City Council Regular Meeting · Monday, March 2, 2026 · City Council Digest

3. SPECIAL BUSINESS

American Red Cross Month Proclamation ID 1985

5 min · packet pp.5

▶ Watch from 0:53 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Mayor's Office CITY OF ISSAQUAH 130 E. Sunset Way Issaquah, WA 98027 WASHINGTON 425-837-3000 issaquahwa.gov

5. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll of March 2, 2026, $14,018,213.92 ID 1939

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.7–21

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 11:55 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 Council President de Michele · seconded by Deputy Council President Marts

In favor: Paul Adair, Barbara de Michele, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Kevin Nichols, Lindsey Walsh (Attended Virtually)

Minutes: City Council Committee of the Whole, Jan. 31, 2026

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.23–38

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Jan 31, 2026

▶ Watch from 12:10 Open packet at p.23 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR b) 01-31-26 City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes Page (0000) CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Committee-of-the-Whole 9:00 AM Gibson Hall January 31, 2026 MINUTES 105 Newport Way SW

Roll call:

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

In favor: Paul Adair, Barbara de Michele, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Kevin Nichols, Lindsey Walsh (Attended Virtually)

Minutes: City Council Special Meeting, Feb. 9, 2026

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.39–40

▶ Watch from 12:25 Open packet at p.39 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR c) 02-09-26 City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page (0000) CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Special Meeting 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. February 9, 2026 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

Roll call:

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

In favor: Paul Adair, Barbara de Michele, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Kevin Nichols, Lindsey Walsh (Attended Virtually)

2026 Docket of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments AB 9123

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.41–45

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jan 22, 2026

▶ Watch from 12:40 Open packet at p.41 ↗

Staff report:

The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that certain counties and the cities within those counties, including Issaquah, adopt comprehensive plans. By state law, comprehensive plans may be amended no more than once a year, with major periodic updates required every ten years. The City adopted the Issaquah 2044 major periodic update in 2024, and conducts an annual amendment process focused mainly on minor updates that are consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan.

Roll call:

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

In favor: Paul Adair, Barbara de Michele, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Kevin Nichols, Lindsey Walsh (Attended Virtually)

Franchise Agreement with NFC Northwest, LLC AB 9144

Carried 7-0

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.47–70

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 12:55 Open packet at p.47 ↗

Staff report:

NFC Northwest, LLC owns a 51% share and Ziply Pacific Fiber, LCC (a current franchisee in the City) owns a 49% share in their parent company, Northwest Fiber, LLC.

Roll call:

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

In favor: Paul Adair, Barbara de Michele, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Kevin Nichols, Lindsey Walsh (Attended Virtually)

Hazard Mitigation Plan Update AB 9160

Carried 7-0

Approve Resolution · packet pp.71–550

▶ Watch from 13:11 Open packet at p.71 ↗

Staff report:

Hazard Mitigation Plans are federally-approved plans that must meet criteria and standards established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Jurisdictions annexing on to King County’s Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan must first provide their draft annex to King County Office of Emergency Management and Washington State Department of Emergency Management for feedback and assurance that the plan meets federal standards. In January 2026, Issaquah received feedback from both parties and has since incorporated their recommendations. The plan meets or exceeds all federal requirements. The final step before federal approval is City Council adoption.

Roll call:

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

In favor: Paul Adair, Barbara de Michele, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Kevin Nichols, Lindsey Walsh (Attended Virtually)

6. REGULAR BUSINESS

Early Learning Facility Traffic Impact Fee Waivers AB 9139

Carried 7-0

Adopt Ordinance · 40 min · packet pp.551–569

Topics: Land UseTransportationBudgetSchools

▶ Watch from 13:26 Open packet at p.551 ↗

Staff report:

Roll call:

Moved by Councilmember Jiang · seconded by Deputy Council President Marts

In favor: Adair, de Michele, Jiang, Joe, Marts, Nichols, Walsh

Newport Way Maple to Sunset Improvements Project (TR 023) Design Agreement Supplement AB 9091

Carried 6-1

Authorize · 40 min · packet pp.571–618

Topics: Transportation

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

▶ Watch from 45:39 Open packet at p.571 ↗

Staff report:

C. 2025-2026 Adopted Budget Project

Roll call:

Moved by Council President de Michele · seconded by Councilmember Adair

In favor: Adair, de Michele, Jiang, Joe, Nichols, Walsh

Opposed: Marts

Blue Fern Development LLC Fee in Lieu of Frontage Improvement Agreement for Newport Way NW and NW Holly St AB 9147

Carried 7-0

Authorize · 20 min · packet pp.619–631

Topics: TransportationBudget

▶ Watch from 1:17:51 Open packet at p.619 ↗

Staff report:

Towns on 7th is a 28-unit townhome project developed by Blue Fern Group that is currently under construction. Public improvements necessary for the project include frontage improvements along Newport Way NW (Principal Arterial) and NW Holly St (Collector Street). According to the City's Street Standards, a 5'-12' wide sidewalk, a 5' minimum wide planter strip, and 6" of curb and gutter is required.

Roll call:

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

In favor: Adair, de Michele, Jiang, Joe, Marts, Nichols, Walsh

9. GOOD OF THE ORDER

Upcoming Council Meetings

▶ Watch from 1:45:23

2889 segments .txt ↗

0:19 ↗ Welcome everyone. I want to call the

0:21 ↗ March 2nd city council meeting to order.

0:24 ↗ Council member Walsh is joining us

0:26 ↗ remotely and everyone else is here. And

0:29 ↗ the first item on the agenda is the

0:31 ↗ pledge of allegiance. Please stand if

0:33 ↗ you're able and join me. Yeah.

0:53 ↗ The next item is special business ID

0:57 ↗ 1985 American Red Cross month

1:00 ↗ proclamation.

1:02 ↗ Uh Red Cross board members and his squad

1:04 ↗ residents

1:06 ↗ Chen Civitz and Emily Oone the lectctor.

1:28 ↗ So whereas for more more than a century,

1:30 ↗ the American Red Cross has been at the

1:32 ↗ forefront of helping Americans prevent,

1:34 ↗ prepare for, and respond to large and

1:36 ↗ small disasters, families and

1:38 ↗ communities depend on the Red Cross in

1:40 ↗ times of need, and the Red Cross depends

1:42 ↗ on the American people to sustain the

1:44 ↗ foundation. And whereas in Isiqua, the

1:47 ↗ American Red Cross works tirelessly

1:48 ↗ through its volunteers to support us

1:50 ↗ when disaster strikes when someone needs

1:52 ↗ life-saving blood or the comfort of a

1:55 ↗ helping hand. It provides 24-hour

1:56 ↗ support to members of the military and

1:58 ↗ veterans and their families and provides

2:00 ↗ training in CPR, aquatic safety, and

2:02 ↗ first aid. And whereas the American Red

2:05 ↗ Cross makes is safer and stronger. This

2:08 ↗ formally recognizes the American Red

2:10 ↗ Cross and its critical humanitarian role

2:12 ↗ in our community and honors the King

2:14 ↗ County Chamber contribution to the city

2:16 ↗ and a better place. Now, therefore, I,

2:18 ↗ Mark Mullet, mayor of the city of Isqua,

2:20 ↗ do hereby proclaim the month of March

2:22 ↗ 2026 to be American Red Cross month in

2:24 ↗ the city of Isiziqua and encourage all

2:26 ↗ residents to recognize and support the

2:28 ↗ vital work of the American Red Cross and

2:29 ↗ it consider volunteering, donating

2:31 ↗ blood, or contributing other meaningful

2:33 ↗ ways to help neighbors in need.

2:41 ↗ This is our little photo op. This is

2:43 ↗ Wally's favorite part.

2:54 ↗ >> Thank you.

2:56 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

2:58 ↗ >> Hi there, everyone. Uh, thank you, Mayor

3:00 ↗ Mullet. Yes. Can you guys hear me? Yes,

3:03 ↗ you can. Uh, good evening everyone. Uh,

3:06 ↗ thank you for having us today. My name

3:08 ↗ is Jen Civitz. I am an Isqua resident.

3:11 ↗ I've been here for 22 years. I've also

3:13 ↗ been on the Red Cross board for King

3:16 ↗ County for the last 14. This is my

3:18 ↗ colleague Emily. She also lives in

3:19 ↗ Isiqua and she's on the board with me as

3:21 ↗ well. Um, I joined personally the Red

3:24 ↗ Cross to to help out because my husband

3:27 ↗ was an ex Army. He's a retired army

3:29 ↗ ranger and I saw what the Red Cross did

3:32 ↗ for our um our our armed forces. I saw

3:35 ↗ what it did for our veterans, being

3:37 ↗ there for them. And um you know, through

3:39 ↗ my 14 years, I've seen that how it's

3:41 ↗ expanded in terms of being there for our

3:44 ↗ communities when there's natural

3:46 ↗ disasters. Nationally, we help um with s

3:51 ↗ over 60,000 disasters each year. We

3:55 ↗ collect 5 million units of blood across

3:59 ↗ the country. We help millions of

4:02 ↗ Americans uh get first aid and and and

4:06 ↗ help with uh life- saving skills. Um

4:10 ↗ here in Isiqua, I'm proud to say that

4:12 ↗ there are over 30 folks that are signed

4:15 ↗ up as regular um volunteers for the Red

4:18 ↗ Cross. The there's actually two that if

4:21 ↗ you took up their their time to

4:23 ↗ together, Norm and Joyce Botnam

4:26 ↗ Bottenberg, they have 60 years of

4:29 ↗ service to our mission, which is pretty

4:31 ↗ incredible if you think about that. Uh

4:33 ↗ the Red Cross has been around for over

4:36 ↗ 140 years um caring for communities like

4:39 ↗ like uh Isiqua. So um we're grateful for

4:43 ↗ your recognition. We're grateful um that

4:45 ↗ you allowed us to speak today and and

4:47 ↗ thank you for having us.

4:52 ↗ Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.

4:54 ↗ >> Thank you very much.

5:08 ↗ The next item of business is audience

5:11 ↗ comments. Comments can be made in person

5:14 ↗ or virtually. Those who sign in advance

5:16 ↗ will be called on first. If you join us

5:18 ↗ virtually, please raise your virtual

5:20 ↗ hand. If you're on the phone, you can

5:22 ↗ press star three. And if you're in the

5:23 ↗ room and did not sign up, there will be

5:25 ↗ an opportunity for you to raise your

5:26 ↗ hand at the end to speak before we close

5:28 ↗ this portion of the meeting. And in

5:31 ↗ terms of people's comments, political

5:33 ↗ campaigns comments are not permitted.

5:35 ↗ And when you're called on, we just ask

5:37 ↗ everyone to be respectful. Limit your

5:38 ↗ comments to 3 to 5 minutes. Please state

5:41 ↗ your name and relationship to the city

5:42 ↗ as well. And madam clerk, is anybody

5:45 ↗ signed up for audience comments?

5:47 ↗ >> Yes. The first speaker is with us

5:49 ↗ virtually.

5:50 ↗ Joe, I'm going to make you a panelist

5:53 ↗ now. You should be able to unmute and

5:55 ↗ can also choose to turn your video on.

5:58 ↗ Give me just a moment here.

6:03 ↗ All right,

6:05 ↗ Joe Cunnler, you're you're up. Say hi.

6:10 ↗ Hi. Hello. This is Joe Conor here. Good

6:12 ↗ to see you. Um, OSU was under different

6:15 ↗ circumstances, but uh I understand your

6:17 ↗ light and rails under some trouble and

6:19 ↗ I'm a huge supporter of Sound Transit.

6:21 ↗ Um, I I have to say uh at the outset

6:25 ↗ that um you know what sometimes what you

6:29 ↗ see in the roofer boardroom and hear is

6:31 ↗ not exactly how everyone feels. Um, I

6:35 ↗ strongly appreciate very much the Isiqua

6:38 ↗ residents who came to Sound Transit

6:41 ↗ headquarters last week and spoke up in

6:43 ↗ support of transit. We rarely see that

6:45 ↗ out of a community. Uh, what we hear a

6:48 ↗ lot as transit advocates is people

6:50 ↗ coming to complain about the agency and

6:53 ↗ not support it. Uh, so it was definitely

6:56 ↗ a breath of fresh air. Um,

7:00 ↗ I will say and I hope this doesn't

7:01 ↗ violate your rules

7:04 ↗ that it seems you're in competition with

7:06 ↗ a community that is that doesn't have

7:08 ↗ council rules that allows Alex Zimmerman

7:10 ↗ to attack, you know, other people. And I

7:14 ↗ don't think that's fair or right. And

7:17 ↗ I'd rather that we prioritized rare

7:19 ↗ Sound Transit resources on communities

7:21 ↗ that are willing to work in partnership

7:23 ↗ with enthusiasm

7:25 ↗ and without harmful welfare.

7:28 ↗ Um, and I want to I also give you this

7:32 ↗ far as a sound supporter. You know, we

7:34 ↗ have welfare and as the chair Dave

7:36 ↗ Summers has said, time is money, money

7:37 ↗ is time. that lawfare can make a cost

7:40 ↗ curve that's like this go like this

7:42 ↗ because it takes time and res not just

7:45 ↗ resources of addressing the welfare like

7:47 ↗ complaining about environmental impact

7:48 ↗ statements but also um you know just the

7:52 ↗ time wasted as costs go up construction

7:55 ↗ materials permitting that kind of thing

7:57 ↗ you know it's really again it's really

8:00 ↗ really important that you keep your

8:01 ↗ enthusiasm up because you've certainly

8:02 ↗ got me on your side and and I would

8:05 ↗ rather see you guys prioritize over

8:06 ↗ Kirkland that frankly isn't exactly

8:09 ↗ terribly supportive in my opinion. So,

8:13 ↗ thanks for all you do and keep being

8:14 ↗ awesome. Go Hawks.

8:17 ↗ >> Thank you very much, Joe. We like the

8:19 ↗ positive Hawks enthusiasm still. Uh,

8:22 ↗ Madam Clerk,

8:23 ↗ >> no one else has signed up in advance.

8:28 ↗ >> Is there anybody else in the room who

8:30 ↗ wants

8:32 ↗ Oh, come on up. Yes, please. You can go

8:35 ↗ to the lecture right here in the middle.

8:37 ↗ You just have to turn on the microphone.

8:39 ↗ Then you can state your name in

8:41 ↗ relationship to the city and then give

8:43 ↗ us your comments.

8:45 ↗ >> Hey,

8:46 ↗ good evening mayor and council members.

8:49 ↗ First, I would like to thank Minnie and

8:51 ↗ Christina from the city for their time

8:53 ↗ and the guidance in helping us submit

8:55 ↗ the proposal. We truly appreciate the

8:57 ↗ opportunity to work collaboratively with

8:59 ↗ the staff throughout this process. So

9:01 ↗ during the last council meeting we

9:03 ↗ requested considering for 100% impact

9:06 ↗ fee exemption for our proposed childcare

9:08 ↗ center. Tonight I would like to briefly

9:11 ↗ remind you of the key reasons behind

9:13 ↗ that request.

9:15 ↗ Um my name is Mahesh Raaka. I have been

9:18 ↗ a Washington state resident for over 16

9:21 ↗ years and uh Ishaka is where I had my

9:24 ↗ first job in United States. So opening

9:26 ↗ this center here is both a professional

9:29 ↗ investment and a personal commitment to

9:31 ↗ this community. We are proposing a

9:34 ↗ building kids childcare center focused

9:36 ↗ on infants, toddler, preschoolers and

9:39 ↗ low-income families and young parents.

9:41 ↗ This center would also creates stable

9:44 ↗ employment for more than 20 local

9:46 ↗ families. The need is clear within 5

9:49 ↗ miles radius.

9:51 ↗ Uh actually like there are over 9,000 ch

9:55 ↗ uh childrens under the age of six but

9:57 ↗ only about 4,000 licensed childcare

10:00 ↗ seats. That means nearly half of the

10:02 ↗ children's doesn't have the access to

10:04 ↗ the license of child care. The shortage

10:06 ↗ is most severe in infant and toddler

10:09 ↗ care where many providers choose not to

10:12 ↗ operate due to the cost and staffing

10:15 ↗ requirement. At the same time about 15%

10:18 ↗ of students in in the Ishaka school

10:20 ↗ district are from economically

10:22 ↗ disadvantaged households. So these

10:25 ↗ families are already living here and

10:28 ↗ their needs begin work before the

10:29 ↗ kindergarten. At our existing Lynwood

10:32 ↗ center 30% of the families we serve are

10:35 ↗ low-income households. We intentionally

10:37 ↗ provide infant and toddler care even

10:39 ↗ though it is most difficult and

10:41 ↗ expensive to operate.

10:44 ↗ And at the corporate level, the building

10:46 ↗ kids franchiser donates 25% of its

10:49 ↗ profits to support the unprivileged

10:51 ↗ children. Serving families is in need is

10:55 ↗ not an afterthought. It is a central to

10:58 ↗ who we are. The impact fees for this

11:01 ↗ project is approximately 400k.

11:04 ↗ Jail centers cannot absorb this cost at

11:07 ↗ that level. For these reasons, we

11:09 ↗ respectively ask the council to consider

11:10 ↗ a 100% impact fee exemption.

11:13 ↗ uh condition to miserable public

11:15 ↗ benefits including the infant and

11:17 ↗ toddler care support for the low-income

11:19 ↗ families and the local job benefits

11:21 ↗ including um the childrens who need care

11:24 ↗ today will be the students in your

11:25 ↗ schools tomorrow. Supporting early child

11:28 ↗ care is one of the most meaningful

11:29 ↗ investment we can make in Isaka's

11:31 ↗ future. Thank you. Thank you for your

11:33 ↗ service.

11:35 ↗ >> Thank you very much and we appreciate

11:36 ↗ you wanting to bring more child care to

11:38 ↗ Isqua. Madam clerk, is there anybody

11:40 ↗ else signed up to

11:44 ↗ or anyone signed up? Anyone else in the

11:46 ↗ audience?

11:47 ↗ Not seeing any. Going once, going twice.

11:50 ↗ And that closes audience comments. The

11:53 ↗ next item

11:53 ↗ >> and teachers in the classroom

11:55 ↗ >> on the calendar is the consent calendar.

11:57 ↗ And I do not have any comments on

11:59 ↗ consent calendar items, but are there

12:02 ↗ any committee chairs or design who would

12:03 ↗ like to report on the consent calendar

12:05 ↗ items? I think council member Walsh

12:11 ↗ Thank you. Um, just a quick report out

12:13 ↗ from the services, safety, and perks

12:15 ↗ committee on AB 9160.

12:20 ↗ The committee unanimously supported um,

12:24 ↗ whoops, scrolling up the emergency

12:26 ↗ management's update to our hazard

12:28 ↗ mitigation plan annex as part of the

12:30 ↗ King County Plan. This plan identifies

12:33 ↗ our top hazards along with mitigation

12:36 ↗ strategies for the next five years. It

12:38 ↗ also enables us to qualify for grant

12:41 ↗ funding. So, we supported all of that.

12:43 ↗ In addition to supporting adoption of

12:45 ↗ the plan, the committee recommended that

12:47 ↗ we add these mitigation items to our

12:49 ↗ next capital improvement plan, CIP, so

12:52 ↗ we can better account for the needed

12:53 ↗ projects to mitigate major hazards such

12:55 ↗ as earthquakes and wildfires. Thank you.

12:58 ↗ >> Excellent. Thank you, Council Member

13:00 ↗ Walsh. Any other council members have

13:02 ↗ any comment on the consent calendar?

13:06 ↗ Not seeing any. The consent calendar was

13:08 ↗ distributed to the council in advance.

13:09 ↗ If authorized, you have the consent

13:11 ↗ calendar will be considered together and

13:12 ↗ approved by one motion. Have the

13:14 ↗ payables and payrolls been reviewed?

13:17 ↗ >> They have.

13:18 ↗ >> They have.

13:22 ↗ >> Does any council member want to remove

13:24 ↗ any items from the consent calendar and

13:26 ↗ put them on regular business?

13:29 ↗ Not seeing any. Is there a motion?

13:32 ↗ >> Thank you, Mayor Mullet. I move to adopt

13:34 ↗ the consent agenda as presented.

13:36 ↗ >> Second.

13:37 ↗ >> All right. There's a motion to approve

13:39 ↗ the consent calendar as presented. It's

13:41 ↗ been moved and seconded. All those in

13:43 ↗ favor, please say I.

13:45 ↗ >> I.

13:46 ↗ >> I.

13:47 ↗ >> All those opposed? Nay. And that passes

13:50 ↗ unanimously. The next item of business

13:51 ↗ is under regular business. Agenda Bill

13:53 ↗ 9139, early learning facility traffic

13:56 ↗ impact fee waivers. like to invite

13:58 ↗ planning manager Kristen Leon to present

14:00 ↗ this item.

14:20 ↗ Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of

14:22 ↗ the council. This set up and I

14:25 ↗ apologize.

14:36 ↗ There we go. There we go.

14:39 ↗ Okay. Again, good evening. Yes. Tonight

14:41 ↗ we are here to uh consider approval of

14:45 ↗ traffic impact fever uh ad adopting a

14:48 ↗ definition of and waving traffic impact

14:51 ↗ fees for earning early learning

14:53 ↗ facilities.

15:01 ↗ There we go. An early learning facility

15:03 ↗ is a facility that regular has regularly

15:08 ↗ scheduled care for children from zero

15:11 ↗ months or one month up to 12 years for a

15:14 ↗ period of less than 24 hours. And we're

15:16 ↗ talking about impact fees, which is a

15:18 ↗ one-time payment against a development

15:19 ↗ for the future impacts that that

15:21 ↗ development is going to have on our

15:23 ↗ system.

15:25 ↗ So it has been

15:28 ↗ discussed that traffic impact fees have

15:30 ↗ been found to have a financial impact or

15:32 ↗ impediment negative impact toward the

15:34 ↗ development of early learning

15:36 ↗ facilities. However, the state does

15:38 ↗ allow impact fee waiverss park traffic

15:43 ↗ and fire impact fee waivers for these

15:45 ↗ facilities.

15:47 ↗ There are two options. The state offers

15:49 ↗ an 80% fee waiver in which case there

15:52 ↗ are no conditions tied to it. They also

15:54 ↗ offer a 100% fee waiver, but there are

15:57 ↗ two conditions tied to that. First

15:59 ↗ condition is that 25% of your enrolled

16:01 ↗ students must be eligible for state

16:03 ↗ subsidies. And the second condition is

16:06 ↗ if at any point during the year that

16:09 ↗ enrollment falls below 25%, then the

16:13 ↗ daycare center, the property owner is

16:15 ↗ required to pay back 20% of the wave

16:18 ↗ impact fees.

16:21 ↗ There are other cities that have adopted

16:22 ↗ this. De Moines's waves 50% of the

16:25 ↗ impact fees. Lane and Tacoma wave 80% of

16:29 ↗ the impact fees. Shoreline has a 100%

16:31 ↗ fee waiver. And Mount Lake Terrace

16:35 ↗ waves it proportionate uh to the number

16:37 ↗ of enrolled income students or up to

16:39 ↗ 100%. Meaning that if 15% of the

16:42 ↗ students are eligible, Thank you.

16:46 ↗ If 15% of the students are eligible,

16:51 ↗ then 15% of the fees can be waved.

16:56 ↗ I will note that Shoreline and Mount

16:59 ↗ Lake Terrace, neither one has had

17:01 ↗ someone submit and do the fee wavers

17:03 ↗ yet. So when we check to say how does

17:05 ↗ this work, um they they hadn't had

17:08 ↗ anything in place.

17:10 ↗ So, the proposal tonight is to allow 80%

17:13 ↗ and 100% traffic impact fee exemptions

17:15 ↗ for early learning facilities.

17:20 ↗ Here are some examples of why we're just

17:22 ↗ proposing the traffic impact fees.

17:24 ↗ Recently, we had a daycare center come

17:26 ↗ in in Oldtown. It had 60 students. Its

17:30 ↗ traffic impact fees were almost

17:32 ↗ $121,000.

17:34 ↗ Its park impact fees were around $2,200

17:37 ↗ and its fire impact fees were $410.

17:41 ↗ We have a proposed one coming in

17:44 ↗ converting an existing building and an

17:46 ↗ existing office building into a daycare.

17:48 ↗ The traffic impact fees would be about

17:50 ↗ $379,000.

17:52 ↗ Park impact fees would be about $2,300

17:55 ↗ and the fire impact fees would be

17:57 ↗ $11,131.

18:02 ↗ You can see the totals totals are pretty

18:04 ↗ big. $123,500

18:06 ↗ for one and $392,434

18:10 ↗ for the other. And had you just removed

18:12 ↗ the traffic impact fee, that takes the

18:14 ↗ total impact fees for the first one down

18:16 ↗ to $2,600 and the second one down to

18:18 ↗ $13,500.

18:20 ↗ So that makes a significant difference

18:22 ↗ when you remove those.

18:25 ↗ We did also look at potentially

18:27 ↗ waving park and it fire impact fees but

18:29 ↗ for the reasons that I just mentioned in

18:31 ↗ the previous slide uh the uh idea was to

18:35 ↗ just wave traffic impact fees.

18:40 ↗ So this went to the planning development

18:42 ↗ and environment committee on February

18:44 ↗ 3rd. The committee voted unanimously to

18:47 ↗ recommend both the 80% and the 100%

18:49 ↗ traffic fee waiver to developers and

18:51 ↗ owners of early learning facilities.

18:54 ↗ And our that is our recommendation to

18:57 ↗ amend chapter 3.71 of the isqua

18:59 ↗ municipal code to allow for fee wavers

19:01 ↗ for early learning centers.

19:05 ↗ And that's that's all I have.

19:06 ↗ >> Are there any questions for

19:09 ↗ Kristen? Thank you very much, Kristen.

19:11 ↗ That was excellent. And council member

19:12 ↗ Jen, as chair of the planning,

19:13 ↗ development, and environment committee,

19:15 ↗ would you like to summarize the

19:16 ↗ committee's recommendations for this

19:17 ↗ agenda bill? Yeah. So, um the

19:20 ↗ committee's recommendation is to allow

19:22 ↗ uh the 80% impact fee traffic impact fee

19:25 ↗ exemption for all childcare centers and

19:27 ↗ offer a 100% traffic impact fee

19:29 ↗ exemption for child care centers that

19:31 ↗ provide at least 25% of their spots to

19:34 ↗ uh students receiving state subsidized

19:36 ↗ childare. The reason being that, you

19:38 ↗ know, there's a child care shortage in

19:41 ↗ Isiqua and the entire state and the

19:43 ↗ entire country. And so anything that we

19:45 ↗ can do to make it easier to open you,

19:48 ↗ you know, childcare facilities so that

19:50 ↗ parents can get their kids to care so

19:52 ↗ they can do whatever else they need to

19:54 ↗ do in their lives, um, is useful. I will

19:57 ↗ also note, I think there's been some,

19:59 ↗ you know, given where we're at with like

20:02 ↗ the general fund budget. I want to note

20:03 ↗ that impact fees do not go into the

20:05 ↗ general fund. They go into a special

20:07 ↗ traffic, basically it's like a traffic

20:08 ↗ impact fee fund that can only be spent

20:10 ↗ on transportation projects. And so not

20:13 ↗ charging this fee basically means that

20:14 ↗ you know then instead we have to rely on

20:17 ↗ other grants or other funding for

20:18 ↗ transportation improvements. Um in

20:21 ↗ contrast um the fire impact fee is

20:24 ↗ actually directly passed through to East

20:26 ↗ Side Fire and Rescue. So if we did not

20:27 ↗ collect that fee from the um child care

20:31 ↗ center then we would actually have to

20:32 ↗ pay. So that's more of a you know kind

20:34 ↗ of direct subsidy. Um, and also one

20:37 ↗ thing to note is that the fire impact

20:39 ↗ fees do depend on whether it's

20:41 ↗ residential or commercial buildings. So

20:43 ↗ that's why this one was so much higher

20:44 ↗ than the previous one. But overall, our

20:46 ↗ recommendation is to offer the 80%

20:49 ↗ impact fee exemption for all childcare

20:51 ↗ centers and then also add that

20:52 ↗ additional 20% uh exemption to encourage

20:56 ↗ uh childcare centers to be able to take

20:57 ↗ on um subsidized uh child care students.

21:03 ↗ All right. So, I got choose your own

21:04 ↗ adventure for childcare fee waivers.

21:07 ↗ What uh any other questions from the

21:08 ↗ council?

21:10 ↗ Oh, council member Adair.

21:12 ↗ >> Oh, I just had a quick technical

21:13 ↗ question in terms of the for the 100%

21:15 ↗ waiver there's, you know, they need to

21:16 ↗ meet that minimum. Is it forever? Is

21:18 ↗ there a period of time they need to meet

21:20 ↗ that that child care uh percentage or

21:23 ↗ how long does that last?

21:24 ↗ >> That would be forever.

21:27 ↗ >> So, every year they'll need to be kind

21:28 ↗ of confirming with the city. There will

21:30 ↗ need to be some sort of administration

21:31 ↗ to that effect in order to maintain

21:33 ↗ that.

21:33 ↗ >> Correct. DCYF has a program that they

21:35 ↗ enroll in and they keep track and then

21:38 ↗ the applicant or the property owner is

21:39 ↗ required to submit their information to

21:41 ↗ the city every year.

21:45 ↗ >> All right. Not seeing any other

21:46 ↗ questions. Is there a motion?

21:50 ↗ We question.

21:53 ↗ Oh, sorry. Councilor Walsh. I see you

21:55 ↗ waving now. Sorry. I got to look at my

21:57 ↗ screen.

21:58 ↗ >> Thank you. No, I know it's it's very

22:00 ↗ hard to manage somebody virtually. I

22:02 ↗ appreciate it. Um, so we've talked about

22:05 ↗ the potential cost to the city of not

22:08 ↗ collecting these funds. Um, I'm

22:10 ↗ wondering if um, Kristen or someone can

22:15 ↗ talk to what the cost is in revenue to

22:19 ↗ the city of a project that doesn't

22:22 ↗ happen. Um can you discuss the various

22:24 ↗ revenues that we get when a project is

22:28 ↗ um in the works or completed? Things

22:30 ↗ like construction sales tax, REIT, uh

22:33 ↗ business occupation tax, sales tax. Do

22:36 ↗ we have any sense of what that revenue

22:40 ↗ is to the city for a potentially lost

22:44 ↗ project and how it compares with these

22:47 ↗ impact fees?

22:51 ↗ Can you answer?

22:53 ↗ >> John, can you under I I'll take a try.

22:56 ↗ Um, you know, loss projects are hard to

22:59 ↗ hard to estimate. I think, uh, the

23:01 ↗ reality of our budgeting is is that we

23:04 ↗ estimate for a 12-month period what we

23:06 ↗ might see. Um, you know, in some cases

23:08 ↗ it's granular per project. Other cases,

23:10 ↗ it's looking at historical averages. Um,

23:13 ↗ so I don't know that we have a good

23:15 ↗ answer to your question, uh, Council

23:17 ↗ Member Walsh, as far as, uh, what a

23:19 ↗ specific you've you've named off the

23:21 ↗ various revenues that we receive from,

23:24 ↗ uh, let's say a sample project, uh, and

23:27 ↗ then depending on size and scope, those

23:29 ↗ revenues vary. Uh, but it's it's

23:31 ↗ difficult to estimate what we lose for

23:33 ↗ projects that don't happen.

23:39 ↗ All right. Any other

23:42 ↗ Okay, we're back to a potential motion.

23:47 ↗ Great. Uh, I move we adopt ordinance

23:49 ↗ number 3134 amending chapter 3.71 of the

23:53 ↗ Isiqua Municipal Code to allow for fee

23:55 ↗ wavers for early learning centers.

23:59 ↗ >> Second.

24:00 ↗ >> All right. There's been a motion and a

24:02 ↗ second. Is there any discussion?

24:06 ↗ All right. Not seeing any.

24:10 ↗ >> Oh, Council Member Nichols. And I'm off

24:13 ↗ my game tonight. I'll try to be faster.

24:16 ↗ Um,

24:17 ↗ I just I want to speak briefly in

24:19 ↗ support of this and also um look at a

24:22 ↗ few things that I think it indicates we

24:25 ↗ should try to take a a broader look at

24:27 ↗ that this um this ordinance reads on.

24:30 ↗ Um, first of all, one of the reasons I'm

24:32 ↗ supportive of this is we are trying very

24:34 ↗ hard as a council to try to help with

24:36 ↗ affordability, but we only have so many

24:38 ↗ we don't have that many knobs that are

24:39 ↗ actually that we can we can turn. Um, if

24:42 ↗ we look at the expenses that the typical

24:44 ↗ family has to um shoulder on their their

24:48 ↗ monthly budgets, housing

24:50 ↗ often the biggest, but child care either

24:52 ↗ tied or second most of the time. Um,

24:55 ↗ having a a business that wants to come

24:57 ↗ into town and offer and promise and

25:00 ↗ commit to affordable child care is

25:03 ↗ something that I think we we simply

25:04 ↗ cannot afford to ignore. That is a

25:07 ↗ wonderful opportunity. Um, if we when we

25:09 ↗ we have when we look at the housing

25:11 ↗ space, we have very few analogous

25:13 ↗ opportunities and we try to take them

25:15 ↗ whatever we possibly can. I think we

25:16 ↗ should look at affordable child

25:18 ↗ childcare in much the same light. Um,

25:20 ↗ secondly, I just want to make a a a

25:25 ↗ broader point about our our impact fees

25:27 ↗ overall and question if there's some

25:29 ↗ lessons that we can learn from these.

25:31 ↗ Um, I'm unclear. It's unclear to me that

25:34 ↗ a development like this will actually

25:37 ↗ increase traffic, frankly. Um, and so if

25:40 ↗ since our impact fees are designed to

25:42 ↗ mitigate impacts, um, if we have

25:46 ↗ situations like this where people are

25:48 ↗ likely having to drive less, drive not

25:51 ↗ as far, um, possibly be able to walk,

25:54 ↗ um, I think that's a a good flag that

25:56 ↗ there might be something wrong with how

25:58 ↗ we're assessing our impact fees overall.

26:00 ↗ Um, I know in my personal experience,

26:02 ↗ um, when we had our our our when our

26:04 ↗ daughter was born 12 years ago now

26:07 ↗ almost, um, we used to drive about 40

26:10 ↗ minutes on Front Street to a childcare

26:12 ↗ facility back and forth every day

26:14 ↗ because that was less expensive. Um, but

26:15 ↗ we were contributing to traffic. Um, if

26:17 ↗ there was more childcare in Isqua, we

26:20 ↗ would have produced less traffic. Um,

26:22 ↗ that argument of course can't work for

26:23 ↗ everything, but there are some things

26:24 ↗ where I think it can. And it it serves

26:26 ↗ it it strikes me as a an indicator that

26:29 ↗ we should perhaps evaluate think very

26:32 ↗ critically about how our impact fees are

26:34 ↗ calculated and whether they are serving

26:36 ↗ the intention that we want them to or

26:39 ↗ perhaps in some cases and this may be

26:40 ↗ one actually

26:43 ↗ making the problems that they intended

26:44 ↗ to address uh possibly bigger.

26:49 ↗ Excellent.

26:51 ↗ Is there any Oh, no other comments.

26:54 ↗ There's no further discussion. Motion

26:57 ↗ before the council is adopt ordinance

26:58 ↗ number 3134 amending chapter 3.71 of the

27:01 ↗ ESQA municipal code to allow for fee

27:03 ↗ waiverss for early learning centers. All

27:06 ↗ those in favor please say I.

27:08 ↗ >> I.

27:09 ↗ >> I.

27:10 ↗ >> All those opposed? Nay.

27:12 ↗ And that passes unanimously. The next

27:15 ↗ item of business is agenda bill 9091.

27:18 ↗ Newport would Newport Way be able to

27:20 ↗ sunset improvements

27:22 ↗ design agreement supplement. I like to

27:25 ↗ my transportation engineering manager

27:27 ↗ John Morgensson to present this item.

27:42 ↗ >> See Kristen John brought up big water

27:43 ↗ bottle with him. You got

28:00 ↗ Thank you very much, Mayor Mullet. Good

28:02 ↗ evening, council members. I'm

28:04 ↗ transportation engineering manager John

28:06 ↗ Mortonson. Greg Lucas is going to be

28:08 ↗ giving the presentation tonight, but I

28:09 ↗ want to say a few words about this

28:11 ↗ project before the presentation.

28:16 ↗ The Newport Way Maple to Sunset project

28:19 ↗ is a bold and ambitious project.

28:24 ↗ It hits on many of the community's

28:26 ↗ priorities.

28:28 ↗ It is an intraisiqua mobility project

28:31 ↗ that mitigates the impacts of growth.

28:34 ↗ Improves safety along a corridor with a

28:36 ↗ history of serious injury accidents.

28:40 ↗ Improves storm water from the roadway to

28:42 ↗ protect the salmon that the community

28:44 ↗ values

28:46 ↗ and it builds out the bicycle and

28:48 ↗ pedestrian network

28:51 ↗ for the city of Esqua. Leading up to

28:54 ↗ this item, a lot of questions have been

28:57 ↗ asked about what happens if the city is

28:59 ↗ unable to

29:01 ↗ secure the construction funds and would

29:03 ↗ the city need to pay back the design

29:05 ↗ funds that have been received so far.

29:08 ↗ The good news is thanks to a change in

29:10 ↗ state or not state law, federal law, the

29:13 ↗ design funds would no longer need to be

29:15 ↗ paid back if the city is unable to

29:17 ↗ secure construction funding.

29:20 ↗ Currently, the city has a an award in

29:23 ↗ 2028 for right-away funds, and the rules

29:26 ↗ for those funds are that the city will

29:29 ↗ have 10 years to begin construction on

29:32 ↗ the project. At that point, if the city

29:34 ↗ has not secured construction funds, wash

29:38 ↗ said there's a process to get a 10-year

29:41 ↗ extension. But basically the um anytime

29:45 ↗ a project goes after 10 years before

29:48 ↗ between rightway and construction that

29:51 ↗ wash then needs to monitor it which is

29:54 ↗ why they have the extension process.

29:57 ↗ In other words the city will have 20

29:59 ↗ years to construct the project.

30:02 ↗ Um, and if after 20 years the city was

30:07 ↗ unable to secure construction funding,

30:10 ↗ the city would only be responsible for

30:11 ↗ the funds that were used to acquire

30:13 ↗ rightway.

30:15 ↗ Although the there's that, the

30:18 ↗ administration is also very optimistic

30:20 ↗ about the ability to

30:23 ↗ secure construction funding for this

30:24 ↗ project. This project has been very

30:27 ↗ competitive in grant funding

30:28 ↗ competitions. In the most recent

30:30 ↗ competition through the Puet Sound

30:32 ↗ Regional Council and the King Countywide

30:36 ↗ Competition, this project was the second

30:38 ↗ highest scoring project and was one

30:40 ↗ point off from being the highest scoring

30:41 ↗ project.

30:43 ↗ Tonight's request from council is

30:46 ↗ authorization of a contract amendment to

30:48 ↗ the design contract to allow the project

30:51 ↗ to reach the 60% milestone. This is a

30:54 ↗ really important step because it'll

30:55 ↗ allow the administration to begin

30:57 ↗ planning construction phasing and

30:59 ↗ applying for construction grants.

31:02 ↗ With this, I'd like to pass it over to

31:04 ↗ Greg Lucas, who will give tonight's

31:06 ↗ presentation.

31:19 ↗ >> All right. Uh, good evening, Mayor

31:21 ↗ Mullet and council members. My name is

31:22 ↗ Greg Lucas. I'm a transportation

31:24 ↗ engineer in public works and I'm here to

31:27 ↗ present on behalf of the Newport Way

31:29 ↗ Maple to Sunset Improvement Project.

31:32 ↗ Uh so the purpose of the presentation is

31:34 ↗ sync seek authorization to execute a

31:37 ↗ design supplement uh needed to complete

31:39 ↗ the 60% design submitt. And given the

31:43 ↗ project's long history and varying

31:44 ↗ degrees of familiarity, uh the

31:46 ↗ presentation will provide an overview of

31:48 ↗ the project

31:50 ↗ as the administration seeks action on

31:53 ↗ this item.

31:56 ↗ And so we'll start uh with the

31:58 ↗ introduction to the project starting

32:01 ↗ with the uh existing conditions of

32:03 ↗ Newport Way uh specifically between uh

32:07 ↗ Maple Street and Sunset Way as

32:11 ↗ classified as an urban uh principal

32:13 ↗ arterial street that moves up to 15,000

32:16 ↗ vehicles a day. While there's shoulders

32:19 ↗ to use for cyclists, there's no

32:20 ↗ dedicated signed and channelized bike

32:23 ↗ facilities.

32:24 ↗ And there's some walkways along Newport

32:27 ↗ Way as well, but there's no continuous

32:29 ↗ walkway on either side of the road.

32:33 ↗ Uh there are

32:35 ↗ stop controlled intersections u only on

32:38 ↗ the side streets. So Maple is a

32:42 ↗ signalized intersection. So, sunset, uh,

32:45 ↗ juniper, holly, and dogwood are all

32:47 ↗ stopped before they can enter onto

32:50 ↗ Newport Way. And another element of the

32:53 ↗ existing conditions, it's one of the

32:54 ↗ older kind of countywide

32:56 ↗ county uh, roadways with open drainage

33:00 ↗ ditches to convey water. Uh,

33:04 ↗ about a mile long, includes five

33:07 ↗ intersections.

33:08 ↗ Um and another element of this project

33:11 ↗ is that the Isqua Valley Elementary

33:13 ↗ School is located within the project

33:15 ↗ limits.

33:16 ↗ Um there's been some housing going on um

33:21 ↗ in this along the corridor as well. And

33:23 ↗ while part of the port part port part of

33:26 ↗ the project lies within the growth

33:27 ↗ center, the there's also been some

33:29 ↗ housing um outside of the growth center

33:32 ↗ limits.

33:36 ↗ So, what the project uh would implement

33:39 ↗ would be an extension of a second

33:42 ↗ southbound lane. Currently, there is an

33:45 ↗ existing second southbound lane near

33:48 ↗ Maple merges into one lane prior to

33:51 ↗ Juniper, and we'll get into that on the

33:54 ↗ next slide a little bit in more detail.

33:56 ↗ This project also implements 6 foot wide

33:59 ↗ sidewalks on both sides of the streets

34:01 ↗ with a slightly wider sidewalk in front

34:03 ↗ of Isqua Valley Elementary School. It

34:06 ↗ would add protected bike lanes which

34:08 ↗ would be protected by landscape strips,

34:11 ↗ roundabouts at a few of the

34:12 ↗ intersections

34:14 ↗ as well as getting rid of the open

34:16 ↗ drainage ditches and treating water

34:18 ↗ before it enters into uh larger regional

34:21 ↗ waterways.

34:24 ↗ Deputy President Marks,

34:27 ↗ >> thank you. Why does the picture only

34:28 ↗ show a total of two lanes?

34:31 ↗ Oh,

34:32 ↗ >> this crosssections in front of Squ

34:33 ↗ Valley Elementary School where uh the

34:36 ↗ second southbound lane would have merged

34:37 ↗ into one.

34:40 ↗ >> So, so how how far is the second

34:42 ↗ southbound lane? it would be extended um

34:46 ↗ so back to the previous slide um more or

34:49 ↗ less can have right in front of Isqua

34:51 ↗ Valley Elementary School it'll merge

34:53 ↗ down to one southbound line

34:56 ↗ so it' be two southbound lanes from

34:58 ↗ Maple past Holly and I think it's about

35:00 ↗ 900 ft south of Holly is when it starts

35:02 ↗ to merge into one

35:04 ↗ >> so it would extend the the second

35:06 ↗ southbound lane 900 ft versus its

35:10 ↗ current where it truncates just past the

35:12 ↗ the intersection.

35:14 ↗ >> It would extend it more than that. It

35:15 ↗ would extend it past currently emerges

35:18 ↗ north of Juniper. It extend it past

35:21 ↗ Juniper, past Holly, and then 900 more

35:23 ↗ feet.

35:24 ↗ >> But before I

35:26 ↗ >> kind of right in front of their right in

35:28 ↗ front of that school. Okay.

35:31 ↗ Holl's kind of the north portion of IB.

35:34 ↗ And so you about 900 ft of a second

35:36 ↗ southbound lane. And how much of that

35:39 ↗ stretch that down to Sunset would be

35:42 ↗ left only two lanes?

35:44 ↗ >> The rest of that would be two lanes

35:45 ↗ until you get back to Sunset with a left

35:47 ↗ turn lane.

35:49 ↗ >> Gotcha.

35:50 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. Y

35:56 ↗ done with this slide as well.

36:01 ↗ >> And so this slide is intended to address

36:03 ↗ why the southbound lane extension is

36:05 ↗ needed. Um

36:09 ↗ future long range uh planning modeling

36:11 ↗ shows uh that the intersections at

36:14 ↗ Juniper and Holly would fall below the

36:17 ↗ adopted level service of Due to

36:20 ↗ increasing uh traffic demand.

36:23 ↗ The primary reason why these

36:24 ↗ intersections fall below the um adopted

36:27 ↗ level service is the cars on the side

36:30 ↗ streets themselves will have a difficult

36:33 ↗ time turning onto Newport Way. They got

36:36 ↗ to fight traffic moving northbound and

36:38 ↗ southbound.

36:40 ↗ >> Secondary reason is cars turning

36:44 ↗ left going south on Newport onto the

36:47 ↗ side streets. would they be forced to

36:49 ↗ wait for a gap um for cars moving north

36:52 ↗ and the and the consequence of that is

36:55 ↗ there'll be a little bit of a cue for

36:57 ↗ the cars coming south and then the cars

37:00 ↗ on Juniper would have to wait for

37:02 ↗ southbound traffic to clear out and a

37:04 ↗ gap in the traffic.

37:06 ↗ And so in order to address um these

37:09 ↗ intersections that fall below the level

37:11 ↗ of service, the roundabouts and the

37:14 ↗ extension of the southbound lane would

37:15 ↗ keep these intersections compliant.

37:18 ↗ Uh, this modeling was done for year

37:20 ↗ 2040. That could happen, I guess,

37:22 ↗ sooner. It could happen and it hits the

37:25 ↗ area.

37:28 ↗ >> Deputy President Marks.

37:29 ↗ >> Sorry, I'm confused. So, if we do

37:32 ↗ nothing, the 2024

37:36 ↗ traffic model would show in order levels

37:39 ↗ of service C, F, E, C, and B. Right?

37:42 ↗ Feel like I'm reading an eye chart. What

37:44 ↗ are the levels of service if we uh

37:48 ↗ implement this plan at those five

37:50 ↗ intersections? I don't have all five

37:52 ↗ memorized, but uh the two that fail,

37:55 ↗ which I looked more recently at, would

37:57 ↗ be A and B.

38:00 ↗ >> So, Juniper would go from F to an A and

38:05 ↗ Holly would go from an E to a B.

38:07 ↗ >> Yep.

38:07 ↗ >> All right. Thank you.

38:08 ↗ >> Yep.

38:12 ↗ But um I I I want to say maple goes to a

38:16 ↗ D in in the long range uh but stays

38:19 ↗ above doesn't fail. It's either C or D.

38:22 ↗ It doesn't get better. This project you

38:26 ↗ only improves those two Juniper and

38:29 ↗ Holly.

38:31 ↗ Yeah.

38:32 ↗ >> Council member.

38:33 ↗ >> Um and so but Dogwood would not get a

38:35 ↗ roundabout. Correct. So that would still

38:37 ↗ be kind of maintained at this sea level,

38:40 ↗ correct? Or or

38:42 ↗ what what happens on the Dogwood

38:43 ↗ intersection?

38:44 ↗ >> Dogwood, um it's a good question.

38:46 ↗ Dogwood has uh a roundabout as part of

38:49 ↗ the scope. Uh however, there's been some

38:53 ↗ um development that made us look at that

38:56 ↗ intersection a little closer. And while

38:58 ↗ it it doesn't need it to mitigate the or

39:00 ↗ to improve uh that traffic level of

39:04 ↗ service. So we we're also looking at

39:06 ↗ doing other options there such as a

39:08 ↗ raised intersection with flashing

39:10 ↗ beacons that could be a little cheaper

39:11 ↗ to implement

39:13 ↗ and less impacts to um the surrounding

39:16 ↗ properties due to the roundabouts do

39:19 ↗ take a lot more real estate than the

39:21 ↗ like a raised intersection would. So

39:23 ↗ we're evaluating that intersection more

39:24 ↗ closely.

39:36 ↗ I just want to know the design

39:38 ↗ consultant did look at different areas

39:39 ↗ for the merge point uh whether keeping

39:41 ↗ it where it's at

39:43 ↗ uh moving the merge point between

39:45 ↗ Juniper and Holly and ultimately in

39:47 ↗ order to meet the level of service uh

39:50 ↗ requirements the merge point needed to

39:52 ↗ be moved south of Holly.

39:59 ↗ So in addition to the traffic

40:01 ↗ improvements, uh this project would

40:03 ↗ improve safety for all mobility options,

40:07 ↗ bicyclists and pedestrians,

40:10 ↗ Federal Highway Administration releases

40:12 ↗ uh findings on studies on makes

40:15 ↗ recommendations to meet their own uh

40:17 ↗ safety goals and they encourage local

40:21 ↗ agencies such as ours to implement these

40:24 ↗ And this project includes nine of those

40:26 ↗ uh safety improvements.

40:29 ↗ And I'll highlight a few of those. The

40:30 ↗ big ones are the protected bike lanes,

40:32 ↗ the crosswalk visibilities, including

40:34 ↗ the the beacons, roundabouts, and

40:39 ↗ the the sidewalks themselves.

40:43 ↗ Uh the raised crosswalk at Holly would

40:45 ↗ help improve safety for students walking

40:47 ↗ to and from Esqua Valley Elementary

40:49 ↗ School. Then the administration plans to

40:52 ↗ engage with the school district during a

40:54 ↗ 60% design review to discuss these

40:56 ↗ improvements and get their thoughts.

41:02 ↗ So this project's been around for a long

41:05 ↗ time.

41:07 ↗ Um there was a traffic study done about

41:09 ↗ 15 years ago which led to some of the

41:12 ↗ scoping of this project and in January

41:13 ↗ of 11 uh council at that time approved

41:16 ↗ the roundabout concepts with the

41:18 ↗ southbound lane extension.

41:21 ↗ Five years later, the administration

41:23 ↗ applied for and received a design grant

41:24 ↗ through PSRC.

41:27 ↗ And the next year, uh, I'd selected and,

41:30 ↗ uh, contracted with Patit

41:32 ↗ to begin design, and the need for the

41:34 ↗ roundabouts and the southbound lane was

41:36 ↗ approved.

41:39 ↗ And in 2022, there was a modification to

41:41 ↗ the design, which we'll get into in some

41:43 ↗ subsequent slides, and that was approved

41:45 ↗ by council.

41:47 ↗ And more recently, a rightaway grant was

41:49 ↗ applied for and um yeah, like John

41:52 ↗ mentioned, awarded uh for the year 2028.

41:59 ↗ And this slide just shows some of the

42:00 ↗ previous um actions taken by council on

42:04 ↗ the design work itself to advance the

42:06 ↗ project. uh first to accept the design

42:09 ↗ uh grant funds, then to execute the

42:11 ↗ contract, approve the revised corridor,

42:14 ↗ and then two out of the three

42:16 ↗ supplements needed council action, and

42:18 ↗ there was a third one there that didn't

42:20 ↗ require council action.

42:25 ↗ Along the way, there's been um some

42:27 ↗ challenges during the design process.

42:30 ↗ Uh the initial concept uh for the design

42:34 ↗ which was a 30% the initial 30% submitt

42:37 ↗ included a raised and landscaped median.

42:41 ↗ Uh this stemmed from a 2012 central

42:44 ↗ isqua plan and this was not well

42:47 ↗ received by the public and they

42:49 ↗ encouraged some design changes.

42:52 ↗ Ultimately, this led to a resubmit of

42:54 ↗ the 30% design submitting

42:59 ↗ removed to help facilitate uh left turn

43:03 ↗ movements from private properties. And

43:05 ↗ at that time, um uh bike lanes were

43:09 ↗ moved from adjacent to the vehicles to

43:12 ↗ behind the landscape strips as well.

43:15 ↗ My understanding there's been some staff

43:16 ↗ shortings along the way where this

43:18 ↗ project's unable to be advanced.

43:21 ↗ Um and then there's been two

43:23 ↗ environmental regulations that have

43:25 ↗ impacted the design process.

43:28 ↗ First emerging site emerging science

43:30 ↗ around the impacts that tire wear has on

43:34 ↗ salmon. And so that required some design

43:37 ↗ refinement to treat the water before it

43:40 ↗ could potentially impact the salmon. And

43:43 ↗ then more recently, um there's a bloom

43:47 ↗ of POS underneath m much of the roadway,

43:51 ↗ uh due to a chemical and the fire

43:53 ↗ suppressant used at the fire station.

43:57 ↗ And while this was known, it it wasn't

43:59 ↗ clear that this would have a negative

44:01 ↗ this project would have a negative

44:03 ↗ impact on the POS. So the project

44:04 ↗ advanced

44:06 ↗ uh but eventually ecology decided to

44:09 ↗ regulate it and designated as a

44:12 ↗ contaminant and so we had to go back and

44:16 ↗ compliant with the regulations

44:19 ↗ and that required a lot of redesign work

44:21 ↗ getting additional geotechnical work and

44:23 ↗ infiltration data

44:26 ↗ and then there's just industrywide

44:28 ↗ increase in cost as time moves on.

44:35 ↗ This brings us to the uh current status

44:39 ↗ of the project. Uh project's near the

44:42 ↗ 60% design submitt.

44:44 ↗ The funding uh for this contract

44:46 ↗ supplement would help get us to that

44:48 ↗ point. Um there's a biological

44:52 ↗ assessment was submitted to the state.

44:54 ↗ So once the administration knew we

44:56 ↗ wouldn't have enough funds to complete

44:57 ↗ the 60% design submitt

45:00 ↗ made a decision to keep the project on

45:02 ↗ the critical path which was to

45:04 ↗ prioritize the biological assessment.

45:06 ↗ This is a multi-year review process

45:11 ↗ and we've already received some feedback

45:12 ↗ from the state before we send it to the

45:14 ↗ National Marine Fishery Services. So

45:17 ↗ that would be our first order business

45:18 ↗ if we got I think the design supplement

45:21 ↗ approved. And again, there's a a grant

45:24 ↗ awarded for purchasing the prop property

45:27 ↗ rights starting in 2028.

45:34 ↗ This slide shows the timeline for the

45:35 ↗ project moving forward. Uh starting with

45:37 ↗ the environmental process biological

45:40 ↗ assessments kind of the longest first

45:42 ↗ discipline report needed. There'll be a

45:44 ↗ few more um needed prior to NEPA

45:47 ↗ approval. Those can be done after the

45:49 ↗ biological assessment or at least near

45:51 ↗ completion of that.

45:53 ↗ And this year we'd

45:55 ↗ want to finish the 60% design submittal,

45:57 ↗ look at construction phasing to develop

45:59 ↗ an approach to maximize external

46:01 ↗ funding,

46:03 ↗ start applying for grants after that,

46:06 ↗ and then use the uh right away

46:10 ↗ property rights acquisition grants 2028,

46:14 ↗ begin 90% design and permit the first

46:17 ↗ phase of construction

46:19 ↗ in 2030.

46:23 ↗ brief synopsis of oh

46:27 ↗ president Mart.

46:28 ↗ >> Sure. So um my ears perk up at phase one

46:32 ↗ of the project. So I see TR23

46:37 ↗ Newport Way Maple to Sunset Improvements

46:39 ↗ lists on the six-year CIP adds up to

46:43 ↗ something like $34 million. Is that the

46:47 ↗ total cost of this project

46:49 ↗ for the the entire FA the entire project

46:51 ↗ will I mean we'll know more at 60% uh

46:55 ↗ but our 30%

46:58 ↗ uh estimate compounded over with some

47:01 ↗ inflation I think we're closer to 60

47:04 ↗ potentially but again it's really hard

47:06 ↗ to estimate it with 30% uh estimate

47:09 ↗ that's that's where we're at

47:11 ↗ >> okay but the 34 million that's in TR23

47:15 ↗ is not intended to be the entire

47:17 ↗ project.

47:18 ↗ >> That's why you said phase one.

47:19 ↗ >> Yeah,

47:20 ↗ >> there's a phase two and it's something

47:23 ↗ like as large of a magnitude as phase

47:25 ↗ one

47:26 ↗ >> potentially. Um and so the 60% help us

47:30 ↗ break this out into phases. Um but kind

47:34 ↗ of

47:35 ↗ without the 60% kind of a preliminary

47:38 ↗ look at it would be we wanted to do as

47:40 ↗ much as we could particular the north

47:42 ↗ portion where the roundups are um and

47:44 ↗ the second southbound lane that's the

47:46 ↗ most expensive portion of the project.

47:48 ↗ So as much of that we could do in the

47:50 ↗ first phase uh would you know would be

47:53 ↗ ideal. At the beginning where you talked

47:55 ↗ about the benefits of this project was

47:58 ↗ that the benefits of phase one or the

47:59 ↗ benefits of the entirety of the project

48:02 ↗ and entire entirety the the mobility the

48:06 ↗ intra is mobility was more for I guess

48:08 ↗ potentially what I was describing in

48:10 ↗ that first phase for the traffic.

48:13 ↗ >> Thank you.

48:13 ↗ >> Yep.

48:19 ↗ Um, so this design has had uh the PSRC

48:23 ↗ surface transportation grant as well as

48:26 ↗ 1.2 million in uh funds that were

48:29 ↗ originally anticipated for the bypass

48:31 ↗ project that were able to be utilized

48:33 ↗ for this project and we got the rideway

48:35 ↗ grant for this project.

48:39 ↗ And this slide shows options for

48:42 ↗ construction funding from external uh

48:45 ↗ agencies. There's the same PSRC surface

48:48 ↗ transportation that this project's been

48:49 ↗ awarded twice now. There's state

48:52 ↗ administers two federal grants. Uh one's

48:54 ↗ safe routes to school. Uh this project

48:56 ↗ would be very competitive for that

48:58 ↗ particularly for the front engine in

49:01 ↗ front of the Isqua Valley Elementary

49:02 ↗ School.

49:04 ↗ The projects with a history of

49:05 ↗ collisions are competitive for the

49:08 ↗ highway safety improvement program. Even

49:10 ↗ though it's uh a local road, this

49:12 ↗ project would be compatible competitive

49:15 ↗ for that as long as it's implementing

49:17 ↗ the FHWA countermeasures. Um

49:21 ↗ and then there's one big grant that

49:23 ↗ there's not much history of the city

49:25 ↗ applying for, but it's

49:28 ↗ been renamed a few times. It's been

49:29 ↗ called the Tiger Grant. It's been called

49:30 ↗ the raise grant. Now it's called the

49:32 ↗ Build Grant.

49:34 ↗ That's up to 25 million and 20% of that

49:38 ↗ needs to be non-federal funds.

49:41 ↗ And the hope would be

49:44 ↗ the administration could apply for that.

49:46 ↗ Um we understand

49:49 ↗ usually takes more than one submitt to

49:52 ↗ get it. They so you can apply for it,

49:55 ↗ get some feedback and refine your u

49:58 ↗ application for the subsequent year.

50:00 ↗ That'd be an action we'd want to look at

50:02 ↗ doing as soon as we could.

50:03 ↗ >> And both just got a couple of those big

50:06 ↗ USD grants, right?

50:08 ↗ >> Uh there's a few agencies around here. I

50:10 ↗ think both might be one and Shoreline's

50:13 ↗ got one. Um back when it was called

50:16 ↗ Tiger and Belle had some. So yeah,

50:19 ↗ there's also some state grant

50:21 ↗ opportunities. the transportation

50:23 ↗ improvement board. Uh once you have a

50:24 ↗ project ready for construction, they got

50:26 ↗ some uh

50:29 ↗ programs available to help

50:32 ↗ supplement the the cost to to get the

50:34 ↗ projects implemented.

50:37 ↗ And state has a program through the

50:39 ↗ climate commitment act called the

50:41 ↗ pedback program that this project would

50:43 ↗ also be competitive for.

50:45 ↗ And then I made a note here at the

50:46 ↗ bottom that um other agencies have had

50:49 ↗ legislation

50:50 ↗ fund uh some of their projects as well

50:54 ↗ and similar to this project as well as

50:55 ↗ other projects that are on the mountain

50:57 ↗ greenway trail which this project is

51:02 ↗ from Maple and to Holly and then that

51:05 ↗ trail is supposed to go east from there.

51:13 ↗ The other option is to not authorize the

51:16 ↗ design agreement supplement. Um

51:19 ↗ um John gave you some information about

51:22 ↗ how um the repayments changed a little

51:25 ↗ bit and while our agreement doesn't

51:27 ↗ state that there's laws that have

51:29 ↗ changed that wouldn't require repayment

51:32 ↗ necessarily

51:34 ↗ um at least for the design funds.

51:36 ↗ However, some of the granting agencies

51:38 ↗ may look at futuristic across the middle

51:40 ↗ a little less favorably if we decide not

51:43 ↗ to construct some of their projects that

51:44 ↗ we said we would.

51:49 ↗ Then the administration's recommendation

51:51 ↗ is to authorize the mayor to enter into

51:54 ↗ the design agreement supplement for the

51:57 ↗ project for about $105,000

52:00 ↗ in the

52:02 ↗ federal template.

52:06 ↗ Next steps would should the supplement

52:09 ↗ be executed would be to receive the 60%

52:12 ↗ design submitt after we're contracted

52:13 ↗ and the works completed by prite the

52:16 ↗ administration would then review the

52:18 ↗ submittal and provide feedback to prite

52:20 ↗ on it and determine a construction

52:22 ↗ phasing approach

52:24 ↗ and then other near-term uh steps would

52:27 ↗ be to look at value engineering. This is

52:30 ↗ an independent look to help reduce

52:33 ↗ overall costs of the projects and

52:35 ↗ generally a requirement on federal aid

52:37 ↗ projects over I think $40 million.

52:41 ↗ We'll also be incorporating the comments

52:42 ↗ both from the review and the value

52:44 ↗ engineering and then start preparing

52:47 ↗ rightway phase documents. Um, this

52:50 ↗ requires the NEPA, the environmental

52:52 ↗ approval and then an approved

52:54 ↗ ride-of-way plan and a cost estimate for

52:58 ↗ it and start applying for the build

53:00 ↗ grant.

53:02 ↗ Hopefully receive it, but at least get

53:04 ↗ some feedback on future submittals for

53:05 ↗ it.

53:08 ↗ And that is the end of the presentation.

53:12 ↗ Are there any questions for Greg or

53:14 ↗ John?

53:18 ↗ Council member Jen.

53:20 ↗ >> Okay. I have a few questions. Um, so

53:23 ↗ just to clarify on the construction

53:25 ↗ funding. Um, so for the build grants,

53:27 ↗ are those distributed by PSRC or do we

53:30 ↗ directly apply to the feds to get that

53:33 ↗ money?

53:34 ↗ >> I've never applied for one, but I have

53:35 ↗ my understanding that's directly through

53:36 ↗ the US DOT.

53:38 ↗ >> Okay. Um, I guess my other question is

53:41 ↗ how confident are we that construction

53:43 ↗ will start in 2030? Like would that be

53:45 ↗ dependent on us receiving this federal

53:46 ↗ funding presumably?

53:49 ↗ >> Yeah, I mean it's it would require un

53:52 ↗ unless you don't if we don't get the the

53:54 ↗ federal funds there would be a much more

53:56 ↗ financial commitment from the city. Um

53:58 ↗ you know other risks to the schedule are

54:00 ↗ you know the property acquisition um two

54:05 ↗ years is a a good estimate for that.

54:07 ↗ That can take longer and there's also

54:09 ↗ eminent domain but we try to do friendly

54:11 ↗ acquisitions with the property owners.

54:12 ↗ Um and then the other risk is um uh uh

54:16 ↗ just the biological assessment. You know

54:18 ↗ that this two years is a long time.

54:21 ↗ Sometimes it might it could take more.

54:23 ↗ Um but

54:25 ↗ uh our approach will be ready. It's just

54:28 ↗ >> yeah I guess so. Um John you mentioned

54:34 ↗ we feel very confident we'll get the

54:36 ↗ build grants but you know during this

54:38 ↗ conversation I was looking at like what

54:41 ↗ projects have received that funding.

54:42 ↗ It's like one project per state per

54:44 ↗ year. So like how are we confident that

54:46 ↗ we're going to be the one in the entire

54:49 ↗ state of Washington to get the money?

54:50 ↗ >> I don't know if I don't did you say

54:52 ↗ build grant or just grants in g I think

54:54 ↗ this project's very competitive for

54:55 ↗ grants in general.

54:57 ↗ >> Yeah. I guess this was just the

54:58 ↗ tiger/build

54:59 ↗ grant from 2009 to 2025.

55:01 ↗ >> Yeah, those that's a competitive process

55:03 ↗ and they fund a lot of different types

55:04 ↗ of projects and planning efforts. So, I

55:07 ↗ think a priority for us would be to just

55:09 ↗ get an application in there and and see

55:11 ↗ where we stack up um be for this one or

55:14 ↗ the next ones.

55:15 ↗ >> And I think Council Member Jen, what

55:17 ↗ we've tried to convey this evening is

55:19 ↗ that this has been a very competitive

55:21 ↗ project that there are measures that are

55:23 ↗ used that this project meets those

55:24 ↗ measures. And certainly as as you've

55:26 ↗ heard this evening, once we have the 60%

55:28 ↗ design, um we're going to be as

55:30 ↗ aggressive as we need to be uh with our

55:32 ↗ federal partners uh to show that this

55:34 ↗ meets the requirements and if there's

55:36 ↗ going to be one in Washington state,

55:38 ↗ then it should be disqu.

55:40 ↗ >> Great. Thank you, Wally.

55:44 ↗ >> Oh, one more question. Um so, uh you

55:48 ↗ mentioned that we do have we have

55:50 ↗ secured a grant of like $5 million to do

55:52 ↗ rightway acquisition. If we don't need

55:55 ↗ that whole amount, is it possible to

55:57 ↗ apply some of that towards construction

55:59 ↗ or no?

56:00 ↗ >> I think only a very little amount.

56:03 ↗ >> Yeah. 100,000.

56:04 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

56:06 ↗ >> I'm just curious.

56:07 ↗ >> Yeah.

56:09 ↗ I like the way you're thinking.

56:12 ↗ Any other questions for Greg

56:16 ↗ or John? Okay. Thank you very much. Uh

56:20 ↗ not seeing any other questions. Is there

56:23 ↗ a motion?

56:25 ↗ >> Thank you, Mayor Mullet. Uh, I authorize

56:27 ↗ I move that we authorize the mayor to

56:29 ↗ enter into and execute a design

56:32 ↗ agreement supplement for the Newport Way

56:34 ↗ Maple to Sunset Improvement TR23

56:38 ↗ project.

56:42 ↗ Motion. Is there a second?

56:47 ↗ I second. Council member second.

56:50 ↗ >> Is there any other council discussion?

56:53 ↗ Deputy President Martfully,

56:56 ↗ I'm going to oppose this motion this

56:57 ↗ evening. I've been hearing about this

57:00 ↗ project for 17 years. Uh it was

57:04 ↗ allegedly important 17 years ago, but we

57:07 ↗ haven't done it. Um, it's something

57:09 ↗ north of $60 million for a couple of

57:12 ↗ bike lanes and 2600 feet worth of a

57:16 ↗ third lane that

57:18 ↗ will won't improve the traffic at either

57:21 ↗ end, but it'll improve a couple of side

57:23 ↗ streets. So, it's it's two roundabouts

57:25 ↗ and some bike lanes for 60 plus million

57:28 ↗ dollars. And whoever pays for it isn't

57:31 ↗ the question to me. The question is, are

57:34 ↗ there better ways to improve mobility in

57:36 ↗ our in our city for $60 million? I'm

57:38 ↗ pretty sure there are. So, uh, I've

57:41 ↗ never understood this project, but we've

57:44 ↗ also never actually moved on it. So, who

57:47 ↗ knows how it'll go this evening, but

57:49 ↗ this is a huge amount of money for a

57:51 ↗ very, very small impact um that won't

57:54 ↗ substantially improve things for the

57:56 ↗ mobility uh in our city that our voters

57:59 ↗ tell us is is the most important

58:01 ↗ subject. So, thank you,

58:04 ↗ >> Council Member Mair.

58:06 ↗ >> Um, I would say that while I agree 60

58:10 ↗ million is a is too much to spend on the

58:12 ↗ current problems, I like I travel this

58:15 ↗ road every day. My kids go to Esqua

58:17 ↗ Valley. I biked on it and I see this as

58:19 ↗ a road with a lot of structural problems

58:23 ↗ that it that have to be addressed at

58:25 ↗ some point in terms of how it functions,

58:27 ↗ especially with the growth we want to

58:29 ↗ hopefully be successful at in central

58:31 ↗ Isiqua. That this road is one of the key

58:34 ↗ connections from what will be that

58:35 ↗ central district to Oldtown to heading

58:39 ↗ down, you know, south. And I think um

58:42 ↗ the multimmodal aspects as well as you

58:45 ↗ know the roundabouts and everything like

58:46 ↗ that that this road will become a very

58:48 ↗ serious problem as we grow and it's

58:51 ↗ something that has to be addressed at

58:53 ↗ some point and while the price tag is

58:55 ↗ huge it's something that I don't see a

58:56 ↗ way that we do it in a cheaper way

58:59 ↗ because there are so many structural

59:00 ↗ things such as the big ditches on the

59:02 ↗ side that cars run into all the time as

59:04 ↗ well as the safety for the children on

59:05 ↗ that. And so though it is a price tag,

59:08 ↗ it is something that I believe we need

59:10 ↗ to continue to try to accomplish and

59:13 ↗ that's why I support it.

59:15 ↗ >> Council member Nichols

59:18 ↗ Jen, sorry.

59:20 ↗ >> Yeah, I think the thing with this price

59:22 ↗ tag is that I think a lot of it is

59:25 ↗ actually related to like fixing the road

59:27 ↗ that currently exists. So right now I

59:28 ↗ think you know when we saw the pavement

59:30 ↗ management presentation that's like one

59:32 ↗ of the worst sections of road in the

59:33 ↗ entire city. like the road is actively

59:35 ↗ falling apart and it's not just the road

59:36 ↗ surface. There's like the concrete bed

59:38 ↗ underneath it that's failing and you

59:40 ↗ know there's like all these cracks that

59:42 ↗ are sealed that I don't know how many

59:43 ↗ more times we're going to be able to

59:44 ↗ seal them before we're going to have to

59:45 ↗ like redo the entire road anyway. And to

59:48 ↗ the extent that and my understanding is

59:51 ↗ like we basically kind of like kicked

59:52 ↗ the can down the road because we think

59:54 ↗ that we'll be able to pull in external

59:56 ↗ funding to fix the road along with doing

59:58 ↗ some you know improvements. Um, so I I

1:00:02 ↗ do think the additional cost to do these

1:00:04 ↗ improvements relative to, you know, if

1:00:06 ↗ we were going to actually just have to

1:00:07 ↗ fix the road, I I would be curious to

1:00:10 ↗ see what those numbers are. Um, I also,

1:00:13 ↗ you know, am someone who bikes on

1:00:15 ↗ Newport Way to get here mostly. Um, and

1:00:19 ↗ I think it's like not a fun road to be a

1:00:26 ↗ pedestrian or biker on. there's like the

1:00:28 ↗ giant ditch, so you're between the car

1:00:29 ↗ and the ditch and you could just, you

1:00:30 ↗ know, end up in the ditch. Um, and also,

1:00:33 ↗ you know, with the cost of doing storm

1:00:36 ↗ water, like if we were to do anything to

1:00:38 ↗ this road, we would have to bring it up

1:00:40 ↗ to modern storm water codes. We would

1:00:41 ↗ have to move the utilities. So, I think

1:00:43 ↗ to the extent that we can also take that

1:00:45 ↗ opportunity of we're going to have to

1:00:47 ↗ redo the road anyway at some point,

1:00:48 ↗ unless it's literally going to

1:00:49 ↗ completely fall apart. If we use that

1:00:51 ↗ opportunity to do some improvements, I

1:00:52 ↗ think that makes sense. I would like to

1:00:54 ↗ see, you know, what the marginal cost

1:00:57 ↗ is. Um I'm, you know, I think the price

1:01:02 ↗ tag is very hefty and I'm very hopeful

1:01:04 ↗ that we can get um additional grants,

1:01:08 ↗ but also understanding it is a very

1:01:10 ↗ competitive process. So, we'll be good

1:01:12 ↗ to revisit um you know, what it looks

1:01:15 ↗ like when once we've submitted some of

1:01:16 ↗ those grant applications, it is good to

1:01:18 ↗ know that we aren't going to have to

1:01:19 ↗ return the design funding. And I think,

1:01:22 ↗ you know, at this juncture, the question

1:01:24 ↗ is, do we want to put in like another

1:01:25 ↗ couple hundred,000 to get it to the

1:01:28 ↗ point where we can start actually making

1:01:30 ↗ progress on this project? And I do think

1:01:32 ↗ that is something that I will support

1:01:34 ↗ tonight.

1:01:36 ↗ >> Council member Nichols.

1:01:39 ↗ >> So,

1:01:41 ↗ I think it's important to look at how to

1:01:43 ↗ to frame this decision and the process

1:01:46 ↗ correctly. If this was

1:01:50 ↗ just a $60 million pot that we already

1:01:52 ↗ had and we were trying to debate what

1:01:54 ↗ the most effective use of that is, I

1:01:56 ↗ don't know that I would support that. I

1:01:57 ↗ think would take a lot of analysis. Um,

1:02:00 ↗ that's not what I see this as though. I

1:02:02 ↗ see this as a

1:02:04 ↗ a relatively lowcost re investment um

1:02:08 ↗ that may pay off quite substantially in

1:02:10 ↗ the future if we are able to continue at

1:02:14 ↗ approximately the rate that we've been

1:02:15 ↗ going with city funding into this and

1:02:17 ↗ eventually get these very large grants.

1:02:19 ↗ Um that seems like a very good use of

1:02:22 ↗ the city's finances for the city's

1:02:24 ↗ residents. Um so it does matter to me

1:02:26 ↗ where that money comes from. um in part

1:02:28 ↗ because the things that we can apply for

1:02:31 ↗ that we the things we can potentially

1:02:33 ↗ apply for grants for are not unlimited.

1:02:35 ↗ Um one I had a couple questions that the

1:02:38 ↗ staff walked me through in great detail.

1:02:40 ↗ One of which was why this project in

1:02:43 ↗ particular is most amendable to the type

1:02:46 ↗ of granting strategy that has been

1:02:48 ↗ proposed. Um

1:02:50 ↗ the combination of safety issues uh with

1:02:54 ↗ potential mobility improvements. um the

1:02:57 ↗ overall scores as I looked at the scores

1:02:58 ↗ that it received it that's that's true

1:03:00 ↗ it it has scored quite well in the past

1:03:03 ↗ um by no means guaranteed that we will

1:03:05 ↗ get this I mean as W council president

1:03:08 ↗ said it has been a long time coming and

1:03:10 ↗ we still haven't done it um that said I

1:03:12 ↗ think from the perspective of of a

1:03:14 ↗ potential investment is

1:03:17 ↗ it's a good it's a good path to go down

1:03:19 ↗ um I am I had initial concerns about

1:03:22 ↗ having to potentially return the funds

1:03:24 ↗ uh if we don't get to it in in part

1:03:26 ↗ because of our history moving this

1:03:28 ↗ project forward has been slow. Uh I

1:03:30 ↗ appreciate the staff's time and effort

1:03:31 ↗ that they've spent with me walking me

1:03:33 ↗ through why that is at this point based

1:03:35 ↗ on largely changes to federal law a very

1:03:38 ↗ lowrisk

1:03:40 ↗ uh situation. And then finally, I just

1:03:42 ↗ want to say um there wasn't much

1:03:44 ↗ analysis done in this but that I've I've

1:03:46 ↗ seen but I do think it's important to

1:03:48 ↗ note that um as council member Jang

1:03:50 ↗ brought up um this is an important bike

1:03:52 ↗ corridor. Um, we

1:03:55 ↗ biking in Isqua is it's hit or miss.

1:03:57 ↗ There's some places that are good,

1:03:58 ↗ there's some places that are terrible.

1:04:00 ↗ This is not terrible, but it's not it's,

1:04:02 ↗ you know, at best okay. Um, I also take

1:04:05 ↗ it all the time. And I don't want to

1:04:07 ↗ understate the difference in traffic

1:04:10 ↗ reductions that good comprehensive bike

1:04:12 ↗ infrastructure can have. Most cities

1:04:14 ↗ that have gone through the process of

1:04:15 ↗ trying to modernize their bike bike bike

1:04:16 ↗ infrastructure go from essentially a

1:04:18 ↗ step function where you get a couple a

1:04:21 ↗ small number of people that will bike

1:04:22 ↗ initially and then once all

1:04:23 ↗ neighborhoods are connected well you see

1:04:24 ↗ a very large increase. Victoria, Canada

1:04:26 ↗ for example uh went from 5% bike uh

1:04:30 ↗ transport in its in an area about the

1:04:32 ↗ size of Isqua um at least square mileage

1:04:35 ↗ wise um in 2014 to about 14% by 2022.

1:04:38 ↗ That's a a a very if an impressive

1:04:42 ↗ improvement through simply encouraging

1:04:44 ↗ and building good infrastructure. Um

1:04:47 ↗ that

1:04:49 ↗ if we could reduce our traffic by 10% in

1:04:51 ↗ any other way, we would happily pay that

1:04:53 ↗ money. Now, I'm not saying this is going

1:04:54 ↗ to do that. This is what but one piece

1:04:56 ↗ of that puzzle. But I don't think we can

1:04:58 ↗ neglect the importance of a

1:04:59 ↗ comprehensive bike network without gaps.

1:05:02 ↗ Um because if there's a gap, like the

1:05:04 ↗ whole thing is basically unsafe. um and

1:05:07 ↗ what that could do for mobility in the

1:05:08 ↗ city at some point. So, I will also be

1:05:11 ↗ uh a yes on this.

1:05:13 ↗ >> Thank you very much, Council Member

1:05:14 ↗ Walsh. And then, Council President

1:05:16 ↗ Michelle, Council Member Walsh,

1:05:19 ↗ >> thank you. Um, you know, I've gone back

1:05:22 ↗ and forth on this project because it's

1:05:25 ↗ such a large number, uh, dollar-wise,

1:05:28 ↗ um, because I know we don't have the

1:05:30 ↗ funds within the city to spend on that,

1:05:34 ↗ and I certainly wouldn't plop down $60

1:05:36 ↗ million worth of city funding for this.

1:05:39 ↗ Um,

1:05:41 ↗ and because I recognize that there

1:05:45 ↗ really isn't anything for this evening

1:05:48 ↗ southbound traffic um, going down to

1:05:51 ↗ Maple Valley, etc. that is going to

1:05:55 ↗ improve things, including lane capacity

1:05:58 ↗ because everything funnels at the end.

1:06:01 ↗ So, when I'm thinking then about this

1:06:03 ↗ project um and what the needs are on

1:06:06 ↗ Newport Way, I kind of have to take that

1:06:10 ↗ idea aside and say if we spent the money

1:06:13 ↗ to acquire land area and added a second

1:06:17 ↗ lane in there going southbound, all that

1:06:20 ↗ would do is just be land that we

1:06:23 ↗ acquired that's going to fill up in the

1:06:25 ↗ southbound area and it's not going to

1:06:27 ↗ actually improve people's ability to get

1:06:30 ↗ around. What I do see in this project

1:06:34 ↗ that improves people's ability to get

1:06:36 ↗ around is the bike capacity and safety,

1:06:39 ↗ the safety for pedestrians near the

1:06:42 ↗ school, um, and the roundabouts and the

1:06:45 ↗ ability for people to get through on

1:06:48 ↗ those areas. So, I think those are

1:06:50 ↗ important elements of this project. I

1:06:53 ↗ also agree with council member Menang

1:06:55 ↗ about the idea that a lot of this is for

1:06:59 ↗ not just capacity but real problems that

1:07:02 ↗ we have with the roadway currently.

1:07:05 ↗ Whether that's the pavement, the fact

1:07:08 ↗ that we're using ditches for storm water

1:07:12 ↗ um movement and are not treating the

1:07:15 ↗ water. um the fact that, you know, there

1:07:18 ↗ aren't um rapid rectangular flashing

1:07:22 ↗ beacons or raised crosswalks and safety

1:07:25 ↗ for students. And so I

1:07:29 ↗ I think I'm comfortable with putting

1:07:32 ↗ forth the additional 304,000

1:07:35 ↗ um for this project to get it to the 60%

1:07:38 ↗ standpoint. But I do think as we go into

1:07:41 ↗ that, it's really really important for

1:07:44 ↗ me

1:07:45 ↗ that we take a moment just to rank out

1:07:48 ↗ what are the most important things to

1:07:50 ↗ accomplish with this project. And I

1:07:54 ↗ think from my perspective, it's safety

1:07:56 ↗ per for pedestrians near the school,

1:07:59 ↗ filling in those ditches and having

1:08:01 ↗ treatment of that and bike capacity. So

1:08:04 ↗ I would look for ways that we can maybe

1:08:07 ↗ adjust or alter the amount of land that

1:08:10 ↗ we have to acquire for this which will

1:08:13 ↗ significantly reduce potentially the

1:08:15 ↗ cost of the project. And so I'd look at

1:08:18 ↗ ways um that we can do that that could

1:08:21 ↗ potentially save fund some funds. But I

1:08:24 ↗ think given the fact that this is asking

1:08:26 ↗ the 304,000 here, fact that we have some

1:08:29 ↗ opportunity to um go forward with a

1:08:33 ↗ competitive project and that there could

1:08:34 ↗ be grants out there, I will be

1:08:36 ↗ supporting this at this time.

1:08:37 ↗ >> Thank you very much, Council Walsh and

1:08:39 ↗ Council President Michelle.

1:08:42 ↗ >> Uh thank you, Mayor Mullet. Uh I'm

1:08:44 ↗ speaking as someone who lived on Dogwood

1:08:46 ↗ for 17 years and that so speaking from

1:08:50 ↗ the that experience that was 17 years of

1:08:53 ↗ seeing cars that went into the ditches

1:08:54 ↗ on each side and seeing people take

1:08:58 ↗ really dangerous uh swipes at going left

1:09:01 ↗ and right when the traffic was heavy and

1:09:04 ↗ the long line up every afternoon. Um to

1:09:08 ↗ me this is primarily a safety project

1:09:11 ↗ and it's long long overdue. It is the

1:09:13 ↗ equivalent, the council equivalent of

1:09:15 ↗ watching paint dry uh the way that this

1:09:18 ↗ has taken so many so many years to get

1:09:20 ↗ done. But it is a major project that I

1:09:23 ↗ think will serve our community well. And

1:09:25 ↗ we often talk about how um

1:09:29 ↗ people who use our roads really don't

1:09:31 ↗ know the intricacies behind them. They

1:09:34 ↗ just know need to know that they can get

1:09:36 ↗ from point A to point B in a relatively

1:09:39 ↗ safe and efficient way. Um, I think this

1:09:42 ↗ project will do that for us eventually

1:09:45 ↗ when we get to uh actually doing the

1:09:48 ↗ construction for it. I think it will be

1:09:49 ↗ a great improvement. Uh, just having

1:09:53 ↗ lived there for a long time and use

1:09:54 ↗ those roads all the time. Uh, this is, I

1:09:58 ↗ think, a very necessary project for our

1:10:00 ↗ city. So, I will be supporting the

1:10:02 ↗ motion.

1:10:05 ↗ >> All right. Is there any other council

1:10:07 ↗ council member Marks?

1:10:10 ↗ So, I uh used to bicycle a lot through

1:10:15 ↗ the city. I I want to make it clear, I'm

1:10:17 ↗ very much in favor of more uh paths

1:10:22 ↗ through the city, uh more bicycle paths.

1:10:25 ↗ A few years ago, we attempted to improve

1:10:28 ↗ what would have been one of the biggest

1:10:30 ↗ impacts we could have possibly had,

1:10:32 ↗ which was bicycle uh paths on Sunset.

1:10:35 ↗ and it was part of a transportationbased

1:10:38 ↗ bond that the voters did not approve. So

1:10:41 ↗ I look at Newport, I'm looking at a map

1:10:43 ↗ of physical right now. Newport is

1:10:46 ↗ considered one of the um places you can

1:10:49 ↗ get through the town, get through town

1:10:51 ↗ on a bicycle. There are east-west

1:10:54 ↗ conduits through the city from the east

1:10:55 ↗ half of the city to the west half of the

1:10:56 ↗ city are almost zero. Um you can come

1:10:59 ↗ down uh Isiqua

1:11:02 ↗ uh Fall City Road I think and kind of

1:11:06 ↗ connect to the Highlands. Um but I all

1:11:10 ↗ this to say um if we want to improve

1:11:14 ↗ bicycle mobility in the city, we should

1:11:16 ↗ improve bicycle mobility in the city.

1:11:19 ↗ this bill, this $60 million bill,

1:11:23 ↗ whoever pays for it. Um, not a lot of

1:11:26 ↗ that is for bicycle mobility. Um, if we

1:11:29 ↗ want to fix bicycle mobility, let's fix

1:11:31 ↗ bik bicycle mobility. This, again, this

1:11:33 ↗ bill is $60 million for two bike paths

1:11:36 ↗ and two roundabouts. My problem is what

1:11:38 ↗ you get for your $60 million. Not that

1:11:40 ↗ those things are are bad things to have.

1:11:42 ↗ It's just such an immense amount of

1:11:44 ↗ money for what we get. Thank you. And I

1:11:46 ↗ would feel differently if, by the way,

1:11:48 ↗ that that extens that third lane going

1:11:50 ↗ down the middle, that's half of of

1:11:52 ↗ Newport, right? If that went um down to

1:11:55 ↗ Sunset, it would have a tangible impact

1:11:58 ↗ on traffic in the city, but because it

1:12:00 ↗ doesn't it doesn't have that impact. So,

1:12:02 ↗ I don't I don't see $60 million worth of

1:12:04 ↗ benefit to this bill. Thank you, Council

1:12:06 ↗ Michelle.

1:12:08 ↗ >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, this is an

1:12:10 ↗ expensive project. It's been in the

1:12:12 ↗ works for a long time. Um it's an old

1:12:16 ↗ country road in essence and we're

1:12:18 ↗ putting arterial traffic on it on a

1:12:20 ↗ daily basis and um it does need to be

1:12:24 ↗ improved and it's not a full solution to

1:12:29 ↗ the problem but we need to take it a

1:12:31 ↗ little bit at a time and this is a

1:12:33 ↗ little bit that we can do and the little

1:12:35 ↗ bit that we've been working on and the

1:12:36 ↗ little bit that we can get funding for.

1:12:38 ↗ So I'll be supporting this uh this

1:12:40 ↗ motion this evening. Thank you.

1:12:43 ↗ >> All right. Thank you very much. If there

1:12:44 ↗ is no further discussion, the motion for

1:12:46 ↗ the council is to authorize the mayor to

1:12:47 ↗ enter into and execute design agreement

1:12:50 ↗ supplement number four of the Newport

1:12:51 ↗ Way Maple to Sunset Improvements TR023

1:12:54 ↗ project with pretit

1:12:57 ↗ incorporating the amount of 34,641.26

1:13:00 ↗ is substantially the same form as the

1:13:02 ↗ attached agreement exhibit A is approved

1:13:05 ↗ by the city attorney. When all those in

1:13:06 ↗ favor, please say I.

1:13:09 ↗ >> I.

1:13:11 ↗ >> All those opposed, nay. Nay.

1:13:14 ↗ >> And that passes 6 to1 with Deputy

1:13:16 ↗ President Marts voting nay. The next

1:13:19 ↗ item is agenda bill 9147 Blue Farm

1:13:22 ↗ Development LLC fu of furniture

1:13:23 ↗ improvement agreement for new way

1:13:25 ↗ northwest and Holly Street. We're going

1:13:27 ↗ to invite community planning and

1:13:29 ↗ development director wall to present

1:13:31 ↗ this item.

1:13:41 ↗ Good evening, Mayor Mullet, members of

1:13:43 ↗ the council, and members of the

1:13:45 ↗ community um both in the room and

1:13:48 ↗ online. Um,

1:13:50 ↗ so let me quickly share.

1:14:09 ↗ So you just heard the big project. Um,

1:14:13 ↗ and now here's u private development and

1:14:16 ↗ how that fits in with the bigger

1:14:17 ↗ picture. Um so what we're asking here is

1:14:22 ↗ um to receive authorization

1:14:24 ↗ uh for Mayor Mullet to enter into a fee

1:14:26 ↗ in lie of frontage improvements for this

1:14:29 ↗ project what um with a developer called

1:14:31 ↗ Blue Fern Group and um let's see

1:14:38 ↗ um so as you saw on the map um this is a

1:14:41 ↗ little um map that shows you where this

1:14:44 ↗ project sits. So it's in the northeast

1:14:46 ↗ corner of Newport and Northwest Holly

1:14:49 ↗ just across the street from the school.

1:14:52 ↗ Um

1:14:53 ↗ and um happens the one of the roundabout

1:14:56 ↗ happens to be on this uh particular

1:14:58 ↗ street. Um and as we received this

1:15:02 ↗ development for a 28 uh unit town home

1:15:05 ↗ projects and we understood that the city

1:15:07 ↗ had this other um project in design. um

1:15:11 ↗ there was coordination between this

1:15:13 ↗ private developer and the city's

1:15:15 ↗ project. What that led to was uh it

1:15:18 ↗ didn't make sense to put the frontage

1:15:20 ↗ improvements at this time and then

1:15:22 ↗ having to come back and rip them apart

1:15:23 ↗ when the city did this project. So in

1:15:26 ↗ keeping with the spirit of coordinating

1:15:27 ↗ how this development would fit in uh yes

1:15:30 ↗ the timing would be not you know at the

1:15:33 ↗ same time uh but sometimes these things

1:15:35 ↗ happen at a different time but with good

1:15:36 ↗ planning and uh foresight we can um

1:15:40 ↗ avoid creating problems for the city's

1:15:42 ↗ project um and it's a betterment for

1:15:44 ↗ this particular project itself. Um so

1:15:48 ↗ what we're uh have brought forth uh for

1:15:51 ↗ council's approval is for the city to

1:15:53 ↗ accept $199,90

1:15:57 ↗ um as part of a fee inlue uh agreement.

1:16:01 ↗ Uh there's a separate thing about the

1:16:03 ↗ rightway dedication. Um so where the

1:16:06 ↗ corner the uh there's going to be this

1:16:09 ↗ roundabout they have dedicated a portion

1:16:11 ↗ of the their land uh to facilitate the

1:16:14 ↗ city's roundabout project for the

1:16:15 ↗ future. Um so the the city's code itself

1:16:19 ↗ allows um

1:16:22 ↗ um

1:16:23 ↗ a refund of the uh or a credit and for

1:16:27 ↗ the impact fees uh traffic impact fees

1:16:31 ↗ uh in for the dedication and and you

1:16:34 ↗ know it was a collaborative process with

1:16:35 ↗ them. uh it's uh much harder when there

1:16:38 ↗ are 28 homeowners and they all have to

1:16:40 ↗ agree to a dedication for the city in

1:16:43 ↗ both in terms of the money and also

1:16:45 ↗ coordination of getting everyone to

1:16:47 ↗ agree for the dedication the HOA. Um at

1:16:50 ↗ this time we're dealing with one

1:16:51 ↗ developer who's willing to enter into um

1:16:54 ↗ this dedication. So the dedication gets

1:16:58 ↗ an offset with the impact fees. So it

1:17:00 ↗ gets kind of nuanced but bear with me

1:17:03 ↗ for a second. So the $170,000 that

1:17:06 ↗ they've paid for impact fees is already

1:17:08 ↗ allowed under a code to give them the

1:17:10 ↗ credit for the dedication that will

1:17:12 ↗ happen with a plat. So as they're, you

1:17:15 ↗ know, platting their whole 28 unit uh

1:17:17 ↗ development, each of those lots is an

1:17:20 ↗ individual lot with some tracks for

1:17:21 ↗ common roads and parking. Um and uh so

1:17:27 ↗ um we're getting this land dedicated as

1:17:29 ↗ part of that plat. When it gets

1:17:31 ↗ recorded, it shows that that becomes

1:17:32 ↗ city land. And there's also a statutory

1:17:34 ↗ warranty deed that gets recorded that

1:17:36 ↗ actually transfers the land to city

1:17:38 ↗ ownership. Um, so that's not in front of

1:17:41 ↗ council, but we included that in our

1:17:43 ↗ agenda bill just so that we could give

1:17:44 ↗ you a complete picture of how all of

1:17:46 ↗ that is going to play out uh for this

1:17:48 ↗ particular development and how that fits

1:17:50 ↗ in with the rest of the development. Um,

1:17:52 ↗ what's in front of you is to um um allow

1:17:56 ↗ the city to accept $199,090

1:18:00 ↗ uh for the frontage improvements. So the

1:18:03 ↗ sidewalk and other things that they our

1:18:05 ↗ code requires them to put in place. Um

1:18:08 ↗ so the city would get this money. Um we

1:18:11 ↗ have five years uh to do this work uh or

1:18:14 ↗ use the money for this wonderful project

1:18:16 ↗ that you all got a briefing on. Um and

1:18:20 ↗ uh if we don't use the money then we

1:18:22 ↗ have to return it with interest but uh

1:18:24 ↗ the developer is still responsible for

1:18:26 ↗ finishing up the frontage improvements

1:18:28 ↗ at that time. uh we don't anticipate

1:18:31 ↗ that it's going to get get into that

1:18:33 ↗ point. I think um the idea is that this

1:18:36 ↗ project would then use the funds and

1:18:38 ↗ then then the city would uh do these

1:18:40 ↗ frontage improvements at at some future

1:18:42 ↗ point. Um

1:18:45 ↗ so that's what's the proposal is. Uh

1:18:48 ↗ let's see what's so the other options

1:18:52 ↗ you know you uh we could require blue

1:18:54 ↗ fern to install all the improvements. I

1:18:56 ↗ would say that they have worked in good

1:18:58 ↗ faith effort with the city to um for all

1:19:00 ↗ these uh all this time uh and they're

1:19:03 ↗ ready to sell their town homes. Um so

1:19:07 ↗ this would delay them uh if we uh did

1:19:10 ↗ not um uh enter into this agreement. Um

1:19:14 ↗ and the other part would be that if the

1:19:16 ↗ city were to construct this um

1:19:19 ↗ roundabout and all that um some there

1:19:21 ↗ would it would negatively impact some of

1:19:23 ↗ the frontage improvements that would

1:19:24 ↗ need that would be constructed now. So

1:19:26 ↗ it's a waste of everyone's time to put

1:19:28 ↗ it in place and then take them out. Um

1:19:32 ↗ and lastly, like I mentioned, it would

1:19:34 ↗ require additional coordination with the

1:19:35 ↗ homeowners association to really do this

1:19:38 ↗ and get them on board to do the

1:19:40 ↗ dedication for the city's project. Um

1:19:43 ↗ but uh so our recommendation at this

1:19:45 ↗ point is that you authorize me to enter

1:19:48 ↗ into and execute this fe of frontage

1:19:50 ↗ improvement with blueorn in the same

1:19:53 ↗ form that's attached in your packet as

1:19:56 ↗ exhibit A and as approved by city

1:19:59 ↗ attorney.

1:20:00 ↗ >> Are there any questions for many

1:20:03 ↗ council member J? Um, so going back to

1:20:07 ↗ the first slide with the recommendation

1:20:09 ↗ or like the proposal to be clear, what

1:20:12 ↗ we're voting on tonight is just whether

1:20:14 ↗ to do the fee in lie of like $190,000,

1:20:17 ↗ not whether to do the land thing cuz the

1:20:21 ↗ um in the proposal it said accept the

1:20:24 ↗ land and the $190,000.

1:20:27 ↗ >> Yeah. the the the implementation uh you

1:20:29 ↗ know that's somewhat intertwined but the

1:20:31 ↗ council action is to just take the

1:20:33 ↗ money. Uh the dedication happens with

1:20:36 ↗ the plat that's an administrative

1:20:37 ↗ process that they've already gotten

1:20:39 ↗ approval for. So that you you you don't

1:20:42 ↗ make a motion to get the dedication that

1:20:44 ↗ happens through an implementing uh

1:20:46 ↗ decision. Uh yes, the the only the thing

1:20:49 ↗ that's in front of council is to accept

1:20:51 ↗ the 199k

1:20:53 ↗ um for future uh and deferring the

1:20:56 ↗ frontage improvements to a later date.

1:20:58 ↗ >> Okay.

1:20:59 ↗ >> But we will be getting the right of and

1:21:00 ↗ they are giving us their right of way.

1:21:02 ↗ >> It's just it's happening through a

1:21:03 ↗ process that's administrative, not

1:21:05 ↗ council.

1:21:06 ↗ >> Makes sense.

1:21:07 ↗ >> Correct.

1:21:09 ↗ >> Oh, council member Walsh. Oh, wait.

1:21:12 ↗ Council member Jang still going. Hang on

1:21:13 ↗ a second. I was just going to ask I mean

1:21:15 ↗ generally I think this approach makes

1:21:17 ↗ sense. Is it would we consider having

1:21:20 ↗ this be something that we can do in the

1:21:22 ↗ code is a more you know normal thing

1:21:24 ↗ where other develop like if anyone wants

1:21:27 ↗ to do this kind of develop you know

1:21:29 ↗ vanlu thing it doesn't have to come back

1:21:30 ↗ to us every single time.

1:21:32 ↗ >> Uh good question we'd like to streamline

1:21:34 ↗ the process. uh we do have in our street

1:21:36 ↗ standards an opportunity in central

1:21:38 ↗ Isiqua to get this fee in lie of uh I

1:21:41 ↗ think there's also the state law of

1:21:43 ↗ 82.0202 02 I think I shared that with

1:21:46 ↗ you. Uh so we'll be using that as our

1:21:48 ↗ basis for this. Um but whenever there's

1:21:50 ↗ a money exchange happening, you know, in

1:21:53 ↗ the spirit of transparency that comes to

1:21:55 ↗ council, but we'll look into it to see

1:21:57 ↗ if if it's allowed by code um and if we

1:22:01 ↗ if council is okay with um pushing this

1:22:04 ↗ to an administrative process, we could

1:22:06 ↗ uh look into that and codify it.

1:22:09 ↗ >> Great. Thank you, Council Walsh.

1:22:15 ↗ Thank you. Um, Director Dolly Well, I'm

1:22:18 ↗ just trying to understand exactly what

1:22:20 ↗ is happening here. When a multifamily

1:22:23 ↗ housing development is created, usually

1:22:25 ↗ there's a requirement to build out the

1:22:29 ↗ rightway and sidewalks and things like

1:22:32 ↗ that on the exterior of that. Is that

1:22:36 ↗ not happening here because of the future

1:22:40 ↗ project that we have coming up?

1:22:43 ↗ >> Uh, no. Yeah, good question. So, there

1:22:45 ↗ are intram temporary um, you know,

1:22:48 ↗ accessibility standards in place. So,

1:22:50 ↗ there's an asphalt sidewalk instead of

1:22:52 ↗ your our standard typical. So, if

1:22:54 ↗ someone is in a wheelchair, they you

1:22:56 ↗ know, it's still accessible. Uh, but

1:22:58 ↗ it's not built to our um our exact

1:23:02 ↗ standards. So there's an intram frontage

1:23:06 ↗ uh in place that includes this asphalt

1:23:09 ↗ path uh along uh Holly and Newport. Um

1:23:13 ↗ but the official you know per this

1:23:17 ↗ approved design which is at 30% today.

1:23:21 ↗ Uh we didn't have 60% designs and based

1:23:23 ↗ on engineering the grades wouldn't work

1:23:25 ↗ if we were to just make them put in a

1:23:27 ↗ sidewalk now. It would have it wouldn't

1:23:29 ↗ work with this future uh project. And so

1:23:32 ↗ yes, they're not they're we're deferring

1:23:35 ↗ the improvements, but there are some

1:23:36 ↗ interim improvements in the ground um

1:23:39 ↗ today.

1:23:42 ↗ Okay. So they are building out what

1:23:47 ↗ amounts to a temporary but adequate

1:23:52 ↗ sidewalk system that will meet our ADA

1:23:56 ↗ requirements or something like that, but

1:23:59 ↗ they are not being required to build out

1:24:01 ↗ even whatever standards we have in place

1:24:06 ↗ currently.

1:24:08 ↗ >> That's correct. Is that correct? So, I'm

1:24:10 ↗ just trying to find a a drawing here

1:24:12 ↗ that might help um cuz I like the visual

1:24:16 ↗ uh graphic to go with it. So, as you see

1:24:19 ↗ in here, this little triangular piece

1:24:21 ↗ called tract E, uh that is getting

1:24:24 ↗ dedicated to the city. Um this little uh

1:24:27 ↗ path that you see shaded light gray all

1:24:30 ↗ the way along. So, you do have a walking

1:24:32 ↗ path along the frontage, but it's not

1:24:35 ↗ per our uh adopted standards. It's an

1:24:38 ↗ intrum um until the city does the

1:24:41 ↗ project.

1:24:44 ↗ >> Okay. I'm just trying to understand how

1:24:47 ↗ this is fair um compared to other

1:24:50 ↗ developments. So other developments are

1:24:52 ↗ going to have the cost of

1:24:55 ↗ putting forth,

1:24:57 ↗ you know, what is up to our standards

1:25:00 ↗ for

1:25:01 ↗ um right of way and um sidewalk and

1:25:05 ↗ things like that. So what I'm seeing

1:25:07 ↗ here is yes, we're asking them to pay

1:25:10 ↗ money into a fund via LI,

1:25:14 ↗ but we're also not requiring them to put

1:25:18 ↗ in things up to the current standards,

1:25:20 ↗ let alone up to the future standards,

1:25:24 ↗ and they're getting a credit against

1:25:27 ↗ their transportation impact fees. Is

1:25:31 ↗ that

1:25:31 ↗ >> correct? any project that dedicates land

1:25:34 ↗ for a city project. The the the adopted

1:25:38 ↗ code for impact fees allows that credit

1:25:40 ↗ for it. So this the government cannot

1:25:43 ↗ take land without compensation. The idea

1:25:46 ↗ is that and so if the if the if the

1:25:48 ↗ cities need some land then you get it

1:25:51 ↗ through that process but you have to

1:25:52 ↗ offset it by giving credit against the

1:25:56 ↗ impact fees. that's available to any

1:25:58 ↗ development that is in the same boat of

1:26:00 ↗ where they are required to dedicate uh

1:26:02 ↗ land. So, so that's treating everybody

1:26:05 ↗ the same. The only thing in this one is

1:26:08 ↗ the city's getting the money instead of

1:26:09 ↗ the getting the development on the

1:26:11 ↗ ground. So,

1:26:14 ↗ >> okay.

1:26:14 ↗ >> I think we feel like this

1:26:18 ↗ >> Sorry. Do we feel like this amount of

1:26:20 ↗ money is effective for us to be able to

1:26:24 ↗ build this out to current uh standards

1:26:27 ↗ if say for example the Newport Way

1:26:31 ↗ project were not to happen or are we

1:26:34 ↗ putting ourselves potentially in a hole

1:26:36 ↗ to get ourselves up to standards? uh you

1:26:40 ↗ know I I think they went through a whole

1:26:42 ↗ analysis of the their fair share um of

1:26:46 ↗ um the impact because it's not you know

1:26:49 ↗ they're not we're not collecting money

1:26:50 ↗ from them to do the Newport project.

1:26:52 ↗ It's just for their frontage

1:26:53 ↗ improvement. So what is their prora

1:26:55 ↗ share of the overall uh concept? Um so

1:27:00 ↗ yeah I think there was a lot of math

1:27:02 ↗ involved with that um working with our

1:27:05 ↗ public works uh team uh to come up with

1:27:08 ↗ that number and with working with the

1:27:09 ↗ developer on that.

1:27:13 ↗ So, as an aside, give keeping ignoring

1:27:17 ↗ the Newport Way project. If I was to

1:27:21 ↗ give the city $200,000

1:27:24 ↗ to build out a sidewalk to current

1:27:27 ↗ standards along that property, that

1:27:29 ↗ money would be enough to complete that

1:27:31 ↗ project.

1:27:32 ↗ >> In this particular case, that's the

1:27:34 ↗ amount we came up with. It can vary

1:27:36 ↗ based on how much grading you need to

1:27:38 ↗ do, you know, what are the utilities,

1:27:40 ↗ infrastructure, and all that. But in

1:27:42 ↗ this case, I think the $200,000 is what

1:27:45 ↗ everybody agreed to was the fair cost.

1:27:49 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:27:49 ↗ >> Council member Adair.

1:27:50 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:27:51 ↗ >> Uh I think just to further clarify just

1:27:53 ↗ cuz I see this development on a daily

1:27:55 ↗ basis. Am I correct in like they still

1:27:56 ↗ had to keep up the rest of the sidewalk

1:27:58 ↗ around their property and all the

1:28:00 ↗ frontage elsewhere. It's just this

1:28:01 ↗ little sliver corner section that

1:28:03 ↗ they're essentially getting out of of uh

1:28:06 ↗ having to do themselves. Correct.

1:28:08 ↗ >> Yeah. and the sidewalk all along along

1:28:10 ↗ Holly is not up to the the you know

1:28:12 ↗ it'll all get uh redone when the city

1:28:15 ↗ does the project. So that little

1:28:16 ↗ triangular piece will be used for the

1:28:19 ↗ the roundabout. Um and then the the

1:28:22 ↗ northwest Holly would get a new sidewalk

1:28:25 ↗ cuz then it ties in into where the the

1:28:27 ↗ lane will end and all that kind of

1:28:28 ↗ stuff.

1:28:33 ↗ >> Okay. Is there any other discussion?

1:28:37 ↗ If there's no further discussion. Oh,

1:28:40 ↗ wait. First, is there a motion?

1:28:45 ↗ >> I move to authorize the mayor to enter

1:28:47 ↗ into and execute the fee in lie of

1:28:50 ↗ frontage improvement agreement with Blue

1:28:52 ↗ Fern Group in substantially the same

1:28:54 ↗ form as the attached agreement uh

1:28:57 ↗ exhibit A as approved by the city

1:28:59 ↗ attorney.

1:29:01 ↗ >> Second. There's a motion and a second.

1:29:04 ↗ Is there any other discussion?

1:29:07 ↗ Council member Jen.

1:29:09 ↗ >> Um I'm I will be supporting this motion

1:29:12 ↗ tonight and I'm very supportive of this

1:29:14 ↗ general concept. I think you know where

1:29:16 ↗ you see redevelopment happening in some

1:29:18 ↗ other cities. You sometimes see these

1:29:20 ↗ just totally bizarre things where it's

1:29:22 ↗ like there's one new house and then

1:29:24 ↗ there's the one sidewalk in front of the

1:29:26 ↗ one new house that's like 20 ft. Then

1:29:28 ↗ there's and it's like in a very weird

1:29:31 ↗ space and then there's like nothing on

1:29:32 ↗ either side and it just looks really

1:29:34 ↗ silly. And I think you know the if that

1:29:37 ↗ were to happen here, what would happen

1:29:39 ↗ would be they would put in the sidewalk

1:29:41 ↗ and then we would have to redo the whole

1:29:42 ↗ thing in 5 years when four years

1:29:45 ↗ potentially when we get the build grant

1:29:47 ↗ from the US Department of Transportation

1:29:49 ↗ and it would appear to the public that

1:29:51 ↗ we basically just wasted money. Um, so I

1:29:54 ↗ think it makes a lot of sense to, you

1:29:55 ↗ know, just like actually use this as an

1:29:58 ↗ opportunity to coordinate better and,

1:30:01 ↗ you know, get the money that otherwise

1:30:02 ↗ they would have spent $200,000 doing the

1:30:05 ↗ sidewalk. We would have spent $200,000

1:30:07 ↗ redoing the sidewalk of our own money.

1:30:08 ↗ And so I think this approach makes a lot

1:30:10 ↗ of sense. And I do think this is

1:30:11 ↗ something we should be looking at

1:30:13 ↗ elsewhere in the city as well as kind of

1:30:15 ↗ a standardized practice. you know, if

1:30:17 ↗ there's a section where it's like, oh

1:30:19 ↗ yes, you know, you and it's it's kind of

1:30:22 ↗ like does it make sense for each

1:30:24 ↗ individual project to like have their

1:30:26 ↗ own little sidewalk that is related to,

1:30:29 ↗ you know, what was in the code at any

1:30:30 ↗ given time and then it's just like a

1:30:31 ↗ weird patchwork looking thing. It like

1:30:33 ↗ it just looks weird to your average

1:30:35 ↗ person. You see this in Seattle.

1:30:38 ↗ >> Um, and you know, it just it's not good.

1:30:41 ↗ And so I think using this approach where

1:30:43 ↗ we can kind of you know collect the

1:30:44 ↗ money which for all intents and purposes

1:30:46 ↗ seems to be a fair reasonable number

1:30:48 ↗ that was come that um our engineers

1:30:51 ↗ helped come up with to be able to

1:30:52 ↗ actually you know do a bigger and better

1:30:54 ↗ project later I think makes a lot of

1:30:55 ↗ sense and I think we should consider you

1:30:57 ↗ know whether or not this is something we

1:30:59 ↗ want to do in our code in general so

1:31:00 ↗ that we can apply a similar standard

1:31:02 ↗ elsewhere.

1:31:04 ↗ >> You did get a smile from John Mortonson

1:31:06 ↗ for your faith in his grand writing

1:31:08 ↗ abilities. Uh, Council Member Nichols,

1:31:12 ↗ >> thank you. Um, my only concern with

1:31:15 ↗ this, um,

1:31:17 ↗ >> specific item and the concept overall is

1:31:20 ↗ in the context of the overall Newport

1:31:23 ↗ project. Um, as has been accurately

1:31:26 ↗ pointed out, this project has been going

1:31:27 ↗ on for a very, very long time. Um, and I

1:31:29 ↗ think there's a pretty good chance we're

1:31:31 ↗ not going to be building these features

1:31:34 ↗ out within the next 5 years. Um,

1:31:38 ↗ I'm still aligned with the concept of

1:31:39 ↗ not having to have 20 feet of sidewalk

1:31:42 ↗ that's awesome but basically unusable

1:31:45 ↗ and not connected to anything. That

1:31:46 ↗ doesn't make sense. So, I'm not I'm not

1:31:48 ↗ uh I I will be in favor of this and I'm

1:31:51 ↗ uh generally supportive of that concept.

1:31:52 ↗ The only thing that I would like to

1:31:54 ↗ request and I had I had some

1:31:56 ↗ conversations with staff but I don't I

1:31:58 ↗ feel I've still got some gaps of my own

1:31:59 ↗ knowledge here. But um it seems like it

1:32:02 ↗ would be nice if we in in future

1:32:04 ↗ situations where we want to do this. So

1:32:05 ↗ if we can find a way to negotiate a bit

1:32:07 ↗ more flexibility in what we can do with

1:32:09 ↗ this these monies. Um

1:32:12 ↗ I don't know what the limits of state

1:32:13 ↗ law are there. I'm not going to I don't

1:32:15 ↗ want to come up with anything right now.

1:32:17 ↗ That would just be a general request

1:32:18 ↗ that um if we're in a situation if we're

1:32:20 ↗ in a future fee and lose situation, it

1:32:22 ↗ would be nice to not to just have to

1:32:23 ↗ have this money sitting in an account

1:32:25 ↗ unused for five plus years um and

1:32:28 ↗ eventually have to pay interest back on

1:32:30 ↗ it if somebody does have to build this.

1:32:32 ↗ Um it's just going to be more expensive.

1:32:34 ↗ Um so I'd like to request we put some

1:32:36 ↗ effort into figuring out how we might be

1:32:37 ↗ able to be more flexible in the future.

1:32:39 ↗ That's all. But otherwise, I'm

1:32:40 ↗ supportive.

1:32:41 ↗ >> Thank you. I think we are looking at

1:32:43 ↗ those options right now as we speak. Are

1:32:45 ↗ we not?

1:32:46 ↗ >> Sure. Yeah, some of it is state law. Uh,

1:32:48 ↗ and I shared that link with it. It it

1:32:50 ↗ has that 5-year limit on it and it also

1:32:53 ↗ has this whole idea that it's set aside

1:32:56 ↗ for a particular project. Um, but we'll

1:32:59 ↗ certainly look into, you know, if we

1:33:01 ↗ codify something in our in our code,

1:33:04 ↗ like we're talking about making it

1:33:05 ↗ administrative or anything like that,

1:33:08 ↗ uh, through our street uh, standards

1:33:10 ↗ update has a section in there that I

1:33:12 ↗ also shared with you all. Uh we'll

1:33:14 ↗ research that for sure to see if if how

1:33:17 ↗ we can build in more flexibility

1:33:19 ↗ for future projects.

1:33:21 ↗ >> Okay. There is no further discussion.

1:33:24 ↗ I'm not seeing any. The motion for the

1:33:26 ↗ council is to authorize the mayor to

1:33:28 ↗ enter into and execute the fee in le of

1:33:29 ↗ frontage improvement agreement with blue

1:33:31 ↗ fern group in substantially the same

1:33:33 ↗ form as the attached agreement exhibit A

1:33:34 ↗ is approved by our city attorney. All

1:33:37 ↗ those in favor please say I. I.

1:33:40 ↗ >> All those opposed nay.

1:33:43 ↗ And that passes unanimously. For the

1:33:46 ↗ record, I did make my unanimous vote

1:33:48 ↗ count make it all the way to March 2nd,

1:33:51 ↗ almost two months into my term. Uh, it's

1:33:54 ↗ okay.

1:33:56 ↗ I'm still going to sleep all tonight.

1:33:58 ↗ It's okay. Uh, committee reports,

1:33:59 ↗ regional reports. We're going to start

1:34:01 ↗ with council member Adair. I do not have

1:34:04 ↗ any, uh, committee or regional reports.

1:34:07 ↗ We'll go to council member Nichols.

1:34:08 ↗ >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, one brief

1:34:11 ↗ council committee report. the king

1:34:12 ↗ conservation district advisory board. Um

1:34:15 ↗ we discussed the uh king conservation

1:34:17 ↗ district election process further. Um

1:34:19 ↗ this is currently conducted utilizing an

1:34:21 ↗ online voting process separate from the

1:34:23 ↗ standard Washington mail and balloting

1:34:24 ↗ mechanisms. Uh while no actions were

1:34:26 ↗ taken or specific advisory statements

1:34:28 ↗ made uh both the low voter turnouts of

1:34:30 ↗ approximately 1% associated with this

1:34:33 ↗ method uh how but the significant

1:34:36 ↗ barriers both legal and financial to

1:34:37 ↗ switching methods were discussed by the

1:34:39 ↗ advisory board at length.

1:34:41 ↗ Excellent. Far from Jang.

1:34:44 ↗ >> Um, no major update for me other than I

1:34:46 ↗ would like to flag that the Cross Lake

1:34:49 ↗ Connection light rail, um, there is

1:34:51 ↗ going to be a big event on Saturday,

1:34:54 ↗ March 28th. So, it'll be very exciting.

1:34:57 ↗ Um, and potentially if there's going to

1:34:59 ↗ be a quorum of council members

1:35:00 ↗ attending, we may consider noticing this

1:35:02 ↗ as a public meeting. I will plan to be

1:35:04 ↗ there along with my fellow members of

1:35:05 ↗ the East Side Transportation Partnership

1:35:07 ↗ as well as any other uh council members

1:35:10 ↗ who are excited about light rail and

1:35:11 ↗ want to see it expanded in our region.

1:35:14 ↗ So

1:35:14 ↗ >> nice council member Joe.

1:35:18 ↗ >> Thank you Mr. Mayor. Eltech grants will

1:35:19 ↗ be coming back to the council on March

1:35:21 ↗ 16th for your review and potential

1:35:23 ↗ adoption. March 10th, the mobility and

1:35:26 ↗ infrastructure committee will be meeting

1:35:27 ↗ for the first time this year. Amendments

1:35:30 ↗ to the street standards utility

1:35:31 ↗ facilities and street standards

1:35:33 ↗ landscaping update will be on the

1:35:34 ↗ agenda. Cascade Water Alliance will be

1:35:37 ↗ holding a oversight meeting. Um

1:35:42 ↗ they're trying to figure out how they

1:35:44 ↗ want to uh

1:35:47 ↗ look over and and monitor the spending

1:35:49 ↗ of billions of dollars on a pipeline

1:35:51 ↗ that'll be coming from Tacoma to connect

1:35:53 ↗ to our system up here in Belleview. and

1:35:57 ↗ staff wants feedback on what kind of

1:35:59 ↗ oversight they want, what kind of

1:36:00 ↗ information the uh Cascade Board Allian

1:36:04 ↗ Cascade Water Alliance Board will want

1:36:06 ↗ to make sure that they're giving us the

1:36:08 ↗ information that we need for decision

1:36:10 ↗ making. That's March 6th. Thank you.

1:36:12 ↗ That concludes my report.

1:36:13 ↗ >> We're going to first go to Council

1:36:15 ↗ Member Walsh virtually.

1:36:17 ↗ >> Well, thank you. The services, safety

1:36:20 ↗ and parks um met last week and I

1:36:23 ↗ previously reported out about AB 9160

1:36:27 ↗ and our unanimous support of adopting

1:36:29 ↗ the hazard mitigation plan annex. Our

1:36:32 ↗ next meeting in March has been cancelled

1:36:34 ↗ due to a lack of items and to allow the

1:36:37 ↗ PTE meeting to happen on that date. Um

1:36:41 ↗ with East Side Fire and Rescue, this is

1:36:43 ↗ an important one. Um we are beginning to

1:36:46 ↗ move forward with one of the major work

1:36:48 ↗ items for the year which is analyzing

1:36:50 ↗ alternative long-term funding and

1:36:52 ↗ governance models. As many of you know

1:36:55 ↗ who were on council uh two years ago, uh

1:36:59 ↗ we had a very difficult budget season in

1:37:02 ↗ which um costs were going up quite

1:37:05 ↗ dramatically for our fire um and

1:37:09 ↗ emergency services and the cities that

1:37:13 ↗ are involved in East Side Fire and

1:37:15 ↗ Rescue Isaac, Mammish, and Northbend all

1:37:18 ↗ said, "Whoa, we can't um deal with that

1:37:21 ↗ additional cost to our budget.

1:37:24 ↗ So that has initiated this conversation

1:37:26 ↗ about well what other ways can we fund

1:37:30 ↗ our fire um fire and rescue um needs.

1:37:36 ↗ And so during our meeting next week,

1:37:38 ↗ we'll get an initial overview of three

1:37:40 ↗ possible funding options. The first one

1:37:44 ↗ would require all three of the cities to

1:37:46 ↗ go out for public safety levies to

1:37:49 ↗ voters and all of the fire districts to

1:37:52 ↗ pursue levy lid lifts because they're

1:37:54 ↗ also experiencing uh revenue shortfalls.

1:37:59 ↗ The second big option is yes, we have

1:38:02 ↗ some fire districts here, but if the

1:38:05 ↗ cities were to merge into any of the

1:38:08 ↗ fire districts, um much like um we've

1:38:13 ↗ seen in other areas of the state, we

1:38:16 ↗ could then take that cost off of our

1:38:19 ↗ city's budget and it would be a cost

1:38:22 ↗ going directly to the property tax

1:38:25 ↗ owners along with a fire benefit charge.

1:38:28 ↗ charge to manage the addition add

1:38:31 ↗ additional risk of larger buildings and

1:38:34 ↗ more complex fire needs.

1:38:36 ↗ And option three um is create a regional

1:38:40 ↗ fire authority. And so a regional fire

1:38:42 ↗ authority is similar to the idea of a

1:38:46 ↗ fire district in that we would again

1:38:49 ↗ have the cost go directly to the

1:38:51 ↗ property tax um properties for property

1:38:55 ↗ taxes and utilize a fire benefit charge

1:38:58 ↗ but there are different governance

1:39:00 ↗ models and reasons for adopting that

1:39:02 ↗ rather than merching into a single fire

1:39:04 ↗ district. So I'm giving you the just

1:39:07 ↗ this initial basic overview to let you

1:39:10 ↗ know the process is starting. We are

1:39:12 ↗ going to continue these conversations

1:39:15 ↗ over the next few months. Happy to meet

1:39:17 ↗ with anyone.

1:39:19 ↗ The projection at this point is if the

1:39:23 ↗ East Side Fire and Rescue Board believes

1:39:26 ↗ that a regional fire authority is the

1:39:29 ↗ right um process, the right path to go

1:39:32 ↗ down, then the next step would be coming

1:39:34 ↗ back to each of the cities and fire

1:39:37 ↗ districts, including potentially the

1:39:40 ↗ contract cities of Woodenville and

1:39:45 ↗ Mercer Island and Fall City and coming

1:39:49 ↗ back to council and requesting a letter

1:39:51 ↗ of intent to create a um

1:39:57 ↗ trying to remember a planning committee

1:39:59 ↗ that would then take on the work to

1:40:01 ↗ establish what all of the parameters

1:40:03 ↗ would be. So that is potentially

1:40:07 ↗ looking at a June around June time

1:40:11 ↗ frame. And so I will keep you guys

1:40:14 ↗ updated, but want to let you know this

1:40:16 ↗ is a big impact potentially to our city

1:40:20 ↗ budget and to our taxpayers. Um, and we

1:40:23 ↗ are going to be asked to evaluate

1:40:25 ↗ whether or not we want to establish a

1:40:27 ↗ planning committee. So I'll keep you

1:40:29 ↗ updated and that concludes my report.

1:40:31 ↗ Thank you very much, Deputy President

1:40:33 ↗ Marts.

1:40:35 ↗ >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, Sound Cities

1:40:37 ↗ Association board directors had its 2026

1:40:40 ↗ retreat on Tuesday, February 24th. Uh,

1:40:43 ↗ amongst other things, we did a SWAT

1:40:45 ↗ analysis. We talked policy priorities

1:40:48 ↗ and talked operational priorities. And I

1:40:50 ↗ will present on that when the uh,

1:40:52 ↗ facilitator presents their report back

1:40:55 ↗ to the board. SCA networking dinner will

1:40:58 ↗ be held this Wednesday, March 4th at

1:40:59 ↗ 5:30 PM at the Mercer Island Community

1:41:02 ↗ Event Center. Um, this is uh close by,

1:41:06 ↗ so we have all all the reason in the

1:41:07 ↗ world to have a strong turnout uh from

1:41:10 ↗ our city for that dinner. Uh, lots of

1:41:12 ↗ interesting regional leaders uh will be

1:41:14 ↗ there. And then the SCA pick meeting

1:41:17 ↗ will be Wednesday, March 11th at 7 p.m.

1:41:19 ↗ The agenda is yet to be determined. This

1:41:22 ↗ concludes my report.

1:41:24 ↗ Council President D. Michelle.

1:41:26 ↗ >> Thank you, Mayor Mald. I have no report

1:41:28 ↗ tonight.

1:41:30 ↗ >> Okay. For the mayor's report, the

1:41:32 ↗ Cascade Water Alliance Board did meet on

1:41:34 ↗ Wednesday, February 25th. And as council

1:41:37 ↗ member Joe mentioned, it was the

1:41:39 ↗ discussion at the upcoming retreat on

1:41:41 ↗ March 6th of how much delegated

1:41:43 ↗ authority to give staff as we try to

1:41:45 ↗ build this $1.2 billion pipeline to

1:41:47 ↗ connect Koma Water to Cascade Water. And

1:41:51 ↗ we are also have an interim executive

1:41:53 ↗ director of Casc Water Alliance right

1:41:55 ↗ now. And so the board also is looking

1:41:58 ↗ at, you know, options of, you know,

1:42:01 ↗ maybe doing a search, but the interim

1:42:03 ↗ director will be part of those candidate

1:42:05 ↗ pools to determine who is going to be

1:42:06 ↗ the leader of Cascade Water going

1:42:08 ↗ forward. And and so those decisions will

1:42:10 ↗ be made in the months ahead. In terms of

1:42:13 ↗ local community events, sad to announce

1:42:16 ↗ that the annual fundraiser for the

1:42:18 ↗ Kuanas Club of Isiqua is coming up this

1:42:22 ↗ Friday, March 13th. And uh enjoy craft

1:42:25 ↗ brews, wine dinner, raffles, and in

1:42:26 ↗ great company at the beats, barrels, and

1:42:29 ↗ brews. Abigraphs. There you go. Little

1:42:32 ↗ abba. Abaqua. What more could you want?

1:42:34 ↗ It will be at the bickering barn. So,

1:42:36 ↗ this will be on Friday, March 13th at

1:42:39 ↗ 6:30 p.m. I also do want to share a

1:42:43 ↗ comment. Obviously, we did a a council

1:42:46 ↗ or community meeting in January on a lot

1:42:50 ↗ of the immigration enforcement issues in

1:42:52 ↗ our community. And I do feel it's

1:42:54 ↗ important to kind of share an update of

1:42:56 ↗ where we are on the resources in the

1:42:59 ↗ city. And I will, as you know, beginning

1:43:02 ↗ last past fall, the administration

1:43:04 ↗ became aware of federal immigration

1:43:05 ↗ enforcement activity occurring in

1:43:06 ↗ Isiqua. Understandably, this activity

1:43:08 ↗ and the tone and manner of the arrest

1:43:10 ↗ and subsequent activity led to a great

1:43:13 ↗ concern among members of our community

1:43:14 ↗ and great fear for many others. In

1:43:16 ↗ January, we hosted a town hall to

1:43:17 ↗ provide information, answer questions,

1:43:20 ↗ and clarify the city's role. Over the

1:43:22 ↗ course of the intervening months, the

1:43:23 ↗ Isqua Police Department has responded to

1:43:25 ↗ any calls from residents reporting

1:43:27 ↗ potential ICE activity. When contacted,

1:43:29 ↗ officers have confirmed other

1:43:32 ↗ individuals involved were federal

1:43:33 ↗ immigration agents and when appropriate,

1:43:36 ↗ follow up to verify whether a person was

1:43:38 ↗ in federal custody. Custody cannot be

1:43:40 ↗ confirmed. The police department took

1:43:41 ↗ reports and open cases as necessary.

1:43:44 ↗ These actions reflect our ongoing

1:43:45 ↗ commitment to public safety,

1:43:47 ↗ transparency, and ensuring accurate

1:43:50 ↗ information. Following the January

1:43:52 ↗ meeting, the city created the

1:43:53 ↗ immigration resources web page to

1:43:55 ↗ centralize know your rights materials

1:43:57 ↗ and connect residents to trusted legal

1:43:59 ↗ and community-based organizations. We

1:44:02 ↗ are now adding additional language to

1:44:03 ↗ the top of that web page to clarify

1:44:06 ↗ explain what the city will do when

1:44:08 ↗ notified of federal immigration

1:44:09 ↗ enforcement activity. Specifically, the

1:44:12 ↗ update outlines that the Esqua Police

1:44:13 ↗ Department will attempt to verify

1:44:15 ↗ whether an individual is in federal

1:44:16 ↗ custody, take a report of custody cannot

1:44:19 ↗ be confirmed, and address public safety

1:44:21 ↗ concerns such as securing unattended

1:44:24 ↗ homes or vehicles. It also clarifies

1:44:26 ↗ that if minors are left supervision, our

1:44:28 ↗ human services team will work to connect

1:44:30 ↗ them with child protective services or

1:44:32 ↗ known family members. These additions do

1:44:35 ↗ not create new policy. They summarize

1:44:37 ↗ our existing public safety practices and

1:44:39 ↗ reinforce that our role is to protect

1:44:41 ↗ people and property, not to enforce

1:44:43 ↗ federal immigration law. Unlike some

1:44:46 ↗ larger jurisdictions that have adopted

1:44:47 ↗ new ordinances or executive actions

1:44:49 ↗ regulating federal use of public

1:44:50 ↗ property, our approach remains narrowly

1:44:53 ↗ focused on community stability and care.

1:44:55 ↗ This keeps us aligned with state law,

1:44:57 ↗ minimizes legal risk, and ensures

1:44:59 ↗ clarity for our residents. The intended

1:45:01 ↗ impact is straightforward. provide

1:45:03 ↗ transparency, reduce confusion during

1:45:06 ↗ stressful situations, and reinforce

1:45:08 ↗ public trust by clearly stating what the

1:45:10 ↗ city will and will not do. And as we

1:45:14 ↗ mentioned, those updates and resources

1:45:17 ↗ are currently available on the city's

1:45:19 ↗ website. And we are now

1:45:23 ↗ at the good of the order. Anyone have

1:45:25 ↗ any go to the order?

1:45:31 ↗ >> Thank you, Mayor Mullet. Uh I would like

1:45:33 ↗ to read a statement to the council.

1:45:36 ↗ Um it is with deep sorrow that I tender

1:45:39 ↗ my resignation from the isquest city

1:45:41 ↗ council effective immediately. Working

1:45:44 ↗ with the council and representing my

1:45:46 ↗ city has been an amazing honor and a

1:45:48 ↗ true joy.

1:45:50 ↗ Um however given my current uh health

1:45:53 ↗ challenges I do not feel I can

1:45:55 ↗ adequately fulfill my duties as a

1:45:57 ↗ council member or as president of the

1:46:00 ↗ council. I am well aware and this was a

1:46:02 ↗ deep part of my consideration that this

1:46:05 ↗ presents the council with its third

1:46:08 ↗ appointment process in just a little

1:46:11 ↗ over a year. But after thinking about

1:46:14 ↗ it, I thought about how many

1:46:16 ↗ well-qualified candidates we have seen

1:46:18 ↗ come before us. And I trust everyone on

1:46:22 ↗ this council to make a very wise choice

1:46:24 ↗ regarding my replacement.

1:46:27 ↗ So, um,

1:46:30 ↗ uh,

1:46:32 ↗ I want to give special thanks to city

1:46:34 ↗ administrator Wally Bob Kowitz, Deputy

1:46:36 ↗ Deputy Council President Marts, and

1:46:38 ↗ Mayor Mullet for their support and

1:46:40 ↗ understanding during this difficult time

1:46:42 ↗ for myself and my family. And thank you

1:46:45 ↗ all for your service,

1:46:47 ↗ your high aspirations which inspire me

1:46:50 ↗ always and and uh the fellowship that

1:46:53 ↗ we've developed over the past six years

1:46:56 ↗ and two months. I'm always proud to say

1:46:59 ↗ I'm an Isiqua City Council member

1:47:01 ↗ because of you. And I would be remiss if

1:47:04 ↗ I didn't publicly uh thank and uh

1:47:07 ↗ mention and thank the very good folks at

1:47:10 ↗ Eastside Fire and Rescue and Swedish

1:47:12 ↗ Isiqua for their professional and caring

1:47:14 ↗ service during my health emergency. So

1:47:18 ↗ I'm so very sorry, but I really do not

1:47:21 ↗ feel it's best for me to go on. So I am

1:47:24 ↗ I am resigning as of tonight. Thank you.

1:47:28 ↗ Thank you. Well, council president

1:47:30 ↗ Michelle, I I want to say the community

1:47:33 ↗ of Isiqua owes you a great deal of

1:47:35 ↗ thanks. You were my wife first started

1:47:38 ↗ teaching the school district. You were

1:47:39 ↗ on the school board. Uh you've served

1:47:41 ↗ the district through your volunteer

1:47:43 ↗ efforts with Kowanas and most recently

1:47:45 ↗ with your time on the city council. And

1:47:48 ↗ I think in all those situations, school

1:47:50 ↗ board and city council, there's a lot of

1:47:52 ↗ very tough emotional decisions to be

1:47:55 ↗ made. And if you have a temper, I don't

1:47:57 ↗ know where it is cuz I've never seen it.

1:47:59 ↗ Uh,

1:48:01 ↗ I mean, you keep a very cool head

1:48:04 ↗ through very difficult situations. And I

1:48:07 ↗ think what you bring to this community

1:48:09 ↗ in terms of, I mean, I go to events from

1:48:13 ↗ the, you know, concerts on the green

1:48:15 ↗ summer. No matter where I go, you are

1:48:17 ↗ there

1:48:18 ↗ >> basically doing everything you can to

1:48:20 ↗ make Isqua the best possible community

1:48:22 ↗ to live in. And I think we're very

1:48:24 ↗ blessed to have had your level of public

1:48:26 ↗ service to this community over the years

1:48:29 ↗ and and you deserve a round of applause

1:48:31 ↗ for your public service.

1:48:32 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:48:54 ↗ Uh, you can ask my son about my temper.

1:48:59 ↗ Uh, and I've had great support from my

1:49:02 ↗ son and my daughter-in-law and also want

1:49:04 ↗ to express my appreciation. So, thank

1:49:06 ↗ you.

1:49:08 ↗ >> Are there any other comments?

1:49:12 ↗ Okay, let's go to Council Member Walsh

1:49:14 ↗ and then Deputy President Marts.

1:49:18 ↗ I believe you called me. I couldn't

1:49:20 ↗ quite hear just my shirt. Okay, great.

1:49:25 ↗ Um, I just really want to recognize uh

1:49:29 ↗ Council Member D. Michelle and her

1:49:31 ↗ service.

1:49:33 ↗ Um, I remember in 2019 when I was a very

1:49:37 ↗ new council member and I was going

1:49:39 ↗ around to meet with all of the

1:49:40 ↗ nonprofits and um, at one point I went

1:49:44 ↗ around to meet um, with Kaye Jake at the

1:49:50 ↗ garage and council member or at the time

1:49:54 ↗ Barb D. Michelle was there um, as one of

1:49:56 ↗ the founding members and

1:50:00 ↗ you know I had seen Barb around. I had

1:50:02 ↗ known she had done a lot of things, but

1:50:03 ↗ it really struck me her passion um for

1:50:07 ↗ the human services um area of the city.

1:50:11 ↗ And at that point,

1:50:13 ↗ you know, I mentioned, hey, we're going

1:50:16 ↗ to have an open seat on council at the

1:50:18 ↗ end of the year. Would you consider

1:50:20 ↗ applying? I'm really looking for

1:50:22 ↗ somebody who can fill that need. And

1:50:24 ↗ after Mariah Batist left um the council,

1:50:28 ↗ we really had a hole as far as someone

1:50:32 ↗ who had a big passion area of human

1:50:35 ↗ services and nonprofits. And so I was

1:50:39 ↗ just absolutely grateful that Barb took

1:50:42 ↗ that request seriously and decided to

1:50:44 ↗ run. Um,

1:50:47 ↗ since then I've really really

1:50:49 ↗ appreciated and been very grateful to

1:50:51 ↗ serve with Barb on council as my

1:50:54 ↗ colleague and especially as my deputy

1:50:56 ↗ council president. Um, during that time

1:50:59 ↗ she was one that kept me organized. Um,

1:51:02 ↗ listened to me as I was talking about

1:51:05 ↗ all of the uh, needs of council

1:51:08 ↗ president. Um, she also really helped me

1:51:11 ↗ follow through. I think we did a

1:51:13 ↗ wonderful job of creating some uh

1:51:17 ↗ council retreats and I credit Barb for a

1:51:20 ↗ lot of that. Um, and so at this point I

1:51:25 ↗ will absolutely miss your contribution

1:51:27 ↗ to council, but I know between

1:51:32 ↗ Gowanas and the arts commission and

1:51:34 ↗ Isqua school board and the garage and

1:51:38 ↗ um, influence the choice and all of the

1:51:40 ↗ areas that you've touched in the city

1:51:41 ↗ that this will not be the last we've

1:51:44 ↗ seen of your contribution to the city at

1:51:46 ↗ large. And so I look forward to seeing

1:51:48 ↗ what you are able to do next.

1:51:50 ↗ >> Thanks. Deputy President Martins. Thank

1:51:54 ↗ >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I I agree with

1:51:57 ↗ Council President D. Michelle that there

1:51:59 ↗ have been um some some well-qualified

1:52:03 ↗ candidates uh in the last year, but

1:52:06 ↗ there's nobody like Barbara D. Michelle.

1:52:08 ↗ Um her commitment in this community over

1:52:11 ↗ the decades, particularly to young

1:52:13 ↗ people, is just unmatched. Um my first

1:52:18 ↗ uh first time I was lucky enough to work

1:52:21 ↗ with her was in 2011 where we were

1:52:23 ↗ identifying the need for um kids who

1:52:26 ↗ kind of fell through the cracks and uh

1:52:29 ↗ that led to the initial conversations

1:52:31 ↗ that that got going for the garage and

1:52:34 ↗ uh looking at some of the other regional

1:52:37 ↗ uh players in this space and her

1:52:39 ↗ understanding of these problems and her

1:52:41 ↗ ability to bring people in the room

1:52:43 ↗ together to solve problems was just

1:52:45 ↗ unmatched.

1:52:46 ↗ So, I had been really looking forward to

1:52:48 ↗ the next four years as her deputy

1:52:51 ↗ council president and learning from her

1:52:53 ↗ and becoming a better leader. And I know

1:52:56 ↗ you're not going away. I know this is

1:52:57 ↗ not goodbye. Um, but uh I I uh I will

1:53:02 ↗ miss that time, but I look forward to

1:53:04 ↗ your next endeavor. I know, pretty sure

1:53:06 ↗ you're already plotting uh the next

1:53:08 ↗ adventure and so I can't wait to see it

1:53:11 ↗ and uh I wish you great luck with that

1:53:12 ↗ and of course complete recovery um with

1:53:15 ↗ your ongoing health stuff. So, thank you

1:53:16 ↗ so much for all that you have done and

1:53:18 ↗ continue to do in this community. Thank

1:53:20 ↗ you so much,

1:53:22 ↗ >> Council Member Joe.

1:53:24 ↗ >> Thank you. Um

1:53:27 ↗ when I think about Barb, I think about

1:53:29 ↗ resiliency.

1:53:31 ↗ Um, many of you weren't here when she

1:53:35 ↗ ran for state office at least twice.

1:53:37 ↗ >> Good.

1:53:38 ↗ >> And lost. And it was 5446 both times.

1:53:42 ↗ And the margin didn't move. But that did

1:53:45 ↗ not deter her from coming back and

1:53:48 ↗ looking for ways to serve the public uh

1:53:51 ↗ through influence of choice, her work on

1:53:53 ↗ the garage, and then finally coming back

1:53:56 ↗ to council. Um, for those of you that

1:53:59 ↗ might be thinking of applying for the

1:54:02 ↗ position and you didn't get chosen last

1:54:04 ↗ time, just remember that Barb D.

1:54:07 ↗ Michelle got rejected twice and then

1:54:09 ↗ came back to be one of our most

1:54:11 ↗ influential and loved council members.

1:54:14 ↗ I'm going to miss you, Barb. The the

1:54:16 ↗ laughs that we had when we were

1:54:18 ↗ discussing big problems, the approach

1:54:20 ↗ that you had to always find solutions

1:54:22 ↗ and to find a way to Yes.

1:54:24 ↗ Um, I know this is not the last I'll see

1:54:27 ↗ of you. I'm still going to pester you

1:54:30 ↗ and ask for your advice and I hope that

1:54:32 ↗ you'll still answer my phone calls.

1:54:34 ↗ >> Absolutely.

1:54:34 ↗ >> You'll be missed. Thank you for your

1:54:36 ↗ service.

1:54:36 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:54:38 ↗ >> Let's go to Council Member Nichols and

1:54:40 ↗ then Council Member Jang. Oh, you were

1:54:42 ↗ first. Council member Nichols. I was

1:54:44 ↗ watching this time.

1:54:46 ↗ Um,

1:54:52 ↗ thank you. just first of all, thank you

1:54:54 ↗ um for all of your many years, decades

1:54:58 ↗ of service and dedication to our our

1:55:00 ↗ city, our community um in in so many

1:55:03 ↗ facets. Um

1:55:06 ↗ I as I've gotten to kind of observe the

1:55:09 ↗ council over the years um and now a part

1:55:12 ↗ of it, I've I've always thought of you

1:55:13 ↗ as kind of the the heart of it in many

1:55:15 ↗ ways. um you the from the the human

1:55:19 ↗ services perspective in particular um

1:55:22 ↗ that's a lot of what the heart of what

1:55:24 ↗ local government can do is and you have

1:55:27 ↗ you have been a exemplar of that and a

1:55:30 ↗ teacher um so

1:55:34 ↗ thank you for both of those thank you

1:55:35 ↗ for taking the time to to educate those

1:55:37 ↗ of us who knew who still know very very

1:55:40 ↗ little about this but are always willing

1:55:41 ↗ to learn and for taking the time to to

1:55:44 ↗ help us. Um, I will um

1:55:47 ↗ I've asked you many questions, so many

1:55:49 ↗ questions and you've been so helpful and

1:55:51 ↗ uh even setting up tours of uh

1:55:54 ↗ facilities for myself and others um just

1:55:56 ↗ so that we can learn more. Um

1:56:03 ↗ I took a moment to just briefly look at

1:56:05 ↗ your web page um when I was looking at a

1:56:08 ↗ couple things that I could think of to

1:56:10 ↗ comment on. Um, and I I wanted to point

1:56:12 ↗ out just to everybody else, I think it's

1:56:13 ↗ worth just looking at um, council

1:56:16 ↗ president's uh, last campaign web page.

1:56:18 ↗ Uh, she ran unosed, but uh, she has

1:56:22 ↗ nevertheless campaigned beautifully. Um,

1:56:24 ↗ was out there with the community all the

1:56:26 ↗ time. and just looking through the

1:56:28 ↗ accomplishments and the the the the

1:56:32 ↗ depth and the breadth of service across

1:56:34 ↗ our community. I I there are there are

1:56:36 ↗ few people that can that will ever be

1:56:39 ↗ able to do that in their professional

1:56:40 ↗ careers and their their service careers

1:56:42 ↗ and um just thank you so much. Thank you

1:56:44 ↗ for all of your years of service and uh

1:56:47 ↗ please uh please stay in touch and uh uh

1:56:50 ↗ allow us to keep learning. So thank you.

1:56:54 ↗ I will say, council president, there is

1:56:56 ↗ a little irony in the process you

1:56:58 ↗ developed to pick new council members

1:57:00 ↗ through appointment that you did such a

1:57:02 ↗ good job that it'll now be used to

1:57:06 ↗ >> fill your own fill your own seat.

1:57:08 ↗ Council member Jay,

1:57:10 ↗ >> yeah, I want to echo what everyone's

1:57:12 ↗ saying that council member D. Michelle

1:57:14 ↗ leaves really big shoes to fill. I mean,

1:57:18 ↗ you know, the depth and breadth of

1:57:19 ↗ experience. You know, we've touched on

1:57:21 ↗ Isiqua School Board, her experience and

1:57:23 ↗ passion for human services, but also one

1:57:25 ↗ thing that hasn't been mentioned is her

1:57:27 ↗ 18 years of service uh working for King

1:57:29 ↗ County Metro and her passion for

1:57:30 ↗ transit. She's been chair of East Side

1:57:33 ↗ Transportation Partnership. She's our

1:57:35 ↗ representative on the regional transit

1:57:36 ↗ committee. So, now we got to find

1:57:38 ↗ someone else. And I think, you know,

1:57:41 ↗ just the depth and breadth of experience

1:57:43 ↗ she has not only in Isqua, but also

1:57:45 ↗ throughout our region. Um, a few months

1:57:47 ↗ back, uh, Council Member D. Michelle had

1:57:50 ↗ the chance and I had the chance to spend

1:57:51 ↗ a whole day together. We drove up to um

1:57:54 ↗ visit the acres of diamonds transitional

1:57:56 ↗ housing up in Duval and then we headed

1:57:58 ↗ to the together center where she was

1:57:59 ↗ having a meeting with other council

1:58:00 ↗ members in the area to it was like the

1:58:03 ↗ very beginnings of the discussions for

1:58:04 ↗ the east side human services partnership

1:58:06 ↗ which has now officially launched and so

1:58:08 ↗ that's going to be you know a

1:58:09 ↗ partnership that bears fruit for the

1:58:11 ↗ years and decades to come and you know

1:58:13 ↗ she had a chance uh a hand in really

1:58:15 ↗ shaping that and one thing that really I

1:58:19 ↗ one thing that someone said that I

1:58:20 ↗ remember is um council member Melissa

1:58:22 ↗ Stewart from Redmond said, "Barb's a

1:58:24 ↗ legend."

1:58:26 ↗ And I really think, you know, you

1:58:29 ↗ through your decades of service to Isqua

1:58:30 ↗ and for a broader region, human

1:58:32 ↗ services, transit, school district, that

1:58:35 ↗ really is legendary and something that

1:58:37 ↗ we should all aspire to. I hope that,

1:58:39 ↗ you know, when I'm your age, I'm still

1:58:41 ↗ um getting into all of the different,

1:58:44 ↗ you know, things in the city. and I'm

1:58:45 ↗ sure that you'll continue, you know,

1:58:47 ↗ making an impact in nonprofit civic

1:58:49 ↗ spaces, um, even if it looks a little

1:58:52 ↗ bit different than being on city

1:58:53 ↗ council. Um, so I just, you know, I'm so

1:58:57 ↗ grateful for the opportunity to have

1:58:58 ↗ worked with you for this past year and

1:59:00 ↗ hope to uh continue working with you in

1:59:03 ↗ on whatever you're up to next. And I

1:59:06 ↗ wish you the best um in, you know,

1:59:08 ↗ recovery from your ongoing health

1:59:10 ↗ issues. And I'm sure that this will uh

1:59:13 ↗ see more of you moving forward. Thank

1:59:14 ↗ you. Thank you so much.

1:59:16 ↗ >> Right

1:59:18 ↗ over here.

1:59:19 ↗ >> Uh thank you. I obviously uh keep this

1:59:22 ↗ short. I cannot add on all the amazing

1:59:24 ↗ things said and obviously our time

1:59:25 ↗ together has been very short. I just

1:59:28 ↗ wanted to put in um that the bit that I

1:59:32 ↗ can add is that in my process of

1:59:34 ↗ applying for council, the coffee we had

1:59:37 ↗ together as I was getting started was a

1:59:39 ↗ key moment for me. It was, you know, up

1:59:42 ↗ until that point I was coming very

1:59:43 ↗ nervous, figuring out my way, figuring a

1:59:44 ↗ lot and our conversation was so joyful,

1:59:47 ↗ so interesting, so fascinating your

1:59:49 ↗ history, talking about the city and our

1:59:51 ↗ mutual love for the city. And it was a

1:59:53 ↗ just truly inspiring conversation and

1:59:56 ↗ one that really I feel set the stage for

1:59:58 ↗ my journey to here. And so I want to

2:00:01 ↗ just personally thank you for that and

2:00:03 ↗ thank you for this time we had together.

2:00:05 ↗ And and though you know directly working

2:00:07 ↗ to each other has been short I hope to

2:00:09 ↗ continue that relationship and because

2:00:11 ↗ there's it you know I learned so much

2:00:13 ↗ from you in one conversation I I I want

2:00:15 ↗ to have many more and so thank you for

2:00:18 ↗ all that you've done.

2:00:19 ↗ >> I loved that conversation. That was

2:00:20 ↗ great. Yeah.

2:00:22 ↗ >> Okay Barb you're getting one more round

2:00:23 ↗ of applause before we close this meeting

2:00:25 ↗ out.

2:00:34 ↗ Thank you everyone. Thank you so much.

2:00:37 ↗ >> Okay, our next council meeting well

2:00:40 ↗ should be March 9th. Really originally

2:00:42 ↗ was committee of the whole has been

2:00:43 ↗ rebranded to a regular council meeting

2:00:45 ↗ followed by another council meeting on

2:00:47 ↗ March 16th. I know we we thought March

2:00:49 ↗ was going to be light on council

2:00:50 ↗ meetings and now it's heavy on council

2:00:52 ↗ meetings. But uh the March 16th we will

2:00:54 ↗ as as council member Joe mentioned go

2:00:56 ↗ over the ELTAC advisory committee

2:00:58 ↗ funding recommendations and there is no

2:01:00 ↗ executive session tonight and so with

2:01:03 ↗ that at exactly 9:00 this meeting is

2:01:06 ↗ adjourned.

2:01:08 ↗ >> Thank you. pictures.

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)

Paul Adair

Barbara de Michele

Kelly Jiang

Russell Joe

Tola Marts

Kevin Nichols

Lindsey Walsh (Attended Virtually)

Staff (2)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator, Andrea Lehner, Deputy City Administrator

Rachel Bender Turpin, City Attorney

Motions and votes (4)

approve the consent agenda as presented. . a)

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

Carried 7-0

In favor: Paul Adair, Barbara de Michele, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Kevin Nichols, Lindsey Walsh (Attended Virtually)

Adopt Ordinance No. 3134, amending Chapter 3.71 of the Issaquah Municipal Code to allow for traffic impact fee waivers for early learning centers. b)

Moved by Councilmember Jiang · seconded by Deputy Council President Marts

Carried 7-0

In favor: Adair, de Michele, Jiang, Joe, Marts, Nichols, Walsh

Authorize the Mayor to enter into and execute design agreement supplement #4 for the Newport Way Maple to Sunset Improvements (TR023) project with Perteet, Inc. in the amount of $304,641.26, in substantially the same form as the attached agreement (Exhibit A), as approved by the City Attorney. c)

Moved by Council President de Michele · seconded by Councilmember Adair

Carried 6-1

In favor: Adair, de Michele, Jiang, Joe, Nichols, Walsh

Opposed: Marts

Authorize the Mayor to enter into and execute the Fee in Lieu of Frontage Improvement Agreement with Blue Fern Group in substantially the same form as the attached agreement (Exhibit A), as approved by the City Attorney.

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

Carried 7-0

In favor: Adair, de Michele, Jiang, Joe, Marts, Nichols, Walsh