would pay less. So again,
1:29:46 this is some assumptions um based on a
1:29:49 point in time today. Those numbers would
1:29:51 change based on, you know, we know our
1:29:53 assessed valuation is going to change
1:29:54 next year. Um, and interest rates uh
1:29:57 would depend upon uh when and if we
1:30:00 issued bonds.
1:30:02 >> Is it okay if we take a question?
1:30:04 >> Of course, council member Hall.
1:30:07 >> Thank you. It's not necessarily about
1:30:10 this, but I know there there were rumors
1:30:12 earlier this year around the tax exempt
1:30:14 status of municipal bonds and whether or
1:30:16 not that would be going away. I'm just I
1:30:18 actually don't know if anything ever
1:30:20 came of that. So, I thought I'd ask
1:30:22 that.
1:30:22 >> I don't believe that went away. I I
1:30:26 believe the last information that I
1:30:28 heard um that that was tax tax exempt
1:30:31 bonds still existed. So, that's still an
1:30:33 option.
1:30:34 >> That's good. Okay. Thanks.
1:30:36 >> Thank you, Deputy Council President.
1:30:39 >> Uh yes. And in reading the packet, I
1:30:42 believe it said that a this kind of bond
1:30:45 you can pay the annual debt service out
1:30:48 of the bond. Is that correct? And um I
1:30:52 there's um there's different types of
1:30:55 bond issuances, but this one would be
1:30:58 the one we're talking about would be
1:31:00 where you can pay the debt service out
1:31:02 of the bond longer than nine years.
1:31:06 Right.
1:31:06 >> Correct.
1:31:07 >> Right. So when we talk about annual debt
1:31:09 service, that would not be in addition
1:31:11 to 80 million. It would be part of what
1:31:13 we build in. Is that correct?
1:31:16 >> Not sure I understand the question.
1:31:17 >> So we would go out to get 80 million
1:31:20 >> under this assumption. Um not knowing
1:31:23 what the actual costs are. Um we were
1:31:26 just kind of looking at the ranges of of
1:31:29 what director Monahan had proposed. What
1:31:31 would the potential cost of the
1:31:32 renovations be? What would the potential
1:31:34 cost of city hall be? we kind of landed
1:31:37 on an $80 million estimate. Um, just to
1:31:41 provide an illustration on if the cost
1:31:43 was 80 million, if that's what we were
1:31:45 asking the taxpayers for a bond levy
1:31:47 for, what would that debt service
1:31:50 potentially look like? So,
1:31:51 >> okay, but if we Well, maybe this is
1:31:55 something we talk about down the road,
1:31:59 the annual debt service would then be an
1:32:01 addition. we go out for 80 million plus
1:32:04 whatever the debt service is on top of
1:32:06 that.
1:32:07 >> The 6.4 million would be the debt
1:32:10 service on the 80 million.
1:32:12 >> So that would be on top of any debt
1:32:13 service we're currently paying on bond
1:32:15 levy.
1:32:16 >> Okay.
1:32:17 >> Does that because we do currently have
1:32:19 some bonds that are currently paid by
1:32:22 bond levy. So this would be an addition
1:32:24 to that. Although I get to a couple
1:32:26 slides, we do have some bond levy that's
1:32:28 rolling off. Um, so that might help
1:32:30 answer your question as well.
1:32:31 >> Okay.
1:32:32 >> Council President.
1:32:34 >> Oops. Um, sorry, Council Member Jen.
1:32:36 Council President. Um, yeah. I guess
1:32:38 just my understanding of how it works is
1:32:41 basically we go out with the voter to
1:32:45 this proposal like to go out to the
1:32:46 voters to approve a bond for 80 million
1:32:48 and then the debt payment that the city
1:32:51 has to make is 6.4 million and then that
1:32:53 would be the amount of property tax per
1:32:55 year. So the 80 million is basically
1:32:56 we're borrowing 80 million then paying
1:32:58 back 6.4 million per year for 20 years.
1:32:59 Is that correct?
1:33:00 >> Correct. And that would be paid in this
1:33:03 scenario um from the property tax levy.
1:33:05 So that wouldn't be out of our existing
1:33:07 revenue. It would be paid through the
1:33:08 property tax levy.
1:33:09 >> Great. And then um one more question. So
1:33:11 you mentioned the short-term space
1:33:13 leasing options earlier. Is there a
1:33:16 proposed funding source for that or
1:33:17 would that just come out of the general
1:33:19 fund?
1:33:20 >> At this point it would come out of the
1:33:21 general fund. I think as we take a
1:33:23 deeper dive once we hear from council on
1:33:25 one of some of the options that they
1:33:27 might want to see a little bit more in
1:33:28 depth we can explore other options but
1:33:30 currently that would be paid out of the
1:33:32 general fund.
1:33:33 >> Okay great thank you president.
1:33:35 >> Yes. Um and I believe that might have
1:33:38 been answered. Is this a potentially a
1:33:40 20-year bond and are there other options
1:33:42 that we would look at?
1:33:44 >> This um this illustration was based on a
1:33:47 20-year term but we can explore other
1:33:49 options.
1:33:53 No additional questions at this time.
1:33:56 >> Okay, I'll go on to my next slide. Um,
1:33:58 so this slide was just illustrating um
1:34:00 kind of as a follow-up to the first
1:34:02 slide. This is a comparison of our
1:34:05 neighbors and what their total tax levy
1:34:07 rate is. Uh, right now, Isaqua has a
1:34:10 total tax levy rate that's lower than
1:34:12 our neighbors based on this slide. Um if
1:34:15 we did the $80 million issue as
1:34:17 presented in the example on the previous
1:34:20 slide and our levy rate increased to
1:34:22 a$1.7
1:34:24 um we would be higher than Redmond,
1:34:25 Kirkland and Belleview but we would
1:34:27 still be lower than Seamish and
1:34:29 Snowqualami. And again that's just an
1:34:31 illustration. Um we can do a comparison
1:34:33 as we um take a deeper dive with actual
1:34:36 numbers. Um another tool that's
1:34:38 available to council is council manic
1:34:41 debt. So, what that means is you approve
1:34:44 the debt through adoption of a bond
1:34:46 ordinance. Um, assuming the same
1:34:49 scenario, if we issued $80 million in
1:34:51 bonds, if the debt service on that was
1:34:53 6.4 million, um,
1:34:56 under this scenario, there would be no
1:34:58 dedicated revenue um to pay the debt
1:35:01 service. So what that would mean is we
1:35:04 would need to take existing revenue
1:35:06 that's currently funding services and
1:35:10 and redirect that to um the debt
1:35:12 service.
1:35:16 As mentioned, uh we do have existing
1:35:18 debt that will be expiring. So we do
1:35:20 have some current voter approved debt
1:35:21 that will be expiring between 2025 and
1:35:24 2027. That should lower our bond levy
1:35:28 rate. uh we haven't taken a look at how
1:35:32 much of a reduction that would be, but
1:35:34 that was not assumed in the scenario
1:35:36 that I presented before that if we issue
1:35:38 the $80 million the total levy rate
1:35:40 would go up to $1.7 knowing that some
1:35:42 debt will be rolling off there. There
1:35:44 could be some offset to that. We just
1:35:46 don't have the numbers for that tonight.
1:35:48 Um, and then we have 2019 bonds, council
1:35:51 manic debt that will be retiring in
1:35:53 2028, freeing up about $500,000 in
1:35:56 annual debt service that's currently
1:35:58 being paid by the general fund.
1:36:01 Then we also have some existing funds.
1:36:04 We have some sale of properties. So we
1:36:05 have about $9.6 million from sale of
1:36:08 properties that we have available. We
1:36:10 also have some government mitigation
1:36:12 funds. So that's impact fees um for
1:36:15 police facilities, government
1:36:16 facilities, bicycle and pedestrian. We
1:36:19 have about 345,000 in the police
1:36:21 mitigation fund available. We also have
1:36:24 some um mitigation fees from a de
1:36:26 developer agreement, about 3 million
1:36:28 from the lakeside uh developer
1:36:30 agreement. And then our public safety
1:36:32 sales tax will be coming online um next
1:36:35 year. We could carve out a portion of
1:36:38 that. That total revenue source is about
1:36:40 2.2 million is what we're estimating. we
1:36:42 could um that is an ongoing the tax does
1:36:45 not expire. So we could carve out a
1:36:46 portion of that to help either fund debt
1:36:48 service or do a one-time capital
1:36:50 contribution. And then the same with
1:36:52 construction sales tax um that is
1:36:55 something that we don't currently carve
1:36:57 out. That is just part of our regular
1:36:59 sales tax that goes to fund um ongoing
1:37:02 um expenses. But because it is directly
1:37:05 related to construction, we could
1:37:07 consider that onetime revenue and we
1:37:09 could carve out a portion of that to to
1:37:11 use for either ongoing or onetime
1:37:13 capital contributions. The 1 million
1:37:16 represents we look at we looked at a
1:37:17 historical view about how much that we
1:37:19 receive annually just from construction
1:37:22 sales tax and 1 million is about half of
1:37:24 what we receive each year.
1:37:26 >> Kristen, we're going to take a question
1:37:27 from council president.
1:37:29 >> Yes.
1:37:29 >> Thank you. um trying to understand some
1:37:33 of this with the um one-time or lumpsum
1:37:36 um monies that we have there when you're
1:37:39 looking at a potential 80 million and I
1:37:42 know that's still just a pie in the sky
1:37:44 number and all of that is are these
1:37:47 dollar amounts that could potentially
1:37:50 lower that um as one option?
1:37:52 >> Absolutely. Okay. Is another option
1:37:56 using things like the 9.6 6 million to
1:38:00 pay debt service over a number of years
1:38:03 and thus utilize that as another option.
1:38:07 So that maybe we did a certain portion
1:38:09 with council manic bonds where we had um
1:38:13 our payments worked out with these and a
1:38:16 certain amount with voter bonds.
1:38:18 >> Yes, I think both of those are options
1:38:20 we could explore.
1:38:21 >> Okay. So, it's not that we have to have
1:38:24 annual revenue necessarily coming in
1:38:27 like the public safety sales tax of the
1:38:29 750 $750,000 a year to pay debt service.
1:38:34 We could dedicate a specific amount of
1:38:38 money that we have in the general fund
1:38:40 and utilize that for planned payments.
1:38:43 >> We could.
1:38:43 >> Okay, great.
1:38:46 Great. Going Kristen. Oh, uh, Council
1:38:49 Member Hall.
1:38:52 Oh, now I'm thinking maybe I should
1:38:54 wait. Um, can you So, that's an
1:38:56 interesting point and it brings up kind
1:38:58 of a almost a trade-off in my brain too
1:39:00 around keeping
1:39:03 what was it 80 million 40 million 80
1:39:07 >> um keeping it at 80 potentially using
1:39:09 one-time monies to pay annual debt
1:39:11 service versus
1:39:13 >> lowering the original amount so we can
1:39:16 get to paying principal quicker than
1:39:18 paying interest. Is that something we
1:39:21 should be thinking about in terms of the
1:39:22 term? Because the shorter the term of
1:39:24 the bond, the quicker we get to paying
1:39:25 principal from interest. Is that right?
1:39:26 >> Correct.
1:39:27 >> So, if we're able to lower it from 80
1:39:30 quicker, we pay less interest in the
1:39:32 long term. Is that right? Okay. I just
1:39:34 want to make sure I'm understanding that
1:39:35 correct. Thanks.
1:39:36 >> Yes.
1:39:41 >> Thank you.
1:39:46 Uh so we're here tonight to collect your
1:39:48 initial feedback uh for the task force
1:39:50 and from this first discussion around
1:39:52 some funding tools. Uh we'll be back to
1:39:54 you in the first quarter of 2026 with
1:39:56 administration's recommendation on next
1:39:59 steps um around this project also with
1:40:02 an engagement plan for the coming year
1:40:04 and uh we could then start um some
1:40:07 further design work for PD as a next
1:40:10 step. So that's the proposed timeline.
1:40:13 So um again, direction needed is what
1:40:15 feedback does the council have on the
1:40:17 task force's recommendations? What other
1:40:19 information do you need that we can do
1:40:21 some research on the next several
1:40:22 months? And do you agree with our
1:40:24 proposed next steps?
1:40:26 >> Thank you, Autumn and Kristen. Um so
1:40:29 before we go to answering those three
1:40:31 questions, do you have any other
1:40:33 questions you would like to ask first?
1:40:34 Council member Ray,
1:40:36 >> really simple one. Why do you think it's
1:40:38 more expensive to build the location at
1:40:41 Pickering than at uh the current City
1:40:44 Hall South location, particularly since
1:40:46 we wouldn't have to do demo there?
1:40:49 >> Uh most of it from what I understand is
1:40:51 involving it's in a flood plane. So,
1:40:52 we'd have to build up.
1:40:56 >> Great. Thanks, Council Mertz.
1:40:59 So, one of the things that may not be
1:41:02 obvious in the discussion of potential
1:41:04 locations was um uh the fact that
1:41:08 basically a decision was made early on
1:41:10 to not look at eminent domain um
1:41:13 opportunities and can you speak to um
1:41:16 that decision and and what that would do
1:41:18 to the solution space?
1:41:20 >> Sure. you know, the task force had
1:41:23 really robust discussions around
1:41:24 locations and um also, you know, were
1:41:28 looking a lot at how expensive this
1:41:30 would be to build a new city hall. And
1:41:32 so um very quickly a value came out from
1:41:35 um many of the members that we should be
1:41:36 looking at city-owned property um to be
1:41:39 building the city hall. And so that was
1:41:41 quickly refined, you know, down to our
1:41:43 search of what properties do we have at
1:41:45 the city that could be viable options
1:41:46 for a city hall, frankly, just to save
1:41:48 us money on this project.
1:41:51 And council member Mars, I'm assuming
1:41:52 you're asking that because many in the
1:41:55 our gallery of viewers tonight won't
1:41:58 understand that we have to pay when we
1:41:59 do eminent domain and the property is
1:42:02 expensive.
1:42:02 >> Right.
1:42:03 >> Thank you.
1:42:05 >> Great. Additional questions before we
1:42:07 start with council member Jiang on
1:42:08 answering the three questions here.
1:42:13 Okay. No additional questions. So I I
1:42:14 think what would be super helpful is if
1:42:16 we could just uh get everybody's
1:42:18 feedback. And I'm picking on council
1:42:21 member Jiang because she's the doobie.
1:42:22 But if anybody wants to jump in and
1:42:24 answer the three questions first and
1:42:25 give her a break, you can do it. Oh, she
1:42:27 put up her microphone. There we go.
1:42:29 Okay. Um, so I think in terms of like
1:42:32 the task force recommendation, we talked
1:42:35 about that last time. Um, I think, you
1:42:37 know, we have to upgrade the police
1:42:41 station and to do that we have to build
1:42:42 a new city hall. So it's kind of like we
1:42:45 got to do it. I think my preference in
1:42:47 terms of funding is to maximize the use
1:42:48 of funds that we already have. Um and I
1:42:51 did some quick maths and you know if we
1:42:54 use all of our existing you know
1:42:55 one-time funds um to as capital
1:42:58 contributions and then use the rest of
1:42:59 it you know the ongoing funds to help
1:43:01 pay for debt service I think we could
1:43:03 reduce the amount um that we need to go
1:43:06 out to voters to by half which would be
1:43:08 great. It would be like 40 million
1:43:09 instead of 80 million. And then I think
1:43:12 based on my maths, which again needs to
1:43:14 be verified, but I think that would
1:43:16 allow us to keep our overall levy rate
1:43:18 lower than all other cities including
1:43:20 Redmond. Um so that would be good. But
1:43:22 again, you know, just like
1:43:23 directionally, I think we want to make
1:43:26 sure that we're maximizing the use of
1:43:29 our tax money um of taxpayer dollars.
1:43:32 And so I think, you know, by showing
1:43:33 that okay, you know, we're using the
1:43:35 public safety sales tax. Um, I think I'm
1:43:37 also generally a big fan of using
1:43:38 construction sales tax dollars for
1:43:40 capital projects. I think you can I, you
1:43:43 know, where you've seen neighboring
1:43:45 communities do that. They've actually
1:43:46 been very successful because some
1:43:48 construction is very lumpy and so you
1:43:49 don't want to have to, you know, balance
1:43:52 your budget off of something that's less
1:43:54 predictable. Um, and yeah, in general, I
1:43:58 think, you know, in terms of the
1:43:59 proposed next steps, that's good. One
1:44:01 other thing I would note is that I think
1:44:03 we should consider I mean you know in
1:44:07 our plans we can look at how much it
1:44:09 might cost to acquire a different
1:44:10 property especially adjacent to existing
1:44:13 city- owned properties because I mean if
1:44:15 you just look at you know the cost of
1:44:17 pickering is like $6 million more than
1:44:19 this site and so if there's the
1:44:21 potential to acquire other land that
1:44:23 costs less than $6 million it would
1:44:25 still be less costly and so that's
1:44:28 definitely something we should explore.
1:44:29 And obviously, you know, I'm not saying,
1:44:31 oh, we should go buy any land, but it
1:44:32 has to be a costbenefit analysis and we
1:44:34 need to explore all those options.
1:44:36 >> Thank you, Council Member Jen. Council
1:44:37 member Joe,
1:44:39 >> I wanted to stay in order this evening
1:44:40 so that uh I would go next and then
1:44:43 Sure. We'll go right right down the
1:44:45 line. Um I appreciate the work that's
1:44:48 been done by the task force. I I don't
1:44:50 necessarily have any um feedback on
1:44:53 their recommendations. I think they did
1:44:55 a great job scoping out what is
1:44:57 available in town, really looking at the
1:44:59 different properties and what might work
1:45:01 for us along the way. In terms of what
1:45:04 other information is needed, I I think
1:45:06 that uh with uh Director Garcia here now
1:45:10 uh in in our finance department, um it
1:45:14 sounds like if I'm kind of reading
1:45:16 between the lines a little bit uh from
1:45:18 the presentation that we're going to
1:45:19 keep our powder dry for now in the sense
1:45:22 of keeping the money that we have from
1:45:24 the sale of the building, the other um
1:45:26 pieces such that we can take advantage
1:45:29 of something should it come to fruition.
1:45:32 And we did that with the acquisition of
1:45:35 the uh forested hillside land that we
1:45:37 recently acquired and and the land along
1:45:40 the stream. We were able to acquire land
1:45:43 that was uh probably more expensive or
1:45:45 outside of our league a little bit
1:45:47 because we had some saved and we were
1:45:49 able to team up with other entities that
1:45:51 could help us uh make that gap so that
1:45:54 we could get that land. I would hope
1:45:56 that we'd follow that type of strategy
1:45:58 for acquisition of land or construction
1:46:02 of the city hall. Um we keep the money
1:46:05 that was uh just uh
1:46:10 just in the presentation there and then
1:46:12 u make sure that we we are ready to act
1:46:14 should something come up and come open
1:46:16 that we were not expecting at all. Um,
1:46:20 so, uh, I think you do a great job of
1:46:23 giving us the information when those
1:46:24 properties open up through our, um,
1:46:27 executive sessions. Um, we just, I would
1:46:30 just ask that you stay on your toes,
1:46:31 keep your ear to the ground and see what
1:46:33 might open up for us and be creative
1:46:36 about how we might be able to acquire
1:46:37 that. In terms of the next steps, I
1:46:39 agree that an outreach program should be
1:46:41 needed would be helpful so that we can
1:46:44 um get out to the public and start
1:46:46 telling them why a potential ask will be
1:46:50 made for them to uh approve some
1:46:53 funding. Um or if the council decides to
1:46:56 do a councilmatic route, why we're doing
1:46:59 that and why it's the best and most
1:47:01 efficient way to use their tax dollars
1:47:03 uh for the future facilities for the
1:47:06 city. So, um, appreciate all the hard
1:47:08 work and th those are my comments
1:47:10 tonight.
1:47:12 >> Thank you, Council Member Joe. Council
1:47:13 member Hall.
1:47:14 >> Um, thanks. Yeah. Round round one kind
1:47:16 of initial thoughts and then I might
1:47:18 want to riff off what other people are
1:47:20 thinking too.
1:47:21 >> Um, definitely I mean I was on the task
1:47:23 force so you kind of know where my head
1:47:25 sits a little bit on this, but um,
1:47:27 definitely a major alignment of the task
1:47:29 force was address IPD ASAP. Um, and
1:47:34 there was also some, you know,
1:47:38 deliberate task force discussion and
1:47:40 encouragement for just to make sure the
1:47:42 council does its due diligence and kind
1:47:44 of reads the room with the community. Is
1:47:46 this really the right time to be going
1:47:48 out to the voters? So, um, especially
1:47:51 when it's been kind of challenging in
1:47:52 this area to run bond uh, measures
1:47:54 lately. So, I'm definitely not opposed
1:47:56 to considering it um because I agree we
1:47:58 shouldn't be kind of indefinitely
1:48:00 leasing general government space. That's
1:48:01 kind of a bad best practice, but I am
1:48:04 interested in seeing an option
1:48:07 that's focused on IPD remodel with
1:48:10 council manic debt and um what it would
1:48:14 take to just pay off
1:48:17 um debt service on council manic bonds
1:48:20 over x number of years just to do an IPD
1:48:23 remodel um as kind of a suite of options
1:48:25 that that we're looking at. And so that
1:48:27 would be one thing I'm looking at or
1:48:29 looking for. Um,
1:48:33 and then, yeah, I guess then part of
1:48:34 that would be teasing out, okay, what of
1:48:37 our one-time ongoing revenues is paying
1:48:39 debt service on council manic bonds and
1:48:42 what of that is paying our lease
1:48:44 payments uh every year. And um I don't
1:48:47 have any more feedback uh other than to
1:48:49 say that's uh difficult and I look
1:48:51 forward to
1:48:53 um seeing what you think about that.
1:48:55 >> Thank you, Council Member Ray.
1:48:57 >> Thank Thanks. Um,
1:49:00 I I think the task force recommendations
1:49:02 are fine. I was I was gratified to see
1:49:04 that there was an at least an
1:49:06 alternative location that was profered.
1:49:08 I think that that's good. Um, but I
1:49:11 think the biggest thing I want to share
1:49:12 is the information needed. We need a and
1:49:15 the the questioning here kind of teases
1:49:17 this out. We need a lot more information
1:49:19 on what the financing options look like.
1:49:21 I mean, it's not just this or nothing.
1:49:24 So I mean how much of you know give us
1:49:27 the continuum of different things um and
1:49:31 up to and including what if we don't
1:49:32 have the you know the public safety
1:49:35 sales tax revenue what does that mean
1:49:37 what if we do have it what does that
1:49:39 mean so um do the financial model like
1:49:43 times 10
1:49:45 >> um and then I think maybe first quarter
1:49:48 engagement plan might be a little
1:49:50 premature but you know it's never too
1:49:52 early to start um reaching out to the
1:49:55 public. So that that's really all I have
1:49:57 to uh to share.
1:49:59 >> Thank you, Councilman Mertz.
1:50:01 >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. So, uh first
1:50:04 off, I think that um the task force was
1:50:07 very well constituted and the
1:50:09 consultants that were engaged um did a
1:50:11 good job. Um I agree with the statement
1:50:15 earlier that one of the critical pieces
1:50:17 of information to come out of this was
1:50:19 that um addressing IPD uh is the highest
1:50:23 priority. And so that was that was the
1:50:25 sort of first half um um aha moment uh
1:50:30 with the group. I think that bonds have
1:50:35 gotten a bad name because I think that
1:50:38 um the city made a bond attempt a while
1:50:40 back. Um I think that in retrospect it
1:50:45 did not have this kind of community
1:50:48 engagement. Um so it did not carry um
1:50:52 the the impetus from the community and
1:50:55 then recent school bond efforts. Uh I'm
1:50:58 not to say that that should be the gold
1:51:00 standard for how uh how we look at bonds
1:51:03 either. I think of bonds a lot like
1:51:07 juries, which may seem like a weird
1:51:09 analogy, but I I think the public is a
1:51:12 lot smarter um and a lot more willing to
1:51:17 difficult and challenging things than
1:51:19 than we give them credit for, much like
1:51:21 juries are able to tease out um uh the
1:51:25 right answer in complex cases before
1:51:27 them. And so I think that
1:51:30 if we go to the public uh with a with a
1:51:34 really smart bond, if we take what the
1:51:36 community has told us in this task force
1:51:39 um and then shape something and go to
1:51:41 the public, I think it's it's very very
1:51:44 likely to get a strong response. We know
1:51:47 how much public safety is important uh
1:51:49 to the public. So, you know, I I'm
1:51:52 excited about that process. I think we
1:51:54 should get going on it. Um, I think
1:51:56 location one, the reason that I asked
1:51:59 about uh eminent domain is I don't think
1:52:02 this city hall south location is viable
1:52:04 without some eminent domain work. Uh,
1:52:07 it's just too small. The pictures that
1:52:09 you showed, it's it's I mean, when we
1:52:12 were in when we were in the task force,
1:52:13 we're like, is is there a sidewalk
1:52:15 there? Because you couldn't even tell
1:52:17 that there was a sidewalk because it was
1:52:19 so jammed up uh against the street. And
1:52:22 so, um, I I just I've never believed
1:52:25 that this was a viable location by
1:52:27 itself. And so, um, you know, if you ask
1:52:30 me, this building versus Pickering, I'm
1:52:32 all about Pickering. Um, I think that it
1:52:36 has some wonderful opportunities in the
1:52:38 sense that there's uh public recreation
1:52:40 amenities to to city employees available
1:52:43 at Pickering. Um, that we could continue
1:52:46 to build on because we'd have our staff
1:52:48 over there. Um, you got to raise it up
1:52:50 four feet because it's in a flood plane.
1:52:52 But, um, you know, that can be done. I
1:52:54 think, um, I think this city has an
1:52:57 emotional, you know, Oldtown is the
1:53:00 wubby, right? It's the frayed teddy bear
1:53:02 that we all that we all clutch to. It's
1:53:04 wonderful to have it and it's a
1:53:06 differentiator, but I think uh we should
1:53:08 consider having a city hall that's
1:53:10 outside of Oldtown. The sky would not
1:53:13 fall. uh you know and and it would be
1:53:16 part of our commitment to the valley
1:53:19 floor more broadly rather than just
1:53:21 looking at Oldtown. So I'm I would be
1:53:24 excited about that. Um the committee did
1:53:26 pick city hall south a little bit over
1:53:28 Pickering, but it was really both
1:53:31 locations were seen as very viable by
1:53:34 the task force. Um it's just that it was
1:53:36 like well if you're going to pick one
1:53:37 over the other okay um city hall south,
1:53:40 but they were they were both very
1:53:41 viable. So, I am excited about this
1:53:44 process moving forward. I think we're in
1:53:46 a better place than we were uh six
1:53:48 months ago because of the work of the
1:53:50 task force. So, thank you, Autumn, for
1:53:52 the for the work that your team did on
1:53:54 it. Um and let's let's move forward. It
1:53:57 will be a complicated financial process
1:54:00 to come up with $80 million. Um, but
1:54:02 once again, I just want to say I trust
1:54:05 the voters of Isiqua that if we explain,
1:54:09 if if we can bottle what the task force
1:54:11 said and basically use the the words of
1:54:14 our community to explain to the public
1:54:17 what we're trying to do, we will be
1:54:19 successful. Thank you.
1:54:22 >> Thank you, Deputy Council President.
1:54:24 >> Thank you. Uh, a lot of I have a lot of
1:54:27 thoughts here and a lot of them have
1:54:28 already been mentioned. So, I'll just
1:54:31 try to condense my thoughts. Um, I think
1:54:34 somebody already mentioned
1:54:35 communications. Uh, I got button hold
1:54:39 not probably a week ago. I'm not quite
1:54:42 sure what that word means, but you get
1:54:44 the idea. Somebody was pointing at me
1:54:46 like this saying, "Why are you moving
1:54:48 city hall over to Pickering?" And it was
1:54:50 like whoa.
1:54:52 So communications I think we want to get
1:54:54 ahead of the community perceptions uh
1:54:57 because there's folks out there who
1:54:59 already think we've made this decision
1:55:01 and so I tried to explain that we are
1:55:04 really in the research um phase of this
1:55:08 project. So but you know how word
1:55:12 travels on the street. So uh so I agree
1:55:15 with council member Martz that we need
1:55:18 full transparency. We need to be
1:55:20 explaining to people where we are in the
1:55:21 process and we need to be aggressive
1:55:24 about that and and uh mark everything
1:55:26 draft draft draft and you know in
1:55:29 process in process in process so uh the
1:55:31 community doesn't get all upset about
1:55:33 something that may not in the end happen
1:55:36 anyway. So um I also fully support the
1:55:39 idea of exploring the Pickering Barn
1:55:41 site. Um, and I understand that
1:55:44 eventually that will become a community
1:55:46 decision, but again on the
1:55:47 communications front, we need to explore
1:55:50 that fully, gather data, be able to
1:55:52 present a full picture of the pros and
1:55:54 cons of each site. Um, and um, I think
1:55:59 it was council member Joe that said you
1:56:01 were supposed to stay on your toes and
1:56:04 keep your ear to the ground, which is
1:56:05 kind of a peculiar picture in my mind,
1:56:08 but um, at any rate, uh, there might be
1:56:11 there might be possibilities of adjacent
1:56:13 land that would be uh, also in the
1:56:17 planning of this. So yeah, I think we
1:56:19 need to be like uh nimble enough to take
1:56:22 advantage of of possibilities as they
1:56:25 arrive. Um, one thing when I was looking
1:56:28 at the projected costs for city hall and
1:56:31 also the projective graph project the
1:56:33 graphics that you are I'd like to I know
1:56:37 that we are not at the point where we're
1:56:38 going to make a design but I think at
1:56:41 the 30,000 level is this going to be a
1:56:43 small utilitarian
1:56:45 uh city hall with limited services and
1:56:49 um limited hours or are we going to
1:56:51 respond to the community um comment
1:56:54 we've heard over and over again that
1:56:56 people want more meeting space, they
1:56:57 want gathering spaces, all of that. So,
1:57:00 is it on the other hand going to be a
1:57:02 large city hall with uh that'll be open
1:57:04 to the public maybe 12 hours a day from
1:57:07 early in the morning until late at
1:57:09 night? And so, I think at the 30,000
1:57:12 foot level, we kind of have to start
1:57:13 talking about what is that because that
1:57:16 will uh certainly impact what the cost
1:57:19 is eventually. So, uh, I think that is
1:57:22 some conversation that we need to start.
1:57:25 Uh, again, I agree again with Council
1:57:28 Member Mart, uh, we should trust our
1:57:31 community and that, uh, if we put
1:57:33 forward, uh, a bond that has been well
1:57:36 vetted, uh, that we've spent a lot of
1:57:39 time explaining,
1:57:40 uh, I think my preference would be for a
1:57:43 voter approved bond for the city hall.
1:57:45 Um, I, you know, again, we need more
1:57:48 information as council member Ray said.
1:57:50 Um, but I would also be interested in
1:57:52 possibly council manic bonds for the IPD
1:57:55 renovation just because I think our
1:57:57 community so strongly supports the idea
1:58:01 of supporting our police um, department.
1:58:04 So, those are my thoughts right now. Um,
1:58:07 and thank you for the opportunity.
1:58:09 >> Great. Thank you, Council President.
1:58:11 >> Thank you. Um, I continue to be
1:58:14 impressed with the task force and their
1:58:17 recommendation, all of the work that has
1:58:19 been done there. So I think that's all
1:58:21 solid finding. Um I appreciate that we
1:58:24 are now taking this to the next level
1:58:26 and talking about you know what are the
1:58:29 possibilities and I I think we are
1:58:32 having the appropriate conversations
1:58:34 there which is really great. Um,
1:58:39 I, you know, just as a baseline, I still
1:58:42 have major concerns about leasing
1:58:44 long-term or phasing the project and
1:58:47 having the Isiqua Police Department and
1:58:49 general government ideas separated. So,
1:58:51 I think keeping those together is um
1:58:54 really important because it's the truth
1:58:56 of the project. Um, I think we need to
1:59:01 be really creative about keeping the
1:59:04 amount we take to voters very low. And I
1:59:06 think there's a lot of ways we can do
1:59:08 that. Whether that is taking the um
1:59:11 one-time funds that we have and using
1:59:14 that to lower the amount or taking some
1:59:18 of those funds or some of the potential
1:59:20 ongoing funds and using that for
1:59:24 lowering the amount by having part of it
1:59:26 be a council manic bond and part of it
1:59:29 going out to the voters which I think
1:59:31 could potentially cut that amount that
1:59:34 we're asking of voters in half. Um, and
1:59:37 I think those are really important
1:59:39 considerations.
1:59:41 Equally important, um, I think is the
1:59:44 scope of the project. And so I agree
1:59:47 with Deputy Council President D.
1:59:49 Michelle that really getting an
1:59:52 understanding of what do we think as a
1:59:55 council is appropriate. Is this a small
2:00:00 limited
2:00:02 um government building or is this
2:00:05 something that could provide community
2:00:07 use um for many of our nonprofits or
2:00:11 Girl Scouts groups and all of those um
2:00:14 as just a way to create um a community
2:00:18 space I think is really important. Um,
2:00:23 and so I think
2:00:26 before we
2:00:29 go too far to the public, I think we
2:00:32 together need a clear vision of what we
2:00:35 think is appropriate. And then that idea
2:00:38 probably needs to be the first thing to
2:00:40 go to the public so that we have a sense
2:00:42 of what size, what scope, what needs are
2:00:46 there
2:00:48 and then we can start to figure out the
2:00:50 financing of that project. Um and then
2:00:55 what other information is needed? Um
2:00:58 agree that we need a lot more financial
2:01:00 information. I love seeing some of this
2:01:02 as the start. Um, but I would like to
2:01:05 see various estimates that would include
2:01:07 the bond amount, the debt service, the
2:01:11 interest, the increase to levy rates,
2:01:14 and the impact to households for various
2:01:17 scenarios. looking at the multiple
2:01:20 different locations.
2:01:22 Um, taking that idea of a partial
2:01:24 council manic and voter approved bond,
2:01:27 figuring out, you know, what are our
2:01:29 options for taking that one-time revenue
2:01:32 and lowering the amount versus utilizing
2:01:34 that for debt service. Um and so those
2:01:40 things and then um Council Member Jen
2:01:43 mentioned earlier the idea of
2:01:45 construction sales tax for capital
2:01:48 projects. I must admit I was a little
2:01:51 bit concerned when that was initially
2:01:53 brought up because I'm like we've been
2:01:54 balancing our budget based on this. But
2:01:56 I do think it is a good point that that
2:01:58 has maybe created too many bumps in our
2:02:02 budget scenario. And so
2:02:06 I think we should look at that for use
2:02:09 on capital projects and potentially a
2:02:11 large portion on this. But I think
2:02:13 before we can effectively do that, we
2:02:16 need to have that budget conversation
2:02:18 around, okay, if we're going to take a
2:02:20 million dollars out, what are we going
2:02:23 to cut? Um because I don't want to
2:02:26 unintentionally make a decision here
2:02:28 that says, "Okay, we are reliant on that
2:02:31 $1 million for this project,
2:02:35 but that's going to have unintended
2:02:37 consequences on cutting services." And
2:02:39 so I think we first need to get our
2:02:42 budget scenarios in a row for that or
2:02:45 come up with options. But I do think
2:02:48 that is probably a good approach looking
2:02:50 forward. I just don't want to start with
2:02:54 yes, this is the right approach without
2:02:56 also recognizing what the impacts are
2:02:58 for our services. So,
2:03:01 >> first round complete.
2:03:04 >> Going to go back for round two. Would
2:03:06 any council member like to add some
2:03:07 comments? Council member Mertz,
2:03:10 >> thank you. Um, for folks who were not
2:03:12 part of the task force, I want to
2:03:14 mention that, you know, I talked about
2:03:15 that our consultants did a very good
2:03:17 job. One of the things they did was they
2:03:18 did a very detailed analysis of the
2:03:20 square footage use and they talked to
2:03:23 the task force about what are you
2:03:25 looking for in terms of community space
2:03:27 and the uh cost estimates that have been
2:03:30 presented here this evening specifically
2:03:33 carry that feedback from the task force.
2:03:35 Now that's not the that's not the beall
2:03:37 and endall decision of what our city
2:03:39 hall should look like, but it is a great
2:03:40 starting point, right? That it isn't
2:03:42 what you know uh Zach and I think uh a
2:03:45 city hall should look like. It was what
2:03:47 the task force felt and it was a it was
2:03:49 a wonderful vision of getting back to
2:03:52 the kind of community space that our
2:03:54 city hall was pre-COVID and and meant a
2:03:57 lot to the community. Thank you.
2:03:58 >> Thanks. Additional second rounds council
2:04:00 member Hall.
2:04:00 >> Well and yeah in addition to that too
2:04:03 and I can't find it in the the report
2:04:05 Autumn but I think we we had data from
2:04:08 the community in terms of like what
2:04:10 would you come to city hall to use in
2:04:12 particular including passports which we
2:04:14 don't do anymore. So that was
2:04:15 interesting. Um, and we had kind of
2:04:18 robust discussion around that too in
2:04:20 terms of priority setting. So, kind of
2:04:21 even getting to what council president
2:04:23 was saying and and deputy council
2:04:24 president around what is it that we want
2:04:26 in a um city hall facility. I thought
2:04:29 the task force did a good job kind of um
2:04:32 getting into the weeds on that and I I
2:04:34 kind of agree with the vision that
2:04:35 they've set there, but I just can't find
2:04:36 it. So, maybe you can help us find it in
2:04:38 the the report because I know we had
2:04:39 those conversations.
2:04:41 >> Great. More second round comments.
2:04:44 Adam, did you want to say something or
2:04:46 >> Sure. We we did also do a community
2:04:48 survey or the task force developed some
2:04:50 questions around how you would best use
2:04:52 community space. Um after we brought
2:04:54 that information back to the task force
2:04:55 and we started estimating the square
2:04:57 footage, um you'll see it's actually a
2:05:00 larger uh city hall than what was first
2:05:02 proposed when we started this project a
2:05:04 couple years ago. And so we did take
2:05:07 that feedback from the task force and we
2:05:09 did hear from the community that they do
2:05:10 want spaces. And what you're seeing is
2:05:12 an estimate that does include robust
2:05:14 community space as part of a a city
2:05:16 hall. So I can I can reshare the the
2:05:18 data from that that survey.
2:05:21 >> Thank you. Still on second round
2:05:23 comments, Council Member Jen.
2:05:25 >> Yeah, I think um you know, as someone
2:05:27 who is on the board of a nonprofit that
2:05:29 doesn't have her own dedicated space and
2:05:31 struggles to find space uh in the city,
2:05:34 I'm very much in support of you know,
2:05:36 making sure that our city hall has those
2:05:38 types of spaces. And I think in terms of
2:05:40 communication, maybe some of those
2:05:41 nonprofits could also, you know, help us
2:05:44 make the case that these community
2:05:46 spaces are super important to the
2:05:47 community. So I think I mean just like
2:05:49 one of the things with the city hall is
2:05:50 that, you know, the average voter
2:05:52 doesn't really care about where the
2:05:54 offices for general government
2:05:56 employees. And so I think for us to be
2:05:58 able to make the case to the community
2:05:59 that this is important, we do have to
2:06:01 say, you know, oh, here's the benefits.
2:06:02 You know, we have these community
2:06:03 spaces. we're going to be able to host
2:06:05 these community events and, you know,
2:06:07 and have that be something that is
2:06:09 actually something that we as a
2:06:11 community are actually investing in
2:06:12 beyond just nice offices for staff,
2:06:14 which is important, too, but
2:06:16 >> uh maybe less appealing to voters.
2:06:18 >> That's great. We do need workspaces. we
2:06:20 can have some flexible workspaces, but
2:06:22 the community is desperately wanting
2:06:24 access not just to whatever the new city
2:06:27 hall campus may be, but to getting onto
2:06:29 school properties and maximizing the use
2:06:31 of the investments that they've made in
2:06:33 school facilities to make sure that the
2:06:35 public has much more access than they
2:06:37 currently have right now. That's a very
2:06:38 good point. Still on second round,
2:06:40 Deputy Council President.
2:06:42 >> Okay. I was sitting here struggling over
2:06:44 whether to ask this question or not, but
2:06:46 I I'll I'll just be brief. So, um, what
2:06:49 are we thinking of in terms of building
2:06:52 height? Because when I looked at the
2:06:53 graphic, it's like, is that a twostory
2:06:55 building, a one-story, uh, one-story
2:06:58 with a 1/2 or is it a threetory? And the
2:07:01 reason I'm asking is I think that the
2:07:02 community will be very interested,
2:07:06 especially if it looks like we're going
2:07:07 to site it here, whether it's a two or
2:07:10 threetory building. So any discussion
2:07:13 about that during the task force and um
2:07:16 and when we put out graphics maybe um
2:07:20 start to address that in a way that you
2:07:23 know when people look at it they can say
2:07:25 well this is the this is kind of the way
2:07:28 that that building is actually going to
2:07:30 look. So
2:07:31 >> yes so for city hall south the estimate
2:07:34 is what you see here is for three
2:07:35 stories. Um same with Pickering. uh
2:07:38 Pickering has a much higher height uh
2:07:42 restriction than the City Hall South
2:07:43 site does. Um so we just did apples to
2:07:47 apples just again this is like very um
2:07:50 initial uh but we can definitely dive
2:07:52 into that a bit more as far as what
2:07:53 other options would look like.
2:07:55 >> Yeah, it would come with further design.
2:07:58 >> Thank you, Autumn. Additional um
2:08:00 comments in this second round?
2:08:04 Well, great. Council member Hall, why
2:08:09 The reason I'm hesitating is I'm like
2:08:11 only half remembering what I wanted to
2:08:13 say was
2:08:18 well okay there's one thing I do
2:08:20 remember I want to say hopefully the
2:08:21 first part I will remember. So the only
2:08:23 the main reason why I brought up um
2:08:27 wanting to explore what just using
2:08:29 council council manic debt for IPD would
2:08:32 look like is
2:08:35 I think
2:08:40 with uh IPD time is not our friend.
2:08:44 things need to happen uh ASAP and even
2:08:48 the timelines are already way out there
2:08:50 and we had you know people in the room
2:08:52 talking to us about the urgency. It was
2:08:55 funny the first day or even before the
2:08:57 first day of the task force you had
2:08:58 taken out most of the task force for a
2:09:00 tour and I think on that tour day zero
2:09:03 task force hadn't even been convened.
2:09:04 They're like what can we do right now?
2:09:06 Can't do anything right now. It's
2:09:08 they're still looking out. So
2:09:12 with city hall, I don't necessarily see
2:09:16 that same level of urgency because I
2:09:18 think that there are some lease
2:09:20 opportunities that
2:09:23 and I'm trying I'm just trying to be
2:09:25 careful and not being specific here. I
2:09:26 think that there are some lease to own
2:09:28 or lease to condominiumize opportunities
2:09:31 that exist. Um
2:09:34 um including
2:09:37 Yeah. Anyways, so I I that I mean that
2:09:42 would still require capital anyway. So I
2:09:45 think it is important to not completely
2:09:47 divorce the two as you're saying, but I
2:09:49 just want to make sure we're all
2:09:50 thinking about um creative opportunities
2:09:54 like you said, council president. I'm
2:09:56 not remembering the first thing that I
2:09:59 wanted to say, which is really
2:10:00 unfortunate. Um,
2:10:04 so I'll just leave that for now and um
2:10:06 send you an email if I think of it
2:10:08 >> and actually copy the rest of the
2:10:09 council when you do that for everybody
2:10:12 to see it. Council member Jen,
2:10:14 >> um, one other thing that I just
2:10:15 remembered that I should have mentioned
2:10:16 earlier was I think one thing we should
2:10:18 include in the potential like council
2:10:20 manic debt portion is I saw there's some
2:10:23 bonds that are expiring in like 2028.
2:10:25 So, I would love to see if we could use
2:10:27 some of that revenue to pay for
2:10:30 additional bonds on the city hall.
2:10:32 >> Thanks. Um, if it's okay, I'm going to
2:10:33 go to council member Martz because I
2:10:35 don't think he's commented as much as
2:10:37 council member Hall so far.
2:10:40 On the subject of council manic bond
2:10:42 authority, um, one thing that I think
2:10:44 would be helpful in a future
2:10:46 conversation, much the same way that at
2:10:49 budget time we have talked about uh,
2:10:51 historical trends in spending and and I
2:10:54 always like to look at per capita real
2:10:57 dollars. Um, if we could get some sort
2:10:59 of a sense of the history of
2:11:01 councilmatic bond use by this body and
2:11:05 if you tell me that on average in
2:11:07 today's dollars we've historically
2:11:09 carried $100 per resident or $500 per
2:11:14 resident or whatever it is and we're
2:11:16 only carrying something less than that
2:11:17 to give us some context of um, you know,
2:11:21 what we've done historically that has
2:11:23 worked for us. I know that our
2:11:25 councilman
2:11:26 load was much much higher when I joined
2:11:28 council in 2009.
2:11:29 >> Um so so I think that would help that
2:11:31 conversation to understand historically
2:11:33 what we've done. It would also help our
2:11:35 conversation with the public, right? If
2:11:36 if we were going to do some of this
2:11:38 through council manic and maybe some of
2:11:39 this through a through a citizen
2:11:42 approved bond. You know, we could have
2:11:44 that conversation about what's a
2:11:45 reasonable uh thing for for us to use
2:11:48 that council manic and what isn't. Thank
2:11:52 >> Council Member Hall. Yeah, I just
2:11:53 remembered and it's just a quick ask for
2:11:55 the next touch. Um if if we could get
2:11:57 some guidance on how we're allowed to
2:11:59 talk about bond measure I bond measures
2:12:02 I know at a certain point it's very
2:12:05 specific um in terms of not necessarily
2:12:08 at like just stating the facts not
2:12:10 advocating for against and stuff like
2:12:11 that. So when does that kind of click in
2:12:13 and and what are our restrictions is
2:12:14 what I'd like to know.
2:12:16 >> A great point. I am not seeing any more
2:12:20 third round potentially fourth round
2:12:23 comments agree especially from coun
2:12:25 council member Hall. Um so there is no
2:12:28 decision this evening. I'm just going to
2:12:29 check with Autumn and Kristen. Do you
2:12:31 need any clarification on anything you
2:12:33 heard or you good for tonight?
2:12:35 >> No, thank you so much for the feedback.
2:12:36 >> Thanks. So no decision this evening.
2:12:38 Thank you for the feedback. More to
2:12:40 come. We're going to move on to the
2:12:42 committee and regional reports and we'll
2:12:43 start with Council Member Jiang.
2:12:46 >> Great. Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um, so I
2:12:48 have one report from the East Side
2:12:50 Transportation Partnership meeting which
2:12:54 was I believe uh two Fridays ago uh uh
2:12:58 October 10th. Um so Sound Transit
2:13:01 presented their 2026 service plan. Um
2:13:04 and there's a couple major notable
2:13:06 changes for Isiqua. So the 554 bus will
2:13:09 be consolidated with the 556. So riders
2:13:12 going from Isqua to Seattle will have to
2:13:14 transfer to the light rail at South
2:13:15 Belleview. And I believe this change
2:13:17 will be made when the light rail over
2:13:19 the bridge opens. There's actually been
2:13:21 there's a survey from Sound Transit out
2:13:23 which was sent out in the Isiqua City
2:13:25 newsletter and I've actually seen people
2:13:26 like posting it in, you know, on Reddit,
2:13:28 in Facebook groups, in WeChat groups.
2:13:31 Um, so it's definitely, you know, people
2:13:32 are becoming aware of this. Um, and uh,
2:13:36 there's also when the light rail over
2:13:38 I90 opens, there's going to be changes
2:13:40 to Metro buses as well, which was not
2:13:42 discussed in this meeting because that
2:13:43 was more focused on the changes to Sound
2:13:44 Transit. Um, but one of the notable
2:13:46 changes that the 269 bus, which
2:13:48 currently runs from Marymore Light
2:13:50 Station to Isqua Transit Center, is
2:13:52 actually going to run from it's going to
2:13:55 go from Marymore Light Station to Isqua
2:13:57 Highlands Transit Center and then go
2:13:59 straight to Mercer Island, which is
2:14:02 interesting and in my opinion unfair to
2:14:05 people who live closer to Isaqua Transit
2:14:07 Center like myself. Um, so but that's
2:14:09 neither here nor there. Um the other
2:14:11 thing that was presented in that meeting
2:14:13 was that uh PSRC staff presented updates
2:14:16 on federal and state policy including
2:14:17 updates on the federal government
2:14:19 shutdown which is still ongoing. Um on
2:14:22 the state revenue forecast um basically
2:14:25 the state revenues are forecasted to be
2:14:27 much lower than they had originally
2:14:29 thought. Um and then on the
2:14:30 transportation revenue forecast, um the
2:14:34 forecasted transportation revenues are
2:14:36 down slightly. Um mostly due to gas
2:14:38 sales being down and EV sales being up.
2:14:41 Um so you know that's kind of just like
2:14:44 structurally as we move away from gas
2:14:46 vehicles towards EVs, it's kind of how
2:14:48 do we you know have money to do all
2:14:50 these transportation projects. So um
2:14:52 yeah, so that's it for the Eastside
2:14:54 Transportation Partnership. Um, and then
2:14:56 for K4C, which is the King County Cities
2:14:58 Climate Collaborative, there's a meeting
2:15:00 this Friday from 1 to 3 PM at the King
2:15:03 County Executive Climate the King County
2:15:05 Executive Office in Seattle. So, I'll be
2:15:06 going there and we'll report back uh in
2:15:08 the next council meeting.
2:15:10 >> Thank you, Council Member.
2:15:14 >> Thank you. The next uh meeting for the
2:15:16 Mobility and Infrastructure Committee
2:15:18 will be November 24th, which is the
2:15:20 Monday of Thanksgiving week. The next
2:15:23 Eltech meeting will be November 17th
2:15:26 and Cascade Board meeting will be the
2:15:29 22nd of October and the public affairs
2:15:33 committee meeting will meet before the
2:15:35 Cascade Board meeting to shoot the whole
2:15:37 afternoon away for all of us. Thank you,
2:15:41 >> Council Member Hall.
2:15:43 >> No report this evening.
2:15:44 >> Thank you, Council Member Bray.
2:15:45 >> Uh, no report.
2:15:47 >> Council member Marks.
2:15:48 >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. You know, before
2:15:50 I get to my report, I'm just struck by
2:15:52 Council Member Jang talking about the
2:15:53 554. I mean,
2:15:55 >> there's a Seahawks game tonight
2:15:57 >> and my spouse is at the game and she
2:16:00 took the 554 in and that 554 is
2:16:04 hopefully going to pick her up at 10:53
2:16:06 p.m. this evening after the game is over
2:16:08 and take her straight back to Isiqua.
2:16:10 And uh it's it's not at 10:54 p.m. you
2:16:14 do not want or 10:53 p.m. you do not
2:16:16 want to be heading off to intermediate
2:16:19 stopping points. So
2:16:22 anyhow uh the Sound Cities Association
2:16:24 Public Issues Committee met uh on
2:16:27 October 8th. The major topics were the
2:16:30 indigent defense case load standards
2:16:32 letter to the legislature. Uh some what
2:16:35 I would call minor uh changes were made.
2:16:39 Um uh
2:16:42 although there was there was an element
2:16:43 to uh uh sort of stick it to the state
2:16:46 bar association which was a little bit
2:16:47 hilarious. Um but other but nothing that
2:16:50 really changed the the fundamental tone
2:16:52 which is that it's all very expensive
2:16:54 and difficult for cities to to comply
2:16:56 and that civilized states do this stuff
2:16:59 at the state level.
2:17:00 >> Um and then there was a conversation
2:17:02 with four culture doors. um they
2:17:05 presented and then we had a conversation
2:17:07 and there was a lot of discussion about
2:17:10 where the funds go versus where the
2:17:13 funds come from and it was interesting
2:17:15 because uh the statement was made that
2:17:18 you know the majority of the uh hotel uh
2:17:23 uh occur in Seattle and that's actually
2:17:24 not not the case. Uh the majority of
2:17:27 hotel beds in King County are outside
2:17:29 the city of Seattle. 17,000 are in
2:17:31 Seattle and 42,000 are in the county
2:17:33 total. So this question, you know, one
2:17:36 of the advantages to pick is that we can
2:17:39 help um sort of provide early and
2:17:42 real-time feedback to organizations as
2:17:44 they go to make their plans. And you
2:17:46 know, they're just a few years away from
2:17:48 um putting forward another uh bond uh
2:17:52 for for culture. And so it's just going
2:17:54 to be really important uh to talk about
2:17:56 where which parts of the community um
2:17:59 get these get these funds. And um so did
2:18:03 its job by sensitizing the to the issue.
2:18:06 So, it was it was helpful. This
2:18:08 concludes my report. Oh, and there's no
2:18:10 uh um uh
2:18:13 services, safety, and parks this month.
2:18:15 We're going to hold off until November
2:18:18 uh for uh for for some staff work. Thank
2:18:21 >> Thank you, Council Member Mart. And
2:18:22 before Deputy Council President starts,
2:18:24 I just want to add in that I do have
2:18:26 staff monitoring what Isqua pays in
2:18:29 versus what's invested in Isiqua. and we
2:18:32 are actually receiving more than I
2:18:35 thought we would. And so while that's
2:18:37 great for Isiqua, it doesn't mean it's
2:18:39 equitable distribution everywhere. So I
2:18:42 was surprised to learn that we were
2:18:43 actually doing fairly well underulture.
2:18:48 >> Deputy Council President,
2:18:50 >> uh thank you. On Wednesday, I um last
2:18:53 Wednesday, I attended the regional
2:18:54 transit committee, actually chaired the
2:18:56 committee last Wednesday. It was a very
2:18:58 brief meeting. We uh looked at the uh
2:19:02 metro uh strategic plan dashboard. Uh
2:19:05 the sound cities association caucus uh
2:19:08 totally agreed that it is much much
2:19:10 improved. I'll send you the slides and
2:19:12 the link to the dashboard because it
2:19:15 really has a lot of good information. Uh
2:19:17 but the meeting itself was u an hour or
2:19:21 less. So very quick. Um and then last
2:19:24 Thursday I attended the board of health
2:19:26 um and uh we did uh unanimously
2:19:31 adopt a resolution stating our support
2:19:34 for access to health care for immigrants
2:19:37 regardless of their status or country of
2:19:39 origin. Uh we are uh the board of health
2:19:43 will be um distributing that resolution
2:19:45 to every city um in King County to the
2:19:49 governor's office and to all of our
2:19:51 congressional and state elected
2:19:53 officials. Um just uh stating our
2:19:56 support for open access for all of our
2:20:00 community.
2:20:02 Then, um, interestingly, earlier this
2:20:05 morning, I sat in on, uh, with the
2:20:09 director of Seattle King County Health,
2:20:11 uh, Dr. Khan. Um, and it was chalk full
2:20:13 of information. So, if you'll just
2:20:15 indulge me for a second, I'll find my
2:20:17 notes. Um, usually these are half an
2:20:20 hour briefings where nobody says very
2:20:22 much and this one went on for an hour
2:20:24 and 15 minutes and there were a lot of
2:20:27 conversational points here. So, first of
2:20:29 all, Dr. Khan said that the CDC as we
2:20:32 know it no longer exists based on the
2:20:36 layoffs now that I think another
2:20:37 thousand were um positions were
2:20:41 eliminated um now that the government is
2:20:43 shut down. Uh so he did bring to our
2:20:46 attention that the West Coast Health
2:20:47 Alliance which is California, Oregon,
2:20:50 California and Hawaii is up and running
2:20:53 and they are weighing in on vaccination
2:20:55 issues and he expects that they'll be
2:20:57 tackling more issues so that they can
2:21:00 provide the guidance that the CDC was
2:21:02 providing. He also said that the
2:21:04 governor is standing up a governor's
2:21:06 health alliance uh which will be
2:21:09 probably he said probably in operation
2:21:11 in six months and again the the point
2:21:13 will be to provide verifiable
2:21:16 scientifically based information to the
2:21:18 public so that we have a place to go to
2:21:20 for information. Uh there is a marked
2:21:24 increase in COVID cases going on right
2:21:25 now and uh public health is expecting
2:21:28 this to last through December. Um and so
2:21:32 everybody get your vaccinations and uh
2:21:35 vaccinations are available in Washington
2:21:37 state. This is not true in every state,
2:21:40 but they are available in Washington
2:21:42 state. Unfortunately, they are not
2:21:44 universally free anymore, but people who
2:21:47 have children that need to be vaccinated
2:21:49 should go on to the Seattle King County
2:21:51 Public Health website and look for
2:21:53 options for free vaccinations for
2:21:55 children under the age of 12. Um,
2:21:59 another thing that he brought up is, uh,
2:22:02 in preparation for the World Cup, there
2:22:04 has been, he called it a plague of
2:22:06 unlicensed food vending going on. And
2:22:10 this is happening all across the
2:22:11 country. And, uh, last year, King County
2:22:15 Public Health got over 300 complaints
2:22:16 about unlicensed vendors, and when the
2:22:19 World Cup comes, they are expecting that
2:22:21 to just explode. Um he explained that
2:22:24 they're um they have a hotline where you
2:22:28 can report and he said they are not
2:22:30 punitive. Their whole approach if
2:22:33 somebody reports an unlicensed food
2:22:35 vendor is to go out to them, see if they
2:22:37 can help them get licensed, get them
2:22:40 training, go through the process of
2:22:42 being licensed. Uh and they even have
2:22:44 funds to help those that can afford
2:22:46 licenses to get licenses. He said it's
2:22:48 not a punitive process. it is they their
2:22:51 main concern is public health and so if
2:22:54 we see somebody um that doesn't have the
2:22:57 license plastered very prominently
2:23:00 please uh report it. Um and then lastly,
2:23:06 you know, the state of Florida has
2:23:07 decided not to vaccinate uh or not to
2:23:10 require vaccinations in the public
2:23:12 schools. And he said even though that's
2:23:14 a long way away from us, people travel.
2:23:18 Uh and he said so they are preparing for
2:23:21 anticipated sporadic outbreaks of
2:23:23 measles, mubs, reubbella, hooping cough,
2:23:25 polio and other diseases and uh because
2:23:29 in our country um uh you cannot isolate
2:23:34 disease to a specific location. It
2:23:37 travels. So I thought we had a really
2:23:40 really interesting discussion. There's a
2:23:43 lot going on in public health and uh it
2:23:46 was really I was really pleased to be
2:23:48 able to sit in on it. It was just for
2:23:51 Sound City Association members. So, it
2:23:53 was really good.
2:23:55 >> Excellent. Council President,
2:23:57 >> no report this evening.
2:23:59 >> Thanks. Um I'm going to go into the
2:24:00 mayor's report and state that there will
2:24:02 not be an executive session this
2:24:03 evening, but now I'm just going to go
2:24:05 off script for a minute. Um, as a
2:24:08 council, I just want to say I am so
2:24:10 appreciative of your regional footprint.
2:24:12 You have one of the biggest of any city
2:24:14 in King County and that was not always
2:24:17 the case. Besides council member Martz
2:24:19 being on pick, we had a relatively small
2:24:21 footprint a dozen years ago and um I
2:24:24 don't know that the community
2:24:24 understands how much extra work you have
2:24:26 taken on and in particular with Deputy
2:24:28 Council President and the board of
2:24:29 health. I don't think we've ever had
2:24:31 anybody on the board of health before.
2:24:32 So, uh, just my gratitude on behalf of
2:24:35 the community for how thin you guys
2:24:36 stretch yourself out throughout the
2:24:38 region. Very much appreciated.
2:24:40 So, your voice matters. Vote now. I want
2:24:43 to encourage everyone in our community
2:24:45 to go out and vote. This upcoming
2:24:47 election is the opportunity to shape the
2:24:49 place you call home. And when you cast
2:24:51 your vote, you help decide who leads,
2:24:54 what priorities are set, and how your
2:24:56 community moves forward. Every vote
2:24:58 matters, so make sure to get your ballot
2:25:00 in by the deadline. And we do have a
2:25:02 dropbox at the police um police station
2:25:05 city hall.
2:25:07 Get to know the two candidates who are
2:25:08 running for Isqua mayor on Wednesday,
2:25:10 October 22nd from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. at
2:25:13 Blakeley Hall. There will be a meet and
2:25:16 greet with candidates starting at 6:30
2:25:18 p.m. followed by the forum at 7 p.m. And
2:25:20 the city of Isiqua will be recording the
2:25:22 forum to post on our YouTube channel for
2:25:25 those who are unable to attend. and
2:25:28 three upcoming events. Join the Isqua
2:25:30 Alps Trails Club at the next public
2:25:32 forum on Wednesday, October 22nd from
2:25:34 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. This in-person event
2:25:36 will feature keynote speaker Dave Up the
2:25:38 Grove, Commissioner of Public Lands, and
2:25:40 a panelist of local EP experts to
2:25:43 discuss stewarding healthy forests in
2:25:45 the Isqua Alps and beyond. This event is
2:25:47 free and open to the public.
2:25:49 Registration is required, so for more
2:25:51 information, visit the Isqua Alps Trail
2:25:53 Club website. and introduction to
2:25:56 emergency preparedness. An emergency can
2:25:58 happen at any time. And are you prepared
2:26:00 for the next one? Learn basic emergency
2:26:03 preparedness principles from the Isiqua
2:26:05 Community Emergency Response Team on
2:26:07 Saturday, October 25th from 400 p.m. to
2:26:10 5:30 p.m. at the Isiqua Library.
2:26:13 Registration is required and check the
2:26:14 library's website for more information.
2:26:17 And Boo at the Barn is back. It returns
2:26:19 this Friday with a weekend full of
2:26:21 frightful fun, including carnival games,
2:26:24 spooky vendors, fire pits, and s'mores.
2:26:27 Skate if you dare. Come to the Haunt the
2:26:29 Rink for a spooky roller skating
2:26:31 experience to chilling tunes and haunted
2:26:33 vibes. Dare to enter the woods? Be brave
2:26:36 and wander the psychopath filled with
2:26:38 shadows and surprises lurking in the
2:26:40 dark. Space is limited, so
2:26:42 pre-registration is highly recommended.
2:26:44 Don't miss this new magical fall
2:26:47 tradition.
2:26:49 Um, good of the order. Any council
2:26:51 members with items for good of the
2:26:52 order? Council President,
2:26:55 >> thank you. Um, no. Pumpkins. Pumpkins is
2:26:59 deputy council president. So,
2:27:01 definitely. Uh, I was just going to riff
2:27:04 on what the mayor said about our
2:27:06 regional footprint and just note that
2:27:09 the SEA applications, Sound Cities
2:27:12 Association applications for um, this
2:27:16 next year are coming up and so expect
2:27:19 uh, Deputy Council President to reach
2:27:22 out as we're trying to determine since
2:27:24 we are losing some members what
2:27:27 opportunities we have to serve um, on
2:27:30 SEA boards as well as in some of our
2:27:34 other um local opportunities. So just we
2:27:38 will be reaching out. Thanks.
2:27:41 >> Deputy Council President, anything on
2:27:43 pumpkins?
2:27:45 >> I have one.
2:27:47 >> Okay, good.
2:27:48 >> And I also have the platform. Uh so I
2:27:52 will be reaching out to see when we're
2:27:54 going to uh when we're going to decorate
2:27:57 it. I have a in my mind a possible theme
2:28:00 but I will share that
2:28:02 >> privately
2:28:03 >> because it is a contest.
2:28:05 >> It is a contest. So I will share that.
2:28:07 Uh it'll be uh I think it's okay to do
2:28:11 that. I think it's okay to share
2:28:13 >> pumpkin information privately. So
2:28:16 >> yeah,
2:28:16 >> pumpkin information is fine. Just don't
2:28:18 vote on it.
2:28:19 >> Right. So uh yeah, that's my f pumpkin
2:28:23 report.
2:28:24 >> Great. Council member Joe.
2:28:27 Thank you. Uh if this announcement's
2:28:29 already been made, I apologize, but uh
2:28:32 the Isqua Arts uh uh organization got a
2:28:36 inaugural community contribution award
2:28:38 from the state of Washington tourism for
2:28:40 their recent film festival and uh it's a
2:28:43 a great honor that uh they got. It was a
2:28:45 fantastic film festival during the
2:28:47 summer and uh look forward to the next
2:28:49 one that will be coming um hopefully in
2:28:52 2026. Thank you.
2:28:53 >> That's great. Thank you. Any other good
2:28:56 of the order? Going to announce a few
2:28:58 upcoming meetings. Uh there's a special
2:29:00 city council meeting on Monday, October
2:29:02 27th at 6:30 p.m. And the anticipated
2:29:05 agenda items include the 202526
2:29:09 midbayenium budget adjustment. And due
2:29:12 to the election being held the first
2:29:14 week of November, the next regular city
2:29:16 council meeting will be Monday, November
2:29:18 10th. The anticipated agenda items
2:29:20 include the 2026 school impact fees,
2:29:24 fire code permit fee increase and fee
2:29:26 pass through, central Isqua multimmoal
2:29:29 I90 crossing study update, BNO tax
2:29:32 online payment processor agreement,
2:29:35 washds transfer of development rights
2:29:38 development agreement extension for
2:29:40 Belleview College
2:29:43 and their exe this evening. I'm going to
2:29:47 adjourn us at 9:31.

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 Lehner, Deputy City Administrator
Rachel Bender Turpin, City Attorney
Tisha Gieser, City Clerk

Motions and votes (2)

approve the consent agenda as presented. . a)
Moved by Council President Walsh · seconded by Deputy Council President de Michele
Carried 7-0
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
Authorize the Mayor to accept the Utility Rate Study Report, in substantially the same form as the attached draft report as approved as final by the Public Works Director; and Adopt Ordinance No. 3116, amending Water General Facility Charges and Bi-monthly Rates, and Adopt Ordinance No. 3117, amendi…
Moved by Councilmember Joe · seconded by Council President Walsh
Carried 7-0
In favor: de Michele, Hall, Jiang, Joe, Marts, Reh, Walsh