City Council Services, Safety & Parks Committee · Tuesday, July 22, 2025 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of May 20, 2025

packet pp.5–6

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 05-20-25 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. May 20, 2025 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

TOD Opportunity Center Options COM 0157

30 min · Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator Gillian Straub, Management Analyst · packet pp.7–31

▶ Watch from 2:14 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends proceeding with the Opportunity Center and pursing another service provider to implement this project as planned. The Administration also recommends exploring the possibility of sharing the Opportunity Center between the City’s Human Services division and a rotating group of human services providers.

3-Trails Asphalt Art Pedestrian Safety Improvements COM 0158

Director · 20 min · Jeff Watling, Parks & Community Services · packet pp.33–43

Topics: TransportationParksPublic SafetyArts & Culture

▶ Watch from 48:13 Open packet at p.33 ↗

Staff report:

The 2024 adopted Issaquah Park System Plan identified four core values – connectivity, vibrancy, resiliency and balance – as guiding principles for the City’s park system. The Three Trails Crossing Project – at the intersection of East Lake Sammamish Trail, Rainier Trail and Juniper Trail – provides an excellent opportunity to demonstrate these core values through improved wayfinding, strengthened regional connectivity and vibrant placemaking while also building on sustainability goals of encouraging multi-modal modes of transportation.

1751 segments .txt ↗

0:09 ↗ Welcome everyone. I, Deputy Council

0:12 ↗ President D. Michelle, call the July

0:14 ↗ 22nd, 2025 City Council Services,

0:17 ↗ Safety, and Parks Committee to order.

0:23 ↗ Okay. I believe the first item on the

0:25 ↗ agenda is public comment. Members of the

0:29 ↗ public may address council at this time

0:31 ↗ in person or virtually. Those who signed

0:34 ↗ up in advance to make comments will be

0:36 ↗ called on first. If you are joining us

0:38 ↗ virtually and would like to make

0:39 ↗ comments, please raise your virtual

0:41 ↗ hand. If you are on the phone, press

0:43 ↗ number three or excuse me, star three.

0:46 ↗ If you've joined by computer or

0:47 ↗ smartphone, look for a hand icon. This

0:50 ↗ varies by device. One option may be to

0:53 ↗ go to the participant panel and cho and

0:55 ↗ choose the raise hand icon in the lower

0:58 ↗ right hand corner. If you are in the

1:00 ↗ room and did not sign up, I will ask for

1:02 ↗ other speakers before closing this

1:04 ↗ portion of the meeting. I will wait for

1:07 ↗ a moment to see if anyone wishes to

1:09 ↗ raise their hand.

1:15 ↗ Clerk, has anyone signed up to speak or

1:18 ↗ indicated a desire to speak this

1:19 ↗ evening?

1:21 ↗ No, they have not.

1:23 ↗ >> Thank you. As a reminder, written

1:25 ↗ comments can be submitted at any time to

1:28 ↗ city council at isquawa.gov.

1:33 ↗ Uh being uh not actually the chair of

1:37 ↗ this group, I did I miss I missed a an

1:40 ↗ item. Uh I am joined here by council

1:42 ↗ member Ray and also council member Tola

1:45 ↗ Mars is attending remotely this evening

1:48 ↗ and uh and he is usually the chair of

1:51 ↗ this uh committee. So welcome to

1:54 ↗ everybody.

1:56 ↗ Um let us go to uh the approval of the

1:59 ↗ minutes. Are there any objections to

2:01 ↗ approving uh the minutes as presented?

2:04 ↗ >> No objections.

2:06 ↗ >> No objections. Uh the minutes are then

2:09 ↗ passed unanimously.

2:11 ↗ um approved unanimously. So our first

2:14 ↗ agenda item is C is COM COOM0157

2:19 ↗ which is the TOD opportunity center

2:21 ↗ options and that will be followed by the

2:24 ↗ second item on tonight's agenda comm

2:27 ↗ 0158 312's asphalt art pedestrian safety

2:31 ↗ improvements. Uh presenting our first uh

2:35 ↗ making our first presentation is Andrea

2:37 ↗ Snyder, deputy city administrator, and

2:39 ↗ Jillian Strob, our management analyst.

2:42 ↗ So, take it away.

2:44 ↗ >> Thank you, Council Member D. Michelle.

2:46 ↗ Uh I'm Andrea Snyder, deputy city

2:48 ↗ administrator. And with me and Jillian

2:50 ↗ today are also parks and community

2:52 ↗ services director Jeff Watling and human

2:54 ↗ services manager Brenda Parker who are

2:57 ↗ also very involved in the development of

2:59 ↗ this item and our options for the

3:02 ↗ opportunity center.

3:05 ↗ So uh tonight

3:08 ↗ the purpose of our meeting is to talk

3:11 ↗ about what uh what um is the future for

3:15 ↗ the opportunity center. As you know, we

3:19 ↗ had tenants uh that we had an agreement

3:22 ↗ with Health Point and Valley Cities who

3:25 ↗ are long-term partners with this

3:27 ↗ concept, but as we are um moving along

3:29 ↗ in this project this year, things have

3:32 ↗ changed for these service providers and

3:33 ↗ they've pulled out of this agreement and

3:35 ↗ have indicated um they can no longer be

3:37 ↗ service providers in the opportunity

3:39 ↗ center at this time. uh they cited

3:42 ↗ reasons on timing and also just the

3:45 ↗ uncertainty with organizations right now

3:48 ↗ that rely on Medicaid and uh federal

3:51 ↗ grant dollars as well. And so

3:53 ↗ unfortunately they had to pull out of

3:54 ↗ this partnership with us. And so that

3:57 ↗ has left us uh trying to consider what

4:00 ↗ does the future look like and what are

4:01 ↗ the options available to us. So, we want

4:03 ↗ to talk about those options with you

4:05 ↗ this evening and get some feedback on

4:08 ↗ your preferred alternative for the

4:10 ↗ direction of the future of the

4:11 ↗ opportunity center.

4:15 ↗ Um, as I said, uh, specifically for

4:19 ↗ direction needed, we are, um, wondering,

4:22 ↗ uh, if the committee agrees with the

4:24 ↗ administration's recommendation to

4:26 ↗ continue pursuing another service

4:29 ↗ provider for the opportunity center that

4:31 ↗ would be similar to what Healthpoint and

4:33 ↗ Valley Cities were planning on

4:34 ↗ providing, or uh, or and as a plan B and

4:39 ↗ a backup plan to that, explore a model

4:41 ↗ where maybe the space is shared by more

4:43 ↗ providers. s and um including the human

4:47 ↗ services division staff where we can

4:48 ↗ have rotating human service providers

4:51 ↗ and also human services staff within the

4:54 ↗ facility.

4:57 ↗ Backing up a little bit before we

4:59 ↗ discuss options just to remember of the

5:01 ↗ timeline and how we got here. 2016, the

5:04 ↗ city issued an RFP, which is a request

5:07 ↗ for proposals for the transit oriented

5:09 ↗ development opportunity center, TOC as

5:13 ↗ we uh often refer to it as. And uh we

5:17 ↗ also performed a community needs

5:18 ↗ assessment uh where it became clear what

5:22 ↗ our needs were as a community, where we

5:24 ↗ had gaps in services, especially public

5:27 ↗ health um public behavioral health

5:30 ↗ providers. That was in 2017. Following

5:33 ↗ that, um, we entered into an agreement

5:36 ↗ with King County Housing Authority, uh,

5:38 ↗ to build 10,000 square ft of space for

5:42 ↗ behavioral health and other types of

5:43 ↗ services for low-income populations

5:46 ↗ within that transit oriented

5:47 ↗ development.

5:49 ↗ Um, and we selected Valley Cities and

5:51 ↗ Health Point as service providers and

5:54 ↗ also committed some city funding to

5:56 ↗ helping open up this space, pay for

5:58 ↗ tenant improvements, etc., and just help

6:01 ↗ these um service providers be able to

6:03 ↗ operate out of this new space.

6:06 ↗ In 2019, the city successfully received

6:09 ↗ $3 million in grants from the state for

6:12 ↗ the opportunity center to support these

6:14 ↗ efforts in acquiring the space and

6:16 ↗ paying for tenant improvements and

6:17 ↗ supporting these services.

6:20 ↗ And uh and uh since then um we've been

6:25 ↗ working with King County Housing

6:26 ↗ Authority on this project. As you know,

6:29 ↗ council passed housing cooperative

6:31 ↗ agreement last night um regarding the

6:33 ↗ transit oriented development and King

6:36 ↗ County Housing Authority retains

6:37 ↗ ownership of this land. So, the city

6:39 ↗ does not own the parcel where the

6:41 ↗ development is going to occur. What

6:43 ↗ we've been talking about is entering

6:44 ↗ into an agreement for a commercial condo

6:47 ↗ or condominium as part of the transit

6:50 ↗ oriented development. Uh and that would

6:52 ↗ become the opportunity center, that

6:54 ↗ commercial condo

6:57 ↗ in uh and so here we are today, 2025.

7:01 ↗ KCHA is in for land use permits uh for

7:04 ↗ the development of this project. They

7:07 ↗ are planning on getting their building

7:08 ↗ permits in August. We're going to talk a

7:11 ↗ little bit more about that later and how

7:13 ↗ this is driving some of our timeline for

7:14 ↗ our discussions today. And um also as I

7:18 ↗ said, Valley Cities and Healthpoint

7:20 ↗ withdraw from the partnership. Um and

7:24 ↗ good news is the city did receive

7:26 ↗ reappropriation of $3 million to help

7:29 ↗ support the opportunity center. There

7:31 ↗ are some strings attached to that

7:32 ↗ funding. Uh and we'll be talking about

7:35 ↗ those more later as well. Uh one thing I

7:38 ↗ forgot to note at the top that uh I

7:40 ↗ would be remiss if I did not. We did

7:43 ↗ republish the packet for this evening

7:45 ↗ because there was a small typo in like

7:49 ↗ the last paragraph of the memo that said

7:52 ↗ something about the preceding table or

7:54 ↗ the following table. So, we just fixed

7:56 ↗ that typo to make it more clear. There's

7:58 ↗ nothing um of substance that really

8:01 ↗ changed, just trying to make it more

8:03 ↗ clear what we were referring to. So,

8:04 ↗ just wanted to note that. Um if you note

8:06 ↗ differences in the memo, we did

8:07 ↗ republish it for that reason, but that

8:09 ↗ was the only difference.

8:12 ↗ Okay, back to our discussion for

8:15 ↗ tonight. Just a reminder when we issued

8:18 ↗ that RFP and we selected um the uh human

8:22 ↗ services providers what the original

8:24 ↗ intent for the opportunity center was.

8:26 ↗ The original envision was to have that

8:28 ↗ 10,000 square ft of space which we have

8:31 ↗ an agreement um for KCHA to provide us

8:35 ↗ and uh the city council originally

8:38 ↗ contemplated 1 to three tenants with a

8:40 ↗ partnership potential um potential for

8:44 ↗ below market rental rates um which does

8:47 ↗ not necessarily mean subsidy.

8:50 ↗ It means uh maybe we don't charge market

8:53 ↗ rate but we also want to make sure that

8:55 ↗ the city uh captures the expense of

9:00 ↗ providing this space. So there's a

9:02 ↗ difference between charging a market

9:04 ↗ rate um and what would be charged in

9:06 ↗ other for-profit properties and there's

9:10 ↗ a difference between that and capturing

9:12 ↗ our expenses and making sure that we're

9:14 ↗ paying for those expenses through the

9:16 ↗ rental rates that the tenants provide.

9:20 ↗ Also um part of the original vision was

9:23 ↗ contemplation of employment services,

9:25 ↗ medical dental services, behavioral

9:27 ↗ health, general system uh navigation

9:31 ↗ uh services and then housing stability

9:33 ↗ services. So these were all things that

9:35 ↗ council had contemplated originally and

9:37 ↗ ourou or a memorandum of understanding

9:40 ↗ with valley cities and healthpoint the

9:42 ↗ selected providers at the time was

9:45 ↗ making sure that these were um public

9:48 ↗ services that they're offered at a

9:50 ↗ sliding scale that works for people with

9:52 ↗ low incomes

9:55 ↗ that they would provide outpatient

9:56 ↗ behavioral dental and medical services.

9:59 ↗ Uh there could be a pharmacy and lab on

10:01 ↗ the premises.

10:03 ↗ um and that they would provide

10:05 ↗ connections and referral to other types

10:07 ↗ of services including daycare, case

10:09 ↗ management, etc. So that's what ourou

10:12 ↗ states with Valley Cities and

10:13 ↗ Healthpoint and that's also how we have

10:16 ↗ um orientated our state funding requests

10:21 ↗ to really support these types of

10:22 ↗ services.

10:26 ↗ So this takes us to what our preferred

10:29 ↗ path is as the administration's

10:31 ↗ recommending is the first is to find

10:35 ↗ another service provider that provides

10:38 ↗ largely the same services as we were

10:39 ↗ planning for Valley Cities and

10:41 ↗ Healthpoint. The reason for this is

10:42 ↗ because that's where our funding is

10:44 ↗ oriented at this point. Uh if we divert

10:48 ↗ um strongly outside of that then that

10:51 ↗ may make it difficult for us to use all

10:53 ↗ of the funding that we have um cobbled

10:56 ↗ together for this purpose

10:59 ↗ and uh we are in conversation with a

11:02 ↗ service provider right now that could

11:04 ↗ just kind of plug and play in this way

11:07 ↗ and could be a great partnership for the

11:08 ↗ city. It's very early stages. So, the

11:11 ↗ administration would like an opportunity

11:13 ↗ to continue to pursue those

11:14 ↗ conversations and see if we can um and

11:17 ↗ see if a partnership makes sense for

11:19 ↗ both of our organizations. In the

11:21 ↗ meantime, though, we do need a plan B.

11:24 ↗ So, um there are significant challenges

11:26 ↗ from the federal government policy as I

11:28 ↗ mentioned before about service providers

11:30 ↗ ability to expand and that's what makes

11:32 ↗ us a little nervous. The administration

11:34 ↗ is trying to identify service providers

11:36 ↗ who are currently poised to expand

11:39 ↗ services in Isiqua.

11:43 ↗ So our preferred path is to pursue a

11:45 ↗ single provider. We're going to talk

11:47 ↗ about those other options uh in a little

11:50 ↗ bit. I'll turn it over to Jillian. But

11:52 ↗ first timeline for the opportunity

11:54 ↗ center because this is driving our

11:55 ↗ conversation today. So, as we look

11:58 ↗ forward uh to when we anticipate the

12:01 ↗ facility opening in uh 2020

12:07 ↗ uh 8

12:11 ↗ that um if we were to make sure that the

12:15 ↗ opportunity center opened at the same

12:17 ↗ time as the transit oriented development

12:20 ↗ is anticipated to open and be

12:22 ↗ functioning. Then we work back from

12:24 ↗ there and look at what does this mean

12:26 ↗ for our timeline for the opportunity

12:27 ↗ center. Uh one thing to note is in

12:30 ↗ August in 2025 as I stated before KCHA

12:34 ↗ is planning on applying for their

12:35 ↗ building permits. At that time uh they

12:39 ↗ should know whether we are intending to

12:42 ↗ enter into an agreement with them for

12:44 ↗ commercial condo. So, one of the options

12:47 ↗ we'll be talking about tonight is

12:48 ↗ whether the city decides maybe this is

12:51 ↗ the wrong time for uh pursuing an

12:54 ↗ opportunity center within the transit

12:56 ↗ oriented development and maybe it's best

12:58 ↗ for us to pull out just given the

13:00 ↗ challenges to service providers. If

13:02 ↗ that's the case, we should probably let

13:04 ↗ KCHA know sooner than later so they can

13:07 ↗ adjust their building plans to use that

13:11 ↗ space for other purposes. And that could

13:13 ↗ be more units of housing for example,

13:16 ↗ could be live worked lofts, things along

13:19 ↗ those lines. Um, so we wanted to have

13:22 ↗ this conversation today to receive some

13:24 ↗ direction and get some answers for our

13:27 ↗ developer partner as soon as we possibly

13:30 ↗ could.

13:32 ↗ Uh, as I said, in October 2025, they're

13:35 ↗ really planning on submitting building

13:36 ↗ permits um sometime this fall, August,

13:39 ↗ October.

13:41 ↗ Um January we're looking at that would

13:44 ↗ be when we would need to enter into a

13:45 ↗ condominium agreement. At that time we

13:48 ↗ would have more details from their

13:49 ↗ building plans and designs that would

13:50 ↗ help drive the details of the

13:52 ↗ condominium agreement for the city to

13:54 ↗ acquire that commercial condo

13:56 ↗ and then they could we can move forward

13:58 ↗ with those development plans because

13:59 ↗ there's some coordination that we need

14:01 ↗ to make um for a brand new building of

14:03 ↗ what occurs within that space, how we're

14:05 ↗ constructing it, architects to be able

14:07 ↗ to talk to each other, etc.

14:09 ↗ In spring of 2026, we'd be looking at

14:12 ↗ entering into lease and service

14:13 ↗ agreements with those service providers

14:15 ↗ so that we can build out their space and

14:19 ↗ um and again anticipate that May 2028

14:22 ↗ opening.

14:24 ↗ Uh so May we're looking at building

14:27 ↗ permit issuance. Uh June construction

14:30 ↗ would begin. And also just to note on

14:34 ↗ this timeline, the $3 million in state

14:36 ↗ funds that we just got reappropriated

14:38 ↗ this year are anticipated to expire in

14:40 ↗ June 2027, which means we need to spend

14:43 ↗ them by then.

14:50 ↗ >> Uh questions?

14:52 ↗ >> Yes, I'm sorry. Uh Council Member Mart

14:55 ↗ has a question.

14:57 ↗ >> Yeah. Can I just get a confirmation on

14:59 ↗ this timeline? When you say May 2028

15:02 ↗ TODC open, that's a simultaneous that's

15:05 ↗ when residents uh move into the

15:08 ↗ residential and the opportunity center

15:11 ↗ opens. That the intent is to have them

15:12 ↗ both um be co-terminus.

15:16 ↗ >> That's correct. And of course, there's

15:18 ↗ the option that the opportunity center

15:20 ↗ could open later. Um we're we're trying

15:24 ↗ to shoot for the building to be open all

15:26 ↗ at once. Um but that's correct. That

15:28 ↗ would be when we would anticipate the um

15:32 ↗ the housing portion uh to be fully

15:35 ↗ functional. Now, it could be

15:38 ↗ construction happens faster than we

15:40 ↗ anticipate. It could be that it opens up

15:43 ↗ um sooner than what's anticipated on

15:46 ↗ this timeline, but uh this is kind of a

15:49 ↗ general timeline from what we can see

15:50 ↗ today. and knowing that um the building

15:53 ↗ process is complicated.

15:57 ↗ >> Thank you.

16:01 ↗ >> Uh so with that, I would like to turn it

16:03 ↗ over to management analyst Jillian

16:05 ↗ Strob, who's been doing a lot of the

16:07 ↗ heavy lifting and uh day-to-day

16:10 ↗ coordination of this project. Jillian.

16:17 ↗ Okay. Okay. So, when we were considering

16:18 ↗ alternatives to that preferred path

16:20 ↗ where we plug in another service

16:21 ↗ provider very similar to Valley Cities

16:23 ↗ and Health Point, we wanted to really

16:25 ↗ demonstrate that not all of these

16:26 ↗ options are equal and that they do vary

16:29 ↗ on some pretty uh key criteria. So,

16:32 ↗ we'll walk through some of these in more

16:33 ↗ detail. Um, but the criteria include the

16:36 ↗ ability to use existing funds, the level

16:39 ↗ of city control over the alternatives.

16:41 ↗ So, a low level of control is probably a

16:44 ↗ situation where there are federal issues

16:46 ↗ at play with with the grant landscape

16:49 ↗ and Medicaid. Um, our our decision is

16:52 ↗ subject to other decisions by service

16:54 ↗ providers and their ability to expand. A

16:57 ↗ high level of control is one in which

16:58 ↗ the city has almost unilateral control

17:01 ↗ over that that decision.

17:03 ↗ Next, the alignment with the human

17:05 ↗ services strategic plan recommendations,

17:07 ↗ the level of ongoing city commitment or

17:09 ↗ subsidy. So that might be um staff time

17:12 ↗ or resources as well as um as well as

17:15 ↗ funds as Andrea described with the

17:17 ↗ market rate versus recouping what we've

17:19 ↗ put into the space rental situation. Um

17:22 ↗ and then the number of residents that

17:24 ↗ are directly likely directly served by

17:26 ↗ the uh by the alternatives. Um and

17:28 ↗ that's a pretty rough estimate as we

17:29 ↗ walk through these. So with that, the

17:32 ↗ funding sources is one of the pieces of

17:34 ↗ criteria where there's the most detail.

17:36 ↗ So, the city has has set aside um a

17:39 ↗ little bit over $9 million in existing

17:41 ↗ funds to support the uh construction

17:44 ↗ acquisition and tenant improvements and

17:47 ↗ some portion of those tenant

17:48 ↗ improvements for the TODC. Um and it's

17:51 ↗ broken out into these four categories.

17:52 ↗ So, the first is affordable housing

17:54 ↗ sales tax revenue. This is collected by

17:56 ↗ the city but regulated by state law that

17:59 ↗ stipulates a split between the capital

18:01 ↗ and operating expenses that are paid for

18:03 ↗ by this revenue. uh state law says that

18:06 ↗ uh we can spend 60% we must spend at

18:09 ↗ least 60% of the revenues on capital

18:11 ↗ expenditures for uh affordable housing

18:13 ↗ or behavioral health facilities. The

18:16 ↗ remainder can be spent on operations um

18:18 ↗ that that support these sorts of

18:20 ↗ services. Historically, the city has

18:22 ↗ spent um its operating dollars by virtue

18:24 ↗ of the way operating capital budgets

18:26 ↗ work and has counted on spending the

18:28 ↗ capital dollars through this project or

18:30 ↗ something similar to keep us in line

18:32 ↗ with that state requirement um to

18:34 ↗ balance capital and operating

18:36 ↗ expenditures.

18:37 ↗ Um

18:39 ↗ and this funding does not expire until

18:41 ↗ 2040. The the second bucket of funding

18:44 ↗ comes from the talis of

18:46 ↗ >> Sorry, Jillian. Uh council re has a

18:49 ↗ question.

18:50 ↗ Just some clarification. Since the

18:52 ↗ prospect is using the affordable housing

18:55 ↗ sales tax revenue and we're not actually

18:57 ↗ doing affordable housing, we're actually

19:00 ↗ building a a facility that's

19:04 ↗ could be medical, could be dental, could

19:06 ↗ be behavioral health. How's that how

19:08 ↗ does that relate? I mean, how does that

19:11 ↗ put?

19:12 ↗ >> Yeah. So because the primary use would

19:14 ↗ still be behavioral health services and

19:16 ↗ that's an allowable use for one of

19:18 ↗ that's one of the allowable types of

19:19 ↗ capital facilities as well as like

19:21 ↗ affordable housing facilities. We'd be

19:24 ↗ uh we'd be in compliance. Um

19:26 ↗ >> so if that's the case, we need to find a

19:28 ↗ provider who does behavioral health and

19:30 ↗ possibly other services.

19:33 ↗ >> Got it.

19:34 ↗ >> Yes.

19:37 ↗ So the second bucket of funding um is

19:39 ↗ comes from the talis development

19:41 ↗ agreement. Um, and this was part of a

19:43 ↗ larger bucket of funding that has since

19:45 ↗ been spent on various affordable housing

19:47 ↗ uses. Um, and there's about $110,000

19:50 ↗ remaining to spend on affordable

19:51 ↗ housing. This funding does not expire

19:53 ↗ and it was designated by the city for

19:56 ↗ affordable housing. Um, but the city

19:57 ↗ could reddesate those funds um for

20:00 ↗ another use um if needed.

20:02 ↗ >> Thanks, Jillian. Uh, we have a question

20:04 ↗ from council remarks.

20:05 ↗ >> Yeah.

20:06 ↗ >> Yeah. As a sidebar, can you can somebody

20:09 ↗ get me a listing of how we spent? Last

20:12 ↗ time I knew we had 900,000 in that

20:14 ↗ account. I don't remember authorizing

20:16 ↗ taking 800,000 out of it for other

20:18 ↗ stuff. Um but if if somebody could just

20:21 ↗ give me an accounting of of how we spent

20:23 ↗ that 800 grand, I'd appreciate it.

20:25 ↗ Thanks.

20:27 ↗ >> Yeah, we can follow up with that. Um

20:31 ↗ in in addition the the human services

20:34 ↗ campus um when that project didn't move

20:36 ↗ forward uh the city had set aside around

20:38 ↗ a million dollars to to support the

20:40 ↗ human services campus that it then

20:42 ↗ redirected to future affordable housing

20:44 ↗ uses. Um so we have that funding

20:46 ↗ available as well that does not expire.

20:49 ↗ Um and finally, we have the local

20:50 ↗ community program funds or the state

20:52 ↗ appropriation that Andrea mentioned that

20:54 ↗ was reappropriated in 2025 to a new more

20:57 ↗ flexible program. Um this is probably

21:00 ↗ the most restricted um form of our

21:02 ↗ funding in that we have to really comply

21:04 ↗ with what we had asked the legislature

21:06 ↗ to use this funding for. Um so that's a

21:09 ↗ a capital facility or improvements to to

21:12 ↗ provide behavioral dental and or medical

21:14 ↗ health services. um and and really in

21:17 ↗ alignment with or uh close to transit

21:21 ↗ access. Um so that's the most

21:23 ↗ restrictive form of our funding and that

21:25 ↗ funding expires in June 30th on June

21:27 ↗ 30th of 2027, meaning we have to be

21:29 ↗ under contract with commerce, spent the

21:32 ↗ funds and submitted for reimbursement um

21:35 ↗ in about 2 years time essentially uh to

21:39 ↗ use these funds.

21:41 ↗ Uh this totals around $9 million. A

21:44 ↗ preliminary cost estimate for the

21:46 ↗ construction and acquisition of the

21:47 ↗ opportunity center, just that core and

21:49 ↗ shell, was about $6 million when KCHA

21:53 ↗ redid that cost estimate this year. I'll

21:56 ↗ pause here because this is a lot of

21:57 ↗ information. Any questions uh before I

21:59 ↗ move on to some of the other criteria

22:00 ↗ and options?

22:04 ↗ >> I'm not seeing any, Jillian.

22:06 ↗ >> Okay.

22:09 ↗ All right. Quickly, we also uh wanted to

22:12 ↗ see how well each of the alternatives to

22:14 ↗ our preferred path um met needs that

22:17 ↗ were outlined through the human services

22:18 ↗ strategic plan. So these are the highle

22:20 ↗ recommendation buckets that were

22:22 ↗ included in that strategic plan. Um and

22:25 ↗ you'll see each of the options graded on

22:27 ↗ how well they meet these needs.

22:30 ↗ And now we're going to talk about all of

22:32 ↗ the options. So the first option uh that

22:34 ↗ we present here is the current plan or

22:36 ↗ that preferred path to to kind of plug

22:38 ↗ and play another larger service provider

22:41 ↗ to provide much of the same services

22:42 ↗ that Valley Cities and Health Point

22:44 ↗ would have offered. Um because this is

22:47 ↗ uh in line with the the plan that we've

22:49 ↗ had, we anticipate that the um existing

22:52 ↗ funds that we've set aside would all be

22:54 ↗ eligible to spend um on this option. The

22:58 ↗ level of city control over this option

23:00 ↗ is low considering the the federal

23:02 ↗ environment for grants, the Medicaid

23:05 ↗ environment, also considering the fact

23:07 ↗ that there are relatively few of these

23:08 ↗ larger federally qualified um health

23:11 ↗ center providers in our area. So just

23:13 ↗ fewer overall to to reach out to and to

23:16 ↗ plug into um an option like this. This

23:19 ↗ option obviously um meets a high level

23:21 ↗ of need outlined in the human services

23:23 ↗ strategic plan by providing that public

23:25 ↗ sliding scale um behavioral dental and

23:27 ↗ medical health services. The level of

23:30 ↗ city subsidy is estimated to be low. Um

23:32 ↗ a lot of these providers prefer to own

23:34 ↗ their space. So whether that's a rent to

23:36 ↗ own agreement or an outright sale of

23:38 ↗ that condominium, um it it seems likely

23:41 ↗ that the city would not have to

23:42 ↗ subsidize the rent or support the the

23:45 ↗ maintenance um of this option. We

23:48 ↗ estimate that the number of residents

23:50 ↗ served would be over 5,000. This was

23:52 ↗ based on an estimate that Valley Cities

23:53 ↗ and Healthpoint had put together based

23:55 ↗ on needs in Isiqua. Um and we anticipate

23:57 ↗ that with such a similar kind of cohort

23:59 ↗ of services provided that a similar

24:01 ↗ number of residents would be directly

24:03 ↗ served.

24:05 ↗ With that we want to move on to the

24:06 ↗ alternative. So the preferred

24:08 ↗ alternative when we when we discussed

24:09 ↗ kind of all of the options was to share

24:13 ↗ the opportunity space between the entire

24:15 ↗ human services division. So relocate

24:17 ↗ them to this space and to bring in a

24:19 ↗ rotating group of human services

24:21 ↗ providers. Um these are likely smaller

24:24 ↗ scale uh service providers who couldn't

24:26 ↗ afford the entire rent um for that space

24:29 ↗ but could afford a couple of offices for

24:32 ↗ a couple of days of the week. Um so kind

24:34 ↗ of piecing together the complement of

24:36 ↗ services that we would want. I'll

24:38 ↗ quickly move forward to this table. Um

24:41 ↗ because this we assume that this would

24:43 ↗ include behavioral health services and

24:45 ↗ there therefore would be able to um all

24:49 ↗ the existing funds that are set aside

24:50 ↗ would be eligible for use for this

24:52 ↗ option. So it would uh it would likely

24:56 ↗ be able to use all of those those

24:57 ↗ funding options. Um the level of city

25:00 ↗ control here is medium. It would rely on

25:02 ↗ a lot of smaller services providers

25:04 ↗ ability to occupy that space. Um,

25:08 ↗ however, it wouldn't likely be as

25:10 ↗ impacted um by some of the the other

25:12 ↗ externalities at the federal level. Um,

25:16 ↗ any complement of service if human

25:17 ↗ services provided here would likely meet

25:20 ↗ the recommendations outlined in the

25:21 ↗ human services strategic plan. Uh,

25:24 ↗ however, we do assume assume that the

25:26 ↗ level of city subsidy for this option

25:27 ↗ would be high. This might include

25:30 ↗ subsidizing rent be not just talking

25:31 ↗ about market rent or market rate rent,

25:33 ↗ but also talking about the um

25:37 ↗ the need to essentially the city's

25:40 ↗ ability to recoup what we've put into

25:41 ↗ the space through tenant improvements.

25:43 ↗ We may not be able to fully do that with

25:45 ↗ smaller service providers that that may

25:46 ↗ need to be subsidized. There also will

25:49 ↗ be a need for staff to manage those

25:51 ↗ contracts with all the services service

25:53 ↗ providers and to maintain the space. um

25:55 ↗ we think that might be around one FTE to

25:58 ↗ to be able to operate a center like

26:00 ↗ this. So the level of city subsidy and

26:02 ↗ the level of city commitment for this

26:04 ↗ option is pretty high. Um however, we do

26:07 ↗ assume assume that it would serve maybe

26:09 ↗ the same number of residents as uh as

26:11 ↗ our current path. Um but that would that

26:14 ↗ would kind of vary depending on the the

26:15 ↗ types of services offered.

26:18 ↗ The second alternative you see here is

26:20 ↗ to use the opportunity center space for

26:22 ↗ transitional housing. Um, when we look

26:25 ↗ at the funding available, we would lose

26:28 ↗ the opportunity to lose to use the $3

26:30 ↗ million in state funds um because our

26:33 ↗ request was really specific and it

26:35 ↗ didn't include housing um or

26:37 ↗ transitional housing at all as one of

26:39 ↗ the services provided. Um so we'd lose

26:41 ↗ the option to use those state funds. Um

26:44 ↗ however, we'd likely be able to use all

26:45 ↗ of the the other funds. Um although it's

26:47 ↗ a different use, um that kind of capital

26:49 ↗ facility would be allowed under the

26:51 ↗ affordable housing sales tax. um

26:54 ↗ regulations.

26:56 ↗ The level of city control here is

26:58 ↗ medium. The city could um could choose

27:01 ↗ to either seek an external operator for

27:03 ↗ the transitional housing in which case

27:05 ↗ we still have to find that service

27:06 ↗ provider or the city could choose to

27:09 ↗ operate this inhouse um which would mean

27:11 ↗ that the level city control is quite a

27:13 ↗ bit higher but so is our level of

27:15 ↗ commitment and subsidy of the space. Um,

27:18 ↗ this would provide a a key need provide

27:21 ↗ for a key need outlined in the human

27:22 ↗ services strategic plan. Transitional

27:24 ↗ housing is called out pretty

27:25 ↗ specifically there. Um, and because this

27:28 ↗ is such an intensive service, the number

27:30 ↗ of residents serve would likely be lower

27:32 ↗ than um than some of the other options.

27:36 ↗ Um, but obviously providing a pretty

27:38 ↗ different kind of service there.

27:41 ↗ >> All right,

27:42 ↗ >> Jillian, just a quick question. Um, are

27:45 ↗ we Sorry. Oh. Um, are we looking at this

27:50 ↗ option as a um a way to replace uh the

27:56 ↗ uh Motel 6 project? Is that the intent

28:00 ↗ behind this?

28:01 ↗ >> Yes. And I think if you want more

28:03 ↗ detail, maybe Jeff can speak to that a

28:04 ↗ little bit more.

28:05 ↗ >> That the yes is enough. I just Thanks.

28:08 ↗ >> Okay.

28:13 ↗ Council member Mars has a question.

28:16 ↗ >> Thank you. Do we uh does YWCA facility

28:19 ↗ provide transitional housing?

28:23 ↗ >> I'm not sure of that. Um

28:27 ↗ >> I think there's a question because you

28:30 ↗ know we don't have anything like the OC

28:33 ↗ um in Isiqua right now, right? Versus I

28:37 ↗ I think YWCA does transitional housing.

28:40 ↗ Somebody can tell me if I'm wrong, but

28:43 ↗ which isn't to say this isn't important.

28:44 ↗ It's just um it then becomes a question

28:47 ↗ of how do we have enough versus you know

28:50 ↗ how does this how does the benefit from

28:53 ↗ doing that if we're all if we're already

28:54 ↗ doing transitional housing elsewhere um

28:57 ↗ how do we measure that benefit

28:59 ↗ >> the discussion in the room is that they

29:00 ↗ they don't provide transitional housing

29:02 ↗ and this would yeah I'll hand it over to

29:05 ↗ Jeff

29:07 ↗ >> that's great Jillian hi Jeff Watling

29:09 ↗ director of parks and community services

29:12 ↗ um YWA does Not our most recent

29:15 ↗ transitional housing model uh was what

29:18 ↗ we did at Motel 6. Um so

29:21 ↗ >> okay, thank you.

29:23 ↗ >> You got it.

29:24 ↗ >> I stand corrected.

29:29 ↗ >> Uh Council Ray,

29:30 ↗ >> thanks. Um so if we did do the

29:32 ↗ transitional housing, would it be

29:34 ↗ possible to uh include within that u

29:37 ↗ behavioral health uh services and then

29:40 ↗ open up the possibility for the state

29:42 ↗ funding too? I think we would definitely

29:45 ↗ look at like kind of a complement of

29:46 ↗ some wraparound services and I think

29:48 ↗ that'd be top of our list because we

29:50 ↗ have the the eligible funding, but we

29:51 ↗ haven't fully explored that option or

29:54 ↗ what's really possible frankly with only

29:56 ↗ 10,000 ft of square space wanting to

29:58 ↗ serve quite a few folks in there and the

30:00 ↗ idea of offering other services. We

30:02 ↗ don't exactly know what that looks like.

30:04 ↗ >> Okay.

30:10 ↗ >> Okay. Um, I think I was on building the

30:14 ↗ opportunity center without an identified

30:15 ↗ provider. So, um, with this option, the

30:19 ↗ funding really becomes a key issue. We

30:21 ↗ likely couldn't use the affordable

30:23 ↗ housing sales tax revenue upfront, and

30:25 ↗ we would entirely lose the option to use

30:27 ↗ the $3 million in state funding due to

30:29 ↗ the timing of this. So, if the

30:31 ↗ opportunity center is built um and and

30:34 ↗ operational in May of 2028, that's too

30:36 ↗ late for the reimbursement process um

30:38 ↗ that ends with the department or with

30:40 ↗ the state um in June of 2027.

30:44 ↗ We may be able to reimburse ourselves

30:46 ↗ with the affordable housing sales tax

30:48 ↗ dollars, but that really depends on the

30:49 ↗ type of uh facility that we end up

30:52 ↗ building um and the services that are

30:54 ↗ provided out of that. So, that's not a

30:55 ↗ guarantee at all. The only um funding

30:58 ↗ that we'd be guaranteed we'd be able to

31:00 ↗ use are the Talis development agreement

31:01 ↗ funds and the human services campus

31:03 ↗ funds. So around $1 million for a

31:06 ↗ project that we know is going to cost at

31:07 ↗ minimum 6 million.

31:10 ↗ So most of the existing funds are not

31:12 ↗ eligible for that option. The level of

31:14 ↗ city control is low. This is essentially

31:16 ↗ a bet that the uh federal environment

31:19 ↗ and the ability of our providers to um

31:22 ↗ expand in 2 and 1/2 years is better than

31:24 ↗ it is now. But we just don't have a way

31:26 ↗ of knowing that at this point. Um it and

31:29 ↗ again the the um human services

31:31 ↗ strategic plan alignment um is is

31:34 ↗ unknown until we know exactly what

31:35 ↗ services we'd want to plug in there. It

31:37 ↗ would require a fair bit of city subsidy

31:39 ↗ to front the the the funds to build this

31:42 ↗ space and hope that we'd be able to um

31:45 ↗ use it for for um a use that's eligible

31:49 ↗ for the affordable housing sales tax

31:51 ↗ dollars. um and it might require subsidy

31:53 ↗ on top of that depending on the kind of

31:55 ↗ services that are provided there. The

31:57 ↗ residents served um are also unknown.

32:00 ↗ And then the final option is to pull out

32:02 ↗ of the agreement. The reason we listed

32:04 ↗ this as Andrea noted is because it

32:06 ↗ affects the um development timeline and

32:08 ↗ we don't want to delay that. Um we would

32:10 ↗ not be able to use um existing funds. Um

32:14 ↗ we wouldn't really be able to use any of

32:15 ↗ the existing funds for this project.

32:17 ↗ they'd be dispersed to to to other uses

32:20 ↗ essentially because there'd be no

32:22 ↗ project. The level of city control over

32:24 ↗ the decision is high. The city has um

32:26 ↗ the ability to pull out of this

32:28 ↗ agreement if they so choose. However, we

32:30 ↗ do then lose the ability to um determine

32:33 ↗ the future of that space. Right? So,

32:35 ↗ just wanting to kind of point that out.

32:37 ↗ Um it'd be a low level of alignment with

32:40 ↗ the human services strategic plan.

32:41 ↗ Again, those funds could be used

32:43 ↗ elsewhere to support human services

32:44 ↗ needs, but we just don't know what that

32:46 ↗ would look like right now. The level of

32:48 ↗ city subsidy would be low because

32:49 ↗ there'd be no project um and the

32:51 ↗ residents serve would be low. Again,

32:53 ↗ that funding could be redirected to

32:55 ↗ serve residents, but we just don't know

32:56 ↗ exactly what that would look like.

32:59 ↗ So, I know I just threw a fair bit of

33:00 ↗ information. Are there any clarifying

33:02 ↗ questions I can answer um right now?

33:05 ↗ >> Uh Council Member Ray. Yeah. Let's can

33:07 ↗ we talk about the um

33:11 ↗ uh the rotating human services

33:12 ↗ providers? Have we talked to the human

33:15 ↗ services community and and see if

33:17 ↗ there's interest? I mean, it seems to me

33:19 ↗ that that would be harder a harder cell

33:22 ↗ than finding another full-time tenant.

33:25 ↗ So, I'm kind of curious what what the

33:28 ↗ approach to selling that looks like.

33:31 ↗ >> Great question. So, the purpose for

33:34 ↗ tonight is to help us figure out where

33:37 ↗ should we put our efforts for a plan B.

33:40 ↗ None of these options have been fully

33:42 ↗ vetted. We haven't done our due

33:44 ↗ diligence on them yet. What we're

33:46 ↗ wondering is which of these is most

33:47 ↗ appealing so that we can dig a little

33:50 ↗ deeper and examine the viability of any

33:52 ↗ one of these options. So, what we're

33:54 ↗ hoping to hear from you tonight is what

33:56 ↗ your preferred option is given the

33:58 ↗ little bit of information that we have

34:00 ↗ and where we should dig deeper. Um that

34:03 ↗ said, uh there are models out there for

34:06 ↗ rotating human services providers. And

34:08 ↗ one of the reasons why we thought this

34:10 ↗ might be a viable option for

34:12 ↗ consideration is where we have human

34:14 ↗ service providers that feel like doing a

34:19 ↗ regular lease where they have 10,000

34:21 ↗ square feet all to themselves uh 7 days

34:24 ↗ a week and are operating out of there is

34:26 ↗ a much larger financial commitment than

34:28 ↗ maybe having a space that's a fraction

34:30 ↗ of the size or only or sharing that

34:33 ↗ space with others. that feels like that

34:35 ↗ might be an easier ask for some

34:37 ↗ organizations given the current climate

34:39 ↗ of of their funding. And so that's why

34:42 ↗ we thought there's other models uh out

34:44 ↗ there to look to that are similar to

34:47 ↗ this. And also it's not asking as much

34:50 ↗ of a big risk or big commitment as it

34:52 ↗ would for a single provider of human

34:55 ↗ services. And I don't know if there's uh

34:58 ↗ additional thing information that

35:01 ↗ director wantling wants to provide in

35:02 ↗ terms of conversations we've been having

35:05 ↗ with human services providers about

35:06 ↗ their need for space.

35:14 ↗ >> Thanks Andrea. Great overview. Um yeah,

35:17 ↗ this model um is I guess what some would

35:20 ↗ call a multi-ervice center. Um, if

35:23 ↗ you're familiar with the Together Center

35:24 ↗ in Redmond, um, it it's it's done in

35:27 ↗ places. Um um as Andrea said and I would

35:30 ↗ want to emphasize that um as as we the

35:33 ↗ human services team have um tried to

35:36 ↗ give some input on some alternatives

35:38 ↗ that would align with the human services

35:40 ↗ strategic plan. There's a lot of due

35:42 ↗ diligence and work that we would need to

35:44 ↗ to do. But we feel like these are ideas

35:47 ↗ that uh could certainly be worth uh

35:49 ↗ further vetting and model what um other

35:53 ↗ other jurisdictions um have done around

35:56 ↗ us.

36:00 ↗ Uh, council member Martz, his hand up.

36:04 ↗ >> Yeah, two-part question probably for

36:06 ↗ director Watling. Um, on this question

36:09 ↗ of uh sort of subtenants,

36:12 ↗ uh, you know, one model is rotating in

36:15 ↗ by day, another is having a smaller

36:17 ↗ patch, right? So, if you had, you know,

36:21 ↗ you could have five tenants that each

36:23 ↗ had a day of the week or you could each

36:25 ↗ have them have 500 square feet 5 days a

36:27 ↗ week. Um, have either of these options

36:31 ↗ do are they currently being used at the

36:34 ↗ Together Center? You know, you you

36:35 ↗ mentioned talking to the Together

36:37 ↗ Center. Have either of these models been

36:39 ↗ successful at the Together Center?

36:42 ↗ >> I do not know the answer to that

36:44 ↗ question. I I don't know if it's one

36:46 ↗ shared space that groups use one day a

36:50 ↗ week or if it's uh broken up into into

36:52 ↗ small areas. Again, Council Member Mars,

36:54 ↗ great great question. Um I think digging

36:58 ↗ into options and operationalizing this

37:00 ↗ option is is um a whole lot more work

37:02 ↗ that we would need to do.

37:05 ↗ >> Okay. I just as an engineer, you know,

37:08 ↗ the the engineer in me always loves to

37:11 ↗ see working examples of things that I'm

37:13 ↗ trying to do. that tells me that I'm on

37:15 ↗ the right hill uh and that I'm not on a

37:18 ↗ hill that has uh you know is a is a dead

37:20 ↗ end so to speak. So I think if this is a

37:23 ↗ if this is an option we have enthusiasm

37:25 ↗ for I think we need to uh pretty quickly

37:28 ↗ see if if this is an attractive model uh

37:31 ↗ to smaller providers. Thanks.

37:33 ↗ >> Totally agree.

37:39 ↗ >> Any further questions?

37:42 ↗ Um

37:49 ↗ uh okay. So this uh breaks down the

37:52 ↗ funding a little bit more but I think we

37:53 ↗ already went through this uh in more

37:56 ↗ detail. So next steps the administration

38:01 ↗ will cons continue to pursue another

38:04 ↗ service provider. As I said, we've been

38:06 ↗ in very promising talks with one service

38:09 ↗ provider, but it's still very early

38:11 ↗ stages. So, we're going to continue to

38:12 ↗ pursue those. Um, and pending council

38:17 ↗ feedback and direction tonight, we would

38:19 ↗ like to further investigate the

38:22 ↗ feasibility for sharing the opportunity

38:25 ↗ center space between human services

38:28 ↗ staff and rotating human services

38:30 ↗ providers. And that would include, as

38:32 ↗ council member Martz noted, looking at

38:35 ↗ these other models like the Together

38:37 ↗ Center. Um I have recently become aware

38:39 ↗ of another model that recently opened up

38:41 ↗ in Skyline as well. So there are other

38:44 ↗ models that we'd love the opportunity to

38:46 ↗ look to understand how they're

38:48 ↗ operating, what those lessons are uh to

38:50 ↗ help us investigate the viability of

38:53 ↗ this rotating human service providers um

38:58 ↗ uh option. And that includes maybe

39:00 ↗ finding another organization to manage

39:03 ↗ it for us so that doesn't take so much

39:05 ↗ of our human services time uh to manage

39:08 ↗ all the providers in the space as well.

39:10 ↗ So there's there's some options within

39:13 ↗ that that we'd like to pursue and take a

39:15 ↗ look at those other models. So that

39:16 ↗ would be um next steps really quickly in

39:19 ↗ the next couple of months. We want to be

39:21 ↗ able to look at that. Uh then we would

39:23 ↗ return to this committee in the fall

39:27 ↗ with updates uh for what we found about

39:31 ↗ that option of these rotating human

39:33 ↗ services providers. Um our

39:35 ↗ recommendations for what would make

39:37 ↗ sense for next steps following that and

39:39 ↗ seek this committee's feedback.

39:43 ↗ >> Thank you very very much. This was a

39:45 ↗ great presentation. Let me just ask one

39:47 ↗ more time, are there any any additional

39:49 ↗ questions before we deliberate?

39:55 ↗ Just one moment.

39:59 ↗ >> Sorry, I I was just trying to wrap my

40:00 ↗ head around um timelines here um and

40:04 ↗ funding. So, we're when's our drop dead

40:09 ↗ to say we're we want to get out of the o

40:10 ↗ the opportunity center?

40:13 ↗ >> If if we're being really great partners

40:17 ↗ uh to KCHA who's been in the trenches

40:20 ↗ with us for many years, uh then it would

40:23 ↗ be best if we could notify them of our

40:25 ↗ intentions within the next month. We

40:28 ↗ could uh we could notify them September

40:32 ↗ timeline. That that would probably be

40:34 ↗ okay. If we wait longer than that, then

40:37 ↗ I think we wouldn't be uh doing them we

40:42 ↗ would be doing them a disservice because

40:43 ↗ they would have to redraw all of their

40:45 ↗ building permit plans and the city they

40:47 ↗ might seek some compensation from us in

40:50 ↗ order to do that.

40:51 ↗ >> That's fair. Um and we're guessing that

40:53 ↗ the city's um cost of the of our condo

40:57 ↗ is uh about $6 million. Is that a

41:00 ↗ reasonable number?

41:02 ↗ >> I'm trying to remember the details. We

41:03 ↗ did get a cost estimate recently.

41:05 ↗ Jillian, do you remember?

41:06 ↗ >> Yeah.

41:08 ↗ >> The $6 million, sorry. The $6 million

41:11 ↗ just covers the acquisition and

41:12 ↗ construction cost for the core and

41:14 ↗ Shell. It doesn't include building out

41:16 ↗ the space to a specific use, which like

41:18 ↗ thinking about dental versus behavioral

41:20 ↗ health might be a little bit different.

41:22 ↗ It also doesn't include internal

41:23 ↗ components like HVAC.

41:25 ↗ >> So, there's a fair bit of tenant

41:26 ↗ improvements and interior.

41:28 ↗ >> So, so we could be pushing up against

41:29 ↗ the $9 million number pretty easily.

41:32 ↗ >> Yeah.

41:33 ↗ Um, so here I I'll I guess I'll save

41:35 ↗ this for deliberations.

41:37 ↗ >> Okay. All right.

41:39 ↗ Uh, council member Marks, any other

41:41 ↗ questions?

41:44 ↗ >> No. Okay.

41:45 ↗ >> Yeah.

41:45 ↗ >> So, let us go to deliberations. And who

41:48 ↗ would like to kick it off?

41:53 ↗ >> I can I can start, I guess.

41:55 ↗ >> All right. Uh

41:57 ↗ so you know this is the latest model of

42:06 ↗ you know the ongoing human services

42:08 ↗ campus conversation that's been going on

42:11 ↗ in this community for a very long time

42:13 ↗ right uh when I started on council 15

42:18 ↗ years ago we were looking for a human

42:21 ↗ services campus Allah the together

42:23 ↗ center and looked at a number of

42:25 ↗ locations.

42:27 ↗ Um, and then this came along and sort of

42:31 ↗ uh took that conversation off the table.

42:35 ↗ And I think that

42:39 ↗ what's been missing is

42:43 ↗ the human services, the non city human

42:46 ↗ services heavy hitters, if you will, in

42:49 ↗ the community. they really pushed very

42:52 ↗ very hard for getting a human services

42:55 ↗ campus. There was there was an

42:56 ↗ incredible momentum in 2008, 2009, 2010

43:01 ↗ especially with some Talis money in

43:03 ↗ there and uh that momentum seems to have

43:06 ↗ sort of stalled out and we haven't heard

43:09 ↗ from those folks a lot about how

43:11 ↗ important this is. So we're operating a

43:14 ↗ little bit in a vacuum where we've got

43:17 ↗ this inertia. We said this was

43:18 ↗ important. we continue to say it's

43:20 ↗ important. $9 million is a lot of money

43:23 ↗ or $6 million or you know this it's not

43:26 ↗ it's not term change for us. Um and the

43:29 ↗ other side of that ledger is not the the

43:32 ↗ incredible

43:33 ↗ you know force of will that was going on

43:36 ↗ 15 years ago to make a human services

43:38 ↗ campus. All that need is still out

43:40 ↗ there, right? We just haven't been

43:42 ↗ hearing from uh the community about this

43:44 ↗ in a while. So I think that

43:48 ↗ all this to say um you know I continue

43:52 ↗ to be a passionate supporter of

43:55 ↗ providing some services in this space.

43:58 ↗ Um I like the administration's

44:01 ↗ recommendations here. I think having a

44:03 ↗ plan A and having a plan B. Um I think

44:07 ↗ the plan B could involve you know

44:10 ↗ initially maybe the subtenants are all

44:13 ↗ you know city functions and um you know

44:17 ↗ if we but I I it would amaze me if we

44:22 ↗ would tell

44:24 ↗ KCHA after all this time oh just gut

44:28 ↗ that space gut those 10,000 square ft

44:30 ↗ and just make it housing. I think that

44:33 ↗ would be um really not in line with all

44:36 ↗ the things we've heard over the last 15

44:39 ↗ or 20 years in this community about how

44:42 ↗ as amazing as the Together Center is um

44:45 ↗ it doesn't serve our local uh community.

44:48 ↗ Basically, you think about the patch

44:50 ↗ that school district has, that's roughly

44:52 ↗ the human services patch that we have.

44:54 ↗ I'm preaching to the choir. I know both

44:56 ↗ of you know this, but I'm I'm saying it

44:57 ↗ for the benefit of anybody who might be

44:59 ↗ listening, you know. So that's a 80 to

45:02 ↗ 100,000 resident patch that's just not

45:05 ↗ well served currently. So um I am hard

45:09 ↗ over about keeping that 10,000 square ft

45:12 ↗ in one way, shape or form uh available

45:16 ↗ for services. What those services look

45:18 ↗ like exactly. Uh I'm happy to um let

45:22 ↗ those questions uh percolate for a

45:25 ↗ little bit longer. I think we should

45:26 ↗ absolutely look at what Together Center

45:29 ↗ and what Reneer Valley has done and and

45:33 ↗ some of the other um uh human services

45:36 ↗ providers in in King County uh as as

45:40 ↗ both inspiration and validation

45:44 ↗ uh that keeping this 10,000 square feet

45:47 ↗ uh the way it should be. I I'm also I'm

45:49 ↗ also a little troubled that 10 years

45:51 ↗ into this project, we all of a sudden

45:52 ↗ have to make a decision in a month. Um I

45:55 ↗ you know this is this is this has been a

45:57 ↗ long long timeline and I I would hate to

46:00 ↗ make a radical decision in a month um

46:03 ↗ after spending 10 years uh uh pursuing

46:06 ↗ this. So that's my thoughts. Thanks.

46:09 ↗ >> Great. Council member Ray,

46:12 ↗ >> I can be I I will be brief. Um I think

46:14 ↗ option one and option two are are both

46:17 ↗ great things to pursue if you can land

46:19 ↗ somebody. I'm just dubious right now in

46:22 ↗ this climate that we're going to have

46:24 ↗ somebody uh in the time lined up ready

46:27 ↗ to go either option one or option two

46:31 ↗ within the time frame that we have to do

46:32 ↗ something without without that we are

46:35 ↗ actually option number four build the OC

46:38 ↗ without an identified service provider.

46:40 ↗ So I think what concerns me is yay

46:44 ↗ option one, yay option two, but if we

46:46 ↗ can't deliver, we default to option

46:48 ↗ four, which is bad. Actually, I think

46:50 ↗ option four is the worst option. I mean,

46:52 ↗ I think option four is worse than than

46:54 ↗ than getting out of the deal. So um

46:58 ↗ that's why I asked the question about

47:00 ↗ what's our timeline because we need to

47:03 ↗ have some some confidence that we can we

47:06 ↗ can land the services of either option

47:09 ↗ one or option two in my estimation if

47:11 ↗ we're going to go forward with this.

47:16 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. Uh well, Council Member

47:19 ↗ Mart and I have been working on this for

47:21 ↗ a long time and so I have to say I agree

47:25 ↗ with his comments uh for the most part

47:28 ↗ and uh his comment about we haven't

47:31 ↗ heard from human services for a while on

47:33 ↗ this project. I would get I would guess

47:36 ↗ that's because it's just been dragging

47:38 ↗ not not because of anybody's fault, but

47:41 ↗ it's just been dragging on and on and

47:43 ↗ on. Uh, and so, uh, just to respond to

47:46 ↗ those comments, uh, it would be well

47:48 ↗ worth our while to do an outreach and,

47:52 ↗ um, I think on June 30th, um, Mayor

47:55 ↗ Paulie and I are doing, uh, again, a

47:57 ↗ listening session with our local human

47:59 ↗ services and maybe we can add a quick

48:01 ↗ question. Uh, it would be an opportunity

48:03 ↗ to ask a quick question at that time

48:06 ↗ just to see what people have heard in

48:08 ↗ terms of space needs. So, um I am all in

48:13 ↗ favor of, you know, plan A. Um and if we

48:17 ↗ have perhaps, and I know it's very

48:20 ↗ early, but if we have perhaps a health

48:22 ↗ and human services provider that is

48:24 ↗ interested, um that would be um my first

48:28 ↗ preference. Um just with my background

48:31 ↗ at the Together Center, I will say that

48:34 ↗ um bringing in a health provider, dental

48:38 ↗ and behavioral health is a significant

48:40 ↗ investment in the space. And so we're

48:43 ↗ talking a long long lease and a long

48:46 ↗ long partnership. Um and uh so that's

48:51 ↗ the part about that that we have to

48:52 ↗ understand. But if there's a willing uh

48:55 ↗ provider, I would say that let's go for

48:57 ↗ that. If in fact we can't find a willing

49:00 ↗ provider, then uh the option of uh our

49:05 ↗ taking over and moving into the uh the

49:09 ↗ um opportunity center with rotating um

49:15 ↗ providers in there. Um, and let me just

49:18 ↗ say from my background, I wish I could

49:19 ↗ answer uh council member Mart's

49:21 ↗ question, but when I was on the Together

49:24 ↗ Center board, we did indeed have that

49:26 ↗ model at the old Together Center where

49:29 ↗ we had an office space that was shared.

49:32 ↗ Um, it was um somewhat mixed um during

49:36 ↗ that time. Uh some of the providers were

49:39 ↗ diligent and were were well well serving

49:42 ↗ their clients and others not so much.

49:45 ↗ Um, and and the reason I bring that up

49:47 ↗ is not uh to tattletail or anything, but

49:50 ↗ to and the idea of having someone who

49:53 ↗ manages that aspect, the property

49:57 ↗ management aspect of it and not placing

49:59 ↗ that on our human services department is

50:03 ↗ really important to me because you can

50:05 ↗ have a full-time person doing that.

50:08 ↗ human management, the contracts, the

50:11 ↗ leases, the uh damage to the building,

50:14 ↗ the this and the that. It is a full-time

50:17 ↗ job and I don't would not want to burden

50:19 ↗ our um human services staff with that

50:22 ↗ with that. It's not property management

50:25 ↗ is a whole different field actually. So

50:28 ↗ um however uh the current together

50:31 ↗ center they have built a number of small

50:34 ↗ offices uh designed exactly for this

50:37 ↗ purpose of rotating and uh and I have no

50:40 ↗ knowledge direct knowledge about how

50:42 ↗ that's working. So I think that's one

50:44 ↗ thing we reach out to the together

50:45 ↗ center and and find out how it is

50:47 ↗ working and what they're seeing there

50:49 ↗ with that particular model. Um, I think

50:53 ↗ there are so many different ways that

50:54 ↗ you could use that space if we indeed

50:57 ↗ don't have the single provider or a

50:59 ↗ couple of providers in there. Uh, there

51:01 ↗ are just many many models all all of

51:03 ↗ them uh worth trying um and um uh uh

51:10 ↗ viable uh in over time. And I think

51:14 ↗ that's the other thing I wanted to bring

51:15 ↗ to the table tonight was um when the

51:18 ↗ together centers started out it was not

51:20 ↗ a perfect model. Um and at the beginning

51:24 ↗ there were a lot of testing out of

51:26 ↗ different things. Um and you also get

51:29 ↗ vacancies from people who made the

51:31 ↗ commitment and then they find out it's

51:32 ↗ not working again. You're back to being

51:34 ↗ the property manager. You've got a

51:36 ↗ vacancy and you have to advertise it.

51:38 ↗ you have to go out and find um and

51:40 ↗ eventually the together center became so

51:43 ↗ successful that there was a long waiting

51:44 ↗ list that's a whole different scenario

51:47 ↗ that you have to manage um so it is we

51:50 ↗ know from the success of the together

51:52 ↗ center I believe there's one in Auburn

51:55 ↗ uh you mentioned the one in skyline

51:57 ↗ there are models around us and I think

51:59 ↗ we can really really um uh benefit from

52:03 ↗ their experience and learn from their

52:05 ↗ experience and hopefully not spend 35

52:08 ↗ years learning learning like the

52:09 ↗ Together Center has, but learning and

52:11 ↗ taking theirs and making it successful

52:14 ↗ much more sooner. But um but we we

52:18 ↗ realize that we are getting into a

52:20 ↗ project that will be of great public

52:22 ↗ benefit to our community. Uh and it's

52:25 ↗ going to take some ability to tolerate

52:28 ↗ some experimentation

52:31 ↗ and I just think that's going to be

52:32 ↗ really important. Um, yeah, this is so

52:35 ↗ exciting that I mean I could talk for

52:38 ↗ quite some time on this, but I really

52:40 ↗ appreciate the um the um options that

52:44 ↗ have been brought to us tonight. Um, I

52:47 ↗ want to make sure we hang on to that

52:49 ↗ model of um we're having affordable

52:52 ↗ housing. We have human services there to

52:55 ↗ support low-income people who may need

52:58 ↗ that. And just a reminder that we are

53:00 ↗ also reserving space for people with

53:02 ↗ developmental disabilities in the in our

53:05 ↗ affordable housing units. And so the

53:07 ↗ original idea was we would have a center

53:09 ↗ that could serve the whole community but

53:12 ↗ would be readily available for the

53:14 ↗ people in the affordable housing units.

53:16 ↗ Uh and that's the model that I want us

53:18 ↗ to keep in our mind and the vision that

53:20 ↗ we just continue to pursue. So those are

53:23 ↗ my comments. Uh, do either one of my

53:25 ↗ fellow council members want to add

53:26 ↗ anything?

53:30 ↗ >> Madam Chair, um, we'd like us to take a

53:32 ↗ couple minutes of a break because we

53:34 ↗ would like to also talk to you about

53:36 ↗ next steps. So, if you could maybe take

53:38 ↗ a five-minute recess.

53:39 ↗ >> Oh, absolutely.

53:40 ↗ >> And then we would like because we want

53:41 ↗ to we because of the timeline, we need

53:43 ↗ to actually look at calendars. Okay.

53:45 ↗ >> We may need to ask you for a special

53:47 ↗ meeting. So, if you give us five minutes

53:48 ↗ and we'll be back.

53:49 ↗ >> Uh, absolutely. We are recessed at 7:25

53:54 ↗ and for 5 minutes

58:42 ↗ Chase, we're ready to resume.

58:49 ↗ All right, we are back uh in session and

58:53 ↗ uh city administrator Bob Kitz, do you

58:56 ↗ or uh deputy city administrator uh

58:59 ↗ Snyder, would you like to report on the

59:01 ↗ re uh our break?

59:04 ↗ >> Yeah, and thank you for that time for us

59:07 ↗ to collect our thoughts. Uh so what

59:10 ↗ we're requesting at this time is uh a

59:13 ↗ special meeting of this committee to be

59:15 ↗ able to come back. We can report on our

59:17 ↗ progress of um doing some more due

59:20 ↗ diligence on the preferred options and

59:24 ↗ then being able to dive a little deeper

59:26 ↗ on this question of should we pull out

59:29 ↗ um of the agreement or should we not? uh

59:31 ↗ because that is a decision that we would

59:33 ↗ need to make and it's also a decision

59:35 ↗ that we'd like to involve the full

59:37 ↗ council in since this is a large

59:38 ↗ decision and also would affect a large

59:41 ↗ um a large portion of of the budget and

59:44 ↗ funds set aside for this purpose.

59:46 ↗ >> So um this way we could get a

59:48 ↗ recommendation from this committee that

59:50 ↗ would then take to a full council as

59:53 ↗ soon as September 2nd. So perhaps if

59:56 ↗ this committee is willing and available,

59:58 ↗ we could organize a special meeting the

1:00:00 ↗ last week of August to return, talk more

1:00:04 ↗ about what we found, talk more about um

1:00:06 ↗ some of the financial implications and

1:00:08 ↗ other risks associated with these

1:00:10 ↗ options, including um more information

1:00:12 ↗ on uh uh the on pulling out um versus

1:00:19 ↗ leaving the space vacant potentially if

1:00:21 ↗ we cannot identify a service provider.

1:00:24 ↗ U council remarks.

1:00:27 ↗ >> Uh I think that's a great idea. Although

1:00:29 ↗ I think then our our committee needs a

1:00:31 ↗ motto that says we don't take vacations.

1:00:34 ↗ >> Service of safety and parks so

1:00:36 ↗ important. We don't take vacations.

1:00:40 ↗ >> So we heard from council member Marks.

1:00:42 ↗ Council member Ray.

1:00:43 ↗ >> I'm good.

1:00:44 ↗ >> Uh me too. So a unanimous agreement that

1:00:47 ↗ we'll have a special meeting

1:00:50 ↗ >> and we'll look perhaps for the Tuesday.

1:00:52 ↗ >> Yeah. um whatever that date is, the

1:00:54 ↗ 23rd, 24th, 25th, something like that.

1:01:00 ↗ We'll confirm that with you. Thank you.

1:01:03 ↗ All right. Um is there anything else on

1:01:05 ↗ this topic?

1:01:09 ↗ All right. We'll go to COM 0158, three

1:01:12 ↗ trails, asphelt, art, pedestrian safety

1:01:14 ↗ improvements, presented by Jeff Watling,

1:01:17 ↗ uh park and community services director,

1:01:19 ↗ Robin Spear, and Amy Dukes.

1:01:22 ↗ Robin is our park planning and

1:01:24 ↗ development manager and Amy Dukes is the

1:01:27 ↗ cultural arts manager.

1:01:33 ↗ >> Good evening. Thank you. Uh Jeff Watling

1:01:35 ↗ again. Uh Robin Spear is um sharing her

1:01:39 ↗ screen. I will uh introduce this and and

1:01:42 ↗ turn it over. Um thank you. Um we'll try

1:01:45 ↗ and be as quick as possible with this. I

1:01:47 ↗ know it's not standard practice right

1:01:50 ↗ now to uh bringformational items to you.

1:01:53 ↗ Um we thought with uh this being summer

1:01:56 ↗ season uh this being a priority project

1:01:58 ↗ from uh your legislative adopted

1:02:01 ↗ legislative agenda that was worth a

1:02:03 ↗ quickformational update um and an

1:02:06 ↗ opportunity before we move forward on

1:02:08 ↗ this just to to get any feedback we we

1:02:10 ↗ have from all of you. So um excited to

1:02:14 ↗ share are we sharing screen?

1:02:26 ↗ Oh, Robin's. It's Robin's laptop.

1:02:33 ↗ That

1:02:38 ↗ doesn't look like it.

1:02:45 ↗ I'm just looking at the screen here.

1:02:47 ↗ Apologies.

1:02:56 ↗ Maybe as they're figuring this out, um I

1:02:59 ↗ can just give a little bit of a reminder

1:03:01 ↗ and overview of what this project is.

1:03:02 ↗ So, um purpose tonight again is to give

1:03:05 ↗ you an update on this. um these safety

1:03:08 ↗ improvements um in the area. What we're

1:03:10 ↗ calling three trails pedestrian area is

1:03:13 ↗ on Gilman Boulevard. Um if you're

1:03:15 ↗ familiar, this is a really key

1:03:17 ↗ intersection of three really important

1:03:19 ↗ trails. East Lake Samish Trail, Reineer

1:03:21 ↗ Trail, and the Juniper Trail come

1:03:23 ↗ together at this intersection. Um a

1:03:25 ↗ scramble intersection was created a

1:03:27 ↗ number of years ago. Uh what this

1:03:29 ↗ project really intends to do is to u

1:03:32 ↗ more vis visually recognize that

1:03:35 ↗ scramble intersection. right now as we

1:03:37 ↗ watch pedestrians navigate it, it's it's

1:03:39 ↗ hard for them to understand or or

1:03:41 ↗ realize they can they can do that

1:03:43 ↗ diagonal crossing. Uh so this is a a

1:03:46 ↗ real opportunity through art uh sort of

1:03:49 ↗ intentional art uh to create some uh

1:03:52 ↗ pedestrian um safety improvements uh but

1:03:55 ↗ to also um again just recognize and call

1:03:58 ↗ out uh the importance of of uh trail

1:04:01 ↗ connectivity. Uh, uh, Director Watling,

1:04:04 ↗ uh, Council Member Marty's hand up.

1:04:07 ↗ That's great.

1:04:09 ↗ >> Can you clarify for those of us who, um,

1:04:11 ↗ aren't in the field, uh, what's a

1:04:14 ↗ scramble intersection?

1:04:15 ↗ >> It's great. Thank you. That's a a really

1:04:17 ↗ good, uh, question. So, scramble

1:04:19 ↗ intersection is where, uh, there is a,

1:04:23 ↗ um, Oh my goodness, I'm not a

1:04:25 ↗ transportation engineer. Uh there's a um

1:04:29 ↗ uh option within the um lighting that um

1:04:33 ↗ all traffic stops always and pedestrians

1:04:37 ↗ are able to navigate the um the

1:04:41 ↗ intersection uh in whatever way they

1:04:43 ↗ want. Um so it's a it's an all

1:04:46 ↗ pedestrian use uh for a prescribed

1:04:49 ↗ period of time.

1:04:52 ↗ >> Got it. And so the pedestrian crosswalk

1:04:54 ↗ is essentially a big square uh or pent

1:04:58 ↗ pentagon depending on

1:05:00 ↗ >> exactly how many streets intersect.

1:05:02 ↗ >> Exactly. And so it really gives that

1:05:03 ↗ opportunity for the diagonal crossings.

1:05:05 ↗ And as you'll see when the the graphics

1:05:07 ↗ show um looks like it's showing. Are we

1:05:10 ↗ able to control that?

1:05:22 ↗ I really really apologize.

1:05:35 ↗ So, um, as as I give this very awkward

1:05:38 ↗ introduction, uh, once we do get the the

1:05:41 ↗ presentation showing, um, Robin Spear

1:05:43 ↗ and Amy Dukes have been, uh, serving as

1:05:46 ↗ co-leads on this on this project, uh,

1:05:49 ↗ they'll be able to highlight real

1:05:50 ↗ quickly some of the work that they've

1:05:51 ↗ been doing with both the park board and

1:05:53 ↗ the arts commission. Uh, we have

1:05:54 ↗ unanimous support from both of those

1:05:56 ↗ groups. Um, as to this art, uh, the

1:05:59 ↗ timing of this project is great in that,

1:06:01 ↗ uh, through the adopted park system

1:06:03 ↗ plan. Um, as you recall, this concept of

1:06:07 ↗ Creeks to Peaks, uh, being real vision

1:06:09 ↗ for our park system and connecting every

1:06:11 ↗ one of our parks. Uh, this project's an

1:06:13 ↗ opportunity to really celebrate that

1:06:16 ↗ creeks to peaks vision. Um, the this

1:06:18 ↗ intersection at Gilman also happens to

1:06:20 ↗ be a key entry into the creative

1:06:23 ↗ district. Uh, so Amy can highlight that

1:06:25 ↗ as well. Um, we just think it's a a

1:06:28 ↗ again a a great project to utilize art.

1:06:31 ↗ Um, are we able to control that one?

1:06:38 ↗ Is Cassidy able to move? Oh, there we

1:06:40 ↗ go.

1:06:40 ↗ >> There we go.

1:06:42 ↗ >> So, why don't we skip purpose and

1:06:44 ↗ background? We're going to go right to

1:06:45 ↗ proposal. Um, with that,

1:06:51 ↗ >> there we go.

1:06:52 ↗ >> There we go. Um, again, apologize for

1:06:55 ↗ the technical difficulties. Uh, Robin,

1:06:58 ↗ Amy, um, go ahead and and give an

1:07:00 ↗ overview of what this, uh, project's

1:07:02 ↗ going to do. Thanks so much.

1:07:07 ↗ >> Hi, good evening. Robin Spear, park

1:07:09 ↗ planning and development manager, and

1:07:12 ↗ tonight I just want to go over a few of

1:07:14 ↗ the safety benefits that we're finding

1:07:16 ↗ are both within the scramble itself and

1:07:18 ↗ then within the artwork on layered on

1:07:21 ↗ top of that. But um as as Jeff

1:07:24 ↗ mentioned, we are starting to call it

1:07:26 ↗ the scramble. That's a short term. It is

1:07:29 ↗ a a pedestrian scramble, otherwise known

1:07:32 ↗ as a diagonal crossing. And just

1:07:35 ↗ recently, I found out it's also car

1:07:37 ↗ called a Barnes dance. Kind of think of

1:07:40 ↗ that, that square dance, and you did as

1:07:42 ↗ a kid. But it was um named after traffic

1:07:44 ↗ engineer Henry Barnes. So if you see

1:07:47 ↗ that term, that's what that comes from.

1:07:49 ↗ Um but there there are definitely safety

1:07:52 ↗ benefits for the scramble itself. Uh veh

1:07:56 ↗ vehicle and pedestrian conflicts are

1:07:58 ↗ eliminated since all the vehicles are

1:08:01 ↗ stopped while the pedestrians are

1:08:03 ↗ crossing. It also reduces the chance of

1:08:06 ↗ two vehicles uh collisions happening two

1:08:09 ↗ or three or more because again all the

1:08:11 ↗ vehicles are stopped to allow the

1:08:13 ↗ pedestrians to cross. Um it provides

1:08:16 ↗ shorter and more direct routes reducing

1:08:18 ↗ the number of crossing needed needed. So

1:08:21 ↗ pedestrians or bicyclists don't need to

1:08:23 ↗ cross twice, they can just cross once.

1:08:26 ↗ Uh it also gives priority to pedestrian

1:08:28 ↗ movement and encourages walkability when

1:08:31 ↗ people feel safer about crossing

1:08:33 ↗ intersections. They tend to go out and

1:08:35 ↗ walk more. Now layered on top of that

1:08:39 ↗ with the asphalt art at the intersection

1:08:41 ↗ we have uh a double amount of safety so

1:08:45 ↗ to speak. Um the high contrasting color

1:08:48 ↗ of the artwork increases visibility of

1:08:51 ↗ pedestrians at crosswalks. Uh it

1:08:54 ↗ encourages slower driving. It acts as a

1:08:57 ↗ visual speed bump because you're not

1:08:58 ↗ used to seeing all that color and all

1:09:00 ↗ that artwork. Uh it enhances driver

1:09:03 ↗ awareness and focus. A lot of us get

1:09:06 ↗ into the car, we just start driving and

1:09:08 ↗ before you know it, you're at your

1:09:09 ↗ destination without realizing that uh

1:09:12 ↗ how you got there.

1:09:13 ↗ >> Yes.

1:09:13 ↗ >> So, uh artwork and high contrast, high

1:09:17 ↗ visibility or something interesting just

1:09:20 ↗ catches your eye and causes you to slow

1:09:22 ↗ down a little bit more.

1:09:25 ↗ Um and overall statistics are showing

1:09:28 ↗ that asphalt art um with crashes invol

1:09:31 ↗ involving pedestrians and cyclists

1:09:34 ↗ decreases by 50% at intersections and

1:09:37 ↗ overall crashes at treated intersections

1:09:40 ↗ fell by 17%. So, the combination of the

1:09:44 ↗ safety aspects of the scramble itself uh

1:09:47 ↗ tied into the asphalt artwork gives us

1:09:50 ↗ um even more enhanced safety at the

1:09:51 ↗ intersection, which was a really big

1:09:53 ↗ component of of the goal of the project

1:09:56 ↗ as well. And I will pass it over to Amy

1:09:58 ↗ to talk about more of the artwork.

1:10:05 ↗ >> Uh yes, please. Good evening.

1:10:07 ↗ >> Good evening, council members. Thanks

1:10:09 ↗ for having me. um Amy Duk's c cultural

1:10:11 ↗ arts manager. Um so just for context, um

1:10:15 ↗ I'm showing the the site. Um we did take

1:10:19 ↗ drone footage during some snow, which is

1:10:22 ↗ confusing everyone that looks at these

1:10:24 ↗ pictures, but that is snow on the grass.

1:10:26 ↗ Um so it is the four corners um of the

1:10:29 ↗ intersection with Gilman and um where

1:10:32 ↗ the Reneer Trail and the trail to Lake

1:10:34 ↗ Smamish come and also Juniper Trail. Um,

1:10:37 ↗ it's also a very important uh area of

1:10:40 ↗ the creative district. And um, up until

1:10:43 ↗ now, most of the placemaking that's been

1:10:46 ↗ done in our creative district has

1:10:47 ↗ actually been in our downtown core. Um,

1:10:49 ↗ as we went to get reertified this past

1:10:52 ↗ spring, a lot of the conversation was

1:10:54 ↗ around extending our placemaking into

1:10:57 ↗ the northern part of the district. And

1:10:59 ↗ so this would also help accomplish um,

1:11:01 ↗ some important creative district goals.

1:11:04 ↗ Um, next slide, please.

1:11:10 ↗ Um, here it is with the art mocked up um

1:11:12 ↗ from up high. Um, the artist is actually

1:11:16 ↗ Jake uh Wagner. Um, you're probably

1:11:18 ↗ familiar with seeing his artwork,

1:11:20 ↗ although you may not realize it. Um, he

1:11:22 ↗ is the artist that did the um, Creative

1:11:25 ↗ District logo and branding and did the

1:11:28 ↗ uh, utility box wraps that have that

1:11:30 ↗ logo. So we thought it was important to

1:11:32 ↗ kind of keep a similar graphic style and

1:11:35 ↗ um utilize our selected artists. We went

1:11:38 ↗ through a proc quite a process for that.

1:11:40 ↗ So wanted to have him continue the sort

1:11:42 ↗ of branding aspects. Um this slide shows

1:11:46 ↗ the uh proposed uh scramble crosswalk.

1:11:50 ↗ Um in addition with some conversation

1:11:52 ↗ with public works um we are also um

1:11:56 ↗ talking about adding some white um

1:11:59 ↗ crosswalks. high visibility crosswalks

1:12:01 ↗ um in those other two areas that are not

1:12:04 ↗ covered with the blue. Um this would be

1:12:07 ↗ thermoplastic. It has a good life span.

1:12:10 ↗ Um and again we're talking with public

1:12:12 ↗ works about that. Um next slide.

1:12:17 ↗ Thanks. So the um arts commission and

1:12:21 ↗ the uh park board had a joint meeting in

1:12:23 ↗ April and reviewed concepts. There were

1:12:26 ↗ multiple concepts that they reviewed. Um

1:12:29 ↗ and this was the selected concept. So

1:12:32 ↗ some of the other concepts were more

1:12:33 ↗ abstract um kind of topography kind of

1:12:36 ↗ elements um but with similar similar

1:12:39 ↗ coloring and they selected this uh

1:12:42 ↗ design because it just shows our

1:12:44 ↗ cherished um landscape in Isiqua um and

1:12:48 ↗ they just really liked the realism. So

1:12:51 ↗ on these corners you see um Lake Seamish

1:12:54 ↗ depicted and

1:13:00 ↗ then here um Reneer for Reneer Trail and

1:13:04 ↗ then those are juniper berries for for

1:13:06 ↗ the juniper trail. So um very sort of

1:13:09 ↗ realistic um and also kind of literal um

1:13:13 ↗ but just nice kind of fun bright high

1:13:16 ↗ contrast designs. And it was a very they

1:13:19 ↗ the the two boards had a great

1:13:21 ↗ conversation about all of the artwork,

1:13:23 ↗ but it was definitely a consensus that

1:13:26 ↗ this was the correct one to choose.

1:13:32 ↗ >> So just really quickly, timing and next

1:13:34 ↗ steps. Um, for this month we um have

1:13:37 ↗ been working with the artist to uh to

1:13:39 ↗ establish our installation schedule and

1:13:42 ↗ also working with public works um to

1:13:44 ↗ make sure that when we're closing a

1:13:47 ↗ little bit of the trail or the

1:13:48 ↗ pedestrian way um for the artist to uh

1:13:51 ↗ install the work that it's remaining

1:13:53 ↗ largely open and um usable. Um the

1:13:57 ↗ artist is planning to install the

1:13:59 ↗ complete piece in August and uh we are

1:14:03 ↗ in conversations with public works about

1:14:06 ↗ when the striping and the scramble will

1:14:07 ↗ take place. So do you guys want

1:14:12 ↗ that's it for me? Thanks.

1:14:13 ↗ >> Thanks.

1:14:17 ↗ So uh Jeff

1:14:21 ↗ Oh. Um Council Marts has a question.

1:14:26 ↗ Yeah, thank you. Um, was there any

1:14:28 ↗ consideration of having bolder bolder

1:14:33 ↗ visual cues on the street? Were there

1:14:36 ↗ options for bolder cues? I have seen um

1:14:40 ↗ now that I know what what this scramble

1:14:42 ↗ is. Um, I've seen um scramble

1:14:48 ↗ um

1:14:49 ↗ signage, if you will, um in places like

1:14:52 ↗ Boston, and it's it's very bright um uh

1:14:56 ↗ brighter even than I think what was

1:14:58 ↗ shown here. So, did did we have options

1:15:00 ↗ for something that that popped more on

1:15:02 ↗ the street side?

1:15:03 ↗ >> Great question. We considered it um not

1:15:06 ↗ only in consultation with public works,

1:15:08 ↗ but also WCIA. Uh we worked with them.

1:15:11 ↗ um they uh really felt more comfortable

1:15:14 ↗ with us

1:15:16 ↗ staying with standard crosswalk

1:15:18 ↗ striping. Um but uh perhaps having just

1:15:21 ↗ that alternate color blue uh for those

1:15:24 ↗ three um there was not a lot of um

1:15:27 ↗ excitement around um anything more

1:15:30 ↗ colorful in the rideway.

1:15:34 ↗ >> All right. Thank thanks for looking into

1:15:35 ↗ it. That's a fine that's a fine answer.

1:15:38 ↗ sometimes uh there's such a thing as

1:15:40 ↗ thinking too far outside the box.

1:15:46 ↗ >> So Jeff, did you want to summarize?

1:15:47 ↗ >> Yeah, just thank you. Um again, thanks

1:15:50 ↗ to to Robin and Amy, thanks to uh the

1:15:53 ↗ work of the park board and the the arts

1:15:54 ↗ commission. We're really excited about

1:15:56 ↗ this project. Um one last note, um and

1:15:59 ↗ again, thank you for your uh

1:16:00 ↗ prioritizing this as a legislative

1:16:02 ↗ agenda item. We were successful uh in

1:16:04 ↗ receiving that to note. Uh last point I

1:16:07 ↗ would make is this art installation is

1:16:09 ↗ the first phase of um a multi-phase uh

1:16:14 ↗ project. So if you might remember uh

1:16:16 ↗ that funding we sought with the

1:16:17 ↗ legislature also includes includes

1:16:19 ↗ additional trail signage uh throughout

1:16:21 ↗ the park system. So that trail signage

1:16:23 ↗ would be installed um probably in 2026

1:16:27 ↗ um but will be an important part of this

1:16:29 ↗ work as well.

1:16:30 ↗ >> Great.

1:16:31 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:16:31 ↗ >> Great. Um, do either of my fellow

1:16:34 ↗ council members have questions or uh

1:16:36 ↗ comments that they'd like to provide?

1:16:39 ↗ >> Uh, council member Ray,

1:16:41 ↗ >> I love this. I really do. I think it is

1:16:43 ↗ really cool. And I really love the

1:16:45 ↗ utility boxes that we have we have

1:16:47 ↗ wrapped around the cities. I just think

1:16:48 ↗ that is so amazing. And then the fact

1:16:52 ↗ that you've got Mount Reneer here and

1:16:54 ↗ then you got snow on the ground right

1:16:55 ↗ next to it is just awesome. So anyway,

1:16:58 ↗ thanks. This this is I'm really looking

1:17:00 ↗ forward to seeing this and I just

1:17:01 ↗ because of the utility boxes I have a

1:17:03 ↗ you got kind of a a vibe of what it's

1:17:06 ↗ going to be like.

1:17:07 ↗ >> Yeah, it's wonderful. Uh Council Member

1:17:10 ↗ Marks, did you have anything additional

1:17:11 ↗ to add?

1:17:13 ↗ >> Yeah, as as often the case, Council

1:17:16 ↗ Member Ray already um said what I wanted

1:17:18 ↗ to say. Uh I I have loved the utility

1:17:20 ↗ boxes. Um I think they've been a

1:17:23 ↗ brilliant uh addition to OldTown. So I I

1:17:27 ↗ love um sharing that artistic model um

1:17:31 ↗ in other parts of the city as well. And

1:17:34 ↗ so uh just let's find more opportunities

1:17:37 ↗ to to get more uh thoughtful art in uh

1:17:41 ↗ on Gilman and and other places. So this

1:17:43 ↗ is this is great and points us towards

1:17:45 ↗ even more uh even more successes.

1:17:48 ↗ Thanks.

1:17:50 ↗ And I'll just echo my fellow council

1:17:52 ↗ members and and just say this is a great

1:17:54 ↗ another another great project from our

1:17:58 ↗ arts uh uh department and um just uh I'm

1:18:03 ↗ looking forward to it. This is one

1:18:05 ↗ intersection where I do hear fairly

1:18:07 ↗ often from people that they uh would

1:18:10 ↗ like to see better direction and better

1:18:13 ↗ and I think this will be a big help.

1:18:15 ↗ Yeah. Yeah. It's uh it's sort of uh one

1:18:18 ↗ of those projects that confuses people

1:18:21 ↗ when they're they're out there. And so I

1:18:23 ↗ think this will be a big help, which

1:18:25 ↗ will be great for the traffic part of

1:18:27 ↗ it. But then just the visual, it's so

1:18:29 ↗ neat to live in a city where we have so

1:18:31 ↗ many visual uh exciting visual uh

1:18:35 ↗ opportunities in front of us. So this is

1:18:37 ↗ just great. Uh anything else?

1:18:43 ↗ >> Not seeing anything there either. Uh our

1:18:45 ↗ last um and thanks again Jeff for being

1:18:49 ↗ here. Um and our last item is

1:18:52 ↗ announcements. Are there any

1:18:53 ↗ announcements?

1:18:56 ↗ Since this is uh safety services and

1:18:58 ↗ parks, I feel it is quite appropriate to

1:19:01 ↗ announce that this is the fourth week of

1:19:03 ↗ concerts on the green and uh everyone in

1:19:06 ↗ Isiqua is welcome to attend the

1:19:09 ↗ remainder of the series which is uh

1:19:11 ↗ coming the next four weeks. So, please

1:19:14 ↗ join us uh in front of the community

1:19:16 ↗ center at 7 to 8:30

1:19:19 ↗ every Tuesday for the next four weeks.

1:19:22 ↗ That is that concludes my announcement.

1:19:24 ↗ Anything else?

1:19:26 ↗ All right, we are adjourned at um 7:50

1:19:31 ↗ and thank you to everybody for being

1:19:32 ↗ here.

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF