City Council Regular Meeting

Monday, November 17, 2025

7:00 PM · 3h 15m · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

Topics tracked across meetings:

Sunrise Pl to Sycamore Emergency Access Project (ST 021) Design Contract Amendment #1 AB 9131 › 1/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 17, 2025 → City Council Regular Meeting · Feb 2, 2026

View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Feb 2, 2026 ▶

Central Issaquah Multimodal I-90 Crossing Study Update AB 9017 ›››››››› 9/9

City Council Regular Meeting · Aug 5, 2024 → Economic Vitality Commission · Sep 18, 2024 → Transportation Advisory Board · Sep 25, 2024 → Transportation Advisory Board · Mar 26, 2025 → Economic Vitality Commission · Apr 16, 2025 → Transportation Advisory Board · Apr 23, 2025 → Economic Vitality Commission · May 21, 2025 → Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Sep 16, 2025 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 17, 2025

◀ Prev: Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Sep 16, 2025 View full lifecycle →

2025-2026 Mid-Biennium Budget Adjustment AB 9053 ››››› 6/6

City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 2, 2024 → City Council Committee of the Whole · Oct 13, 2025 → City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 20, 2025 → City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 27, 2025 → City Council Special Meeting · Oct 27, 2025 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 17, 2025

◀ Prev: City Council Special Meeting · Oct 27, 2025 View full lifecycle →

Small Business Saturday Proclamation ID 1867 ›››› 5/5

Economic Vitality Commission · Jul 20, 2022 → Economic Vitality Commission · Aug 17, 2022 → Economic Vitality Commission · Sep 21, 2022 → Economic Vitality Commission · Oct 19, 2022 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 17, 2025

◀ Prev: Economic Vitality Commission · Oct 19, 2022 View full lifecycle →

Issaquah Sustainable Building and Infrastructure Policy Update AB 9070 ›››› 5/5

Environmental Board · Feb 12, 2025 → Environmental Board · Sep 10, 2025 → Environmental Board · Oct 8, 2025 → Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Oct 14, 2025 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 17, 2025

◀ Prev: Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Oct 14, 2025 View full lifecycle →

2026 Property Tax Levy AB 9052 ›› 3/3

Transportation Advisory Board · Apr 23, 2025 → City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 20, 2025 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 17, 2025

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 20, 2025 View full lifecycle →

Amendments to Financial Policy & Travel & Procurement Card Policies AB 9064 › 2/2

City Council Committee of the Whole · Sep 29, 2025 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 17, 2025

◀ Prev: City Council Committee of the Whole · Sep 29, 2025 View full lifecycle →

Franchise Agreement with Forged Fiber 37, LLC AB 9086 › 2/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 10, 2025 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 17, 2025

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 10, 2025 View full lifecycle →

MetroFlex Contract Extension ID 1938 › 2/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 27, 2025 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 17, 2025

View full lifecycle →

3. SPECIAL BUSINESS

Small Business Saturday Proclamation ID 1867

Receive Report · 5 min · packet pp.5

Topics: Economic Development

▶ Watch from 3:16 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

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

5. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll of Nov. 17, 2025, $6,847,489.70 ID 1933

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.7–12

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 13:23 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

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

Roll call:

Moved by Walsh · seconded by de Michele

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

Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, Oct. 20, 2025

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.13–17

▶ Watch from 13:36 Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR b) 10-20-25 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page (0000) CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Regular Meeting 7:00 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. October 20, 2025 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

Roll call:

Moved by Walsh · seconded by de Michele

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

Minutes: City Council Special Meeting, Oct. 27, 2025

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.19–21

▶ Watch from 13:48 Open packet at p.19 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR c) 10-27-25 City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page (0000) CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Special Meeting 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. October 27, 2025 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

Roll call:

Moved by Walsh · seconded by de Michele

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

Amendments to Financial Policy & Travel & Procurement Card Policies AB 9064

Carried 7-0

Adopt Ordinance; Approve Resolutions · packet pp.23–84

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 14:00 Open packet at p.23 ↗

Staff report:

The Financial Management Policies were last amended on June 24, 2024. The Travel & Meals Policy and Procurement Card Policy were adopted in 2021.

Roll call:

Moved by Walsh · seconded by de Michele

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

Issaquah Sustainable Building and Infrastructure Policy Update AB 9070

Carried 7-0

Approve Resolution · packet pp.85–105

Topics: Climate

▶ Watch from 14:13 Open packet at p.85 ↗

Staff report:

In 2024, the City of Issaquah began the process of updating the 2004 Sustainable Building and Infrastructure Policy. This project is identified as a priority action in both the Issaquah Climate Action Plan (ICAP) and the Sustainable Building Action Plan.

Roll call:

Moved by Walsh · seconded by de Michele

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

Franchise Agreement with Forged Fiber 37, LLC AB 9086

Carried 7-0

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.107–129

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 14:25 Open packet at p.107 ↗

Staff report:

Forged Fiber 37, LLC is purchasing a portion of the existing fiber optic cable network owned by CenturyLink / Lumen located within the City right-of-way. They desire to operate, maintain, and install telecommunications facilities within the City ROW, including but not limited to the fiber optic cable network mentioned above. Forged Fiber 37, LLC is requesting a new franchise agreement for these telecommunications facilities. Forged Fiber 37, LLC currently does not have a franchise agreement within the City and is considered a new provider. Forged Fiber 37, LLC has not indicated any immediate plans to add to the existing network that they have purchased from Century Link / Lumen.

Roll call:

Moved by Walsh · seconded by de Michele

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

2025 Flood Reduction Grant for Sunrise Pl to Sycamore Emergency Access Project (ST 021) AB 9093

Carried 7-0

Accept Grant; Authorize Agreement · packet pp.131–141

Topics: Public SafetyWater

▶ Watch from 14:38 Open packet at p.131 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration selected and contracted with RH2 Engineering, Inc. (RH2) in 2024 to evaluate two existing 12-inch culverts along the emergency access route between Sunrise Place and the Sycamore neighborhood. Recent storms resulted in overtopping of these culverts, spilling over the emergency access route between Sunrise Place and the Sycamore neighborhood and exposing water and sewer utilities when the culverts were at capacity. City operations crews have repaired the upstream ends of both culverts, but the downstream ends appear to be partially collapsed. Future storms could inundate the culverts, threaten the sewer and water utilities, and obstruct the emergency access route.

Roll call:

Moved by Walsh · seconded by de Michele

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

2025 Unclaimed Property: Cancellation of Unredeemed City Checks AB 9094

Carried 7-0

Approve Resolution · packet pp.143–147

▶ Watch from 14:50 Open packet at p.143 ↗

Staff report:

On an annual basis, the City of Issaquah is required to report to the Washington DOR as well as any other applicable state(s), all checks that meet the definition of unclaimed property (RCW 63.30). In Washington State, the abandonment period for all unredeemed checks is one year. The 2025 reporting year includes an abandonment range of July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024.

Roll call:

Moved by Walsh · seconded by de Michele

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

Eastside Transportation Partnership Interlocal Agreement AB 9102

Carried 7-0

Authorize · packet pp.149–157

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 15:02 Open packet at p.149 ↗

Staff report:

Issaquah has been a member of the ETP since it was formed in 1987. The ETP does not supersede City authority or decision making, rather it is a partnership and regional board that coordinates regional transportation needs .ETP responsibilities include:  Develop and adopt a package of transportation priorities based on adopted land use plans that improves overall mobility for people, freight and goods, and addressing peak hour congestion on the Eastside.  Jointly implement adopted priorities through leadership, education, and advocacy within communities, cities and the region.  Adopt and implement a strategy for increasing funding for transportation improvements and programs.  Develop a legislative agenda outlining ETP priorities.

Roll call:

Moved by Walsh · seconded by de Michele

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

6. PUBLIC HEARING

2025-2026 Mid-Biennium Budget Adjustment AB 9053

Conduct Public Hearing (Action to be taken · 20 min · packet pp.159–213

Topics: Budget

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 2, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 27, 2025

Open packet at p.159 ↗

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 32 items adjusting 9 15 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 $340,495 of the increased expenditures.

7. REGULAR BUSINESS

MetroFlex Contract Extension ID 1938

Direct Administration · 30 min · packet pp.215–227

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 27, 2025

▶ Watch from 15:15 Open packet at p.215 ↗

Staff report:

The City Administration provided an update to City Council on the pilot MetroFlex services contract at the September 29, 2025 Committee of the Whole. The City Council provided feedback at the October 27, 2025 City Council special meeting on the mid biennium budget update to the Administration to fully fund and renew the MetroFlex services contract for 2026-2027. At the November 10 City Council regular meeting, City Council directed the Administration to return on November 17 to discuss contract terms and options.

2025-2026 Mid-Biennium Budget Adjustment

Carried 6-1

Adopt Ordinance · 20 min · packet pp.229–242

Topics: Land UseBudget

▶ Watch from 15:59 Open packet at p.229 ↗

Staff report:

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

Roll call:

Moved by Council President Walsh · seconded by Deputy Council President de Michele

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, and Council President Walsh

Opposed: Chris Reh

Amendment considered (1):

AMENDMENT: Amend the ordinance to remove $150,000 for consulting fees to implement the EcoNW Report. Failed 3-4

Moved by Councilmember Jiang · seconded by Councilmember Marts

In favor: Kelly Jiang, Tola Marts, and Councilmember Reh

Opposed: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Russell Joe, and Council President Walsh

2026 Property Tax Levy AB 9052

Carried 7-0

Adopt Ordinance · 10 min · packet pp.243–300

Topics: Land UseBudget

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Jul 5, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting · Aug 5, 2024 Transportation Advisory Board · Sep 25, 2024 Transportation Advisory Board · Apr 23, 2025

▶ Watch from 16:29 Open packet at p.243 ↗

Staff report:

E. Crossing Study Scoring

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, and Council President Walsh

Central Issaquah Multimodal I-90 Crossing Study Update AB 9017

Carried 7-0

Approve · 30 min

Topics: Land UseTransportation

▶ Watch from 16:43

Roll call:

Moved by Deputy Council President de Michele · seconded by Councilmember Joe

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

10. GOOD OF THE ORDER

10a

Upcoming Council Meetings

4658 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ Welcome everyone. I'm calling the

0:10 ↗ November 17th city council meeting to

0:12 ↗ order. As a reminder, we continue to

0:14 ↗ have a remote aspect to our meetings and

0:16 ↗ both staff and members of the public may

0:18 ↗ be participating in tonight's meeting

0:20 ↗ remotely via WebEx. Next item on the

0:23 ↗ agenda is the pledge of allegiance and I

0:24 ↗ invite you to join.

0:28 ↗ I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

0:31 ↗ United States of America and to the

0:33 ↗ republic for which it stands, one nation

0:37 ↗ under God, indivisible, with liberty and

0:40 ↗ justice for all.

0:45 ↗ >> I have a little agenda addition um last

0:48 ↗ minute addition. I'm going to turn this

0:49 ↗ over to city administrator Wally

0:51 ↗ Bobcowitz who would like to introduce

0:53 ↗ the executive director of the city of

0:54 ↗ Isiqua Fourth of July commission to the

0:57 ↗ council and to the public this evening.

0:59 ↗ Wally.

0:59 ↗ >> Great. Thank you, Madam Mayor, members

1:00 ↗ of the council. Good evening. Uh Janie,

1:02 ↗ could you come up?

1:08 ↗ As you all know, Mayor Paulie uh this

1:10 ↗ year appointed a uh a special uh

1:12 ↗ commission to uh coordinate the city's

1:15 ↗ celebration of America's 250th birthday

1:18 ↗ next 4th of July. Uh and we've been

1:20 ↗ fortunate uh to find an individual uh

1:23 ↗ that has volunteered to be the executive

1:25 ↗ director of the commission to lead the

1:26 ↗ city's efforts uh in our celebration.

1:29 ↗ And that's Janie Bube. Uh Janie uh has a

1:32 ↗ day job uh and her day job is as program

1:35 ↗ manager for the Pacific Bonsai Museum uh

1:38 ↗ in Seattle uh where she directs

1:40 ↗ community events uh with them, manage

1:42 ↗ manages their volunteer program um and

1:45 ↗ develops uh uh educational programs uh

1:48 ↗ at the museum. Prior to that, she worked

1:50 ↗ for uh center on contemporary art. And

1:53 ↗ then while she was a graduate student,

1:55 ↗ this shows the little bit of uh

1:57 ↗ connection she has to cities, she

1:59 ↗ started a company uh that designed uh in

2:03 ↗ pavement lighted crosswalks and came up

2:05 ↗ with uh some new technologies uh to put

2:08 ↗ toward that. So she has that that city

2:10 ↗ connection uh to her. Um she has a

2:12 ↗ bachelor's degree from Seattle

2:13 ↗ University um and two master's degrees

2:16 ↗ uh from the University of Washington,

2:18 ↗ one in communications and one in

2:21 ↗ landscape architecture. So Janie, we're

2:24 ↗ really pleased to have you join the team

2:26 ↗ and help us with our celebration of

2:27 ↗ America's 250th birthday next year. Do

2:29 ↗ you want to say a few words?

2:31 ↗ >> And I'm going to get you to press the

2:32 ↗ button on the microphone pad. When you

2:34 ↗ see the red light, you're good to go.

2:41 ↗ Unless it's a microphone, which we'll

2:43 ↗ find out in about 10 seconds.

2:45 ↗ >> Oh, I have to press it for the record.

2:46 ↗ [laughter] Got it. Welcome.

2:48 ↗ >> Thank you. I'm thrilled to be here and

2:50 ↗ very excited to make um the Fourth of

2:52 ↗ July a community-based um local focused

2:56 ↗ event and really make um the

2:58 ↗ commission's vision and the community's

3:00 ↗ vision come to life. So, thank you for

3:02 ↗ having me.

3:03 ↗ >> Very excited. Welcome and thanks for

3:05 ↗ coming tonight to be introduced to the

3:07 ↗ council. I really appreciate that.

3:08 ↗ >> Thank you.

3:09 ↗ >> Thank you, city administrator.

3:10 ↗ >> Do I turn?

3:11 ↗ >> The next item on our agenda this evening

3:13 ↗ is ID1867 and it's a small business

3:16 ↗ Saturday proclamation and I'd like to

3:18 ↗ invite Ellen Mole to come over to that

3:20 ↗ microphone with me. This one Ellen is

3:23 ↗ the Gilman Village Merchants Association

3:26 ↗ from the Gilman Village Merchants

3:27 ↗ Association and Ellen is also a member

3:29 ↗ of the planning policy commission.

3:33 ↗ >> Thank you.

3:35 ↗ >> I'm gonna read and then you can

3:37 ↗ Oh, goody. Goody. Oh,

3:40 ↗ >> so Ellen has just been um wonderfully

3:43 ↗ adept at making sure I understand the

3:45 ↗ history of this amazing treasure we have

3:47 ↗ in town called Gim Gilman Village. And

3:49 ↗ when we talk about small businesses, I

3:51 ↗ think I lived here 5 days before a

3:53 ↗ neighbor told me, "You have to go down

3:54 ↗ and check this area out." And that was

3:56 ↗ back in 1993. It has a storied history.

3:59 ↗ It's been an incubator for small

4:00 ↗ businesses for decades. And um we're

4:04 ↗ very proud to have them here and glad to

4:06 ↗ see them thriving. Last Christmas was

4:08 ↗ one of the most exciting things I've

4:09 ↗ seen. I' I had to park three blocks away

4:11 ↗ to get parking. That was shocking. So

4:14 ↗ it's really an honor to be able to talk

4:15 ↗ about Small Business Saturday with such

4:17 ↗ a storied history in our community, the

4:19 ↗ Gilman Village owners. So whereas the

4:21 ↗ Saturday after Thanksgiving every year

4:23 ↗ is recognized as Small Business

4:25 ↗ Saturday, and whereas the city of Isiqua

4:28 ↗ celebrates our local small businesses

4:30 ↗ and the contributions they make to our

4:31 ↗ local economy and our community. And

4:34 ↗ whereas according to the United States

4:36 ↗ Small Business Administration, small

4:38 ↗ businesses make up 99.9%

4:40 ↗ of all businesses in the United States.

4:42 ↗ And these small businesses are

4:44 ↗ responsible for 64% of new net jobs

4:47 ↗ created since 1995. And whereas most

4:51 ↗ consumers understand the importance of

4:52 ↗ supporting local small businesses,

4:54 ↗ especially on small business Saturday

4:57 ↗ and report this day encourages them to

4:59 ↗ shop small all year long. And whereas

5:02 ↗ the Isiqua Loyal campaign encourages the

5:04 ↗ Isiqua community to shop local and small

5:07 ↗ and community members can support local

5:09 ↗ merchants by using the Isiqua Loyal

5:11 ↗ holiday shopping guide. And whereas our

5:13 ↗ vision partners, the collaboration of

5:15 ↗ Isiqua's economic development

5:17 ↗ organizations supports the success of

5:19 ↗ small businesses throughout the year.

5:22 ↗ And so now, therefore, I, Mary Polly,

5:24 ↗ the mayor of the city of Isqua, do

5:25 ↗ recognize November 29th, 2025 to be

5:28 ↗ Small Business Saturday. And I'd like to

5:30 ↗ give Ellen a chance to address you all.

5:32 ↗ >> Well, I I wasn't sure I'd have a chance

5:34 ↗ to speak, so I haven't prepared notes.

5:37 ↗ We we really appreciate that Isaqua um

5:41 ↗ war uh hugs Gilman Village and cares

5:45 ↗ very much about seeing it succeed. A

5:48 ↗ number of you may know we have another

5:50 ↗ generation that's coming in. Our

5:52 ↗ daughter Lena, who is Ruth and Marvin's

5:54 ↗ granddaughter, has started taking the

5:56 ↗ helm. So, we hope that we will continue

5:59 ↗ to prosper in Isiqua. And thank you so

6:02 ↗ much for being supportive of small

6:04 ↗ businesses,

6:05 ↗ >> small businesses

6:06 ↗ >> and Isiqua businesses, homegrown Isiqua

6:09 ↗ businesses. So, the last order of

6:11 ↗ business is I'm going to get our city

6:12 ↗ administrator to take a picture so we

6:13 ↗ can tell this story.

6:23 ↗ [applause]

6:29 ↗ [applause]

6:37 ↗ Thank you so much, Ellen. Uh the next

6:38 ↗ item on our agenda this evening is

6:40 ↗ audience comments and members of the

6:42 ↗ public may address the council at this

6:43 ↗ time in person or virtually. Those who

6:46 ↗ signed up in advance to make comments

6:47 ↗ will be called on first. And if you're

6:50 ↗ joining us virtually and would like to

6:51 ↗ make comments, please raise your virtual

6:53 ↗ hand or send the host a chat message. If

6:56 ↗ you're on the phone, press star three.

6:58 ↗ If you've joined by computer or

7:00 ↗ smartphone, look for a hand icon. And if

7:02 ↗ you're in the room and did not sign up,

7:03 ↗ I will ask for other speakers before

7:05 ↗ closing this portion of the meeting. Uh

7:07 ↗ there's also a public hearing tonight.

7:09 ↗ AB9053 is the 2025 2026 midbenium budget

7:13 ↗ adjustment. Comments on this item should

7:15 ↗ be made during the public hearing that

7:17 ↗ occurs later in the meeting. Um city

7:19 ↗ clerk, has anyone signed up to speak for

7:21 ↗ general audience comments?

7:23 ↗ >> Yes.

7:24 ↗ >> Thanks. So just a few notes. If you're

7:26 ↗ making comments, you're invited to

7:28 ↗ address the council regarding matters

7:30 ↗ that are directly related to programs,

7:33 ↗ projects, services, or events. Um,

7:36 ↗ please direct comments to the whole

7:37 ↗ council and not individuals. And while

7:39 ↗ this is not a question and answer

7:41 ↗ session, we will contact you to follow

7:42 ↗ up if needed. When you are recognized,

7:45 ↗ if you're a virtual intend attendee,

7:47 ↗ please unmute mute your microphone. If

7:49 ↗ you're in the room with us, please step

7:50 ↗ up to the lectern in the center and

7:52 ↗ there is a button on the base of it that

7:54 ↗ you can turn the microphone on till you

7:56 ↗ see the red light. Please state your

7:58 ↗ name and address or relationship to the

8:00 ↗ city and speak clearly and pause

8:01 ↗ frequently. Please limit your comments

8:03 ↗ to 5 minutes. If you are attending

8:05 ↗ virtually and you do not respond after

8:07 ↗ your name or phone number is called or

8:08 ↗ if your connection is lost unexpectedly,

8:11 ↗ the meeting will need to proceed and you

8:12 ↗ are encouraged to rejoin the meeting if

8:14 ↗ able. Personal attacks, obscene

8:16 ↗ language, derogatory remarks, and

8:17 ↗ disruptive behavior will not be

8:19 ↗ permitted. Public comments, written and

8:21 ↗ verbal, are an important aspect of the

8:23 ↗ public process and the city takes

8:24 ↗ comments seriously. We thank you all for

8:27 ↗ taking time to address us this evening.

8:29 ↗ Uh, city clerk, can you please identify

8:31 ↗ the first person who signed up to speak?

8:32 ↗ Yes, Kevin Nichols.

8:41 ↗ >> Thank you. Uh, my name is Kevin Nichols

8:43 ↗ and I live at 352 Wilderness Peak Drive

8:45 ↗ Northwest in Isqua. Uh, I'm here tonight

8:48 ↗ to comment on agenda bill 9017.

8:51 ↗ This is the central Isiqua multimmoal

8:53 ↗ I90 crossing study update.

8:56 ↗ I want to express my concern about the

8:58 ↗ path that we're taking with this. Not

9:01 ↗ because I oppose connectivity across

9:02 ↗ I90, but because I'm worried we are on

9:05 ↗ track to miss a once in a generation

9:06 ↗ opportunity to get this right.

9:09 ↗ This study repeatedly references

9:11 ↗ integration with future light rail. It

9:14 ↗ is the very first goal stated in the

9:16 ↗ evaluation framework. It's cited

9:19 ↗ throughout the report as a core

9:20 ↗ justification for pursuing this

9:22 ↗ crossing. But when you look at the

9:24 ↗ designs, there is no meaningful analysis

9:27 ↗ of what integration with light rail

9:29 ↗ would look like in practice. Not a

9:31 ↗ single conceptual station layout, not

9:34 ↗ one shared circulation plan showing how

9:36 ↗ people would access light rail, and not

9:38 ↗ even a consideration of pedestrian first

9:40 ↗ connections into the station footprint.

9:43 ↗ There is nothing showing that this

9:45 ↗ bridge would truly improve transit

9:46 ↗ access rather than simply accommodate

9:48 ↗ the cars driving nearby.

9:52 ↗ If this project really exists to support

9:54 ↗ light rail, that relation relationship

9:57 ↗ should be visible and obvious. Right

9:59 ↗ now, it's not. And if anything,

10:02 ↗ approving a car bridge before Sound

10:04 ↗ Transit has even begun station design

10:06 ↗ risks making light rail integration

10:08 ↗ harder, not easier. Without intentional

10:11 ↗ coordination now, we could lock in a

10:13 ↗ design that constrains where that

10:15 ↗ station can go or guarantees costly

10:17 ↗ redesigns in the future.

10:20 ↗ My second concern is the lack of any

10:22 ↗ pedestrian and bike only options in the

10:24 ↗ study. The document mentions light rail

10:26 ↗ repeatedly as a reason to build this and

10:28 ↗ prior public comment from the community

10:31 ↗ mentions active mobility as a priority.

10:35 ↗ But every design presented is

10:36 ↗ fundamentally a car bridge with some

10:39 ↗ pedestrian and back bike access added

10:41 ↗ on. Further, given the significant

10:44 ↗ financial concerns that have been

10:45 ↗ brought up multiple times in the past

10:47 ↗ regarding this project, we should be at

10:49 ↗ least looking at the most cost-effective

10:51 ↗ options. And yet, the most

10:53 ↗ cost-effective, lowest carbon, highest

10:55 ↗ [snorts] impact way to support a future

10:57 ↗ rail station, prioritizing bike and

10:59 ↗ pedestrian access to transit appears not

11:01 ↗ to have been considered. A lighter, less

11:05 ↗ expensive bike and pedestrian bridge

11:07 ↗ would create the exact kind of walkable

11:09 ↗ transit oriented environment we say we

11:11 ↗ want. And it would have a much greater

11:14 ↗ probability of actually being able to

11:16 ↗ get funded and built. Right now, you're

11:20 ↗ being asked to accept a design that

11:21 ↗ looks backwards, not forwards. This is a

11:24 ↗ design that reflects the plan and

11:25 ↗ priorities of the 1970s.

11:28 ↗ A highway project, not the 21st century

11:31 ↗ transit oriented neighborhoods we want

11:33 ↗ to be planning for. We should be able to

11:36 ↗ look at something amazing and

11:37 ↗ imaginative and future oriented. And

11:39 ↗ instead, we're getting a bridge from the

11:41 ↗ past. I hope the council will pause and

11:44 ↗ ask for alternatives that truly support

11:46 ↗ transit that prioritize lowcost

11:48 ↗ pedestrian and bike access and that

11:50 ↗ align with the vision we keep saying we

11:52 ↗ have for central Isqua. Thank you.

11:55 ↗ >> Thank you. City clerk. Is there anyone

11:56 ↗ else who signed up?

11:58 ↗ >> No one else has signed up for general

12:00 ↗ comments. Um Tom, I believe you signed

12:03 ↗ up under the public hearing.

12:05 ↗ >> Okay. So, um no one else has signed up

12:07 ↗ for audience comments. Thank you. That

12:09 ↗ will come a little later. Um he's wasn't

12:12 ↗ going to speak on the budget. He has

12:14 ↗ another issue. So I think he actually is

12:16 ↗ for general comments.

12:19 ↗ >> The public hearing. He would like to

12:20 ↗ speak now.

12:21 ↗ >> Okay. Wonderful. Come on up.

12:24 ↗ >> You can come up now to the microphone.

12:36 ↗ >> Oh, not even general comments.

12:38 ↗ You found a friend in the audience.

12:40 ↗ Okay, [laughter]

12:43 ↗ thank you so much. Uh, is there anyone

12:46 ↗ else here to speak this evening?

12:48 ↗ >> City clerk, can you look online and

12:50 ↗ verify if we have speakers there?

12:52 ↗ >> Yeah, we have a few members of the

12:53 ↗ public with us virtually, but I'm not

12:55 ↗ seeing any of them indicate a desire to

12:58 ↗ speak. Just waiting a minute here.

13:02 ↗ Nothing. Thank you, city clerk. Um, so

13:05 ↗ thank you for the comments this evening.

13:07 ↗ We heard about AB9017

13:10 ↗ concerns over integration with the

13:11 ↗ overpass with the light rail station.

13:14 ↗ And as a reminder, written comments can

13:17 ↗ be submitted at any time to the C city

13:19 ↗ council at isiqua.gov.

13:22 ↗ So the next item of business we have on

13:23 ↗ the calendar is the consent calendar.

13:25 ↗ And I do not have any more remarks

13:28 ↗ tonight on the calendar, but I do know

13:29 ↗ at least one of our chairs does or one

13:31 ↗ of our council members. So, Council

13:32 ↗ Member Ray,

13:36 ↗ >> thanks. Um, I want to speak to agenda

13:38 ↗ bill 9064

13:40 ↗ today, which is amendments to the

13:42 ↗ financial policies, travel and

13:44 ↗ procurement card policies. And I

13:46 ↗ understand the desire to um modify these

13:51 ↗ uh our financial policies u quickly, but

13:54 ↗ I'm concerned that we are making these

13:56 ↗ changes with really minimal guidance

13:58 ↗ from the council. And historically,

14:01 ↗ changes to financial policies have been

14:02 ↗ made by the council with assistance from

14:04 ↗ the administration. And these updates

14:07 ↗ seem to be kind of uh upside down to me

14:10 ↗ with the administration making the

14:12 ↗ changes with um guidance from the the

14:16 ↗ council. So I urge the council going

14:18 ↗ forward to take ownership of the

14:21 ↗ financial policies. The primary focus of

14:23 ↗ the city council is to manage the city's

14:26 ↗ finances and to make policy for the

14:28 ↗ city. And um this is the intersection of

14:31 ↗ the financial policies. So, um I think I

14:35 ↗ am fine with what's in it, but but I am

14:37 ↗ uh I am sounding a tale of caution to

14:41 ↗ make sure that you do not give away this

14:43 ↗ very very important policy going

14:45 ↗ forward.

14:46 ↗ >> Thank you, Council Member Ray. Are there

14:48 ↗ any other chairs who would like to make

14:50 ↗ comments on any of the items on the

14:51 ↗ consent calendar? I am not seeing any

14:53 ↗ head nods. The consent calendar was

14:55 ↗ distributed to council in advance and if

14:57 ↗ authorized the items on the consent

14:59 ↗ calendar will be considered together and

15:01 ↗ approved by one motion. Have the

15:02 ↗ payables and payroll been reviewed?

15:04 ↗ >> They have.

15:07 ↗ >> They have.

15:07 ↗ >> Thank you. Um

15:11 ↗ does any council member desire to remove

15:13 ↗ any item from the consent calendar and

15:15 ↗ consider it under regular business? Not

15:17 ↗ seeing any head nods. Yes. Can we get a

15:20 ↗ motion?

15:22 ↗ I move we approve the consent calendar

15:25 ↗ as presented.

15:26 ↗ >> Second.

15:27 ↗ >> It's been moved and seconded to approve

15:29 ↗ the consent calendar as presented. All

15:31 ↗ those in favor signify by saying I.

15:33 ↗ >> I.

15:34 ↗ >> I.

15:34 ↗ >> Those opposed that carries seven and0

15:37 ↗ unanimously. We're going to move into

15:40 ↗ the public hearing which is AB9053 the

15:42 ↗ 202526 midbayanium budget adjustment.

15:46 ↗ And the task this evening is to conduct

15:48 ↗ the public hearing. So, the public

15:49 ↗ hearing on the budget adjustment was

15:51 ↗ opened at the October 20th city council

15:54 ↗ meeting. The city council continued the

15:56 ↗ public hearing to allow for additional

15:57 ↗ input as they continue to deliberate on

16:00 ↗ October 27th. Tonight, finance director

16:03 ↗ Kristen Garcia will provide us an update

16:05 ↗ on changes to the budget adjustment

16:07 ↗ since the October 20th meeting. And

16:08 ↗ after the re uh presentation, I'll

16:11 ↗ reopen the public hearing. After the

16:13 ↗ hearing is closed, council can then ask

16:15 ↗ questions. Council's being asked to

16:17 ↗ adopt the budget adjustment tonight on

16:19 ↗ the agenda under regular business. So,

16:21 ↗ I'm going to turn it over to Finance

16:22 ↗ Director Kristen Garcia to present this

16:24 ↗ item. Welcome, Kristen.

16:28 ↗ Thank you so much, Mayor. Um, give me a

16:30 ↗ moment. See if I can share my screen.

16:40 ↗ I may need technical assistance.

16:43 ↗ [laughter]

16:53 ↗ Okay. All right. Thank you so much.

16:56 ↗ You'd think after being up here a couple

16:58 ↗ of times, I'd have this down by now. So,

17:00 ↗ appreciate your patience.

17:03 ↗ Okay. Well, thank you tonight. So, we

17:05 ↗ are continuing our public hearing. So,

17:07 ↗ we have a a couple purposes of tonight's

17:09 ↗ meeting. Um the first I wanted to make

17:12 ↗ sure and address any comments and

17:14 ↗ questions that came out of the last

17:16 ↗ conversation that we had on October

17:18 ↗ 27th. Uh we're also conducting the

17:21 ↗ continuation of the public hearing on

17:23 ↗ the proposed 25 and 26 midbian

17:26 ↗ adjustments. And then after the public

17:28 ↗ hearing under the new business section

17:30 ↗ of the meeting, council will be asked to

17:33 ↗ um consider adoption of the midbian

17:36 ↗ budget adjustment ordinance.

17:40 ↗ So the next next slide is a

17:42 ↗ representation of all the things that I

17:44 ↗ gleaned from the last conversation that

17:45 ↗ we had on October 27th when I presented

17:47 ↗ the minimum adjust adjustments. Um I

17:51 ↗ have the the responses to all the

17:53 ↗ questions and comments kind of weaved

17:55 ↗ throughout the presentation. So, I

17:57 ↗ wasn't intending to go over each of

17:58 ↗ these items individually, but I wanted

18:00 ↗ to make sure and capture everything that

18:03 ↗ I heard and wanted to make sure that

18:05 ↗ council saw that I I was listening to

18:07 ↗ the questions and comments and wanted to

18:09 ↗ put it all in one place. Um, so you can

18:11 ↗ see um what I had gleaned from that

18:14 ↗ conversation and hopefully I didn't miss

18:16 ↗ anything. So the first item item that I

18:18 ↗ want to start with as tonight is the

18:21 ↗ continuation of the public hearing on

18:22 ↗ the midb budget adjustments is I wanted

18:25 ↗ to kind of take a step back and walk

18:27 ↗ through all the proposed amendments. Uh

18:30 ↗ walk through what's being proposed

18:31 ↗ tonight and then I'm going to point out

18:33 ↗ any changes that have occurred since the

18:35 ↗ last time that we had met on October

18:36 ↗ 27th and any changes from the start of

18:39 ↗ the public hearing that we had on

18:41 ↗ October 20th. Um, so this is a recap of

18:44 ↗ our previously approved budget

18:46 ↗ adjustments. So what that means is these

18:48 ↗ are items that were brought forward

18:50 ↗ throughout the year to council on an

18:51 ↗ individual basis. Those have already

18:53 ↗ been approved. We have some general fund

18:56 ↗ adjustments. We have the budget uh

18:58 ↗ budget truck, the dispatcher position.

19:01 ↗ We had some money from the affordable

19:03 ↗ housing fund for the Isiqua Housing

19:05 ↗ Investment Plan. Uh we have some utility

19:07 ↗ fund adjustments for the Newport sewer

19:09 ↗ relocation program and Highwood

19:11 ↗ Reservoirs and retrofit project.

19:15 ↗ We also said had some grant-f funded

19:17 ↗ projects. So we need to authorize uh

19:19 ↗ budget authority for spending on those

19:21 ↗ grant dollars for the video analytics

19:23 ↗ project, the solar PV system and storage

19:26 ↗ to senior center and then some money for

19:28 ↗ Gilman. Well,

19:31 ↗ we also had some budget corrections. So

19:34 ↗ what that means is the majority of these

19:36 ↗ items we had originally budgeted for the

19:39 ↗ the expense to happen in one fund but

19:41 ↗ the expense is actually occurring in

19:43 ↗ another fund. So we just need to budget

19:45 ↗ the approved authority um and put that

19:49 ↗ in a different space. We also had some

19:51 ↗ grants that we re reauthorized during a

19:55 ↗ reauthorization process. Um some of

19:57 ↗ those were duplicated and some of those

19:59 ↗ weren't attached to the right grants

20:01 ↗ when they actually came in. So, we just

20:02 ↗ want to move that budget authority to

20:04 ↗ make sure it's aligned with the

20:06 ↗ appropriate funding.

20:08 ↗ We also um ha want to correct some

20:12 ↗ negative fund balances that were

20:14 ↗ budgeted in the original adopted budget.

20:16 ↗ Um revenues have come in higher than

20:19 ↗ what we anticipated. So, I just want to

20:21 ↗ make the correction so that the ending

20:23 ↗ fund balance is actually budgeted as

20:25 ↗ positive. And then we also had

20:27 ↗ overestimated expenditures in the

20:29 ↗ insurance fund for 2026. We know what

20:32 ↗ those costs are going to be now. So, we

20:33 ↗ just want to realign the budget with

20:35 ↗ what those actual expenses are

20:37 ↗ anticipated to be in 2026.

20:40 ↗ So, now on to the new items that are

20:44 ↗ being proposed that council has not yet

20:46 ↗ authorized and the general fund proposed

20:49 ↗ adjustments. We know that we're

20:51 ↗ anticipating some increased costs into

20:53 ↗ the public um defense contracts. Um, as

20:56 ↗ you may recall, council recently adopted

20:58 ↗ a public safety sales tax. that new

21:00 ↗ revenue source doesn't come online until

21:02 ↗ 2026, but we are anticipating some cost

21:05 ↗ to the public defense contracts in 2025.

21:08 ↗ So, we want to do a budget amendment um

21:10 ↗ to authorize that additional spending if

21:12 ↗ necessary. Uh we also want to close out

21:15 ↗ our ARPA funds. These were monies that

21:17 ↗ were originally budgeted in the capital

21:19 ↗ project funds. Um that project came in a

21:22 ↗ little bit less than we are

21:23 ↗ anticipating. So, we had some ARPA

21:25 ↗ funding that now needs to be reallocated

21:27 ↗ to some other eligible expenses. So what

21:29 ↗ this is doing is just moving that

21:31 ↗ authorized budget from the capital

21:32 ↗ project funds into the general fund so

21:34 ↗ we can close out that spending. So

21:36 ↗ that's not new money. It's just

21:38 ↗ realigning again budget with expenses

21:40 ↗ for eligible categories for the ARPA

21:42 ↗ fund. Uh we're also planning some

21:45 ↗ funding for the electronic monitoring

21:47 ↗ devices. Now that will not be um

21:50 ↗ additional money from the general fund.

21:52 ↗ We're anticipating uh that to be funded

21:54 ↗ by the administrative office of the

21:55 ↗ court. So that will be uh grant funded

21:57 ↗ for 2025. A new item is the 50,000 for

22:01 ↗ human services funding that came out of

22:04 ↗ the discussion that we had from October

22:06 ↗ 27th. Um administration was directed to

22:09 ↗ include that in the 2025 bud

22:11 ↗ adjustments. So it has been included.

22:14 ↗ And then the removal of the employee

22:16 ↗ leave payouts. This is a change from our

22:19 ↗ previous conversation. So, if you

22:20 ↗ recall, we have some known leave payouts

22:23 ↗ that have already been paid out from um

22:26 ↗ separation of employment for employees.

22:28 ↗ Um we had originally included that as a

22:31 ↗ budget adjustment to increase spending

22:33 ↗ for that. Um but as we're trying to

22:37 ↗ realign our targeted um ending fund

22:40 ↗ balance percentage, we're now suggesting

22:43 ↗ that um that would be removed as a

22:46 ↗ budget amendment. So we wouldn't be

22:47 ↗ adding to the existing budget and that

22:50 ↗ would just be absorbed by department's

22:52 ↗ existing budgets. So we don't want to

22:54 ↗ increase spending for that area. So

22:56 ↗ that's why it's shown as in parentheses

22:58 ↗ or in accounting world that's shown as a

23:00 ↗ a deduction. So we're re uh proposing to

23:03 ↗ remove that as a budget adjustment.

23:07 ↗ A streets fund adjustment. We had

23:09 ↗ originally proposed in the budget

23:12 ↗ adjustments that you saw earlier that

23:14 ↗ the general fund would transfer $130,000

23:17 ↗ to the streets fund to pay for some

23:19 ↗ operating needs above and beyond what

23:21 ↗ was originally budgeted. Um again, in

23:24 ↗ order to realign our targeted fund

23:27 ↗ balance and try to bring that back up to

23:29 ↗ the 15%, we're suggesting to remove that

23:33 ↗ from the general fund. So the general

23:34 ↗ fund would not transfer that money and

23:36 ↗ instead the streets fund ending fund

23:38 ↗ balance would absorb that. So that

23:40 ↗ wouldn't impact their current existing

23:42 ↗ operations. Um the streets fund has

23:44 ↗ adequate fund balance to absorb that

23:46 ↗ cost. And then the co capital project

23:48 ↗ fund adjustment that is for the east

23:50 ↗ lakes amish parkway pavement

23:52 ↗ preservation and there's funding in the

23:54 ↗ capital project fund for that.

23:57 ↗ So in 2026 we had proposed to add two

24:00 ↗ additional park positions. One of those

24:02 ↗ positions would be a mainten maintenance

24:04 ↗ position that would be funded by the

24:07 ↗ additional revenue that will be received

24:09 ↗ from the King County levy. The second

24:11 ↗ position is a parks rec recreation

24:13 ↗ coordinator which would be paid for

24:16 ↗ anticipated additional revenue from new

24:18 ↗ events that that um position would be

24:20 ↗ coordinating and also by an offset of a

24:24 ↗ reduction of a portion of the part-time.

24:27 ↗ um the 150,000 that was for the e eco

24:30 ↗ northwest report implementation was a

24:32 ↗ question or a comment that came out from

24:34 ↗ our last discussion. So I wanted to

24:36 ↗ clarify that here um that that is a

24:38 ↗ separate bulk of work from the housing

24:40 ↗ strategy. So the 150,000 will be or is

24:44 ↗ proposing to be used for um

24:47 ↗ implementation of the econ report. The

24:50 ↗ housing strategy wasn't planned for

24:51 ↗ 2026. So the 150,000 wouldn't be used

24:54 ↗ for that. Um some additional items. The

24:58 ↗ remaining items are proposing uh

25:00 ↗ reductions from the original um list of

25:03 ↗ proposed amendments for 2026. Again,

25:06 ↗ removing the employee payouts. We um are

25:08 ↗ suggesting that departments would absorb

25:11 ↗ that within their existing adopted

25:12 ↗ budgets. Um remove or hopefully just

25:16 ↗ delay the Pickering Barn generator and

25:18 ↗ server relocation. That was originally

25:21 ↗ um included as an ask to increase the

25:23 ↗ budget, but we're suggesting again in

25:26 ↗ order to try to bring the targeted fund

25:28 ↗ balances close to that 15% uh removing

25:31 ↗ that from 2026 and delaying it um to a

25:34 ↗ future year. And then the three

25:36 ↗ additional items are new. Those are

25:39 ↗ items that we haven't discussed before.

25:41 ↗ Um a one-time reduction of a general

25:43 ↗ fund transfer to the IT cost allocation.

25:46 ↗ Um the IT fund does have adequate fund

25:48 ↗ balance um as a means again to get the

25:52 ↗ general fund any fund balance as close

25:54 ↗ to that 15% target as possible. That's

25:57 ↗ one of the um suggestions that um we're

26:00 ↗ proposing is to reduce that again one

26:03 ↗ time just for 2026. Um a one-time

26:06 ↗ reduction to the annual operating

26:08 ↗ transfer to the streets fund. Um, again,

26:10 ↗ that would just be a reduction of fund

26:12 ↗ balance that would not impact anything

26:14 ↗ that's budgeted for 2026 in terms of

26:16 ↗ ongoing operations. Um, that would just

26:18 ↗ be a reduction of fund balance and then

26:21 ↗ a one-time reduction to the annual

26:23 ↗ transfer for the turf replacement. Um,

26:26 ↗ there is nothing significant planned

26:28 ↗ within the next bianium. So again, um,

26:31 ↗ that shouldn't have any impact on uh,

26:33 ↗ future replacements that we have uh,

26:35 ↗ planned beyond 2026.

26:40 ↗ other 2026 proposed adjustments, the

26:43 ↗ public safety sales tax fund. So, that

26:45 ↗ is new. Council did authorize a new

26:47 ↗ revenue source, uh, the public safety

26:49 ↗ sales tax that will we will start

26:51 ↗ collecting revenue in 2026. And so, what

26:54 ↗ we're proposing is that we are going to

26:56 ↗ create a separate fund that the public

26:58 ↗ safety sales tax revenue will go into

27:01 ↗ um, in order to be transparent and

27:03 ↗ accountable for those funds. So, what

27:05 ↗ this proposed adjustment means is that

27:08 ↗ those are costs that we're proposing

27:10 ↗ that are currently within the general

27:12 ↗ fund. Um, the public defense, the

27:14 ↗ increase in public defense costs, um,

27:16 ↗ shifting some of the the police

27:18 ↗ department staffing cost and a portion

27:20 ↗ of the existing fleet cost allocation

27:22 ↗ currently funded by the general fund, we

27:24 ↗ would shift those costs into the new

27:26 ↗ public safety sales tax fund. And then

27:28 ↗ that revenue source would then pay for

27:30 ↗ that cost in 2026.

27:32 ↗ also looking at the transportation

27:35 ↗ benefit district to fund the portion of

27:40 ↗ the metroflex contract that would have

27:42 ↗ been funded by the general fund. So,

27:44 ↗ we're still intending to pay that. Um,

27:46 ↗ we're just changing the source of money

27:48 ↗ from the general fund to the TBD TBD

27:50 ↗ fund in 2026 to pay for that.

27:55 ↗ Other proposed adjustments, uh the sewer

27:57 ↗ fund, Highlands and Front Street lift

27:59 ↗ station improvements. Uh we want to

28:02 ↗ increase, we had an increased grant

28:04 ↗ award for the arts programming and the

28:05 ↗ municipal art fund. So we want to make

28:07 ↗ sure that we have budget authority um to

28:09 ↗ match the increase in the grant award.

28:11 ↗ And then we need to use some remaining

28:13 ↗ bond proceeds for the strategic small

28:16 ↗ capital project. So what that means is

28:18 ↗ we still have some bond proceeds that

28:19 ↗ are unallocated. um we need to find some

28:22 ↗ eligible expenses kind of similar to the

28:24 ↗ ARPA fund that we have the money we just

28:26 ↗ need to um allocate that to some

28:28 ↗ eligible expenses. So we have planned to

28:30 ↗ do that for 2026.

28:34 ↗ Okay. So what this is representing this

28:36 ↗ is a sidebyside comparison of the

28:39 ↗ preliminary forecast and the updated

28:41 ↗ forecast. So we had brought forward the

28:44 ↗ preliminary forecast for 25 and 26 which

28:46 ↗ showed that we were projecting an ending

28:49 ↗ fund balance in 2025 um at 8% of

28:52 ↗ expenditures and of 7% in um 2026. So

28:57 ↗ council had asked um administration to

29:00 ↗ come back with some proposed adjustments

29:02 ↗ to try to bring that fund balance target

29:05 ↗ um as close to the 15% as possible to

29:09 ↗ meet our policy requirements. And so if

29:12 ↗ we look at the 2025 updated forecast

29:14 ↗ column,

29:16 ↗ this is where I'm itemizing for you the

29:19 ↗ um changes from what we had talked about

29:21 ↗ originally and and how what we just

29:23 ↗ discussed for the proposed changes will

29:26 ↗ impact the target ending fund balance.

29:29 ↗ So I'll start in the 2025 updated

29:31 ↗ forecast column. Um if you go down mid

29:34 ↗ page to uh the unrestricted expenditures

29:37 ↗ of 67.6 6 million. You'll see that's the

29:40 ↗ same number that we had in our original

29:41 ↗ forecast. So that number assumed that we

29:45 ↗ would use about 100% of what we had

29:47 ↗ budgeted plus it included all of the

29:50 ↗ proposed amendments that we had talked

29:52 ↗ about before before we made any changes.

29:55 ↗ Um so then we're going to add the 50,000

29:57 ↗ for human resources and then we're

29:59 ↗ reducing the street operating um

30:02 ↗ overages of 130,000 because the streets

30:04 ↗ fund's going to absorb that. We're

30:06 ↗ removing the retirement cash outs

30:08 ↗ because the department budgets, the

30:09 ↗ existing budgets are going to pay for

30:11 ↗ that. And then if you go down um you'll

30:13 ↗ see the 500,000 estimated general fund

30:16 ↗ um under spend. So that's a new item.

30:19 ↗ What that means is I actually went

30:21 ↗ through line by line in the general fund

30:23 ↗ for each each line one by one um and did

30:27 ↗ kind [cough] of [clears throat] an

30:28 ↗ updated forecast from what we had origin

30:30 ↗ we had originally done the forecast

30:32 ↗ earlier in the year. Um, now we have u

30:34 ↗ more data because we have um the end of

30:37 ↗ October and so I wanted to go line by

30:39 ↗ line to see if we actually intended to

30:42 ↗ spend 100 100% of the budget. So there

30:45 ↗ were a couple places that I based on

30:47 ↗ where we are in the year that I don't

30:49 ↗ anticipate that we're going to fully

30:50 ↗ spend. So that's what that number is

30:52 ↗ representing. Historically we haven't

30:56 ↗ spent 100% of the budget. So that that

30:58 ↗ aligns with um what I'm seeing with the

31:02 ↗ updated forecast versus what we have

31:04 ↗ historically. So that's that's what that

31:06 ↗ 500,000 is representing.

31:08 ↗ >> Jen, did you want to jump in with a

31:09 ↗ question?

31:10 ↗ >> Yeah, just quick question. Um do you

31:12 ↗ have any, you know, specific examples of

31:14 ↗ some of the things that are included in

31:15 ↗ that 500,000 that you'd be able to share

31:17 ↗ with us?

31:18 ↗ >> Yes, they're kind of all over the place

31:21 ↗ and not one specific department. And all

31:23 ↗ departments had some kind of

31:25 ↗ underspends, but some of those were in

31:27 ↗ salary and benefits, some of them were

31:28 ↗ in training, some of them were travel,

31:30 ↗ um legal services, professional

31:32 ↗ services,

31:33 ↗ um small tools and equipment, um repairs

31:37 ↗ and maintenance. So, a lot of different

31:39 ↗ categories kind of adding up to that

31:41 ↗ amount. Does that answer your question?

31:44 ↗ >> Yeah, thank you.

31:45 ↗ >> Okay. Um and so similar, if you go to

31:48 ↗ the far right column, the 2026 updated

31:50 ↗ forecast, um similar um reducing um the

31:57 ↗ retirement cash outs, the reduction of

31:59 ↗ the Pickering Barn generator, the

32:01 ↗ Metrlex, we're moving that from the

32:03 ↗ general fund to the TBD fund, shifting

32:05 ↗ the public safety sales tax or shifting

32:08 ↗ some of those police department expenses

32:09 ↗ to the public safety sales tax fund.

32:12 ↗ Again, assuming that we will likely have

32:15 ↗ some under spend in um our expenditures

32:20 ↗ for 2026. That was the 500,000 also

32:23 ↗ included in the 2026. And then you'll

32:25 ↗ see the one-time reductions in the IT

32:28 ↗ fund, streets fund, and the transfer the

32:29 ↗ turf fund. And then the final item, we

32:32 ↗ also know that the CPI came in lower

32:36 ↗ than what was anticipated for colas for

32:38 ↗ non-represented staff. That's what the

32:40 ↗ 117,000 represents because that will be

32:43 ↗ a known reduction.

32:45 ↗ >> Kristen, Council President,

32:47 ↗ >> thank you. Kristen, can you talk about

32:49 ↗ um where we stand with the streets fund?

32:52 ↗ I see here there's they're being asked

32:55 ↗ to absorb $130,000 for street operations

32:58 ↗ overages in 25 and then an additional

33:01 ↗ $250,000

33:03 ↗ cut um in 2026.

33:06 ↗ >> Yes. So operationally it won't impact

33:09 ↗ what was budgeted for 2026. So these

33:11 ↗ would be a reduction of fund balance.

33:14 ↗ This wouldn't be something that we would

33:16 ↗ want to sustain over the long term. If

33:19 ↗ we continue to do one-time cuts to the

33:22 ↗ streets fund, then we would start

33:24 ↗ impacting operations. But again, we're

33:27 ↗ proposing one-time cuts. We've evaluated

33:29 ↗ the ending fund balance. It won't impact

33:32 ↗ what we've planned for operations in

33:34 ↗ 2026. But kind of as a a preview to our

33:38 ↗ next bianial budget in 2728

33:40 ↗ um probably wouldn't want to continue

33:43 ↗ those reductions without having a

33:45 ↗ conversation on how that would impact

33:46 ↗ operations.

33:48 ↗ >> So I'm looking at our 2025 2026

33:52 ↗ adopted budget and before making these

33:55 ↗ changes it was listed at only a balance

33:59 ↗ of just over a million dollars. So, are

34:03 ↗ we saying we're comfortable with that

34:05 ↗ balance going down to

34:08 ↗ what 650 700,000?

34:11 ↗ >> That's the adopted budget fund balance.

34:13 ↗ The current budget or the current fund

34:15 ↗ balance is about 4 million right now.

34:17 ↗ So, we're we're high.

34:18 ↗ >> Oh, this is the ending fund balance for

34:20 ↗ 2026.

34:23 ↗ So because what we have budgeted

34:27 ↗ to spend in 2026 was already going to

34:31 ↗ take down the fund balance. So

34:35 ↗ >> okay, I'm I'm really worried about

34:37 ↗ getting that fund down that low, but I

34:41 ↗ guess we can talk about that.

34:44 ↗ Keep going. Thanks. [clears throat]

34:47 ↗ Okay.

34:56 ↗ Okay. So, now I wanted to follow up on

34:58 ↗ all the additional items that came out

35:00 ↗ of our conversation that we had on

35:01 ↗ October 27th. Uh, one of the items was

35:05 ↗ establishing an audit committee. I think

35:07 ↗ I heard a general consensus from the

35:09 ↗ council that that was something that the

35:11 ↗ council wanted to do. So, that'll be

35:13 ↗ planned for 2026. So, there'll be more

35:15 ↗ information that'll be coming early next

35:17 ↗ year on that update on the general fund

35:20 ↗ reserve policy. that was included in um

35:23 ↗ agenda bill 90064 which was included in

35:26 ↗ the consent agenda. But just wanted to

35:29 ↗ um confirm with council that um we did

35:32 ↗ do clarification on how the general fund

35:34 ↗ ending fund um reserve is calculated and

35:38 ↗ we also determined a formal measurement

35:40 ↗ date uh within that policy. Those so

35:42 ↗ those changes were captured in what was

35:45 ↗ approved tonight in the consent agenda.

35:47 ↗ Also wanted to uh note that there was uh

35:50 ↗ a request for more information on the

35:52 ↗ public safety sales tax. So there is

35:55 ↗ exhibit B, I think it's about two pages

35:57 ↗ that summarize kind of our previous

35:59 ↗ conversations that we've had on the

36:01 ↗ previous um on the public safety sales

36:03 ↗ tax in terms of um how it was

36:06 ↗ authorized, what's the eligibility

36:08 ↗ criteria, what can it be used for, um

36:11 ↗ those kinds of things. So there is more

36:13 ↗ detail in the packet under exhibit F,

36:15 ↗ but I just wanted to reiterate here that

36:17 ↗ the the mid bienium adjustments do

36:19 ↗ include some planned uses of funding in

36:22 ↗ terms of public defense, um existing

36:24 ↗ officer salaries, and a portion of the

36:26 ↗ fleet contribution. We also have within

36:29 ↗ that document in the exhibit some

36:31 ↗ additional planned uses that haven't

36:33 ↗ been clearly identified yet, but like to

36:36 ↗ suggest some ideas for using it for

36:38 ↗ capital facilities and equipment.

36:40 ↗ Another

36:44 ↗ item that was requested for more

36:46 ↗ information and I do believe director

36:47 ↗ Monahan will be coming forward to

36:49 ↗ council early next year that will give

36:51 ↗ you a more comprehensive update, but I

36:53 ↗ just wanted to give you some um big

36:55 ↗ picture um items just to follow up um to

36:58 ↗ let you know that I I did hear the

37:00 ↗ request for more information. Um so back

37:02 ↗ in 2023 there was a fleet study that

37:05 ↗ compared the the fleet performance um to

37:08 ↗ a series of industry norms or best

37:10 ↗ practices. Um the study found that

37:12 ↗ almost 50% of the city's motorized

37:15 ↗ fleets were found to be older than the

37:16 ↗ recommended life cycle. So what we did

37:19 ↗ in the 2025 and 2026 budget is we did

37:22 ↗ make an investment to replace some of

37:24 ↗ those older vehicles. Um some of them

37:26 ↗ had aged even more since the 2023 study

37:30 ↗ was adopted. So, we did make some

37:32 ↗ investments in this bianial budget. Um,

37:35 ↗ other work that we've done so far other

37:37 ↗ than the capital purchasing, we made

37:39 ↗ some EV investments, customer service

37:41 ↗ improvements, upgrades to software, and

37:44 ↗ an an additional full-time mechanic

37:46 ↗ position. Um, we still have some work to

37:48 ↗ do to fully implement what we learned

37:50 ↗ from the study. Uh, we do need to f fill

37:53 ↗ the fleet manager position that was

37:55 ↗ recently vacated. Uh, we also want to

37:57 ↗ create a multi-year replacement plan.

38:00 ↗ Um, so what that means is we want to be

38:01 ↗ a little bit more strategic long-term

38:04 ↗ um, and try to level out the

38:07 ↗ replacements and the funding to make

38:09 ↗ cash flow um, a little bit easier on the

38:11 ↗ general fund instead instead of having

38:13 ↗ big spikes on the replacements. Uh, we

38:16 ↗ also want to have two separate fleet

38:18 ↗ funds. So we want to have a dedicated

38:20 ↗ fund um for the capital investment and

38:23 ↗ then we want to have a fund to make sure

38:24 ↗ that we're taking care of kind of the

38:26 ↗ ongoing maintenance and operations. So

38:29 ↗ again, this is kind of just a high level

38:31 ↗ um high level peak of the fleet fund,

38:34 ↗ kind of where we were, where we're at,

38:36 ↗ and director Monahan will be coming

38:38 ↗ forward early next year to give you more

38:40 ↗ information on that.

38:42 ↗ One of the other items that was

38:44 ↗ requested is some information on the

38:46 ↗ pavement preservation program. There is,

38:48 ↗ I believe, a two-page um summary in

38:51 ↗ exhibit E in the packet which goes over

38:54 ↗ um some more detailed information, but I

38:55 ↗ just kind of wanted to give you some

38:57 ↗ general highlights of what was in there.

38:59 ↗ And I do believe Director Moon is

39:00 ↗ planning again to come before council

39:03 ↗ early uh next year to give you a more

39:05 ↗ comprehensive update, but I wanted to

39:07 ↗ make sure and I followed up with you um

39:09 ↗ based on our conversation on October

39:11 ↗ 27th. So, Oh, yes. Yeah, I just finished

39:15 ↗ the slide and then council president has

39:16 ↗ a question. Okay, perfect. Um, so the

39:18 ↗ pavement preservation program is prim

39:20 ↗ primarily funded by rate in the general

39:22 ↗ fund. We do have a goal of maintaining

39:24 ↗ about 8.1 lane miles per year. Um, our

39:28 ↗ approximate funding needs to do that

39:30 ↗ ranges from about 2 to 2.5 million per

39:33 ↗ year. Uh, we did meet that targeted

39:35 ↗ funding level in 2021 through 2024. Um

39:38 ↗ but to make sure that we could balance

39:40 ↗ our budget this bianium um those those

39:42 ↗ funding um that funding was reduced for

39:45 ↗ 25 and 26.

39:47 ↗ >> Thank you council president.

39:48 ↗ >> Yeah. So trying to understand what you

39:51 ↗ had provided in our packet which showed

39:55 ↗ authorized budget of 1.4 million 1.47

39:59 ↗ and 1.4 million and 2526. But then we're

40:02 ↗ also proposing cuts to the street

40:06 ↗ operating fund. Is that just balance and

40:08 ↗ it won't affect the

40:11 ↗ >> correct

40:11 ↗ >> operations? Correct.

40:13 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

40:16 ↗ >> Keep going.

40:16 ↗ >> Okay.

40:19 ↗ >> All right. Some more information on the

40:21 ↗ King County Parks levy. Um we are

40:24 ↗ expecting an increase to begin in 2026

40:27 ↗ of our King County levy of about 210,000

40:30 ↗ per year. So the levy must be used for

40:32 ↗ new expenses. So we can't supplant our

40:35 ↗ existing funds and we need to use it to

40:37 ↗ maintain, enhance or expand the park

40:39 ↗ system. So the in increase that we're

40:42 ↗ expecting in 2026, this is uh where

40:45 ↗ we're requesting the additional parks

40:47 ↗ maintenance position. We're anticipating

40:49 ↗ that to be about 150,000 of the 210,000

40:53 ↗ increase that we're expecting. And then

40:55 ↗ the remaining 60,000 uh will be used for

40:57 ↗ additional park maintenance expenses

40:59 ↗ related to recent capital improvements.

41:02 ↗ Uh there was also a question about how

41:04 ↗ much did we budget for our human

41:06 ↗ services strategic plan. Um the human

41:09 ↗ services strategic plan was performed

41:11 ↗ inhouse except for about 3,000 that was

41:13 ↗ used for outside consulting but there

41:16 ↗ wasn't any specific amounts actually um

41:20 ↗ included in the budget um because we

41:22 ↗ intended to do that work in house.

41:27 ↗ So that mayor um concludes my

41:30 ↗ presentation and so um administration

41:33 ↗ would be recommending that council adopt

41:36 ↗ an ordinance to amend the 25 and 26 u

41:38 ↗ bianial budget.

41:40 ↗ >> Thank you Kristen. I tell you frequently

41:42 ↗ that you bring us so much information

41:44 ↗ but in such an understandable narrative.

41:47 ↗ This is hard for us. So thank you.

41:49 ↗ >> Thank you so much. Excellent responses.

41:51 ↗ I'm going to reopen the public hearing

41:53 ↗ and there is a a point in time when we

41:55 ↗ have more council questions too at 7:42.

41:58 ↗ And so if you are joining us virtually

42:00 ↗ and would like to make comments, please

42:01 ↗ raise your virtual hand or send the host

42:03 ↗ a chat message. But if you're in the

42:05 ↗ room and did not sign up, I will ask for

42:07 ↗ other speakers before closing this

42:09 ↗ portion of the meeting. And city clerk,

42:11 ↗ have you had any interest in speaking

42:13 ↗ during this public hearing?

42:16 ↗ Mayor, no one has signed up to speak in

42:18 ↗ advance and I don't see anyone online

42:20 ↗ indicating a desire to speak.

42:22 ↗ >> Is there anyone in the room that would

42:24 ↗ like to speak to during the public

42:25 ↗ hearing?

42:27 ↗ I'm not seeing any indication.

42:31 ↗ Um, is there any objection to closing

42:33 ↗ the public hearing?

42:36 ↗ I am not seeing an objection. So,

42:38 ↗ hearing none, the public hearing is

42:39 ↗ closed and let's move to some council

42:41 ↗ questions. There was a lot of

42:42 ↗ information in there. If you have

42:43 ↗ additional questions, please feel free

42:44 ↗ to raise your mic. Council President,

42:49 ↗ >> thank you. So, I'm still trying to

42:50 ↗ understand the street fund and kind of

42:55 ↗ what that ending fund balance would be.

42:59 ↗ Um, and so trying looking through what

43:03 ↗ you have provided here. Um, it suggests,

43:10 ↗ let's see, it suggests adding $300,000

43:14 ↗ to the fleet fund from the public safety

43:17 ↗ sales tax,

43:20 ↗ but then making cuts to the street

43:23 ↗ operating. So, we're proposing in this

43:26 ↗ little bit of an increase to fleet fund

43:29 ↗ and two sets of decreases to street

43:31 ↗ operating. Is that correct?

43:34 ↗ So the fleet fund is separate than the

43:35 ↗ streets fund. So I'm not I know I'm just

43:38 ↗ they're about the same number and so I'm

43:41 ↗ looking at that and trying to um

43:44 ↗ understand if

43:47 ↗ what with this proposal with the public

43:50 ↗ safety sales tax we are proposing

43:52 ↗ 300,000 to fleet fund. Correct?

43:57 ↗ >> No. What we're proposing is the general

43:59 ↗ fund um makes transfers into the fleet

44:03 ↗ fund for all the general fund vehicles.

44:06 ↗ >> A portion of that is for police

44:08 ↗ vehicles.

44:09 ↗ >> Mhm.

44:10 ↗ >> So what we're proposing is the portion

44:12 ↗ that the general fund sends for the

44:15 ↗ police vehicles and it's it's a lot more

44:17 ↗ than 300,000. Um, but what we're what

44:20 ↗ we're proposing here is that the public

44:22 ↗ safety sales tax will pay for the police

44:25 ↗ vehicles a portion of what's transferred

44:27 ↗ from the general fund.

44:28 ↗ >> Okay.

44:28 ↗ >> So, that doesn't have anything with the

44:30 ↗ streets fund. That's

44:31 ↗ >> No, I I understand. Um, so the general

44:34 ↗ fund is not sending 300,000 to the fleet

44:39 ↗ fund as a result of this. Correct.

44:42 ↗ >> Correct. It it is not an increase. It's

44:44 ↗ actually trying to free up some of the

44:47 ↗ general fund. So there's 300,000 in the

44:49 ↗ general fund that has been freed up and

44:52 ↗ [clears throat] we are still making the

44:54 ↗ recommendation to

44:56 ↗ >> reduce the street fund by 130,000 for

45:00 ↗ operating operations overages and

45:03 ↗ 250,000

45:04 ↗ for a one-time cut. Is that correct?

45:07 ↗ >> That is correct. And the reason is

45:09 ↗ because um council had directed um

45:12 ↗ administration to try to bring the

45:16 ↗ general fund any fund balance back up to

45:18 ↗ as close to 15%. And so we were trying

45:21 ↗ to find ways without impacting one any

45:25 ↗ one department um so significantly that

45:29 ↗ it would impact operations. So we were

45:31 ↗ trying to find one-time places to get to

45:34 ↗ that 15%.

45:35 ↗ >> Yes. And I very much appreciate that. I

45:38 ↗ just have a different suggestion of how

45:40 ↗ to do that based on where I'm seeing the

45:42 ↗ numbers. But thank you.

45:42 ↗ >> Okay. Additional questions,

45:46 ↗ Council Ray.

45:48 ↗ >> Can I dig in a little bit into not so

45:50 ↗ much 2026, but 2027 and 2028

45:54 ↗ because I'm I'm seeing a bunch of

45:56 ↗ one-time um uh cost savings, and I'm

46:00 ↗ still seeing that we're not hitting the

46:01 ↗ 15% number. And I'm I'm I'm worried

46:05 ↗ about the short term, but I'm really

46:06 ↗ worried about the long term. And how do

46:09 ↗ how do I not read um one-time reduction

46:13 ↗ transfer of IT funds, one-time reduction

46:15 ↗ transfer of street funds, one-time

46:17 ↗ reduction transfer of turf fund, not as

46:19 ↗ kicking the can down the road?

46:22 ↗ >> I think that's a a good question because

46:24 ↗ we have a newer council member. I think

46:26 ↗ too that this is an exercise in scraping

46:29 ↗ just to get you through the next year

46:31 ↗ and that we have fallen off the fiscal

46:33 ↗ cliff.

46:33 ↗ >> Yeah,

46:34 ↗ >> we don't have enough revenue for

46:35 ↗ expenditures. Well, yeah. And I know

46:36 ↗ this is question time, but I'm I'm I'm

46:40 ↗ >> I I I I fear that we are on a slippery

46:43 ↗ slope, and it's not going to get any

46:44 ↗ less slippery.

46:46 ↗ >> And and so when we get to to talking

46:48 ↗ about worse

46:49 ↗ >> where we're at and what we're going to

46:51 ↗ do, I I these numbers don't make me go,

46:54 ↗ I feel like we've got a plan. I feel

46:56 ↗ like we we've got a scrape.

46:58 ↗ >> So anyway, but that's a that's a

47:00 ↗ comment, not a question. I try to play

47:01 ↗ by the rules. Well, director, if you'd

47:03 ↗ like to add a little bit to uh an answer

47:06 ↗ into Council Member Ray's question and

47:08 ↗ his concern.

47:10 ↗ >> Um, I think one of the things that we

47:11 ↗ had talked about, I believe in our last

47:13 ↗ meeting, is doing an update to our

47:15 ↗ long-term financial plan. I think that's

47:18 ↗ going to be a key component to

47:19 ↗ understanding um you're correct, the the

47:23 ↗ one-time um reductions aren't

47:26 ↗ sustainable. Um, but I think we we've

47:29 ↗ kind of seen this pattern for the last

47:31 ↗ five years. So, I think that will be an

47:33 ↗ important exercise for us to go through

47:35 ↗ and during that long-term financial plan

47:37 ↗ to make sure that we can see how we're

47:40 ↗ going to be um if we're going to be

47:42 ↗ sustainable and what that's going to

47:43 ↗ look like in terms of what new revenue

47:45 ↗ that we're going to need or what we're

47:47 ↗ going to need to do in expenses.

47:49 ↗ So, that so that exercise will come

47:51 ↗ forward, I guess, is

47:53 ↗ >> you know, I think I think it's

47:54 ↗ absolutely essential.

47:56 ↗ >> Yeah. Um, I mean, I don't see how you

47:58 ↗ cannot, but it's still it's kind of hard

48:01 ↗ hard decision time is not is is a

48:02 ↗ reckoning. So, it's it's it's it's

48:05 ↗ getting to be that time where we've got

48:07 ↗ to step up and do something. We can plan

48:09 ↗ and plan and plan, but at some point you

48:11 ↗ got to do do.

48:17 ↗ >> Any other questions?

48:19 ↗ Cat Hall, Council Member Hall. Um, if I

48:23 ↗ had a question about the Eco Northwest

48:24 ↗ report, is Director Dollywall with us by

48:27 ↗ chance? No,

48:29 ↗ >> she is. I believe

48:30 ↗ >> No, director Dollywall.

48:31 ↗ >> Okay. Well, um, maybe I'll just ask it

48:33 ↗ and if not, my my vote doesn't hinge on

48:36 ↗ this anyways. Um, so, okay. So, we have

48:39 ↗ clarity that the housing strategy work

48:41 ↗ plan's not an element of that 150k.

48:43 ↗ >> Yes. Um, just looking back at the Eco

48:46 ↗ Northwest report, it looks like I mean,

48:48 ↗ we did the cottage and courtyard housing

48:50 ↗ element of it, we kind of decided the

48:53 ↗ condominium stuff was a little out of

48:54 ↗ our lane and and continued to advocate

48:57 ↗ at the state level around that. The

48:59 ↗ other part was uh inclusionary zoning.

49:01 ↗ And so I just kind of wanted to get a

49:02 ↗ better sense of like if we had a sense

49:04 ↗ of what the scope of work for that 150k

49:07 ↗ would be, would it be

49:10 ↗ maybe maybe we'll just um try and get a

49:13 ↗ response over over email or something.

49:15 ↗ I'm just curious because there's there's

49:17 ↗ quite a bit in the inclusionary zoning

49:19 ↗ and then the other items to consider

49:21 ↗ like the structured parking although I

49:24 ↗ think the state might have just taken

49:26 ↗ care of that for us and then the um

49:28 ↗ development bonus program and things

49:30 ↗ like that. So, how broad is the 150k

49:33 ↗ implementation?

49:34 ↗ >> Uh, council member Hall, members of the

49:36 ↗ council, it's not very broad. Uh, what

49:38 ↗ I'd like to try to do is phone a friend

49:40 ↗ um and see if I can get more specific

49:43 ↗ information to that for you in the

49:45 ↗ course of your discussion. Director

49:46 ↗ Dolly Walls out of the country, but I'll

49:48 ↗ see if I can't get our planning manager

49:50 ↗ Kristen Leon on the line.

49:52 ↗ >> Okay. Thanks.

49:54 ↗ Additional questions?

49:57 ↗ I'm not seeing any. So, um, we will

50:00 ↗ return to this item for discussion and

50:02 ↗ action under regular business. The next

50:05 ↗ item, uh, the next category is regular

50:07 ↗ business, and we're going to start with

50:08 ↗ the ID 1938 Metroflex contract

50:11 ↗ extension. The ask before council

50:13 ↗ tonight is to direct the administration,

50:16 ↗ and I'd like to invite Deputy City

50:17 ↗ Administrator Andrea Snder to present

50:19 ↗ this item. Welcome, Andrea.

50:43 ↗ that.

50:52 ↗ All right.

50:54 ↗ Good evening, Mayor Paulie, members of

50:56 ↗ city council, and um the rest who may be

50:59 ↗ watching. I'm Andrea Leonard, deputy

51:02 ↗ city administrator, and we're here to

51:04 ↗ talk about the

51:05 ↗ >> Apologies.

51:06 ↗ >> We'll work on the script. Sorry about

51:07 ↗ that, Andrea. I didn't I didn't say your

51:09 ↗ name properly.

51:11 ↗ >> I apologize. [laughter]

51:13 ↗ >> That's fine. I I didn't even notice, but

51:14 ↗ thank you.

51:18 ↗ >> Uh so, we are here to talk about the

51:20 ↗ Metrlex contract. Just as a reminder,

51:22 ↗ Metrolex is the ondemand transit service

51:26 ↗ uh that works uh similar to car pooling.

51:31 ↗ And there we go. The purpose of tonight

51:35 ↗ is to discuss Metroflex contract options

51:38 ↗ and terms. This is in direct response to

51:40 ↗ the uh direction we received from

51:43 ↗ council at last week's meeting uh to

51:46 ↗ come back and discuss the contract. Um

51:49 ↗ our discussion of the contract is

51:51 ↗ assuming that council provides funding

51:54 ↗ for this contract as uh director Garcia

51:57 ↗ just discussed with the mid bianium

51:59 ↗ update which is the vote is to occur

52:00 ↗ after this item. So just noting that um

52:03 ↗ this presentation pretty much just

52:05 ↗ assumes uh funding for the contract next

52:08 ↗ year and that's why we're talking about

52:09 ↗ options contracting terms and options.

52:18 ↗ Uh so direction needed is to provide any

52:20 ↗ and all feedback that council may have

52:23 ↗ on those contract terms.

52:26 ↗ And just again as a little bit of

52:28 ↗ reminder for background

52:30 ↗ uh 20 2024 2025 was the pilot contract

52:35 ↗ for the metrlex services con um in

52:38 ↗ Isiqua. Those services were originally

52:41 ↗ designed to help connect Talis and

52:44 ↗ Squawk neighborhoods better to the rest

52:46 ↗ of the valley floor and cover um a large

52:49 ↗ part of the city though not all of the

52:51 ↗ city.

52:53 ↗ Uh, as you recall, the administration

52:55 ↗ has been uh discussing our concerns for

52:58 ↗ a few years over the ongoing funding of

53:00 ↗ that contract and how we are going to

53:02 ↗ fund that in a sustainable way. It's

53:04 ↗ about $260,000 annually and it has been

53:08 ↗ coming out of the general general fund,

53:10 ↗ but as you just heard finance director

53:12 ↗ Garcia suggest it to come out of the

53:14 ↗ transportation benefit district funds.

53:17 ↗ On October 27th, we heard feedback from

53:20 ↗ council to use those TBD funds to fund

53:24 ↗ uh the Metroflex services. And then as I

53:26 ↗ said last week, we heard from you that

53:28 ↗ you wanted us to bring the contract

53:29 ↗ terms for your discussion here today.

53:32 ↗ Current contract terms are uh that are

53:35 ↗ being proposed for 26 and 27 are the

53:40 ↗ same as what uh they were for the pilot

53:42 ↗ years. So, 3,700 vehicle operation

53:45 ↗ hours, Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m.

53:48 ↗ to 6 p.m. and Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to

53:50 ↗ 6:00 p.m. Um, and again, it's about uh

53:54 ↗ $260,000

53:55 ↗ annually.

53:58 ↗ Some information for you that was

54:00 ↗ emailed to you last week in response to

54:02 ↗ previous council questions on this topic

54:05 ↗ include top pickup and drop off

54:07 ↗ locations on these maps that you see

54:09 ↗ here. This is data that we've collected

54:11 ↗ from the last quarter of services. So

54:14 ↗ you can see from these maps that first

54:16 ↗ one on the left is pickup and the one on

54:18 ↗ the right is drop off locations. They

54:20 ↗ are similar but not identical. And you

54:23 ↗ can see the bigger the dot, the more

54:25 ↗ purple uh the dot or the darker the dot,

54:27 ↗ the more popular the locations are.

54:31 ↗ and uh you can see where those pickup

54:35 ↗ and drop off locations are not places

54:37 ↗ that do not have dots. So I wanted to

54:40 ↗ provide this information for you for

54:42 ↗ your discussion this evening uh because

54:45 ↗ we heard in previous council

54:47 ↗ conversations a desire to perhaps

54:50 ↗ explore changing the service coverage

54:52 ↗ area. So, as I said, originally we had

54:55 ↗ direction from council to make sure that

54:57 ↗ we were providing a service to better

54:59 ↗ connect the Talis and Squawk

55:01 ↗ neighborhoods, and we've had we've heard

55:04 ↗ some council feedback suggest, well,

55:06 ↗ what would it take to add the Isiqua

55:08 ↗ Highlands? And so, we asked uh our

55:12 ↗ partners at Metro Transit, what would

55:14 ↗ that take to cover more of the Isiqua

55:16 ↗ Highlands than what the service covers

55:18 ↗ today? and they said in order to keep

55:20 ↗ costs the same at that $260,000

55:23 ↗ annually, we would need to uh remove

55:26 ↗ part of the service area. And this is

55:28 ↗ because uh the vans cover so much area

55:32 ↗ and they want to be sure that the vans

55:34 ↗ arrive within an acceptable time for a

55:36 ↗ rider. If a rider hails a ride and it

55:39 ↗ takes 45 minutes for that van to come

55:41 ↗ pick them up, they're that's going to

55:43 ↗ affect ridership. They're probably going

55:45 ↗ to opt for their car or some other way

55:47 ↗ of getting around. And so um so Metro

55:51 ↗ modeled out using their software what

55:53 ↗ would it take to cover the Isiqua

55:54 ↗ Highlands and they suggested uh removing

55:58 ↗ the Squawk I'm yes the Squawk

56:00 ↗ neighborhood from service due to low

56:03 ↗ utilization historically in that

56:05 ↗ neighborhood. So this map on this slide

56:08 ↗ here depicts in outlined in purple would

56:10 ↗ be a new proposed service area that

56:13 ↗ includes most of Isiqua including a new

56:15 ↗ portion of the Isiqua Highlands. And the

56:18 ↗ orange service area is uh the current

56:21 ↗ service area which shows Squawk as being

56:24 ↗ covered but not Isiqua Highlands. So, I

56:27 ↗ wanted to be able to uh show what that

56:30 ↗ service area would look like if we were

56:32 ↗ to add the Isiqua Highlands without a

56:36 ↗ cost increase to that service.

56:42 ↗ Next steps pending funding uh and

56:45 ↗ direction we receive from you today

56:47 ↗ would be that the administration

56:48 ↗ negotiates contract terms with Metro

56:50 ↗ Transit. The mayor would then sign the

56:53 ↗ contract. um it's within spending

56:55 ↗ authority. If council provides the

56:57 ↗ budget for the mayor, then she would

56:59 ↗ sign that contract, not needing to

57:01 ↗ return back to council for approval of

57:03 ↗ the contract. And then that new contract

57:05 ↗ would be in effect by January 1st. In

57:07 ↗ order for that those new services to

57:09 ↗ start January 1st, we really need the

57:11 ↗ contract signed by December 31st this

57:14 ↗ year.

57:18 ↗ So again, we seek any and all direction

57:20 ↗ that council may have tonight on those

57:22 ↗ contract terms. The administration has

57:24 ↗ no recommendation for changes at this

57:26 ↗ time.

57:28 ↗ >> So I'm thinking for this process that

57:30 ↗ maybe we start with questions and give

57:32 ↗ everybody an opportunity to ask uh

57:34 ↗ questions and then we can do a round

57:36 ↗ table and do all the comments and sum it

57:38 ↗ up at the end. So questions

57:41 ↗ council president.

57:43 ↗ >> Thank you. Um with the maps do we know

57:47 ↗ if um people can get access to Lake

57:49 ↗ Seamish State Park? It looks like the

57:52 ↗ very edge of that is right maybe at the

57:54 ↗ entrance point.

57:57 ↗ Uh yes. So um they would have access via

58:03 ↗ the boat launch area. So they could be

58:06 ↗ dropped off in that area. As you can see

58:09 ↗ from this map, it is it is at the very

58:11 ↗ edge. They can be dropped off, I

58:13 ↗ believe, or picked up at uh at the

58:15 ↗ entrance points and then they would have

58:17 ↗ to make their way into the park.

58:21 ↗ And that's part of the current service

58:22 ↗ area as well.

58:24 ↗ >> Yeah. Um and council member Hall just

58:26 ↗ mentioned the soccer fields. Um they

58:29 ↗ they would be able to be dropped off

58:31 ↗ kind of right there by the soccer

58:32 ↗ fields, right?

58:33 ↗ >> Yep. And I'm pulling up uh the

58:36 ↗ utilization map so we can see what those

58:38 ↗ rides have looked like over the past

58:39 ↗ quarter.

58:40 ↗ >> And you see there are some dots in that

58:42 ↗ area of the folks who've been picked up.

58:44 ↗ It looks like they've been picked up in

58:46 ↗ in the park or have hailed it from the

58:47 ↗ park.

58:48 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay, thank you. Additional

58:51 ↗ questions. Council member Martz,

58:53 ↗ >> thank you. Um, the nerd in me just has

58:56 ↗ to ask, um, on the drop off, um,

58:59 ↗ obviously the transit center, uh, is a

59:02 ↗ popular location. There's a location way

59:04 ↗ up in Talis. Do we understand why that's

59:07 ↗ so popular?

59:08 ↗ >> I believe that's Rose.

59:10 ↗ >> Uh, oh, Talis. Yes.

59:13 ↗ >> Ah,

59:14 ↗ >> yeah. I'm sorry. Yes. An affordable

59:15 ↗ housing project. We know that they have

59:17 ↗ really high utilization in a

59:19 ↗ >> I apologize council Marts. In a previous

59:22 ↗ uh presentation that unfortunately you

59:24 ↗ were not here for that was one of the

59:25 ↗ top five locations.

59:27 ↗ >> Gotcha. Thank you very much. I

59:28 ↗ appreciate it.

59:29 ↗ >> Additional questions? Uh council member

59:32 ↗ Hall.

59:32 ↗ >> Uh yeah, just to check we didn't ask

59:34 ↗ about um service time or anything like

59:37 ↗ that, right? It was it was all

59:39 ↗ completely focused on service area. Is

59:40 ↗ that right?

59:41 ↗ >> Service time. Are you

59:43 ↗ >> like hours of operation?

59:44 ↗ >> Hours of operation. So, uh I don't

59:48 ↗ recall council providing previous

59:50 ↗ feedback on that. Um if you wanted to

59:52 ↗ discuss different hours of operation,

59:54 ↗ then um we'd um like any feedback that

59:58 ↗ you have.

1:00:00 ↗ >> And I'll just pull this up again. the

1:00:02 ↗ hours of operation Monday through Friday

1:00:04 ↗ 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday 9:00

1:00:07 ↗ a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

1:00:10 ↗ >> Does um does administration remember any

1:00:14 ↗ like feedback we've ever received from

1:00:16 ↗ Metro even here at council when we've

1:00:19 ↗ discussed this with them here whether

1:00:22 ↗ they would ever be willing to consider

1:00:24 ↗ changes to ours or was that kind of like

1:00:26 ↗ a set thing? Yeah, I mean

1:00:28 ↗ >> within existing cost.

1:00:31 ↗ >> Yeah. So I believe that just like the

1:00:34 ↗ service area if we want to add uh

1:00:36 ↗ something then we have to take away from

1:00:38 ↗ some other side. So it's really looking

1:00:40 ↗ at the shifts of drivers how long the

1:00:42 ↗ drivers have a shift and you know we

1:00:46 ↗ don't pay overtime for this kind of

1:00:48 ↗ regular type of service that would be

1:00:49 ↗ expensive. So really trying to um the

1:00:52 ↗ units are like driver shift and vans

1:00:55 ↗ number of vans. Those are the units

1:00:57 ↗ we're playing around with. So, um, so we

1:01:01 ↗ would have to if we want to extend

1:01:02 ↗ later, um, we would either need to pay

1:01:05 ↗ more or we would need to start later as

1:01:08 ↗ well.

1:01:09 ↗ >> All right. Thank you,

1:01:10 ↗ >> Council Member Joe, followed by Council

1:01:12 ↗ Member Jiang.

1:01:13 ↗ >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um, could you

1:01:16 ↗ refresh my memory in terms of uh the

1:01:19 ↗ recommendation from TAB if they took a

1:01:21 ↗ look at this transation um committee?

1:01:25 ↗ >> Uh, Commission. Thank you, Council

1:01:27 ↗ Member Joe. When we first designed the

1:01:30 ↗ pilot program and conceived of this

1:01:32 ↗ program, we looked at all kinds of

1:01:34 ↗ options and TAB recommended metrlex

1:01:37 ↗ services for us to pursue. There were

1:01:40 ↗ other options that we considered a

1:01:41 ↗ cityrun circulator or shuttle um and

1:01:45 ↗ other uh a private option as well. This

1:01:48 ↗ metrlex services was by far their

1:01:50 ↗ favorite of the options that we

1:01:51 ↗ presented and um we have not taken this

1:01:54 ↗ back to tab. um for this particular

1:01:57 ↗ conversation of whether or not we should

1:01:59 ↗ revise the contract.

1:02:01 ↗ >> Thank you. And if council were to to

1:02:05 ↗ decide to pull the plug on Metro, what

1:02:08 ↗ replaces it?

1:02:11 ↗ >> Um we have no service that would replace

1:02:14 ↗ it. So what would replace it is folks

1:02:16 ↗ would uh be on their own to figure out

1:02:19 ↗ um how they're connecting to different

1:02:20 ↗ places.

1:02:22 ↗ So that would be accessing other transit

1:02:25 ↗ services. Um certain parts of Isiqua are

1:02:28 ↗ not easily accessible to transit. Uh

1:02:30 ↗ they would need to drive their own

1:02:32 ↗ vehicle, walk, bike, carpool, and

1:02:34 ↗ arrange those things on their own.

1:02:36 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

1:02:37 ↗ >> And council member Joe, you bring up a

1:02:39 ↗ good point. Sending it to Tab is also an

1:02:41 ↗ option. Uh, council member Jiang.

1:02:44 ↗ >> Um, I'm just curious about, you know, if

1:02:46 ↗ we adopt this new service area, do you

1:02:49 ↗ have a plan for when we would evaluate

1:02:50 ↗ this new coverage area for performance,

1:02:53 ↗ especially relative to the criteria that

1:02:55 ↗ King County Metro uses to determine if

1:02:57 ↗ they're going to fund Metrolex, you

1:02:59 ↗ know, different areas. They have

1:03:00 ↗ criteria for that.

1:03:04 ↗ Uh so your question, Council Member Jen,

1:03:06 ↗ is how often when would we evaluate this

1:03:08 ↗ again to see if the service area change

1:03:11 ↗ was um being productive?

1:03:14 ↗ Yeah, I mean I think you know I think

1:03:16 ↗ part of the rationale for this change is

1:03:19 ↗ that you know potentially could increase

1:03:20 ↗ writership you know etc etc. And so I'm

1:03:23 ↗ curious if we have a plan of when we

1:03:25 ↗ would look at that.

1:03:27 ↗ We get quarterly performance metrics

1:03:30 ↗ from Metro Transit and so we could

1:03:33 ↗ assess that performance um on a

1:03:36 ↗ quarterly basis and um I would invite

1:03:39 ↗ feedback from council as to when you

1:03:41 ↗ would like us to evaluate that.

1:03:43 ↗ >> Yeah, I think um I would love to see the

1:03:46 ↗ data in the first quarter because I

1:03:48 ↗ think one of the things that we

1:03:48 ↗ discussed was potentially you know

1:03:50 ↗ changing this to something else um and

1:03:52 ↗ so you know we'd want to review the data

1:03:54 ↗ as soon as it's available. So, Council

1:03:56 ↗ Member Jen, keep that thought because

1:03:57 ↗ after we're done with questions, you can

1:03:59 ↗ add that to your list of things that you

1:04:00 ↗ would like to see the staff come back

1:04:01 ↗ with. Sounds good. Thanks. Questions for

1:04:04 ↗ Andrea?

1:04:07 ↗ Okay. I am not seeing a lot of

1:04:09 ↗ additional questions. So, if we want to

1:04:10 ↗ work our way around the room, we can

1:04:12 ↗ start with Council Member Jiang who's

1:04:14 ↗ already put one request out on the table

1:04:16 ↗ for consideration, which is quarterly

1:04:18 ↗ review of data. But you did you have

1:04:21 ↗ other things on your list? Yeah, I think

1:04:24 ↗ um you know going back to what we talked

1:04:25 ↗ about previously, I'm still concerned

1:04:27 ↗ about the cost of the service. I mean

1:04:29 ↗ $40 per ride is very high. I'm also

1:04:31 ↗ concerned that you know the more just

1:04:34 ↗ the whole concept of microransit is it's

1:04:36 ↗ essentially an ondemand you know

1:04:39 ↗ concierge service and so the more you

1:04:41 ↗ add service area the more you add rides

1:04:45 ↗ the longer the wait time is I mean you

1:04:47 ↗ know likely the longer the wait time is

1:04:48 ↗ going to get for the user. So, I'd be

1:04:50 ↗ very curious to see if that, you know,

1:04:51 ↗ my preconceptions are accurate um given,

1:04:55 ↗ uh, you know, the actual data. Um,

1:04:58 ↗ personally, I would love to see us

1:04:59 ↗ revisit this idea of a local circulator

1:05:02 ↗ shuttle. Um, and I know that requires

1:05:05 ↗ staff time, which, you know, given the

1:05:07 ↗ budget conversation we just had, we may

1:05:08 ↗ not have, but that's something that I

1:05:10 ↗ would definitely love to see us, you

1:05:12 ↗ know, potentially explore as a future

1:05:14 ↗ pilot or something like that, given that

1:05:16 ↗ now we have a good sense of where people

1:05:18 ↗ are when they're using the service. Um,

1:05:21 ↗ you know, designing a some kind of local

1:05:23 ↗ shuttle that actually, you know,

1:05:25 ↗ addresses those needs could be something

1:05:28 ↗ to explore. And since we're not um

1:05:31 ↗ responding tonight, you don't have an

1:05:33 ↗ action, I think, um deputy city

1:05:35 ↗ administrator is going to capture

1:05:36 ↗ everybody's comments so that she has it

1:05:38 ↗ all together. So, thank you for those.

1:05:39 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:05:40 ↗ >> Uh council member Joe,

1:05:43 ↗ >> thank you for putting this together. I

1:05:45 ↗ appreciate it. Um

1:05:48 ↗ in general, uh I'll just talk about the

1:05:51 ↗ the coverage area and the proposal. Um I

1:05:55 ↗ think it is a good idea to consider

1:05:56 ↗ expanding to the Isqua Highlands. uh

1:05:59 ↗ eliminating squawk. Um now keep in mind

1:06:03 ↗ I'm I'm supporting this. It eliminates

1:06:06 ↗ my kids house. Um but I think that if I

1:06:10 ↗ look at the demand dots, the pickups and

1:06:11 ↗ the drop offs, uh my kids can walk and

1:06:14 ↗ they can go to the bottom of the hill

1:06:15 ↗ and they can pick up the uh shuttle

1:06:19 ↗ right there at the bottom. Um I think

1:06:22 ↗ the highlands however uh because of the

1:06:24 ↗ densities that are there the number of

1:06:26 ↗ people and the demographics in terms of

1:06:28 ↗ number of young people in there and um

1:06:32 ↗ people that have shown propensity to use

1:06:34 ↗ transit I think expanded in the

1:06:36 ↗ highlands does make sense within the

1:06:38 ↗ contract parameters and the costs that

1:06:40 ↗ are involved. Um I would like uh to hear

1:06:43 ↗ further discussion from my colleagues

1:06:44 ↗ though. Thank you.

1:06:45 ↗ >> Thank you council member Hall.

1:06:50 ↗ Yeah, it's tough. I I you know, it's

1:06:54 ↗ unfortunate too because Squawk and Talis

1:06:57 ↗ were the original two neighborhoods

1:06:59 ↗ where we said there's a last mile

1:07:01 ↗ problem that exists here and we want to

1:07:02 ↗ serve this neighborhood. What we're

1:07:04 ↗ seeing in the data is that the Squawk

1:07:05 ↗ neighborhood is not using this service

1:07:08 ↗ as much. Um, so I see this as an

1:07:10 ↗ opportunity to um um experiment with the

1:07:14 ↗ rest of the Highlands and um see if this

1:07:16 ↗ is a service that um um is captured even

1:07:21 ↗ broader across the community to access

1:07:22 ↗ the points that they need, especially

1:07:24 ↗ from up in the Highlands, potentially

1:07:27 ↗ being able to access the transit center

1:07:28 ↗ more easily and that kind of thing. So,

1:07:31 ↗ um I say let's move forward with the new

1:07:34 ↗ service area and um negotiate those

1:07:37 ↗ terms. Um I still agree um like a few

1:07:42 ↗ meetings back um council hopefully in

1:07:45 ↗ the new year with the Q4 data when that

1:07:47 ↗ comes out can have a council only

1:07:50 ↗ discussion about specifically what

1:07:53 ↗ problems are we trying to solve? What do

1:07:55 ↗ the desired outcomes uh and goals look

1:07:58 ↗ like? So we know what success looks like

1:08:00 ↗ at the end of the the next contract and

1:08:04 ↗ we can have a broader discussion to then

1:08:06 ↗ about or at least we have something to

1:08:08 ↗ point to when we want to have a broader

1:08:10 ↗ discussion about what is the full range

1:08:11 ↗ of options that we should consider to to

1:08:14 ↗ solve the problem especially when it

1:08:15 ↗ comes to um Squawk in the future. So

1:08:18 ↗ those are my thoughts at the moment.

1:08:19 ↗ Thanks.

1:08:20 ↗ >> Thank you council member Ray.

1:08:22 ↗ >> Um thanks. I don't know that I have a

1:08:23 ↗ whole lot to add. It's pretty clear that

1:08:25 ↗ Squawk Mountain um the service didn't

1:08:28 ↗ meet its objectives there. So, no point

1:08:30 ↗ in um you know not looking at other

1:08:33 ↗ options. So, I'm not opposed to

1:08:35 ↗ expanding the the service area. Um, I I

1:08:40 ↗ think we should also, um, if possible,

1:08:44 ↗ look at alternatives to Metrflex and see

1:08:47 ↗ if there's a way to meet the objectives

1:08:49 ↗ that we have outlined and that we will,

1:08:52 ↗ as uh, Council Member Hall pointed out,

1:08:56 ↗ be very clear on what our objectives

1:08:57 ↗ are. Um, another way to meet those

1:09:00 ↗ objectives that might be more effective

1:09:02 ↗ and more costefficient.

1:09:03 ↗ >> Thank you, Council Member Mertz.

1:09:06 ↗ >> Thank you. Uh I'm opposed to uh

1:09:08 ↗ eliminating Squawk Mountain from uh the

1:09:11 ↗ service area. Uh the vast majority of

1:09:14 ↗ folks who live in the highlands are

1:09:16 ↗ walking distance from basically the best

1:09:18 ↗ uh transit that we have in the entire

1:09:20 ↗ city and everyone on Squawk Mountain is

1:09:23 ↗ every anywhere from 500 to,300 ft

1:09:26 ↗ vertically uh from transit. Um it it

1:09:29 ↗ we're not going to ask our residents to

1:09:31 ↗ climb a,000 feet um for uh transit. I I

1:09:36 ↗ will agree that Squawk Mountain has not

1:09:38 ↗ used this service as much thus far as uh

1:09:41 ↗ I would have expected, but the

1:09:43 ↗ fundamental nature of transit options on

1:09:45 ↗ Squawk makes it the only option for us.

1:09:47 ↗ So, I would I would I would oppose

1:09:50 ↗ getting rid of the only transit option

1:09:52 ↗ available to Squawk Mountain residents.

1:09:53 ↗ Thank you.

1:09:54 ↗ >> Thank you, Deputy Council President D.

1:09:55 ↗ Michelle.

1:09:59 ↗ >> Thank you. Um I uh support support um

1:10:04 ↗ changing the uh service area to include

1:10:07 ↗ the highlands. Um I took a look at the

1:10:11 ↗ metro uh equity

1:10:15 ↗ priorities areas uh and we have three of

1:10:18 ↗ them in Esqua which is kind of

1:10:19 ↗ interesting. Um two of them are in the

1:10:22 ↗ highlands and one of them is Squawk

1:10:23 ↗ Mountain. And uh we know from the uh the

1:10:29 ↗ real effort in the Highlands to

1:10:31 ↗ distribute affordable housing units that

1:10:35 ↗ um they are dispersed throughout the

1:10:36 ↗ Highlands. Um the map that we've been

1:10:40 ↗ shown would cover a good percentage of

1:10:42 ↗ those. And I I'm going to speculate and

1:10:46 ↗ hopefully I'm not stereotyping too much,

1:10:48 ↗ but I think that our high equity

1:10:50 ↗ priority areas in the Squawk Mountain

1:10:53 ↗ area are really gathered very close to

1:10:55 ↗ the Newport Way uh Sunset um exchange to

1:11:00 ↗ there, the Hutcherson House and and um

1:11:03 ↗ the uh apartment buildings. They're up

1:11:05 ↗ and down Newport Way. all of which would

1:11:07 ↗ have access to Metroflex by simply

1:11:10 ↗ walking a couple of blocks down to the

1:11:13 ↗ down to uh the Sunset U Newport Way

1:11:16 ↗ area. So, I I feel like we're not taking

1:11:20 ↗ away from our high priority areas if we

1:11:23 ↗ expand that service up into the

1:11:25 ↗ Highlands. Um, and I'd be glad to share

1:11:28 ↗ this map with anybody that wants to take

1:11:30 ↗ a look at it, but um,

1:11:33 ↗ we really need to think about uh,

1:11:37 ↗ getting the writership in on Metrolex

1:11:40 ↗ up. Um, it's going to benefit us. It'll

1:11:43 ↗ benefit our community and hopefully will

1:11:46 ↗ make it a much more sustainable service

1:11:48 ↗ if we can get that up. We have a prime

1:11:51 ↗ market of people that have already been

1:11:53 ↗ identified as being high uh transit use

1:11:57 ↗ people and those are uh lowincome uh

1:12:01 ↗ people with disabilities, seniors and

1:12:03 ↗ immigrants and that is a good chunk of

1:12:06 ↗ the population that are in the

1:12:07 ↗ highlands. So, I think this will be a

1:12:09 ↗ highly used addition to uh the folks in

1:12:13 ↗ the Highlands and I think that there

1:12:15 ↗ will be uh options to use Metroflex for

1:12:18 ↗ the people that really need it who live

1:12:20 ↗ in Squawk Squawk Mountain. Um I also

1:12:22 ↗ wanted to add uh not particularly on the

1:12:25 ↗ topic, but I'll just add it. Um we are

1:12:28 ↗ continuing to have Metrolex discussions

1:12:31 ↗ at the regional transit committee and

1:12:32 ↗ there'll be another one uh this

1:12:34 ↗ Wednesday. Um and our uh staff person at

1:12:38 ↗ Sound Cities Association did a review of

1:12:41 ↗ how much it's costing per passenger ride

1:12:43 ↗ in other um areas where Metroflex is

1:12:47 ↗ running. We're really kind of in the

1:12:49 ↗ middle with that $40. There is one area

1:12:52 ↗ where it's $140 per ride.

1:12:56 ↗ Yes. And I I said to him, "That's a

1:12:59 ↗ typo, right?" and he said, "No, there is

1:13:01 ↗ an area, I won't identify it here, but

1:13:04 ↗ so, uh, there are other communities that

1:13:06 ↗ are spending $55 per ride and, uh, $45

1:13:10 ↗ per ride. So, we are not the most

1:13:12 ↗ expensive place for Metro."

1:13:14 ↗ >> Council President, did they talk about

1:13:15 ↗ subsidy by Metro or not? Like, Smamish

1:13:17 ↗ pays zero.

1:13:18 ↗ >> Yes.

1:13:19 ↗ >> King County pays for it, but here we

1:13:20 ↗ pay. Did they also talk about how much

1:13:22 ↗ is a King County dollar versus an Isiqua

1:13:24 ↗ dollar?

1:13:24 ↗ >> Yes. And I don't know exactly what the

1:13:26 ↗ That would be super interesting.

1:13:27 ↗ >> Yeah, it would be. So anyway, I thought

1:13:29 ↗ it was very interesting research that uh

1:13:32 ↗ as much as that $40 is sounds

1:13:35 ↗ impossible, it really is not the highest

1:13:37 ↗ in uh in King County. So at any rate, um

1:13:41 ↗ looking at the map where we're looking

1:13:42 ↗ at equity priorities, I sus I would

1:13:45 ↗ support um changing the uh service

1:13:49 ↗ boundary and opening up that new market

1:13:52 ↗ in the Highlands. Thank you.

1:13:54 ↗ >> Thank you, Council President.

1:13:57 ↗ I don't know if I have all that much to

1:13:59 ↗ add other than I think the areas up in

1:14:02 ↗ the highlands that are um especially

1:14:05 ↗ affordable housing um and things like

1:14:07 ↗ that are

1:14:08 ↗ very useful. Um I appreciate that we

1:14:12 ↗ didn't attempt to add all of the

1:14:15 ↗ highlands. I think it's perfectly

1:14:16 ↗ reasonable for people to walk in certain

1:14:19 ↗ areas, but um to be able to add access

1:14:23 ↗ to Central Park and um the elementary

1:14:27 ↗ school and um others like that. I think

1:14:30 ↗ it's really a good addition for this.

1:14:33 ↗ Thank you.

1:14:34 ↗ >> Thank you. Andrea, do you have

1:14:35 ↗ everything you need?

1:14:37 ↗ >> I do. Thank you very much.

1:14:39 ↗ >> Awesome. Thank you.

1:14:40 ↗ >> Mayor Paulie, I'm sorry. Can I just ask?

1:14:42 ↗ >> Sure. Go ahead. So, just so I I'm

1:14:44 ↗ pulling a Zach only a few more times

1:14:46 ↗ [laughter] left in my career. So, um

1:14:49 ↗ just so I understand since several of us

1:14:52 ↗ mentioned wanting to go kind of back to

1:14:54 ↗ problem statement, definition, goals,

1:14:56 ↗ outcomes,

1:14:59 ↗ what I thought we had agreed to earlier

1:15:02 ↗ was there is no budget for

1:15:05 ↗ [clears throat] in this P benium to do

1:15:07 ↗ any of kind of the actual evaluative

1:15:09 ↗ work of different options or anything,

1:15:11 ↗ right? What what what

1:15:14 ↗ the next step here is that council only

1:15:17 ↗ council themselves would have a

1:15:18 ↗ discussion about okay using the

1:15:20 ↗ information and the data that we already

1:15:22 ↗ have

1:15:22 ↗ >> y

1:15:24 ↗ >> at our fingertips to have a discussion

1:15:26 ↗ about goals and outcomes problem

1:15:28 ↗ statement and then have that be a body

1:15:32 ↗ of work that we can reference in the

1:15:34 ↗ future when we want to allocate money to

1:15:37 ↗ re-evaluate what our options are. Is

1:15:38 ↗ that correct?

1:15:40 ↗ >> Thank you. Yes. Let me let me reiterate

1:15:42 ↗ next steps. So for the purposes of the

1:15:45 ↗ contract, what I heard from council

1:15:47 ↗ feedback today was large majority

1:15:50 ↗ support to revise the service areas as

1:15:53 ↗ we have mapped out for this evening. So

1:15:56 ↗ it would be to add that portion of the

1:15:58 ↗ Isiqua Highlands and then subtract uh

1:16:01 ↗ coverage from the majority of Squawk. So

1:16:04 ↗ that's the that's the direction that we

1:16:05 ↗ heard from council today. Um, so I will

1:16:08 ↗ go back to our partners at Metro and

1:16:10 ↗ we'll revise that contract. Um, should

1:16:13 ↗ then uh council approve funding tonight

1:16:16 ↗ with the midband adjustment, then the

1:16:18 ↗ mayor would sign that contract and the

1:16:20 ↗ contract would go into effect on January

1:16:22 ↗ 1st. What we've also heard from council

1:16:24 ↗ from the last meeting where we discussed

1:16:26 ↗ metrlex and a little bit from tonight is

1:16:28 ↗ the desire to evaluate these services

1:16:31 ↗ more um earlier on uh than what we've

1:16:34 ↗ done this with this pilot project and

1:16:36 ↗ more continuously. And so we've also

1:16:39 ↗ talked about the desire to do a um more

1:16:42 ↗ in-depth discussion on what are the

1:16:44 ↗ goals for this service, maybe some

1:16:45 ↗ targets for the service, and then we can

1:16:48 ↗ use those to evaluate the metroflex

1:16:50 ↗ services or evaluate other options if

1:16:52 ↗ there are other options that meet those

1:16:54 ↗ goals better. And what we had talked

1:16:56 ↗ about um in the October discussion with

1:16:58 ↗ council was the ability to have that

1:17:00 ↗ conversation early on uh next year in

1:17:03 ↗ 2026. Uh the the issue that we have

1:17:07 ↗ tonight is that this contract expires in

1:17:10 ↗ December 31st of this year. So um those

1:17:13 ↗ would be the next steps. again, um,

1:17:15 ↗ revising the contract with a new service

1:17:17 ↗ area, adding on the Isiqua Highlands,

1:17:19 ↗ uh, subtracting Squawk, and then, uh,

1:17:22 ↗ coming back to council early on in 2026

1:17:26 ↗ once we have, uh, data from Q1 as to how

1:17:30 ↗ this new service area is operating and

1:17:32 ↗ also be able to have a conversation on

1:17:34 ↗ what those goals are for this service

1:17:36 ↗ that that council has.

1:17:38 ↗ >> Andrea, one thing to clarify, I think

1:17:40 ↗ council member Hall was getting at the

1:17:41 ↗ 2026 budget. Does it have a allocation

1:17:45 ↗ for studying other alternatives? Is

1:17:48 ↗ there staff resources coming in to do

1:17:51 ↗ that study as well or is it just goals

1:17:54 ↗ and outcomes for this extension of the

1:17:56 ↗ pilot? Is that all that we're committing

1:17:58 ↗ to in 2026?

1:18:00 ↗ >> Um I think what we had in so there is no

1:18:02 ↗ additional funding for study of transit

1:18:05 ↗ services or additional transit services

1:18:07 ↗ >> in this budget

1:18:08 ↗ >> in this budget. There's no additional

1:18:10 ↗ funding. I think what we had talked

1:18:11 ↗ about last time was um that we could use

1:18:14 ↗ existing staff resources to have the

1:18:16 ↗ conversation with what are your goals

1:18:18 ↗ and objectives for additional transit

1:18:20 ↗ services. So um and then use that

1:18:23 ↗ discussion to figure out is Metroflex

1:18:26 ↗ services the correct one or do we want

1:18:27 ↗ to evaluate other options. At that point

1:18:30 ↗ we depending on the results of that

1:18:32 ↗ conversation we may need to come back

1:18:34 ↗ and seek additional staffing resources.

1:18:36 ↗ But I think for the first couple of

1:18:38 ↗ steps, I think we can handle that with

1:18:40 ↗ the resources we have on hand.

1:18:42 ↗ >> That's clear. Okay. Um, so any other

1:18:47 ↗ final clarifications? Otherwise, I'm

1:18:49 ↗ going to let Andrea

1:18:51 ↗ to leave the microphone.

1:18:54 ↗ So, thank you, Andrea. Uh, the next item

1:18:57 ↗ is the 2025 2026 midbian budget

1:19:00 ↗ adjustment. This is the second year of

1:19:02 ↗ our two-year budget and the request

1:19:04 ↗ before council this evening is to adopt

1:19:07 ↗ the ordinance

1:19:09 ↗ and uh it says is there anyone wanting

1:19:13 ↗ to make a motion?

1:19:17 ↗ >> Do you have it?

1:19:18 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:19:19 ↗ >> And is it both of the um motions also

1:19:23 ↗ for the property tax as well or

1:19:25 ↗ >> Yeah. I think we want to do discussion

1:19:27 ↗ after each motion. So one motion and

1:19:29 ↗ then discussion.

1:19:31 ↗ Okay. So, I move to adopt ordinance

1:19:34 ↗ number

1:19:36 ↗ >> 3125

1:19:38 ↗ amending the 202526 budget as set forth

1:19:42 ↗ in ordinance number one. Okay.

1:19:45 ↗ >> Continue. Yeah. Ordinance number 3083

1:19:48 ↗ and amended an ordinance number 3090

1:19:50 ↗ concerning revenues, expenditures, and

1:19:52 ↗ fund balance for various funds.

1:19:55 ↗ >> Thank you. Is there a second?

1:19:56 ↗ >> Second.

1:19:57 ↗ >> It's been moved and seconded. Uh, is

1:19:59 ↗ there any council discussion?

1:20:01 ↗ >> Madam Mayor,

1:20:02 ↗ >> um, uh, city administer.

1:20:04 ↗ >> Um, as we ended the last portion of this

1:20:07 ↗ discussion, there was some questions

1:20:08 ↗ from council member Hall uh, regarding

1:20:11 ↗ uh, the the planning contracts.

1:20:13 ↗ >> I have Kristen Le on the the line now.

1:20:16 ↗ >> Oh, fantastic. Okay, that's great. You

1:20:18 ↗ called a friend.

1:20:19 ↗ >> Is it [clears throat] appropriate at

1:20:20 ↗ this point or

1:20:21 ↗ >> Yeah, I think let's get that information

1:20:23 ↗ out on the table and then we'll move

1:20:24 ↗ into council discussion.

1:20:25 ↗ >> Very good. Thank you. U, Kristen, you're

1:20:27 ↗ there. Also,

1:20:32 ↗ that is staff dedication right there to

1:20:34 ↗ jump on the council meeting. So, thank

1:20:36 ↗ you for being with us.

1:20:38 ↗ >> She was there. There she

1:20:39 ↗ >> There we go. Good.

1:20:40 ↗ >> There we go. Thanks, Kristen.

1:20:43 ↗ >> You're welcome.

1:20:44 ↗ >> Perhaps could you repeat the question,

1:20:46 ↗ Council Member Hall?

1:20:48 ↗ >> Yeah, go ahead.

1:20:49 ↗ >> Oh, sure. Yeah. Thank you. So, I was

1:20:51 ↗ hoping to get a better sense of scope of

1:20:53 ↗ work for um we've allocated $150,000

1:20:58 ↗ for the Eco Eco Northwest report

1:21:01 ↗ implementation. And so, I was asking um

1:21:03 ↗ I know we've done the courtyard and

1:21:05 ↗ cottage housing kind of element of the

1:21:07 ↗ recommendations. There was another

1:21:08 ↗ strategy around condominiums that we

1:21:11 ↗ couldn't it's a little outside our lane

1:21:12 ↗ as in the here at the municipal level.

1:21:16 ↗ And then the other part was like

1:21:17 ↗ inclusionary zoning and there were a

1:21:19 ↗ couple elements of that and then there

1:21:20 ↗ was like a list of like other things to

1:21:22 ↗ consider like the development bonus

1:21:24 ↗ program and structured parking. So I was

1:21:25 ↗ just curious if we had kind of thought

1:21:27 ↗ through how much could we accomplish

1:21:29 ↗ with that 150,000.

1:21:33 ↗ >> Of course. So Kristen Leon, planning

1:21:35 ↗ manager and we

1:21:38 ↗ have talked about it and other things

1:21:40 ↗ that were included in the Eco Northwest

1:21:42 ↗ report. There was inclusionary zoning.

1:21:44 ↗ Our original request from Eco Northwest

1:21:46 ↗ was to help us expand the program and

1:21:47 ↗ they said you can't expand a program

1:21:49 ↗ that isn't working. So we needed to

1:21:51 ↗ re-evaluate that.

1:21:53 ↗ We also as a part of that study started

1:21:56 ↗ looking at multif family tax exemptions

1:21:59 ↗ to see if that would help. That was a

1:22:01 ↗ part of it as well. The density bonus

1:22:03 ↗ program, development bonus program. Now

1:22:06 ↗ we also wanted to expand that and so we

1:22:10 ↗ need to look at that. That was another

1:22:11 ↗ situation said where they said it's not

1:22:13 ↗ really that successful now. Let's see if

1:22:15 ↗ we can fix it first. densities allowing

1:22:18 ↗ for different densities partic um more

1:22:21 ↗ likely more density in our multif family

1:22:24 ↗ zones where we have actual density

1:22:27 ↗ numbers. So multif family high we allow

1:22:29 ↗ for 29 dwelling units per acre and we

1:22:31 ↗ allow for 14.52 in our multif family

1:22:34 ↗ medium perhaps allowing for more

1:22:36 ↗ densities in those zones as well or

1:22:38 ↗ moving to F. And then there was the

1:22:40 ↗ parking that was a struggle and

1:22:42 ↗ requiring structured parking which is no

1:22:44 ↗ longer require

1:22:48 ↗ parking with multif family structured

1:22:50 ↗ parking with multif family developments.

1:22:53 ↗ But all of that meant moving adjusting

1:22:55 ↗ levers to see what what exactly do we

1:22:58 ↗ need to adjust and how much to make it

1:23:00 ↗ work now and then hopefully expand it as

1:23:04 ↗ well.

1:23:08 ↗ >> What do you think, Council Member Hall?

1:23:09 ↗ Thank you. Yeah. Um, so do we feel

1:23:15 ↗ I guess I what I want to just make sure

1:23:17 ↗ I'm clear on is the $150,000

1:23:22 ↗ would that would it allow us to have all

1:23:24 ↗ of these discussions in 26 or get

1:23:28 ↗ started

1:23:30 ↗ and maybe be able to talk about how we

1:23:33 ↗ revamp the inclusionary zoning

1:23:37 ↗ bits or um I mean this might be

1:23:39 ↗ something We we we kind of figure out as

1:23:42 ↗ we get into 2026, too. But I'm just

1:23:44 ↗ curious if we thought about how much of

1:23:45 ↗ that list cuz it's a lot. It's a good

1:23:47 ↗ amount.

1:23:49 ↗ >> It's a lot.

1:23:49 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:23:50 ↗ >> But they all work together. Yeah.

1:23:52 ↗ >> So, you have to look at them at once.

1:23:56 ↗ >> Whether or not that moves into 2027, I

1:23:59 ↗ don't know. I would imagine that we can

1:24:01 ↗ get consulting work done in 2026 and

1:24:04 ↗ then it would be up to staff to actually

1:24:06 ↗ do the implementation of the rest of it

1:24:08 ↗ through the code and programs.

1:24:11 ↗ >> Okay.

1:24:12 ↗ Okay. Well, thank you very much. I

1:24:14 ↗ appreciate you um jumping on to answer

1:24:16 ↗ this question. and council member Shang.

1:24:19 ↗ >> Um, just to clarify, so the 150,000 that

1:24:23 ↗ we're proposing on spending on this is

1:24:25 ↗ doing another consultant study, not

1:24:27 ↗ hiring an additional staff person to

1:24:28 ↗ work on this.

1:24:30 ↗ >> Correct.

1:24:31 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. Well, thank you for

1:24:34 ↗ that, Kristen. Thank you, city

1:24:35 ↗ administrator. Um, where we left off is,

1:24:39 ↗ uh, moved and seconded to adopt the

1:24:42 ↗ ordinance for the 2025 2026 budget. Um

1:24:46 ↗ so uh council discussion council

1:24:48 ↗ president

1:24:50 ↗ >> thank you. Um so first of all just very

1:24:54 ↗ much appreciate the work that has gone

1:24:57 ↗ into this. Um, we have tried to be very

1:24:59 ↗ practiced as a council as we have

1:25:02 ↗ started in on these bienium budgets not

1:25:04 ↗ to make a lot of adjustments in the

1:25:09 ↗ midyear and I think we're still trying

1:25:12 ↗ to hold to that but there were certain

1:25:14 ↗ things here that had to be adjusted and

1:25:18 ↗ so this is maybe a bigger lift than we

1:25:20 ↗ would have otherwise anticipated. I

1:25:23 ↗ really appreciate the work in getting us

1:25:26 ↗ up from a 7% undesated fund balance to a

1:25:31 ↗ 13%. I think that feels comfortable for

1:25:33 ↗ me at the end of um this 2026 year. Um

1:25:40 ↗ that being said, um I am particularly

1:25:45 ↗ concerned about the street fund. Um

1:25:47 ↗ street operating is kind of my baby. Um

1:25:49 ↗ I really like making sure that our

1:25:51 ↗ pavement management and everything are

1:25:54 ↗ taken care of. Um and so seeing both the

1:26:01 ↗ you know the chart that showed how much

1:26:05 ↗ behind we are getting on maintenance of

1:26:09 ↗ our streets in 2025 2026 and then

1:26:13 ↗ looking ahead and going okay well that

1:26:15 ↗ means we're going to have to spend more

1:26:17 ↗ in future years both for emergency

1:26:19 ↗ repairs and just to play catchup a

1:26:23 ↗ little bit Yet, we're also proposing a

1:26:27 ↗ decrease in the fund balance by not

1:26:31 ↗ transferring in 250,000 from the general

1:26:34 ↗ fund and asking the street operating

1:26:35 ↗ fund to absorb the 130,000

1:26:39 ↗ of um operations overages. I I just

1:26:44 ↗ think we're putting ourselves into a

1:26:46 ↗ really difficult situation. I would be

1:26:49 ↗ interested uh from my council colleagues

1:26:52 ↗ if there was any interest in changing

1:26:55 ↗ that decrease in 250,000

1:26:58 ↗ from

1:26:59 ↗ street operating to a decrease in the

1:27:02 ↗ fleet fund considering fleet fund has

1:27:04 ↗ added 300,000 from the public safety

1:27:07 ↗ sales tax. And so they're actually going

1:27:10 ↗ up with this budget versus

1:27:13 ↗ um going down or rather our general fund

1:27:17 ↗ is not adding to it. Um so I would be

1:27:21 ↗ curious about that from other council

1:27:24 ↗ members. And then um one thing I was

1:27:27 ↗ realizing as I was looking over it um

1:27:29 ↗ I'm not seeing a proposed decrease or

1:27:32 ↗ change to the downtown isqua association

1:27:36 ↗ funding. Um though I know there have

1:27:38 ↗ been some issues there. Is there

1:27:41 ↗ anything that is changing in our general

1:27:44 ↗ fund for 25 or 26 compared to our

1:27:48 ↗ budget?

1:27:52 ↗ >> There there weren't any changes um

1:27:55 ↗ included in the mid banium adjustments

1:27:56 ↗ for funding.

1:27:59 ↗ No reductions or no changes

1:28:02 ↗ >> from what's already currently budgeted.

1:28:04 ↗ City administrator, could you speak to

1:28:07 ↗ that? Based on the letter we received,

1:28:09 ↗ is there any general fund savings that

1:28:12 ↗ we are seeing because of changes

1:28:16 ↗ proposed to that program in 25 or 26?

1:28:19 ↗ >> No. The the money that Dia received

1:28:22 ↗ otherwise goes to the state of

1:28:23 ↗ Washington.

1:28:25 ↗ >> Okay.

1:28:25 ↗ >> And it's and just because something's

1:28:27 ↗ budgeted doesn't need mean it's

1:28:28 ↗ necessarily allocated.

1:28:30 ↗ >> Yeah. Thank you. Uh, Deputy Council

1:28:33 ↗ President,

1:28:36 ↗ >> we're just doing comments now for past

1:28:38 ↗ questions. So, oh, council member Ray.

1:28:42 ↗ >> Thanks. Because I have to finish my

1:28:44 ↗ thoughts from earlier. So, um, going to

1:28:48 ↗ be a little bit of a Danny Downer here.

1:28:50 ↗ Um,

1:28:51 ↗ we're not meeting the the provisions of

1:28:53 ↗ our financial policy. We set the policy.

1:28:56 ↗ Um and it's really an important thing um

1:29:00 ↗ to have a sound financial policy and to

1:29:02 ↗ have sound financial discipline. And

1:29:04 ↗ when we put this policy together uh 15%

1:29:07 ↗ was a floor not a ceiling. It was if you

1:29:10 ↗ read the policy it says 15 to 20% is

1:29:12 ↗ what the ending fund balance should be.

1:29:14 ↗ It doesn't say and you should just make

1:29:15 ↗ sure you get to 15%. Um and we're not

1:29:18 ↗ even getting to the 15% um by the end of

1:29:21 ↗ the bianium. Um which is um super

1:29:23 ↗ disappointing. And as I was mentioning

1:29:25 ↗ earlier, um

1:29:28 ↗ the tactics we used feel a lot like

1:29:31 ↗ moving um chairs around on uh on the

1:29:35 ↗ Titanic and and we're not addressing the

1:29:38 ↗ problem which is the iceberg ahead of

1:29:40 ↗ us. So we can move dollars from this

1:29:42 ↗ fund to that fund to this one and defer

1:29:43 ↗ that. But that doesn't solve the problem

1:29:46 ↗ that we're facing which is um we really

1:29:49 ↗ have a structural budget problem. And I

1:29:52 ↗ really um appreciate the idea of doing a

1:29:54 ↗ long-term um financial planning and

1:29:57 ↗ modeling because I think we have to

1:29:59 ↗ understand how real this cliff is and

1:30:02 ↗ that way we can start to have some um

1:30:04 ↗ make those hard decisions. But it's

1:30:06 ↗ really um there is no optimism in this

1:30:10 ↗ budget and um as Mayor Paulie said, we

1:30:13 ↗ this is a scraping by which is is really

1:30:16 ↗ disheartening to me. And fund balances

1:30:19 ↗ are really really important because we

1:30:20 ↗ don't know when we're going to have that

1:30:22 ↗ next unexpected uh expense. Oh, bomb

1:30:25 ↗ cyclone, you know, something like that.

1:30:28 ↗ Those happen and we can continue to chip

1:30:30 ↗ away at those balances and all of a

1:30:32 ↗ sudden we're in a financial crisis. And

1:30:35 ↗ the other thing that I worry even more

1:30:36 ↗ about than an unexpected expense because

1:30:38 ↗ I think we have more um buffers for

1:30:40 ↗ those is an unexpected drop in revenue.

1:30:44 ↗ And we are very like we are very blessed

1:30:46 ↗ in this town to have a robust uh sales

1:30:49 ↗ tax revenue base. And we are you know

1:30:52 ↗ all the all the models all the pundits

1:30:54 ↗ we are on the precipice of some sort of

1:30:56 ↗ a recession and we're going to see a

1:30:58 ↗ drop in sales tax revenue. We've been

1:31:00 ↗ we've been riding the sales tax uh

1:31:02 ↗ revenue for a long time. So we don't ha,

1:31:05 ↗ you know, we're not going to see that

1:31:07 ↗ going on. So, I'm I'm concerned um going

1:31:11 ↗ forward how we can continue to spend uh

1:31:18 ↗ without the revenue to back it up and um

1:31:21 ↗ and recognizing that in periods of

1:31:24 ↗ really high inflation where we've got

1:31:27 ↗ costs that are tied to CPI and we have a

1:31:31 ↗ 1% property tax escalator. Uh how are we

1:31:35 ↗ going to balance this budget? So, um,

1:31:37 ↗ not super excited about the budget

1:31:39 ↗ amendments as presented. Not super

1:31:41 ↗ excited about the mid buy true up and

1:31:43 ↗ really not excited about the prospects

1:31:45 ↗ for the end of the bienium.

1:31:47 ↗ >> Thanks, Council Member Ray. Council

1:31:48 ↗ member Mertz.

1:31:50 ↗ >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um,

1:31:53 ↗ [clears throat] not for the first time

1:31:54 ↗ will I say I will miss Chris Ray on this

1:31:56 ↗ council. And no, I mean it really

1:31:58 ↗ seriously. I I love how honest um he

1:32:01 ↗ always is on the particularly on these

1:32:02 ↗ financial matters. And I I completely

1:32:05 ↗ understand um his concern. I this whole

1:32:08 ↗ subject of aiming for uh this 15% and

1:32:12 ↗ having it be a floor and not a ceiling

1:32:14 ↗ has has has been a a point of mine for

1:32:17 ↗ oh gosh at least 10 years. Um but I'm

1:32:21 ↗ I'm going to support uh the bill that's

1:32:23 ↗ in front of us this evening for a couple

1:32:25 ↗ of reasons. Um, one is that uh I think

1:32:29 ↗ that we have reserve capacities in in

1:32:33 ↗ places that we didn't um 15 years ago.

1:32:37 ↗ So to the question about another bomb

1:32:39 ↗ cyclone um I think we actually have some

1:32:41 ↗ resiliencies built into the system um

1:32:44 ↗ that would allow us to respond to um

1:32:47 ↗ heaven forbid something like another

1:32:48 ↗ bomb cyclone. The other thing is I think

1:32:50 ↗ it's important to take small steps

1:32:52 ↗ first. I think that we are all saying

1:32:54 ↗ here today that it's not good to get

1:32:56 ↗ below 15%. And if in 12 months um we're

1:33:01 ↗ still below 15% uh we will probably have

1:33:04 ↗ to make take larger steps than we're

1:33:06 ↗ taking this evening. But I do think it's

1:33:08 ↗ important to try to maintain

1:33:11 ↗ um the systems that you have in place

1:33:13 ↗ and the people that you have in place

1:33:15 ↗ and the services that you have in place

1:33:17 ↗ as a community. And so I think I don't

1:33:21 ↗ know maybe there's an element of um

1:33:24 ↗ intuition to it um for having done this

1:33:26 ↗ a number of times this feels like the

1:33:28 ↗ right step but I think everybody here on

1:33:31 ↗ the deis understands that if this

1:33:34 ↗ continues if if the uh you know the next

1:33:37 ↗ time we see it below 15%

1:33:40 ↗ um uh we may have to take larger steps

1:33:42 ↗ that involve um more painful cuts than

1:33:45 ↗ than we're looking at today. Thank you.

1:33:48 ↗ Thank you. Uh, next speaker, uh, Council

1:33:51 ↗ Member Jen.

1:33:53 ↗ >> Yeah, I generally agree with, um, what

1:33:56 ↗ council member Mart said. I think this

1:33:58 ↗ is definitely a big improvement over the

1:34:00 ↗ first uh, budget forecast that we were

1:34:03 ↗ presented. Um, you know, the fact that

1:34:06 ↗ it is balanced largely with one time

1:34:09 ↗ basically, you know, just moving funds

1:34:11 ↗ from one bucket to another is not

1:34:13 ↗ definitely not something we want to keep

1:34:14 ↗ doing. Um, I will say though, I think

1:34:19 ↗ and I think, you know, it's going to

1:34:21 ↗ when we're developing the 2027 to 28

1:34:24 ↗ budget, I think that's going to be

1:34:25 ↗ something where, you know, we're going

1:34:26 ↗ to I think this financial conversation

1:34:28 ↗ next year, like we need to start in

1:34:30 ↗ January of, you know, the strategic

1:34:31 ↗ conversation because I think what we do

1:34:34 ↗ in 27 to 28 is going to be very

1:34:36 ↗ different than what we've done thus far.

1:34:38 ↗ you know, there's been many years of

1:34:39 ↗ spending down fund balances and now

1:34:41 ↗ we've gotten to the point where we

1:34:42 ↗ really can't do that and we need to

1:34:43 ↗ backfill our um ending fund balances. Um

1:34:47 ↗ I do think, you know, from the

1:34:48 ↗ perspective like one of the things that

1:34:50 ↗ I was originally concerned about was,

1:34:51 ↗ you know, if your fund balance gets too

1:34:53 ↗ low, then that can start to affect your

1:34:55 ↗ credit rating, but we do have that, you

1:34:57 ↗ know, restricted fund balance that's

1:35:00 ↗ from the sale of facilities. So that,

1:35:02 ↗ you know, from a credit rating

1:35:03 ↗ perspective, they count that. So, I

1:35:05 ↗ think that kind of assaged my concern on

1:35:09 ↗ that piece. Um, you know, and we do have

1:35:12 ↗ that flexibility with that $9 million

1:35:14 ↗ from the sale of City Hall Northwest

1:35:16 ↗ that we can use as a reserve if things

1:35:18 ↗ really go sideways. Obviously, we don't

1:35:20 ↗ want to do that, but that is something

1:35:21 ↗ that, you know, makes me more tolerant

1:35:25 ↗ of the fact that we technically for our

1:35:27 ↗ own internal purposes only have a 13% uh

1:35:29 ↗ expected fund balance at the end of

1:35:31 ↗ 2026. Um, one thing I am concerned about

1:35:35 ↗ just like as a general concept is with

1:35:39 ↗ this affordable housing study spending

1:35:40 ↗ another $150,000 on consulting fees. I

1:35:44 ↗ don't really, you know, I I do think

1:35:48 ↗ that we do need to, you know, figure out

1:35:50 ↗ how to um, you know, get housing built

1:35:52 ↗ in central Isiqua. just remain skeptical

1:35:55 ↗ that you know continually like bringing

1:35:58 ↗ on consultants to do these things is

1:36:01 ↗ especially I mean especially on the

1:36:02 ↗ inclusionary zoning piece you know we

1:36:04 ↗ did the pioneer program in 2023 I don't

1:36:06 ↗ think we're at the point yet where we

1:36:09 ↗ you know strongly believe at least for

1:36:11 ↗ me that we need to you know rejigger

1:36:13 ↗ that whole thing and so spending 150,000

1:36:15 ↗ on that doesn't seem like something that

1:36:17 ↗ we should be doing in um 2026 and also

1:36:21 ↗ just like philosophically

1:36:24 ↗ I I have this belief that we should be,

1:36:26 ↗ you know, striving to develop expertise

1:36:28 ↗ in-house with staff on these types of

1:36:31 ↗ issues. And so, you know, spending

1:36:33 ↗ $150,000 on a consultant to me, again,

1:36:36 ↗ especially given the budget situation

1:36:38 ↗ that we're in doesn't seem like a great

1:36:39 ↗ use. So, um, but other than that, I

1:36:43 ↗ think the other amendments are fine. I

1:36:45 ↗ think the the other thing that I am a

1:36:48 ↗ little bit concerned about is the

1:36:49 ↗ expected you know 500,000 in uh

1:36:52 ↗ estimated you know general fund

1:36:54 ↗ underspend like that is a significant

1:36:57 ↗ portion of how we're getting our

1:36:59 ↗ estimated fund balance up. Um, so and I

1:37:03 ↗ think, you know, I certainly trust

1:37:04 ↗ Director Garcia's judgment that this

1:37:06 ↗ might be something, you know, these are

1:37:07 ↗ all things given new information. We

1:37:10 ↗ actually expect that to happen. But I do

1:37:11 ↗ think that

1:37:14 ↗ relying on underspending in the budget,

1:37:17 ↗ you know, underspending our budget as a

1:37:19 ↗ way to balance the budget doesn't seem

1:37:21 ↗ like a good best practice. So, you know,

1:37:23 ↗ something to keep in mind moving forward

1:37:24 ↗ into future bayania.

1:37:27 ↗ >> Thanks. It also falls in the category of

1:37:29 ↗ a scrape to be honest. Um, next speaker,

1:37:33 ↗ >> council member Hall.

1:37:35 ↗ >> Um, yeah, sure. Another very difficult

1:37:38 ↗ year for budget development. So, I think

1:37:40 ↗ first and foremost, um, like some of the

1:37:42 ↗ other council members have done, we

1:37:44 ↗ first we've got to thank staff for their

1:37:46 ↗ tremendously hard work. We give you a

1:37:48 ↗ lot of feedback, mostly in terms of

1:37:50 ↗ areas where we shouldn't look for cost

1:37:52 ↗ savings. And so, you had to do all this

1:37:55 ↗ creative work. we had staff going line

1:37:57 ↗ by line trying to find underspend as

1:38:00 ↗ well. So I appreciate the due diligence

1:38:02 ↗ that you've done and the proposal that

1:38:04 ↗ we have here before us. Um I also feel

1:38:07 ↗ comfortable with uh ending fund balance

1:38:09 ↗ of 13% by the end of the benium. In

1:38:10 ↗ fact, I think my feedback few weeks ago

1:38:12 ↗ was 12% seemed realistic. So I was

1:38:15 ↗ actually pleasantly surprised that we

1:38:17 ↗ could get to 13 by the end of the

1:38:18 ↗ bienium. um especially recognizing we've

1:38:22 ↗ identified a problem mid bienium and we

1:38:23 ↗ need to build ourselves a ramp into the

1:38:26 ↗ next bianium. So um I I also agree u

1:38:29 ↗ with other council members that there

1:38:30 ↗ are some challenging um budget

1:38:33 ↗ discussions ahead that council should

1:38:35 ↗ welcome as we head into budget

1:38:37 ↗ development for the new benium. It

1:38:39 ↗ sounds like the council is going to get

1:38:40 ↗ a great retreat early next year. Isn't

1:38:42 ↗ that right, city administrator? So um I

1:38:45 ↗ I would imagine what's that

1:38:47 ↗ >> you can join. I I will plan on um tuning

1:38:50 ↗ in on YouTube. How that? [laughter]

1:38:54 ↗ Um so um anyways, I look forward to um

1:38:57 ↗ seeing what council priorities are there

1:38:59 ↗ to um figure out next steps. Um I think

1:39:02 ↗ I am okay with um street fund impacts

1:39:05 ↗ because I was looking through the I mean

1:39:08 ↗ when we were studying the financial

1:39:09 ↗ policies um there's a bit on the reserve

1:39:12 ↗ level target for special revenue and for

1:39:14 ↗ capital projects and this does seem to

1:39:16 ↗ align with our um financial policies

1:39:20 ↗ around these kinds of funds. You had

1:39:22 ↗ described you described kind of like

1:39:24 ↗ monitoring it to stay consistent with

1:39:26 ↗ need and use of of specific purpose of

1:39:29 ↗ that fund which is in here. And then one

1:39:31 ↗ other thing that's that strikes me in

1:39:33 ↗ this policy is that special revenue

1:39:34 ↗ funds by their nature are funds used for

1:39:37 ↗ specific purposes and the corresponding

1:39:39 ↗ fund balance will be used to solely

1:39:41 ↗ support that purpose. So it's also and

1:39:44 ↗ maybe this is a conversation council

1:39:45 ↗ wants to have around setting policies um

1:39:48 ↗ specific targets for these different

1:39:50 ↗ funds, but it seems like the intent in

1:39:51 ↗ this language is that we shouldn't be

1:39:53 ↗ collecting money just to collect money

1:39:55 ↗ and fund balance. We should be spending

1:39:56 ↗ it on public priorities as much as

1:39:58 ↗ possible. So, um I think you've aligned

1:40:00 ↗ that well with the proposal that you

1:40:02 ↗ bring um before us today. Um

1:40:06 ↗ I also um one shout out um assistant to

1:40:09 ↗ the city administrator Dale Marky Crimp.

1:40:12 ↗ I just want to thank you for drafting

1:40:14 ↗ the the memo on the public safety sales

1:40:16 ↗ tax. I think it captures very well um

1:40:19 ↗ the problem um our need in public safety

1:40:22 ↗ and how um expenses have outpaced our

1:40:25 ↗ ability to meet those need. Um, and so

1:40:27 ↗ this is a fantastic document for council

1:40:29 ↗ to base future decision-making on, a

1:40:31 ↗ fantastic document for communicating

1:40:33 ↗ with the public, and really explaining

1:40:34 ↗ our rationale for why we felt it was

1:40:36 ↗ necessary to do this, recognizing this

1:40:39 ↗ is a tool that is challenging to use um

1:40:43 ↗ when our hands are tied on on other

1:40:45 ↗ tools. So, uh, thank you very much. I

1:40:47 ↗ appreciate the work that went into that

1:40:48 ↗ as [cough] well. And um, those are my

1:40:51 ↗ remarks.

1:40:51 ↗ >> Great comments. Thank you, Council

1:40:53 ↗ Member Joe, followed by Deputy Council

1:40:54 ↗ President. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

1:40:58 ↗ Director Garcia.

1:41:00 ↗ >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. [laughter]

1:41:02 ↗ Director Garcia, fantastic work on this

1:41:05 ↗ uh budget. I just remember that I I

1:41:09 ↗ don't want perfect to be the enemy of

1:41:11 ↗ good. And I think that you worked and

1:41:13 ↗ the city administration worked very hard

1:41:15 ↗ to get to uh something that is workable

1:41:18 ↗ and getting us a ending fund balance

1:41:20 ↗ that is moving up over time to 13. Um I

1:41:24 ↗ remember council member Hall saying 12

1:41:26 ↗ and we got to 13 which is fantastic. So

1:41:29 ↗ thank you. Um I'll be supporting the

1:41:31 ↗ motion in general. I you know there are

1:41:32 ↗ always things that uh we can I could

1:41:35 ↗ nitpick at so to speak but again I'm not

1:41:38 ↗ going to let uh perfect be the enemy of

1:41:40 ↗ good because this is about as good as we

1:41:42 ↗ can get at this time and I'll be

1:41:44 ↗ supporting the motion this evening.

1:41:46 ↗ Thank you.

1:41:47 ↗ >> Thank you deputy council president.

1:41:50 ↗ >> Thanks. Um, I first of all, I want to

1:41:52 ↗ join council member Mars in saying I'm

1:41:54 ↗ going to very much miss Council Member

1:41:57 ↗ Ray. It's uh always uh good to hear his

1:42:01 ↗ analysis and even when it's it's uh sort

1:42:04 ↗ of sad and depressing. [laughter]

1:42:06 ↗ So, and thanks to Director Garcia,

1:42:08 ↗ wonderful job that you did. Um, you

1:42:11 ↗ know, it's really I I appreciate Council

1:42:15 ↗ President Walsh bringing up the the uh

1:42:18 ↗ street fund and but you know what? I

1:42:20 ↗ think a year from now we're going to be

1:42:21 ↗ facing even harder decisions that are

1:42:23 ↗ going to be even bigger than that and um

1:42:27 ↗ we'll be looking at some really

1:42:29 ↗ significant losses in some of the

1:42:32 ↗ favorite things that we do. Um so it's

1:42:34 ↗ going to be a tough year ahead of us.

1:42:36 ↗ So, uh, I think right now we've got the

1:42:39 ↗ best thing that we can do and, uh, I too

1:42:42 ↗ will be supporting this. Uh, I also want

1:42:44 ↗ to say that I agree with Council Member

1:42:46 ↗ Jiang and say we should start in January

1:42:48 ↗ on this. Uh, we need to be setting what

1:42:51 ↗ our priorities are. We really need to be

1:42:53 ↗ thinking through. Uh, it's like

1:42:54 ↗ choosing, like the old saying goes,

1:42:56 ↗ between your favorite kids, you know,

1:42:58 ↗ which one do you choose? And and, uh,

1:43:01 ↗ that's going to take some really hard

1:43:03 ↗ thinking. um and also a lot of listening

1:43:06 ↗ to our community. So, um uh good job and

1:43:11 ↗ I will be supporting this, but I agree

1:43:14 ↗ with council member uh Ray that um that

1:43:18 ↗ uh we are heading on a cliff here and

1:43:20 ↗ we're going to have to do some really

1:43:22 ↗ hard work this coming year. Thank you.

1:43:24 ↗ >> Thank you, Deputy Council President. So,

1:43:26 ↗ we have gone once around the room. I'm

1:43:28 ↗ not sure if there's any additional

1:43:31 ↗ my script back up here.

1:43:34 ↗ Any additional comments? And if there is

1:43:36 ↗ not an additional discussion, then oh,

1:43:38 ↗ Council Member Jen,

1:43:40 ↗ >> um, could I propose an amendment to

1:43:43 ↗ remove the 150,000 for the consultant

1:43:46 ↗ for implementing the Eco Northwest

1:43:48 ↗ report so that we can discuss?

1:43:50 ↗ >> You absolutely could. And whether folks

1:43:52 ↗ support you or not, someone can second

1:43:54 ↗ it just so we can have a discussion

1:43:55 ↗ about it. Great. So, go ahead, make a

1:43:56 ↗ motion. Uh, I move. Okay. I I guess I

1:44:01 ↗ move that we remove the um budget

1:44:03 ↗ amendment to add $150,000

1:44:06 ↗ um for uh consultant fees to implement

1:44:08 ↗ the Eco Northwest report.

1:44:09 ↗ >> Is there a second?

1:44:10 ↗ >> Second.

1:44:11 ↗ >> It's been moved and seconded. Um Council

1:44:13 ↗ Member Jen, why don't you start off and

1:44:15 ↗ tell us why you proposing the motion?

1:44:17 ↗ >> Yeah. So as I mentioned earlier, I think

1:44:21 ↗ just from a cultural perspective, I

1:44:23 ↗ think, you know, being overly reliant on

1:44:26 ↗ consultants to implement some of these

1:44:28 ↗ changes is problematic. I think we

1:44:30 ↗ should be cultivating internal

1:44:32 ↗ expertise. I also believe that, you

1:44:34 ↗ know, some of these changes um that we

1:44:37 ↗ are considering exploring, you know,

1:44:39 ↗ things like reevaluating inclusionary

1:44:42 ↗ zoning. I mean, we just redid the

1:44:43 ↗ Pioneer program in 2023 and I don't

1:44:47 ↗ think we're at the point where we need

1:44:49 ↗ to spend, you know, tens of thousands of

1:44:51 ↗ dollars reevaluating that. Um, so I'm

1:44:54 ↗ proposing removing it and just given the

1:44:56 ↗ budget situation that we're in, you

1:44:57 ↗ know, that could be some I'm it's also

1:44:59 ↗ something where if we decide we really

1:45:00 ↗ need to do it, I'm fine pushing it to

1:45:02 ↗ 2027 or beyond. and city administry. I

1:45:04 ↗ will allow a staff component uh at that

1:45:06 ↗ to dis you know concerns that staff may

1:45:09 ↗ want to talk about it but I'd like to

1:45:10 ↗ get the council to all kind of talk it

1:45:12 ↗ through first growing whether or not we

1:45:15 ↗ can grow the expertise that the

1:45:16 ↗ consultant service would actually

1:45:18 ↗ provide.

1:45:20 ↗ >> Are you looking for a comment now? You

1:45:22 ↗ want to wait for comments?

1:45:23 ↗ >> Not looking for comment now. I just

1:45:24 ↗ wanted to let you know I heard you

1:45:25 ↗ talking and I think if you want to talk

1:45:28 ↗ about uh whether or not that expertise

1:45:30 ↗ could be grown within the staffing that

1:45:33 ↗ we have or not that would be a good

1:45:35 ↗ piece of information to add further

1:45:37 ↗ discussion but I would like to go

1:45:39 ↗ through we have several council members

1:45:41 ↗ that want to speak.

1:45:43 ↗ >> Got it. Got it. Um Counciloman March you

1:45:46 ↗ seconded.

1:45:47 ↗ >> I did. Um I find council member Jen's

1:45:51 ↗ argument compelling. I also have had a

1:45:54 ↗ I've had a growing concern about the

1:45:58 ↗ amount that we spend on consultants in

1:46:00 ↗ general um over time and I think that uh

1:46:05 ↗ we may be entering a phase where we need

1:46:08 ↗ to be more uh cautious about um

1:46:12 ↗ consultant spend. Thank you,

1:46:13 ↗ >> Council President.

1:46:16 ↗ >> Thank you. Um I am generally not a fan

1:46:20 ↗ of producing additional reports and so

1:46:24 ↗ generally I think I I agree with the

1:46:27 ↗ idea that I don't know that we

1:46:29 ↗ necessarily need to produce another

1:46:32 ↗ report in order to implement the changes

1:46:36 ↗ that we have in the other report. That

1:46:38 ↗ being said, I'm not sure I'm ready to

1:46:41 ↗ remove $150,000 that was allocated

1:46:45 ↗ toward a fairly significant

1:46:49 ↗ area of interest for council that we've

1:46:51 ↗ been trying to get accomplished for

1:46:54 ↗ many, many years. Um, I think we have

1:46:58 ↗ flexibility in how that money gets

1:47:01 ↗ spent.

1:47:03 ↗ um as we come on board with a new me uh

1:47:06 ↗ new mayor and two new council members.

1:47:09 ↗ So I think I would prefer to keep it in

1:47:12 ↗ the budget and I think we we have a

1:47:17 ↗ a diligent council that if after we come

1:47:21 ↗ back with those new members and the

1:47:24 ↗ January retreat, if we're just not

1:47:26 ↗ feeling like that's going to accomplish

1:47:28 ↗ what we want, I don't think we need to

1:47:30 ↗ spend it. Um, but I think it would be

1:47:33 ↗ more difficult to put something in in

1:47:38 ↗ 2026

1:47:41 ↗ that's not in the midbian budget. Um, so

1:47:44 ↗ I think my preference would be to keep

1:47:46 ↗ it, but I share many of the concerns um

1:47:49 ↗ and would absolutely be willing to strip

1:47:52 ↗ that money out if we can find a way to

1:47:55 ↗ accomplish the shared goals of the

1:47:57 ↗ council toward that idea. Additional

1:48:00 ↗ comments.

1:48:03 ↗ Council member Joe.

1:48:06 ↗ >> Thank you. Um

1:48:08 ↗ I'm going to be uh not supporting the

1:48:11 ↗ amendment. Uh Eco Northwest um does some

1:48:15 ↗ very fine work in the area of housing

1:48:17 ↗ inclusionary zoning density bonuses. Uh

1:48:20 ↗ I think we heard from Kristen Leon that

1:48:23 ↗ our programs are not working right now

1:48:26 ↗ and we don't know what the answer is.

1:48:28 ↗ And frankly, it I don't a lot of

1:48:30 ↗ different people don't know what the

1:48:32 ↗ answer is out there, but Eco Northwest

1:48:35 ↗ has the ability to look at a number of

1:48:38 ↗ cities at the same time, do the research

1:48:40 ↗ for us, take a wider view, see what

1:48:42 ↗ might be working in other cities, and

1:48:44 ↗ bring it to us as we look at

1:48:46 ↗ inclusionary zoning, density bonuses

1:48:47 ↗ along the way going forward. This is not

1:48:50 ↗ a topic that will be solved

1:48:54 ↗ with Isiqua staff solely looking at it.

1:48:58 ↗ Um, this is something that's going to be

1:49:00 ↗ solved on a regional basis. Nico

1:49:01 ↗ Northwest can bring that view to us. I

1:49:03 ↗ do have some concerns about having staff

1:49:06 ↗ do this as we turn over staff all the

1:49:08 ↗ time and we might invest a great deal of

1:49:11 ↗ time and effort in training one staff

1:49:13 ↗ member on these subjects that are quite

1:49:16 ↗ complex and then that person will leave

1:49:18 ↗ and then we'll have to start again from

1:49:19 ↗ zero. By having Eco Northwest as kind of

1:49:21 ↗ our knowledge bank or our uh information

1:49:25 ↗ bank, we're able to retain that

1:49:27 ↗ knowledge and keep that knowledge for us

1:49:29 ↗ through reports going forward. So, I

1:49:31 ↗ would not be supporting the stripping

1:49:33 ↗ out of $150,000 from the budget. Thank

1:49:35 ↗ you.

1:49:36 ↗ >> And are there um additional commenters

1:49:39 ↗ before I do a second round? Council

1:49:41 ↗ member Ray.

1:49:43 ↗ >> Oh, you want

1:49:45 ↗ >> question?

1:49:45 ↗ >> Clarifying question that um I believe we

1:49:48 ↗ already received the Eco Northwest

1:49:51 ↗ report. Is the concept here that we

1:49:54 ↗ would be re-engaging them specifically

1:49:56 ↗ with the 150,000

1:50:01 ↗ Kristen's still on the line. Uh Kristen,

1:50:08 ↗ >> that's an option to re-engage Eco

1:50:10 ↗ Northwest. We can also go out for with

1:50:14 ↗ an RFP, an RFQ. However, Eco Northwest

1:50:18 ↗ already knows the information. They know

1:50:19 ↗ that they've already presented. They

1:50:20 ↗ don't have to research again. So, that

1:50:22 ↗ is absolutely an option to go back out

1:50:23 ↗ to them.

1:50:24 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. Now that you're online,

1:50:27 ↗ there were two parts to um Council

1:50:29 ↗ Member Jen's comments. One was could we

1:50:32 ↗ cut the money and can we do this work

1:50:34 ↗ internally? Um what is this work and why

1:50:37 ↗ don't we do it internally?

1:50:39 ↗ >> Um because this is not planning work.

1:50:41 ↗ This is economics.

1:50:43 ↗ And I'm not an economist. I don't know.

1:50:45 ↗ I don't do marketing. I don't do

1:50:46 ↗ building. None of us do. We know how to

1:50:49 ↗ plan. We know how to work with

1:50:50 ↗ developers. We know how to do long range

1:50:52 ↗ planning. We know what regional issues

1:50:54 ↗ are. We do not do economics.

1:50:56 ↗ >> Okay.

1:50:56 ↗ >> So, we need someone to come in and do

1:50:58 ↗ the economics for us and say this is

1:51:00 ↗ what's economically what is going to

1:51:02 ↗ work with builders more likely with

1:51:04 ↗ developers and that's not something we

1:51:06 ↗ do.

1:51:06 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Um we

1:51:08 ↗ have not gone all the way around the

1:51:09 ↗ dis. So, Council Ray and then anybody

1:51:12 ↗ else who hasn't spoken.

1:51:14 ↗ >> Thanks. Um, thanks Kristen for that

1:51:16 ↗ because I was uh I was kind of thinking

1:51:18 ↗ um I have a different view of

1:51:19 ↗ consultants and it might be just my own

1:51:21 ↗ bias and background

1:51:23 ↗ >> but um

1:51:24 ↗ >> they they they are not a panacea and

1:51:26 ↗ they don't solve all all ills but um

1:51:29 ↗ there are pl times when used effectively

1:51:32 ↗ they are the most cost-effective way to

1:51:35 ↗ solve um a problem or answer a question.

1:51:37 ↗ So, not opposed to um to spending the

1:51:42 ↗ money on consultants and it would

1:51:44 ↗ probably not be practical to build all

1:51:46 ↗ of the potential skills that we might

1:51:48 ↗ need in house. We would need a staff of

1:51:50 ↗ 500 and and so that doesn't resonate

1:51:55 ↗ with me. That being said, is this the

1:51:57 ↗ most important $150,000 we can spend

1:52:00 ↗ this year? And I don't know that anybody

1:52:02 ↗ here has convinced me that it is the

1:52:04 ↗ most important $150,000 we could spend.

1:52:10 ↗ >> Um going all the way around. Council

1:52:12 ↗ Hall, have you spoken already? No.

1:52:14 ↗ Council member Hall.

1:52:16 ↗ >> Um

1:52:18 ↗ yeah, I I mean I I I'll I'm going to be

1:52:20 ↗ voting against the amendment to you. I

1:52:22 ↗ mean, it just seems counter to this was

1:52:25 ↗ the number one priority of the entire

1:52:27 ↗ council when we were doing the planning

1:52:31 ↗ um kind of the long range planning

1:52:33 ↗ prioritization exercise of the work

1:52:35 ↗ plan. Um we've been saying we want to

1:52:38 ↗ implement this report for years now.

1:52:41 ↗ Council member Hunt was here with us and

1:52:44 ↗ chair of the planning committee when we

1:52:46 ↗ were doing this. So, um I also think

1:52:49 ↗ like the pioneer project

1:52:53 ↗ while while important is a a very small

1:52:58 ↗ element of some of this work and in re

1:53:03 ↗ um doing the economics of kind of the

1:53:05 ↗ inclusion and zoning as as you mentioned

1:53:07 ↗ director Leon um

1:53:11 ↗ >> um

1:53:12 ↗ by the way did I just promote you to

1:53:14 ↗ director but [laughter] Nice, Chris.

1:53:18 ↗ Congratulations.

1:53:19 ↗ >> A lot of money.

1:53:20 ↗ >> Oh, yeah.

1:53:21 ↗ >> All right. That's 150 right there.

1:53:23 ↗ That's Yeah, that's um

1:53:25 ↗ Well, now I've lost where I was going

1:53:27 ↗ with that. But, um I I'm going to Yeah,

1:53:29 ↗ I I still think it's important um to

1:53:32 ↗ have this in our budget. There's a lot

1:53:34 ↗ of elements in here um even outside of

1:53:38 ↗ um the inclusionary zoning bits um that

1:53:42 ↗ are independent from the pioneer program

1:53:44 ↗ and some of the work that we've done

1:53:45 ↗ that which is still underutilized

1:53:48 ↗ um that are really important again has

1:53:51 ↗ been our top priority and so I'm going

1:53:52 ↗ to vote now. Thanks.

1:53:55 ↗ >> Anyone who has not spoken yet that would

1:53:57 ↗ like to speak to the amendment

1:54:00 ↗ otherwise I'll call for the amendment.

1:54:02 ↗ Kelly. Um, Council Mor Shang, did you

1:54:03 ↗ write it down?

1:54:05 ↗ >> Was it just to remove the $150,000 for

1:54:08 ↗ additional housing study?

1:54:10 ↗ >> Okay. Can I use that or do we have more?

1:54:12 ↗ Okay. So, it has been moved and seconded

1:54:14 ↗ to amend to move that line item of

1:54:15 ↗ $150,000 for additional housing work.

1:54:18 ↗ Um, all those in favor signify by saying

1:54:20 ↗ I.

1:54:21 ↗ >> I.

1:54:22 ↗ >> That's uh three. Um, all those opposed?

1:54:26 ↗ >> Nay.

1:54:27 ↗ >> Nay.

1:54:28 ↗ >> The amendment fails four to three. We go

1:54:30 ↗ back to the main motion. Is there any um

1:54:32 ↗ >> mayor?

1:54:33 ↗ >> Yes.

1:54:33 ↗ >> Can I ask to get some clarity on that um

1:54:36 ↗ vote count? I trust the total, but I

1:54:38 ↗ could use um to see hands.

1:54:41 ↗ >> So the eyes first, hands, the nays.

1:54:46 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

1:54:47 ↗ >> Excellent. Thank you.

1:54:50 ↗ Any other discussion?

1:54:53 ↗ Motions. We'll go to the main motion.

1:54:56 ↗ It's been moved and seconded to adopt

1:54:58 ↗ ordinance number

1:55:01 ↗ sorry 3125.

1:55:03 ↗ >> 3125 amending the 2025 budget as set

1:55:06 ↗ forth in ordinance number 3083 and

1:55:09 ↗ amended in ordinance number 3090

1:55:11 ↗ concerning revenues expenditures and

1:55:13 ↗ fund balances for various funds. All

1:55:15 ↗ those in favor signify by saying I.

1:55:18 ↗ >> I.

1:55:19 ↗ >> Those opposed?

1:55:20 ↗ >> No.

1:55:21 ↗ >> That carries six to one with council

1:55:22 ↗ member Ray in opposition.

1:55:25 ↗ The next item also related to budget is

1:55:27 ↗ AB9052, the 2026 property tax levy. And

1:55:31 ↗ the ask before council this evening is

1:55:32 ↗ to adopt the ordinance. And again, we

1:55:35 ↗ have finance director Kristen Garcia to

1:55:37 ↗ present this item.

1:55:43 ↗ Thank you, mayor. Um, as the mayor

1:55:45 ↗ mentioned, administration is seeking

1:55:47 ↗ authorization for the city council to

1:55:48 ↗ [clears throat] adopt the 2026 property

1:55:50 ↗ tax levy ordinance. A public hearing on

1:55:53 ↗ the proposed ordinance was held on

1:55:55 ↗ October 20th, 2025. Uh, state law allows

1:55:59 ↗ the city to increase the property tax by

1:56:01 ↗ 1% plus new construction and the

1:56:03 ↗ proposed ordinance reflects the increase

1:56:06 ↗ of 1%. Um, the increase is about 108,000

1:56:10 ↗ from the prior year. The total levy is

1:56:13 ↗ estimated to be about 10.9 million in

1:56:15 ↗ 2026. Um, in terms of impact to the

1:56:18 ↗ taxpayer, a taxpayer with a property

1:56:21 ↗ value of $800,000 could pay about $475

1:56:25 ↗ in 2026 with the proposed increase of

1:56:29 ↗ 1%. A taxpayer with the property value

1:56:32 ↗ of 1.1 million would pay about 652 in

1:56:35 ↗ 2026. So, administration is recommending

1:56:38 ↗ adoption of the property tax levy

1:56:40 ↗ ordinance reflecting the 1% increase.

1:56:43 ↗ Thank you, mayor.

1:56:45 ↗ >> Thank you, Kristen.

1:56:49 ↗ my place. Uh, does council have any

1:56:51 ↗ questions for our director? Seeing

1:56:53 ↗ headshakes, no. Not seeing any

1:56:56 ↗ questions. Could somebody please make a

1:56:58 ↗ motion? Council President, I move to

1:57:01 ↗ adopt ordinance number. 3126

1:57:05 ↗ levying property taxes for the city of

1:57:07 ↗ Isqua for the fiscal year commencing

1:57:09 ↗ January 1, 2026 on all property both

1:57:13 ↗ real and personal in said city which is

1:57:15 ↗ subject to taxation for the purpose of

1:57:17 ↗ paying sufficient revenue to carry on

1:57:20 ↗ the services of said city for the

1:57:21 ↗ ensuing year as required by law.

1:57:25 ↗ >> Is there a second?

1:57:26 ↗ >> Second.

1:57:27 ↗ >> Thank you. It's been moved and seconded.

1:57:29 ↗ Is there any council discussion?

1:57:32 ↗ I am not seeing any positive head nods.

1:57:36 ↗ So if there's no further discussion, um

1:57:39 ↗ all those in favor say I.

1:57:41 ↗ >> I.

1:57:42 ↗ >> All those opposed. That carries

1:57:45 ↗ unanimously. Seven and no. Um I'm just

1:57:48 ↗ going to check with the council to see

1:57:49 ↗ if you'd like to have a fivem minute

1:57:51 ↗ break before we move into the last item.

1:57:53 ↗ Sorry, Council Member Joe. There's more

1:57:55 ↗ yeses than no, so we're going with the

1:57:57 ↗ yeses. It's five minutes.

2:04:23 ↗ Wait for Tisha to come back

2:04:40 ↗ Once you're settled, let's give Wes a

2:04:43 ↗ call.

2:05:14 ↗ Welcome back. We took a short break.

2:05:16 ↗ We're still on regular business. The

2:05:18 ↗ next item is AB917, the Central Isqua

2:05:21 ↗ Multimmodal I90 Crossing Study Update.

2:05:24 ↗ The action before council this evening

2:05:25 ↗ is to approve it. And I'd like to get uh

2:05:28 ↗ invite deputy city administrator Andrea

2:05:31 ↗ Andrea Leonard and senior transport and

2:05:33 ↗ transportation engineer Greg Lucas to

2:05:35 ↗ present this item. Welcome both.

2:05:38 ↗ Thank you, Mayor Paulie. I'm back again.

2:05:41 ↗ Andrea Leonard, deputy city

2:05:42 ↗ administrator. And I wanted to uh talk

2:05:46 ↗ about this project and kick it off and

2:05:48 ↗ then I'm going to turn it over to Greg

2:05:49 ↗ for the bulk of the presentation. I want

2:05:52 ↗ to make it clear about what we're asking

2:05:54 ↗ for tonight when we ask you to accept

2:05:56 ↗ the study and approve of the preferred

2:05:58 ↗ alignment. That's what we're asking for

2:06:00 ↗ you to do tonight. And by accepting this

2:06:03 ↗ study and approving the alignment, we're

2:06:06 ↗ hoping to put a bookmark in place for

2:06:08 ↗ this project, acknowledging all the work

2:06:10 ↗ that has been performed and um also

2:06:14 ↗ knowing that we have many decisions

2:06:15 ↗ ahead of us, including

2:06:19 ↗ uh whether or not we're going to move

2:06:20 ↗ forward with finding the funding to

2:06:22 ↗ implement this project. Um whether or

2:06:24 ↗ not we're going to build it as conceived

2:06:27 ↗ in the study. So there's a lot of

2:06:28 ↗ decisions ahead. Approving uh the

2:06:31 ↗ accepting the study and approving of the

2:06:33 ↗ preferred alignment is not a commitment

2:06:35 ↗ to build this project as it's conceived

2:06:38 ↗ in the study. It's merely acknowledging

2:06:40 ↗ the work that has been done that we've

2:06:42 ↗ been answering that the study answers

2:06:44 ↗ the questions that we wanted answers to

2:06:46 ↗ as part of the scope of the study. And

2:06:48 ↗ we're going to get into that a little

2:06:49 ↗ bit.

2:06:51 ↗ I want to take a step back

2:06:55 ↗ from uh I want to take a little step

2:06:58 ↗ back about this project because this is

2:07:00 ↗ a long-term project that we have been

2:07:03 ↗ talking about a new crossing of I90 and

2:07:05 ↗ it's a very visionary project a project

2:07:08 ↗ that uh we have been contemplating for

2:07:11 ↗ over 10 years as we considered what the

2:07:13 ↗ growth of central Isiqua and the entire

2:07:16 ↗ city is going to look like. So when we

2:07:18 ↗ adopted the central Isiqua plan, this uh

2:07:21 ↗ a new crossing was contemplated in the

2:07:24 ↗ environmental impact statement in

2:07:27 ↗ addition to many other streets, new

2:07:28 ↗ streets that we would be adding to

2:07:30 ↗ complete our transportation grid in uh

2:07:33 ↗ along the valley floor in central

2:07:35 ↗ Isiqua.

2:07:37 ↗ So this new crossing contemplates not

2:07:41 ↗ the isiqua we see today but a future

2:07:43 ↗ isqua that [clears throat]

2:07:45 ↗ is 8 to 10 8 to 12 stories tall which is

2:07:48 ↗ what our current zoning allows in

2:07:49 ↗ central Isiqua. So it anticipates a lot

2:07:52 ↗ of growth and again this is a longterm

2:07:54 ↗ project

2:07:56 ↗ and it's really in response to concerns

2:07:58 ↗ that we heard at the time with a central

2:08:01 ↗ isiqua upzoning that occurred. How are

2:08:03 ↗ we going to accommodate this growth? how

2:08:05 ↗ are we going to get people around and

2:08:06 ↗ improve those north south connections

2:08:08 ↗ knowing that I90 really is a big barrier

2:08:11 ↗ to travel? So at the time uh the

2:08:14 ↗ community wanted us to look at a

2:08:15 ↗ multimodal crossing that includes a

2:08:18 ↗ connection for cars, bikes and

2:08:20 ↗ pedestrians alike.

2:08:23 ↗ And we didn't know what kind of crossing

2:08:26 ↗ this would be. So, as we started this

2:08:28 ↗ study, we considered, okay, if we were

2:08:32 ↗ to have a new crossing of I90 to better

2:08:35 ↗ connect the community in the future, um,

2:08:37 ↗ is that an overcrossing or an

2:08:39 ↗ undercrossing? As we started the study,

2:08:41 ↗ we had no idea what that was going to

2:08:43 ↗ be. If we were going to do another

2:08:45 ↗ crossing, where would it be? especially

2:08:46 ↗ given critical areas, growth patterns,

2:08:51 ↗ uh properties that would be suitable uh

2:08:53 ↗ for this, how it would affect traffic

2:08:55 ↗ patterns, um and what the community

2:08:57 ↗ would like to see for where this would

2:08:59 ↗ be. So, all of those questions we

2:09:01 ↗ contemplated at the start of this study,

2:09:03 ↗ and we believe the study answers those

2:09:05 ↗ questions, um but raises quite a few

2:09:08 ↗ other questions.

2:09:10 ↗ So, more in the background. Um in 2019

2:09:15 ↗ we completed the interchange

2:09:17 ↗ justification report the JR which looked

2:09:21 ↗ at could we have another uh crossing and

2:09:24 ↗ entrance and exit from I90 and isqua

2:09:28 ↗ that from that study we said well we

2:09:30 ↗ need to figure out where exactly that

2:09:31 ↗ would be is it feasible what would it

2:09:33 ↗ look like um and then in July 5th 2022

2:09:38 ↗ council directed uh the administration

2:09:41 ↗ to provide budget for this project using

2:09:43 ↗ American Rescue Plan Act funds. So, we

2:09:46 ↗ had ARPA funds. Director Garcia talked

2:09:48 ↗ about some of those ARPA funds earlier

2:09:50 ↗ and how they have now been spent. Um,

2:09:53 ↗ and this is one of the projects that was

2:09:54 ↗ funded by that extra funding.

2:09:57 ↗ And so, we have here uh the consultant

2:10:00 ↗ contract has been approved. Um, we've

2:10:02 ↗ done more outreach uh with the community

2:10:04 ↗ and more study and Greg is going to get

2:10:06 ↗ into that. Um, and so again, what I

2:10:10 ↗ wanted to stress was that the action for

2:10:14 ↗ council tonight is to accept the study

2:10:17 ↗ um, and uh, approve of that preferred

2:10:21 ↗ alignment. And what that means is not a

2:10:23 ↗ commitment to build the project as is,

2:10:26 ↗ but just acknowledging that we've done

2:10:28 ↗ this work uh for the project as

2:10:31 ↗ conceived, which is a multimodal

2:10:33 ↗ crossing that we um that this is

2:10:37 ↗ probably the best alignment. We've

2:10:38 ↗ turned over every rock we can for this

2:10:41 ↗ scope of the project um to find the best

2:10:44 ↗ alternative that we can. So, Greg's

2:10:45 ↗ going to go over more details about

2:10:47 ↗ that, but again, it's not a commitment

2:10:48 ↗ to build. Um and we did anticipate a

2:10:51 ↗ multimmoal crossing because uh the ST3

2:10:55 ↗ package in their base project for light

2:10:57 ↗ rail and Isiqua includes a bike ped

2:11:00 ↗ bridge. And so we're so part of the

2:11:03 ↗ discussion tonight is just looking at

2:11:05 ↗ what is the scope of this project and

2:11:07 ↗ then we're going to talk about next

2:11:08 ↗ steps and where we're headed at the end

2:11:10 ↗ of the presentation and how we would use

2:11:12 ↗ this report in our work with uh the

2:11:14 ↗ light rail station sighting. So before

2:11:17 ↗ we get there though, I just wanted to

2:11:19 ↗ clarify what we're talking about

2:11:20 ↗ tonight. And now Greg will get into the

2:11:23 ↗ details.

2:11:30 ↗ >> Thanks, Andrea.

2:11:34 ↗ Um so my name is Greg Lucas. I'm a

2:11:36 ↗ senior transportation engineer in the

2:11:38 ↗ public works department.

2:11:40 ↗ And I guess we'll start with the

2:11:42 ↗ existing conditions. Um this was the

2:11:45 ↗ consultant's first task was to look at

2:11:47 ↗ existing conditions both you know for

2:11:50 ↗ the transportation network but the uh

2:11:52 ↗ region or the growth area as a whole. Um

2:11:55 ↗ the existing conditions from a

2:11:57 ↗ transportation p perspective has limited

2:11:59 ↗ options for uh north south crossings uh

2:12:02 ↗ due to the I90. Uh only one of the

2:12:05 ↗ crossings that exists is in the

2:12:07 ↗ designated growth center that is the uh

2:12:09 ↗ SR900 or 17th a northwest crossing. Uh

2:12:13 ↗ the fourth a northwest crossing and

2:12:15 ↗ front street crossings are east of the

2:12:18 ↗ growth center. Um the SR900 crossing is

2:12:23 ↗ owned and operated by the state and

2:12:25 ↗ shares traffic uh with other cities and

2:12:30 ↗ is it has a non-motorized portion uh of

2:12:34 ↗ the crossing adjacent to it. However,

2:12:36 ↗ it's a little difficult to get to and

2:12:37 ↗ from it due to all the existing traffic

2:12:40 ↗ within the interchange.

2:12:45 ↗ Um to provide an overview of the project

2:12:47 ↗ um the initial concept includes two

2:12:50 ↗ vehicular lanes, one in each direction

2:12:52 ↗ with a third lane added where necessary

2:12:54 ↗ to accommodate uh turning movements. Uh

2:12:57 ↗ the scope also incorporates bike lanes

2:13:00 ↗ protected by landscape strips and 8 foot

2:13:03 ↗ wide sidewalks on both sides of the

2:13:05 ↗ street. Uh this is consistent with the

2:13:08 ↗ street standards adopted uh for a core

2:13:10 ↗ street in central Isiqua. Um the

2:13:13 ↗ cross-section could be refined in the

2:13:14 ↗ future, but the street standards are

2:13:16 ↗ what was used for the purposes of the

2:13:18 ↗ study. Um and the crossing would be

2:13:21 ↗ located within the designated uh

2:13:23 ↗ regional growth center.

2:13:27 ↗ On the slide, you'll see the outline of

2:13:29 ↗ the growth center in white, which I'm

2:13:31 ↗ sure you've seen plenty of times. And I

2:13:32 ↗ added a few concentric circles in there

2:13:34 ↗ to help

2:13:35 ↗ illustrate where the center of the

2:13:37 ↗ growth center is, which helps with

2:13:39 ↗ transportation.

2:13:42 ↗ And the benefits of the project include

2:13:44 ↗ improved north south mobility and

2:13:46 ↗ stronger connections for both vehicles

2:13:48 ↗ and non-motorized users. And it supports

2:13:50 ↗ the vision outlined in the central plan

2:13:53 ↗ in creating a thriving sustainable

2:13:55 ↗ commercial core. Um, additionally, the

2:13:58 ↗ crossing is anticipated to support local

2:14:00 ↗ mobility to the future light rail

2:14:02 ↗ station, uh, which is also anticipated

2:14:05 ↗ to be in the growth center.

2:14:10 ↗ Purpose of the study was to identify the

2:14:12 ↗ preferred crossing location for a

2:14:14 ↗ multimodal crossing of I90. Um, at a

2:14:18 ↗ high level, the process began with a

2:14:20 ↗ broad exploration of concepts.

2:14:22 ↗ Essentially, all ideas were considered

2:14:24 ↗ valid starting points.

2:14:27 ↗ Um from there the study conducted a high

2:14:30 ↗ level feasibility analysis.

2:14:33 ↗ Uh this included considerations such as

2:14:35 ↗ the groundwater conditions, geotechnical

2:14:37 ↗ challenges, elevation differences

2:14:40 ↗ or the lack thereof. Um Gilman, I90, and

2:14:44 ↗ Pickering Place are all at similar

2:14:47 ↗ elevations. So getting the grade

2:14:48 ↗ necessary to go over um is challenging.

2:14:54 ↗ Um

2:14:56 ↗ after ruling out the unfeasible options,

2:14:59 ↗ the remaining viable options were

2:15:01 ↗ evaluated against the project goals and

2:15:03 ↗ criterias

2:15:05 ↗ uh by last summer when uh the study was

2:15:08 ↗ presented at aformational update. That

2:15:11 ↗ process had been completed. I think they

2:15:13 ↗ were down to we were down to five

2:15:15 ↗ concepts at that time. Two of which were

2:15:18 ↗ pretty burdensome and didn't really meet

2:15:19 ↗ the goals and were eliminated. and three

2:15:23 ↗ advance to the evaluation stage.

2:15:32 ↗ Throughout the course of the study, the

2:15:34 ↗ administration has engaged with the

2:15:36 ↗ community throughout several efforts.

2:15:37 ↗ The first step was a a high level online

2:15:40 ↗ survey designed to gather input and help

2:15:43 ↗ identify priorities.

2:15:45 ↗ Uh as the study progressed into um

2:15:50 ↗ exploring the options, the

2:15:51 ↗ administration began meeting with

2:15:53 ↗ property owners within the area. Uh

2:15:55 ↗ these meetings provided an opportunity

2:15:57 ↗ to explain uh the study and collect

2:16:00 ↗ feedback on what the property owners

2:16:02 ↗ would like to see in a crossing.

2:16:05 ↗ In December of last year, the

2:16:07 ↗ administration hosted a public open

2:16:09 ↗ house at Tibbitz Manor. I think we had

2:16:12 ↗ about 20 to 30 boards there and about al

2:16:16 ↗ about 25 members of the community showed

2:16:17 ↗ up which were um we had pretty long

2:16:22 ↗ in-depth conversations with those who

2:16:24 ↗ were able to make it um which was right

2:16:27 ↗ after the bomb cyclone

2:16:29 ↗ we had to push it back due to that and

2:16:32 ↗ finally a project website is on on the

2:16:35 ↗ city's website um and it would be

2:16:38 ↗ updated again at the conclusion of the

2:16:39 ↗ study to reflect the final outcome.

2:16:41 ↗ comes.

2:16:45 ↗ All right. Next for um community board

2:16:48 ↗ engagement, the administration has met

2:16:50 ↗ twice both with the transportation

2:16:53 ↗ advisory board as well as the economic

2:16:54 ↗ vitality commission. Uh the first

2:16:58 ↗ discussions took place in the summer of

2:17:00 ↗ 2024 when the study was introduced and

2:17:03 ↗ project goals and evaluation criteria

2:17:06 ↗ were presented for feedback. And then

2:17:08 ↗ early this year in the spring, the

2:17:10 ↗ administration returned to share the

2:17:12 ↗ recommended crossing location. Uh the

2:17:14 ↗ proposal ultimately received support and

2:17:17 ↗ we received some feedback emphasizing

2:17:19 ↗ the importance of reaffirming the

2:17:22 ↗ crossing uh location before getting too

2:17:24 ↗ far ahead and particularly considering

2:17:27 ↗ the station uh area planning. And board

2:17:30 ↗ members also highlighted uh the need to

2:17:33 ↗ ensure that non-motorized connections

2:17:35 ↗ are thoughtfully designed and fully

2:17:37 ↗ incorp and and are incorporated as a

2:17:39 ↗ project advances into an engineering

2:17:41 ↗ phase.

2:17:48 ↗ All right. I guess the video plays

2:17:49 ↗ automatically.

2:17:51 ↗ Um, for this item, the administration is

2:17:54 ↗ proposing that the council approve the

2:17:56 ↗ study's preferred crossing location of

2:17:59 ↗ 11th A Northwest to 11th A Northwest.

2:18:02 ↗ Um, at a high level, the crossing

2:18:05 ↗ concept involves elevating uh, Gilman

2:18:08 ↗ Boulevard to achieve the necessary grade

2:18:10 ↗ diff difference to span over the

2:18:13 ↗ freeway, ultimately connecting into the

2:18:15 ↗ existing 11th ABN Northwest on the north

2:18:18 ↗ side in Pickering Place.

2:18:20 ↗ And while 11th AB Northwest does not uh

2:18:23 ↗ exist today on the south side of I90, it

2:18:26 ↗ is part of the planned future street

2:18:28 ↗ grid as development occurs in the growth

2:18:31 ↗ center

2:18:33 ↗ to minimize impacts on the adjacent

2:18:36 ↗ parcel to the south of Gilman. The

2:18:38 ↗ concept was modified from the initial

2:18:41 ↗ concept. Um this was to include the

2:18:44 ↗ eastbound bypass lane which does not get

2:18:46 ↗ elevated.

2:18:48 ↗ The video shows it. I'll highlight it

2:18:50 ↗ once it gets back to it.

2:19:02 ↗ There's the eastbound bypass lane on the

2:19:06 ↗ along Gilman. That's what that's

2:19:08 ↗ referring to. Um and similarly the

2:19:12 ↗ frontage along the southside will not be

2:19:13 ↗ elevated allowing pedestrians and

2:19:15 ↗ cyclists to travel without navigating up

2:19:17 ↗ and down an elevated uh Gillan

2:19:19 ↗ Boulevard.

2:19:21 ↗ Um the initial planning level cost

2:19:23 ↗ estimate for the full project

2:19:25 ↗ approximately 110 million. That figure

2:19:29 ↗ represents engineering, property

2:19:30 ↗ acquisition, permitting and

2:19:32 ↗ construction. However, it is not

2:19:35 ↗ adjusted for inflation due to

2:19:36 ↗ uncertainty on when or if it advances.

2:19:40 ↗ uh but actual costs uh would be

2:19:42 ↗ significantly higher over time. A 2040

2:19:45 ↗ uh construction cost could see maybe a

2:19:48 ↗ 50%

2:19:49 ↗ increase in that. Um

2:19:54 ↗ so my next plan was to go through the

2:19:55 ↗ video, but it's been plain. Um

2:19:57 ↗ [laughter]

2:19:59 ↗ if there's any questions about that, let

2:20:01 ↗ me know. Um

2:20:06 ↗ let's see.

2:20:08 ↗ Um

2:20:10 ↗ proposal continued. The 11th AV

2:20:12 ↗ Northwest uh to 11th A Northwest

2:20:14 ↗ crossing best met the project goals and

2:20:16 ↗ evaluation criteria of the study. Um

2:20:19 ↗ some key [clears throat] advantages of

2:20:21 ↗ this concept were the proximity to Sound

2:20:23 ↗ Transit's representative project. What

2:20:27 ↗ that means is what was voted upon. Um

2:20:30 ↗ while Sound Transit has not began their

2:20:32 ↗ stationary planning, they indicated to

2:20:34 ↗ us in conversations

2:20:36 ↗ uh that extending the project further

2:20:38 ↗ east will increase costs and giving

2:20:41 ↗ their current bud budget challenges they

2:20:43 ↗ face, they recommended using the voter

2:20:46 ↗ approved representative project as a

2:20:48 ↗ baseline uh which is a station that is

2:20:52 ↗ located

2:20:54 ↗ near the I90 corridor uh near 17th

2:20:58 ↗ Northwest.

2:21:00 ↗ Um by elevating uh this crossing it

2:21:03 ↗ avoids many of the challenges posed by

2:21:05 ↗ the ground conditions and high water

2:21:06 ↗ table.

2:21:08 ↗ This alternative is considered the most

2:21:10 ↗ uh feasible to build and fund with the

2:21:13 ↗ lowest cost estimate among the options.

2:21:16 ↗ It also could be phased if needed. Build

2:21:19 ↗ part of Gilman first for example as a

2:21:22 ↗ separate contract from the rest of it.

2:21:25 ↗ Um

2:21:30 ↗ it also yeah um and it also provides the

2:21:34 ↗ best balance between vehicular um adding

2:21:36 ↗ vehicular um capacity as well as

2:21:40 ↗ non-motorized access due to the location

2:21:43 ↗ and shorter length of it. Um with

2:21:46 ↗ limited existing connections, the

2:21:49 ↗ crossing would enhance access to and

2:21:52 ↗ from picker and place area just north of

2:21:55 ↗ I90.

2:21:56 ↗ And a drawback of this alternative is

2:21:58 ↗ the need to uh carefully design

2:22:01 ↗ non-motorized uh connections to make it

2:22:04 ↗ easily uh accessible and safe to

2:22:07 ↗ navigate due to the elevation of

2:22:09 ↗ northwest uh Gilman Boulevard.

2:22:13 ↗ Um,

2:22:15 ↗ you know, each alternative has offers

2:22:18 ↗ benefits and drawbacks. Uh, none of them

2:22:20 ↗ are are perfect. However, this one

2:22:22 ↗ performed the best um in terms of

2:22:24 ↗ meeting the the project goals and

2:22:27 ↗ evaluation criteria.

2:22:31 ↗ Uh, the study also dug a little deeper

2:22:34 ↗ into two other crossing alternatives.

2:22:37 ↗ I'll start with the alignment um from

2:22:40 ↗ 11th AB Northwest on the north side to

2:22:42 ↗ 12th A Northwest on the south side. How

2:22:46 ↗ this concept works is to achieve the

2:22:49 ↗ grade necessary, I guess we'll flip to

2:22:51 ↗ the south side, you'd have to raise

2:22:53 ↗ Gilman up a couple feet and um as you

2:22:58 ↗ move north along the alignment, it

2:23:00 ↗ shifts a little bit west. that is to

2:23:02 ↗ extend the runway length, ensuring

2:23:04 ↗ sufficient elevation to span the

2:23:06 ↗ freeway. From there, it ties back into

2:23:09 ↗ 11th avenue northwest on the north side

2:23:12 ↗ while attempting to minimize impacts to

2:23:14 ↗ the adjacent properties. However, it

2:23:16 ↗ results in a fairly lengthy crossing.

2:23:20 ↗ Benefits of this concept. Uh, similar to

2:23:22 ↗ the previous one, it aligns well with

2:23:25 ↗ the representative project of Sound

2:23:26 ↗ Transits supporting potential stationary

2:23:28 ↗ planning. Perhaps less options for the

2:23:31 ↗ parking ride due to the span length, but

2:23:33 ↗ there'd be some options still for that.

2:23:35 ↗ It also reduces the impacts from the

2:23:38 ↗ existing ground conditions and

2:23:39 ↗ essentially located in the growth

2:23:41 ↗ center. Um, some drawbacks for this one,

2:23:44 ↗ uh, it's it's positioned nearest to an

2:23:46 ↗ existing crossing. However, there is

2:23:49 ↗ five block lengths between 12th and

2:23:52 ↗ 17th. Uh, so it it didn't feel too close

2:23:56 ↗ um and to remove it from consideration.

2:23:58 ↗ However, we get asked that question

2:23:59 ↗ quite a bit. Um, and the crossing length

2:24:02 ↗ is the greatest of all the options,

2:24:04 ↗ which will feel burdensome for the

2:24:05 ↗ non-motorized users.

2:24:08 ↗ It' be hard to, you know, once you're on

2:24:09 ↗ there, you kind of might feel trapped if

2:24:10 ↗ you're going somewhere in Pickering from

2:24:12 ↗ from the south or something like that.

2:24:14 ↗ Um,

2:24:16 ↗ and it has a greater impacts to the

2:24:18 ↗ property owners, reducing

2:24:20 ↗ uh some future development potential,

2:24:22 ↗ and it's got a higher cost estimate at

2:24:24 ↗ 127 million.

2:24:28 ↗ Moving [snorts] east, uh, the final

2:24:29 ↗ alternative evaluated was the Northwest

2:24:32 ↗ Maple to Lake Drive crossing. Uh, this

2:24:35 ↗ alternative works is on the south side.

2:24:38 ↗ The alignment would begin at the

2:24:39 ↗ existing intersection of Maple and

2:24:41 ↗ Gilman. From there, it would lower

2:24:43 ↗ slightly, although only a few feet

2:24:46 ↗ because it's got a raised I90. So,

2:24:48 ↗ getting it as low as we could would help

2:24:50 ↗ minimize the amount of I90 that would

2:24:52 ↗ need to be elevated. Uh, the alignment

2:24:54 ↗ would then connect to the existing

2:24:56 ↗ roundabout at 62nd A in Lake Drive,

2:25:00 ↗ which was recently constructed as a part

2:25:02 ↗ of the with the Costco development. Um,

2:25:05 ↗ however, initial traffic modeling

2:25:07 ↗ indicates intersection would perform

2:25:09 ↗ better if signalized with an added

2:25:11 ↗ crossing.

2:25:12 ↗ So, we're shown here to replace that

2:25:15 ↗ roundabout with the the traffic signal.

2:25:18 ↗ Um, in terms of pros, it it moves

2:25:20 ↗ vehicles well. It moves the greatest

2:25:23 ↗ number of vehicles compared to the other

2:25:24 ↗ options. Um, however, it's not a huge

2:25:27 ↗ difference and perhaps um moving traffic

2:25:31 ↗ to areas um less than ideal with the

2:25:34 ↗ many roundabout on Maple Street and the

2:25:36 ↗ accurate crossings through the Costco

2:25:38 ↗ campus.

2:25:41 ↗ Um but the greatest risk with this um is

2:25:44 ↗ securing the approvals from outside

2:25:46 ↗ agencies. Um state DOT officials uh

2:25:50 ↗ indicated that the existing traffic on

2:25:52 ↗ 90 would need to be maintained

2:25:54 ↗ throughout the construction. In order to

2:25:56 ↗ do this, they'd have interim

2:25:58 ↗ construction phases um similar to the

2:26:02 ↗ ongoing covert replacement in Factoriia

2:26:05 ↗ and the ones will have coming up.

2:26:09 ↗ And so that would be a burdensome and

2:26:10 ↗ costly and uncertain. Uh there's not a

2:26:14 ↗ lot of space through this area and

2:26:17 ↗ there's also horizontal curves to

2:26:19 ↗ consider uh which you can't really play

2:26:21 ↗ around with too much on freeways.

2:26:24 ↗ Um the state staff also noted that no

2:26:27 ↗ other local agency that they had worked

2:26:29 ↗ with has attempted a project of this

2:26:31 ↗ complexity.

2:26:32 ↗ uh which to us meant there was no

2:26:34 ↗ precedent for reference for how to get

2:26:36 ↗ that approved or cost estimates or

2:26:39 ↗ design approaches for that. Um all the

2:26:42 ↗ state ones are generally done with

2:26:43 ↗ design build contracts

2:26:48 ↗ and this cost estimate is about 116

2:26:52 ↗ million.

2:26:53 ↗ Um while feasible um there's a lot of

2:26:56 ↗ you know challenges with this one. Um

2:26:58 ↗ however it did perform second best um in

2:27:01 ↗ our evaluation. Um however the 11th

2:27:04 ↗ avenue northwest to 11th a northwest uh

2:27:07 ↗ emerged as the clear front runner.

2:27:12 ↗ Um so the study was presented to

2:27:14 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee

2:27:15 ↗ twice this year. uh first in June, study

2:27:18 ↗ uh findings were shared and committee

2:27:20 ↗ members expressed support for the

2:27:22 ↗ concept and acknowledged the future need

2:27:24 ↗ while also raising concerns about costs

2:27:26 ↗ and grant funding opportunities that may

2:27:30 ↗ change. Um the item remained in

2:27:32 ↗ committee for a second meeting on

2:27:34 ↗ September 16th.

2:27:36 ↗ At that section, the presentation was

2:27:38 ↗ more narrowly focused on the study

2:27:39 ↗ itself rather than the larger project as

2:27:41 ↗ a whole. And at that time the committee

2:27:43 ↗ agreed to move the item to a regular uh

2:27:47 ↗ city council meeting for potential

2:27:48 ↗ action. And then in addition to that uh

2:27:51 ↗ the study was shared at a booth at the

2:27:53 ↗ farmers market at the picker and barn in

2:27:56 ↗ August. Um this provided an opportunity

2:27:59 ↗ for shorter more informal conversations

2:28:00 ↗ with about a 100 members or 100

2:28:03 ↗ visitors.

2:28:06 ↗ So for timing and next step.

2:28:12 ↗ >> Uh hi it's me again Andrea Leonard. Want

2:28:15 ↗ to talk about next steps. So again uh

2:28:18 ↗ we're hoping to close out the consultant

2:28:20 ↗ contract acknowledging the work that has

2:28:22 ↗ been done and examining alternatives. Uh

2:28:25 ↗ then um this is where that point in time

2:28:28 ↗ where we want to put a bookmark in the

2:28:29 ↗ work that we've done so far. Uh we are

2:28:32 ↗ moving forward with a light rail uh

2:28:34 ↗ station alignment planning. That study

2:28:37 ↗ is um already underway to look at what

2:28:40 ↗ our preferred alignment alternatives are

2:28:42 ↗ and then be able to provide that

2:28:44 ↗ information to Sound Transit. So one of

2:28:46 ↗ our original goals was to look at how

2:28:48 ↗ these two giant pieces of infrastructure

2:28:51 ↗ can complement each other, can be uh

2:28:54 ↗ colllocated perhaps. So we've looked at

2:28:57 ↗ where could an I90 crossing be. Now the

2:29:00 ↗ next question we need to answer is light

2:29:02 ↗ rail station. What would be our

2:29:04 ↗ preferred um location for that? And so

2:29:06 ↗ once we have that location and begin

2:29:09 ↗ those communications with sound transit

2:29:11 ↗ and wash then we can look at these two

2:29:13 ↗ studies together and see are there

2:29:15 ↗ efficiencies that we can gain with a

2:29:18 ↗ crossing and a light rail station um and

2:29:21 ↗ how can these really be forward

2:29:23 ↗ compatible with each other. So, there's

2:29:25 ↗ a lot more questions to answer, a lot

2:29:27 ↗ more to discover, and that's really

2:29:29 ↗ where we see this headed and relating to

2:29:31 ↗ the light rail work, um, which is, as I

2:29:34 ↗ said, underway right now.

2:29:36 ↗ Um, and so again, for, um, just to

2:29:40 ↗ clarify what we're asking of council

2:29:42 ↗ tonight, we're not asking for any

2:29:44 ↗ immediate action that would advance this

2:29:46 ↗ project. We're not asking for funding

2:29:49 ↗ for this project. Um just that we

2:29:52 ↗ recognize the work that was done and the

2:29:54 ↗ study that was done to determine

2:29:56 ↗ possible alignments and um that the

2:29:59 ↗ administration would return to council

2:30:00 ↗ prior to initiating any further

2:30:03 ↗ development of of this project or any

2:30:05 ↗ crossing of I90.

2:30:08 ↗ And so at this point, the administration

2:30:10 ↗ recommends approval of the 11th A

2:30:12 ↗ Northwest to the 11th A Northwest

2:30:14 ↗ Crossing uh alternative and uh for

2:30:18 ↗ council to conclude and accept the

2:30:20 ↗ study.

2:30:21 ↗ Thank you.

2:30:23 ↗ >> Thank you, Andrea, and thank you, Greg,

2:30:26 ↗ for the presentation. I'm going to turn

2:30:28 ↗ it over to our esteemed council member

2:30:32 ↗ Joe, chair of the mobility and

2:30:34 ↗ infrastructure committee. So, if you

2:30:35 ↗ want to summarize the committee's

2:30:37 ↗ recommendation on this item, that'd be

2:30:38 ↗ great.

2:30:39 ↗ >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh, this was

2:30:40 ↗ kind of a a mid early peak, so to speak,

2:30:44 ↗ at at uh what might be possible for us

2:30:47 ↗ with this crossing. I do appreciate all

2:30:50 ↗ the hard work that was done by staff and

2:30:52 ↗ the consultant crew to put this study

2:30:54 ↗ together. Um, it's uh just want to point

2:30:58 ↗ out that it does align with our

2:31:00 ↗ transportation goals in the comp plan.

2:31:03 ↗ Um, transportation goal C uh outlines

2:31:07 ↗ that we should develop a multimodal

2:31:09 ↗ balanced transportation system that will

2:31:11 ↗ support increased transportation options

2:31:13 ↗ for the Isqua community. And then later

2:31:15 ↗ in transportation policy C5, it asks we

2:31:18 ↗ partner with Sound Transit in bringing

2:31:20 ↗ light rail service to Isiqua by adopting

2:31:23 ↗ supportive land use policies and

2:31:24 ↗ creating safe multimodal connectivity to

2:31:27 ↗ the new station. So just putting that

2:31:30 ↗ work in the time in the frame of the

2:31:33 ↗ comp plan that we approved earlier. Um

2:31:37 ↗ we approved last year 2024 and um the

2:31:41 ↗ committee took a close look at this.

2:31:43 ↗ There were some hard questions that were

2:31:45 ↗ asked and we know it's not perfect but

2:31:47 ↗ it is as as uh deputy administrator

2:31:50 ↗ points out a bookmark to accept the work

2:31:53 ↗ that has been done up to this point. Um,

2:31:55 ↗ it will need to be paused until more

2:31:59 ↗ information can come forward both from

2:32:01 ↗ the location of the station itself,

2:32:03 ↗ funding issues, work with all of our

2:32:06 ↗ other partners in um, making this

2:32:08 ↗ project possible. Um, so it is a

2:32:12 ↗ bookmark. It's been some good work from

2:32:13 ↗ the committee. I'll open it up to my

2:32:17 ↗ fellow committee members because there

2:32:18 ↗ was some added uh discussion and

2:32:21 ↗ questions that were going on there and I

2:32:23 ↗ want to give them each an opportunity to

2:32:25 ↗ have those aired in a in this forum.

2:32:27 ↗ Thank you.

2:32:29 ↗ >> Other committee members,

2:32:31 ↗ Council Member Bray,

2:32:32 ↗ >> I always have a point of view. Um and it

2:32:36 ↗ seems like it's always the same one. Um

2:32:39 ↗ I think this is interesting. I think

2:32:41 ↗ this was a fascinating project. I think

2:32:43 ↗ it was incredibly opportunistic to use

2:32:45 ↗ the ARPA funding to fund this project.

2:32:47 ↗ Um I just don't and I understand that

2:32:50 ↗ it's aspirational and we're we're we

2:32:53 ↗ want something big and bold to do. Um I

2:32:56 ↗ just don't see how ever this gets built

2:32:59 ↗ um given the cost of construction, given

2:33:02 ↗ the complexity of building something

2:33:03 ↗ like this. And so I think it's very

2:33:05 ↗ interesting.

2:33:06 ↗ But beyond that, I my concern about this

2:33:09 ↗ in every meeting we had is this is

2:33:12 ↗ absolutely beautiful. I wish we could do

2:33:14 ↗ it, but I sure don't know how.

2:33:18 ↗ >> Deputy Council President.

2:33:21 ↗ >> Uh

2:33:23 ↗ that's a good summary. Um [laughter]

2:33:26 ↗ uh I raised a number of questions about

2:33:29 ↗ this project as well. Um my concern was

2:33:32 ↗ um uh the engagement with the council.

2:33:36 ↗ It's a big project. Um I didn't think

2:33:39 ↗ that we had had enough time to really

2:33:41 ↗ talk about it and and understand it. You

2:33:43 ↗ look at it goes through a couple of

2:33:45 ↗ shopping malls right now. The alignment

2:33:48 ↗ is is kind of interesting. Uh but I was

2:33:51 ↗ glad to hear that we've done outreach to

2:33:53 ↗ the property owners. Um so I had all

2:33:57 ↗ kinds of questions about it. I think

2:33:58 ↗ that the idea that this is a bookmark.

2:34:01 ↗ Uh we've done a lot of work. Um at this

2:34:05 ↗ particular time in history, we are

2:34:08 ↗ facing some headwinds that are

2:34:09 ↗ completely out of our control. One of

2:34:11 ↗ them is uh the probably impossibility of

2:34:15 ↗ getting a federal uh grant that would

2:34:17 ↗ help us help us build this at this

2:34:20 ↗ point. Uh but things will change in the

2:34:22 ↗ next 10 to 15 years while we're working

2:34:24 ↗ on the light rail station. um and uh the

2:34:28 ↗ general economic outlook that we've

2:34:30 ↗ already talked about as we were talking

2:34:32 ↗ about the the budget um the uh

2:34:35 ↗ willingness of the community to support

2:34:37 ↗ it as well. I think the community um and

2:34:40 ↗ I do appreciate the outreach that was

2:34:42 ↗ done. I attended the open house. Uh when

2:34:44 ↗ I attended the open house, I picked this

2:34:46 ↗ alignment. I was one of the people that

2:34:48 ↗ put the little button on this alignment

2:34:50 ↗ because it it does, you know, it meets

2:34:52 ↗ all of the goals of the project. Um, and

2:34:55 ↗ yet, uh, there were only 25 people

2:34:57 ↗ there. And, uh, so again, does the

2:35:00 ↗ community understand the changes that

2:35:02 ↗ would happen if this alignment went in?

2:35:04 ↗ I wasn't clear about that at all. Um, I

2:35:07 ↗ think it's been, um, I think it was

2:35:09 ↗ summarized very well that it's a

2:35:10 ↗ bookmark that acknowledges here. We've

2:35:13 ↗ got a body of research sitting here and

2:35:17 ↗ that will be useful when we talk with

2:35:19 ↗ Sound Transit and maybe useful in the

2:35:22 ↗ future. Um and uh we've got the study

2:35:26 ↗ and we need to accept it and so that we

2:35:28 ↗ can close that out. Um it does not

2:35:30 ↗ obligate us uh to uh the other thing I

2:35:34 ↗ had my other concern again was that $110

2:35:36 ↗ million um you know budget. Uh

2:35:40 ↗ >> uh so we've done this great amount of

2:35:44 ↗ work. Let's accept it. Let's put it

2:35:46 ↗ somewhere where it's going to be useful.

2:35:48 ↗ uh and then we can come back to it when

2:35:51 ↗ circumstances have changed or when it's

2:35:52 ↗ more uh as council member Ray said where

2:35:55 ↗ it's more opportunistic for us to

2:35:57 ↗ actually use this information to

2:35:59 ↗ possibly build this project. But right

2:36:02 ↗ now it's it's we're not going to build

2:36:04 ↗ it now and uh we need to uh take some

2:36:08 ↗ kind of formal action to close this out

2:36:10 ↗ and then move on. So um and appreciate I

2:36:14 ↗ do appreciate all the work that staff

2:36:15 ↗ has done. It's really an amazing body of

2:36:17 ↗ work. So, thank you so much.

2:36:20 ↗ >> Thank you. That sounds like a couple of

2:36:22 ↗ very interesting committee meetings. Um,

2:36:24 ↗ so we are in the council question

2:36:28 ↗ portion and council member Mart has his

2:36:30 ↗ microphone up.

2:36:31 ↗ >> Thank you. Thank you, Madame Mayor. A

2:36:32 ↗ couple questions. Um, I recall an

2:36:36 ↗ overcrossing study that we referenced at

2:36:39 ↗ one of our legislative

2:36:42 ↗ meetings one January a few years ago.

2:36:45 ↗ What was the relationship between that

2:36:47 ↗ overcrossing study and this overcrossing

2:36:49 ↗ study?

2:36:50 ↗ >> I believe the study that you're

2:36:51 ↗ referencing was work done by Rowley

2:36:53 ↗ Properties. That was a concept of what

2:36:55 ↗ it could look like and where it could

2:36:57 ↗ be. Um, so it was very uh very high

2:37:01 ↗ level. This one is a much more in-depth

2:37:03 ↗ study um that that looked at all all

2:37:07 ↗ kinds of factors. [snorts] Greg went

2:37:09 ↗ over a few of them, but this one is is a

2:37:12 ↗ much bigger study, much more in depth.

2:37:14 ↗ Of course, the rallies as a property

2:37:15 ↗ owner in the area um were um a part of

2:37:18 ↗ the outreach process and um we took

2:37:21 ↗ their feedback, but their study was I

2:37:23 ↗ think very um high level and conceptual

2:37:25 ↗ in nature and this one um takes in many

2:37:28 ↗ more factors.

2:37:29 ↗ >> Got it. Um second question is what kind

2:37:31 ↗ of traffic studies were done as part of

2:37:33 ↗ this?

2:37:42 ↗ Oh, we got Jacobs. This is John

2:37:44 ↗ McKenzie. He's uh worked with Jacob's

2:37:46 ↗ engineering. Um and they also happen to

2:37:48 ↗ do the concurrency modeling. So,

2:37:52 ↗ >> and it might be great. Thank you for

2:37:53 ↗ coming up and please identify yourself

2:37:55 ↗ for the council, but also just tying in

2:37:57 ↗ why concurrency and this project mesh in

2:38:00 ↗ any way, shape, or form. Not everybody

2:38:03 ↗ is as familiar with that uh those two

2:38:05 ↗ items.

2:38:07 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. Um, John McKenzie with

2:38:10 ↗ Jacobs. Um, I'm the been the the project

2:38:12 ↗ manager working with Greg and the city

2:38:14 ↗ on this project. Um, so I'm not the

2:38:16 ↗ technical expert on the traffic

2:38:18 ↗ analysis, but um, we did perform the

2:38:22 ↗ traffic analysis for the study. Torston

2:38:24 ↗ Lenau who also serves as

2:38:27 ↗ >> really the city's you know traffic

2:38:29 ↗ engineer is on our team and he um he

2:38:32 ↗ developed uh synchro analysis models for

2:38:36 ↗ both the AM and the PM peak and off peak

2:38:40 ↗ um and so he so he used those models to

2:38:44 ↗ study uh within within the network

2:38:48 ↗ within the central regional growth

2:38:50 ↗ center and um intersections around that.

2:38:54 ↗ Um how the different alignments would

2:38:58 ↗ impact traffic both you know along the

2:39:03 ↗ um SR900 and Front Street alignments and

2:39:07 ↗ what kind of traffic it would be pulling

2:39:09 ↗ from those

2:39:11 ↗ um and I can't really provide more

2:39:14 ↗ detail than that other than um with the

2:39:17 ↗ the traffic report is within the study

2:39:18 ↗ that we can make available for you. So

2:39:21 ↗ did so I'm very familiar with Torston's

2:39:23 ↗ work. Um did he do a full nodal

2:39:25 ↗ analysis? Like did he

2:39:26 ↗ >> full nodal analysis? Yes.

2:39:28 ↗ >> Because I'm really getting at page 284

2:39:31 ↗ of the packet the trade study that's in

2:39:33 ↗ there. Um and it's specifically around

2:39:36 ↗ benefit

2:39:38 ↗ um

2:39:40 ↗ 3.2

2:39:42 ↗ and it's uh vehicle you know uh

2:39:46 ↗ congestion relief basically. And this

2:39:48 ↗ has a this has sort of a qualitative,

2:39:51 ↗ you know, Consumer Reports kind of

2:39:53 ↗ looking uh vibe to it. But I'm I'm

2:39:56 ↗ curious. Um I guess greater than 1,200

2:40:00 ↗ vehicle per hour reduction would be the

2:40:02 ↗ would be like the the the Consumer

2:40:05 ↗ Reports best on that. So I I I would

2:40:08 ↗ love to see the the numbers

2:40:10 ↗ specifically. Uh it looks like all these

2:40:12 ↗ options had a significant reduction in

2:40:14 ↗ vehicles per hour in the other

2:40:16 ↗ intersections. Is that correct?

2:40:20 ↗ >> I would I would have to follow up.

2:40:21 ↗ >> Okay. Because it's I mean it's one of

2:40:23 ↗ the core benefits of Yes. of doing this,

2:40:26 ↗ right? So I just wanted to make sure

2:40:27 ↗ that there was the math behind it.

2:40:30 ↗ >> That's correct.

2:40:31 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. Um couple more couple

2:40:33 ↗ more questions. Um

2:40:36 ↗ how did what was these seem to all these

2:40:39 ↗ options seem to have non-trivial impact

2:40:41 ↗ potentially on Costco. How was the

2:40:43 ↗ conversation? I mean, they they seem

2:40:45 ↗ more impacted by this than maybe, you

2:40:48 ↗ know, I mean, guess if I guess if

2:40:50 ↗ somebody has a business that goes away

2:40:51 ↗ that they're impacted, but how was the

2:40:53 ↗ conversation with Costco given that um

2:40:56 ↗ these options potentially have a

2:40:57 ↗ significant impact on um some of some of

2:41:00 ↗ the the development agreement area?

2:41:02 ↗ >> Yeah. So, we met with them uh kind of

2:41:05 ↗ beginning, middle, and end. Um pretty

2:41:08 ↗ succinct response to that would be

2:41:10 ↗ they're in favor of the crossing. They

2:41:12 ↗ see the need for it. They kind of don't

2:41:14 ↗ really want it going through their

2:41:15 ↗ campus like the the Maple Lake does due

2:41:18 ↗ to the pedestrian conflicts, but they

2:41:21 ↗ kind of supported the when we shared our

2:41:23 ↗ recommended alternatives, they they were

2:41:25 ↗ on board with that one.

2:41:26 ↗ >> Would this recommended alternative

2:41:28 ↗ require any revisions in our development

2:41:30 ↗ agreement with Costco?

2:41:32 ↗ >> You know, I I don't know the answer to

2:41:33 ↗ that. However, um

2:41:38 ↗ I don't know. I don't think so. I don't

2:41:40 ↗ believe so.

2:41:41 ↗ >> I'm seeing some head shaking. No,

2:41:43 ↗ >> no, we we don't no we don't foresee any

2:41:46 ↗ amendments to the development agreement

2:41:48 ↗ with Costco if this was to move forward.

2:41:50 ↗ I'll I'll add a finer point to um what

2:41:52 ↗ Greg said about feedback that we heard

2:41:54 ↗ from Costco. I think they recognize the

2:41:56 ↗ benefits of having another crossing for

2:41:58 ↗ their employees to get to and from

2:41:59 ↗ campus, especially if it facilitates

2:42:02 ↗ that connection to light rail. They are

2:42:04 ↗ concerned about walkability of their

2:42:06 ↗ campus area. Um they've just opened up

2:42:08 ↗ their new buildings. There's a lot of

2:42:10 ↗ folks that you can see walking um

2:42:12 ↗ between the buildings and that's an

2:42:13 ↗ environment that they really like and

2:42:15 ↗ their employees feel is safe and so

2:42:17 ↗ they're concerned about any alignment

2:42:19 ↗ that would funnel a lot of vehicular

2:42:21 ↗ traffic through their campus. So um so

2:42:23 ↗ we were um as Greg said uh that was some

2:42:26 ↗ of their main comments which um made

2:42:28 ↗ this one of the preferred alternatives.

2:42:31 ↗ >> And and the last question thank you for

2:42:33 ↗ that. The last question that I have is

2:42:35 ↗ there was there were emails going around

2:42:37 ↗ earlier today um associated with this

2:42:39 ↗ and I think council member Jen had a

2:42:42 ↗ question and one of the answers that

2:42:43 ↗ came back um mentioned something that

2:42:46 ↗ that sort of caught my attention about

2:42:48 ↗ an associated public structure. Um and

2:42:52 ↗ that's not language that's in the report

2:42:55 ↗ at all or at least in the packet for us

2:42:57 ↗ today. Um, so I'm wondering,

2:43:01 ↗ you know, I have I have

2:43:04 ↗ I there are questions about what

2:43:06 ↗ associated parking structures.

2:43:08 ↗ >> I assume associated public structure

2:43:10 ↗ means associated parking structure.

2:43:12 ↗ >> Yes, I'm sorry. I maybe I was typing

2:43:15 ↗ that a little too fast. I did mean

2:43:16 ↗ parking structure and not public

2:43:18 ↗ structure. Um, so I think I was talking

2:43:21 ↗ about uh the the ST3 project that um the

2:43:27 ↗ representative project contemplates not

2:43:30 ↗ only a light rail station but also a

2:43:32 ↗ parking structure with 500 stalls as

2:43:35 ↗ well as a pedike bridge.

2:43:39 ↗ >> I see. Thank you.

2:43:42 ↗ >> Additional questions.

2:43:46 ↗ Uh, Chair Joe, would you like to make a

2:43:48 ↗ motion?

2:43:57 ↗ >> I would move to accept the Central Isqua

2:43:59 ↗ multimodal I90 crossing study and

2:44:01 ↗ approve it as preferred crossing

2:44:02 ↗ location of 11th Avenue Northwest to

2:44:05 ↗ 11th Avenue Northwest.

2:44:08 ↗ >> Second.

2:44:09 ↗ >> It's been moved and seconded. Council

2:44:10 ↗ discussion.

2:44:14 ↗ Council Jang.

2:44:16 ↗ >> Yeah. First off, I want to thank the

2:44:18 ↗ staff and the consultant team for all

2:44:20 ↗ the work that's been done on this, you

2:44:22 ↗ know, with doing like engineering

2:44:24 ↗ studies and figuring out, you know, how

2:44:25 ↗ exactly the angles need to go and, you

2:44:28 ↗ know, lift I I mean to me the cost is

2:44:31 ↗ eyepopping, you know, cuz you have to

2:44:32 ↗ raise Gilman or raise I90 or all that.

2:44:34 ↗ But, um, you know, so I appreciate all

2:44:36 ↗ the detailed engineering works that's

2:44:38 ↗ gone into this. Um, so you know, in my

2:44:41 ↗ thinking about this specific project, I

2:44:44 ↗ went back and looked at the central

2:44:45 ↗ Isiqua plan because this was part of the

2:44:48 ↗ plan. So, um, just, uh, there's three

2:44:51 ↗ different crossings of I90 that are

2:44:53 ↗ mentioned in the Central Isqua plan. So,

2:44:55 ↗ uh, it included multimodal crossing from

2:44:57 ↗ 12th Avenue to 11th Avenue. We changed

2:44:59 ↗ it to 11th and 11th, which I believe

2:45:00 ↗ makes sense given, you know, what we've

2:45:02 ↗ seen here. um a pedestrian crossing of

2:45:04 ↗ I90 at Maple Avenue, which is one of the

2:45:08 ↗ multimmoal options that we assessed. You

2:45:10 ↗ know, given Costco's perspective, I

2:45:11 ↗ think doing a bike ped crossing there

2:45:13 ↗ would make a lot of sense. And I think

2:45:15 ↗ given that in the Sound Transit plan,

2:45:17 ↗ they claim they have funding for a

2:45:19 ↗ pedestrian bridge. I think that's

2:45:20 ↗ something we, you know, in our work with

2:45:23 ↗ Sound Transit really need to have as an

2:45:25 ↗ absolute non-negotiable. Like if they

2:45:27 ↗ get rid of a parking garage, fine. if

2:45:29 ↗ they get rid of pedestrian bridge over

2:45:30 ↗ I90. No, I will fight them on that. Um,

2:45:34 ↗ and then another thing that was

2:45:35 ↗ mentioned in the central Isqua plan was

2:45:37 ↗ a pedestrian crossing from the West

2:45:39 ↗ Newport neighborhood to Lake Spammer

2:45:41 ↗ State Park. So, I guess, you know, one

2:45:44 ↗ of the things that I think potentially

2:45:46 ↗ could have been a little bit of a missed

2:45:47 ↗ opportunity with the study is, you know,

2:45:50 ↗ studying what some of those pedestrian

2:45:52 ↗ uh bike pedestrian overpass options

2:45:54 ↗ could have looked like cuz just in terms

2:45:56 ↗ of the cost, those are so much less

2:45:59 ↗ costly. Um, and I looked up, you know,

2:46:01 ↗ oh, Redmond recently built some bike

2:46:03 ↗ pedestrian bridge crossings associated

2:46:05 ↗ with their light rail. For example, they

2:46:07 ↗ did a bike pedestrian overpass at the

2:46:08 ↗ Overlike Village light rail station,

2:46:10 ↗ which cost $10.4 $4 million compared to

2:46:12 ↗ $110 million for the lowest cost option

2:46:14 ↗ here. Um they also there was the new

2:46:17 ↗ fancy one with the little tents on it

2:46:20 ↗ and that crosses 520 the light bridge

2:46:22 ↗ and 156 and it's diagonal so it's very

2:46:25 ↗ very long and that was 33.3 million and

2:46:28 ↗ that was actually fully funded by

2:46:29 ↗ Microsoft because it connects two halves

2:46:31 ↗ of the Microsoft campus. So just like

2:46:33 ↗ looking at that data where you can build

2:46:35 ↗ a you know bike pedestrian crossing for

2:46:37 ↗ literally 10% of the cost of building

2:46:39 ↗ the least cost crossing that allows

2:46:41 ↗ cars. I just I struggle to see how this

2:46:45 ↗ will ever get built. I mean I do think

2:46:47 ↗ it was useful for us to do this study.

2:46:49 ↗ Um I wish that we had assessed some you

2:46:53 ↗ know bicycle pedestrian options as well

2:46:55 ↗ including the ones that were uh included

2:46:58 ↗ in the central Isqua plan. Um, but you

2:47:04 ↗ know, I think given what we've seen,

2:47:06 ↗ like I think it's I'm happy to accept

2:47:09 ↗ the results of this study with the

2:47:12 ↗ understanding that uh we probably

2:47:16 ↗ are going to have to figure out how this

2:47:18 ↗ fits in just given the astronomical

2:47:20 ↗ price tag.

2:47:23 ↗ Thank you, Council Member Jen. And the

2:47:25 ↗ answer is kind of we need all three of

2:47:26 ↗ those things. It's not just one

2:47:28 ↗ replacing the other. So, we still need a

2:47:30 ↗ place for buses, delivery vehicles, all

2:47:32 ↗ kinds of different things. And they use

2:47:34 ↗ pavement, too. And so do electric

2:47:35 ↗ vehicles. So, there's it's kind of an

2:47:37 ↗ all, not just a or um and let's go to

2:47:42 ↗ comments. I think it's council president

2:47:43 ↗ next.

2:47:45 ↗ Thank you. Um appreciate this work. It's

2:47:49 ↗ beautiful. It's lovely to dream and see

2:47:53 ↗ things in,

2:47:56 ↗ you know, color and video and all of

2:47:58 ↗ that. Um, I have a lot of concerns about

2:48:02 ↗ this. I think when I initially saw the

2:48:05 ↗ idea of this 11th to 11th Avenue

2:48:10 ↗ Northwest connection and the placement

2:48:13 ↗ of it, it made sense to me. um seeing

2:48:17 ↗ the more 3D images now and what that

2:48:22 ↗ would look like with a 26 foot height of

2:48:27 ↗ Gilman Boulevard and all of that. I am

2:48:32 ↗ no longer sure that that meets our needs

2:48:35 ↗ as a community. Um,

2:48:38 ↗ if I think about this as a potential

2:48:42 ↗ connection location for Sound Transit,

2:48:45 ↗ either in the middle or on one side or

2:48:47 ↗ whatnot, I really want something that is

2:48:51 ↗ walkable and bikable. And the idea that

2:48:55 ↗ a 26 foot high

2:48:59 ↗ location would be walkable or bikable

2:49:01 ↗ just does not compute in my mind. So I

2:49:05 ↗ think we have missed the mark on this

2:49:07 ↗ unfortunately. Um

2:49:11 ↗ I yeah I I just don't see how this takes

2:49:16 ↗ the future of the central Isiqua plan

2:49:20 ↗ area into consideration. I know there

2:49:24 ↗ are limited areas where we can do a

2:49:27 ↗ crossing and I know that there are

2:49:30 ↗ there's a need for more connectivity and

2:49:33 ↗ mobility, but I don't think we should do

2:49:37 ↗ that

2:49:39 ↗ while sacrificing the connection of

2:49:43 ↗ Gilman Boulevard as a street to the

2:49:48 ↗ businesses and property that is next to

2:49:52 ↗ it.

2:49:55 ↗ It just seems like a sacrifice that we

2:49:57 ↗ shouldn't spend $100 million or more to

2:50:00 ↗ do. So, I don't think I support this at

2:50:04 ↗ this point.

2:50:06 ↗ >> Um, any other comments?

2:50:08 ↗ Council member Marts,

2:50:11 ↗ >> unfortunately, I'm not able to support

2:50:13 ↗ it this evening. My concern is um

2:50:16 ↗ continues to be around parking

2:50:17 ↗ structures and uh I just look at again I

2:50:21 ↗ use MARTA as an example. Uh MARTA's end

2:50:24 ↗ of line uh are all 30 acre parcels. Um

2:50:27 ↗ that's the equivalent of Tibets Valley

2:50:30 ↗ Park. And so I look at the options that

2:50:32 ↗ we've seen this evening and I ask myself

2:50:35 ↗ where we could put a Tippets Valley

2:50:37 ↗ Parkized parking lot um associated with

2:50:40 ↗ that and I don't like any of the

2:50:41 ↗ answers. Thank you. Any other comments?

2:50:45 ↗ >> Council member Hall, Deputy Council

2:50:47 ↗ President.

2:50:48 ↗ >> Yeah, clarifying question. Can you talk

2:50:49 ↗ to us about what would happen if we

2:50:52 ↗ voted no as a council tonight on this? I

2:50:55 ↗ mean, it's just an official action to

2:50:57 ↗ like accept that the report is complete,

2:50:59 ↗ right? I mean, if we if we vote no, is

2:51:02 ↗ it the same outcome?

2:51:08 ↗ Um we

2:51:10 ↗ are asking council to accept the project

2:51:13 ↗ which would help us conclude the work in

2:51:16 ↗ the way that um you accept capital

2:51:19 ↗ projects when they're done and complete.

2:51:22 ↗ Um and so it would be helpful to have

2:51:26 ↗ that mark this point in time as we're

2:51:28 ↗ we're done with this study. um that the

2:51:31 ↗ study that we're presenting

2:51:33 ↗ uh accomplish the goals of the study. Um

2:51:38 ↗ if council chooses to not accept the

2:51:40 ↗ preferred alignment, um then it it also

2:51:45 ↗ doesn't sound like they prefer the other

2:51:47 ↗ two options that Greg presented,

2:51:50 ↗ right? because that could be that could

2:51:52 ↗ be feedback we get from you tonight that

2:51:54 ↗ you don't agree with the

2:51:55 ↗ administration's recommendation but you

2:51:56 ↗ prefer the two other alternatives that

2:51:59 ↗ we presented or one of the two

2:52:00 ↗ alternatives that was presented. So it

2:52:02 ↗ I'm not hearing that from council

2:52:03 ↗ either. So um what I if council does not

2:52:08 ↗ accept the study and does not approve of

2:52:11 ↗ the preferred alignment then I think we

2:52:14 ↗ um without any other feedback or

2:52:16 ↗ direction from council I think we uh

2:52:20 ↗ close the matter. The reason why we are

2:52:24 ↗ hoping for council's acceptance is to be

2:52:26 ↗ able to keep this study and use it to

2:52:29 ↗ inform future decisions and say we know

2:52:33 ↗ that this isn't a perfect alignment. We

2:52:35 ↗ know that we have concerns, but uh we

2:52:38 ↗ have a light rail study coming and we'll

2:52:40 ↗ be able to use some of the information

2:52:42 ↗ um received in in the pro in the process

2:52:45 ↗ of the study to help inform future

2:52:47 ↗ decisions. One of those is if a council

2:52:51 ↗ 10 years from now says, you know, it' be

2:52:52 ↗ a great idea. We should really get a

2:52:54 ↗ crossing of I90. We could dig up this

2:52:56 ↗ study and say, "Well, we have a study

2:52:59 ↗ and here's what that would entail." Um,

2:53:01 ↗ instead of having to redo the work

2:53:03 ↗ because if we did the work over again,

2:53:05 ↗ we believe we would come up with the

2:53:07 ↗ same results for a multimodal crossing

2:53:09 ↗ of I90. So, that's why we're asking

2:53:12 ↗ council to accept the project. Um that's

2:53:16 ↗ why we have a recommendation for the

2:53:17 ↗ preferred alignment because we don't

2:53:19 ↗ believe that we can do much better uh

2:53:22 ↗ given the conditions and the factors

2:53:24 ↗ that we have if we were to repeat the

2:53:25 ↗ study and do it again. It does not mean

2:53:28 ↗ that we're going to go ahead and build

2:53:30 ↗ this project.

2:53:33 ↗ >> Um city administrator, you look like you

2:53:35 ↗ wanted to chime in.

2:53:36 ↗ >> Yes. U Madam Mayor, members of the

2:53:38 ↗ council, um I think the council does

2:53:40 ↗ have a few alternatives here. the the

2:53:42 ↗ motion on the floor is to uh accept the

2:53:46 ↗ administration's recommendation uh for

2:53:48 ↗ the crossing alternative. Uh an

2:53:50 ↗ alternate motion could be merely to

2:53:52 ↗ receive the report.

2:53:53 ↗ >> Right.

2:53:57 ↗ >> Thanks for that, Deputy Council

2:53:58 ↗ President.

2:54:00 ↗ >> Yeah, thank you. That is what I was uh

2:54:03 ↗ thinking as well is um or that we could

2:54:07 ↗ um close out this project with uh maybe

2:54:11 ↗ a letter from the council or a list of

2:54:14 ↗ concerns that we have about this and

2:54:16 ↗ attach that because basically I hate to

2:54:19 ↗ characterize it like this but it's going

2:54:20 ↗ to be put on a shelf and it will be used

2:54:23 ↗ at some future point and maybe at that

2:54:25 ↗ point it would be very useful for future

2:54:27 ↗ people to know exactly what the concerns

2:54:30 ↗ of this council were at the same time

2:54:32 ↗ that we just close this project out and

2:54:35 ↗ just say we're done right now. So that

2:54:38 ↗ would be my recommendation. Um,

2:54:41 ↗ you know, I've used this analogy before

2:54:43 ↗ and may not work with some of the

2:54:44 ↗ younger folks, but it's like a Polaroid

2:54:47 ↗ camera picture that comes into focus

2:54:50 ↗ slowly but surely. And you start one of

2:54:53 ↗ these big projects and it's very dim and

2:54:55 ↗ it's kind of like murky and then you get

2:54:57 ↗ a little bit more clarity and a little

2:54:59 ↗ bit more clarity. That's we're in the

2:55:00 ↗ stage right now where it's still murky.

2:55:03 ↗ Uh it's just we're just doing

2:55:05 ↗ preliminary research and uh there, you

2:55:09 ↗ know, the concerns about um the bikeways

2:55:12 ↗ and the pedestrian crossings and things

2:55:14 ↗ like that are really legitimate

2:55:16 ↗ concerns. It I don't think that we're

2:55:18 ↗ quite ready to have done the research on

2:55:19 ↗ that. So um there are really legitimate

2:55:23 ↗ concerns here, but we're not in the

2:55:25 ↗ process where those would be addressed

2:55:27 ↗ anyway. So, um, I I I would think that

2:55:31 ↗ perhaps we could close this project out,

2:55:34 ↗ do a motion like that and have a letter

2:55:37 ↗ or some kind of memorandum that

2:55:39 ↗ expresses our concerns to the future

2:55:41 ↗ people that will be using this study.

2:55:44 ↗ So, that would be my idea.

2:55:45 ↗ >> Good suggestion. Also, just wanted to

2:55:47 ↗ point out too, I mean, we're talking

2:55:49 ↗ about the retail and properties.

2:55:51 ↗ Sunransit hasn't defined which

2:55:53 ↗ properties they're going to use as part

2:55:56 ↗ of their project. They're going to be

2:55:58 ↗ buying out property owners that are

2:56:00 ↗ there. New property owners will be

2:56:02 ↗ coming in trying to build the 10 12story

2:56:04 ↗ buildings that we're talking about.

2:56:06 ↗ There are opportunities for partners on

2:56:08 ↗ this project. There may be somebody who

2:56:10 ↗ wants to build a structure over I90 that

2:56:12 ↗ includes this crossing. So, this really

2:56:15 ↗ isn't uh much of anything except uh a

2:56:18 ↗ feasibility feasibility study with very

2:56:20 ↗ little um details right now and all it's

2:56:23 ↗ being asked is to accept it. I think

2:56:24 ↗ council deputy council president's

2:56:26 ↗ suggestion if she were to put it in a

2:56:28 ↗ motion would be a good one to receive

2:56:31 ↗ and provide a council summary with the

2:56:34 ↗ filing of the document. Um but you'd

2:56:36 ↗ have to make a motion.

2:56:38 ↗ >> Uh would it be So there's already a

2:56:40 ↗ motion on the floor, right?

2:56:41 ↗ >> Uh would it be an amendment to the

2:56:44 ↗ motion?

2:56:44 ↗ >> Yep. Um,

2:56:48 ↗ see, I move that we uh um accept the

2:56:52 ↗ >> Okay, go ahead.

2:56:53 ↗ >> report.

2:56:55 ↗ >> Well, maybe just a comment here. Um, so

2:56:58 ↗ the maker of the motion could request

2:57:00 ↗ that it be withdrawn and if there was um

2:57:02 ↗ unanimous consent or a majority agreed,

2:57:04 ↗ you could withdraw the current motion

2:57:06 ↗ and then uh

2:57:07 ↗ >> motion withdraw motion. [laughter]

2:57:08 ↗ >> Okay,

2:57:10 ↗ >> you made the motion.

2:57:11 ↗ >> Yeah.

2:57:12 ↗ >> Okay.

2:57:12 ↗ >> Second. And so, um, mayor, maybe just

2:57:15 ↗ confirm there's no objection to

2:57:16 ↗ withdrawing the motion. No objection.

2:57:18 ↗ Not seeing an objection. And then now we

2:57:20 ↗ can have a new motion.

2:57:22 ↗ >> Deputy Council President,

2:57:23 ↗ >> uh, I move that we, uh, we conclude this

2:57:27 ↗ study, um, and prepare a, um,

2:57:32 ↗ memorandum of concerns to be included

2:57:36 ↗ with the study. Um,

2:57:39 ↗ period.

2:57:41 ↗ >> Is there a second? So,

2:57:43 ↗ >> are you trying to accept the report?

2:57:44 ↗ >> Yes, accept the report.

2:57:46 ↗ >> Are you and receive the central

2:57:49 ↗ >> second?

2:57:49 ↗ >> There we go.

2:57:50 ↗ >> Second. Um, [laughter]

2:57:52 ↗ >> thank you.

2:57:52 ↗ >> Looking at the deputy administrator,

2:57:54 ↗ that makes sense. You have enough

2:57:55 ↗ information. That's great. Council, did

2:57:58 ↗ you raise your hand? W

2:58:00 ↗ >> would u mayor, would you mind just con

2:58:02 ↗ confirming the motion on the floor and

2:58:04 ↗ maybe giving us a a clear statement? And

2:58:06 ↗ can I also have a confirmation who was

2:58:07 ↗ the seconder?

2:58:09 ↗ >> Russell. Thank you,

2:58:11 ↗ >> Russell. Um, I'm sure you wrote it down,

2:58:14 ↗ Debbie. Council President,

2:58:16 ↗ >> just wing it and this time we'll get the

2:58:17 ↗ city clerk to write it down.

2:58:18 ↗ >> Okay. Uh, oh, help me, council member.

2:58:23 ↗ >> Um,

2:58:24 ↗ >> move to receive. Move to receive the

2:58:30 ↗ >> central isqua multimodal

2:58:34 ↗ >> I90 crossing project report

2:58:38 ↗ and

2:58:40 ↗ >> creation of a a memo to reflect staff

2:58:43 ↗ concerns with the project.

2:58:44 ↗ >> I I I move that. [laughter]

2:58:47 ↗ >> I'm sure it was exactly those words.

2:58:49 ↗ >> Yes.

2:58:50 ↗ >> And the second. Do you agree with that

2:58:52 ↗ verbiage?

2:58:53 ↗ >> Second.

2:58:54 ↗ >> Okay. Council discussion.

2:58:58 ↗ >> Council member Jen. Um just quick

2:59:00 ↗ clarification on the language. Do we

2:59:02 ↗ need to cuz on the slide I saw conclude

2:59:04 ↗ the study. Do we need to say that in the

2:59:07 ↗ uh up in the okay receive report and

2:59:11 ↗ then um issue a uh statement of council

2:59:15 ↗ concerns. Okay.

2:59:17 ↗ >> I I think we'll use different words.

2:59:19 ↗ We're you know Sound Transit is

2:59:20 ↗ following the work that we're doing and

2:59:22 ↗ so far we are committed to continuing

2:59:24 ↗ that good work to get through the

2:59:26 ↗ station design and station location. So

2:59:28 ↗ it would be

2:59:29 ↗ >> it maybe additional information required

2:59:31 ↗ prior to a decision but it will list

2:59:33 ↗ everything I we want to sound like we

2:59:36 ↗ are in a positive frame of mind as we

2:59:39 ↗ move forward so it'll be worded

2:59:41 ↗ appropriately.

2:59:42 ↗ >> Okay, great. Thank you. Um yeah I mean I

2:59:45 ↗ think the motion as proposed makes a lot

2:59:48 ↗ of sense. I think, you know, we should

2:59:50 ↗ receive the study and close this out and

2:59:52 ↗ also, you know, for the benefit of

2:59:54 ↗ future council members, have a clear

2:59:57 ↗ memo that outlines, you know, the

2:59:59 ↗ summary of this discussion. Um, cuz

3:00:01 ↗ there's been a lot of times when I've

3:00:03 ↗ wondered, you know, oh, what happened in

3:00:04 ↗ this thing in the past and having to

3:00:06 ↗ like watch a council meeting from 2015

3:00:09 ↗ or whatever, you know, we don't want to

3:00:11 ↗ make future council members do that. So,

3:00:13 ↗ I think, um, that's a really good way of

3:00:15 ↗ doing this. Um, I think in general, you

3:00:18 ↗ know, I I also agree that given that we

3:00:20 ↗ didn't, you know, we we haven't even

3:00:22 ↗ figured out where a preferred light rail

3:00:23 ↗ alignment is. I think, you know, saying

3:00:26 ↗ that we need more information to decide

3:00:28 ↗ which of these alignments is preferred

3:00:30 ↗ given where we're going to put light

3:00:31 ↗ rail makes a lot of sense. Um, I'm glad

3:00:33 ↗ we have the study that has studied all

3:00:35 ↗ of these options so that we have the

3:00:37 ↗ information we need to make this

3:00:38 ↗ decision in tandem with the light rail

3:00:39 ↗ study that's happening later this year

3:00:41 ↗ or early next year. Uh, council

3:00:43 ↗ president,

3:00:45 ↗ >> thank you. I appreciate this adjustment.

3:00:47 ↗ I think this makes me a lot more

3:00:49 ↗ comfortable with the idea when we are

3:00:52 ↗ addressing um, you know, some of our

3:00:55 ↗ thoughts on this. I I appreciate that

3:00:59 ↗ many of the goals of creating an I90

3:01:02 ↗ over under crossing included

3:01:06 ↗ traffic mobility. Um, I really hope we

3:01:09 ↗ would recognize that particularly with

3:01:11 ↗ an integration with a light rail station

3:01:15 ↗ and with our central Isqua plan having

3:01:18 ↗ the idea of creating a more walkable

3:01:21 ↗ area that recognizing that height um is

3:01:28 ↗ really important and wanting to ensure

3:01:32 ↗ that we have connectivity to businesses.

3:01:35 ↗ um after seeing these and not even

3:01:38 ↗ businesses,

3:01:40 ↗ property um that lines up to this I

3:01:42 ↗ think would be a really important um

3:01:44 ↗ piece for me.

3:01:46 ↗ >> Council member Mertz.

3:01:48 ↗ >> Thank you. I'll [clears throat] be

3:01:50 ↗ supporting this new measure. Um

3:01:53 ↗ I I want light rail in this community. I

3:01:57 ↗ believe this community wants light rail

3:01:59 ↗ in this community, but it's not a blank

3:02:03 ↗ check. And so I'm just I continue to be

3:02:08 ↗ extremely concerned about what a new

3:02:10 ↗ parking structure will look like given

3:02:13 ↗ that we will be the end of the line for

3:02:15 ↗ this. And so um you know I want sound

3:02:18 ↗ transit. I understand the mayor's point

3:02:21 ↗ about um you know continuing to be a

3:02:24 ↗ community that is welcoming to the idea

3:02:27 ↗ of uh light rail and I want us to be

3:02:30 ↗ that. But I continue to have serious

3:02:33 ↗ concerns about uh just from having seen

3:02:37 ↗ other other metropolitan areas and how

3:02:40 ↗ the parking situation works. Um and I

3:02:44 ↗ believe folks in our community will have

3:02:46 ↗ concerns about such a parking structure.

3:02:47 ↗ I don't know how to solve that. I can't

3:02:49 ↗ solve it today. Um but I just I want to

3:02:51 ↗ put that marker out there. Um, I really

3:02:54 ↗ I really want to get to yes on light

3:02:55 ↗ rail, but I'm I'm not a blank check on

3:02:58 ↗ whatever parking structure somebody

3:03:00 ↗ wants to put into the heart of our city.

3:03:02 ↗ Thank you.

3:03:02 ↗ >> Thank you. Additional council

3:03:04 ↗ discussion.

3:03:06 ↗ Deputy Deputy Council President.

3:03:08 ↗ >> Yes. And as long as we're discussing our

3:03:10 ↗ concerns, I I will I would also like to

3:03:13 ↗ say that uh the community engagement was

3:03:16 ↗ my major concern. And um I think if that

3:03:19 ↗ could be included in our the memor

3:03:21 ↗ memorandum that we prepare um this

3:03:25 ↗ really changes the character of that

3:03:27 ↗ whole street. Uh so the impact to the

3:03:31 ↗ community, the culture, um everything

3:03:34 ↗ along that street would be immense. And

3:03:36 ↗ so uh I would like to see uh a robust

3:03:40 ↗ discussion and information

3:03:43 ↗ included in whatever next steps we do

3:03:45 ↗ with this particular project. So and I

3:03:48 ↗ would ask if there's any other

3:03:50 ↗ considerations that we want to be sure

3:03:52 ↗ we have in that memorandum from the rest

3:03:54 ↗ of the council. Thanks.

3:03:56 ↗ >> Additional discussion.

3:03:59 ↗ >> Okay. The uh council.

3:04:02 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean in terms of concerns you

3:04:04 ↗ know reiterating the concerns about cost

3:04:07 ↗ um also disappointment that this study

3:04:09 ↗ didn't include any study of a you know

3:04:11 ↗ what the designer cost of some of these

3:04:13 ↗ potential pedestrian overcrossings would

3:04:15 ↗ be um and uh I think you know some of

3:04:20 ↗ the stuff on integration with light rail

3:04:22 ↗ which is probably something that we're

3:04:23 ↗ going to continue discussing as we do

3:04:25 ↗ more studies in the coming years.

3:04:29 ↗ >> Thank you. Additional discussion.

3:04:33 ↗ Okay. It has been moved and seconded to

3:04:35 ↗ receive the central multimodal I90

3:04:37 ↗ crossing report and prepare a memorandum

3:04:40 ↗ of concerns to be included with the

3:04:41 ↗ study. All those in favor say I.

3:04:44 ↗ >> I.

3:04:45 ↗ >> Those opposed

3:04:47 ↗ that carries seven and no. Thank you.

3:04:50 ↗ And thank you both all three of you for

3:04:52 ↗ your uh comments and information this

3:04:55 ↗ evening. So, that passed unanimously and

3:04:57 ↗ we're going to move into the next

3:04:58 ↗ section of our meeting, which is

3:04:59 ↗ committee and regional reports. And

3:05:01 ↗ we'll start with council member Jiang.

3:05:02 ↗ Uh,

3:05:03 ↗ >> no report from me this evening. Thanks,

3:05:04 ↗ >> Council Member Joe.

3:05:05 ↗ >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. The, uh,

3:05:07 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee

3:05:10 ↗ meeting scheduled for November 24th will

3:05:12 ↗ need to be cancelled. We do not have a

3:05:14 ↗ quorum for that meeting. The we'd ask

3:05:16 ↗ the administration to [cough] take the

3:05:19 ↗ street standards landscaping update and

3:05:22 ↗ reschedule for January 26.

3:05:25 ↗ Cascade Water Alliance will be meeting,

3:05:27 ↗ the board will be meeting on November

3:05:29 ↗ 19th at 3:30 in the afternoon. Uh, our

3:05:34 ↗ mayor, Mayor Paulie, will be honored for

3:05:36 ↗ her service on that committee and her

3:05:39 ↗ years of dedication to big issues such

3:05:43 ↗ as PAS and getting the Tacoma water line

3:05:46 ↗ to our fair city in the future. The

3:05:51 ↗ public affairs committee meeting uh is

3:05:53 ↗ scheduled for December 3rd.

3:05:55 ↗ lodging tax advisory committee met

3:05:57 ↗ today. We went over the criteria for

3:05:58 ↗ applications for um funding for next

3:06:02 ↗ year and uh we are having another

3:06:05 ↗ meeting on December 8th. It's a special

3:06:06 ↗ meeting from 2 to 3:30 at Pickering uh

3:06:10 ↗ for the public and we'd ask that uh

3:06:13 ↗ anyone interested in the criteria come

3:06:15 ↗ on over and give us your opinions. Thank

3:06:18 ↗ you. It's 10 o'clock. Good night,

3:06:20 ↗ >> Council Member Hall. Thanks. Uh, East

3:06:23 ↗ Side Fire and Rescue. Our last board

3:06:25 ↗ meeting was last Thursday, November

3:06:26 ↗ 13th. Uh, approved apparatus financing

3:06:30 ↗ agreement with Fire District 10. So,

3:06:32 ↗ you'll see some new apparatus in 3 to 5

3:06:36 ↗ years, three years if we're super lucky,

3:06:37 ↗ but probably five plus years. Um, we got

3:06:40 ↗ an update on our interim agreement with

3:06:42 ↗ Fire District 27, that's Fall City for

3:06:44 ↗ Fire Admin Services. um uh approved the

3:06:47 ↗ firefighter collective bargaining

3:06:49 ↗ agreement which was a huge um huge

3:06:51 ↗ effort on behalf of Chief Lane. Um so we

3:06:54 ↗ appreciate that. Approved outgoing Chief

3:06:56 ↗ Lane's final performance eval. And then

3:06:58 ↗ we approved the incoming fire chief Will

3:07:00 ↗ AO's uh employment agreement with us. Um

3:07:03 ↗ it was also my last board meeting as

3:07:05 ↗ chair. So Council Member Pam Stewart

3:07:08 ↗ from Samish has officially taken over.

3:07:10 ↗ She's chair of ESA Fire and Rescue right

3:07:12 ↗ now. So, um I would also like to

3:07:14 ↗ officially request a demotion

3:07:17 ↗ to the alternate position um to promote

3:07:20 ↗ our current alternate to my voting um

3:07:22 ↗ position for next month's meeting in

3:07:24 ↗ December.

3:07:25 ↗ >> Um so, I'll maybe ask the three of you

3:07:28 ↗ to to figure that out. I was kind of

3:07:29 ↗ looking through section 2.04 of the

3:07:33 ↗ rules and procedures and I don't know,

3:07:35 ↗ it seemed like maybe there had to be

3:07:37 ↗ like a survey sent out to the council

3:07:39 ↗ congress, but maybe there's a way to get

3:07:40 ↗ around that. It's just important we

3:07:42 ↗ >> we can we can do the shifting before the

3:07:44 ↗ December meeting. So

3:07:45 ↗ >> that sounds great.

3:07:46 ↗ >> Um

3:07:47 ↗ >> anyways, thank you. And then um also Ry

3:07:50 ↗ 8 Sam recovery council. Um our next

3:07:53 ↗ meeting is this Thursday on the agenda

3:07:55 ↗ is previewing 2026 grant opportunities,

3:07:57 ↗ approving other grant funding

3:07:58 ↗ recommendations, our 2026 state

3:08:00 ↗ legislative priorities, and a success

3:08:03 ↗ story, the lower Isqua Creek restoration

3:08:05 ↗ project, which I toured. That was very

3:08:06 ↗ cool. Uh after that, the next meeting

3:08:09 ↗ will be on January 15th. So I hope we

3:08:11 ↗ can appoint someone new cough cough um

3:08:15 ↗ to represent his class soon after I

3:08:16 ↗ leave. And that concludes my report.

3:08:18 ↗ >> I neglected to mention that you were

3:08:19 ↗ recognized at the meeting with a brand

3:08:22 ↗ new type of uh epher recognition plaque

3:08:25 ↗ that I hadn't seen before. Very very

3:08:27 ↗ impressive.

3:08:28 ↗ >> Yeah. Thank you. It was very

3:08:29 ↗ embarrassing. I told them to stop. Yeah.

3:08:32 ↗ >> Yeah.

3:08:33 ↗ Um, before we get to Council Member Ray,

3:08:36 ↗ I'm just going to let you all know that

3:08:38 ↗ this is Council Member Ray's last

3:08:39 ↗ council meeting. And so I am [laughter]

3:08:45 ↗ not going to completely call him out on

3:08:47 ↗ all of this, but I did want you all to

3:08:49 ↗ know that this is his last meeting. And

3:08:52 ↗ tomorrow night at the committee meeting,

3:08:53 ↗ I hope to come by and uh provide uh some

3:08:58 ↗ words about the service that Council

3:09:00 ↗ Member Ray has brought to our community.

3:09:02 ↗ And how about your report? [laughter]

3:09:06 ↗ >> I really want to say no report after

3:09:08 ↗ that.

3:09:10 ↗ Um, but the Fourth of July commission

3:09:12 ↗ did meet today and when we were

3:09:14 ↗ introduced to our new executive

3:09:15 ↗ director, uh, Wally pulled a uh, a

3:09:18 ↗ rabbit out of that hat to find somebody

3:09:20 ↗ to do that role on a volunteer basis.

3:09:22 ↗ So, kudos to the, uh, city

3:09:25 ↗ administrator, uh, Janie Bube,

3:09:28 ↗ >> we got it right. Um, anyway, the

3:09:30 ↗ commission is continuing to make

3:09:31 ↗ progress on planning events to celebrate

3:09:34 ↗ the country's uh, semiquincential.

3:09:37 ↗ >> Thank you, Council Member Mertz. Thank

3:09:39 ↗ you, Madame Mayor. The Sound Cities

3:09:40 ↗ Association Public Issues Committee met

3:09:42 ↗ last Wednesday, November 12th, at 7 p.m.

3:09:45 ↗ It was an online meeting. No action was

3:09:47 ↗ taken. Um, I want to point out that

3:09:50 ↗ SCA's annual meeting is going it it's

3:09:53 ↗ actually it's after our our next council

3:09:55 ↗ meeting, but only just. It's Wednesday,

3:09:58 ↗ December 3rd at 5:30 p.m. And it's

3:10:00 ↗ really important that we have good

3:10:02 ↗ attendance at it because it's going to

3:10:03 ↗ be at Pickering Barn here in Isiqua. So,

3:10:06 ↗ we are going to be the host city for the

3:10:07 ↗ annual meeting. Uh, very exciting. Uh,

3:10:10 ↗ the food is always delicious.

3:10:13 ↗ Uh, services, safety, and parks will be

3:10:15 ↗ meeting tomorrow at 6:30 p.m. here in

3:10:17 ↗ council chambers. We only have one

3:10:19 ↗ issue, but it is COOM0182

3:10:22 ↗ e motorcycle and ebicycle ordinance.

3:10:24 ↗ This concludes my report.

3:10:26 ↗ >> Thank you, deputy council president.

3:10:29 ↗ >> Thank you. Um, on Friday I attended the

3:10:32 ↗ East Side Transportation Part

3:10:33 ↗ Partnership meeting and we adopted the

3:10:36 ↗ 2026 state legislative agenda for ETP

3:10:39 ↗ and I sent copies of that to everyone on

3:10:42 ↗ the council. Uh, we also received a

3:10:44 ↗ report on the repair schedule for the

3:10:46 ↗ ship canal bridge. Uh, and if you're

3:10:48 ↗ wondering what that is, it is that big

3:10:50 ↗ huge I5 bridge that takes you to the

3:10:52 ↗ University of Washington. Uh, it's been

3:10:55 ↗ 60 years since its last major repair.

3:10:59 ↗ Repairs will be conducted over the next

3:11:00 ↗ three years. They will resurface the

3:11:03 ↗ entire bridge, do joint repair and

3:11:05 ↗ install drains to carry away carry away

3:11:08 ↗ standing water more efficiently than is

3:11:10 ↗ occurring right now. Uh the bridge

3:11:12 ↗ currently carries 240,000 vehicles each

3:11:15 ↗ day. So it's going to be a major

3:11:17 ↗ disruption to uh traffic when they are

3:11:21 ↗ working on the project. But um they have

3:11:24 ↗ a robust community engagement plan to uh

3:11:29 ↗ help people find different ways of

3:11:31 ↗ getting to work and so forth. Um and

3:11:33 ↗ that's um the only other thing that's on

3:11:36 ↗ my calendar is the regional transit

3:11:38 ↗ committee meets this Wednesday and the

3:11:40 ↗ board of health uh meeting is on

3:11:41 ↗ Thursday afternoon at 1 p.m.

3:11:44 ↗ >> Thank you.

3:11:44 ↗ >> Thank you, Council President Walsh. No

3:11:47 ↗ report.

3:11:48 ↗ So, for the mayor's report this evening,

3:11:50 ↗ there will not be an executive session.

3:11:53 ↗ I also wanted to remind the council

3:11:55 ↗ about former Isiqua City Council member

3:11:57 ↗ Eileen Barber's memorial. Um, Eileen

3:12:00 ↗ recently passed away and a celebration

3:12:02 ↗ of life to honor her will be held on

3:12:04 ↗ November 22nd at Flint's Isqua Funeral

3:12:06 ↗ Home beginning at 11:00 a.m. Eileen will

3:12:09 ↗ be remembered for her independence,

3:12:11 ↗ strength, and unwavering [snorts]

3:12:13 ↗ devotion to her family and community. In

3:12:16 ↗ lie of flowers, the family encourages

3:12:18 ↗ donations to organizations supporting

3:12:20 ↗ dementia research or local community

3:12:22 ↗ causes in Isiqua in recognition of

3:12:24 ↗ Irene's lifelong spirit of giving. We

3:12:27 ↗ have some upcoming events. 9 to5 the

3:12:30 ↗ musical is going to be open at Village

3:12:32 ↗ Theater on November 18th. The Village

3:12:34 ↗ Theat's production of 9 to5 the musical

3:12:37 ↗ opens tomorrow. The high energy show

3:12:40 ↗ brings the beloved 1980 film to life

3:12:42 ↗ along with Dolly Parton's iconic tunes.

3:12:45 ↗ Get ready to clock in for outrageous

3:12:47 ↗ fun. This hilarious and heartfelt

3:12:49 ↗ musical runs through January 4th, 2026,

3:12:52 ↗ including an American Sign Language

3:12:54 ↗ performance on December 6th, and a

3:12:57 ↗ captioned show on December 20th. To

3:12:59 ↗ learn more about the shows and buy

3:13:00 ↗ tickets, visit the Village Theat's

3:13:02 ↗ website. And a holiday popup event will

3:13:05 ↗ take place at Blakeley Hall this Sunday,

3:13:07 ↗ November 23rd, from 11 to 3. Local

3:13:10 ↗ artisans and vendors will offer unique

3:13:12 ↗ gifts, crafts, and decor to help you

3:13:14 ↗ find the perfect gift. Stop by this

3:13:16 ↗ holiday popup to support your local

3:13:18 ↗ artisans and vendors. And the annual

3:13:21 ↗ turkey trot returns to downtown Isco on

3:13:23 ↗ Thanksgiving morning. The fun and casual

3:13:25 ↗ 5K runwalk trot is a beloved local

3:13:28 ↗ tradition that brings the community

3:13:30 ↗ together to fundra for the Isqua food

3:13:31 ↗ and clothing bank. Register early to

3:13:34 ↗ beat the long lines on race day and

3:13:35 ↗ don't forget to wear your Thanksgiving

3:13:37 ↗ costumes and accessories.

3:13:40 ↗ Uh that concludes the mayor's report and

3:13:42 ↗ the next item we have is good of the

3:13:44 ↗ order. Does anybody have items? Council

3:13:46 ↗ member Joe.

3:13:47 ↗ >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. I want to thank

3:13:49 ↗ you for uh attending and speaking at the

3:13:52 ↗ Veterans Day event on Tuesday. Um your

3:13:56 ↗ words were uh inspiring to those of us

3:13:58 ↗ that haven't served and I hope an

3:14:00 ↗ inspiration to those that that have

3:14:01 ↗ given to their country. Um Sarah Perry

3:14:04 ↗ was also there and gave some remarks and

3:14:06 ↗ uh it's um a really nice event to attend

3:14:10 ↗ to honor uh those that have served our

3:14:13 ↗ country. Uh I also attend the leadership

3:14:15 ↗ east side 20th anniversary emerald gala

3:14:18 ↗ on Saturday night. Um, as many of you

3:14:21 ↗ know, cities have sent many of their me

3:14:23 ↗ their staff to lead Leadership East

3:14:26 ↗ Side. Christopher Wright, a former

3:14:28 ↗ planner of ours, was a person that went

3:14:30 ↗ through that program as well. It was

3:14:31 ↗ nice to see that leadership east side

3:14:33 ↗ has achieved 20 years of of uh training

3:14:36 ↗ leaders uh in the area and many of them

3:14:39 ↗ have gone on to serve as mayors and

3:14:41 ↗ council members and other influential

3:14:43 ↗ people in our community. Thank you.

3:14:46 ↗ >> Thank you, Council Member Joe. Any other

3:14:47 ↗ good of the orders?

3:14:50 ↗ If not, I will do a few meeting

3:14:51 ↗ announcements. The next regular city

3:14:54 ↗ council meeting and the first one

3:14:55 ↗ without uh council member Ray is

3:14:57 ↗ December 1st.

3:14:59 ↗ The anticipated agenda items include

3:15:02 ↗ anformational update on the asset

3:15:03 ↗ management system, acres of diamonds

3:15:06 ↗ affordable housing covenants and the

3:15:08 ↗ city council vacancy process for council

3:15:10 ↗ position number two. So there being no

3:15:13 ↗ executive session this evening, we are

3:15:16 ↗ adjourned at 10:15. Thanks.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Barbara de Michele

Zach Hall

Kelly Jiang

Russell Joe

Tola Marts

Chris Reh

and Council President 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 (6)

approve the consent agenda as presented.

Moved by Walsh · seconded by de Michele

Carried 7-0

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

MAIN MOTION: Adopt Ordinance No. 3125, amending the 2025-26 budget as set forth in Ordinance No. 3083 and amended in Ordinance No. 3090 concerning revenues, expenditures, and fund balance for various funds.

Moved by Council President Walsh · seconded by Deputy Council President de Michele

Carried 6-1

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, and Council President Walsh

Opposed: Chris Reh

AMENDMENT: Amend the ordinance to remove $150,000 for consulting fees to implement the EcoNW Report.

Moved by Councilmember Jiang · seconded by Councilmember Marts

Failed 3-4

In favor: Kelly Jiang, Tola Marts, and Councilmember Reh

Opposed: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Russell Joe, and Council President Walsh

Adopt Ordinance No. 3126, levying property taxes for the City of Issaquah for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2026, on all property, both real and personal, in said city which is subject to taxation for the purpose of paying sufficient revenue to carry on the services of said city for the ensu…

Moved by 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, and Council President Walsh

Accept the Central Issaquah Multimodal I-90 Crossing Study and approve its preferred crossing location of 11th Ave NW to 11th Ave NW. There being no objection, the motion was withdrawn.

Moved by Councilmember Joe · seconded by Councilmember Reh

Withdrawn

Receive the Central Issaquah Multi-Modal I-90 Crossing report and prepare a memorandum of concerns to be included with the study. The City Council expressed concerns with the preferred crossing location identified in the study, including: • The need for robust community engagement considering the si…

Moved by Deputy Council President de Michele · seconded by Councilmember Joe

Carried 7-0

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