City Council Services, Safety & Parks Committee · Tuesday, May 16, 2023 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of March 21, 2023

Carried 3-0

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 2:03 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 03-21-23 City Council Services, Safety & Parks Page (1) Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Services, Safety & Parks Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. March 21, 2023 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

Roll call:

Moved by COUNCILMEMBER JOE · seconded by COUNCILMEMBER DE MICHELE

In favor: Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Barbara de Michele

4. AGENDA ITEMS

2024 - 2029 Capital Improvement Plan Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator ID 1319

90 min · packet pp.7–37

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 0:47 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends the Committee support prioritizing Park and Trail projects in 2027 and beyond to allow further exploration of a new revenue source dedicated Park & Trail projects. The Administration also welcomes feedback on the proposed CIP and how it can better meet the Council’s goals.

5. ANNOUNCEMENTS

Elect chair for June meeting: June 27, 2023

1588 segments .txt ↗

0:03 ↗ foreign

0:05 ↗ welcome everyone

0:08 ↗ I told the council member Marx call the

0:11 ↗ May 16 2023 city council services safety

0:14 ↗ and Parks Community to order

0:18 ↗ um

0:19 ↗ we'll start with can we start with

0:21 ↗ public comment I didn't I'm not at the

0:23 ↗ right place in my document

0:26 ↗ um

0:26 ↗ yes we have called the meeting to order

0:30 ↗ council members D Michelle and Joe are

0:33 ↗ with us here tonight

0:35 ↗ um the public comment section there are

0:36 ↗ multiple public comment opportunities at

0:38 ↗ tonight's meeting there's a general

0:40 ↗ public comment opportunity at the

0:42 ↗ beginning of the meeting or you can make

0:43 ↗ comments after the presentation and

0:45 ↗ counsel question and answer period on

0:47 ↗ tonight's agenda item members of the

0:49 ↗ public May address council at this time

0:51 ↗ in person or virtually

0:54 ↗ those who signed up in advance to make

0:56 ↗ comments will be called on first if you

0:57 ↗ are called uh

1:00 ↗ if you are if you're joining us

1:01 ↗ virtually and would like to make

1:02 ↗ comments please raise your virtual hand

1:04 ↗ this uh to do this if you're on the

1:07 ↗ phone plus press star three if you have

1:09 ↗ joined by computer or smartphone look

1:11 ↗ for the hand icon this varies by device

1:14 ↗ one option may be to go to the

1:16 ↗ participant panel and choose the raise

1:18 ↗ hand icon in the lower right hand corner

1:21 ↗ if you're in the room well we only have

1:23 ↗ staff in the room I will wait for a

1:25 ↗ moment to see not only have staff and

1:28 ↗ we're always happy to see staff but I'm

1:30 ↗ going to assume that none of Staff want

1:31 ↗ to comment in public comment period nope

1:33 ↗ okay uh wait to see you uh wait a moment

1:36 ↗ to see if anyone raises their hand uh

1:39 ↗ has anyone signed up to speak or

1:41 ↗ indicated a desire to speak this evening

1:43 ↗ chair there are no virtual attendees at

1:45 ↗ this time

1:46 ↗ all right well no virtual attendees uh

1:48 ↗ as a reminder written comment can be

1:50 ↗ submitted at any time to city council at

1:53 ↗ issaquah.government

1:57 ↗ all right next we have approval of the

2:00 ↗ minutes

2:01 ↗ does anyone wish to make a motion move

2:03 ↗ to approve the minutes

2:07 ↗ second motion has been moved and

2:09 ↗ seconded all in favor say aye aye

2:11 ↗ opposed

2:14 ↗ absentions

2:15 ↗ uh the minutes are approved on a three

2:18 ↗ to O

2:19 ↗ with that we will move to the uh only

2:23 ↗ full item of the evening which is ID

2:27 ↗ 1319 2020

2:29 ↗ 2024 to 2029 Capital Improvement plan

2:33 ↗ we're going to talk about the bit that

2:34 ↗ relates to services safety and parks and

2:37 ↗ to join us this evening is Andrew Snyder

2:39 ↗ our Deputy City administrator uh she'll

2:42 ↗ be giving us a presentation uh we'll do

2:45 ↗ q a it will take any public comment if

2:47 ↗ anybody surfaces and uh then move to a

2:50 ↗ community recommendation

2:51 ↗ Deputy City administrator take it away

2:55 ↗ thank you so much good evening I'm

2:57 ↗ Andrea Snyder and with me here tonight

3:00 ↗ we do have some staff Robert hamut our

3:03 ↗ Chief Financial Officer will be joining

3:05 ↗ me in the presentation we also have uh

3:08 ↗ parks and Community Services director

3:11 ↗ Jeff Watling here and I think there will

3:13 ↗ be some other staff members that may be

3:15 ↗ joining us in person or virtually as the

3:18 ↗ meeting progresses to help answer any

3:19 ↗ questions you may have about the CIP so

3:22 ↗ we are here with this Council committee

3:24 ↗ as you know per Council rules and

3:26 ↗ guidelines there are certain sections of

3:29 ↗ the CIP that are under the purview of

3:32 ↗ different Council subcommittees and so

3:35 ↗ we're really sticking to the specific

3:37 ↗ portions of the CIP that are under this

3:41 ↗ committee's purview and we'll be going

3:42 ↗ over those sections this evening

3:50 ↗ so agenda for this evening we'll go over

3:53 ↗ what direction the administration is

3:55 ↗ seeking at this time a little bit of a

3:57 ↗ background on the CIP process and how

3:59 ↗ we've gotten here with the capital

4:00 ↗ Improvement plan we will also be doing

4:04 ↗ an overview of the draft CIP so we're

4:06 ↗ not going to be going over every single

4:08 ↗ project under facilities I.T and Parks

4:12 ↗ this evening but really just an overview

4:13 ↗ of themes

4:14 ↗ and then we go back for that discussion

4:17 ↗ and feedback and hopefully receive some

4:20 ↗ of the direction from you all this

4:22 ↗ evening

4:25 ↗ so direction that we're seeking tonight

4:27 ↗ is does the proposed CIP Capital

4:30 ↗ Improvement plan seem to respond to

4:32 ↗ council goals and outcomes for this

4:34 ↗ process so far and if not what can be

4:36 ↗ improved and this really goes back to

4:38 ↗ that January Council Retreat where

4:41 ↗ councils set and establish some goals

4:44 ↗ and outcomes we followed up on that

4:45 ↗ discussion in February so there's a

4:48 ↗ chart in your packet that talks about

4:49 ↗ that and also the actions that we've

4:51 ↗ taken to try to respond to those goals

4:53 ↗ and outcomes so the question here is how

4:55 ↗ are we doing if there's ways that we can

4:57 ↗ improve so far then great we want to

4:59 ↗ hear that feedback

5:01 ↗ the second question we have is really

5:04 ↗ specifically focused on Park and trail

5:06 ↗ projects in the CIP does council agree

5:09 ↗ with prioritizing the Park and trail

5:11 ↗ projects to the later years of that

5:14 ↗ six-year window in the CIP in

5:15 ↗ anticipation of a new Revenue Source

5:17 ↗ we're going to talk a lot more about

5:19 ↗ that later this evening

5:21 ↗ and then if the committee has any other

5:24 ↗ feedback on projects or how criteria

5:26 ↗ were applied or anything else related to

5:28 ↗ the CIP we'd love to gather your

5:29 ↗ thoughts this evening as well

5:36 ↗ and so here tonight to talk about the

5:39 ↗ city council goals and how we've tried

5:42 ↗ to work to address those goals is the

5:44 ↗ CFO Robert hamoud

5:49 ↗ thank you Andrea and thank you council

5:52 ↗ members

5:53 ↗ the CIP Council goals we have umbrella

5:56 ↗ goals

5:58 ↗ in terms of realigning Capital

6:00 ↗ Improvement plan with Community

6:01 ↗ aspirations for the city as provided for

6:04 ↗ an adoptive plans so with this

6:06 ↗ realignment we just we've gathered the

6:09 ↗ community input as you know with the

6:11 ↗ criteria with the boards and commissions

6:12 ↗ but also from the council retreat at the

6:15 ↗ beginning of this process and looking at

6:17 ↗ the Strategic plans and and also looking

6:19 ↗ at obviously older plants such as the

6:23 ↗ parks plan utility system plans in the

6:26 ↗ past Transportation plans and everything

6:28 ↗ else that the city has done studies on

6:31 ↗ to inform this process and update is

6:34 ↗ necessary the second piece was to

6:36 ↗ provide a transparent CIP update process

6:39 ↗ that allows for groups and individuals

6:40 ↗ that was part of of course the the

6:42 ↗ engagement of the boards and commissions

6:44 ↗ this time and putting the criteria to

6:47 ↗ First the board Summit and then a

6:49 ↗ revised criteria with their feedback

6:51 ↗ that we use for the CIP to the boards of

6:53 ↗ commissions for the first time it was I

6:55 ↗ think a very good experience for staff

6:56 ↗ hopefully for Council as well to get

6:59 ↗ that feedback to run

7:01 ↗ pretty much the ideas and the concepts

7:03 ↗ of the criteria to the outside parties

7:07 ↗ and in that case also getting more

7:10 ↗ public engagement that we have in the

7:12 ↗ past by including the sports and

7:13 ↗ commissions

7:15 ↗ the next one is to reform project

7:17 ↗ planning and Delivery for improved

7:19 ↗ efficiency Equity consistency and

7:22 ↗ predictability and so this came out of

7:25 ↗ some of the labor shortages that the

7:27 ↗ city experienced with turnover and other

7:31 ↗ items of course with covid and covet

7:33 ↗ also is you know slowed down some of the

7:35 ↗ delivery processes for materials for

7:38 ↗ even design work from outside

7:40 ↗ consultants and supply chain and so

7:44 ↗ because of this we had to look

7:45 ↗ holistically at rcip what can we

7:48 ↗ realistically deliver in the short term

7:50 ↗ meaning the next two years also the long

7:52 ↗ term six years are Beyond and trying to

7:55 ↗ line up some of the the priorities of

7:58 ↗ the city with the kind of the realistic

8:01 ↗ timeline delivery and that includes also

8:03 ↗ Staffing Council approved amended

8:06 ↗ Staffing plans for Parks last year in

8:10 ↗ the budget with the parks planner and

8:12 ↗ then this year with an amendment to

8:14 ↗ Public Works to provide more Staffing

8:17 ↗ that will go towards CIP so this is all

8:19 ↗ aligning all those elements together and

8:21 ↗ then the next is addressing current laws

8:23 ↗ and best practices where are we falling

8:26 ↗ behind you saw the health of the safety

8:28 ↗ criteria as part of the CIP and

8:31 ↗ informing the process and looking at

8:33 ↗ that you know where do we have mandates

8:35 ↗ and requirements that were falling short

8:37 ↗ where do we have safety concerns and

8:39 ↗ where can we identify and adopt the best

8:42 ↗ practices to remedy those concerns and

8:45 ↗ those issues with our project plans

8:49 ↗ next slide please

8:54 ↗ and so the city council CIP goals we

8:56 ↗ wanted to make sure that the city

8:58 ↗ council's goals and strategic plan were

9:01 ↗ obviously an active part of this

9:02 ↗ document an active part of this planning

9:04 ↗ project so as such projects have the

9:07 ↗ clear path to inclusion in the CIP

9:09 ↗ meaning any priorities identified by

9:11 ↗ Council they're included in the CIP

9:14 ↗ they're part of the criteria scoring

9:16 ↗ higher for Council priority and then the

9:19 ↗ next one CIP process and priorities are

9:21 ↗ communicated clearly with city council

9:23 ↗ and the community so again

9:25 ↗ the boards and commissions touches this

9:28 ↗ year the CIP document itself The Retreat

9:32 ↗ all of that trying to inform the public

9:34 ↗ inform the priorities

9:36 ↗ and drive the CIP process and also

9:39 ↗ tonight being at the at the council

9:42 ↗ committee meetings as well having that

9:44 ↗ additional touch

9:45 ↗ projects have accountable path towards

9:48 ↗ execution and or completion I know I

9:50 ↗ touched upon that a little bit in the

9:52 ↗ last slide but also making sure we have

9:54 ↗ internal measures and benchmarks we're

9:56 ↗ going to have updated information

9:58 ↗ hopefully quarterly to Council on the

10:00 ↗ new CIP projects in the future we have

10:03 ↗ some data analysis that we're doing on

10:05 ↗ the back end to track those projects but

10:08 ↗ also making sure again looking at what's

10:11 ↗ the supply chain what's our staffing

10:12 ↗ levels that information to a form making

10:16 ↗ sure that the council priorities that we

10:18 ↗ can get there making sure the projects

10:19 ↗ are getting there in a realistic

10:21 ↗ timeline and then Equity Equity is

10:23 ↗ inherent in the project selection and

10:25 ↗ delivery we actually had a city-wide

10:27 ↗ training on Equity this morning so

10:28 ↗ accounts so staff is really

10:31 ↗ trying to incorporate this in part of

10:32 ↗ kind of the everyday decision making of

10:34 ↗ the city and that includes project

10:36 ↗ selection delivery delivery and the

10:39 ↗ equity

10:40 ↗ criteria this year was I think a new

10:43 ↗ criteria and a new step towards that

10:46 ↗ looking at that lens looking at our

10:48 ↗ projects in that lens with equity

10:52 ↗ council member Joe

10:54 ↗ thank you the staff report indicated

10:57 ↗ that with the equity lens we're going to

10:59 ↗ be looking at disproportionate impact

11:03 ↗ could you touch on that a little bit

11:04 ↗ more and give us a little bit more

11:05 ↗ background on that

11:07 ↗ for example there's a couple projects

11:09 ↗ having to do with say

11:12 ↗ addressing residents that have septic

11:14 ↗ issues they still are on septic trying

11:16 ↗ to get them and they keep get them on

11:19 ↗ our water supply for example get them on

11:21 ↗ Water and Sewer also we have some

11:23 ↗ abatements of possible landslides and

11:25 ↗ areas so making sure of course every

11:28 ↗ Community is healthy and safe and so

11:30 ↗ that's part of it

11:32 ↗ also if you look at the pavement

11:35 ↗ Management program the sidewalk

11:36 ↗ Management program making sure that

11:38 ↗ we're looking at the projects

11:39 ↗ holistically city-wide making sure that

11:41 ↗ we're not favoring one neighborhood over

11:43 ↗ another one section over another

11:47 ↗ thank you

11:49 ↗ um some of the articles that I've seen

11:51 ↗ in the sale times talk about the

11:53 ↗ disproportionate impact for from

11:55 ↗ pollution

11:56 ↗ and let's say the duwamish river valley

11:58 ↗ or some of the areas in South Seattle

12:01 ↗ have a higher

12:03 ↗ impact from pollution or

12:06 ↗ just the the exhaust from different

12:09 ↗ industrial items it might be going on in

12:13 ↗ their in their neighborhoods do we have

12:15 ↗ that concern at all as part of a

12:16 ↗ dispersion impact or is it more of a

12:18 ↗ construction and overall infrastructure

12:21 ↗ support issue

12:23 ↗ I think pollution is measured in

12:25 ↗ different terms I mean in this city for

12:27 ↗ example if you see traffic congestion

12:29 ↗ there's obviously a lot of projects

12:31 ↗ towards Mobility towards access

12:34 ↗ integrating neighborhoods that you don't

12:36 ↗ have to cross busy streets so hopefully

12:39 ↗ reducing trips reducing vehicle trips so

12:42 ↗ that that is as far as direct industrial

12:44 ↗ pollution I do not believe

12:47 ↗ there are the stream side mitigation

12:48 ↗ projects but it's not pollution per se

12:52 ↗ yeah and I

12:53 ↗ rather

12:55 ↗ have exactly the same type of setup or

12:58 ↗ concerns that they wouldn't say Seattle

13:01 ↗ with the duwamish river area and

13:03 ↗ industrial areas like that it's not as

13:06 ↗ much of a problem here in Issaquah we

13:09 ↗ did look at when we were looking at

13:11 ↗ Equity one of the things that we're

13:12 ↗ looking at are where are the gaps in

13:15 ↗ services so is there is there a part of

13:17 ↗ the city

13:18 ↗ that doesn't have the same level of

13:21 ↗ infrastructure as other parts of the

13:23 ↗ city so that's that's one of the areas

13:25 ↗ that we were looking at when trying to

13:27 ↗ assess for Equity there there are many

13:29 ↗ others equities there's a long

13:31 ↗ definition of equity in the packet and

13:33 ↗ we can go over that in more detail if

13:34 ↗ you'd like

13:37 ↗ thank you that discussion on

13:39 ↗ disproportionate impact is okay for now

13:42 ↗ if you're going to touch on Equity a

13:44 ↗ little bit more during the course of

13:46 ↗ your presentation that's great but I

13:48 ↗ don't need any other additional

13:49 ↗ information right now if I do all last

13:51 ↗ thank you

13:54 ↗ and then the last bullet point on this

13:56 ↗ slide clearly defined funding strategies

13:58 ↗ so again that's what we've been

14:00 ↗ presenting to the council Committee of

14:02 ↗ the whole and also to the

14:05 ↗ the m i committee last week looking at

14:08 ↗ what are the options to fund some of

14:09 ↗ these projects Transportation has been a

14:11 ↗ big

14:12 ↗ big topic of discussion facilities needs

14:15 ↗ as well but also Parks tonight how do we

14:17 ↗ get there what is a long-term view of

14:19 ↗ funding strategies both internal to the

14:21 ↗ city and external meaning grants and

14:22 ↗ outside funding as well

14:28 ↗ council member Joe thank you uh Robert

14:31 ↗ hamoud in the conversation we had a last

14:33 ↗ councilman or the councilman before we

14:35 ↗ talked about the impact of potentially

14:37 ↗ raising sales tax by a small percentage

14:40 ↗ to help fund some of the issues and

14:42 ↗ concerns we had in town I noticed from

14:44 ↗ the report that the the Reit revenues

14:47 ↗ were down the real estate real estate

14:48 ↗ excise tax revenues and that was noted

14:52 ↗ in the report

14:54 ↗ what kind of Outlook do we have going

14:56 ↗ forward it doesn't seem like we have

14:57 ↗ that many new areas that we're going to

15:00 ↗ be building and have any new

15:01 ↗ transactions going on so have our

15:04 ↗ transactions basically

15:05 ↗ leveled off to a point where we were

15:07 ↗ just in the churn for new you know as as

15:10 ↗ people buy and sell homes and there's

15:12 ↗ not really new development that's coming

15:14 ↗ in what kind of forecast do you see for

15:16 ↗ the next five years perhaps sure so the

15:18 ↗ next five years is throwing a dart like

15:19 ↗ any forecast after two years it's very

15:21 ↗ hard to do but we started seeing a

15:24 ↗ Slowdown in the real the residential

15:27 ↗ Market about a year and a half ago now

15:29 ↗ so it came right out of covid right out

15:31 ↗ of 2021 was very very strong here and

15:34 ↗ then 2022 we started to see it slow down

15:37 ↗ what offset that last year was we had a

15:40 ↗ large we had some major commercial

15:41 ↗ transactions that took place we had a

15:44 ↗ couple apartment buildings that sold a

15:46 ↗ couple of the Hobby Lobby sold that

15:48 ↗ building and the Red Robin for example

15:51 ↗ next to Costco so we had a lot of

15:52 ↗ commercial activity that sustained it

15:54 ↗ this year we're seeing a lot fewer

15:57 ↗ commercial transactions we're also

16:00 ↗ seeing the slower residential

16:02 ↗ transactions that was already the trend

16:03 ↗ right now so short term we're we're

16:06 ↗ seeing a bit of a drop in that activity

16:08 ↗ at some point it would bot about and

16:10 ↗ rebound I mean there's only there's not

16:12 ↗ many developable space left in King

16:14 ↗ County we're one of the last cities that

16:16 ↗ are that still has room to grow in the

16:18 ↗ urban growth boundary there's still

16:20 ↗ projects on the horizon for the city in

16:22 ↗ terms of multi-family and some single

16:24 ↗ family housing so that will turn around

16:26 ↗ how fast it turns around is anybody's

16:28 ↗ guess of course at this point also

16:30 ↗ depends on National Trends I just

16:32 ↗ attended actually a a session put on by

16:35 ↗ the King County Economist last week in

16:37 ↗ the county is looking at summer to kind

16:41 ↗ of bottom out and read and they're

16:43 ↗ looking at a recovery to start at the

16:44 ↗ end of the year there's a lot of

16:46 ↗ different factors including interest

16:47 ↗ rates that that fall into that and also

16:50 ↗ commercial activity how many companies

16:52 ↗ have been reading a lot of articles

16:53 ↗ about how many companies are looking for

16:55 ↗ large spaces now with the new hybrid

16:58 ↗ work environment are they scaling back

17:00 ↗ their purchases of large facilities so

17:02 ↗ that's the other question

17:04 ↗ great thank you very much appreciate it

17:06 ↗ you're welcome I I just want to mention

17:08 ↗ in case anybody's listening at home um

17:11 ↗ to be real careful in the language when

17:13 ↗ when you mention that we have room to

17:15 ↗ grow we actually have room to infill

17:17 ↗ right we don't have

17:19 ↗ um I don't believe we have any

17:21 ↗ um open adjacent annexation opportunity

17:24 ↗ Parcels anymore I think it's all we're

17:26 ↗ done with that so the opportunity for

17:29 ↗ growth would be infill not growing the

17:31 ↗ way people think of in terms of

17:32 ↗ expanding within the urban growth

17:34 ↗ boundary area

17:37 ↗ back to you

17:41 ↗ and next slide

17:44 ↗ okay thank you uh Robert so

17:48 ↗ um wanted to talk a little bit about how

17:50 ↗ we got here today and what process we've

17:52 ↗ used to follow uh first uh we worked

17:55 ↗ with the

17:56 ↗ a couple of boards to refine the

17:59 ↗ criteria for evaluating projects within

18:01 ↗ the CIP those boards included the equity

18:04 ↗ board the environmental board the park

18:07 ↗ board the trend and the transportation

18:10 ↗ Advisory Board

18:11 ↗ and we asked them uh to give us their

18:14 ↗ feedback on the criteria we'll go over

18:16 ↗ some of that feedback in a little bit

18:19 ↗ then we uh

18:23 ↗ went back to them once we had a draft of

18:25 ↗ the CIP and asked them how did we do in

18:27 ↗ applying these criteria to the projects

18:30 ↗ to create the CIP and we got more of

18:32 ↗ their feedback

18:33 ↗ then here we are in the bolded black

18:37 ↗ font section taking the CIP to the

18:41 ↗ council committees to review sections

18:43 ↗ that are within the uh their respective

18:45 ↗ purviews and from here we go to June

18:48 ↗ 12th to the committee of the whole to

18:51 ↗ discuss the entire CIP and the policy

18:54 ↗ questions for the entire CIP together

18:55 ↗ and then we look for Council adoption

18:59 ↗ hopefully before July 1st and the reason

19:02 ↗ for that is one component of the CIP is

19:06 ↗ the transportation Improvement plan the

19:08 ↗ tip and the state requires that the city

19:12 ↗ adopt a new tip every year and that

19:15 ↗ that's done by July 1st and so we're

19:17 ↗ hoping that because the tip is a

19:19 ↗ component of the CIP that we can do it

19:21 ↗ all together by July 1st so that's kind

19:23 ↗ of what we're aiming for

19:26 ↗ and

19:27 ↗ um let's talk about the criteria so as

19:31 ↗ Robert was talking about earlier we have

19:33 ↗ changed our criteria quite a bit to

19:37 ↗ address some of the goals that Council

19:39 ↗ set forth for us in the beginning some

19:41 ↗ of these some of these criteria are the

19:43 ↗ same there's a much more robust

19:45 ↗ description of these criteria in your

19:48 ↗ packet so you can refer to those but

19:50 ↗ just wanted to hit a couple of the

19:51 ↗ highlights here

19:53 ↗ especially the very new criteria that we

19:56 ↗ have here at the bottom equity and this

19:59 ↗ one that's called long-standing

20:01 ↗ commitment this was something that we

20:03 ↗ heard from Council was really important

20:04 ↗ at The Retreat that you held in January

20:07 ↗ of wanting to make sure that as we

20:10 ↗ update the CIP and look at projects a

20:13 ↗ little bit differently that the city

20:15 ↗ holds true to commitments that it has

20:17 ↗ made to the community in the past and

20:20 ↗ then we heard from Council that this is

20:23 ↗ a little hard to Define

20:24 ↗ and that uh we heard from you that we

20:28 ↗ should come back to you with a list of

20:31 ↗ what projects might be able to fit that

20:33 ↗ criteria and that Council would be able

20:34 ↗ to have a discussion about uh what the

20:38 ↗ projects are on that list that you feel

20:39 ↗ should really be included in the CIP so

20:42 ↗ there's still room for that discussion

20:43 ↗ that discussion is planned for June 12th

20:46 ↗ but you will notice that

20:48 ↗ um well it is part of the criteria it

20:50 ↗ may not have been exactly addressed in

20:52 ↗ the draft of the CIP so far to date and

20:55 ↗ that's because we look forward to having

20:56 ↗ those conversations with you in the

20:58 ↗ future

21:01 ↗ any questions on the criteria or how we

21:03 ↗ have changed these criteria in response

21:06 ↗ to the feedback we've heard

21:07 ↗ okay

21:08 ↗ great so some of the feedback and this

21:11 ↗ is a very high level quick summary there

21:14 ↗ is a lot more information included in

21:16 ↗ your memo and other materials in your

21:17 ↗ packet this evening but very high level

21:20 ↗ for the boards that we've talked to and

21:23 ↗ that so far we have not been able to

21:26 ↗ include the environmental board

21:28 ↗ feedback in your packet tonight and

21:31 ↗ that's because we just met with them

21:32 ↗ less than a week ago and need a little

21:35 ↗ bit of time to

21:37 ↗ coalesce that feedback and we'll be

21:39 ↗ providing that certainly for the

21:41 ↗ Planning Development environment

21:42 ↗ committee and also the committee of the

21:44 ↗ whole but what we've heard uh so far and

21:48 ↗ again high level summary we've heard

21:49 ↗ overall support for the process of

21:51 ↗ drafting the CIP and for the criteria

21:54 ↗ especially the criteria as they stand

21:57 ↗ now taking into account the feedback

21:59 ↗ that we've heard from the boards way

22:01 ↗ back in February

22:03 ↗ we have heard concerns over the

22:05 ↗ long-standing commitment this is

22:07 ↗ something that has been voiced by most

22:08 ↗ of our boards and a pretty consistent

22:11 ↗ voice from our boards throughout this

22:13 ↗ process is that because it was the one

22:16 ↗ bit of criteria that hasn't been fully

22:18 ↗ defined they they expressed concern that

22:21 ↗ maybe

22:22 ↗ um it's not as transparent as the other

22:23 ↗ criteria that they

22:26 ↗ um that they had concerns that maybe if

22:30 ↗ there were long-standing commitments

22:31 ↗ that weren't done with an equity lens

22:33 ↗ perhaps remaining committed to those

22:36 ↗ projects might have Equity concerns and

22:40 ↗ overall they just wanted to make sure

22:41 ↗ that Council was going to be very

22:43 ↗ transparent over how projects were

22:46 ↗ evaluated with this criteria in mind so

22:49 ↗ that was feedback that most of the

22:52 ↗ boards really agreed on

22:54 ↗ in the end I think that they agreed by

22:57 ↗ saying uh well you know if couns

22:59 ↗ long-standing commitment is still

23:00 ↗ important we want to make sure that we

23:02 ↗ honor some of those commitments but that

23:03 ↗ we can reevaluate those commitments

23:05 ↗ given our current values

23:08 ↗ including equity

23:11 ↗ other criteria or other feedback we

23:13 ↗ heard from the boards very early on is

23:15 ↗ that they felt like the draft criteria

23:17 ↗ that we presented to you in January did

23:20 ↗ not uh just assess overall livability

23:23 ↗ and quality of life and the reasons why

23:25 ↗ people choose to live in Issaquah and so

23:27 ↗ they wanted to make sure that there was

23:30 ↗ one criteria that addressed that so we

23:31 ↗ we reworked some of the criteria we went

23:34 ↗ back the boards had said we had over

23:36 ↗ indexed on the Strategic plan and

23:38 ↗ reference to plans and they said you

23:40 ↗ know what who's looking out for just

23:41 ↗ livability and so we were able to

23:44 ↗ address that in our revisions to the

23:46 ↗ criteria and of course we revised the

23:49 ↗ equity Criterion heavily that was

23:51 ↗ something that we heard a lot of

23:52 ↗ feedback from city council members and

23:56 ↗ our boards that we hadn't defined it

23:58 ↗ correctly the first time so we went back

24:00 ↗ and were able to retool that and make it

24:02 ↗ more in alignment with the equity

24:04 ↗ framework

24:09 ↗ so

24:11 ↗ um going into the 24 29 CIP a little bit

24:15 ↗ of an overview on themes that we see

24:17 ↗ throughout the CIP the first is more

24:20 ↗ funding for maintenance and maintenance

24:22 ↗ and repair in the denim we had in the

24:24 ↗ past so you will see there's a lot more

24:26 ↗ programs for ongoing expenses as we plan

24:30 ↗ for that Capital maintenance

24:32 ↗ also the CIP responds to feedback to

24:37 ↗ make more investments in our

24:38 ↗ infrastructure and we heard a lot of

24:40 ↗ that feedback from city council members

24:42 ↗ and also from the Capital Finance

24:45 ↗ Community task force that was formed now

24:47 ↗ two years ago and Council received their

24:49 ↗ recommendations last year so we really

24:51 ↗ tried to incorporate that feedback take

24:53 ↗ it very seriously as we drafted this CIP

24:56 ↗ at the same time we also heard that we

24:59 ↗ need to make sure the plan is achievable

25:00 ↗ and that we can actually get done what

25:03 ↗ we're planning to get done and so the

25:05 ↗ way that we've tried to balance those

25:07 ↗ two things together is this CIP

25:10 ↗ anticipates new revenues for

25:12 ↗ transportation Public Safety related

25:14 ↗ facilities and parks and trails over the

25:18 ↗ next six years so in that way it is

25:20 ↗ fairly ambitious but we've heard from

25:22 ↗ our community that we should be doing

25:24 ↗ more to invest in in our infrastructure

25:27 ↗ and just one more point I see there's a

25:31 ↗ question but so for for transportation

25:33 ↗ we've anticipated for new revenues there

25:36 ↗ is a sales tax related to the

25:38 ↗ transportation benefit District that's

25:40 ↗ incorporated into the CIP those revenues

25:43 ↗ are assumed in the CIP and we look

25:47 ↗ forward to more conversations with

25:48 ↗ Council about that Public Safety and

25:51 ↗ Facilities those conversations are

25:53 ↗ ongoing at the committee of the whole

25:54 ↗ level and will continue those

25:56 ↗ conversations again on May 22nd at the

25:59 ↗ next Committee of the whole next week

26:01 ↗ parks and trails is something we're

26:03 ↗ going to be focusing on tonight with

26:05 ↗ something that the task force had

26:06 ↗ recommended we look at a metropolitan

26:08 ↗ Parks District to increase revenues for

26:10 ↗ parks and trails we're going to be going

26:12 ↗ into that a little bit more about

26:14 ↗ um about that potential Revenue Source

26:18 ↗ but the facilities related Revenue the

26:20 ↗ parks and trails related Revenue those

26:22 ↗ assumptions are not within the revenue

26:25 ↗ forecast for the CIP we've left those

26:27 ↗ out until we're able to have more of a

26:29 ↗ dialogue about it

26:31 ↗ council member G Michelle

26:34 ↗ so this might be a question that we

26:37 ↗ can't answer tonight uh and which is

26:39 ↗ fine I know that when I was writing for

26:42 ↗ Council uh we were talking about

26:44 ↗ pavement Management program and we at

26:47 ↗ that time we were saying well we're on a

26:48 ↗ 65-year cycle of Maintenance and so I

26:53 ↗ know that we've put in increasing

26:55 ↗ amounts of money into the pavement

26:57 ↗ Management program and I'm just

26:59 ↗ wondering if we could find out or and I

27:03 ↗ didn't find it in the materials so I'm

27:05 ↗ thinking that perhaps that was the

27:07 ↗ criteria that or something that we know

27:10 ↗ are no longer measuring but I'm just

27:12 ↗ wondering if we've reduced that cycle

27:15 ↗ significantly through our investments in

27:17 ↗ the pavement Management program or

27:20 ↗ or is is that Criterion just no longer

27:23 ↗ applicable so that's my question and I

27:26 ↗ realized that may be uh you may not be

27:28 ↗ able to answer that tonight but it is of

27:31 ↗ interest to me to see

27:32 ↗ I guess how do we measure the impact of

27:35 ↗ year over year over year increases in

27:38 ↗ the pavement Management program would be

27:39 ↗ my question

27:43 ↗ thank you council member D Michelle I'm

27:45 ↗ taking note of that question uh we

27:48 ↗ talked a little bit about that a

27:49 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee

27:51 ↗ that focused more on Transportation uh

27:54 ↗ included in that report was our pavement

27:56 ↗ condition index which is our guide that

27:58 ↗ we use to assess how are we doing

28:00 ↗ and we have made some Headway there

28:05 ↗ we've seen that our overall scores for

28:07 ↗ pavement condition have gone up as

28:09 ↗ Council has invested over time

28:11 ↗ and as other projects have taken place

28:14 ↗ that have improved overall our pavement

28:15 ↗ condition index but we can we can get

28:18 ↗ back to you more on that question

28:28 ↗ great

28:30 ↗ um so

28:33 ↗ getting into the sections of the CIP

28:36 ↗ that this committee has purview over an

28:40 ↗ overview of it as I said I'm not going

28:42 ↗ to go over all 22 projects in detail

28:44 ↗ that are within the six year plan but

28:47 ↗ there are 22 projects compared to nine

28:49 ↗ in our current adopted plan most of

28:52 ↗ these uh projects are related to

28:54 ↗ security upgrades and connectivity

28:57 ↗ upgrades and support a lot of the other

29:00 ↗ work that we're doing as a city projects

29:04 ↗ generally within this infrastructure

29:05 ↗ category scored well in replacement and

29:08 ↗ maintenance

29:09 ↗ the ability to deliver and our legal

29:12 ↗ mandate and life safety concerns

29:15 ↗ there were some what we would consider

29:17 ↗ to be poor scores or red on that chart

29:20 ↗ that's included in the CIP

29:23 ↗ and those poor scores were in climate

29:25 ↗ resiliency environmental benefit and

29:28 ↗ that's really because we felt that the

29:31 ↗ projects had no discernible direct

29:32 ↗ impacts on climate or habitat not

29:37 ↗ because they would cause harm to the

29:39 ↗ environment so red doesn't necessarily

29:42 ↗ mean that the project is harmful to the

29:44 ↗ environment but also that it has no

29:46 ↗ impact and so you'll see one of the

29:48 ↗ other themes that we're discussing is

29:50 ↗ with these new criteria that we're just

29:52 ↗ working out and how to apply them that

29:55 ↗ we've set the bar really high for

29:57 ↗ ourselves and that we're really hoping

29:59 ↗ to have positive impacts not just no

30:02 ↗ impacts and so you'll you'll see that

30:04 ↗ throughout this presentation as well

30:10 ↗ now moving on to facilities we have 20

30:12 ↗ projects in the proposed CIP compared to

30:15 ↗ just 12 projects that are in the current

30:17 ↗ adopted CIP the biggest changes are are

30:21 ↗ true with the general theme of the CIP

30:22 ↗ that there's more focus on maintenance

30:24 ↗ we've also added a number of icap or

30:28 ↗ Issaquah climate action plan related

30:29 ↗ projects

30:31 ↗ uh one thing to note is that I know that

30:33 ↗ we have been discussing a lot with

30:35 ↗ Council the future of the ipd facility

30:38 ↗ Municipal Court City Hall needs that it

30:41 ↗ does not the CIP does not reference

30:43 ↗ those at this time we're really looking

30:45 ↗ for we're having a separate conversation

30:47 ↗ with Council on that depending on

30:49 ↗ Council Direction then we will add in

30:52 ↗ those assumptions

30:54 ↗ um before the CIP is adopted but we're

30:57 ↗ not focusing on that tonight because

30:58 ↗ we're having that conversation

30:59 ↗ separately at the committee of the whole

31:01 ↗ level

31:03 ↗ facilities projects generally scored

31:06 ↗ well in replacement and capital

31:07 ↗ maintenance

31:09 ↗ we also had yellow scores so there's red

31:12 ↗ yellow green right yellow scores mostly

31:15 ↗ for equity and that there's no

31:18 ↗ direct benefit to a group that has been

31:22 ↗ underserved but no direct harm either

31:25 ↗ and

31:27 ↗ um projects that the facilities category

31:31 ↗ of infrastructure also had projects that

31:33 ↗ generally scored well in climate

31:34 ↗ resiliency and environmental benefit and

31:38 ↗ also scored high in community priority

31:39 ↗ and that's because it's really related a

31:41 ↗ lot to those icap projects

31:44 ↗ I also want to note that there is a

31:46 ↗ facilities assessment planned next year

31:48 ↗ a lot of our types of infrastructure

31:50 ↗ that we have in Issaquah there are

31:52 ↗ Master plans for these infrastructure

31:55 ↗ types right we have a Mobility master

31:56 ↗ plan we have a sewer master plan we

32:00 ↗ don't have such a master plan for

32:01 ↗ facilities and that's something that

32:03 ↗ we're doing some of the beginning stages

32:04 ↗ of that as we do a facilities assessment

32:06 ↗ to really understand what are all of our

32:08 ↗ needs and facilities and maintenance so

32:11 ↗ that's something that's

32:12 ↗ planned for uh to be completed next year

32:17 ↗ any questions on facilities so far

32:21 ↗ okay

32:23 ↗ moving on to parks

32:25 ↗ we have 20 Park and trail projects

32:27 ↗ within that six-year plan compared to 21

32:30 ↗ in our current adopted plan

32:33 ↗ we have a lot of projects that are in

32:37 ↗ the Years 2027 and Beyond 2027 2028

32:42 ↗ Etc we do have many projects that we're

32:45 ↗ looking forward in 2024 and 25 most of

32:48 ↗ those projects are arpa related or have

32:52 ↗ been determined to be necessary

32:53 ↗ maintenance

32:54 ↗ and the reason why many uh projects are

32:57 ↗ in 2027 and Beyond is trying to respond

33:03 ↗ to feedback that we've heard from the

33:05 ↗ community to make more investments in

33:07 ↗ our parks and trails infrastructure and

33:10 ↗ we look forward to having a conversation

33:14 ↗ on revenues that could help pay for

33:17 ↗ those Park projects as you recall the

33:20 ↗ Capital Finance Community task force

33:22 ↗ recommended that we look at parks kind

33:24 ↗ of in that long-term window for

33:28 ↗ identifying a dedicated Revenue source

33:31 ↗ for Parks so that's why we have the

33:33 ↗ projects slated for the years that we do

33:36 ↗ it's in alignment with some of the

33:38 ↗ recommendations we've heard and in

33:40 ↗ anticipation of a more public discussion

33:42 ↗ on

33:43 ↗ what additional revenues we should

33:46 ↗ explore to invest more in our parks

33:49 ↗ Park sorry um yeah I have a question on

33:53 ↗ on all of these how is this city

33:56 ↗ considering staff capacity as some of

34:00 ↗ these

34:01 ↗ um I and I recognize some some of them

34:03 ↗ are put in a particular year and they're

34:05 ↗ meant to be smeared out over a couple

34:07 ↗ years but you know parks for instance

34:10 ↗ um you know on this pattern won't have a

34:13 ↗ lot over the next couple years but then

34:16 ↗ over the course of two or three or four

34:18 ↗ years we have a lot right 10 20 million

34:22 ↗ dollars worth of projects on any given

34:24 ↗ year

34:25 ↗ um you know I understand some of our

34:27 ↗ infrastructure we have a fairly steady

34:29 ↗ drum beat of projects and a staff to

34:31 ↗ support that but how do we look at this

34:33 ↗ to know that if we if we get everything

34:34 ↗ that we want if if you know if Santa

34:37 ↗ brings everything puts everything under

34:38 ↗ the Christmas tree for um grants and

34:41 ↗ whatnot that will be able to support

34:44 ↗ um you know that our uh what is it that

34:46 ↗ our stomach is stomach is as big as our

34:48 ↗ eyes as they say

34:50 ↗ yeah that's a great question thank you

34:52 ↗ councilmember Martz and uh director

34:54 ↗ Watling may want to add uh to my answer

34:56 ↗ but um in general the way that we

34:59 ↗ structure the CIP it is a planning

35:02 ↗ document as you know it's not a budget

35:04 ↗ and

35:06 ↗ um we try to make sure though that the

35:07 ↗ first three years of the cipr is

35:09 ↗ accurate as possible to what we can

35:11 ↗ reasonably predict

35:13 ↗ many of these larger investments in

35:16 ↗ parks are in the later years of this CIP

35:19 ↗ and that's to help facilitate a

35:21 ↗ conversation with the community over

35:25 ↗ over resources to get the resources and

35:29 ↗ understand how does our community

35:31 ↗ prioritize these Park and trail projects

35:35 ↗ are are we is the community willing to

35:39 ↗ consider another Revenue source to help

35:41 ↗ pay for these projects and so we've put

35:44 ↗ those projects in those years to help

35:45 ↗ facilitate that conversation with the

35:48 ↗ community so that we can get more

35:50 ↗ sources potentially to pay for them the

35:52 ↗ CIP is updated every two years and so we

35:55 ↗ look forward to another CIP process

35:58 ↗ where we can update the CIP with that

36:01 ↗ all in mind and I don't know if director

36:03 ↗ Watling you have something you'd like to

36:05 ↗ add

36:09 ↗ thank you Andrea very well said Jeff

36:11 ↗ Watling parks and Community Services

36:12 ↗ director just to maybe add to your

36:15 ↗ question council member Martz um in

36:17 ↗ terms of work plan and sort of work

36:20 ↗ Cadence right not just volume of money

36:23 ↗ spent but we we look at the number of

36:25 ↗ projects we're sort of trying to do

36:28 ↗ every year you'd be surprised and maybe

36:31 ↗ in your in your professional lives as

36:34 ↗ well as you do projects a 500 000

36:37 ↗ Capital project and a five million

36:39 ↗ dollar Capital project often look pretty

36:41 ↗ similar in terms of workload they they

36:43 ↗ can in terms of design what you're doing

36:47 ↗ complexities in our case Community

36:49 ↗ engagement so as we look at sort of

36:53 ↗ spanning projects over these multiple

36:55 ↗ years it's not necessarily always a

36:57 ↗ dollar amount

36:59 ↗ so really important to keep in mind

37:02 ↗ Staffing that you have on board right

37:04 ↗ now one of those positions is a limited

37:06 ↗ term position so I guess I would just

37:09 ↗ suggest say as if if we're having a

37:12 ↗ conversation with a community about

37:13 ↗ additional Revenue say a Park District

37:16 ↗ or a capital Levy of any kind to fill

37:19 ↗ that funding Gap in the future

37:21 ↗ um I you know we would want to be

37:23 ↗ talking with you about maybe considering

37:25 ↗ that limited term position becoming

37:27 ↗ something a little more permanent so

37:28 ↗ that we're having the staff size in 2028

37:32 ↗ if we're looking at a new Revenue source

37:36 ↗ to uh to increase that work

37:39 ↗ a couple of further questions I guess um

37:42 ↗ related to that

37:44 ↗ um uh

37:46 ↗ I'm not I'm not sure that my experience

37:48 ↗ has been that bigger projects don't

37:50 ↗ require more oversight my general rule

37:54 ↗ has been in project management that the

37:56 ↗ oversight is about 10 of the size of the

37:58 ↗ project itself so if you have a five

38:00 ↗ million dollar project you have five

38:02 ↗ hundred thousand dollars in oversight

38:04 ↗ effort if you have a 20 million dollar

38:05 ↗ project you have two million dollars in

38:08 ↗ in managerial oversight of it

38:11 ↗ um

38:12 ↗ so I I'm not sure I I'm entirely with

38:15 ↗ that

38:16 ↗ um you know my question is really around

38:17 ↗ if if we believe that we want to try to

38:21 ↗ get 75 million dollars in parks and

38:24 ↗ trails work done between now and 2029.

38:27 ↗ you know the question that you're asking

38:29 ↗ us tonight is can we backload that right

38:32 ↗ and Mike my concern is really around I'm

38:36 ↗ not sure I can answer that I mean if you

38:39 ↗ if you told me you know if you told me

38:42 ↗ yeah I you know we can run it two

38:44 ↗ million dollars a year and then all of a

38:46 ↗ sudden do 20 million dollars a year in

38:48 ↗ the last three years if if you're if you

38:51 ↗ can look me the eye and tell me that

38:52 ↗ then great

38:54 ↗ um if you can't you know if I was

38:55 ↗ building an organization myself you know

38:58 ↗ I might try to ramp this amount right

39:00 ↗ and start with five and then go to ten

39:01 ↗ you know eight and then go to 12 and

39:03 ↗ then go to 16 and and so on right so

39:05 ↗ that I could get this so that I could

39:08 ↗ build organically

39:10 ↗ um as I go through it so so my ability

39:13 ↗ to answer the question that's in front

39:14 ↗ of us tonight is really dependent a

39:16 ↗ little bit upon how you feel

39:19 ↗ um the the growth you know the potential

39:22 ↗ growth if you get the grants that and

39:25 ↗ and the monies come in that we want to

39:27 ↗ make these things happen so I'm still a

39:29 ↗ little still having a little bit trouble

39:31 ↗ with that anticipating my ability to

39:33 ↗ answer the larger question that we're

39:35 ↗ being asked later this evening

39:38 ↗ that's a great point and a great

39:40 ↗ comparative I would just add you're

39:42 ↗ absolutely right costs for a five

39:45 ↗ million dollar project are more than a

39:46 ↗ 500 000 project as we look at our public

39:49 ↗ work plan our project management we do

39:52 ↗ in-house is a small portion so much of

39:55 ↗ what we don't do in-house design we

39:57 ↗ don't write so a lot of that work is

39:59 ↗ accomplished via contract so it helps us

40:02 ↗ trying to even out what we would see as

40:05 ↗ a staffing need regardless of what the

40:08 ↗ the

40:09 ↗ cost or complexity of the project is

40:11 ↗ because we do so much external design

40:13 ↗ but it's a great point you bring up

40:16 ↗ and and to the the second point the one

40:18 ↗ about

40:19 ↗ can you know is it is it really possible

40:23 ↗ to

40:24 ↗ do

40:25 ↗ you know one two three twenty twenty

40:30 ↗ twenty

40:31 ↗ I'm

40:33 ↗ I and I think I think the answer to that

40:35 ↗ is that we know that this is subject to

40:37 ↗ change and that

40:39 ↗ um we wanted to place those projects in

40:42 ↗ those years to be able to facilitate a

40:45 ↗ conversation with the community about

40:46 ↗ really what they would like to see so

40:48 ↗ this is this is a planning document and

40:51 ↗ for that purpose it's not necessarily

40:53 ↗ planning to do all of that work but yeah

40:56 ↗ okay that's the conversation right

40:59 ↗ you're not

41:01 ↗ um at the heart of this is you're not

41:03 ↗ necessarily anticipating that we're

41:05 ↗ going to do 75 million dollars worth of

41:06 ↗ work between now and 2029. yeah

41:10 ↗ you currently have the resources to do

41:12 ↗ it right so we don't have the revenue to

41:14 ↗ do it we don't have uh we don't have

41:18 ↗ budgets for that far into the future

41:19 ↗ with staff Authority for that right so

41:22 ↗ what we wanted to do was to show to the

41:25 ↗ community

41:26 ↗ and follow up on the feedback that we've

41:28 ↗ heard from the community be at the park

41:30 ↗ board or the task force or even city

41:31 ↗ council that we hear you we want to

41:35 ↗ incorporate that feedback into this plan

41:37 ↗ and how we're doing that is setting us

41:39 ↗ up to have a conversation about these

41:42 ↗ these projects about Park Investments

41:45 ↗ and to have that conversation prioritize

41:47 ↗ that conversation for 26 27 28 Etc

41:52 ↗ all right thank you

41:54 ↗ um any questions

41:55 ↗ okay

41:58 ↗ please proceed thank you for the great

42:00 ↗ questions

42:01 ↗ so uh in general Park and trail projects

42:05 ↗ scored well in community priority

42:07 ↗ livability and quality of life and also

42:11 ↗ in that replacement and maintenance

42:12 ↗ criteria again following the theme of

42:15 ↗ investing more in taking care of the

42:18 ↗ assets that we already have

42:20 ↗ it had yellow scoring for equity

42:23 ↗ and this is due to what I characterize

42:27 ↗ as conservative scoring and so this is a

42:30 ↗ conversation we had with the equity

42:31 ↗ board and I think the the pool is to me

42:35 ↗ a really good example of this so we

42:38 ↗ scored one of the pool roof projects as

42:42 ↗ being not having

42:45 ↗ a great impact on Equity looking at okay

42:49 ↗ pool is a asset that serves all members

42:53 ↗ of our community it doesn't necessarily

42:55 ↗ focus on a population that has been

42:57 ↗ disadvantaged in the past or underserved

43:00 ↗ in the past and so we scored it

43:02 ↗ according to that kind of perspective

43:04 ↗ there's another way of looking at it the

43:06 ↗ other way could be well what happens if

43:09 ↗ we don't invest in our pool what happens

43:11 ↗ if we don't maintain this facility and

43:14 ↗ we have to close the facility because

43:17 ↗ it's not well maintained who is that

43:19 ↗ going to impact the most

43:21 ↗ um that's not going to impact those who

43:23 ↗ can pay for a private club membership

43:26 ↗ for a pool or install a pool in their

43:28 ↗ backyard it's going to impact the people

43:30 ↗ who can't afford other options right and

43:32 ↗ so there's a couple of lenses that we

43:34 ↗ could use to apply the equity criteria

43:36 ↗ and what we really did was more of a

43:39 ↗ conservative approach really trying to

43:41 ↗ grade ourselves a little bit harshly

43:42 ↗ here I think you know instead what got

43:46 ↗ great scores for Equity would be a

43:48 ↗ project also in the pool that

43:50 ↗ specifically addressed uh accessibility

43:52 ↗ concerns right so that's targeted

43:55 ↗ investment for a population to increase

43:58 ↗ their excess access to a city service

44:00 ↗ City facility so that's kind of the

44:03 ↗ standard that we held ourselves to we

44:05 ↗ asked the equity board for feedback they

44:07 ↗ had some feedback that we shared in your

44:09 ↗ packet but that's why I wanted to just

44:12 ↗ explain a little bit more about how we

44:13 ↗ applied these criteria again it's our

44:16 ↗ first year talking about equity and

44:18 ↗ applying that to the CIP it's our first

44:21 ↗ year for using red yellow green scoring

44:24 ↗ and those thresholds and so that was a

44:26 ↗ question that we just have kept asking

44:28 ↗ our boards is are we doing it right this

44:31 ↗ is more of an art than a science and is

44:33 ↗ this an accordion what in accordance

44:34 ↗ with you would like to see and so

44:36 ↗ overall we've heard some pretty strong

44:38 ↗ support but just definitely wanted to

44:40 ↗ explain that to you all this evening of

44:42 ↗ how we've been trying to apply these

44:43 ↗ criteria

44:45 ↗ thank you and I believe councilmember D

44:46 ↗ Michelle has a question

44:48 ↗ yeah that's a really good explanation of

44:50 ↗ those projects and why that was selected

44:53 ↗ on Parks you know you think about the

44:56 ↗ accessibility of parks and locations uh

45:00 ↗ and I'm one of the lucky ones where I

45:02 ↗ have a park that's maybe a short walk

45:05 ↗ away

45:07 ↗ um and so I'm just wondering if

45:10 ↗ um Geographic Equity was taken into

45:12 ↗ account in terms of how are our Parks

45:14 ↗ spread out throughout the community and

45:17 ↗ are there some areas that have more

45:19 ↗ Parks or more accessibility in other

45:21 ↗ areas that we really should be looking

45:24 ↗ at because they

45:26 ↗ don't have Equitable access to Parks

45:30 ↗ just a general question because the

45:32 ↗ response that you just gave and the

45:34 ↗ explanation you just gave very specific

45:37 ↗ to a project was was really good so but

45:40 ↗ that's just a general you know were they

45:42 ↗ looking at Geographic equity and how

45:44 ↗ we're treating all of the people in our

45:46 ↗ community

45:48 ↗ and the short answer is yes we did look

45:51 ↗ at things like Geographic Equity not

45:53 ↗ just in Parks but in our other asset

45:56 ↗ categories right where are the gaps what

45:58 ↗ are the where are the neighborhoods that

46:00 ↗ are

46:01 ↗ um experiencing more

46:03 ↗ um water main breaks than others right

46:05 ↗ and prioritizing investments in that way

46:08 ↗ um but we did look at that for parks and

46:09 ↗ I don't know if director Watling wants

46:11 ↗ to add anything else you can come up

46:13 ↗ here makes it easier on our camera

46:15 ↗ person because hi great question

46:18 ↗ um yes absolutely and I would say that

46:20 ↗ even dated back to the park strategic

46:22 ↗ plan in 2018 as we prioritize those

46:24 ↗ Investments I think specifically what

46:26 ↗ you would see in this CIP along those

46:29 ↗ lines is we too have seven sort of

46:33 ↗ capital programs that look at the all

46:36 ↗ the playgrounds throughout the the park

46:38 ↗ system and as we prioritize where the

46:41 ↗ greatest need was we looked at sort of

46:43 ↗ geographic disparity of

46:45 ↗ you know type of playground there's a

46:49 ↗ project in there for a neighborhood park

46:51 ↗ in the Newport area that currently

46:53 ↗ doesn't have a neighborhood park that's

46:54 ↗ on the the property of Anthology that

46:56 ↗ scored really high from an equity

46:57 ↗ standpoint so yes absolutely you'll see

47:00 ↗ that framework that lens really helped

47:03 ↗ us prioritize some of these work some of

47:06 ↗ these projects

47:09 ↗ um I am a little surprised um at this

47:12 ↗ answer because I note that

47:15 ↗ um Hillside Park loop trail doesn't seem

47:17 ↗ to have any higher of an equity score

47:19 ↗ than any other Barker trails and of

47:21 ↗ course

47:22 ↗ um there's five thousand people on

47:23 ↗ squawk mountain and no Trails so

47:26 ↗ um

47:27 ↗ it's I'm a little I'm a little surprised

47:29 ↗ we are by far the most underserved part

47:32 ↗ of uh the city in terms of trails and

47:35 ↗ and park facilities right compared to

47:38 ↗ all the other neighborhoods except for

47:39 ↗ maybe overdale

47:42 ↗ um I don't

47:43 ↗ I didn't wanted to respond to that

47:46 ↗ okay great

47:49 ↗ thank you for that comment any any other

47:52 ↗ questions at this point

47:55 ↗ okay then I will move on

47:58 ↗ okay so reminder about where we are in

48:00 ↗ next steps we're in the council

48:02 ↗ committee process we have a next Council

48:04 ↗ committee meeting uh to with the

48:06 ↗ Planning Development environment

48:07 ↗ committee to go over storm water

48:09 ↗ projects then we all convene with the

48:12 ↗ council the committee of the whole on

48:14 ↗ June 12th to discuss the entire CIP

48:16 ↗ together and then we look forward to

48:18 ↗ council adoption hopefully before July

48:20 ↗ 1st

48:25 ↗ um and then uh again Direction needed

48:29 ↗ does the proposed CIP seem to respond to

48:31 ↗ the council's goals and outcomes for

48:34 ↗ this process so far if not what can we

48:36 ↗ do to improve that

48:38 ↗ also does council agree with

48:40 ↗ prioritizing the Park and trail projects

48:43 ↗ to the later years of the CIP in

48:45 ↗ anticipation of a new Revenue source

48:48 ↗ and is there any other feedback that

48:50 ↗ Council has to offer on projects or how

48:53 ↗ the criteria were applied

48:57 ↗ and that concludes your presentation it

49:00 ↗ does thank you very much thank you so we

49:02 ↗ have three questions in front of us

49:04 ↗ let's just go through them one one by

49:05 ↗ one

49:06 ↗ so let's talk about the first one does

49:08 ↗ the proposed CIP seem to respond to the

49:10 ↗ council's goals and outcomes for this

49:12 ↗ process so far if not what can be

49:14 ↗ improved

49:17 ↗ oh that is a good point as we transition

49:20 ↗ from q a to uh discussion do we have

49:25 ↗ clerk's office do we have anyone on the

49:27 ↗ line electronically

49:29 ↗ no there are no virtual attendees at

49:31 ↗ this time virtual attendees that was the

49:33 ↗ phrase I was looking for thank you so no

49:36 ↗ but thank you for checking that had

49:38 ↗ anyone joined I would have felt terrible

49:40 ↗ so let's let's talk about this

49:44 ↗ but I'll go first since I brought that

49:46 ↗ up thank you uh first off thank you to

49:49 ↗ the staff for putting this together I

49:51 ↗ think you really uh took our comments to

49:54 ↗ heart and listened to the community in

49:56 ↗ terms of the criteria that we wanted to

49:58 ↗ look at

50:00 ↗ um as we put the lens to the CIP

50:03 ↗ and I think that the system that you put

50:06 ↗ together does respond to the council

50:08 ↗ goals now comes for this process

50:11 ↗ I do like the fact that you're taking

50:14 ↗ numerous different approaches and angles

50:16 ↗ to the equity question because it is a

50:19 ↗ new thing for all of us and cities as we

50:22 ↗ look at how we respond to our citizens

50:25 ↗ and you're taking it from a number of

50:27 ↗ different angles and taking it from the

50:30 ↗ perspective of the person on the street

50:31 ↗ and the person that might be living in

50:33 ↗ an apartment and the person that might

50:34 ↗ be living in a house on the hill so I'd

50:37 ↗ really appreciate that thoughtfulness

50:38 ↗ there I do agree that the parks and

50:41 ↗ Trail projects should be prioritized in

50:44 ↗ late later years so that we can do it

50:47 ↗ right in the sense let's have that

50:49 ↗ conversation with the city and talk

50:51 ↗ about what we really want to see what

50:53 ↗ our real priorities are and how we want

50:55 ↗ to try to pay for those and there are a

50:58 ↗ number of of Grants and other sources of

50:59 ↗ funding that we can go for out in the in

51:02 ↗ the wider world but we need to have some

51:06 ↗ um

51:06 ↗ unity and vision that has focused on

51:10 ↗ what we want to see for our trail system

51:12 ↗ so I do think that putting that off in a

51:15 ↗ few years is is appropriate here but I

51:18 ↗ always know that that

51:20 ↗ um

51:22 ↗ we're always looking for Grants and

51:23 ↗ opportunities and when those come up I

51:26 ↗ know that our Administration and our

51:29 ↗ Parks Personnel are really uh on the

51:31 ↗ ball in terms of applying for those new

51:33 ↗ grants that might come up and if we do

51:35 ↗ happen to get a hundred thousand dollars

51:36 ↗ or five hundred thousand dollars for a

51:38 ↗ trail Improvement I know that we'll be

51:40 ↗ first in line with the application and

51:42 ↗ should we get it I know that we'll have

51:44 ↗ a robust conversation as to how to best

51:46 ↗ use that funding to improve our Park and

51:49 ↗ trail system so I don't have any other

51:51 ↗ additional feedback on the projects or

51:53 ↗ how the criteria are applied again thank

51:55 ↗ you very much for this well thought out

51:57 ↗ presentation and the I appreciate the

51:59 ↗ approach that you have taken on this

52:02 ↗ councilmember Jimmy Michelle

52:04 ↗ sure uh question number one yes and I

52:08 ↗ have no suggestions for improvements and

52:11 ↗ question number two I do agree with the

52:13 ↗ prioritizing parks and Trail projects

52:16 ↗ the later years I believe that was a

52:19 ↗ recommendation that initially came out

52:21 ↗ of the capital task force

52:23 ↗ so perhaps Council bluffer Martz can

52:26 ↗ speak to that a little bit more but I

52:28 ↗ think the idea was that we were going to

52:30 ↗ sequence

52:31 ↗ different approaches to new revenue and

52:36 ↗ build that bridge over time and not go

52:39 ↗ to the public all at once all at one

52:42 ↗ time for

52:43 ↗ you know agreement to fund a whole lot

52:48 ↗ of projects that we need to get done so

52:50 ↗ I agree with that approach because I

52:52 ↗ think that is certainly something our

52:55 ↗ community would support as well and they

52:57 ↗ did through the the task force so

53:00 ↗ um feedback on projects or how the

53:03 ↗ criteria were applied bravo bravo bravo

53:06 ↗ I think as you said Andrea we are

53:09 ↗ learning as we go this is New Territory

53:12 ↗ but it's new territory for everybody

53:13 ↗ everybody is learning how to apply

53:15 ↗ Equity what an equity lens even means

53:20 ↗ and then some of the other criteria that

53:23 ↗ was added I really like the livability

53:25 ↗ question and the fact that the community

53:29 ↗ got that new criteria in and I think it

53:33 ↗ does speak to a lot of the

53:36 ↗ the general feeling about this town that

53:39 ↗ we want a lovely livable space and so I

53:43 ↗ think that's a great criteria to add so

53:45 ↗ I think that the staff has listened very

53:47 ↗ well I think that you are learning as

53:50 ↗ you go in terms of applying the criteria

53:53 ↗ and you're being very transparent about

53:54 ↗ that and so I I think you're doing a

53:57 ↗ great job on that so those are my

53:59 ↗ comments

54:02 ↗ thank you

54:03 ↗ um so on the first one yes

54:07 ↗ um

54:08 ↗ yes

54:10 ↗ um

54:11 ↗ on the second one about prioritizing I I

54:14 ↗ have sort of some mixed thoughts on that

54:17 ↗ yes indeed uh this is following the

54:19 ↗ recommendations of the task force you

54:22 ↗ know we identified near-term uh Revenue

54:24 ↗ options levers if you will medium term

54:27 ↗ and long term and a lot of things we are

54:28 ↗ interested in uh for parts really did

54:31 ↗ require some long-term levers so yes

54:34 ↗ that

54:35 ↗ um I will say however

54:37 ↗ um and this is just entirely a

54:39 ↗ subjective thing I I don't have any data

54:42 ↗ to support it which is always weird as

54:43 ↗ an engineer but

54:45 ↗ um it doesn't feel like we are back up

54:48 ↗ to the same speed of Civic engagement

54:51 ↗ that we were before covet we naturally

54:54 ↗ and rightly slowed things down during

54:57 ↗ covet for our staff's sake and for the

54:59 ↗ Public's sake and whatnot you know we

55:01 ↗ have been out for depending on how you

55:04 ↗ want to Define it about a year now and

55:06 ↗ and it really does feel like we've had

55:08 ↗ some Civic engagement on things that

55:10 ↗ council's been involved in but you know

55:12 ↗ a lot of these questions uh around parks

55:16 ↗ and amenities I'm eager to see more

55:19 ↗ public engagement and I'm really hoping

55:21 ↗ I know we've had some important hires

55:23 ↗ recently and and I just really hope that

55:26 ↗ the city I hope to see an acceleration

55:27 ↗ back we are on a really great trajectory

55:30 ↗ before covid in terms of our public

55:32 ↗ engagement and how it went towards our

55:34 ↗ strategic plan and uh I it doesn't feel

55:37 ↗ like we're quite there again yet so I I

55:41 ↗ do understand why we're doing this and

55:42 ↗ and I support it but I also want us to

55:45 ↗ put our foot on the gas on Civic

55:48 ↗ engagement on what our community wants

55:50 ↗ to see us push for and you know whether

55:53 ↗ it's 75 million dollars or 20 million

55:55 ↗ dollars you know that we focus on the

55:58 ↗ parks and trails uh amenities that are

56:01 ↗ important to our community whether

56:02 ↗ that's on squawk mountain or not

56:04 ↗ um on this question about criteria I

56:06 ↗ really want to speak to this issue of

56:09 ↗ you know long-standing commitments uh

56:12 ↗ respectfully to the groups that have

56:14 ↗ provided feedback I think we've been

56:16 ↗ extremely transparent about how

56:19 ↗ important uh this Council feels previous

56:22 ↗ commitments are those are promises I'm

56:26 ↗ an elected official and I'm elected to

56:29 ↗ do the things that I said I'm going to

56:31 ↗ do and you know there are things here

56:35 ↗ that we said we're going to do and we

56:37 ↗ put money on it and when the time came

56:40 ↗ we had to back off some of them because

56:42 ↗ of covid or we had to back off of them

56:44 ↗ because you know now on you know

56:48 ↗ Southeast 56th or whatever it is

56:50 ↗ um you know because we're going to tag

56:53 ↗ into you know how the state is working

56:55 ↗ things these are commitments we've made

56:57 ↗ to the public and you know I'm sorry we

57:00 ↗ didn't have an equity board when we made

57:01 ↗ those commitments but honor is one's

57:04 ↗ word given as a guarantee of performance

57:06 ↗ and I've looked at the folks in South

57:08 ↗ Cove and told them that we're going to

57:09 ↗ do this because it's a safety issue and

57:11 ↗ because when they joined the city

57:13 ↗ they've been expecting it for 15 years

57:15 ↗ it was wrong we didn't do it before I

57:17 ↗ mean it was a moral failing on our part

57:19 ↗ and we're going to correct that failing

57:21 ↗ and I hope the boards can support that

57:23 ↗ but I've I've and I've been completely

57:25 ↗ consistent on this so I'm not saying

57:28 ↗ anything I haven't been saying for the

57:29 ↗ last five years so there you have it

57:32 ↗ other thoughts

57:36 ↗ uh do you have everything you were

57:38 ↗ looking for from us this evening

57:40 ↗ I do thank you very much excellent well

57:42 ↗ thank you and staff for walking us

57:45 ↗ through this item there was a lot to

57:46 ↗ cover uh this evening let me go back to

57:49 ↗ my agenda which I don't have up because

57:52 ↗ I may disorganized uh human being but oh

57:58 ↗ thank you very much oh look at that a

58:00 ↗ paper copy yay all right thank you so

58:03 ↗ much

58:04 ↗ um so uh the next item we have up is uh

58:08 ↗ I will be gone June 27th which is the

58:11 ↗ next meeting of this body I will be at a

58:15 ↗ family reunion uh in a little Mountain

58:18 ↗ uh cabin on the Georgia or the North

58:22 ↗ Carolina Tennessee Border more or less

58:24 ↗ with with my Bromberg family that I'm

58:26 ↗ very excited about so we need to have a

58:29 ↗ chair for the for that meeting would

58:31 ↗ either of you uh volunteer and entertain

58:33 ↗ a motion to chair that meeting I also

58:35 ↗ was planning on being gone at a cabin by

58:38 ↗ a pond

58:40 ↗ um

58:41 ↗ throwing my son in no having my son fish

58:44 ↗ at that pond that

58:47 ↗ week but um

58:49 ↗ I'd be happy to chair remotely

58:52 ↗ if that is acceptable to the body public

58:57 ↗ I will I will look to the city

58:58 ↗ administrator to see if that is possible

59:01 ↗ I I don't know that we'd be able to do

59:04 ↗ this without a quorum present under

59:06 ↗ current law

59:09 ↗ um so I think we can either uh forego

59:12 ↗ the Jew meeting and move the items to

59:14 ↗ July

59:16 ↗ um

59:16 ↗ I don't know if Tammy has the agenda do

59:19 ↗ you know if there's are you anticipating

59:21 ↗ anything urgent in uh on the June agenda

59:24 ↗ I I know that we were going to talk

59:25 ↗ about the Broadband study to bring that

59:29 ↗ to a conclusion that I wouldn't put in

59:31 ↗ the Urgent category just a second let me

59:34 ↗ pull up the blank calendar here it is

59:41 ↗ because I too have a fishing currently

59:44 ↗ that's the only thing listed it seemed

59:46 ↗ to me that there was one other I don't

59:47 ↗ think there's anybody in the room

59:49 ↗ that would know but it certainly wasn't

59:51 ↗ pressing so

59:53 ↗ we could forego the 27th and then the

59:56 ↗ next meeting would be on

59:59 ↗ July

1:00:02 ↗ July 18th currently has the Ada

1:00:06 ↗ self-evaluation transition plan and then

1:00:09 ↗ we could move the Broadband assessment

1:00:11 ↗ do we have the option of looking at an

1:00:13 ↗ earlier date in July

1:00:15 ↗ if if uh by deferring the the June

1:00:18 ↗ meeting if we could come up with a date

1:00:20 ↗ that the that the that the members and

1:00:23 ↗ the staff could support could we

1:00:25 ↗ potentially go to an earlier date

1:00:26 ↗ we could July is Complicated by a whole

1:00:30 ↗ variety of things but if that if you'd

1:00:32 ↗ like to do it I mean at least take a

1:00:34 ↗ look I would certainly entertain having

1:00:36 ↗ that July meeting earlier to address the

1:00:39 ↗ the if we if we don't have a June

1:00:40 ↗ meeting

1:00:43 ↗ well I mean I don't I don't know if we

1:00:45 ↗ have to decide it tonight

1:00:53 ↗ just looking at the calendar

1:00:56 ↗ there is no council meeting on the 17th

1:01:01 ↗ I don't believe

1:01:03 ↗ would you want it the week prior

1:01:06 ↗ well I mean I mean yeah what is it

1:01:09 ↗ currently

1:01:11 ↗ currently it's Tuesday July 18th yes I'm

1:01:15 ↗ moving up a date a day doesn't seem to

1:01:17 ↗ do very much but if we moved it up a

1:01:18 ↗ week Monday July 10th there is a council

1:01:21 ↗ meeting

1:01:22 ↗ Tuesday July the 11th is the All-Star

1:01:25 ↗ Game

1:01:27 ↗ Major League Baseball we're Major League

1:01:28 ↗ Baseball

1:01:30 ↗ actually it's actually the 12th so yeah

1:01:35 ↗ yeah I don't know that anybody but me

1:01:36 ↗ cares about that but I mentioned it

1:01:38 ↗ since this will be a major Civic event

1:01:40 ↗ in Seattle having the Major League

1:01:41 ↗ Baseball All-Star Game in Town uh we

1:01:43 ↗ could move it to Tuesday the 11th

1:01:47 ↗ only if that would be valuable to the

1:01:49 ↗ administration if it would not it would

1:01:52 ↗ not I mean if if there's a problem with

1:01:54 ↗ the 18th I mean we want to be respectful

1:01:56 ↗ people no no I was just suggesting

1:01:57 ↗ moving it up uh just because I feel bad

1:02:00 ↗ that we would have to cancel the June

1:02:01 ↗ meeting that's all that's that's but I I

1:02:05 ↗ think the the Ada plan

1:02:08 ↗ we need to wrap up this summer but I

1:02:10 ↗ don't know that there was a specific

1:02:12 ↗ date and the broadband

1:02:15 ↗ there is no specific date

1:02:18 ↗ yeah so if we if the 18th works we would

1:02:21 ↗ recommend leaving on the 18th okay that

1:02:24 ↗ sounds good if there's a legal question

1:02:25 ↗ about whether we can have it with not a

1:02:28 ↗ physical Quorum present which it sounds

1:02:30 ↗ like there is a question so everybody

1:02:31 ↗ okay with just canceling the June

1:02:34 ↗ meeting

1:02:35 ↗ opportunity and what you're meeting with

1:02:37 ↗ on the 26th it had been moved yeah it

1:02:40 ↗ wasn't originally on the 20s 27th

1:02:44 ↗ but it was originally a week earlier but

1:02:46 ↗ they had to move it because the various

1:02:50 ↗ things got moved yes

1:02:54 ↗ all right all right

1:02:57 ↗ all right but you're good yeah good all

1:02:59 ↗ right then uh we will not have a motion

1:03:03 ↗ for a chair for the June meeting do we

1:03:04 ↗ need a motion to cancel the June meeting

1:03:07 ↗ sure

1:03:09 ↗ council member Joe I'd make a motion to

1:03:11 ↗ cancel a June meeting in light of our

1:03:13 ↗ scheduling difficulties

1:03:16 ↗ all in favor say aye aye

1:03:19 ↗ aye opposed abstentions motion carries

1:03:22 ↗ three to zero uh that is the last item

1:03:25 ↗ on the agenda for this evening therefore

1:03:27 ↗ we are adjourned at 7 33 p.m thank you

1:03:31 ↗ members the public at home and staff for

1:03:33 ↗ supporting this meeting

1:03:35 ↗ have a good evening

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 (3)

Tola Marts

Chris Reh

Barbara de Michele

Motions and votes (2)

APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 21, 2023 MEETING. . AGENDA ITEMS

Moved by COUNCILMEMBER JOE · seconded by COUNCILMEMBER DE MICHELE

Carried 3-0

In favor: Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Barbara de Michele

CANCEL THE JUNE 27, 2023 MEETING. .

Moved by COUNCILMEMBER JOE · seconded by COUNCILMEMBER DE MICHELE

Carried 3-0

In favor: Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Barbara de Michele