City Council Services, Safety & Parks Committee · Tuesday, September 19, 2023 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of August 9, 2023

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 7:53 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 08-09-23 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. August 9, 2023 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Pioneer Program ID 1531

30 min · Jen Davis-Hayes, Economic Development Manager Michael Stanger, Senior Planner, ARCH · packet pp.7–32

▶ Watch from 0:29 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

• Create program for first 200 units in Urban Core, 100 units in Mixed-Use-CI zones (

Affordable Housing Capital Funding ID 1527

30 min · Jen Davis-Hayes, Economic Development Manager · packet pp.33–139

Topics: HousingBudget

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 5, 2023

▶ Watch from 2:20 Open packet at p.33 ↗

Staff report:

Administration is recommending the following: • Continue development of the Strategic Opportunity Fund to solicit affordable housing development and rehabilitation proposals o Projects must meet HB 1590 and HB 1406 criteria, including population served and AMI levels o Prioritized funding for:  Preservation  Transit-oriented development

ADA Self Evaluation and Transition Plan ID 1454

60 min · Dale Markey-Crimp, Assistant to the City Administrator · packet pp.141–262

▶ Watch from 4:11 Open packet at p.141 ↗

Staff report:

Barrier Removal Plan • Approve plan for full City Council consideration and adoption. Progress Monitoring and Reporting • Administration to provide City Council annual report and mapping update.

3208 segments .txt ↗

0:05 ↗ foreign

0:08 ↗ called the Tuesday September 19 2023

0:12 ↗ city council services safety and Parks

0:15 ↗ committee to order

0:17 ↗ of the comment there are multiple public

0:18 ↗ comment opportunities at tonight's

0:20 ↗ meeting there's a general public comment

0:22 ↗ opportunity at the beginning of the

0:23 ↗ meeting or you can make comments after

0:25 ↗ the presentation and counsel question

0:27 ↗ and answer period on each of tonight's

0:29 ↗ agenda items members of the public May

0:31 ↗ address council at this time in person

0:33 ↗ or virtually those who signed up in

0:35 ↗ advance

0:37 ↗ to make comments will be called on first

0:39 ↗ if you're joining us virtually and would

0:41 ↗ like to make comments please raise your

0:42 ↗ virtual hand to do this if you're on the

0:44 ↗ phone press star three you've joined by

0:47 ↗ computer or smartphone look for a hand

0:49 ↗ icon this varies by device one option

0:51 ↗ may be to go to the participant panel

0:53 ↗ and choose the raise hand icon in the

0:56 ↗ lower right hand corner

0:59 ↗ I will wait for a moment to see if

1:01 ↗ anyone wishes to raise their virtual

1:02 ↗ hand

1:05 ↗ then when signed up to speak or

1:06 ↗ indicated a desire to speak this evening

1:09 ↗ yes chair Martz Jessica Claussen has

1:12 ↗ signed up and is attending virtually

1:14 ↗ great citizen comments are an important

1:17 ↗ part of the public process we take them

1:18 ↗ seriously and Factor them into the

1:20 ↗ decisions we make please direct comments

1:22 ↗ to the whole Council and not individuals

1:24 ↗ while this is not a question and answer

1:26 ↗ session we will contact you to follow up

1:28 ↗ if needed when recognized unmute your

1:31 ↗ microphone

1:32 ↗ state your name address or relationship

1:35 ↗ to the city speak clearly and pause

1:37 ↗ frequently and please limit comments to

1:39 ↗ five minutes

1:40 ↗ if you are attending virtually and do

1:42 ↗ not respond after your name or phone

1:44 ↗ number is called or if your connection

1:45 ↗ is lost unexpectedly the meeting will

1:47 ↗ need to proceed

1:48 ↗ you're encouraged to rejoin the meeting

1:50 ↗ if able personal attacks obscene

1:52 ↗ language derogatory remarks and

1:54 ↗ disruptive behavior will not be

1:55 ↗ permitted

1:56 ↗ clerk can you identify the first person

1:58 ↗ who is signed up to speak

2:00 ↗ yes chair Martz Jessica Claussen is the

2:03 ↗ first Speaker Ms Claussen I'm making you

2:06 ↗ a panelist you should be able to uh

2:09 ↗ unmute and turn on your camera

2:12 ↗ can you all hear me okay yes we can

2:15 ↗ okay great hello council members

2:18 ↗ um and actually oh I can do my camera

2:19 ↗ too sorry let me do that

2:23 ↗ the nice way

2:25 ↗ I think you can see me now okay hello

2:27 ↗ everybody

2:29 ↗ um I'm speaking to agenda item 4A the

2:31 ↗ Pioneer program

2:33 ↗ um thank you for the consideration of

2:34 ↗ the program

2:35 ↗ um it is concerning as we've discussed

2:37 ↗ in the last meeting that Issaquah has

2:39 ↗ not had substantial development in the

2:41 ↗ central Issaquah area for its own plan

2:45 ↗ um we've reviewed the staff report and

2:48 ↗ the recommendations and we do have some

2:50 ↗ comments tonight

2:51 ↗ first we think you should decide to

2:53 ↗ proceed with the Pioneer program and

2:55 ↗ work with Arch and other stakeholders to

2:57 ↗ get details refined as it moves through

3:00 ↗ the council process we do believe a

3:03 ↗ Pioneer program should include some

3:05 ↗ additional level of financial analysis

3:07 ↗ that will show that it will allow

3:09 ↗ projects to move ahead otherwise it will

3:12 ↗ be a waste of effort and development in

3:14 ↗ central Issaquah is unlikely to occur

3:17 ↗ this financial analysis can be done in

3:19 ↗ the next months as this moves along

3:21 ↗ through the council process

3:23 ↗ second as you discussed tonight please

3:25 ↗ consider a few things

3:27 ↗ the number of units allowed within the

3:29 ↗ Pioneer project should be enough to get

3:31 ↗ at least a couple of full projects in

3:33 ↗ number of units currently contemplated

3:35 ↗ 200 in the urban core and 100 in the

3:38 ↗ mixed-use zones will individually not

3:41 ↗ even cover a whole project so 200 in the

3:44 ↗ urban core that's not enough for a full

3:45 ↗ project 100 in the mixed use Zone that's

3:47 ↗ also not enough for a full project

3:49 ↗ in Kirkland they recently passed a

3:52 ↗ Pioneer project for the first 624 units

3:55 ↗ which would cover it approximately two

3:58 ↗ projects in the 85th Street Station area

4:01 ↗ if it could accommodate a third that

4:03 ↗ would be even better

4:05 ↗ um I believe that 600 is the minimum

4:07 ↗ amount of units necessary for a

4:09 ↗ successful program so you can get at

4:11 ↗ least two projects in next affordable

4:14 ↗ units should be at a level that a

4:16 ↗ development project can afford to

4:18 ↗ provide otherwise the Pioneer project

4:20 ↗ will fail to attract projects based on

4:24 ↗ my experience representing many clients

4:25 ↗ throughout the Puget Sound we see all of

4:27 ↗ the uh affordability programs around as

4:32 ↗ well as SRM development and runberg

4:33 ↗ architecture's experience in many of

4:35 ↗ these same markets the current

4:37 ↗ affordable housing recommendation in the

4:39 ↗ in your packet tonight at 12 12.5 at 60

4:43 ↗ Ami would not be feasible

4:46 ↗ um that program would have failed to

4:48 ↗ attract projects uh and I think the

4:51 ↗ whole point of the project is to attract

4:53 ↗ projects

4:55 ↗ um as I stated before we'd like the

4:56 ↗ opportunity to work with Arch to come up

4:59 ↗ with a recommendation that both delivers

5:01 ↗ affordable housing is and is also

5:03 ↗ feasible to build right now we are

5:06 ↗ thinking that that would probably be at

5:08 ↗ 80 Ami level but again we would like to

5:11 ↗ continue to work with Arch in the city

5:12 ↗ to refine that as we move ahead

5:15 ↗ um we're very supportive of the

5:17 ↗ utilization of the mfte program

5:20 ↗ um again we'd like to work with Arch

5:22 ↗ about how mfte might work in Issaquah

5:24 ↗ layered with the inclusionary housing

5:26 ↗ requirements to get more affordability

5:30 ↗ um finally we're aware that the Pioneer

5:32 ↗ project didn't recommend this

5:34 ↗ um but we do think councils should

5:35 ↗ consider a partial waiver

5:37 ↗ um either a full waiver or a partial

5:39 ↗ waiver of impact fees under the planner

5:42 ↗ program

5:43 ↗ issaquah's impact fees are the second

5:45 ↗ highest in the entire Puget Sound region

5:47 ↗ and for an average 300 unit apartment

5:50 ↗ building impact fees are about 6 million

5:52 ↗ dollars that's a huge cost for our

5:55 ↗ project and the cost is due at the

5:57 ↗ outset of construction waiving these

5:59 ↗ fees could allow a project to provide

6:01 ↗ more affordable housing as we've talked

6:04 ↗ before a development project is

6:06 ↗ basically a math problem and if we can

6:09 ↗ make the math work by waiving impact

6:11 ↗ fees we might be able to find more

6:12 ↗ affordable housing

6:14 ↗ um thank you for your consideration on

6:16 ↗ the Pioneer project we do think it's a

6:18 ↗ really good idea we're delighted you're

6:21 ↗ thinking about it and we hope that

6:23 ↗ you'll use the development Community as

6:25 ↗ a resource as you continue to consider

6:27 ↗ it and refine it thank you

6:30 ↗ thank you very much for your comment

6:33 ↗ clerk is there anyone else either signed

6:35 ↗ up or indicating that they wish to

6:37 ↗ comment

6:42 ↗ chair Martz uh Brian runberg had signed

6:44 ↗ up to speak Mr runberg I don't see your

6:46 ↗ hand raised at this time uh did you wish

6:50 ↗ to wait until after the

6:52 ↗ staff presentation

6:56 ↗ all right all right Mr unberg I'm making

6:58 ↗ you a panelist you should be able to

7:01 ↗ unmute yourself and turn on your camera

7:11 ↗ yeah hi no I I think um happy to just

7:16 ↗ chime in with what uh

7:18 ↗ Jessica Claussen just spelled out we

7:20 ↗ appreciate

7:22 ↗ um hearing that you're considering this

7:23 ↗ I think it's a great idea especially in

7:25 ↗ the near the station overlay and

7:28 ↗ um I have no further comments at this

7:30 ↗ time

7:33 ↗ all right thank you very much

7:38 ↗ clerk I take it there's no one else sure

7:40 ↗ marks we have no further uh people

7:43 ↗ signed up or in attendance that have

7:45 ↗ indicated a desire to speak at this time

7:52 ↗ um thank you so I guess at this point

7:53 ↗ we'll move on to approval of minutes

7:56 ↗ is um have the minutes been read and is

7:59 ↗ there a motion

8:03 ↗ chair marks I uh move that we approve

8:06 ↗ the minutes as presented for August 9th

8:09 ↗ 2023. is there a second second

8:13 ↗ uh council member Joe head second uh

8:15 ↗ second did it uh all in favor say aye

8:18 ↗ aye aye opposed abstentions that passes

8:22 ↗ three to O

8:23 ↗ next we will move on to our agenda first

8:26 ↗ on the agenda is ID 1531 Pioneer program

8:30 ↗ it's going to be presented by Jen Davis

8:32 ↗ Hayes our economic development manager

8:36 ↗ take it away

8:39 ↗ on my mic on good evening thank you

8:41 ↗ council members it's almost as bad as

8:43 ↗ the mute on your your team's call

8:45 ↗ um thank you for uh having us here

8:48 ↗ tonight

8:48 ↗ um we our first agenda item will be

8:50 ↗ about the Pioneer program and you I may

8:52 ↗ have noticed that uh it is separated

8:54 ↗ from the affordable housing funding

8:56 ↗ conversation as it was together in the

8:58 ↗ past partially because

9:00 ↗ um the Pioneer program isn't an

9:02 ↗ affordable housing program while there

9:03 ↗ is affordable housing provided the

9:06 ↗ intent is to help incentivize first in

9:08 ↗ market so I wanted to separate that out

9:10 ↗ so that we have a clear delineation of

9:12 ↗ the two different programs and both

9:13 ↗ programs actually have a separate path

9:15 ↗ if we proceed as far as next steps so

9:18 ↗ again appreciate uh the conversation

9:21 ↗ that we've had here over the last few

9:23 ↗ months

9:25 ↗ um and so we taking that feedback over

9:27 ↗ the last few months we've worked with

9:28 ↗ Arch so I should mention that Mike

9:30 ↗ Stanger is here from Arch and hope he's

9:32 ↗ presenting as part of this conversation

9:34 ↗ as well the analysis that we did and as

9:37 ↗ the public commenters mention commenters

9:39 ↗ mentioned and um we will continue to

9:41 ↗ work with with the development community

9:43 ↗ and actually have uh talked about

9:45 ↗ setting up a time we sit down and look

9:47 ↗ at each other's numbers and really

9:48 ↗ better understand for Arch for their

9:51 ↗ model as well as for um for them uh the

9:54 ↗ development Community about what what we

9:56 ↗ feel is necessary in order to move

9:57 ↗ forward so that is something that will

9:59 ↗ continue to move on

10:01 ↗ um so we'll talk tonight about that

10:03 ↗ analysis we'll also talk about the

10:05 ↗ question about the mfte the multi-family

10:08 ↗ tax exemption program impact as well as

10:12 ↗ I really want to hear if there's any

10:13 ↗ additional feedback you have about the

10:16 ↗ program recommendation

10:18 ↗ and so um again look tonight really

10:21 ↗ looking to get some feedback from you uh

10:24 ↗ making sure that we have we understand

10:25 ↗ what information is necessary to proceed

10:27 ↗ and really thinking that if if council

10:31 ↗ members agree to move this on to the

10:33 ↗ planning policy Commission in the

10:34 ↗ economic Vitality commission process to

10:37 ↗ work out the details and come back with

10:39 ↗ something that is again further refined

10:42 ↗ and able to know that it will at least

10:45 ↗ work as intended

10:48 ↗ um so again this is just the background

10:49 ↗ for those of you who may be joining for

10:51 ↗ the first time this was this program was

10:54 ↗ recommended in the adopted Central

10:56 ↗ Issaquah plan but was not implemented we

10:59 ↗ started talking about it in April and

11:01 ↗ again we're continuing to talk about it

11:04 ↗ and our favorite slide looking at the

11:06 ↗ housing Continuum this program really

11:08 ↗ looks at the affordable rental and the

11:12 ↗ market rate spectrum of it so that's

11:15 ↗ where this fits again there's lots of

11:17 ↗ programs to deal with every piece of the

11:19 ↗ housing Continuum that this program is

11:21 ↗ really about that upper end there

11:24 ↗ so back in August we were here and

11:26 ↗ there's a general agreement about the

11:28 ↗ continue to explore but wanted further

11:30 ↗ analysis

11:32 ↗ um we again we're going to talk about

11:34 ↗ the details of the analysis tonight but

11:37 ↗ we won't be talking in detail about

11:38 ↗ those additional amenities and all those

11:41 ↗ details again we're hoping that we can

11:42 ↗ work those details out with the planning

11:45 ↗ policy commission and economic Vitality

11:47 ↗ commission we heard from you that is

11:49 ↗ really important to be looking at those

11:51 ↗ things which include sustainability

11:53 ↗ access to the natural environment ground

11:56 ↗ floor retail and looking at 80 to 120

12:00 ↗ percent Ami housing so we will again

12:03 ↗ continue to work on the details of that

12:05 ↗ with our our friends in planning policy

12:10 ↗ and economic Vitality commissions

12:13 ↗ so we do have an updated recommendation

12:15 ↗ this was the recommendation that we

12:17 ↗ provide previously so in general

12:20 ↗ um there's a limit of a number of units

12:22 ↗ there was an adjustment to the

12:24 ↗ affordability there was a provision of

12:26 ↗ the multi-family and then there was a

12:28 ↗ developer selected benefit from a City

12:31 ↗ menu

12:33 ↗ um we uh have some updates to recommend

12:37 ↗ tonight

12:39 ↗ um to this program again partially

12:40 ↗ through the arch analysis to date and I

12:43 ↗ think again we can continue to refine

12:45 ↗ this

12:46 ↗ um the recommendation tonight that we'll

12:48 ↗ be talking about is to continue the

12:52 ↗ inclusionary zoning affordability and so

12:56 ↗ that um so some folks may know and it

12:59 ↗ was mentioned tonight that that is a

13:01 ↗ required affordable housing require uh

13:03 ↗ required affordable housing requirement

13:05 ↗ for all developments within the urban

13:07 ↗ core and mixed-use area so in the urban

13:10 ↗ core it's 12.5 at 60 or 10 at 50 Ami so

13:16 ↗ lots of numbers but it's something

13:18 ↗ that's required

13:19 ↗ um and it's for the life of the project

13:22 ↗ um we made it uh we looking at the

13:25 ↗ analysis we decided to pick this the uh

13:29 ↗ example that kept that 60 Ami but

13:33 ↗ removed the additional affordability

13:34 ↗ requirement for the development bonus

13:37 ↗ program so that is what's required once

13:40 ↗ you go above the base height or the far

13:43 ↗ floor area ratio and that requires

13:47 ↗ affordable housing at 80 and at 50 so

13:51 ↗ um with those changes uh we uh the state

13:55 ↗ law requires you to have a certain

13:56 ↗ number of percentage of units to have a

13:58 ↗ 12-year mfte so that didn't meet the

14:00 ↗ requirements so one to eight so lots of

14:02 ↗ little tweaks as we got into the

14:04 ↗ analysis of seeing what we could we

14:05 ↗ could do

14:07 ↗ as we were discussing and uh Mike from

14:11 ↗ arches hey wait a minute is this two you

14:13 ↗ know the 200 residential units that you

14:15 ↗ mentioned here in the 100 residential

14:16 ↗ units in mixed use

14:18 ↗ um is that there was a misconcept or mis

14:21 ↗ uh State mismatch of of understanding

14:23 ↗ that was affordable units or full

14:26 ↗ complete units and so I wanted to say

14:29 ↗ that out loud here tonight and also kind

14:31 ↗ of get some feedback on that of making

14:33 ↗ sure we're on the same page that

14:36 ↗ um that whether it's you know 200 full

14:39 ↗ full units of the entire project again

14:42 ↗ having notes up here on the slide

14:44 ↗ basically mentioning which Jesse

14:46 ↗ mentioned that you know most of our

14:48 ↗ projects are development

14:51 ↗ um of of housing have been more than 200

14:55 ↗ and closer to 300 plus range so if we

14:58 ↗ really wanted to utilize this program as

15:01 ↗ a spark does it make better sense to say

15:03 ↗ two projects does it makes better sense

15:05 ↗ to increase that number and that's

15:07 ↗ something that we we I would appreciate

15:09 ↗ some feedback on tonight

15:12 ↗ and and Clarity on on what you know what

15:15 ↗ you may have thought that would be and

15:16 ↗ and if that changed things so again just

15:19 ↗ want to make sure that

15:21 ↗ um understand why we're changing or in

15:23 ↗ our our recommendation tonight and it

15:25 ↗ will continue to be refined

15:27 ↗ um one of the important things is with

15:29 ↗ the development bonus inter

15:30 ↗ interpretation there was a clarification

15:32 ↗ from our planning staff where instead of

15:35 ↗ uh 53 units of additional housing is

15:38 ↗ really only 12 that was required so

15:41 ↗ um both the developer and myself read it

15:43 ↗ one way and it was interpreted a

15:45 ↗ different way so

15:46 ↗ um again one of those things when you

15:48 ↗ start really going into the numbers

15:49 ↗ seeing how that changes so I'm going to

15:53 ↗ invite Mike to uh join us for

15:58 ↗ um the description of the analysis but I

16:01 ↗ I want to

16:02 ↗ um just again thank the runberg and SRM

16:05 ↗ team to they provided us some high level

16:08 ↗ data about their projects so we use

16:09 ↗ those numbers and the land value

16:12 ↗ um and the unit ratio to do these

16:14 ↗ numbers to do this analysis so there we

16:17 ↗ understand that we're not creating this

16:20 ↗ Pioneer program for this project but it

16:22 ↗ had something in real life that we could

16:25 ↗ play with the numbers and see what makes

16:27 ↗ sense we use some data that from um

16:31 ↗ from current rental rates for a project

16:35 ↗ here in Issaquah to make sure that it

16:37 ↗ aligned so Mike I asked you to go ahead

16:40 ↗ and join

16:41 ↗ um and take it away and just let me know

16:44 ↗ you want when you want me to change the

16:45 ↗ slides

16:46 ↗ thank you Mark

16:47 ↗ thanks Jen uh good evening council

16:50 ↗ members I'm really happy to be with you

16:53 ↗ for this discussion tonight and look

16:56 ↗ forward to working through helping us

17:00 ↗ all understand

17:01 ↗ how these programs can work for a

17:04 ↗ benefit of this community

17:06 ↗ the analysis that we've done

17:11 ↗ for this case

17:13 ↗ is something that we've done for a

17:17 ↗ number of Our member communities over

17:19 ↗ many years

17:21 ↗ and each time we learn more about how

17:25 ↗ things work and how we can improve the

17:27 ↗ process and so this time we've actually

17:32 ↗ taken two approaches to it

17:35 ↗ one is uh what I would characterize as a

17:39 ↗ more

17:40 ↗ typical for Arch public perspective and

17:44 ↗ that is to try to answer the question

17:46 ↗ you know what value is the city creating

17:49 ↗ for land owners and how much

17:52 ↗ affordability can the Community capture

17:56 ↗ from it for affordable housing while

17:58 ↗ still leaving a net benefit for the

18:01 ↗ owner

18:02 ↗ and we do this by you know evaluating

18:06 ↗ things like the the

18:09 ↗ increased development capacity or

18:12 ↗ density that the landowners would enjoy

18:15 ↗ a tax exemption if that's part of the

18:18 ↗ program and

18:21 ↗ um

18:21 ↗ we would then divide that by the

18:25 ↗ increase in affordable units to get a

18:28 ↗ value that the landowner would be

18:30 ↗ getting per affordable unit we'd compare

18:33 ↗ that to what we call a rent Gap or the

18:36 ↗ the value of the affordable housing is

18:38 ↗ the difference between the market rent

18:41 ↗ and the affordable rent and we take that

18:44 ↗ on an average per affordable and then we

18:46 ↗ can we can balance the two again compare

18:49 ↗ the two

18:51 ↗ and try to make sure that the

18:55 ↗ the public is getting a satisfactory

18:59 ↗ amount of affordability

19:01 ↗ and at the same time the benefits are

19:04 ↗ still netting positive for developers

19:08 ↗ and landowners so that's one approach

19:10 ↗ the public

19:12 ↗ perspective the other one which we've

19:15 ↗ taken on more recently is to is more of

19:19 ↗ a developer

19:21 ↗ perspective on things and that is trying

19:24 ↗ to understand what effect is a proposal

19:27 ↗ for

19:28 ↗ up Zoning for mfte and the affordable

19:32 ↗ housing Etc have on the

19:35 ↗ feasibility of a typical project so it's

19:38 ↗ trying to give us some insight on the

19:40 ↗ financial viability of these projects

19:44 ↗ um we can't uh unfortunately really

19:49 ↗ predict for you you know what the bottom

19:52 ↗ line will be for any given developer or

19:55 ↗ project

19:57 ↗ um we try you know we're trying to

19:59 ↗ increase our understanding of this but

20:03 ↗ we will be able to assure you that if

20:06 ↗ the council does

20:08 ↗ a that certain development will happen

20:11 ↗ that depends on a whole lot of other

20:13 ↗ factors

20:16 ↗ um so that's that's kind of the setup

20:17 ↗ for this

20:18 ↗ um

20:19 ↗ Jen how about the next slide

20:22 ↗ thanks

20:24 ↗ so

20:25 ↗ um we looked at three

20:27 ↗ um

20:27 ↗ are focused on three scenarios

20:31 ↗ um that would take us you know that

20:34 ↗ would be considered Pioneer Catalyst

20:36 ↗ kinds of projects in that they vary from

20:38 ↗ the existing code and the first one

20:41 ↗ would be to take a project that could

20:45 ↗ build with the inclusionary zoning with

20:49 ↗ the density bonus

20:51 ↗ uh but add a tax exemption benefit and

20:57 ↗ um since with the um

21:00 ↗ in the same areas that we tested that

21:03 ↗ would work out to be a total of about 14

21:07 ↗ of the units would be affordable so it

21:12 ↗ would only qualify under state law for

21:14 ↗ an eight-year tax exemption now you have

21:17 ↗ to get to twenty percent affordable

21:19 ↗ units to be able to offer a 12-year tax

21:22 ↗ exemption

21:24 ↗ so Pioneer one is the the same code that

21:29 ↗ you have now but you're just offering a

21:31 ↗ tax exemption on top of that

21:34 ↗ the second alternative would be

21:38 ↗ similar but you wouldn't require any

21:43 ↗ affordability for the development bonus

21:45 ↗ or for the the density bonus it would

21:47 ↗ just be getting the inclusionary

21:50 ↗ affordability

21:52 ↗ of the what was characterized as 12 and

21:56 ↗ a half percent at 60 percent of median

21:58 ↗ income and then the third option

22:02 ↗ uh would be

22:04 ↗ kind of like the first one uh you get

22:08 ↗ affordable units for the density bonus

22:10 ↗ as well as inclusionary but instead of

22:13 ↗ having a mix of 50 60 and 80

22:17 ↗ Ami units

22:19 ↗ you would just make all of them

22:21 ↗ affordable at 80 percent of medium

22:25 ↗ let's go on to the next

22:29 ↗ gen

22:31 ↗ so as Jen mentioned

22:34 ↗ um

22:35 ↗ we were using the uh one of the

22:39 ↗ proposals uh

22:43 ↗ developers that we've spoken to as kind

22:45 ↗ of a model for or a prototype

22:49 ↗ um hoping that that will represent

22:51 ↗ uh similar projects throughout the

22:54 ↗ central Issaquah district and in this

22:59 ↗ case the development capacity comes to

23:03 ↗ uh 20 27 percent increase in dwelling

23:07 ↗ units

23:08 ↗ the current city code would require a

23:12 ↗ project like that to set aside you know

23:15 ↗ 12 and a half percent as Jen said

23:18 ↗ of the unit so 60 percent of median

23:21 ↗ if you do the density get the 27 percent

23:25 ↗ density bonus than that

23:28 ↗ 12 and a half percent works out to about

23:30 ↗ 10 percent of the total new project

23:34 ↗ and then the density bonus requires

23:37 ↗ another

23:39 ↗ um more affordable housing with a mix of

23:42 ↗ 50 and 80 units so in our example here

23:47 ↗ you'd end up with 29 or sorry 29 units

23:51 ↗ at 60 Ami four at eighty and eight at

23:55 ↗ fifty percent of median

23:58 ↗ and then we uh ran numbers so let's skip

24:02 ↗ to the next one please we'll come back

24:04 ↗ to mfte

24:06 ↗ yeah

24:07 ↗ um so we ran numbers through those two

24:09 ↗ models

24:11 ↗ and I should say that

24:13 ↗ um

24:14 ↗ uh

24:15 ↗ referring back to the comment about

24:17 ↗ impact fee waivers uh you may know this

24:20 ↗ already but City of Issaquah has been

24:23 ↗ really generous with giving impact fee

24:26 ↗ waivers and other fee waivers permit

24:29 ↗ fees and so forth for affordable housing

24:32 ↗ and so we factored those into this

24:35 ↗ analysis

24:38 ↗ um basically the affordable units are

24:40 ↗ exempt from

24:42 ↗ Impact fees and virtually all the

24:45 ↗ development fees

24:50 ↗ um so again the Pioneer one is the

24:54 ↗ current code

24:56 ↗ with the added benefit of an eight-year

25:00 ↗ tax exemption Pioneer 2

25:03 ↗ is similar you get the tax exemption but

25:06 ↗ you don't have to do the extra

25:08 ↗ affordable units for the development

25:10 ↗ bonus and then Pioneer three

25:13 ↗ is you do provide the extra affordable

25:17 ↗ units but all the affordable units are

25:21 ↗ 80 percent of median

25:23 ↗ in other words

25:25 ↗ um a higher or

25:28 ↗ higher affordability level

25:31 ↗ instead of the mix of 50 60 and 80. and

25:35 ↗ what we found the measurement that we're

25:37 ↗ showing here is is called yield on cost

25:41 ↗ uh what that is technically is the

25:45 ↗ ratio of the net operating income of a

25:49 ↗ project to the total development costs

25:52 ↗ in in one year the the first

25:55 ↗ um

25:58 ↗ sorry forgetting the word the first

26:01 ↗ settled year or established year of a

26:03 ↗ project

26:04 ↗ they could measure the the success of a

26:08 ↗ Project based on this yield on cost

26:10 ↗ there are other measures as well

26:13 ↗ that various developers use we just

26:16 ↗ happen to be using this one

26:19 ↗ and what we found with the uh the these

26:24 ↗ scenarios in this example project is

26:27 ↗ that all three

26:29 ↗ um improved or appeared to improve the

26:32 ↗ feasibility

26:33 ↗ above the the Baseline that is the

26:37 ↗ project that could be built under the

26:40 ↗ current code without any density bonus

26:43 ↗ so the first alternative

26:48 ↗ um gave us an increase an 11 increase on

26:52 ↗ yield on cost Pioneer two and three are

26:57 ↗ about 13 better than the Baseline

27:00 ↗ on that measure so sorry Mike say again

27:04 ↗ for me what's the new what's the

27:06 ↗ numerator and what's the denominator on

27:07 ↗ that 11 and the third or 13 or 13. the

27:11 ↗ yield on cost change

27:13 ↗ the yield on cost change right so we're

27:16 ↗ what what's the numerator and what's the

27:18 ↗ denominator

27:20 ↗ well the for the change of course it's

27:23 ↗ the yield on cost for the

27:26 ↗ Pioneer project and the denominator is

27:29 ↗ the yield on cost of the Baseline

27:32 ↗ project

27:34 ↗ um sorry I died but I think you might be

27:36 ↗ asking

27:38 ↗ the in fact in Practical terms it's the

27:41 ↗ is it the value of the uh

27:47 ↗ the the value of the subsidized housing

27:52 ↗ is the numerator and the cost of the

27:54 ↗ project is the denominator

27:58 ↗ where the cost of the yeah that's what

28:01 ↗ I'm trying to ask

28:03 ↗ yeah yield on cost is the is the ratio

28:07 ↗ of the net operating income

28:10 ↗ I don't know what net operating income

28:12 ↗ means

28:13 ↗ that means all of the

28:15 ↗ um

28:16 ↗ income that the project is making

28:19 ↗ from rents

28:21 ↗ and fees and so forth

28:24 ↗ after uh subtracting out their operating

28:29 ↗ costs

28:32 ↗ so it's how much money they're making it

28:34 ↗ on their project

28:36 ↗ yes basically right okay I'm not a

28:40 ↗ finance person I'm just a rocket

28:42 ↗ scientist so that's I don't I don't

28:45 ↗ understand any of this stuff so that's

28:47 ↗ okay I barely understand it myself

28:50 ↗ um

28:51 ↗ the to get the yield on cost then you

28:54 ↗ divide that net operating income by the

28:57 ↗ total cost of

28:58 ↗ create developing the project

29:01 ↗ so all the hard costs all of the um and

29:06 ↗ the soft costs that they pay that

29:08 ↗ engineers and The Architects and

29:10 ↗ everything everything that went into

29:12 ↗ the uh building the project so does this

29:16 ↗ say that if we did pioneer one they'd

29:19 ↗ get an increased 11 yield on their

29:22 ↗ investment

29:25 ↗ no it means that the that the project is

29:29 ↗ doing is performing about 11 better than

29:33 ↗ it would be if they

29:35 ↗ just built the project that the minimum

29:40 ↗ project that they could do

29:42 ↗ without the density bonus

29:47 ↗ okay I thought that's what I said but

29:49 ↗ okay this must be must be some

29:51 ↗ difference so it's it they do 11 better

29:53 ↗ with that if we if we did that they do

29:56 ↗ 13 better with Pioneer 2 they do 13

29:58 ↗ better with Pioneer three is that how it

30:01 ↗ I actually read that

30:03 ↗ right

30:05 ↗ okay thank you but I know I I would

30:08 ↗ caution not to uh

30:11 ↗ focus on the precise number as much as

30:15 ↗ uh are being able to say that we think

30:19 ↗ that there's some significant

30:21 ↗ Improvement

30:22 ↗ uh offered by these Pioneer projects

30:28 ↗ and and they're of of a comparable

30:30 ↗ benefit more or less 11 and 13 or less

30:34 ↗ are similar numbers the ones bigger than

30:36 ↗ the other but they're

30:37 ↗ squint at them and look at them you know

30:39 ↗ and hit yourself in the head with a

30:40 ↗ hammer and they're about they're about

30:42 ↗ the same

30:43 ↗ right

30:45 ↗ thank you

30:46 ↗ sure

30:50 ↗ and then uh just to touch on the mfte

30:54 ↗ impact

30:56 ↗ um these figures are based on a 300 unit

30:59 ↗ prototype that would be that would get

31:03 ↗ an eight-year exemption on taxes so all

31:06 ↗ of the residential Improvement values

31:09 ↗ would be tax exempt the new

31:12 ↗ residential Improvement values

31:15 ↗ the land and any commercial

31:18 ↗ non-residential Improvement values would

31:21 ↗ remain taxable

31:24 ↗ um so for instance sometimes we will see

31:27 ↗ a mixed-use building go up

31:30 ↗ the uh the um the dwelling units are

31:34 ↗ exempt the residential parking is exempt

31:37 ↗ but the commercial space the commercial

31:39 ↗ parking is still taxable the land is

31:42 ↗ still taxable

31:45 ↗ um what happens during the tax exemption

31:48 ↗ is that the the assessor continues to

31:51 ↗ appraise the values of the residential

31:53 ↗ improvements but it will they won't add

31:55 ↗ it to the tax roll it's if

31:58 ↗ the house the new housing doesn't exist

32:00 ↗ until the mfte expires

32:03 ↗ and when that the tax exemption expires

32:05 ↗ then the assessor adds it to the rolls

32:08 ↗ so who are the other agencies in this

32:13 ↗ who are the other agencies that would

32:16 ↗ give the tax exemption yeah if we're if

32:19 ↗ basically somebody else is is chipping

32:22 ↗ in 10 times what we are towards this

32:24 ↗ who's that somebody else

32:26 ↗ well it's all of any agency that or

32:29 ↗ jurisdiction that taxes real property so

32:33 ↗ the school district okay so uh if

32:37 ↗ there's Library

32:39 ↗ um the state

32:41 ↗ everybody who collects ad valorem

32:43 ↗ property taxes would be foregoing the

32:46 ↗ revenue but that's more than half a

32:49 ↗ school district right

32:52 ↗ I think so I don't I don't have those

32:54 ↗ figures open to me right now but

32:57 ↗ okay

33:00 ↗ it's another big one

33:04 ↗ I'm sorry what

33:07 ↗ oh I said King County is another one of

33:09 ↗ course

33:11 ↗ thank you

33:12 ↗ so

33:14 ↗ um so if we have 300 units a typical

33:17 ↗ value per unit that the uh that would be

33:22 ↗ taxable is somewhere around four hundred

33:25 ↗ thousand dollars

33:27 ↗ at your current tax rate

33:30 ↗ um we calculated that and then increased

33:33 ↗ it one percent a year

33:34 ↗ as if it you know you're reaching the

33:37 ↗ levy cap each year

33:39 ↗ over eight years and then discounted it

33:43 ↗ to the present value

33:45 ↗ that would likely uh mean a 6.2 million

33:50 ↗ dollar tax savings

33:53 ↗ for the owner over eight years

33:56 ↗ for the city's part the city would

34:00 ↗ go sixty nine thousand dollars a year

34:03 ↗ each year for eight years

34:06 ↗ uh but that density bonus that plus the

34:10 ↗ density bonus I should say the taxes

34:12 ↗ intensity bonus gains the city the

34:14 ↗ affordable housing as long as the

34:16 ↗ housing lasts that would be affordable

34:21 ↗ and then of course get taxes and fees

34:24 ↗ from construction value

34:27 ↗ any taxes uh sales taxes that the

34:31 ↗ residents generate or employees on the

34:33 ↗ site

34:34 ↗ and potentially

34:36 ↗ increased property taxes on the land or

34:40 ↗ or commercial value over time

34:50 ↗ thank you so oh sorry

34:53 ↗ we didn't uh

34:56 ↗ Jen and I were anticipating that uh I

34:59 ↗ mean I'm happy to answer any questions

35:00 ↗ that you have but uh we would look

35:03 ↗ forward to having a more focused

35:05 ↗ discussion on mft

35:07 ↗ um uh when you're ready to do that

35:13 ↗ thank you Mike yes and I think we'll be

35:15 ↗ back at the October 9th uh city council

35:18 ↗ Committee of the whole to talk about our

35:20 ↗ affordable housing update and how

35:21 ↗ planning plans to look at what things

35:24 ↗ they plan to look at next year which

35:26 ↗ could be mft if the city council would

35:28 ↗ like to do that so

35:30 ↗ um getting back to our recommendation

35:32 ↗ we're recommending Pioneer 2 and I again

35:34 ↗ I will say that

35:36 ↗ um reminder that this is uh this project

35:39 ↗ is meant to and I have the quote here

35:40 ↗ from Central civil plan really to help

35:42 ↗ those that are first in the market area

35:44 ↗ it still would create 29 units of uh at

35:48 ↗ 60 Ami and really

35:52 ↗ um I think what we would like to hear

35:53 ↗ from Council is that there is an a

35:56 ↗ desire and agreement to move forward

35:58 ↗ with the pro with creating a prior

36:00 ↗ Pioneer program that again provides

36:02 ↗ incentives so whether that's a financial

36:05 ↗ incentive through the multi-family tax

36:07 ↗ exemption reduced affordability or some

36:10 ↗ other components as we again work with

36:12 ↗ the planning policy commission and

36:14 ↗ economic Vitality commission to figure

36:16 ↗ that out that's really what we'd like to

36:18 ↗ better understand

36:20 ↗ um tonight to move forward on this

36:24 ↗ um and then again come come back after

36:26 ↗ the commission has reviewed it for uh

36:28 ↗ continued discussion at the committee

36:30 ↗ level or full council meeting

36:33 ↗ thank you

36:35 ↗ Jen you had some information on comps in

36:39 ↗ here do you want to speak to it's not

36:41 ↗ you don't have it in your slide deck but

36:43 ↗ you have it in the memo do you want to

36:44 ↗ speak to that

36:46 ↗ to the comps for Kenmore Kirkland and

36:50 ↗ Redmond oh okay so that's yeah that's

36:52 ↗ the Pioneer program examples um that we

36:54 ↗ that we presented before and actually as

36:57 ↗ the public commenter mentioned Kirkland

36:59 ↗ just did uh adopt a new Pioneer program

37:03 ↗ because this was actually completed

37:05 ↗ already so in Kenmore they uh reduce

37:09 ↗ parking in their Transit oriented

37:11 ↗ development overlay Zone and they had

37:13 ↗ allowed it for the first hundred units

37:15 ↗ in there and nobody utilized that

37:18 ↗ um in Kirkland they reduced the

37:20 ↗ affordability for the first 200 units

37:22 ↗ and that development happened then in

37:23 ↗ the Totem Lake Center so real

37:26 ↗ um next to the the commercial center

37:28 ↗ again they were trying to build that

37:30 ↗ community so that was positive they

37:31 ↗ reduced again less affordability

37:35 ↗ um and and that moved forward and then

37:37 ↗ Redmond they also reduce affordability

37:40 ↗ um and then the Overlake Village Zone

37:42 ↗ and that was for the first affordable

37:43 ↗ units 100 sorry affordable units and so

37:46 ↗ three residential developments utilize

37:49 ↗ all those Pioneer units and in both

37:51 ↗ Kirkland and Redmond now projects are

37:54 ↗ moving forward and the market and the

37:56 ↗ requirements that are currently out

37:57 ↗ there so again a Pioneer program is not

38:00 ↗ intended to be uh the where we stand

38:03 ↗ forever as far as they were they the um

38:06 ↗ requirements it's meant to show the in

38:08 ↗ the market that it can it can it can

38:10 ↗ work and it actually we've seen that

38:13 ↗ actually happen already in Issaquah with

38:16 ↗ um you can see when after Atlas happened

38:18 ↗ lots of the Newport Way developments

38:22 ↗ kind of decided hey okay this looks like

38:24 ↗ this is possible so uh currently in the

38:27 ↗ urban core and the mixed uh mixed use

38:31 ↗ zones in central Issaquah we have one

38:33 ↗ one apartment community built in 10

38:36 ↗ years and so this would uh jump start it

38:39 ↗ was the hope is a jump start that

38:41 ↗ housing development where we want to see

38:43 ↗ that Focus around the amenities and jobs

38:45 ↗ in transit and when you say shallower

38:48 ↗ affordability for Kirkland and lowered

38:50 ↗ affordability yeah

38:52 ↗ specifically same words um so reduce so

38:55 ↗ if so like we were saying 80 down or 60

38:58 ↗ up to 80 so that's shallower or lowered

39:02 ↗ they use those those terms

39:04 ↗ interchangeably so in both of those

39:06 ↗ cases they went from 60 to 80.

39:08 ↗ um you know I need to look at that so I

39:10 ↗ I do believe but I don't want to it's

39:13 ↗ this was I remember putting this in in

39:15 ↗ April so let me uh confirm that and get

39:18 ↗ back to you okay I have those in

39:20 ↗ somewhere all right other questions

39:22 ↗ before we take public comment Barb you

39:24 ↗ look like you have some

39:26 ↗ maybe Russell does too

39:29 ↗ um so um

39:32 ↗ yeah I have several questions uh Jen you

39:35 ↗ said that

39:36 ↗ um

39:37 ↗ you're going to talk to developers

39:40 ↗ um but you haven't so far as that am I

39:42 ↗ clear about that have they what kind of

39:44 ↗ input have the developers had

39:46 ↗ yeah so I should I should say we will

39:49 ↗ continue so um at the beginning this

39:51 ↗ process and I apologize for the way I

39:53 ↗ said that um at the beginning of the

39:55 ↗ process I I spoke to eight different uh

39:58 ↗ development firms about either those

40:01 ↗ some that have developed here some that

40:03 ↗ were looking here and walked away and

40:05 ↗ some that are currently looking here and

40:07 ↗ this was again in the beginning of the

40:08 ↗ process to find out okay what's why

40:10 ↗ aren't you developing here

40:12 ↗ um what would help and it was very clear

40:15 ↗ that

40:17 ↗ um some of the the requirements uh to

40:20 ↗ them made it seem infeasible to develop

40:23 ↗ um and so that's kind of what started

40:25 ↗ the ball along with a request to explore

40:28 ↗ the Pioneer program so when we say we're

40:30 ↗ going to continue to have those

40:31 ↗ conversations as Mike mentioned from

40:33 ↗ Arch that every time we have another

40:36 ↗ conversation helps both all the whole

40:38 ↗ table learn more about what really is

40:40 ↗ happening so

40:41 ↗ um uh runberg and SRM and Arch have uh

40:45 ↗ just this morning talked about sitting

40:46 ↗ down down and talking going over numbers

40:49 ↗ I had another call from a different

40:51 ↗ developer today that again expressed

40:54 ↗ interest in the Pioneer program but I

40:57 ↗ didn't think that this 60 Ami was

41:00 ↗ feasible so we will continue how those

41:04 ↗ conversations because the reality is I

41:06 ↗ don't want to create something we don't

41:07 ↗ want to spend all this time creating

41:08 ↗ something that is not financially

41:10 ↗ feasible and so that's the biggest thing

41:12 ↗ there's other factors in here about how

41:15 ↗ you get your financing how how long the

41:18 ↗ affordability is that we'll again we

41:20 ↗ will we will look at incorporating into

41:22 ↗ the final recommendation

41:27 ↗ um so I'll come back to that because I I

41:29 ↗ have some overall questions about just

41:31 ↗ how we arrived at the 60

41:33 ↗ recommendation but so we had a

41:38 ↗ correspondence today from several

41:42 ↗ um people's uh constituents and then we

41:44 ↗ heard the uh uh testimony

41:48 ↗ um what would be the consequences of

41:50 ↗ doubling the numbers and and actually I

41:53 ↗ believe Jessica was advocating for

41:56 ↗ tripling the numbers that we are that

41:58 ↗ we've got in our recommendation what

42:00 ↗ would be the impact of that with that I

42:02 ↗ know it would be a tax

42:04 ↗ uh for going for us of more consequence

42:09 ↗ but what would be some of the other

42:10 ↗ programmatic consequences

42:13 ↗ um would that open it up to more

42:15 ↗ developers or would that simply mean a

42:18 ↗ larger development or what what do you

42:21 ↗ think that would accomplish if we were

42:24 ↗ to increase the availability of this

42:27 ↗ program yeah so that I think you hit the

42:29 ↗ nail on the head that it could be larger

42:31 ↗ development or it could be multiple

42:33 ↗ developments

42:35 ↗ um and so looking at the example of the

42:38 ↗ Run bird project you know they're

42:39 ↗ looking just under 300 so that if we

42:43 ↗ raised it to 600 or 700 it would allow

42:46 ↗ you know another similar size apartment

42:49 ↗ community for relativity so Atlas is 344

42:54 ↗ units there was a um a cup there's a

42:58 ↗ department community that was our

42:59 ↗ apartment developer that was looking at

43:01 ↗ building 350 units the the transit

43:05 ↗ Orient development is about that about

43:08 ↗ 350. so again that's what you are seeing

43:11 ↗ in the market there are there are a few

43:14 ↗ properties that could redevelop at a

43:17 ↗ larger scale but very few and right now

43:19 ↗ they have shopping centers that are

43:21 ↗ earning income on them so there's not a

43:23 ↗ likelihood that they're going to

43:24 ↗ immediately shut down and redevelop but

43:28 ↗ again we would go out once this has

43:30 ↗ passed one of the things I plan to do is

43:33 ↗ to do robust Outreach to property owners

43:36 ↗ and inform them about this tool other

43:38 ↗ tools we're working on and and again

43:41 ↗ part of this is to start the

43:44 ↗ conversation about what would help you

43:46 ↗ move forward to develop and and also

43:48 ↗ then develop affordable housing with the

43:50 ↗ Strategic opportunity fund

43:53 ↗ so uh when we were talking about

43:56 ↗ the analysis and I've been talking to

43:59 ↗ people in the community about and

44:01 ↗ hearing that construction costs are

44:05 ↗ going up by 25 to 30 percent in some

44:07 ↗ cases on some of the projects are

44:10 ↗ underway and so and taking into account

44:13 ↗ that it takes maybe three to five years

44:15 ↗ to get a project all the way through

44:17 ↗ does our analysis take into account the

44:21 ↗ impact of

44:22 ↗ possibly continuing inflation at the

44:25 ↗ rate it is today

44:26 ↗ I'm going to let Mike answer that

44:28 ↗ because I'm not 100 sure okay

44:33 ↗ I mean it's a grad to that Mike uh does

44:36 ↗ it make any difference maybe the

44:38 ↗ inflation is going up and it it doesn't

44:40 ↗ make a difference so I'll add that to

44:42 ↗ that question

44:46 ↗ uh it's a great question uh

44:52 ↗ and I'll confess that uh

44:56 ↗ I I

44:57 ↗ can't

44:58 ↗ predict the future any better than

45:00 ↗ anybody else the analysis uses the best

45:03 ↗ current data that we uh have that we've

45:07 ↗ gained through a lot of stakeholder uh

45:10 ↗ input the best current information that

45:12 ↗ we have about costs of development we

45:16 ↗ try to build in uh some uh wiggle rooms

45:20 ↗ so to speak

45:21 ↗ um that you know allows for some margin

45:24 ↗ of error

45:26 ↗ but if things are dramatically different

45:30 ↗ five years from now then

45:33 ↗ um

45:34 ↗ you know the current model might not

45:36 ↗ have done a great job of predicting the

45:38 ↗ future and it's

45:40 ↗ it's really

45:42 ↗ uh

45:45 ↗ you know describing current

45:47 ↗ circumstances

45:49 ↗ okay thanks yeah and you know frankly

45:52 ↗ the

45:54 ↗ you know I

45:57 ↗ um developers face the same problem so

46:00 ↗ yeah that's my question of maybe it

46:03 ↗ doesn't maybe that does not make a

46:05 ↗ difference

46:05 ↗ so I learned something new tonight and

46:08 ↗ that is I didn't realize that if we

46:10 ↗ impose or if we not impose but if we

46:14 ↗ give a development

46:16 ↗ mfde

46:19 ↗ that that

46:20 ↗ takes

46:22 ↗ us away from the school district

46:26 ↗ this is School District know that

46:29 ↗ I did not know that

46:31 ↗ so that is an impact especially if that

46:34 ↗ is a

46:36 ↗ development that brings in young

46:39 ↗ children

46:41 ↗ right it's foregone Revenue so it

46:43 ↗ doesn't reduce it yes but yes they

46:45 ↗ obviously they'd have to serve more of

46:47 ↗ the residents if there are children yes

46:49 ↗ yeah okay that's that was that was new

46:53 ↗ information for me I just wanted to make

46:55 ↗ sure I was hearing the right thing so so

46:57 ↗ let me Circle back to my last question

46:59 ↗ then so

47:01 ↗ um we've heard over and over and over

47:03 ↗ from our developers that the 60

47:06 ↗ Ami just does not pencil out for them

47:08 ↗ and we have a recommendation tonight

47:10 ↗ that we stick with the 60

47:13 ↗ so uh could I hear

47:16 ↗ the rationale for sticking with the city

47:20 ↗ sure so when we looked at that yield

47:23 ↗ over cost is that the right terms I'm

47:25 ↗ using um looking at the 60 and the

47:28 ↗ eighty percent the two the

47:29 ↗ recommendation made last time and then

47:30 ↗ the revised one it appeared that the

47:33 ↗ impact was relatively similar and

47:35 ↗ looking at

47:36 ↗ um 60 is is we have less 60 units in the

47:41 ↗ community than

47:42 ↗ um

47:43 ↗ maybe 80 or 100 20. um so that was a

47:46 ↗ rationale

47:48 ↗ um again after after getting feedback

47:50 ↗ and talking more through the analysis

47:52 ↗ the tool um again I think we there's

47:54 ↗ some room to really look at how to

47:57 ↗ adjust that so while on paper last week

48:02 ↗ uh we you know are recommending this I

48:04 ↗ think the the real recommendation that

48:06 ↗ I'm hoping for out of this committee is

48:08 ↗ to say we want to you know do a Pioneer

48:11 ↗ program we are giving you this guard

48:14 ↗ rails this kind of guidance of where we

48:17 ↗ feel comfortable and what's important to

48:19 ↗ us and go to PPC and EVC and figure out

48:23 ↗ the 60 70 10 4 and again continuing the

48:29 ↗ conversation with the community

48:29 ↗ continuing the conversation with Arch

48:32 ↗ and our city leaders to make sure that

48:35 ↗ we are able to impact along the along

48:39 ↗ the spectrum of housing so it does yeah

48:43 ↗ it does feel like it's not 100 complete

48:46 ↗ yet as a recommendation and and so

48:49 ↗ um see there's a little bit of a let us

48:52 ↗ let us continue to massage these numbers

48:54 ↗ and again create something that will be

48:57 ↗ used if that's what city council wants

49:00 ↗ sorry man

49:03 ↗ um a little bit there

49:06 ↗ um comparing the three uh Pioneer

49:10 ↗ options

49:12 ↗ um to to answer your question a little

49:15 ↗ bit more directly the um

49:18 ↗ the first option is

49:21 ↗ um is the affordability that would be

49:24 ↗ required under the current code the

49:27 ↗ second option does away with the

49:29 ↗ affordable units

49:31 ↗ for the uh for the developer to get the

49:34 ↗ density bonus so that's a little bit

49:37 ↗ less affordability in terms of units

49:41 ↗ um the difference between Pioneer 2 and

49:43 ↗ Pioneer 3 by raising even though there

49:46 ↗ are more affordable units by raising the

49:50 ↗ affordability level to 80 median the

49:54 ↗ overall value of those units goes down

49:57 ↗ for the community so you're you're

49:59 ↗ getting less of affordable housing value

50:02 ↗ from Pioneer three than you do in

50:04 ↗ Pioneer two so that's

50:06 ↗ why um

50:08 ↗ we are leaning towards recommending

50:10 ↗ Pioneer tube

50:12 ↗ thank you

50:16 ↗ you guys remember to Michelle do you

50:17 ↗ have any other questions at this time

50:19 ↗ councilmember Joe do you have any

50:21 ↗ questions

50:23 ↗ thank you chairman appreciate it

50:26 ↗ um

50:27 ↗ first Mike and Jen I really appreciate

50:29 ↗ their presentation this evening

50:32 ↗ um as you can probably tell all three of

50:34 ↗ us are not uh Finance majors and we're

50:37 ↗ not necessarily in the construction

50:39 ↗ business and you've helped us kind of

50:41 ↗ put uh this in in tangible terms so do

50:45 ↗ appreciate that

50:47 ↗ um going back to the Kenmore example in

50:51 ↗ the table that you had they reduced

50:54 ↗ their parking requirements but didn't

50:56 ↗ see any

50:58 ↗ um affordable units being built or any

51:01 ↗ projects that took that up are we

51:03 ↗ similar to Kenmore in that area and the

51:06 ↗ idea that reducing a parking requirement

51:09 ↗ probably wouldn't move the needle too

51:11 ↗ much for us is my first question

51:15 ↗ um so again the the Kenmore example was

51:18 ↗ to get uh development so not so much

51:21 ↗ affordable as as but

51:24 ↗ I do know that we have a a relatively

51:27 ↗ low uh parking ratio so 0.75 per unit in

51:32 ↗ this area in the urban core so reducing

51:36 ↗ that even farther doesn't seem to move

51:38 ↗ the needle and I've heard that directly

51:40 ↗ from developers that parking is not the

51:42 ↗ parking ratio is not a discernible

51:46 ↗ Factor at this time that was some

51:48 ↗ changes that happened as part of title

51:50 ↗ 18. it was relatively low lower in

51:53 ↗ central Issaquah than it was in downtown

51:54 ↗ and some other areas but during Title 18

51:57 ↗ updates it was reduced farther

51:59 ↗ affordable units also get a reduction of

52:02 ↗ parking requirements and if you're near

52:04 ↗ a Transit Center you get a reduction so

52:06 ↗ there are some opportunities if a

52:08 ↗ development went across the street from

52:10 ↗ the transit center to have some

52:12 ↗ reductions if that was what they chose

52:13 ↗ to do but we also know that in the

52:16 ↗ market you need to build to what you can

52:17 ↗ rent and so if you don't have enough

52:19 ↗ parking you're not gonna it's gonna be

52:21 ↗ harder to rent so that may be um a

52:24 ↗ little bit of

52:26 ↗ an answer for that again not not every

52:30 ↗ developer has the same needs but that's

52:32 ↗ the information we've heard from the

52:33 ↗ developers I've talked to I don't know

52:35 ↗ if Mike if you've heard anything

52:36 ↗ different with our new updated

52:38 ↗ requirements

52:41 ↗ no I think I've I've heard very similar

52:45 ↗ input

52:46 ↗ thank you and and was the atlas

52:48 ↗ development built under the standards

52:51 ↗ that you just went over for parking

52:54 ↗ or were they different it was it was it

52:56 ↗ was before so that was before the

52:58 ↗ moratorium and before Title 18 update so

53:00 ↗ it was different standards um but they

53:01 ↗ were the original Central Issaquah

53:03 ↗ standards and one thing I also wanted to

53:06 ↗ mention is that the

53:09 ↗ parking and then structured parking are

53:11 ↗ two different you know requirements and

53:13 ↗ as part of the Eco Northwest analysis

53:16 ↗ that the the planning department did

53:18 ↗ they are are going to want to in 2024

53:21 ↗ and they'll talk about this on October

53:22 ↗ 9th

53:23 ↗ um further study what those levers are

53:25 ↗ because when you change one thing it you

53:28 ↗ know it doesn't always just uh uh I mean

53:30 ↗ okay now it's ready so we're going to be

53:32 ↗ looking at all of these components and

53:35 ↗ what is if we reduce the requirement for

53:37 ↗ construction parking does that make it

53:39 ↗ more feasible

53:41 ↗ um again that's something that's coming

53:43 ↗ coming up

53:46 ↗ okay no thank you appreciate that

53:49 ↗ um

53:51 ↗ if we uh follow the recommendation

53:53 ↗ outlined here I think you mentioned that

53:56 ↗ uh

53:57 ↗ the city and Arch would get together

53:59 ↗ possibly some additional developers to

54:01 ↗ continue the conversation about uh some

54:05 ↗ additional changes or things that could

54:08 ↗ be modified to make the project feasible

54:12 ↗ um but how long do you anticipate that

54:14 ↗ taking do you think you can get back by

54:16 ↗ October 9th with those type of of uh

54:19 ↗ modifications

54:22 ↗ um I wish no we would have to work with

54:25 ↗ our planning policy commission staff to

54:27 ↗ find out when they have a very heavy

54:29 ↗ load already with the comp plan but we

54:32 ↗ would find time to go in and also work

54:34 ↗ with the economic Vitality commission

54:35 ↗ which is finishing or just diving into

54:38 ↗ their economic development plan as well

54:40 ↗ so

54:41 ↗ um it would not be for the for the

54:43 ↗ eighth or the 9th I'm sorry of October

54:46 ↗ um again I would have to see what the

54:48 ↗ schedule looks like and maybe come back

54:50 ↗ in November with some you know

54:52 ↗ additional I can't I'm not even sure if

54:54 ↗ that's if that's enough time but we

54:57 ↗ would go to PPC and EVC as soon as

55:00 ↗ possible to begin and begin these

55:03 ↗ discussions because it's not going to be

55:05 ↗ a one meeting discussion

55:08 ↗ okay and so when you're what are you

55:12 ↗ bringing back

55:13 ↗ to on October 9th and uh

55:18 ↗ yeah great question so on October 9th

55:21 ↗ it's the update for we were uh at the

55:23 ↗ the committee uh Council Council

55:26 ↗ Committee of the whole in April I

55:28 ↗ believe March April and um so you will

55:31 ↗ hear from our Chris

55:33 ↗ um Kristen aleson from uh planning

55:36 ↗ long-range planning you'll hear from

55:38 ↗ Monica Nigro from Human Services and

55:41 ↗ myself about the components that we that

55:43 ↗ we discussed at that time so what's

55:45 ↗ what's happening for the housing uh

55:48 ↗ strategy work plan updates and what you

55:51 ↗ know there might be some questions from

55:53 ↗ for council members of what's most

55:54 ↗ important to look at and to pursue

55:57 ↗ um Monica will provide an update about

55:59 ↗ the shelter program and what I planned

56:02 ↗ on doing is bringing forward our next

56:04 ↗ topic which is the affordable housing

56:06 ↗ fund

56:08 ↗ um to again talk about it with the full

56:11 ↗ Council and potentially move forward I

56:13 ↗ did plan on on mentioning the Pioneer

56:16 ↗ program but didn't plan to focus on that

56:17 ↗ but if that's something that that you

56:19 ↗ feel needs to be a focus again it

56:22 ↗ wouldn't have any more details than we

56:24 ↗ would have tonight

56:25 ↗ okay so just so I have it clear in my

56:28 ↗ mind

56:29 ↗ um you want us to put some suggestions

56:31 ↗ and guardrails on a program uh tonight

56:34 ↗ potentially that would be discussed by

56:36 ↗ the planning policy commission and the

56:38 ↗ and our planning department it wouldn't

56:40 ↗ be reported back in October but those

56:42 ↗ conversations would be ongoing and then

56:45 ↗ you would report back to us when the

56:47 ↗ program was a little more firm is that

56:50 ↗ the the lay of the land yes sir

56:53 ↗ and and I guess I I want to make sure

56:56 ↗ that we

56:58 ↗ um you know I think there's like let's

56:59 ↗ explore let's explore does this make

57:01 ↗ sense to do so obviously we're going to

57:03 ↗ invest our time going through this rest

57:05 ↗ of this process

57:07 ↗ um we are dedicated to do it we're ready

57:08 ↗ to do it

57:10 ↗ um if there's if there are any heartburn

57:12 ↗ consternation about not doing this I'd

57:14 ↗ love to hear that now and what that is

57:16 ↗ because

57:18 ↗ um it is something that you know Mike

57:21 ↗ has done like the key originally had six

57:23 ↗ different you know uh analysis items and

57:26 ↗ you know we're going to be diving into

57:27 ↗ this and we really want to we want to

57:28 ↗ put the time in but we also uh it isn't

57:31 ↗ just to say okay that looks good but we

57:33 ↗ really aren't interested in this so if

57:34 ↗ if you're interested in sparking

57:37 ↗ development in in the urban core or

57:40 ↗ mixed use areas

57:42 ↗ um we're we're ready to to do that work

57:43 ↗ and figure it out

57:45 ↗ okay and I guess my final question

57:48 ↗ concerns the 60 Ami versus 80 Ami

57:52 ↗ discussion that we've been having

57:55 ↗ um

57:56 ↗ it it seems to me and and I it's just

58:00 ↗ experience that I'm seeing on the ground

58:02 ↗ that more projects are being built if

58:05 ↗ the Ami is at 80 percent

58:07 ↗ and projects are not getting built or

58:10 ↗ started

58:11 ↗ if the Ami is at sixty percent

58:15 ↗ um is that

58:16 ↗ uh something that planning is seeing or

58:19 ↗ you're seeing on the ground as well and

58:22 ↗ um

58:22 ↗ I I guess I need to learn a little bit

58:24 ↗ more about the benefits between Pioneer

58:26 ↗ 2 and Pioneer 3 and why the distinction

58:29 ↗ from going to 80 is

58:32 ↗ not that beneficial so I don't know if

58:35 ↗ that is a coherent question

58:37 ↗ I'll jump in and then let Mike jump in

58:39 ↗ more holistically so in in in the city

58:42 ↗ we haven't had any uh 80 Ami uh

58:46 ↗ developed under the inclusionary or the

58:48 ↗ development bonus except for Veil

58:50 ↗ um and they don't they aren't in a

58:52 ↗ different Zone than these two so they

58:54 ↗ didn't have inclusionary required

58:56 ↗ um and so they actually developed um

58:58 ↗ with the development bonus uh program

59:02 ↗ um and so I think that Mike does have a

59:05 ↗ list looking at the East Side about

59:07 ↗ projects that are at 50 and 60 percent

59:09 ↗ again every project has a little

59:11 ↗ different there might have been some

59:12 ↗ land donation there might have been this

59:14 ↗ and that but I'll let Mike talk about

59:16 ↗ that broader what he's seeing in the

59:18 ↗ region

59:20 ↗ sure and I'd be happy to come back with

59:22 ↗ uh as much detail as you'd like but the

59:26 ↗ over the last uh four or five years has

59:28 ↗ been quite a bit of development in

59:32 ↗ multi-family development in Kirkland and

59:34 ↗ Redmond and

59:37 ↗ um although the parameters of those

59:39 ↗ programs uh vary a little bit from what

59:41 ↗ we've talked about tonight virtually all

59:44 ↗ of it has been has produced affordable

59:46 ↗ housing

59:48 ↗ 10 percent or more of the units at 50

59:51 ↗ percent or sixty percent of median so

59:54 ↗ so uh not true at all that that uh

59:57 ↗ developers won't build with 50 or 60 Ami

1:00:01 ↗ it happens quite a bit

1:00:04 ↗ okay thank you appreciate that

1:00:05 ↗ clarification and I'd like to clarify my

1:00:08 ↗ answer I'm focused on Central Issaquah

1:00:10 ↗ we do it we did have affordable housing

1:00:11 ↗ build up in the highlands and so I don't

1:00:13 ↗ want to portray that we hadn't had any

1:00:15 ↗ affordable housing built recently my

1:00:18 ↗ zoomed in is in central Issaquah comment

1:00:23 ↗ councilman council member G Michelle

1:00:25 ↗ just a quick question

1:00:27 ↗ um does Bellevue have a Pioneer program

1:00:29 ↗ or are they operate operating something

1:00:33 ↗ something else but I was just wondering

1:00:36 ↗ why because they have been building a

1:00:39 ↗ lot of different interesting projects in

1:00:41 ↗ Bellevue so I was just wondering uh why

1:00:44 ↗ they weren't included in this comparison

1:00:49 ↗ Mike do you want to answer that all

1:00:50 ↗ right sure

1:00:52 ↗ bellevue's uh code is an approach to

1:00:57 ↗ affordable housing with land use and tax

1:00:59 ↗ exemption is quite a bit different than

1:01:03 ↗ um our other cities and um

1:01:07 ↗ based uh primarily the fact that they

1:01:10 ↗ preferred everything to be voluntary

1:01:13 ↗ and uh

1:01:15 ↗ so their affordability levels are higher

1:01:20 ↗ you know 80 percent Ami generally and

1:01:25 ↗ um

1:01:26 ↗ and so there's there's

1:01:29 ↗ since they're not requiring anything

1:01:31 ↗ they're not there's no

1:01:35 ↗ uh the need to relax it relax the the

1:01:40 ↗ voluntary incentives to get more they're

1:01:42 ↗ already voluntary

1:01:46 ↗ that is really interesting thank you for

1:01:48 ↗ that information

1:01:51 ↗ uh do either of my fellow council

1:01:53 ↗ members have any further questions

1:01:54 ↗ before we take public comment out of uh

1:01:58 ↗ uh guessing

1:02:00 ↗ the post recommendation then uh clerk I

1:02:05 ↗ would ask if there's uh interest in the

1:02:08 ↗ public in making comment on this item

1:02:12 ↗ share marks I'm not seeing any virtual

1:02:15 ↗ hands raised up there we go

1:02:19 ↗ Brian runberg stronberg I'm making you a

1:02:22 ↗ panelist you can now re or you can now

1:02:25 ↗ uh turn on your camera and address the

1:02:28 ↗ committee

1:02:29 ↗ great thank you

1:02:30 ↗ um I you know to your to your points I'm

1:02:33 ↗ not the financial analyst that are in

1:02:35 ↗ our group either but just wanted to

1:02:38 ↗ follow up on a couple things uh the

1:02:39 ↗ council members mentioned one on costs

1:02:42 ↗ um because we do have a very relevant

1:02:45 ↗ data on that the a multi-family

1:02:48 ↗ cost

1:02:49 ↗ um in projects of this size in the

1:02:52 ↗ roughly 250 300 unit ranges risen 25

1:02:55 ↗ percent in three years to give you some

1:02:58 ↗ ideas we haven't we've seen it start to

1:03:00 ↗ stabilize but it hasn't much yet

1:03:03 ↗ um the clarification as I understand it

1:03:05 ↗ on the mft it depends on which

1:03:07 ↗ either if if the eighth year is

1:03:11 ↗ um selected or the 12 year is selected

1:03:14 ↗ either one have different options with

1:03:16 ↗ it but that's a that's a temporary

1:03:18 ↗ abatement of those taxes

1:03:21 ↗ for that period

1:03:22 ↗ in exchange for the affordable units for

1:03:25 ↗ the life of the project so it's a

1:03:27 ↗ temporary hit

1:03:29 ↗ but a long-term gain and that's part of

1:03:31 ↗ the formula that we're balancing or or

1:03:35 ↗ can navigate and collaborate here with

1:03:38 ↗ Arch on what what makes that work I I do

1:03:42 ↗ want to bring up another thing on the

1:03:43 ↗ parking ratio just to give a little bit

1:03:45 ↗ more context to that so the

1:03:48 ↗ the light rail is

1:03:51 ↗ um

1:03:52 ↗ you know roughly 15 years out and

1:03:56 ↗ um

1:03:57 ↗ to meet the market it's going to need to

1:03:59 ↗ be close to one to one until the light

1:04:01 ↗ rails there otherwise it's going to be

1:04:05 ↗ um it what the worst thing to happen is

1:04:07 ↗ not have enough parking and then you

1:04:08 ↗ won't get the renter so we would analyze

1:04:11 ↗ that we don't over build it but I want

1:04:12 ↗ to under build it so that's a key thing

1:04:14 ↗ and then we're

1:04:16 ↗ um in in this example that we're that

1:04:19 ↗ we're muddling through but nonetheless

1:04:22 ↗ uh we had met with with Mike and Arch

1:04:26 ↗ this morning and Jen uh started the

1:04:28 ↗ dialogue you know we've got some

1:04:30 ↗ different ideas and and sharing

1:04:32 ↗ information act back and I I know from

1:04:35 ↗ from our point we already have these

1:04:36 ↗ models built and can move fairly quickly

1:04:39 ↗ on this and we can bring you something

1:04:41 ↗ back

1:04:42 ↗ in October

1:04:44 ↗ um and I I can't speak for Arch or

1:04:47 ↗ um on gen side but I'm just saying we

1:04:50 ↗ we kind of can work through this pretty

1:04:52 ↗ pretty swiftly

1:04:54 ↗ um at least to have some more data

1:04:57 ↗ points

1:04:58 ↗ um by October so happy to do that

1:05:00 ↗ appreciate uh you know Mike reaching out

1:05:03 ↗ to us and uh like to continue that

1:05:06 ↗ dialogue

1:05:07 ↗ thank you

1:05:09 ↗ thanks for your comment Mark is there

1:05:11 ↗ anyone else wishing to speak this

1:05:12 ↗ evening on this topic

1:05:18 ↗ chair Martz I'm seeing no more virtual

1:05:21 ↗ hands raised at this time

1:05:23 ↗ all right

1:05:24 ↗ thank you we'll go into uh deliberation

1:05:26 ↗ on this item

1:05:28 ↗ who'd like to start

1:05:35 ↗ council member G Michelle

1:05:38 ↗ so uh

1:05:40 ↗ do we want to go forward with Pioneer

1:05:42 ↗ program absolutely yes absolutely so

1:05:46 ↗ um I am not going to you know wipe my

1:05:50 ↗ hands free of it after you guys have

1:05:52 ↗ done a lot of work I think it is it was

1:05:54 ↗ something that was recommended in the

1:05:56 ↗ central plan and um obviously has some

1:05:59 ↗ value because uh we've seen that there

1:06:02 ↗ hasn't been any development desired

1:06:04 ↗ development in the in that Central area

1:06:06 ↗ and that is what we want to do to build

1:06:08 ↗ that density towards the day when we

1:06:10 ↗ have the light rail coming through

1:06:13 ↗ um I

1:06:15 ↗ um heard clearly from our constituents

1:06:18 ↗ about the bigger and bolder

1:06:21 ↗ about increasing the number of

1:06:25 ↗ uh units that this program would be

1:06:28 ↗ available to and it made a lot of sense

1:06:31 ↗ to me

1:06:32 ↗ um if we're going to do this and put the

1:06:35 ↗ work in and want to encourage this we

1:06:39 ↗ need to make it realistic to what would

1:06:42 ↗ be an average development and why not do

1:06:45 ↗ two or three instead of just one so I

1:06:49 ↗ agree with that so let's look at least

1:06:51 ↗ my recommendation would be to look at

1:06:54 ↗ how we can increase the number of units

1:06:56 ↗ that the program would be available to

1:06:58 ↗ I was really heartened by your words uh

1:07:01 ↗ Jen about we don't want to work on this

1:07:04 ↗ put it out and then nothing happens we

1:07:07 ↗ want to make sure that when this goes

1:07:09 ↗ out the door that it's going to be

1:07:11 ↗ something that our developers see as

1:07:13 ↗ feasible and that they are eager to get

1:07:16 ↗ involved with and want to build because

1:07:18 ↗ we really need this the housing that

1:07:23 ↗ this would bring in the affordable

1:07:25 ↗ housing that it would bring and so forth

1:07:26 ↗ so so

1:07:29 ↗ um

1:07:31 ↗ I think I spoke in favor of the 80

1:07:33 ↗ before I will speak in favor of it now

1:07:37 ↗ but with the caveat that if there is a

1:07:39 ↗ different mix of uh options that works

1:07:43 ↗ for the developers then I would be open

1:07:46 ↗ to leaving it at 60 if there's something

1:07:49 ↗ else that works I have to say I was

1:07:51 ↗ taken aback because it worries me that

1:07:55 ↗ we're taking tax dollars away from a

1:07:57 ↗ school district that could be

1:07:59 ↗ experiencing the impacts of a great

1:08:01 ↗ number of young people in their schools

1:08:02 ↗ and them not giving them the taxes that

1:08:05 ↗ they need

1:08:07 ↗ school districts are struggling right

1:08:09 ↗ now and that's not going to correct

1:08:11 ↗ itself for a while so

1:08:13 ↗ so

1:08:15 ↗ um at any rate certainly open to the 80

1:08:19 ↗ percent

1:08:21 ↗ um and but if something else works

1:08:25 ↗ and our developers think that it works

1:08:27 ↗ and it pencils out for them

1:08:29 ↗ then good

1:08:32 ↗ um yeah if we stick to our guns and we

1:08:35 ↗ put something out that doesn't work and

1:08:37 ↗ when you take into account the number of

1:08:39 ↗ years it takes to get a development from

1:08:41 ↗ planning to final construction and

1:08:43 ↗ opening up the doors I don't want to

1:08:46 ↗ delay this unnecessarily by putting in a

1:08:49 ↗ requirement that

1:08:52 ↗ developers aren't going to be eager to

1:08:54 ↗ take advantage of

1:08:55 ↗ so those are my thoughts

1:08:57 ↗ um I want to thank everybody who's put a

1:08:59 ↗ lot of work into this it was in

1:09:02 ↗ discussion today and I do think that

1:09:04 ↗ this is a pivotal discussion the message

1:09:06 ↗ that we're sending that we really are

1:09:10 ↗ serious about development in the central

1:09:11 ↗ area I think is really important and I

1:09:15 ↗ think I'm hopeful that the council will

1:09:17 ↗ look at putting this program in place as

1:09:20 ↗ a message that we are very very serious

1:09:23 ↗ about developing the Central District so

1:09:26 ↗ thank you for so much for the work

1:09:28 ↗ you're doing

1:09:30 ↗ thank you councilmember D Michelle uh

1:09:32 ↗ council member Joe

1:09:34 ↗ thank you

1:09:44 ↗ thank you for uh the great presentation

1:09:47 ↗ I think that we

1:09:50 ↗ all recognize that Issaquah is changing

1:09:53 ↗ and uh with uh increased densities being

1:09:58 ↗ necessary because land is restricted

1:10:02 ↗ um as we look at the future of issaquan

1:10:05 ↗ where we want our growth to occur

1:10:09 ↗ we certainly have some great

1:10:10 ↗ neighborhoods that we want to keep as

1:10:13 ↗ residential neighborhoods callus

1:10:15 ↗ squawk Mountain but if we put the

1:10:18 ↗ density in the in the valley floor which

1:10:21 ↗ was kind of one of the

1:10:23 ↗ um general concepts for the central Isla

1:10:26 ↗ plan we need to provide ways that

1:10:28 ↗ developers and people that want to build

1:10:31 ↗ a housing can make it pencil out so I

1:10:34 ↗ think the Pioneer program is one way

1:10:36 ↗ that we can

1:10:37 ↗ make that possible that's why I'm in

1:10:40 ↗ favor of the program and I'm also in

1:10:43 ↗ favor of doing uh at least two projects

1:10:47 ↗ my fellow accounts member Barbie

1:10:49 ↗ Michelle

1:10:50 ↗ uh ventured to say three and I certainly

1:10:53 ↗ would be uh in favor of that if it does

1:10:56 ↗ make sense for all parties involved

1:11:00 ↗ um I would ask us to continue to look

1:11:01 ↗ for the best ways to keep the mft uh at

1:11:06 ↗ a level if it can be if it can be 12 and

1:11:09 ↗ we qualify for it that's great but uh it

1:11:11 ↗ does need to be part of the general

1:11:12 ↗ equation to make this work I also uh

1:11:16 ↗ will speak in favor of of having the fee

1:11:19 ↗ waivers that we have had in the past for

1:11:21 ↗ uh projects like this

1:11:24 ↗ um it's possible that there will be some

1:11:27 ↗ permit reform that will be coming

1:11:30 ↗ through which will at least uh

1:11:32 ↗ potentially shorten the timetables and

1:11:35 ↗ timelines for developers if we can add

1:11:38 ↗ to that some fee waivers maybe the

1:11:40 ↗ project will will pencil out

1:11:43 ↗ um I think that the affordability that

1:11:46 ↗ needs to be in there I I'm personally in

1:11:50 ↗ favor of the 80 Ami as my fellow council

1:11:54 ↗ member Robert shell is but if 16 makes

1:11:57 ↗ sense and doesn't

1:11:59 ↗ um

1:12:00 ↗ hurt or could tell the uh the uh the

1:12:04 ↗ options for a person that wants to come

1:12:07 ↗ in to do this project and that's great I

1:12:10 ↗ I hope that the conversation that arched

1:12:13 ↗ the city and the developed developer

1:12:16 ↗ Community have as they continue to look

1:12:18 ↗ at this project will help Hammer those

1:12:20 ↗ details out a little bit more but those

1:12:22 ↗ are my general thoughts and comments at

1:12:24 ↗ this time thank you

1:12:25 ↗ thank you councilmember Joe

1:12:28 ↗ uh my thoughts so there's this narrative

1:12:33 ↗ that uh we haven't built anything in the

1:12:36 ↗ valley in 10 years

1:12:38 ↗ um just a just a a quick check we were

1:12:41 ↗ we were building like crazy and then in

1:12:45 ↗ 2016 which was seven years ago we

1:12:48 ↗ enacted the moratorium because we were

1:12:50 ↗ building like crazy and we are getting

1:12:51 ↗ lots of development and we weren't sure

1:12:53 ↗ it was the development that we wanted so

1:12:54 ↗ we put a moratorium in place and as

1:12:57 ↗ council member G Michelle points out it

1:12:58 ↗ takes a takes some time for development

1:13:00 ↗ to get spun up and uh that more

1:13:03 ↗ charmanded in 2018 and then 24 months

1:13:05 ↗ later we had this little thing called

1:13:06 ↗ covet and then we had two years of covid

1:13:09 ↗ and I'm not sure that we can say that

1:13:14 ↗ the development policies in the central

1:13:18 ↗ Issaquah plan and our strategic plan uh

1:13:22 ↗ prevent development I think that when

1:13:25 ↗ you put in two years in the moratorium

1:13:27 ↗ and then two years later two years of

1:13:29 ↗ kovid I think it's been an extraordinary

1:13:31 ↗ environment but you know one of the

1:13:33 ↗ benefits of being on Council for 14

1:13:34 ↗ years is I saw the majority of my time

1:13:37 ↗ on Council saw ferocious growth in our

1:13:40 ↗ city where we took far more than our

1:13:42 ↗ share of the uh you know 2040 uh uh

1:13:46 ↗ regional growth plans right we were the

1:13:49 ↗ we were the poster child for taking

1:13:51 ↗ development

1:13:53 ↗ um and then like I said we put a

1:13:54 ↗ moratorium and then there was kovid so

1:13:57 ↗ um I am in favor of of affordable

1:13:59 ↗ housing it's about the bang for the buck

1:14:01 ↗ for me you know if we could invest a

1:14:03 ↗ dollar and get 10 billion dollars of

1:14:06 ↗ affordable housing that would be a great

1:14:08 ↗ investment right if if we invested 10

1:14:13 ↗ billion dollars and got a dollars worth

1:14:15 ↗ of affordable housing that would be a

1:14:17 ↗ terrible investment and so any of these

1:14:19 ↗ options that are in front of us I think

1:14:21 ↗ about numerators and denominators right

1:14:23 ↗ and I think about what is the benefit

1:14:25 ↗ and then what is the cost and to me uh

1:14:29 ↗ you know when you talk about sixty

1:14:31 ↗ percent versus eighty percent you know

1:14:33 ↗ uh sure 80 but give me twice as much

1:14:36 ↗ housing because otherwise you're having

1:14:38 ↗ the benefit to the community right if

1:14:40 ↗ you have n number of units at 60 Ami and

1:14:44 ↗ you say n number of units at 80 Ami

1:14:46 ↗ you've dropped the benefit in half for

1:14:48 ↗ the public right unless you double the

1:14:50 ↗ number of units but on some level I

1:14:52 ↗ don't care I want to know what the

1:14:54 ↗ potential benefit is to the community in

1:14:57 ↗ impact on housing prices or what

1:15:00 ↗ investment we would have and like

1:15:02 ↗ council member D Michelle I am concerned

1:15:05 ↗ about uh the tax impact of you know it

1:15:09 ↗ looks great on paper you know we can we

1:15:11 ↗ can get take a dollar we can forego a

1:15:13 ↗ dollar of Revenue and somebody else has

1:15:16 ↗ to forgo ten dollars in Revenue but if

1:15:18 ↗ that's six dollars from the school

1:15:19 ↗ district that's worth understanding and

1:15:22 ↗ you know maybe they want that maybe they

1:15:24 ↗ think that's great for the community and

1:15:25 ↗ great for the for the future of the

1:15:27 ↗ schools because you know they have to

1:15:28 ↗ keep getting young families in the

1:15:30 ↗ community and maybe they say that's a

1:15:31 ↗ great investment right I don't know but

1:15:33 ↗ I think it's important to understand

1:15:35 ↗ that we would only be paying 10 of the

1:15:38 ↗ cost of of this

1:15:40 ↗ um to try to get the benefit that we

1:15:42 ↗ want

1:15:42 ↗ um I did hear today a statement made

1:15:45 ↗ that we have the second highest impact

1:15:46 ↗ fees in puget's in the Puget Sound area

1:15:49 ↗ if that is true

1:15:51 ↗ um that is a topic that is a whole

1:15:53 ↗ separate topic of conversation for our

1:15:54 ↗ Council if if that is true we should

1:15:57 ↗ understand that

1:15:58 ↗ um uh councilmember Joe sounds like he's

1:16:01 ↗ talking about some stuff coming out of

1:16:03 ↗ maybe Olympia that would change uh fees

1:16:06 ↗ I don't I don't like it when Olympia

1:16:07 ↗ tells us what to do but I like it when

1:16:09 ↗ we have a competitive environment so I

1:16:12 ↗ want to understand that better again

1:16:14 ↗ potentially for a different day like

1:16:16 ↗ council member D Michelle I think you

1:16:18 ↗ know if something is a good deal if it's

1:16:21 ↗ a good bang for the buck if it's a good

1:16:23 ↗ investment let's do more of it if 100

1:16:26 ↗ units are a good investment 200 units

1:16:28 ↗ would be twice as much of a good

1:16:30 ↗ investment I'm not afraid of development

1:16:32 ↗ if it is a Sound Investment if it is

1:16:35 ↗ public monies put in towards creating

1:16:38 ↗ genuine more affordable housing so you

1:16:41 ↗ know it can't be you know one percent at

1:16:45 ↗ 99 Ami because there's just no benefit

1:16:48 ↗ right so in all these things as we move

1:16:50 ↗ forward I'm very much in favor of it but

1:16:52 ↗ I very much want to count the cost

1:16:54 ↗ versus Count the benefit and to have the

1:16:56 ↗ administration come back and explain

1:16:58 ↗ um how that would work and why that

1:17:00 ↗ would be a wise use of the community

1:17:02 ↗ uh do either of my fellow council

1:17:04 ↗ members want to uh you have any other

1:17:07 ↗ follow-on comments before we move to the

1:17:09 ↗ next item

1:17:12 ↗ uh not seeing that we will uh does he

1:17:15 ↗ miss did the administration get what

1:17:16 ↗ they were looking for today yes I do

1:17:19 ↗ have a clarifying question

1:17:20 ↗ um when you talk about the cost and the

1:17:21 ↗ benefit in affordable housing units so

1:17:23 ↗ for you does that mean showing how much

1:17:25 ↗ rent would be for an 80 versus 60 Ami

1:17:29 ↗ versus 100 units if if if you if you

1:17:33 ↗ save if if you create units that are a

1:17:36 ↗ thousand dollars less expensive and you

1:17:38 ↗ create 10 of them that's ten thousand

1:17:40 ↗ dollars a year of benefit so that's okay

1:17:42 ↗ so that's what I want to understand

1:17:43 ↗ you're looking at the rental difference

1:17:45 ↗ for okay that's one way to look at it

1:17:48 ↗ right yes okay that's how I think that's

1:17:49 ↗ how I think of the benefit and that

1:17:51 ↗ allows you to to say you know

1:17:54 ↗ shallower uh discount versus larger

1:17:57 ↗ number of units equals uh Deeper

1:17:59 ↗ Discount smaller number of units it's

1:18:01 ↗ the same net benefit to the community as

1:18:03 ↗ far as I'm concerned although I

1:18:05 ↗ recognize their arguments about how much

1:18:07 ↗ do we have at 60 how much you deserve

1:18:09 ↗ sixty percent how much need is there at

1:18:11 ↗ 80 but I think that's a level of

1:18:13 ↗ granularity that I can't parse

1:18:16 ↗ thank you

1:18:18 ↗ all right with that we will move on to

1:18:21 ↗ the next item on the agenda uh give me

1:18:24 ↗ just a second to bring it back up

1:18:27 ↗ could I make Just One Last Time sure

1:18:30 ↗ council member Jeff

1:18:31 ↗ yeah

1:18:32 ↗ um the uh permit reform that I was

1:18:35 ↗ talking about is was was passed uh this

1:18:38 ↗ last session it was sponsored by uh

1:18:41 ↗ Senator mullet it's Senate Bill 5290

1:18:45 ↗ um so that law will be

1:18:47 ↗ put into effect and all cities we'll

1:18:49 ↗ have to kind of uh look at that and

1:18:52 ↗ review it so I know we don't like when

1:18:54 ↗ Olympia tells us what to do but they've

1:18:55 ↗ already told us what to do and now

1:18:58 ↗ our planning Department's going to have

1:18:59 ↗ to kind of take a look at that so that's

1:19:01 ↗ just a bit of information to fill out

1:19:03 ↗ the debate uh this evening thank you

1:19:05 ↗ thank you for that information

1:19:07 ↗ moving on to ID 1527 affordable housing

1:19:11 ↗ Capital funding this is also Jen Davis

1:19:13 ↗ Hayes

1:19:18 ↗ now switching to affordable housing

1:19:20 ↗ completely

1:19:22 ↗ um we again have been uh here in the

1:19:25 ↗ past getting uh feedback on the idea to

1:19:28 ↗ create a strategic opportunity fund to

1:19:31 ↗ allow us the Opera when a development

1:19:35 ↗ comes comes about for affordable housing

1:19:37 ↗ we have the opportunity to help with

1:19:39 ↗ that Financial feasibility so um we're

1:19:42 ↗ going to go over some of the the

1:19:43 ↗ approach tonight of the opportunity fund

1:19:46 ↗ and again any other additional

1:19:48 ↗ information the uh the perp or the next

1:19:52 ↗ step would bring so bring this to the

1:19:54 ↗ city council Committee of the whole on

1:19:56 ↗ October 9th and then if there was

1:19:57 ↗ agreement continue development the

1:20:00 ↗ program and potentially you know

1:20:01 ↗ November December January uh pass that

1:20:04 ↗ and get that as one of our tools to move

1:20:08 ↗ forward so

1:20:09 ↗ one of the things I would like also a

1:20:11 ↗ direction on is

1:20:13 ↗ again for the October 9th discussion

1:20:16 ↗ um you know we've already talked an hour

1:20:18 ↗ about Pioneer program right uh what for

1:20:21 ↗ you makes the most sense to get your

1:20:24 ↗ city council members your peer members

1:20:27 ↗ feedback or input on regarding this

1:20:30 ↗ topic so that would help me to refine

1:20:32 ↗ what we're presenting

1:20:34 ↗ so as a reminder this is about our HB

1:20:38 ↗ 1590 and 1406 funds so this is an

1:20:40 ↗ updated slide where we did allocate 300

1:20:43 ↗ 000 to the arch trust fund and they said

1:20:45 ↗ thank you very much it's actually going

1:20:46 ↗ to be allocated as part of this next

1:20:48 ↗ process and so that money will go to

1:20:51 ↗ Regional affordable housing moving

1:20:53 ↗ forward very quickly in this in the

1:20:56 ↗ region

1:20:57 ↗ um

1:20:58 ↗ are they the the source of the funding

1:21:00 ↗ has some rules about the 60 Ami or lower

1:21:05 ↗ and certain populations so it has

1:21:07 ↗ defined itself where the Continuum is

1:21:10 ↗ um and we want to you know make sure we

1:21:12 ↗ invest what we have very wisely so we

1:21:15 ↗ want to make sure that we align it with

1:21:18 ↗ our vision and our goals that we have

1:21:20 ↗ beyond for the housing but we also want

1:21:23 ↗ to make sure and in that as we're

1:21:25 ↗ thinking about it we want to make sure

1:21:26 ↗ that our friends our family and our

1:21:28 ↗ employees have one have a place to live

1:21:31 ↗ in our community so this is going to be

1:21:32 ↗ one tool to do that and I think that's

1:21:34 ↗ where we talk about affordable housing

1:21:36 ↗ it's how can this fix everything well

1:21:38 ↗ this is not going to fix everything but

1:21:39 ↗ this is going to be one tool for that so

1:21:41 ↗ again we'll talk more of those tools

1:21:44 ↗ um on October 9th

1:21:46 ↗ so again there's General agreement about

1:21:48 ↗ how we're approaching and prioritizing

1:21:50 ↗ the funding sources for preservation

1:21:52 ↗ Transit oriented development with a

1:21:54 ↗ lowercase Tod meaning not the project

1:21:57 ↗ but anything that is near high capacity

1:21:59 ↗ Transit and community-based Partnerships

1:22:02 ↗ which really is about

1:22:04 ↗ providing spaces for non-profits working

1:22:06 ↗ with our faith-based community and other

1:22:08 ↗ community organizations that are

1:22:10 ↗ interested in helping out with this and

1:22:12 ↗ again uh continued interest in making

1:22:14 ↗ sure we look at Equity Workforce housing

1:22:16 ↗ and connections to our environment

1:22:20 ↗ so our approach I'm going to talk about

1:22:21 ↗ our approach of how we are planned to do

1:22:24 ↗ this so

1:22:25 ↗ um again we appreciate the council's uh

1:22:28 ↗ input to this point so we're

1:22:30 ↗ prioritizing these types of of projects

1:22:33 ↗ again within this the rules of the

1:22:36 ↗ funding

1:22:37 ↗ um and if the project has uh additional

1:22:40 ↗ elements around sustainability Equitable

1:22:42 ↗ approach or things in our adopted plans

1:22:45 ↗ we would look to provide additional

1:22:46 ↗ resources towards a project like that

1:22:48 ↗ and so some of those further City Vision

1:22:51 ↗ goals and adopted plans could be ground

1:22:53 ↗ floor commercial as mentioned in central

1:22:55 ↗ Issaquah Connection open space that's in

1:22:57 ↗ our green necklace or our Parks plan

1:22:59 ↗ home ownership or missing middle and our

1:23:01 ↗ housing strategy work plan and

1:23:04 ↗ non-profit Services a dedicated space in

1:23:06 ↗ our city strategic plan so this plans

1:23:08 ↗ already exist our goals have been

1:23:10 ↗ defined Community input has provided

1:23:12 ↗ Council has adopted it so I think we

1:23:15 ↗ have a clear Direction on if if a

1:23:17 ↗ project comes in and helps us achieve

1:23:19 ↗ our goals um that makes sense to invest

1:23:22 ↗ in

1:23:24 ↗ um one of the things is again we are not

1:23:26 ↗ you talk about uh not being Financial

1:23:28 ↗ experts we're not experts at funding

1:23:30 ↗ affordable housing so we are going to

1:23:33 ↗ um look at what others do so there is a

1:23:35 ↗ combined funders application that 11

1:23:38 ↗ entities in the region use including

1:23:40 ↗ Arch the Washington State Housing Trust

1:23:42 ↗ Fund King County Housing Finance program

1:23:45 ↗ Washington State Housing Finance

1:23:47 ↗ commission for low-income housing tax

1:23:49 ↗ credits

1:23:50 ↗ so

1:23:51 ↗ um we would recommend utilizing that and

1:23:55 ↗ have an addendum for Issaquah so again

1:23:57 ↗ the things that we want are important to

1:23:58 ↗ ask and we would work with Arch again to

1:24:01 ↗ to get this application process

1:24:04 ↗ so I did include a very draft version of

1:24:07 ↗ what the addendum could look like

1:24:09 ↗ knowing that the application I also

1:24:12 ↗ included this this combined funders

1:24:14 ↗ application it's 38 Pages already so it

1:24:16 ↗ does have a lot of information the basic

1:24:18 ↗ things you want to ask for includes

1:24:20 ↗ information about Equity inclusion how

1:24:22 ↗ it's meeting Community needs

1:24:24 ↗ but again our addendum would focus more

1:24:27 ↗ on the prioritized areas and elements

1:24:29 ↗ that meets the city's goals already so

1:24:32 ↗ we would work with economic Vitality

1:24:34 ↗ commission and Arch to to refine that to

1:24:37 ↗ make sure that those questions have

1:24:39 ↗ measurable impact so not just oh I'd

1:24:41 ↗ like this better but it has a real

1:24:43 ↗ ability to choose between

1:24:46 ↗ the different options so again Arch

1:24:49 ↗ staff would help with other review and

1:24:52 ↗ making recommendations we're

1:24:53 ↗ recommending that we would then take

1:24:54 ↗ that recommendation to the economic

1:24:56 ↗ Vitality commission for input and review

1:24:59 ↗ and then come back to services safety

1:25:01 ↗ and Parks

1:25:03 ↗ of course city council as a whole would

1:25:04 ↗ have to approve all funding from the

1:25:07 ↗ Strategic opportunity fund

1:25:12 ↗ um question you know what's our bang for

1:25:14 ↗ the buck

1:25:15 ↗ uh so that is a hard question so we know

1:25:19 ↗ that we are you know we are creating

1:25:22 ↗ housing at 60 Ami or lower we know that

1:25:25 ↗ we know we're creating housing for

1:25:27 ↗ certain populations but looking at just

1:25:30 ↗ what happened in 2022 for the arch trust

1:25:33 ↗ fund and the City of Bellevue also

1:25:35 ↗ collects the 0.1 percent uh sales tax

1:25:37 ↗ and so they have a housing stability

1:25:39 ↗ fund that they started to do rfps for us

1:25:42 ↗ as well and again the awards per units

1:25:45 ↗ are quite a big range obviously Arch is

1:25:49 ↗ investing in more projects that have

1:25:53 ↗ obviously all of these projects have

1:25:54 ↗ funding from other places Bellevue is

1:25:57 ↗ you know very focused on one project

1:25:58 ↗ that's in one of their Tod areas so

1:26:01 ↗ um you know with our 2.1 million dollars

1:26:04 ↗ um I can't say that we would have you

1:26:07 ↗ know X number of units but this gives

1:26:09 ↗ you an idea of where

1:26:11 ↗ um where we may fall as far as per per

1:26:14 ↗ unit cost and again when we work with

1:26:18 ↗ Arch to review the how much they're they

1:26:21 ↗ are suggesting for what they are putting

1:26:23 ↗ in there what the other funding sources

1:26:24 ↗ are that will come out the

1:26:26 ↗ recommendation will come out

1:26:28 ↗ um where they feel comfortable this

1:26:31 ↗ makes sense for our funding they're

1:26:33 ↗ going to be just as good stewards of the

1:26:35 ↗ recommendation as we will be moving

1:26:37 ↗ forward so I won't say we're going to

1:26:38 ↗ get one

1:26:40 ↗ uh unit for 2.1 million dollars I know

1:26:42 ↗ that

1:26:43 ↗ but I can't tell you exactly how many

1:26:46 ↗ um so lots of elements go into

1:26:48 ↗ affordable housing as we know um the

1:26:50 ↗ biggest and brightest on this thing is

1:26:52 ↗ property so we don't have beside you

1:26:54 ↗ know there is a faith-based organization

1:26:57 ↗ has talked about affordable housing but

1:26:59 ↗ there's a lot of uh more steps to even

1:27:01 ↗ see if that's feasible for them

1:27:03 ↗ um so really you know we don't have

1:27:06 ↗ vacant or unused property here waiting

1:27:08 ↗ for this but we do have some

1:27:10 ↗ underutilized property and we have some

1:27:14 ↗ um property owners that may be

1:27:15 ↗ considered Redevelopment that we haven't

1:27:16 ↗ been talking to so really the pathway

1:27:19 ↗ for our success to this is to have this

1:27:21 ↗ pla this uh fund adopted and go out and

1:27:25 ↗ talk to people and start planting the

1:27:27 ↗ seeds and talking about so this is

1:27:29 ↗ beyond Central right this could be

1:27:31 ↗ anywhere but talking about how can we

1:27:33 ↗ help them and then we know that our our

1:27:35 ↗ 2.1 million dollars isn't going to fill

1:27:37 ↗ the whole Gap how can we make those

1:27:39 ↗ connections how can we connecting with

1:27:41 ↗ other resources and really be

1:27:44 ↗ um an advocate and a partner in this

1:27:46 ↗ process as much as we can and get them

1:27:48 ↗ to the right people to help take that to

1:27:50 ↗ the finish line so the really excited

1:27:52 ↗ that we have the opportunity to do this

1:27:54 ↗ and I'm you know as much as uh the the

1:27:57 ↗ work that's actually taken to get to

1:28:00 ↗ this point is going to be the beginning

1:28:01 ↗ and I'm looking forward to that Outreach

1:28:03 ↗ and really talk telling the story what

1:28:06 ↗ I've heard in this room over and over

1:28:07 ↗ again that affordable housing is

1:28:09 ↗ important to the city and we're willing

1:28:10 ↗ to to put some skin in the game

1:28:14 ↗ so again next conversation is October

1:28:17 ↗ 9th the committee of the whole and then

1:28:18 ↗ depending on the the nods or the shaking

1:28:21 ↗ the heads we would either come back here

1:28:23 ↗ or come to a full council meeting for

1:28:25 ↗ considered adoption

1:28:29 ↗ quick enough again not not a lot of new

1:28:32 ↗ information but um uh you know did do

1:28:35 ↗ some some further looking at How would

1:28:37 ↗ how would actually actually implement

1:28:39 ↗ this and can refine those and look

1:28:42 ↗ forward to any comments you have about

1:28:43 ↗ that

1:28:45 ↗ questions for my fellow Council

1:28:49 ↗ council member D Michelle

1:28:53 ↗ oh that was very generous of you council

1:28:55 ↗ member Joe

1:28:59 ↗ oh thank you

1:29:01 ↗ um

1:29:03 ↗ the question I have I guess is

1:29:06 ↗ um

1:29:07 ↗ if we I'm in favor generally of putting

1:29:11 ↗ the the money into a fund and making

1:29:12 ↗ available through the application

1:29:14 ↗ process

1:29:16 ↗ um the question I have though is is if

1:29:18 ↗ we wait another year and say double the

1:29:22 ↗ fund to five million dollars is there an

1:29:25 ↗ economy of scale or a type of project

1:29:27 ↗ that would be more likely to use

1:29:29 ↗ over three million dollars rather than

1:29:31 ↗ the smaller amount that we have 2.1

1:29:34 ↗ million dollars right now or does it

1:29:36 ↗ just make sense to put the money out

1:29:37 ↗ there and I know that calls for a little

1:29:39 ↗ bit of crystal ball work for you but

1:29:42 ↗ I'll just roll the question out and see

1:29:43 ↗ what uh see what we come up with

1:29:46 ↗ um yes I wish we could double it to 2.5

1:29:48 ↗ or double the money um the the each year

1:29:53 ↗ we collect about uh 2.45 million dollars

1:29:56 ↗ in um in the 1.1 percent sales tax

1:30:01 ↗ um we have a motel and so this is

1:30:03 ↗ actually I should also say this money is

1:30:05 ↗ through 2024. so you're talking about 25

1:30:08 ↗ and 26 budget

1:30:10 ↗ um we have a Motel 6 program that we are

1:30:13 ↗ currently allocating 1.4 million dollars

1:30:15 ↗ over the two years

1:30:17 ↗ will that pilot continue will that

1:30:19 ↗ program become a program

1:30:21 ↗ um would it imagine that some of the

1:30:22 ↗ money would come out of here so the

1:30:24 ↗ additional money may not be as large as

1:30:26 ↗ you can imagine but uh I also do believe

1:30:30 ↗ that uh we pass you know let's pretend

1:30:33 ↗ we could pass this you know next month

1:30:35 ↗ um there's not going to be somebody in

1:30:36 ↗ November December to come to the table

1:30:38 ↗ and say we're ready for this so by the

1:30:40 ↗ time we actually get to the point of an

1:30:42 ↗ application it we may have the

1:30:44 ↗ opportunity to say the next budget round

1:30:46 ↗ you now allocate one million dollars

1:30:49 ↗ into this fund to add to it so

1:30:52 ↗ um very much in our minds and yeah it

1:30:54 ↗ seems like our next biennium budget

1:30:55 ↗ conversation will be here before we know

1:30:57 ↗ it but I appreciate you thinking about

1:30:59 ↗ the future so this is a source that we

1:31:01 ↗ could allocate future funding

1:31:04 ↗ um to be able to leverage others

1:31:08 ↗ okay thank you

1:31:11 ↗ any other questions council member Joe

1:31:16 ↗ that's a no

1:31:18 ↗ all right becomes a member D Michelle

1:31:20 ↗ thank you yeah thank you for going first

1:31:23 ↗ I just needed to organize my thoughts

1:31:26 ↗ here a little bit better

1:31:27 ↗ so I'm glad we got we have this up on

1:31:31 ↗ the on the screen

1:31:33 ↗ so

1:31:34 ↗ um

1:31:36 ↗ again going back to the inflation issue

1:31:39 ↗ um and we heard Mr rumberg say 25 to 30

1:31:42 ↗ is what he's seeing as well and that's

1:31:44 ↗ what I've been hearing from other people

1:31:46 ↗ so I'm looking at the Tod we've set

1:31:49 ↗ aside 5 million are we confident that

1:31:52 ↗ that 5 million is going to be enough uh

1:31:55 ↗ which would impact the money available

1:31:57 ↗ for this fund so you know I do support

1:32:01 ↗ the idea of this fund I'm you know but

1:32:03 ↗ I'm just worried that if we put money I

1:32:06 ↗ guess the question would be we put money

1:32:07 ↗ into this fund and the Strategic

1:32:10 ↗ opportunity fund and then we later find

1:32:13 ↗ out we need it for the Tod project does

1:32:15 ↗ it can it go backwards or is it in the

1:32:17 ↗ fund and it never gets out of the fund

1:32:19 ↗ except for the purposes that it's there

1:32:22 ↗ for right well one of the purposes is uh

1:32:24 ↗ Tod a little Tod so yeah I mean you know

1:32:28 ↗ we could decide if we make them complete

1:32:30 ↗ a full application

1:32:31 ↗ um because it's you know again we

1:32:33 ↗ probably have a lot of information but I

1:32:35 ↗ would assume that it is it'll be

1:32:37 ↗ eligible because of what we're

1:32:39 ↗ prioritizing

1:32:40 ↗ um and and so you're right we we don't

1:32:43 ↗ know what that five million if it's

1:32:44 ↗ going to be 4.9 million if it's 5.1

1:32:46 ↗ million dollars and we have heard over

1:32:49 ↗ and over that the the Tod project is a

1:32:52 ↗ priority so we would make sure

1:32:54 ↗ um that that would be possible and and

1:32:57 ↗ um yeah okay

1:33:01 ↗ um so uh so you use the term in here of

1:33:06 ↗ community-based Partners you also use

1:33:08 ↗ the term community-based organizations

1:33:10 ↗ which has a specific use in human

1:33:14 ↗ services

1:33:16 ↗ um and

1:33:17 ↗ um so when I was reading that I had the

1:33:19 ↗ question so let's say that we uh someone

1:33:22 ↗ came with the proposal for a mixed use

1:33:25 ↗ development with the

1:33:27 ↗ um with the

1:33:29 ↗ let's say the bottom floor be open to

1:33:31 ↗ for-profit businesses could we have a

1:33:34 ↗ proposal that would be eligible that

1:33:36 ↗ would be affordable housing on top and

1:33:39 ↗ some kind of commercial development on

1:33:41 ↗ the bottom or would it all have to uh be

1:33:43 ↗ non-profit

1:33:45 ↗ um and maybe that's we haven't gotten

1:33:47 ↗ that far thinking about it but I it's a

1:33:49 ↗ question yeah

1:33:50 ↗ um so how it's defined now is um so

1:33:53 ↗ twofold it's the non-profit service and

1:33:55 ↗ they also in our strategic plan talks

1:33:56 ↗ about working with Facebook based

1:33:58 ↗ organizations

1:34:00 ↗ um I think that could be something that

1:34:01 ↗ if if we wanted to get into again the

1:34:04 ↗ addendum like if you're providing

1:34:06 ↗ affordable housing then it can be

1:34:08 ↗ for-profit or yeah yeah for-profit

1:34:12 ↗ um

1:34:13 ↗ now it's a prioritization so it's a uh

1:34:16 ↗ numbers right and so if if the benefit

1:34:20 ↗ that you see otherwise to the community

1:34:21 ↗ is large enough you may you you know

1:34:24 ↗ Arch EVC commission our committee and

1:34:28 ↗ then council could decide that it's

1:34:30 ↗ still worth it so

1:34:32 ↗ um but if you if you want us to put

1:34:33 ↗ something specific about

1:34:35 ↗ um the benefits uh you know commercial

1:34:38 ↗ space is a benefit again uh it doesn't

1:34:41 ↗ say for-profit nonprofit from the

1:34:42 ↗ central Issaquah plan you know keep

1:34:45 ↗ maintaining jobs it just says benefit

1:34:47 ↗ Community benefit yeah that's that's

1:34:50 ↗ fine right now uh you know I mean you

1:34:53 ↗ just kind of have to think of uh what

1:34:55 ↗ are all the possible

1:34:56 ↗ fermentations that people might bring

1:34:59 ↗ forward

1:35:00 ↗ um

1:35:02 ↗ oh and I guess the last question if we

1:35:07 ↗ create this fund are we able to leverage

1:35:10 ↗ the funds there with the either state or

1:35:14 ↗ federal funding or is this going to be

1:35:16 ↗ entirely funded by this for projects

1:35:19 ↗ that would be in just entirely whatever

1:35:21 ↗ our donation to the project would be

1:35:23 ↗ would be ours and not be able to

1:35:25 ↗ leverage it is this

1:35:27 ↗ um no I anticipate they would need to

1:35:28 ↗ have multiple sources of funding for

1:35:31 ↗ this as most affordable housing so

1:35:33 ↗ um yes so I imagine that it would be

1:35:36 ↗ able to leverage and I think you know

1:35:37 ↗ often you know in projects when you see

1:35:39 ↗ investment from one from the city or

1:35:42 ↗ from another entity people feel more

1:35:44 ↗ comfortable investing so that's um

1:35:47 ↗ what happened with what happens with

1:35:49 ↗ other current funding right right

1:35:52 ↗ um okay I have some other comments but

1:35:54 ↗ those that's all my questions thank you

1:35:59 ↗ um since we're mentioning EOD with a

1:36:01 ↗ capital T capital O capital D

1:36:04 ↗ um when are we expecting to get a

1:36:07 ↗ update on that when are we expecting

1:36:09 ↗ forward motion on that

1:36:11 ↗ yes so we um so I know that

1:36:14 ↗ um Deputy City administrator Andrea

1:36:16 ↗ Snyder

1:36:17 ↗ um is working on that project and she's

1:36:19 ↗ uh in a recent conversation with the

1:36:21 ↗ King County Housing Authority um just

1:36:23 ↗ just within this month to find out

1:36:25 ↗ what's the next steps and how to come

1:36:27 ↗ forward to council so we can work with

1:36:29 ↗ her unless she wants to jump on to say I

1:36:31 ↗ don't know that she has a plan yet but

1:36:33 ↗ we but it's it's it's don't worry it's

1:36:36 ↗ on our on our radar and uh continuing to

1:36:39 ↗ because we've turned it some time ago

1:36:41 ↗ okay right we approved it in December

1:36:46 ↗ oh there she's coming on

1:36:52 ↗ Deputy City administrator

1:36:55 ↗ hi I'm coming on but I'm not sure that

1:36:57 ↗ my video is really coming through there

1:36:59 ↗ we go

1:37:00 ↗ hi good evening everyone I'm Andrea

1:37:03 ↗ Snyder Deputy City administrator

1:37:05 ↗ and managing the the capital T capital O

1:37:09 ↗ capital d project for the city

1:37:12 ↗ um and uh Jen is of course correct

1:37:16 ↗ um what what I think the uh the kcha

1:37:22 ↗ King County Housing Authority

1:37:23 ↗ anticipates is

1:37:26 ↗ um getting a new architect for him on

1:37:27 ↗ board getting uh the developers uh a new

1:37:31 ↗ developer team after the Architecture

1:37:33 ↗ Firm is confirmed and

1:37:35 ↗ um they hope to get their entitlements

1:37:38 ↗ um or land use permits approved by the

1:37:39 ↗ city in 20 by 2025.

1:37:42 ↗ so there's still quite a bit of time

1:37:45 ↗ here

1:37:47 ↗ um council member marks you asked what

1:37:49 ↗ type of approval would need to come back

1:37:51 ↗ to uh to the city council and that would

1:37:54 ↗ be regarding Opportunity Center

1:37:57 ↗ um we would need to meet with

1:37:59 ↗ architecture team and they need to

1:38:01 ↗ figure out a lot of details uh to really

1:38:03 ↗ understand what that cost estimate might

1:38:05 ↗ be for the construction build out of the

1:38:07 ↗ Opportunity Center so that's still

1:38:09 ↗ unfortunately several months away

1:38:12 ↗ um hopefully we can have that discussion

1:38:15 ↗ in 2024 but it likely wouldn't occur

1:38:17 ↗ until 2-2

1:38:21 ↗ thank you for that update I I appreciate

1:38:23 ↗ it

1:38:24 ↗ very much

1:38:27 ↗ all right uh with that

1:38:29 ↗ um it sounds like we don't have any

1:38:30 ↗ other questions at the moment so I will

1:38:33 ↗ ask the clerk if we have any public

1:38:34 ↗ comment on this item

1:38:37 ↗ chair Martz we have no members of the

1:38:39 ↗ public in attendance

1:38:41 ↗ well there we go nor do we have any in

1:38:43 ↗ the audience with us that makes it easy

1:38:45 ↗ so let us move to the deliberation phase

1:38:48 ↗ of this item uh

1:38:50 ↗ want to go first council member D

1:38:52 ↗ Michelle

1:38:54 ↗ uh yes I think this is a great idea this

1:38:57 ↗ is something that I've been hoping for

1:38:59 ↗ for a long time and

1:39:01 ↗ um I think we we should go forward with

1:39:04 ↗ it

1:39:05 ↗ um I couldn't think of anything other

1:39:07 ↗ than the things that you had listed uh

1:39:10 ↗ Jen that um that I thought were

1:39:12 ↗ priorities everything sort of fits

1:39:15 ↗ everything I thought of sort of fits

1:39:16 ↗ into one of those categories so I didn't

1:39:19 ↗ have anything to add there

1:39:22 ↗ um one of the reasons I'm going to bring

1:39:23 ↗ it up even though it's not related it's

1:39:26 ↗ related but not related

1:39:28 ↗ um if we're talking about developing

1:39:32 ↗ Partnerships with community-based

1:39:34 ↗ organizations

1:39:37 ↗ um one of the things that I am

1:39:38 ↗ discovering is that the city does not

1:39:40 ↗ have policies or ordinances related to

1:39:45 ↗ renting of rental of our spaces to

1:39:48 ↗ non-profits I'm sure they do like uh for

1:39:52 ↗ short term like at Hickory barn and

1:39:55 ↗ things like that but what we're talking

1:39:57 ↗ about is long-term relationships with

1:39:59 ↗ community-based non-profit organizations

1:40:02 ↗ and if you scour our

1:40:06 ↗ um Municipal Code which I have done

1:40:08 ↗ looking for for it we have nothing so

1:40:11 ↗ somewhere along the line and I brought

1:40:12 ↗ this up with autumn in Genie Justice

1:40:15 ↗ we've had a long conversation about it

1:40:17 ↗ so somewhere along the line either in

1:40:20 ↗ relation to this or relation to the

1:40:23 ↗ facility study we need to start looking

1:40:25 ↗ at what is the city's policy toward

1:40:29 ↗ being a landlord for non-profit

1:40:31 ↗ organizations and right now it's just a

1:40:34 ↗ point at least in the ordinance as it is

1:40:37 ↗ so I want to bring that up tonight so

1:40:39 ↗ that we get that on the table

1:40:41 ↗ um uh other than that again great job

1:40:45 ↗ and I am

1:40:48 ↗ I you know I just think about the first

1:40:50 ↗ project that we actually support

1:40:53 ↗ so yes go forward and do good thank you

1:40:58 ↗ thank you councilmember D Michelle

1:41:00 ↗ council member Joe

1:41:03 ↗ thank you

1:41:05 ↗ um I appreciate the work that's been

1:41:07 ↗ done to put this together I think it's a

1:41:10 ↗ great idea that I do support

1:41:12 ↗ I also think that we have the right

1:41:15 ↗ person uh up at the staff level to

1:41:18 ↗ promote this uh Jen Davis Hayes You've

1:41:21 ↗ been doing great work in the economic

1:41:23 ↗ development area and uh promoting this

1:41:27 ↗ fund and the fact that the fund is

1:41:28 ↗ available and going out and talking to

1:41:30 ↗ businesses

1:41:35 ↗ council member Joe you have uh we have

1:41:38 ↗ glitched out uh on your signal hopefully

1:41:41 ↗ you'll come back oh that can't be good

1:41:45 ↗ are you there

1:41:48 ↗ councilmember Joe if you we're not

1:41:51 ↗ hearing you if you could deactivate your

1:41:54 ↗ video it appears to be a bandwidth issue

1:41:57 ↗ on your end so if you

1:41:59 ↗ oh and just give us your your verbal

1:42:02 ↗ comments that might facilitate things

1:42:09 ↗ we see you now

1:42:12 ↗ oh did you lose me sorry about that we

1:42:13 ↗ did lose you we lost about the last 60

1:42:16 ↗ Seconds

1:42:17 ↗ okay well my comment was only 60 seconds

1:42:20 ↗ long so

1:42:22 ↗ um

1:42:23 ↗ I'll start from the beginning I

1:42:24 ↗ appreciate the work that's been done on

1:42:26 ↗ this fund I completely support its work

1:42:28 ↗ I also think that uh we have the right

1:42:30 ↗ staff person at the helm for this Jen

1:42:33 ↗ Davis Hayes uh has been doing a great

1:42:36 ↗ job in The Economic Development Area

1:42:39 ↗ um great job with uh lodging tax

1:42:41 ↗ advisory committee that I chair and we

1:42:44 ↗ do need a person that is uh willing to

1:42:47 ↗ go out in the community and promote this

1:42:49 ↗ and educate people uh non-profits and

1:42:51 ↗ organizations about this uh fund and its

1:42:54 ↗ availability so I would encourage you to

1:42:57 ↗ take the same approach you have taken

1:43:00 ↗ with economic development and see this

1:43:02 ↗ as another aspect of of that

1:43:05 ↗ um

1:43:05 ↗ right that whole uh project to kind of

1:43:10 ↗ make Issaquah a great place to live work

1:43:12 ↗ and play so

1:43:13 ↗ um go forth and thank you appreciate it

1:43:19 ↗ thank you councilmember Joe I'm just

1:43:21 ↗ going to borrow a page from uh Gus

1:43:23 ↗ Grissom and just say uh do good work

1:43:26 ↗ my my feedback famously told a factory

1:43:29 ↗ full of workers and they put a banner up

1:43:31 ↗ he was he was not a man of many words uh

1:43:34 ↗ he was a stoic taciturn fellow he said

1:43:37 ↗ do good work and people would have a

1:43:39 ↗ banner that said good work that became

1:43:41 ↗ their motto ever on so yes please do

1:43:43 ↗ good work on this

1:43:44 ↗ and with that uh do you have everything

1:43:47 ↗ that you need from us yes is there

1:43:48 ↗ anything in particular different for

1:43:50 ↗ that you think that I should present to

1:43:52 ↗ the full uh Committee of the whole

1:43:55 ↗ this is okay or anything particularly

1:43:57 ↗ you want to make sure they agree with

1:43:59 ↗ maybe the priorities although we had

1:44:01 ↗ that conversation as a whole before so

1:44:03 ↗ yeah council member Joe you look like

1:44:05 ↗ you're chewing on your lip you're

1:44:06 ↗ considering you're thinking is there

1:44:08 ↗ anything you want to add no

1:44:11 ↗ no all right nope I think that's it

1:44:14 ↗ wonderful thank you oh and with that my

1:44:16 ↗ computer just locked up on me because

1:44:19 ↗ that happens uh I apologize of course it

1:44:23 ↗ does right as I'm about to say that

1:44:25 ↗ we're ready to move on uh Jen thank you

1:44:28 ↗ so much for shepherding both of these

1:44:29 ↗ items today uh we're moving on to ID

1:44:32 ↗ 1454 Ada self-evaluation and transition

1:44:36 ↗ plan with Dale Marky cramp assistant to

1:44:39 ↗ the city administrator

1:44:43 ↗ just a moment to set my slides up

1:44:47 ↗ using show tunes really got a lot of

1:44:50 ↗ options

1:44:59 ↗ yeah knocking down The Doors

1:45:05 ↗ are you

1:45:08 ↗ in the meeting

1:45:11 ↗ okay

1:45:40 ↗ well those first two items are supposed

1:45:41 ↗ to take us 60 minutes and they took us

1:45:43 ↗ almost two hours so

1:45:49 ↗ she can save us if you can get it all

1:45:50 ↗ done in 13 minutes

1:45:54 ↗ no I'm not suggesting you need to get it

1:45:56 ↗ done

1:46:19 ↗ good evening

1:46:21 ↗ um my name is Dale Markey crimp I am the

1:46:24 ↗ assistant to the city administrator and

1:46:25 ↗ I'm here tonight to talk a bit about our

1:46:28 ↗ Ada self-evaluation and transition plan

1:46:32 ↗ the purpose of our time together tonight

1:46:34 ↗ is twofold

1:46:36 ↗ one is two at a high level review the

1:46:38 ↗ draft plan

1:46:40 ↗ and the second is to gather some input

1:46:44 ↗ from you all on how we might engage in

1:46:47 ↗ progress monitoring

1:46:48 ↗ and Reporting back to Council on the

1:46:51 ↗ progress made each year towards the

1:46:52 ↗ goals outlined in the plan

1:46:54 ↗ very specifically I'm looking to answer

1:46:58 ↗ these two questions

1:47:00 ↗ what are what are if any any significant

1:47:02 ↗ concerns with the proposed approach to

1:47:06 ↗ burial removal

1:47:07 ↗ the order of that removal the timeline

1:47:10 ↗ and how would you like to be as a

1:47:13 ↗ council kept informed of the progress on

1:47:15 ↗ removing barriers

1:47:17 ↗ of different types across the city over

1:47:19 ↗ the lifespan of this plan in particular

1:47:22 ↗ we'd like to hear more about the

1:47:24 ↗ frequency of reporting

1:47:27 ↗ and the content of that reporting are

1:47:29 ↗ there any items beyond the benchmarks

1:47:32 ↗ that are already planned the council

1:47:34 ↗ would like to receive monitoring and

1:47:37 ↗ updates on

1:47:40 ↗ I want to provide a little bit of

1:47:42 ↗ background and context on the plan as

1:47:43 ↗ this is my first time coming to council

1:47:46 ↗ to talk about the plan but I know it's

1:47:48 ↗ not the first time that it's been to

1:47:50 ↗ council or committee

1:47:52 ↗ so the Ada which was passed in 1990 hard

1:47:55 ↗ to believe only 1990

1:47:58 ↗ was modeled after the Civil Rights Act

1:48:00 ↗ of 64 and the section Section 504 of The

1:48:04 ↗ Rehabilitation Act of 73. but

1:48:08 ↗ we often hear about title Title One the

1:48:11 ↗ employment rights around the Ada tonight

1:48:13 ↗ we're talking about title two

1:48:15 ↗ specifically about public enter what

1:48:17 ↗ public entities and transportation is

1:48:20 ↗ responsible for doing in order to make

1:48:23 ↗ our city a more inclusive and accessible

1:48:26 ↗ place

1:48:28 ↗ one of the best ways to meet the

1:48:31 ↗ requirements of Title II to the Ada is

1:48:33 ↗ to make your facilities like the room

1:48:35 ↗ we're standing in today more accessible

1:48:37 ↗ that the best way to make your services

1:48:39 ↗ and your programs more accessible is to

1:48:41 ↗ make your spaces more accessible

1:48:43 ↗ however a lot of our most of our the

1:48:46 ↗ majority of our infrastructure predates

1:48:48 ↗ 1990. and so while we've made a ton of

1:48:51 ↗ progress over

1:48:53 ↗ the last 33 years we're simply not

1:48:57 ↗ meeting the standards of the 1990 or

1:49:00 ↗ even the Amendments that were done in

1:49:01 ↗ 2008 and 2014 of the Ada

1:49:05 ↗ we committed we're and we're committed

1:49:07 ↗ and I believe everyone in this room is

1:49:08 ↗ committed to making this city the most

1:49:10 ↗ inclusive and accessible place it can be

1:49:12 ↗ but we do have a lot of work to do to

1:49:15 ↗ get there

1:49:16 ↗ the transition plan

1:49:18 ↗ is a requirement of the Federal Highway

1:49:20 ↗ Administration and it's also a generally

1:49:23 ↗ a federal requirement to have one but to

1:49:26 ↗ obtain Federal pass-through dollars from

1:49:28 ↗ the Federal Highway Administration we

1:49:31 ↗ have to have a plan adopted by Council

1:49:33 ↗ and in place

1:49:34 ↗ the plan has two big components one is a

1:49:38 ↗ self-evaluation

1:49:39 ↗ and the other is a a plan for burial

1:49:42 ↗ removal

1:49:43 ↗ also in that is a requirement to report

1:49:45 ↗ out on the progress we make

1:49:47 ↗ the plan touches on four main areas and

1:49:50 ↗ you can see those in the Big Bright

1:49:51 ↗ Beautiful boxes on the screen here

1:49:53 ↗ public access to City buildings

1:49:56 ↗ City owned and maintained parks and

1:49:59 ↗ paved multi-use Trails the public

1:50:01 ↗ right-of-way so crosswalks and

1:50:04 ↗ intersections

1:50:05 ↗ and City programs activities and

1:50:07 ↗ services

1:50:11 ↗ to give you a little bit of an update on

1:50:12 ↗ where we've been the process that we've

1:50:15 ↗ taken we've partnered with

1:50:17 ↗ Transportation Solutions Incorporated

1:50:19 ↗ and we started that partnership in 2022

1:50:22 ↗ to do the self-assessment to engage in

1:50:25 ↗ an inventory and assessment of our

1:50:27 ↗ public-facing buildings and Facilities

1:50:29 ↗ so not not the internal non-public

1:50:32 ↗ facing but any any space a member of the

1:50:35 ↗ public might enter and that was 24

1:50:37 ↗ different buildings across the city

1:50:40 ↗ 29 parks and seven multi-use trails

1:50:43 ↗ you'll notice that's not every park or

1:50:45 ↗ every multi-use Trail and again giving a

1:50:49 ↗ read through the plan you'll notice some

1:50:50 ↗ were not included because they were

1:50:51 ↗ built more recently or developed more

1:50:53 ↗ recently and so we figured they were

1:50:55 ↗ they were within the um the

1:50:59 ↗ grandfathered in standards of the most

1:51:00 ↗ recent update

1:51:02 ↗ the public right-of-way so our

1:51:04 ↗ consultant partner evaluated all of our

1:51:06 ↗ intersections crosswalks on-street

1:51:09 ↗ marked parking

1:51:11 ↗ and City programs and activities and

1:51:13 ↗ services as well as staff now knowledge

1:51:15 ↗ about ADA specifically Title II of the

1:51:18 ↗ Ada

1:51:21 ↗ that work happened throughout 22 and 23.

1:51:24 ↗ at the same time we knew that we needed

1:51:27 ↗ to have some sort of way to approach

1:51:29 ↗ improvements

1:51:32 ↗ um

1:51:32 ↗ that

1:51:34 ↗ was not simply and fully based on one

1:51:37 ↗ Criterion we wanted to have an

1:51:40 ↗ understanding of the diverse criteria

1:51:44 ↗ that might go into how we would order

1:51:47 ↗ this barrier removal I'm sure as you

1:51:49 ↗ notice and as I'll go into in a moment

1:51:51 ↗ there's a lot of work to do and that

1:51:53 ↗ work is very expensive

1:51:56 ↗ we wanted to make sure first and

1:51:58 ↗ foremost that those locations that were

1:52:03 ↗ of most danger and of most impact to

1:52:05 ↗ people were ones that were addressed

1:52:07 ↗ first and so you can see in this

1:52:08 ↗ criteria we've got five different

1:52:10 ↗ criteria the very first one is

1:52:12 ↗ grievances or public complaints we think

1:52:14 ↗ that is the most important thing to

1:52:16 ↗ prioritize removal

1:52:18 ↗ secondly we wanted to make sure that

1:52:19 ↗ this plan didn't sit outside of all of

1:52:22 ↗ the other plans that we have at the city

1:52:25 ↗ this should be in line with the adopted

1:52:27 ↗ budget it should be in line with the

1:52:30 ↗ adopted CIP and so the include the

1:52:33 ↗ second Criterion here you'll see is the

1:52:35 ↗ inclusion in or proximity to planned

1:52:38 ↗ Capital Improvement projects

1:52:40 ↗ the third is plan Department maintenance

1:52:42 ↗ projects and program updates things that

1:52:44 ↗ are already in the budget and then four

1:52:47 ↗ we also wanted to consider the severity

1:52:49 ↗ of the non-compliance so if an item is

1:52:51 ↗ very out of compliance we want to make

1:52:54 ↗ sure that that that goes into the um the

1:52:58 ↗ assessment and then the order of removal

1:53:01 ↗ and then last but certainly not least

1:53:03 ↗ proximity to places of interest

1:53:06 ↗ we want to make sure that folks that

1:53:08 ↗ have challenges moving around and need

1:53:10 ↗ to get to specific support places

1:53:12 ↗ whether that be housing government

1:53:15 ↗ services other services they may need

1:53:18 ↗ transportation

1:53:20 ↗ Transit stops shopping and entertainment

1:53:22 ↗ and places of public accommodation and

1:53:24 ↗ so you're going to notice a lot of the

1:53:25 ↗ priorities and as you look through the

1:53:27 ↗ plan I'm sure you noticed there's a real

1:53:29 ↗ focus on downtown and Central Issaquah

1:53:32 ↗ as places where especially for our

1:53:34 ↗ public right-of-way we want to make sure

1:53:36 ↗ we address sooner rather than later

1:53:40 ↗ as I've mentioned a few times the plan

1:53:43 ↗ outlines very specifically barriers to

1:53:46 ↗ be removed over the course of the

1:53:48 ↗ upcoming CIP so

1:53:50 ↗ 2024-29 and then it outlines which

1:53:52 ↗ barriers will be outstanding after that

1:53:54 ↗ time

1:53:55 ↗ so you can see here on this slide and as

1:53:57 ↗ you saw in your memo this is the current

1:53:59 ↗ plan to address those barriers

1:54:05 ↗ we've also noted as over the course of

1:54:08 ↗ this year we gathered information to see

1:54:11 ↗ if any grievances have been made as that

1:54:15 ↗ was the number one criteria we have

1:54:17 ↗ currently no grievances on city-owned

1:54:19 ↗ property this year but we have

1:54:21 ↗ established a very clear process that

1:54:23 ↗ folks can file a grievance

1:54:26 ↗ also you'll see here the way that we

1:54:28 ↗ prioritize barrier removal and

1:54:30 ↗ improvements through the CIP the budget

1:54:32 ↗ and pre-existing work plans

1:54:34 ↗ however you'll know that this doesn't

1:54:36 ↗ necessarily mean that only the highest

1:54:38 ↗ priority barriers are removed first

1:54:40 ↗ there will be some medium and lower

1:54:42 ↗ priority barriers that are removed

1:54:44 ↗ before higher priority barriers because

1:54:46 ↗ they are included within the scope of a

1:54:49 ↗ project that's been approved as part of

1:54:51 ↗ the CIP

1:54:54 ↗ to the costs

1:54:56 ↗ so again we're not promote we're not

1:55:00 ↗ um we're not asking for any additional

1:55:02 ↗ funding as part of this plan this plan

1:55:05 ↗ mirrors approved funding through plans

1:55:09 ↗ that have already been approved whether

1:55:10 ↗ that be the budget or the CIP

1:55:12 ↗ um there are some recommendations in the

1:55:15 ↗ plan that we consider additional funds

1:55:18 ↗ for instance Transportation has an

1:55:21 ↗ entire Ada

1:55:23 ↗ improvements CIP project

1:55:26 ↗ that's the only group that does have

1:55:29 ↗ that project but what you can see here

1:55:31 ↗ is make our real goal is to make some

1:55:34 ↗ meaningful sustainable progress in

1:55:38 ↗ addressing these barriers what's most

1:55:41 ↗ important is that we have a plan in

1:55:43 ↗ place and that that plan is something

1:55:44 ↗ that we know we can commit to completing

1:55:46 ↗ year over year

1:55:50 ↗ now progress monitoring the other topic

1:55:52 ↗ tonight there is no very clear guidance

1:55:55 ↗ on what how progress must be reported

1:55:59 ↗ most jurisdictions as I did my research

1:56:02 ↗ do an annual written report to council

1:56:03 ↗ and that's about it

1:56:06 ↗ um

1:56:07 ↗ as we engage with our consultant they

1:56:10 ↗ also recommended that we update our GIS

1:56:12 ↗ maps annually to reflect any

1:56:14 ↗ improvements that we make and as we

1:56:17 ↗ engaged with the public and specifically

1:56:19 ↗ as we engage with the transportation

1:56:21 ↗ Advisory Board they also recommended

1:56:24 ↗ consideration of Education that might be

1:56:27 ↗ done at Improvement or burial removal

1:56:30 ↗ sites so I believe the way it was

1:56:32 ↗ phrased was wouldn't it be kind of cool

1:56:34 ↗ and interesting if you walked up to a

1:56:36 ↗ rectangular flashing Beacon that was

1:56:39 ↗ just installed and there was something

1:56:40 ↗ that explained it or the next time a

1:56:43 ↗ crosswalk talked at you you could see a

1:56:45 ↗ little sign that explained why it talked

1:56:46 ↗ to you I think what I've learned a lot

1:56:49 ↗ as an able-bodied person working on this

1:56:51 ↗ project is there is so much we don't

1:56:54 ↗ understand about the way that our world

1:56:56 ↗ is built for able-bodied people

1:56:59 ↗ um and so I think an opportunity to

1:57:01 ↗ educate was something that came up when

1:57:02 ↗ engaging our boards and commissions

1:57:07 ↗ currently the plan for reporting on this

1:57:11 ↗ slide

1:57:12 ↗ these are the measures we plan to report

1:57:14 ↗ annually we plan to for each barrier

1:57:18 ↗ type talk about the number of barriers

1:57:20 ↗ that were removed we also plan to report

1:57:23 ↗ on the number of dollars spent and we

1:57:26 ↗ also plan to report on the percentage

1:57:28 ↗ that we do Against The Benchmark that we

1:57:31 ↗ set

1:57:31 ↗ so we're very clearly outlined that we

1:57:34 ↗ plan to remove and replace or improve

1:57:36 ↗ certain items every year and we want to

1:57:39 ↗ make sure that we're able to say hey we

1:57:41 ↗ said we're going to do this many we did

1:57:45 ↗ 90 of that this year we did 100 of that

1:57:47 ↗ this year or in fact a mother

1:57:49 ↗ maintenance project came up and we were

1:57:51 ↗ able to do 110 of what we said we would

1:57:53 ↗ do this year

1:57:54 ↗ you can see there are some little

1:57:56 ↗ changes in here and then of course the

1:57:58 ↗ most unique category is the program

1:58:00 ↗ services and activities category where

1:58:03 ↗ you'll be able to see we're going to

1:58:04 ↗ report on the actions that we take but

1:58:06 ↗ we're also going to report on the number

1:58:08 ↗ of adaptive Recreation participants

1:58:09 ↗ served by City programs the number of

1:58:12 ↗ ADA concerns that are submitted through

1:58:13 ↗ c-click fix which is a new category

1:58:15 ↗ added this year as a result of public

1:58:17 ↗ engagement and the number of grievances

1:58:20 ↗ submitted so along with the progress

1:58:22 ↗ we're making we'd also like to keep

1:58:23 ↗ Council

1:58:25 ↗ apprised of generally what the

1:58:28 ↗ experience is like for individuals with

1:58:31 ↗ disabilities moving around our city and

1:58:33 ↗ as they report those challenges to us

1:58:37 ↗ one thing I'll mention and it was it was

1:58:40 ↗ outlined pretty extensively in the memo

1:58:42 ↗ but I didn't provide a slide here

1:58:44 ↗ tonight

1:58:45 ↗ this doesn't come to your desk without a

1:58:48 ↗ great deal of public engagement

1:58:50 ↗ um

1:58:51 ↗ Not only was there a public survey that

1:58:54 ↗ was targeted to individuals who we know

1:58:57 ↗ experience challenges moving around our

1:59:00 ↗ community both through our adaptive

1:59:02 ↗ Recreation programs Our Community

1:59:03 ↗ Partners and also individuals who

1:59:06 ↗ frequent the senior center we also held

1:59:09 ↗ a hybrid open house in May to Garner

1:59:11 ↗ further information and

1:59:14 ↗ again targeted Outreach to those groups

1:59:17 ↗ again

1:59:18 ↗ offered it as hybrid so those who might

1:59:20 ↗ not be able to move or parents taken

1:59:22 ↗ care of children with disabilities could

1:59:25 ↗ also attend and then also in June and

1:59:28 ↗ July as mentioned engaged with both the

1:59:31 ↗ Parks Board and the transportation

1:59:33 ↗ Advisory Board around the draft plan and

1:59:36 ↗ also the criteria that I presented this

1:59:39 ↗ evening

1:59:40 ↗ and so tonight

1:59:42 ↗ um the two there are two items and two

1:59:44 ↗ options

1:59:45 ↗ one is the plan itself and the options

1:59:48 ↗ are to provide some minor suggestions or

1:59:51 ↗ changes and approve this to move forward

1:59:54 ↗ for full Council consideration in late

1:59:57 ↗ October or to instruct us to make some

1:59:59 ↗ substantial changes in return to

2:00:01 ↗ committee with an updated plan

2:00:04 ↗ for Progress monitoring and Reporting

2:00:06 ↗ the options are to approve the current

2:00:08 ↗ reporting plan with minor changes that

2:00:11 ↗ might be an addition of a measure or two

2:00:12 ↗ that you'd like to see that you didn't

2:00:14 ↗ see in that

2:00:15 ↗ Matrix or table and then to or to

2:00:19 ↗ instruct us to determine more frequent

2:00:21 ↗ reporting Cadence

2:00:22 ↗ a number of different reporting items

2:00:25 ↗ things that you feel like are truly

2:00:26 ↗ missing before we can bring this forward

2:00:28 ↗ for full Council consideration

2:00:31 ↗ the recommendation from the

2:00:33 ↗ administration is to move this forward

2:00:36 ↗ to the full Council and specifically for

2:00:39 ↗ Progress monitoring

2:00:41 ↗ we do the gis update we track quarterly

2:00:44 ↗ we provide you an annual report and that

2:00:47 ↗ we consider some projects that might be

2:00:48 ↗ really good for good candidates for some

2:00:52 ↗ educational signage especially around

2:00:54 ↗ public right-of-way

2:00:57 ↗ the timing and next steps

2:00:59 ↗ from this meeting hopefully uh we'll

2:01:02 ↗ finalize the plan I know you've seen

2:01:04 ↗ some references to appendices that are

2:01:06 ↗ in a little bit of draft mode we didn't

2:01:07 ↗ want to we didn't want to overburden our

2:01:10 ↗ GIS system too much before we were ready

2:01:12 ↗ to say we're ready to move forward but

2:01:14 ↗ the hope is to return to full Council

2:01:16 ↗ for adoption in October begin quarterly

2:01:20 ↗ progress monitoring at the end of this

2:01:21 ↗ year and provide an annual report in q1

2:01:24 ↗ of 2025.

2:01:30 ↗ do you have anything else to present I

2:01:32 ↗ do not

2:01:34 ↗ so I have a question

2:01:36 ↗ um what about our existing

2:01:39 ↗ that is a great question

2:01:42 ↗ um so our existing plan we did begin

2:01:44 ↗ writing a plan in 2014 and I think what

2:01:47 ↗ you'll see in some of the appendices we

2:01:48 ↗ actually hired a different consultant

2:01:50 ↗ and they did a pretty robust

2:01:52 ↗ self-assessment of many of our

2:01:54 ↗ facilities across the city

2:01:57 ↗ my understanding is that plan

2:01:59 ↗ was never enacted

2:02:02 ↗ um it it did not lead I think largely

2:02:05 ↗ because there were

2:02:06 ↗ it was one plan next to a bunch of other

2:02:09 ↗ plans and so it wasn't fully integrated

2:02:11 ↗ into

2:02:14 ↗ um into our CIP

2:02:15 ↗ where we've seen the most progress on

2:02:17 ↗ items that were pulled out in that plan

2:02:19 ↗ is actually in

2:02:21 ↗ um public right-of-way I think we've

2:02:23 ↗ seen year over year a lot of those

2:02:24 ↗ improvements being made and of course

2:02:26 ↗ little changes were happening along the

2:02:28 ↗ way

2:02:29 ↗ um but I was not able to find the full

2:02:31 ↗ 2014 draft plan well it was I believe it

2:02:35 ↗ was 2013 but it was referred to it was

2:02:38 ↗ referred to as the 2013 plan in a number

2:02:40 ↗ of places I was on Council and it was

2:02:42 ↗ about 60 million dollars like this one

2:02:44 ↗ is so in real dollars that's less

2:02:46 ↗ because 60 million dollars doesn't buy

2:02:48 ↗ you as much today as it did 10 years ago

2:02:51 ↗ unfortunately

2:02:52 ↗ um but we had a plan I think we I think

2:02:54 ↗ it was required for the feds in 2013 as

2:02:57 ↗ well so I

2:02:59 ↗ I don't remember the vote to adopt it

2:03:01 ↗ but I remember having it in committee

2:03:03 ↗ because it was in the transportation

2:03:04 ↗ committee which I was chairing at the

2:03:06 ↗ time because it was mostly about curbs

2:03:09 ↗ and it was about the how ridiculously

2:03:11 ↗ expensive curbs are

2:03:13 ↗ um to to retrofit

2:03:16 ↗ um and I think that formed the bulk of

2:03:17 ↗ the 60 million dollars honestly so um I

2:03:20 ↗ do when this if if and when this comes

2:03:22 ↗ back to council I think we should at

2:03:24 ↗ least have a cursory nod to the existing

2:03:26 ↗ plan and if we didn't if we didn't adopt

2:03:29 ↗ it I I'm surprised because again I would

2:03:32 ↗ be surprised the feds would allow us to

2:03:33 ↗ not adopt something

2:03:35 ↗ um but you know it's yeah that was my I

2:03:40 ↗ guess I will say that was my you

2:03:42 ↗ answered my question

2:03:44 ↗ uh council member D Michelle council

2:03:47 ↗ member Joe questions before we uh

2:03:52 ↗ oh yeah Council memory

2:03:55 ↗ yeah and uh I think you've done a great

2:03:58 ↗ job on community engagement and so forth

2:04:00 ↗ but I'm just wondering if you sent this

2:04:03 ↗ in front of the equity board

2:04:05 ↗ um not so much uh I think it's a great

2:04:07 ↗ plan and I think that's you know great

2:04:10 ↗ but I bet they would be interested to

2:04:12 ↗ see it so I'm just wondering if that has

2:04:15 ↗ happened or if you plan to do that in

2:04:16 ↗ the future

2:04:18 ↗ a great question it has not yet gone

2:04:20 ↗ before the equity it has not gone before

2:04:22 ↗ the equity board in its current form it

2:04:24 ↗ went through the equity it went to the

2:04:26 ↗ equity board very early in its Inception

2:04:28 ↗ but my hope is also to bring it back to

2:04:30 ↗ them around specifically again around

2:04:33 ↗ this sort of educational public

2:04:34 ↗ engagement component

2:04:39 ↗ yes I think they'd have a lot to say

2:04:44 ↗ remember Joe do you have any questions

2:04:45 ↗ before we yes there councilmember Joe

2:04:50 ↗ thank you um

2:04:53 ↗ the

2:04:55 ↗ um little challenge that we had at the

2:04:57 ↗ beginning of the school year uh by iska

2:05:00 ↗ high school and and it's called Middle

2:05:02 ↗ School along 2nd Avenue and we're doing

2:05:04 ↗ some construction I'm not

2:05:08 ↗ uh

2:05:09 ↗ giving blame to anybody uh but uh it

2:05:13 ↗ looks like late spring to early fall is

2:05:15 ↗ when we typically want to do these type

2:05:17 ↗ of projects you asked if we had any uh

2:05:20 ↗ suggestions for timelines I know that we

2:05:22 ↗ do this

2:05:24 ↗ um I I know that we look at

2:05:27 ↗ um you know doing construction around

2:05:29 ↗ schools uh in the summertime in the

2:05:32 ↗ offices as much as possible and I

2:05:34 ↗ understand that this was a contract

2:05:36 ↗ dispute or a little bit of a problem

2:05:38 ↗ with the bidding requirements but I

2:05:41 ↗ would just

2:05:42 ↗ um like to convey that there are a

2:05:44 ↗ number of parents who contacted me about

2:05:47 ↗ the uh delay there and I would hope that

2:05:50 ↗ when we do these public right-of-way

2:05:53 ↗ improvements was part of this plan that

2:05:54 ↗ we would anticipate the start of school

2:05:57 ↗ or other big events along the way and I

2:05:59 ↗ trust that you'll do that as a person

2:06:01 ↗ who is wed to data and wants to see that

2:06:05 ↗ whole picture along the way but I would

2:06:07 ↗ just Express that uh yeah

2:06:10 ↗ sentiment that I heard from a number of

2:06:12 ↗ people out there I think it's great that

2:06:15 ↗ we're doing some improvements to Parks

2:06:16 ↗ it looks like tradition plateau and the

2:06:19 ↗ plan was a high priority but I was just

2:06:22 ↗ curious

2:06:24 ↗ um

2:06:24 ↗ it

2:06:26 ↗ it seems to me that when I'm up there I

2:06:29 ↗ can go on most of the trails without you

2:06:32 ↗ know any type of grade or it's pretty

2:06:34 ↗ it's either gravel or it's or it's at

2:06:37 ↗ least Solid Ground

2:06:39 ↗ um are we talking about making all the

2:06:41 ↗ trails accessible there

2:06:43 ↗ or are we just talking about making a

2:06:45 ↗ parking lot an entry accessible just a a

2:06:48 ↗ little question about one of the

2:06:49 ↗ particular projects

2:06:52 ↗ that's a great question councilmember

2:06:54 ↗ Joe and your earlier sentiment is noted

2:06:56 ↗ to around timeline for some of these

2:06:59 ↗ improvements the priority is around the

2:07:02 ↗ parking lot and the parking in the

2:07:04 ↗ entrance to the space the ABA which is

2:07:07 ↗ actually a different set of standards

2:07:09 ↗ that dictates

2:07:11 ↗ mixed-use trails and Parks

2:07:15 ↗ all under the the umbrella of

2:07:17 ↗ accessibility those standards are

2:07:19 ↗ they're they're different

2:07:22 ↗ um and the priority without pulling up

2:07:24 ↗ the without pulling up the report in

2:07:27 ↗ front of you the priority is really

2:07:29 ↗ around the parking not every single

2:07:31 ↗ Trail in the community needs to be fully

2:07:34 ↗ accessible

2:07:35 ↗ um that's the point is that everyone

2:07:37 ↗ everyone who could have access to a

2:07:40 ↗ similar experience doesn't mean that you

2:07:42 ↗ know you think about this there are

2:07:43 ↗ trails that absolutely can't be made

2:07:44 ↗ accessible there are slopes

2:07:47 ↗ um that are just we're not going to be

2:07:48 ↗ able to make those ones that folks can

2:07:50 ↗ move around but tradition Plateau given

2:07:53 ↗ given the ability to get onto it

2:07:56 ↗ um through not a steep entrance from

2:07:58 ↗ some angles makes it a good candidate

2:08:00 ↗ for us to think about accessibility of

2:08:02 ↗ that that particular open that

2:08:05 ↗ particular Trail but you'll also notice

2:08:08 ↗ yet you you noted yes it's a high

2:08:10 ↗ priority but if we look closer also at

2:08:12 ↗ the at the order of the work we're

2:08:15 ↗ really focused on being able to get into

2:08:17 ↗ the space within parks and trails and so

2:08:19 ↗ it is really a focus on the parking lot

2:08:22 ↗ thank you for that as a Trailhead

2:08:24 ↗ Community

2:08:25 ↗ I want us to make sure that we're

2:08:27 ↗ setting expectations uh correctly when

2:08:31 ↗ it's in the plan and if someone reads it

2:08:33 ↗ we want to make sure that they

2:08:34 ↗ understand that it's really parking and

2:08:36 ↗ access to the general facility and not

2:08:39 ↗ access to to all the trails so I

2:08:41 ↗ appreciate that that information that

2:08:43 ↗ concludes my questions thank you

2:08:47 ↗ I don't see any other questions and we

2:08:49 ↗ still uh we do we continue to not have

2:08:52 ↗ any members of the public attending

2:08:54 ↗ electronically that would be correct all

2:08:57 ↗ right well then we have no opportunity

2:08:58 ↗ for public comment at the moment so we

2:09:00 ↗ can go straight to uh deliberation can

2:09:03 ↗ you bring up the questions that you were

2:09:04 ↗ looking for the answers for again

2:09:15 ↗ there we go

2:09:16 ↗ there any significant concerns with the

2:09:19 ↗ proposed barrier removal framework order

2:09:21 ↗ and timeline

2:09:22 ↗ and then how would we like to be kept

2:09:26 ↗ councilmember Joe do you want to take us

2:09:28 ↗ yeah there's your hand yup there we go

2:09:31 ↗ I'll go first

2:09:32 ↗ um no I appreciate the the thought

2:09:34 ↗ that's been put in this plan uh I think

2:09:37 ↗ that the uh framework is fine for the

2:09:40 ↗ removal the order is fine it looks like

2:09:41 ↗ you've given uh some thought to the

2:09:43 ↗ timeline in the construction time when

2:09:45 ↗ those projects will be will be done so I

2:09:47 ↗ do appreciate that I think that annual

2:09:50 ↗ reporting would be sufficient uh if

2:09:52 ↗ there are

2:09:54 ↗ um uh quarterly map updates may not be

2:09:58 ↗ necessary uh unless there are a number

2:10:01 ↗ of changes and I'll kind of leave that

2:10:03 ↗ to you and the administration to judge

2:10:05 ↗ if there's only one change on a uh you

2:10:08 ↗ know that we've done over the the time

2:10:10 ↗ period perhaps not producing an

2:10:12 ↗ expensive map an expensive report would

2:10:14 ↗ would be uh both a Time Saver and a a

2:10:18 ↗ better use of of public funds

2:10:21 ↗ um I'll leave that to the administration

2:10:22 ↗ to think about but it's not always

2:10:25 ↗ necessary in my mind from my point of

2:10:27 ↗ view to to have a sophisticated map all

2:10:29 ↗ the time

2:10:31 ↗ um as we go so

2:10:33 ↗ um I think the benchmarks you've got

2:10:35 ↗ there are are great and I look forward

2:10:38 ↗ to seeing the plan uh implemented and

2:10:40 ↗ put into action thank you

2:10:43 ↗ council member G Michelle

2:10:46 ↗ I agree I wouldn't have any uh

2:10:50 ↗ significant concerns and I would forward

2:10:52 ↗ it for approval to the whole Council I

2:10:55 ↗ guess the question we might think about

2:10:57 ↗ is should it go on consensus or should

2:11:00 ↗ it go on as a discussion and that

2:11:04 ↗ perhaps depends on what else is being

2:11:07 ↗ proposed for that agenda but uh I don't

2:11:11 ↗ have any um the significant concerns I

2:11:15 ↗ think yearly reporting is sufficient and

2:11:18 ↗ I agree with councilmember Joe that it

2:11:21 ↗ depends on how much work was done and is

2:11:24 ↗ it important to produce a report or is

2:11:27 ↗ it a waste of money so

2:11:30 ↗ um yeah and I think the items that

2:11:33 ↗ you've identified to report on are are

2:11:35 ↗ just fine great

2:11:37 ↗ yeah looks good

2:11:39 ↗ thank you councilmember D Michelle

2:11:41 ↗ uh yeah I'm I'm generally good with the

2:11:46 ↗ uh framework order I mean the timeline

2:11:49 ↗ is you know if we take it from 62

2:11:52 ↗ million to 55 million over the next

2:11:54 ↗ seven years

2:11:55 ↗ um I will be uh long I will have long

2:11:59 ↗ shuffled off this Mortal coil before we

2:12:01 ↗ get to uh everything done

2:12:04 ↗ um but uh that was true a decade ago

2:12:07 ↗ um I mean I'd like to see us continue to

2:12:09 ↗ make progress uh I don't know if in the

2:12:12 ↗ last decade if we were to dig up the

2:12:14 ↗ 2013 report and compare where we are

2:12:17 ↗ today I'm not sure how much progress

2:12:18 ↗ we've made and that's uh disconcerting

2:12:21 ↗ so I would like to uh understand I mean

2:12:27 ↗ I I really want us to make some progress

2:12:29 ↗ on this right not just say here's some

2:12:31 ↗ things we could do over the next seven

2:12:32 ↗ years but actually make some progress

2:12:35 ↗ um

2:12:36 ↗ in terms of whether it comes back on

2:12:38 ↗ consent or not I guess it really depends

2:12:40 ↗ on the answer for me to that question on

2:12:43 ↗ whether there's something there that if

2:12:45 ↗ you if there's going to be an Ask of

2:12:47 ↗ counsel down the road if there's I mean

2:12:49 ↗ if if you just think that as a result of

2:12:51 ↗ the natural order of the what the city

2:12:54 ↗ does that we're going to reduce seven

2:12:56 ↗ million dollars of that outstanding uh

2:12:59 ↗ need then maybe it goes on consent but

2:13:02 ↗ if we think down the road that there's

2:13:03 ↗ going to be an Ask of council or

2:13:05 ↗ something to that extent then I would

2:13:06 ↗ like to see them back before uh the full

2:13:09 ↗ Council in terms of generally reporting

2:13:11 ↗ I think annual reporting

2:13:15 ↗ any other comments uh Russell council

2:13:18 ↗ member Joe

2:13:19 ↗ whatever G Michelle

2:13:21 ↗ do you have what you wanted from us I do

2:13:24 ↗ thank you very much all right well is

2:13:26 ↗ there anything for the good of the order

2:13:27 ↗ from either of my fellow council members

2:13:29 ↗ nope then this meeting is adjourned at 8

2:13:32 ↗ 43 pm and thank you uh if you're at home

2:13:35 ↗ and you've been watching the meeting

2:13:36 ↗ thank you for joining us and if you're

2:13:37 ↗ watching it later thanks for watching

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF