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

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (3)

Tola Marts

Barbara de Michele

Russell Joe

Staff (2)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Chris Grabowski, Deputy City Clerk

Recommendations & actions (2)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

a) Minutes of August 9, 2023 – CM de Michele moved (Joe 2nd) to approve the minutes as presented.
Committee comments included: • The Committee was in support of moving forward. • Committee asked staff to investigate developing an ordinance regarding the rental of City facilities with long term partners.