City Council Services, Safety & Parks Committee · Tuesday, January 27, 2026 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

City Council Services, Safety & Parks Committee Regular Meeting, November 18

packet pp.5–6

Topics: ParksPublic Safety

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 1, 2025

▶ Watch from 1:48 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 11-18-25 City Council Services, Safety & Parks Page (01) Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Services, Safety & Parks Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. November 18, 2025 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Issaquah Housing Investment Pool (IHIP) Funding Recommendation COM 0202

Alexis Fitzsimmons, Economic Development · packet pp.7–81

Topics: HousingBudget

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · May 22, 2023

▶ Watch from 0:52 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Meeting Date January 27, 2026 Department Economic Development Staff Lead Alexis Fitzsimmons, Economic & Housing Development Manager Patrick Tippy, Investments Manager, ARCH

Park Rules and Regulations COM 0206

Director · 30 min · Jeff Watling, Parks & Community Services · packet pp.83–93

Topics: Parks

▶ Watch from 0:56 Open packet at p.83 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends: 1. Review of the current Park Rules and Regulations within the IMC, identifying gaps and/or other rules that should be part of a more complete set of Park Rules and Regulations. 2. Working with the Park Board in the development of this work, as well as providing additional public outreach and input.

2026 Arts Grant Recommendations COM 0207

30 min · Amy Dukes, Arts Program Administrator · packet pp.95–114

Topics: Arts & Culture

Previously discussed: Arts Commission · Jan 12, 2026

▶ Watch from 1:22 Open packet at p.95 ↗

Staff report:

Administration recommends allocating the 2026 Arts Grants as proposed by the Arts Commission.

1969 segments .txt ↗

0:14 ↗ Welcome everyone. My deputy council

0:17 ↗ president Tom Martz call the January

0:19 ↗ 27th, 2026 city council services, safety

0:23 ↗ and parks committee to order. I'm

0:25 ↗ hearing an echo. One of the something's

0:27 ↗ turned on that shouldn't be turned on.

0:30 ↗ Um, excused absences. Uh, Chair Walsh

0:33 ↗ has an excused absence this evening. And

0:35 ↗ we have a new committee member to my

0:38 ↗ right. Uh, Council Member Kevin Nichols.

0:41 ↗ Welcome to the party, pal.

0:43 ↗ All right. Uh, next item on the agenda

0:47 ↗ is public comment. Uh, this is an

0:49 ↗ opportunity to provide general comments.

0:51 ↗ There will also be an opportunity for

0:52 ↗ public comments uh on each agenda item

0:56 ↗ after the presentation and the

0:57 ↗ committee's question and answer period.

1:00 ↗ Comments can be made in person or

1:02 ↗ virtually. Those who have signed up in

1:03 ↗ advance will be called on first. If you

1:05 ↗ are joining us virtually and would like

1:06 ↗ to make comments, please raise your

1:08 ↗ virtual hand or send the host a chat

1:10 ↗ message. If you're on a phone, press

1:14 ↗ star three. If you have joined by

1:16 ↗ computer or smartphone, look for a hand

1:18 ↗ icon.

1:20 ↗ I do not see any members of the public

1:22 ↗ in the room with us. Uh clerk, has

1:24 ↗ anyone signed up to speak or indicated a

1:26 ↗ desire to speak this evening?

1:28 ↗ >> Not at this time. Chair,

1:30 ↗ >> thank you very much. As a reminder,

1:32 ↗ written comments can be submitted at any

1:33 ↗ time to city council at isiquawa.gov.

1:38 ↗ That's not 12 squa because we're not

1:40 ↗ changing that. Just the isiqua.wah.gov.

1:45 ↗ Uh moving [clears throat] on.

1:48 ↗ Next up is uh approval of minutes. And

1:52 ↗ what we have been doing lately uh is

1:55 ↗ just sort of uh I think I don't know if

1:57 ↗ the technical term is asenting to them

1:59 ↗ um but just basically saying uh do we

2:02 ↗ have any concerns with the minutes as

2:04 ↗ presented otherwise we will just

2:06 ↗ consider them accepted. Any concerns?

2:09 ↗ No. Great. Clerk if you consider those

2:12 ↗ minutes accepted.

2:15 ↗ Uh we have three we have three items

2:17 ↗ this evening and the first item we have

2:19 ↗ is COOM0202

2:21 ↗ Isiqua Housing Investment Pool Funding

2:23 ↗ Recommendation and this is going to be

2:25 ↗ presented by Alexis Fitz Simmons our

2:27 ↗ economic development and housing

2:28 ↗ manager.

2:31 ↗ Welcome Alexis.

2:36 ↗ Also with me today is Patrick Tippy from

2:38 ↗ Arch. uh he's the investments manager

2:39 ↗ and he helps uh Arch helps the city um

2:43 ↗ go through this uh create this IHIP

2:45 ↗ program and also um go through the

2:47 ↗ process of the projects and evaluating

2:49 ↗ them.

2:51 ↗ So the purpose today is to review the

2:53 ↗ projects have submitted applications for

2:55 ↗ IHIP funding uh in 2025. Um, we're going

2:59 ↗ to present uh what the administration

3:01 ↗ awards uh award recommendations are uh

3:04 ↗ which are $383,000

3:06 ↗ to Leo Condominiums at at Trail Head

3:09 ↗ Project and 1.5 million to the KCHA

3:12 ↗ Trail Head project for the creation of

3:14 ↗ 1633 units of affordable housing at or

3:17 ↗ below 60% AMI. And we'd also like to

3:20 ↗ receive input for any additional

3:21 ↗ information necessary regarding

3:23 ↗ recommendations and awards in the

3:25 ↗ contracting approach that we have for

3:26 ↗ you today.

3:29 ↗ So as far as direction needed um

3:31 ↗ questions or uh input requests from u

3:35 ↗ the administration uh to the committee

3:37 ↗ regarding these projects does if does

3:39 ↗ you do you have any questions on why we

3:42 ↗ did recommend the projects and why we

3:44 ↗ didn't recommend uh the park uh by

3:46 ↗ vintage project um and also any input in

3:51 ↗ um our recommendation to authorize ARCH

3:53 ↗ to enter into the um enter and manage

3:56 ↗ the award board contract um with uh the

4:00 ↗ direction uh with LEO. Um and then also

4:04 ↗ um does the committee request any

4:07 ↗ additional information to consider um

4:09 ↗ approval at the city council on February

4:10 ↗ 24th?

4:13 ↗ Oh, I apologize. I thought we fixed

4:16 ↗ that.

4:20 ↗ Um

4:22 ↗ so just a reminder um IHIP um the IHIP

4:25 ↗ program is the inclusive housing

4:27 ↗ investment pool. Uh it was created in

4:29 ↗ December 2020 2023 by city council and

4:32 ↗ and adopted the following funding

4:35 ↗ priorities um which is the preservation

4:37 ↗ of existing affordable housing transit

4:39 ↗ oriented development near frequent

4:41 ↗ frequent transit service and community-

4:44 ↗ based affordable housing. Um also on

4:47 ↗ this slide you kind of see the housing

4:49 ↗ continuum of you know where we see the

4:51 ↗ need for housing uh in the city of

4:53 ↗ Isiqua and it goes everywhere every from

4:56 ↗ everything from emergency shelters also

4:58 ↗ all the way to affordable rental and

5:00 ↗ ownership.

5:04 ↗ So the funding requirements uh for the

5:06 ↗ program um it's to serve households up

5:09 ↗ to 60% AMI and um funds must serve the

5:13 ↗ following populations. persons with

5:15 ↗ behavioral health disabilities,

5:17 ↗ veterans, senior citizens, persons who

5:20 ↗ are homeless or at risk of being

5:22 ↗ homeless, persons with disabil

5:24 ↗ intellectual disabilities,

5:26 ↗ um or physical disabilities, and

5:27 ↗ domestic violence survivors.

5:32 ↗ As far as funding availability goes, um

5:34 ↗ in 2025 and 2020 2026, the affordable

5:38 ↗ housing adopted budget um with an annual

5:41 ↗ revenue of expected to be 2.3 million

5:44 ↗ and approximate expenditures to be 1.3

5:46 ↗ million. You can see in the chart below

5:49 ↗ um that every year between 2021 and

5:52 ↗ 2024, we received more than $2 million

5:55 ↗ um from um from the 1590 and 1406 funds

5:59 ↗ that fund the IHIP program. um and

6:02 ↗ anticipated allocation in 2025 was uh a

6:05 ↗ million plus and the same in 2026.

6:10 ↗ To break down kind of a little further

6:12 ↗ um from 2023 to 2025, our actual

6:14 ↗ received revenue was over $7 million and

6:18 ↗ our actual expenses were just over 3.3

6:21 ↗ million. Um that's from 20 2023 to 2025.

6:25 ↗ Um these expenses uh included emergency

6:28 ↗ housing program um behavioral health um

6:31 ↗ and executive staff as well as the arch

6:33 ↗ funding trust fund.

6:36 ↗ In 2026, which is our current year, um

6:38 ↗ our revenue anticipated and what we have

6:40 ↗ budgeted for is 2.325 million and our

6:43 ↗ anticipated expenses that were budgeted

6:45 ↗ for is $68,388.

6:49 ↗ This does not include the projects that

6:52 ↗ you are being presented to today. Um,

6:54 ↗ these projects require an amendment to

6:56 ↗ the budget. The only known expenses that

6:58 ↗ we had uh for the 2026 budget were those

7:01 ↗ for executive staff and behavioral

7:03 ↗ health staff. So, that's what's included

7:04 ↗ in the budget.

7:07 ↗ As far as the application process goes,

7:10 ↗ um combined funders um from the east

7:13 ↗ side that support ARCH uh submit

7:15 ↗ applications um and ARCH staff reviews

7:19 ↗ those uh does an initial review of

7:21 ↗ those. Um the committee uh there's a

7:23 ↗ review committee um that includes uh the

7:26 ↗ economic vitality commission, city staff

7:28 ↗ and art staff. Uh we meet uh and discuss

7:32 ↗ the projects, make recommendations and

7:34 ↗ then it comes to the administration to

7:37 ↗ discuss uh more fully and then to you at

7:40 ↗ the services, safeties and parks

7:42 ↗ committee. Then moving on to city

7:44 ↗ council uh for the final uh decision.

7:49 ↗ The applicant applications

7:51 ↗ recommendations that we have this year

7:52 ↗ are for the KCHA trail head apartments,

7:55 ↗ which we are recommending for approval,

7:58 ↗ the Leo condominiums at the trail head

8:00 ↗ apartments, which we are also

8:01 ↗ recommending for approval, and the Park

8:03 ↗ by Vintage, which we are not

8:04 ↗ recommending for approval.

8:09 ↗ At this point in time, um, I'm going to

8:11 ↗ have, uh, Patrick come up and talk a

8:13 ↗ little bit about the projects.

8:20 ↗ Thank you very much, Alexis. Uh, Chair,

8:22 ↗ uh, Council Member Nichols, thank you

8:24 ↗ very much for having me here today. Uh,

8:26 ↗ really excited to bring these

8:27 ↗ recommendations to you all that were

8:28 ↗ reviewed and recommended by the Economic

8:30 ↗ Vitality Commission and the city

8:31 ↗ administration. I'm Patrick Tippy, the

8:33 ↗ investments manager at Arch and and work

8:35 ↗ to underwrite and help draft the staff

8:37 ↗ reports uh, to analyze the merits of the

8:39 ↗ projects against the priorities that

8:40 ↗ were adopted by council a few years

8:42 ↗ back. Uh the first project that we're

8:44 ↗ here to uh recommend here today is the

8:46 ↗ recommend the full funding request of

8:48 ↗ $1.5 million from the King County

8:50 ↗ Housing Authority to develop the trail

8:52 ↗ head apartments. This is a development

8:54 ↗ that's been uh under consideration for

8:57 ↗ many years now. uh in in partnership

9:00 ↗ with the city uh case King King County

9:02 ↗ Housing Authority has worked to relocate

9:05 ↗ telecom from the site across from the uh

9:08 ↗ uh central Isaqua Transit Center uh to

9:11 ↗ create this uh multi-phase development

9:13 ↗ and the building that KCHA will be

9:16 ↗ leading the development on will include

9:17 ↗ a ground floor called the opportunity

9:19 ↗ center that the city of Isakqua will own

9:21 ↗ and then above that will be 156 units.

9:24 ↗ Uh two of those are going to be for

9:25 ↗ on-site management, the rest would be

9:27 ↗ affordable. um and serving people from

9:29 ↗ 40 to 60% of the area median income.

9:33 ↗ Uh King County Housing Authority has not

9:35 ↗ uh identified a specific IHIP target

9:38 ↗ population as required by statute at

9:40 ↗ this point in time. They are wanting to

9:41 ↗ partner with the city of Isiqua as

9:43 ↗ Isiqua's identifying who the tenant

9:46 ↗ would be of the opportunity center and

9:48 ↗ wanting to align uh target residents to

9:50 ↗ align with the services. So, if it ends

9:52 ↗ up being a service provider to serve

9:53 ↗ people with disabilities or uh people

9:56 ↗ that may need behavioral health

9:58 ↗ services, they would want to align that

9:59 ↗ service so that way there's on-site

10:01 ↗ connection for the services for folks.

10:03 ↗ Uh these units will be 1, two, and

10:05 ↗ threebedroom units. Um and a significant

10:08 ↗ amount of of uh parking available on

10:10 ↗ site, 172 stalls.

10:13 ↗ Uh the next uh slide,

10:15 ↗ >> can you wait just a second? Can you go

10:17 ↗ back? So on the subject, can you go back

10:20 ↗ one slide? So on the subject of target

10:23 ↗ population,

10:25 ↗ um so how I I understand the idea that

10:29 ↗ we want to wait until we see opportunity

10:32 ↗ center tenants and then see how we want

10:36 ↗ to meet the required target populations.

10:40 ↗ How how would that work timewise like in

10:43 ↗ the timeline of this development?

10:45 ↗ >> Yeah, great question. Uh so in the the

10:48 ↗ staff recommendation memo in front of

10:50 ↗ you there are uh special conditions

10:52 ↗ which we would put forward and those uh

10:54 ↗ and hopefully you all would adopt those

10:57 ↗ and then subsequently council would

10:58 ↗ adopt those. Those become contracting

11:00 ↗ conditions and within that we would

11:02 ↗ require they designate that before uh

11:04 ↗ the contract is drafted and and

11:06 ↗ executed. Uh so that would be the city

11:08 ↗ would uh be able to reserve its right to

11:10 ↗ move forward in advancing funds and

11:11 ↗ signing the contract until that was uh

11:13 ↗ designated and appropriately contracted

11:16 ↗ through a regulatory agreement.

11:17 ↗ >> Good. Just not not because I have any

11:19 ↗ concern that people won't keep it in

11:21 ↗ mind. I just wanted to see from a from a

11:24 ↗ uh project management steps where it

11:27 ↗ gets uh where it gets in in the system

11:29 ↗ and you just explained it. So thank you.

11:31 ↗ >> Yeah, do that. Uh so I I did mention

11:35 ↗ some of the uh special conditions. One I

11:37 ↗ wanted to point out that $ 1.5 million

11:39 ↗ award will be structured as a deferred

11:41 ↗ loan. Uh meaning that uh there'll be a

11:44 ↗ 55-year term. It'll be advertised over

11:46 ↗ that 55-year period. And there's other

11:49 ↗ costs that they have to repay earlier in

11:50 ↗ that 55-year term. And so uh repayments

11:53 ↗ will begin in year 16 through that

11:55 ↗ 55-year period. So, it's small payments

11:57 ↗ on that $ 1.5 million uh loan, but there

12:01 ↗ will be uh repayments coming back to uh

12:04 ↗ to the city uh for this fund. Uh wanted

12:07 ↗ to identify some of the rationale here

12:08 ↗ based on the priorities that council has

12:10 ↗ identified for this project. It's a

12:12 ↗ long-standing partnership with this with

12:14 ↗ the city uh uh and and proceeding right

12:17 ↗ across the street from the uh King

12:19 ↗ County Metro uh park uh uh transit

12:22 ↗ center here in central Isiqua. And so uh

12:24 ↗ this aligns with the transit oriented

12:26 ↗ development nature of the priorities.

12:27 ↗ It's also a partnership with many other

12:29 ↗ uh community partners. The city will be

12:31 ↗ the owner of the ground floor space. Uh

12:33 ↗ we'll talk next about the partnership

12:34 ↗ with life enrichment options known as

12:36 ↗ LEO to be providing uh a separate

12:38 ↗ ownership condo within that for people

12:40 ↗ with intellectual and developmental

12:42 ↗ disabilities. And so there is a lot of

12:43 ↗ partnership uh with uh with local

12:45 ↗ service providers and local agencies.

12:48 ↗ um they're committed to serving IHIP

12:50 ↗ aligned populations and it really

12:52 ↗ leverages a significant amount of money

12:54 ↗ uh from other sources which is just uh

12:56 ↗ goes to grow the impact of the IHIP fund

13:01 ↗ and I'll move on to the next uh

13:02 ↗ recommended project here. This is the

13:04 ↗ life enrichment opportunities

13:07 ↗ uh condominiums in the trail head. This

13:09 ↗ is within the the previous development.

13:12 ↗ Uh the LEO would own uh seven bedrooms

13:16 ↗ within that. Uh one for a live-in

13:18 ↗ caregiver. Six then would be for uh

13:21 ↗ individuals earning 30 and 40% of the

13:23 ↗ area income all with intellectual and

13:25 ↗ developmental disabilities. Leo focuses

13:28 ↗ on providing uh group homes for people

13:30 ↗ with intellectual and developmental

13:31 ↗ disabilities. Most of the programs to

13:33 ↗ date have been in single family homes

13:35 ↗ and they're really excited about this

13:36 ↗ opportunity to to be in a larger multif

13:38 ↗ family complex. They'll have uh

13:40 ↗ interchanging doors between them so they

13:42 ↗ can have shared meals as a community but

13:44 ↗ then also have some private space but

13:46 ↗ then also be in community with the other

13:48 ↗ 156 families living in the apartment

13:50 ↗ building. So they're really excited

13:51 ↗ about this uh this opportunity here.

13:55 ↗ uh this project we we're recommending

13:57 ↗ that this would be uh the award would be

14:00 ↗ made uh in the form of a uh secured

14:04 ↗ grant meaning that so long as they

14:06 ↗ perform and serve households at the

14:08 ↗ income levels prescribed in the other

14:10 ↗ contract terms that the funds would not

14:12 ↗ be repaid uh whereas the housing

14:14 ↗ authority has a higher income level and

14:15 ↗ it has a more of ability to repay that

14:17 ↗ loan. Um, we're also recommending that

14:19 ↗ the uh funding award amount to be

14:21 ↗ $383,000

14:22 ↗ and that is uh more than they requested

14:25 ↗ from Isiqua through the IHIP program and

14:28 ↗ uh the the economic vitality commission

14:30 ↗ recommended that amount as uh we are

14:32 ↗ considering that the award. We learned

14:34 ↗ that King County was not going to be

14:35 ↗ able to fund the amount and so the uh

14:38 ↗ committee recommended that uh the IHIP

14:40 ↗ program fill the gap the county couldn't

14:42 ↗ fund to continue the project advancing

14:44 ↗ and it has been successful in receiving

14:46 ↗ I believe a $ 1.4 $4 million award from

14:49 ↗ the state department of commerce as well

14:50 ↗ to support those households with

14:52 ↗ intellectual and developmental

14:53 ↗ disabilities. So uh again another strong

14:55 ↗ uh piece of leverage uh to leverage the

14:58 ↗ IHIP program that uh the the city of

15:00 ↗ Isiqua has has advanced here. Um other

15:03 ↗ strengths of this is that it is again

15:05 ↗ aligned well with transit oriented uh lo

15:07 ↗ in a transit oriented location. It is uh

15:11 ↗ uh LEO is a it's a quaab based service

15:13 ↗ organization serving many uh individuals

15:16 ↗ with intellectual developmental

15:18 ↗ intellectual and developmental

15:19 ↗ disabilities. Uh and just really excited

15:21 ↗ to get this development uh kicked off

15:23 ↗ within uh within this larger KCHA

15:26 ↗ development.

15:29 ↗ Then the final project that we received

15:30 ↗ an application for and and the uh

15:34 ↗ committee administration are not

15:35 ↗ recommending for an award is the

15:37 ↗ development uh known as Park by Vintage.

15:39 ↗ They requested a million dollars. Uh the

15:41 ↗ location of this was to acquire two

15:44 ↗ existing uh office buildings that had

15:47 ↗ previously been Costco office space um

15:50 ↗ just to the north of I I90 there. Uh the

15:54 ↗ the intent would be to convert those two

15:56 ↗ office buildings into residential,

15:58 ↗ creating uh nearly 260 homes uh for

16:01 ↗ households at 50 and 60% of the area

16:03 ↗ median income. Uh the developers chose

16:06 ↗ the site for adaptive reuse uh based on

16:08 ↗ its proximity to retail and other stores

16:11 ↗ uh nearby to the state park.

16:15 ↗ Um however, the committee did not

16:17 ↗ recommend moving this project forward.

16:19 ↗ There's a few uh items there that u the

16:23 ↗ the developer is currently working

16:24 ↗ through a lawsuit with the state

16:26 ↗ attorney general's office uh along with

16:28 ↗ their property manager and uh that was

16:30 ↗ likely going to inhibit them from

16:32 ↗ securing the rest of the capital funding

16:34 ↗ needed to uh convert these uh office

16:36 ↗ buildings into residential in a timely

16:38 ↗ manner. And so uh that was one of the

16:41 ↗ rationale there. Uh

16:45 ↗ um and also the property did not the

16:47 ↗ owner operator didn't identify any local

16:49 ↗ service partners for this. They were

16:51 ↗ planning to serve veterans but didn't

16:52 ↗ necessarily have a referral plan or way

16:54 ↗ that they would be plugging in to serve

16:56 ↗ uh the Isokqua community.

17:02 ↗ Uh so we're here presenting to you here

17:04 ↗ uh today. If if recommended to move

17:07 ↗ forward, we'll be coming back February

17:09 ↗ 23rd. Is that correct? the council

17:12 ↗ meeting. Um, and then, uh, if that's the

17:15 ↗ recommendation of this group and and and

17:17 ↗ council, uh, that resolution would

17:20 ↗ instruct, uh, city administration to,

17:22 ↗ uh, ask ARCH to administer the contract,

17:25 ↗ uh, through other contracting mechanisms

17:27 ↗ that we have and using the ARCH

17:28 ↗ investment staff to do the ongoing

17:30 ↗ compliance for for the awards.

17:38 ↗ >> Thank you, Patrick.

17:40 ↗ Um so again, so we're on our last slide

17:42 ↗ here. Um and what we need uh from you

17:45 ↗ today is just direction. We would like

17:46 ↗ for this um item to go on the consent

17:49 ↗ agenda at the council meeting on

17:51 ↗ February 23rd. Um and so we'd like to

17:54 ↗ entertain any additional questions or

17:56 ↗ requests for information that you have

17:57 ↗ now uh in order to make that happen.

18:00 ↗ >> Council member Nichols,

18:02 ↗ >> thank you. Um got quite a quite a few

18:05 ↗ questions. I saved them all to the end.

18:06 ↗ Um, so, um, I think I'll start with

18:10 ↗ questions about park since we just

18:12 ↗ discussed that. Um, on the face of it,

18:15 ↗ it looks like a a good interesting

18:16 ↗ project. Um, it's um, it it clearly

18:20 ↗ seems less welldeveloped, less mature

18:22 ↗ than the uh, the trail head project

18:25 ↗ naturally. So, the trail head project's

18:26 ↗ been around for a while. Um, a lot of

18:29 ↗ the problems that were identified seem

18:32 ↗ to me like they're essentially future

18:34 ↗ risks that may not may or may not

18:35 ↗ materialize. So, I've got uh two

18:37 ↗ questions on that. First is, are we

18:40 ↗ working with these folks in any

18:42 ↗ additional capacity to help them reduce

18:44 ↗ those risks? So, one of the risks was

18:46 ↗ identified was that they don't have a

18:47 ↗ partner um for some of the services they

18:49 ↗ want to offer. Um, that's something that

18:51 ↗ we have experienced with the DoD as

18:53 ↗ well. um do we have any experience or

18:55 ↗ expertise there that we could offer to

18:56 ↗ try to reduce that risk for them? Uh and

18:59 ↗ then the second question on park is um

19:01 ↗ when we structure these um as either

19:04 ↗ grants or loans I guess um

19:07 ↗ can they be contingent on other things

19:09 ↗ so such as for example resolution of

19:12 ↗ location securing of future funding etc

19:15 ↗ so that we could help that project to

19:18 ↗ appear more viable to other investors

19:20 ↗ who might want to participate without uh

19:22 ↗ unnecessarily

19:24 ↗ u assuming excess risk for public funds.

19:29 ↗ Yes. So, I'll answer the second question

19:31 ↗ first. Um, we have the ability through

19:33 ↗ the contract process to put any

19:34 ↗ stipulations on that funding. Um, that

19:37 ↗ as long as within the legislative

19:38 ↗ allowance. Um, and we have a pretty

19:41 ↗ pretty broad

19:44 ↗ birth to to be able to do that. Um, and

19:47 ↗ um, in the staff report, you'll see a

19:49 ↗ lot of the stipulations on some of the

19:50 ↗ other uh, the other two projects um,

19:52 ↗ that ARCH has helped us formulate. um

19:55 ↗ when we are looking at the analyzation

19:57 ↗ of those projects and what risks there

19:58 ↗ are um as far as um

20:02 ↗ expertise to be able to make connections

20:05 ↗ with developer uh to community

20:07 ↗ organizations. Yes, we absolutely do

20:09 ↗ have that and and would do that. Um I

20:12 ↗ think that the main risk that we saw

20:14 ↗ here was the state's attorney litigation

20:16 ↗ that was outstanding. Um

20:19 ↗ um and that was a bit untenable for the

20:22 ↗ community advisory board. Um and so

20:25 ↗ that's one of the major reasons why we

20:27 ↗ kind of push this this is if they're

20:29 ↗ able to resolve that they can reapply

20:31 ↗ next year. Um our rejection of their

20:34 ↗ project this year does not prevent them

20:35 ↗ from applying again in the future when

20:37 ↗ they have these other issues resolved

20:38 ↗ and in the meantime if they're amunable

20:40 ↗ to us uh participating and providing

20:42 ↗ expertise to help connect them uh with

20:44 ↗ community organizations uh we are much

20:47 ↗ very much willing to do that.

20:49 ↗ >> Okay. All right. Um,

20:52 ↗ next very specific question. Uh, for the

20:54 ↗ to how how is the 172 spaces parking

20:58 ↗ spaces number arrived at?

21:01 ↗ >> So, I believe that's probably a

21:03 ↗ requirement of zoning um and the number

21:05 ↗ of spaces required by our zoning.

21:07 ↗ >> Okay. So, no no variances were

21:09 ↗ requested. Do you know?

21:10 ↗ >> I don't think so.

21:17 ↗ I believe the development has a

21:18 ↗ development agreement.

21:22 ↗ >> Yeah, you can go to the mic.

21:24 ↗ >> Either one. Uh I I believe there's a

21:27 ↗ development agreement on the site uh

21:28 ↗ because there's a second phase there

21:30 ↗ that prescribes total number of parking

21:31 ↗ stalls between the two uh sites and it

21:35 ↗ it has been important for the housing

21:36 ↗ authority to have sufficient parking

21:39 ↗ available in order to have a strongly uh

21:41 ↗ competitive property for marketability

21:44 ↗ and achieve the the um occupancy that it

21:47 ↗ needs in order to service the the

21:48 ↗ permanent debt that they will have on

21:50 ↗ that property.

21:50 ↗ >> Okay. So this was this is a number that

21:52 ↗ the housing authority wanted and was

21:54 ↗ happy with. Is that fair?

21:55 ↗ >> I from my understanding they're happy

21:57 ↗ about that uh that parking stall count

21:59 ↗ and I think that it's important for them

22:01 ↗ especially having a number of two and

22:02 ↗ threebedroom units to make sure they've

22:04 ↗ got uh parking even though it is

22:06 ↗ adjacent to the transit center. It was

22:08 ↗ important for them to have at least a 1

22:10 ↗ to1 parking ratio.

22:11 ↗ >> Okay. All right. Um

22:14 ↗ let me back up. Uh let's see.

22:19 ↗ Um

22:23 ↗ uh going at the the funding stack for um

22:26 ↗ the LEO project. So there was 191,500

22:30 ↗ that was um not approved by King County.

22:32 ↗ Can you elaborate on what what the c

22:35 ↗ what why did King County decline that

22:37 ↗ and is there anything to be learned from

22:38 ↗ that? Yeah, the county really had

22:40 ↗ limited sources of funds and each uh

22:44 ↗ funding resource they had had very

22:46 ↗ specific eligible uses for those and

22:49 ↗ this uh development did not align well

22:51 ↗ with any of the eligible uses that they

22:53 ↗ had available for this year. They had

22:55 ↗ specific dollars that needed to be jail

22:56 ↗ diversion or needed to be spent in South

22:58 ↗ King County or to be uh debt uh

23:02 ↗ generating funds that uh their statute

23:04 ↗ required uh the bond that pays for them

23:07 ↗ to have debt service. And so this

23:08 ↗ project wasn't eligible because it

23:10 ↗ doesn't have ability to pay debt

23:11 ↗ service. And so that for those reasons

23:13 ↗ they didn't advance the project this

23:14 ↗ year. They have funded the LEO uh

23:17 ↗ project in the past including the

23:18 ↗ acquisition that I have supported a year

23:20 ↗ ago to purchase single family home in

23:22 ↗ central.

23:23 ↗ >> Okay, great. That's good. Um

23:27 ↗ see um

23:34 ↗ another detailed question on Leo. So I

23:37 ↗ saw in there so on the our staff report

23:40 ↗ page three there's a note that there's

23:42 ↗ earnest money due at capital finance

23:44 ↗ clearing. This is May. Um it's 120,000.

23:47 ↗ And then um it also notes that the

23:50 ↗ schedule is driven by the overall King

23:52 ↗ County Housing Authority timeline. Is

23:55 ↗ are there any kind of existential risks

23:57 ↗ here, especially for that earnest money

23:59 ↗ if King County Housing Authorities's

24:01 ↗ construction timeline slips? How how

24:04 ↗ dependent on how much how what risks are

24:07 ↗ associated with that that might impact

24:09 ↗ the ability of the project to proceed

24:10 ↗ and the and any funding that has been

24:13 ↗ committed here? Yeah, I think one of the

24:15 ↗ rationale why uh it's an earnest money

24:17 ↗ deposit and not a a purchase of the

24:19 ↗ condo is that the condominium will not

24:21 ↗ be formally declared creating those

24:23 ↗ three units until after the physical

24:26 ↗ structure is built and is able to be

24:27 ↗ surveyed and then have the meats and

24:28 ↗ bounds prescribed to it. So, we would

24:30 ↗ then want that legal description to be

24:33 ↗ included in our our uh our legal

24:36 ↗ documents to secure that space for them.

24:38 ↗ And so the structure and partnership

24:39 ↗ between LEO and KCHA is that earnest

24:43 ↗ money deposit is a good faith deposit

24:45 ↗ demonstrating LEO has all the sources

24:47 ↗ needed to purchase the whole of the

24:48 ↗ acquisition and they have secured those

24:50 ↗ sources through the state arch and isqua

24:53 ↗ funds and then those funds will be in

24:55 ↗ place ready to uh uh fulfill that

25:00 ↗ contract as the structure is completed.

25:01 ↗ And so Leo will take ownership when the

25:03 ↗ when the structure is completed of their

25:06 ↗ uh seven uh bedrooms in those three

25:08 ↗ condo units.

25:09 ↗ >> Okay. All right. I think I understand

25:11 ↗ that. Um,

25:15 ↗ next. Um, so switching gears to

25:23 ↗ the, uh, the tod. Um,

25:29 ↗ just trying to track kind of where the

25:30 ↗ money is flowing here. So, as far as I

25:33 ↗ can tell, there's no proceeds from the

25:34 ↗ market rate side that are put into the

25:37 ↗ funding stack. um for the affordable

25:40 ↗ side. I may have just misread it, so if

25:42 ↗ I'm wrong, just correct me there. Um but

25:44 ↗ is can you just at a first at a high

25:46 ↗ level kind of give me an overview of

25:47 ↗ what's the financial relationship

25:48 ↗ between these two phases? Um

25:52 ↗ and where where does that money get

25:54 ↗ accounted for if if there is a

25:55 ↗ relationship there? Yeah, the King

25:58 ↗ County Housing Authority provided to us

25:59 ↗ a third-party cost estimate for the

26:01 ↗ whole of their development of the

26:03 ↗ structure they're building as well as

26:04 ↗ the site costs and the design,

26:07 ↗ permitting, and other costs, including a

26:10 ↗ uh delineation of how those costs will

26:13 ↗ be attributed between the four different

26:14 ↗ ownership entities on the site. So those

26:17 ↗ being the KCHA 156 unit, the market rate

26:20 ↗ portion, the the 7bedroom uh LEO condo

26:25 ↗ and the city of Isiqua's opportunity

26:27 ↗ center. And so costs for site

26:29 ↗ development, permitting, design have

26:31 ↗ been uh based on total square footage uh

26:34 ↗ floor area ratio for those where and

26:36 ↗ then the cost for the um cost for the

26:41 ↗ building then is borne by each of the

26:42 ↗ individual owners. Uh so the the market

26:45 ↗ rate portion of the building is not

26:47 ↗ contributing uh to the the capital stack

26:51 ↗ for the King County Housing Authority

26:53 ↗ portion, but it is paying its full cost

26:56 ↗ for its building and its development.

26:58 ↗ >> Okay. And then

27:00 ↗ is it this is I'm sure the wrong word to

27:03 ↗ use, but is it subsidizing in some ways?

27:04 ↗ like what how what is how is the

27:08 ↗ if it's not directly in the capital

27:09 ↗ stack how is the market rate uh the sale

27:11 ↗ of those market rate units helping the

27:14 ↗ affordable side of things

27:15 ↗ >> yeah I think it it's help helping by

27:17 ↗ defaying the cost of the permitting of

27:19 ↗ the design to get to the place where

27:21 ↗ they can permit the whole of the site

27:23 ↗ and so there is some uh efficiency there

27:26 ↗ of having the same civil architectural

27:28 ↗ team doing the layout of the whole of

27:30 ↗ the site it's also reimbursing uh KCHA

27:33 ↗ they've been carrying the development

27:34 ↗ costs of this for the last eight years.

27:36 ↗ And so by the with the purchase of that,

27:38 ↗ they're being reimbursed for the upfront

27:40 ↗ working capital they've invested in the

27:42 ↗ development of the site, but it is not

27:44 ↗ paying for the market rate portion is

27:46 ↗ not subsidizing the vertical

27:48 ↗ construction of the KCHA affordable

27:50 ↗ units.

27:51 ↗ >> Can I just clarify on that? The market

27:55 ↗ rate side is as a project disconnected

27:59 ↗ from this, right? like it it could get

28:01 ↗ built in 24 months or 60 months or

28:05 ↗ whenever, right? Like it is not the the

28:07 ↗ development of the uh workforce housing

28:10 ↗ site is not dependent on the progress of

28:13 ↗ the market rate side, right?

28:16 ↗ >> The the affordable portion can move

28:17 ↗ forward on their own timeline. They are

28:19 ↗ not uh dependent on the the market rate

28:21 ↗ portion to advance. Uh however, there is

28:24 ↗ something in the permitting that has

28:26 ↗ vested the whole of the site. uh and I I

28:29 ↗ don't have all the details related to

28:30 ↗ that. So they are related in the

28:32 ↗ permitting but I uh the housing

28:33 ↗ authority portion now has the

28:35 ↗ entitlements they need to proceed on

28:37 ↗ their schedule and the market rate

28:39 ↗ portion uh can proceed on their schedule

28:42 ↗ and and I understand there is a a

28:43 ↗ partnership in the works uh to make sure

28:46 ↗ there's coordination and uh no conflicts

28:48 ↗ in the construction um time period but

28:50 ↗ we just have less uh insight into that

28:52 ↗ market rate developers uh schedule and

28:54 ↗ permitting status.

28:55 ↗ >> Sure. I just wanted to inject that into

28:57 ↗ the conversation you were having with

28:58 ↗ Congress with council member Nichols

29:00 ↗ about the financing that there there's

29:03 ↗ nothing on the affordable side that is

29:05 ↗ dependent on the timing of the market

29:08 ↗ rate side.

29:10 ↗ >> Yeah, that was that was helpful because

29:11 ↗ I was wondering if it's if it's going to

29:13 ↗ effectively need it. Um okay, last

29:16 ↗ question. This is mainly just for my own

29:18 ↗ education, but um you've got um so for

29:22 ↗ the for the TD there's a loan and Leo's

29:25 ↗ structures a grant. How do you decide

29:27 ↗ whether it's a grants or a loan?

29:30 ↗ >> Yeah, we look at the ability of the

29:32 ↗ projects uh operating perform to repay

29:36 ↗ the loans. Obviously, we like to uh as a

29:39 ↗ city support affordable housing and when

29:41 ↗ we can get the funds repaid uh because

29:44 ↗ the the uh Leo development is serving

29:47 ↗ households at the 30% area median income

29:49 ↗ level, the rents and the operating

29:52 ↗ subsidy that they're they're collecting

29:54 ↗ from that is enough to cover the

29:56 ↗ operating costs but not to service any

29:58 ↗ debt. And that's why they do need uh

29:59 ↗ capital grants from all the public

30:01 ↗ funders in order to create these units.

30:03 ↗ Whereas the uh rents that are collected

30:06 ↗ at the 40 and mostly 60% AMI level for

30:09 ↗ the King County Housing Authority does

30:10 ↗ allow them to generate enough revenue to

30:13 ↗ service uh tax exempt bond uh that's

30:16 ↗ covering a large portion of the project.

30:18 ↗ And then as the rents do escalate over

30:22 ↗ uh over 15, 20, 30, 50 years, which will

30:25 ↗ be the term of our loan, they will have

30:26 ↗ more ability to have cash flow to

30:28 ↗ service that debt. um which is a typical

30:31 ↗ financing tool used by housing

30:32 ↗ authorities and that's a typical loan

30:34 ↗ that ARCH administers uh with Isaqua and

30:37 ↗ all the other Arch member cities um

30:39 ↗ housing trust fund investments.

30:42 ↗ >> Okay. Yeah. Uh thank you. Appreciate

30:44 ↗ that. And uh that's all for me.

30:48 ↗ >> All right. I've already [clears throat]

30:49 ↗ asked my questions because I did not

30:51 ↗ wait until the end. Uh so we have four

30:55 ↗ questions in front of us as a group. Um,

30:58 ↗ if you are comfortable, council member

31:00 ↗ Nichols, we can just address all four if

31:02 ↗ you want to give me your thoughts on all

31:03 ↗ four right now. I don't think we have to

31:04 ↗ go item by item on this unless you want

31:06 ↗ to.

31:08 ↗ >> I think I have to go item by item.

31:10 ↗ >> Okay. Well, item one is, does the

31:12 ↗ committee have any questions or input on

31:14 ↗ the administration's recommendation to

31:16 ↗ fund $383,000 to Leo Condominiums at

31:18 ↗ Trail Head Project and 1.5 million to

31:20 ↗ the KCHA Trail Head Project for the

31:23 ↗ creation of 163 units of affordable

31:25 ↗ housing.

31:26 ↗ >> I think my This is

31:28 ↗ >> question one.

31:29 ↗ >> No, I do not.

31:31 ↗ >> Nor do I. Do we have any questions or

31:33 ↗ input on the administration's

31:34 ↗ recommendation not to fund the park by

31:36 ↗ vintage project?

31:38 ↗ >> Yes.

31:38 ↗ >> Okay.

31:39 ↗ >> Um

31:40 ↗ I think my input would be to strongly

31:43 ↗ encourage

31:45 ↗ active collaboration with this uh

31:47 ↗ homebuilder to help derisk the project

31:50 ↗ and make it more viable for the up for

31:52 ↗ the next funding cycle.

31:55 ↗ >> Thank you. I think that's that's a great

31:57 ↗ recommendation. Yes, this fund will

31:59 ↗ continue to provide monies. So, um yeah,

32:03 ↗ I plus I plus one that. Does the

32:06 ↗ committee have any questions or input on

32:07 ↗ the administration's recommendation to

32:08 ↗ authorize ARCH to enter and manage the

32:10 ↗ award contract direction with LEO? Nope.

32:13 ↗ Nor do I. Does the committee request

32:15 ↗ additional information to consider

32:16 ↗ approval at city council on February

32:18 ↗ 23rd?

32:20 ↗ No. I have a question about you. the the

32:24 ↗ administration has a preference for

32:26 ↗ consent agenda. Is that right?

32:28 ↗ >> It was on the consent agenda last year

32:30 ↗ and so

32:31 ↗ >> Oh, well, there we go.

32:33 ↗ I [snorts] I'm okay using the historical

32:36 ↗ precedent, but I'm open to thoughts.

32:41 ↗ Um,

32:43 ↗ yeah, I'm okay with that on the consent

32:44 ↗ agenda. I if some I will the full

32:48 ↗ presentation be included in the consent

32:49 ↗ agenda for anybody who's

32:53 ↗ >> not typically but it can be

32:55 ↗ >> please do because we have a new council

32:56 ↗ member and council member Adair um it

32:59 ↗ would be great to get those materials in

33:01 ↗ front of him. I I mean I'm sure he will

33:03 ↗ pour over this committee's you know

33:04 ↗ video and and watch it and everything

33:06 ↗ but on the odd chance that he doesn't it

33:08 ↗ would be great to have it in the full

33:09 ↗ packet for the 23rd. I mean, if the

33:11 ↗ council chooses, they can pull it from

33:12 ↗ consent agenda the day the day of the

33:14 ↗ meeting. So,

33:14 ↗ >> understood. But it'd be good to have it

33:16 ↗ in there and

33:17 ↗ >> point him to it.

33:17 ↗ >> Yeah. And I'm I'm not expecting this to

33:19 ↗ be contentious. It's more just for

33:21 ↗ information because it's there's there's

33:22 ↗ some useful background, especially for

33:24 ↗ something like park, for example, where

33:26 ↗ I think it might not be as well

33:27 ↗ understood.

33:27 ↗ >> Okay.

33:31 ↗ >> Thank you very much.

33:33 ↗ >> Yes. Thank you. Uh, appreciate it. Uh,

33:38 ↗ Miss Fitzg Mitz, sorry. Mit Miss Fitz

33:41 ↗ Simmons uh for that.

33:43 ↗ >> Yep. Sorry about that. Uh COOM 0206 is

33:47 ↗ next. Oh, I did not. Do we have any

33:49 ↗ members of the public online?

33:51 ↗ >> No, chair, we do not. [snorts]

33:53 ↗ >> I dodged dodged one there. COOM 0206

33:57 ↗ park rules and regulations presented by

33:59 ↗ our own parks director, Jeff Watling.

34:03 ↗ >> Thank you, Deputy Council President

34:05 ↗ Marge. Uh good evening, Council Member

34:07 ↗ Nichols. Uh Jeff Watling here. Uh

34:09 ↗ forgive me as I

34:13 ↗ think I can do it. Let's see how it

34:15 ↗ works.

34:21 ↗ Awesome.

34:28 ↗ Is it sharing?

34:42 ↗ Share

34:48 ↗ again.

35:06 ↗ Shall I sing while I'm doing this?

35:24 ↗ All right. Thank you. And with that,

35:27 ↗ good evening. um here tonight uh to uh

35:32 ↗ really introduce um have an introductory

35:35 ↗ discussion with you all uh both of you

35:37 ↗ around uh the park rules and regulations

35:40 ↗ uh within our Isiqua municipal code the

35:42 ↗ IMC

35:44 ↗ um and the work plan uh somewhat

35:46 ↗ long-awaited work plan uh we have this

35:48 ↗ year of reviewing and updating those

35:50 ↗ rules and regulations.

35:56 ↗ uh some direction needed uh tonight is

35:58 ↗ really your initial thoughts and

36:00 ↗ guidance to help shape this work. Um uh

36:04 ↗ two main areas of guidance that that

36:06 ↗ we're seeking tonight. The first really

36:08 ↗ related to content um are the current um

36:11 ↗ and additional areas topics uh that

36:14 ↗ should be considered

36:18 ↗ are they uh enough or should we be

36:20 ↗ exploring some other areas or topics um

36:23 ↗ along with that content? uh uh would

36:26 ↗ appreciate any feedback or thoughts you

36:27 ↗ have on process and the work that we're

36:30 ↗ going to be doing with the P the park

36:31 ↗ board as well as general public outreach

36:34 ↗ um as we accomplish this work.

36:47 ↗ Did I just freeze?

36:51 ↗ Okay.

36:54 ↗ lag is lag is completed. All right, some

36:56 ↗ background um on this. Uh the park rules

36:59 ↗ that do exist within our IMC um reside

37:02 ↗ within title 9 um of the admissible

37:04 ↗ code. Um you'll notice these in two

37:06 ↗ sections. IMC 9.25 was last updated um

37:10 ↗ in 1985. Uh that was a little while ago.

37:14 ↗ Um u within that code if you look at

37:17 ↗ that uh there are um six rules uh that

37:20 ↗ that are addressed um in there ranging

37:23 ↗ from litter uh to livestock uh to

37:26 ↗ vehicles vandalism and alcohol um um one

37:32 ↗ section down um in IMC 9.26 26 that was

37:35 ↗ last updated in 2000. Uh that includes

37:38 ↗ two park rules uh pertaining to park

37:40 ↗ hours um as well as camping.

37:43 ↗ Um to to speak to the need or the

37:47 ↗ interest we have, this collection of

37:48 ↗ park rules within the IMC is is far from

37:51 ↗ complete. Uh when you look at all of the

37:53 ↗ vast array of uses uh that we're trying

37:55 ↗ to manage within our park system, um not

37:58 ↗ all current or emerging park issues um

38:01 ↗ are really addressed in uh that existing

38:05 ↗ um uh the existing content within those

38:07 ↗ two uh those two areas.

38:10 ↗ The opportunity this provides us is to

38:14 ↗ um really go about creating a more

38:17 ↗ complete set of rules um and be able to

38:21 ↗ have those rules codified um and

38:24 ↗ transparent um and able to support um

38:27 ↗ signage and park rules we have within

38:29 ↗ the parks to making sure we're we're

38:31 ↗ really communicating clearly uh what the

38:33 ↗ expectation is uh for visitors and

38:36 ↗ residents as they use our parks, trails,

38:38 ↗ and open space. Um this work will

38:41 ↗ certainly support in keeping our city

38:43 ↗ parks and trails the welcoming, safe and

38:45 ↗ clean spaces that we um all want them to

38:48 ↗ be.

38:49 ↗ um an opportunity we have to really look

38:51 ↗ ahead uh both addressing current needs

38:54 ↗ but um emerging park uses. Um this work

38:58 ↗ will be done both internally and

38:59 ↗ externally. Uh gives us a real

39:01 ↗ opportunity to collaborate uh not only

39:04 ↗ within park operations and recreation

39:06 ↗ staff but um our human services team

39:08 ↗ within the department. Um clear

39:10 ↗ obviously the police department, city

39:12 ↗ attorney will be very involved in this

39:13 ↗ work um to make sure that we uh draft

39:17 ↗ and bring back to you a more thorough

39:19 ↗ and updated set of of park rules and

39:21 ↗ regulations. Um I would note executive's

39:23 ↗ office will be part of that as well uh

39:26 ↗ with a current vacancy we have within

39:27 ↗ our department. Dale Marky is going

39:29 ↗ to be assisting me uh in this work as

39:32 ↗ well. Uh and then the opportunity we

39:34 ↗ really have externally uh to engage not

39:36 ↗ only with park board with with the

39:38 ↗ public as we develop um uh develop these

39:41 ↗ updated rules um through the upcoming

39:43 ↗ months.

39:46 ↗ Uh these next two slides are not meant

39:48 ↗ to be an all-inclusive list or absolutes

39:50 ↗ that we're going to have, but really

39:52 ↗ just wanted to share with you some

39:53 ↗ examples, some types of park rules that

39:55 ↗ we might want to consider and that we

39:56 ↗ will consider through this work. um uh

39:59 ↗ many of these uh that exist in some of

40:02 ↗ our neighboring cities um in their in

40:04 ↗ their park rules. Um areas of sales of

40:07 ↗ goods and services. This was in include

40:10 ↗ everything from concession air

40:11 ↗ agreements we might have within our

40:12 ↗ parks to food trucks and the allowance

40:15 ↗ of of food trucks. Uh permits um

40:18 ↗ everything from field rentals uh to um

40:21 ↗ community events um offered by you know

40:24 ↗ thirdparty uh partners. um rules around

40:27 ↗ animals and pets. Um a number of rules

40:30 ↗ around motor motor vehicles. Um where

40:33 ↗ parking is allowed, what the speed for

40:34 ↗ motor vehicles are within our parks. Um

40:38 ↗ where they're not allowed and allowed.

40:40 ↗ Um some rules around trail use. Um rules

40:44 ↗ that really support the broad use um and

40:47 ↗ uses we have on our on our many trails.

40:51 ↗ Rules around tents, shelters, and

40:53 ↗ camping. um everything from overnight

40:55 ↗ camping, but also just how tents and

40:57 ↗ shelters can be used uh throughout our

40:59 ↗ parks um on any given day. Uh just

41:02 ↗ making sure that we have um we're we're

41:05 ↗ providing again safe welcoming spaces.

41:07 ↗ Uh swimming and water access where

41:10 ↗ that's allowed and not allowed. Uh

41:12 ↗ litter or waste. um uh remote control

41:16 ↗ models uh things including drones, where

41:18 ↗ is that allowed and not allowed and how

41:20 ↗ are we managing uh those emerging and

41:23 ↗ growing uses. Uh rules around fireworks,

41:26 ↗ firearms weapons

41:28 ↗ some other areas that we really want to

41:31 ↗ consider and look at um amplification of

41:34 ↗ both music and just PA systems in

41:36 ↗ general. um how we're making sure um

41:39 ↗ one's one's use of our park is not

41:41 ↗ infringing on um other groups that are

41:43 ↗ using our parks uh park hours. Um um

41:47 ↗ interference uh with park or trail use

41:50 ↗ um damage uh to property um andor

41:53 ↗ wildlife, building fires, um removal of

41:57 ↗ pro of public property uh within our

42:00 ↗ park system. uh not only littering um um

42:03 ↗ sort of on our properties and on land

42:05 ↗ but also dumping and water. Um some

42:08 ↗ rules around solicitation we want to

42:10 ↗ consider. Um and then lastly rules uh

42:14 ↗ related to tobacco, alcohol and other

42:16 ↗ controlled substances within our parks.

42:19 ↗ Again, not all-incclusive

42:21 ↗ um not absolutes, but um certainly areas

42:24 ↗ that we think transparent um and clear

42:28 ↗ rules um would be really beneficial.

42:34 ↗ So, how do we want to go about this

42:35 ↗ work? Uh some some timing and next

42:37 ↗ steps. Uh these next two months,

42:39 ↗ February and March, uh we'll be digging

42:41 ↗ in a little deeper with the park board.

42:43 ↗ We already introduced this topic to them

42:44 ↗ last year. Um met with park board just

42:47 ↗ last night. um and reminded of them of

42:49 ↗ of of the work that we have coming up

42:52 ↗ these next few months where uh we really

42:54 ↗ want to uh start diving in um doing some

42:57 ↗ public outreach, reviewing other

42:59 ↗ municipal codes for best practices. Um

43:02 ↗ then spend the the following two months

43:03 ↗ in April and May, beginning to draft uh

43:06 ↗ some updated park rules again including

43:08 ↗ some engagement. Um our goal will be um

43:12 ↗ a park board recommendation by the end

43:14 ↗ of May um at their May meeting. Um and

43:16 ↗ then the opportunity to bring those

43:18 ↗ recommended park rules back to you uh

43:21 ↗ services safety and parks committee in

43:23 ↗ June uh for your consideration um and

43:27 ↗ moving those moving those forward.

43:32 ↗ So

43:33 ↗ >> I'm I'm sorry. Director, could you go

43:35 ↗ back for a second?

43:35 ↗ >> You bet.

43:37 ↗ And and then what?

43:40 ↗ >> And then what? So, um with your

43:44 ↗ recommendation, go to full council for

43:46 ↗ adoption um sometime this summer. Um and

43:49 ↗ then um

43:51 ↗ implementing those new rules.

43:54 ↗ >> Gotcha. So, uh so to full council

43:56 ↗ hopefully I mean if we move

43:58 ↗ expeditiously by July before the August

44:02 ↗ uh break.

44:02 ↗ >> Yep. Yep.

44:03 ↗ >> All right. Thank you.

44:07 ↗ Yeah, thanks for that. So, again,

44:08 ↗ >> I think I think Council Member Nichols

44:10 ↗ has a question just on the on the

44:12 ↗ timeline. Um,

44:14 ↗ this looks this looks overall this looks

44:16 ↗ great. Um, I'm glad some of these things

44:17 ↗ are being revisited. Um, timeline looks

44:19 ↗ pretty good and and fast. Um, I just

44:23 ↗ wanted to ask if you're there there is

44:25 ↗ some we're in the middle of a

44:26 ↗ legislative session and there is some

44:27 ↗ state level legislation specifically on

44:29 ↗ campaign. So, HP 2489.

44:32 ↗ Um, I'm not wouldn't want to predict

44:35 ↗ what will happen, but I just wondered if

44:36 ↗ you had taken that into consideration

44:38 ↗ because if that passes, it would likely

44:41 ↗ considerably change the the scope of

44:44 ↗ what could be discussed with regards to

44:46 ↗ camping and I would expect that to be a

44:48 ↗ considerable topic that would warrant a

44:49 ↗ lot of discussion. Um, so given that

44:51 ↗ that's

44:53 ↗ March 12th at the latest and that you're

44:54 ↗ talking about park boards in February

44:56 ↗ and March, um, does that timeline

45:00 ↗ or is that being considered or we just

45:02 ↗ cross that bridge when we come to it?

45:03 ↗ What's what's the thinking?

45:05 ↗ >> No, great great question. Uh, yes, our

45:07 ↗ lobbyists and executive office has has

45:09 ↗ uh made us aware of that. We're tracking

45:11 ↗ that. Um, myself and and the city

45:14 ↗ attorney have provided comment on that.

45:16 ↗ um we'll be prepared um should that um

45:19 ↗ move through um to make sure that our

45:22 ↗ park rules are consistent with with

45:24 ↗ whatever state legislation um comes

45:26 ↗ through. So I think what I what I'm

45:28 ↗ really trying to ask is I I suspect the

45:30 ↗ park board would want to weigh in on

45:32 ↗ that topic. Um and if they're preempted

45:35 ↗ by other legislation, their their uh

45:38 ↗ efforts in weighing in in February may

45:41 ↗ >> No, no. Thank you for that, Council

45:43 ↗ Member Nichols. Park board touch will

45:45 ↗ not just be in February. So even as we

45:47 ↗ go through April and May, park board

45:49 ↗ will be very involved in that. Okay. In

45:52 ↗ that work and then you know what we

45:54 ↗ would ask and really uh how we really

45:57 ↗ appreciate the work of the park board as

45:58 ↗ an advisory group. Um we'll get their

46:01 ↗ recommendation u there in May hopefully

46:04 ↗ before it comes back to you.

46:06 ↗ >> Okay. So that's okay. Thank you.

46:08 ↗ Appreciate that.

46:12 ↗ So again, um any direction or feedback

46:15 ↗ you can have in helping us shape this

46:17 ↗ work uh both related to content um you

46:20 ↗ know in regards to any current or

46:22 ↗ additional um areas or topics uh you'd

46:26 ↗ like us to address or play pay close

46:28 ↗ attention to and then lastly any

46:30 ↗ feedback on process which you already

46:32 ↗ gave us some. So thanks so much.

46:38 ↗ Other questions before we move to the

46:42 ↗ deliberative phase?

46:43 ↗ >> Uh, no further questions? No. Now I will

46:46 ↗ ask the clerk if there is anyone online

46:49 ↗ uh much less anyone online interested

46:51 ↗ potentially interested in providing

46:52 ↗ comment.

46:53 ↗ >> No sir, not at this time.

46:55 ↗ >> Thank you. Okay. So to deliberation

46:59 ↗ member Nichols, do you want to go first

47:00 ↗ or shall I? Um I have

47:06 ↗ around this. So I was having a

47:08 ↗ conversation with somebody the other day

47:10 ↗ and I said that every decision that we

47:13 ↗ make up here on the deis is always find

47:17 ↗ parsing the line between allowing the

47:19 ↗ community to manifest its will and

47:21 ↗ protecting the rights of the individual

47:23 ↗ and parks always winds up right in the

47:26 ↗ middle of that. you know, it's not the

47:28 ↗ classic things that, you know, people

47:30 ↗ tend to yell at each other over the

47:32 ↗ internet, but but they, you know, but

47:34 ↗ these are all very important topics,

47:36 ↗ right? And some of the things that

47:37 ↗ you've brought up are classic examples

47:39 ↗ of that, right? So, um, as we go to

47:44 ↗ deliberate this, um, I I am just going

47:48 ↗ to ask as an advance, I always like to

47:51 ↗ understand what neighboring communities

47:53 ↗ are doing. So I I ask your forbearance

47:56 ↗ that um as you see things that will be

47:59 ↗ potentially I can guarantee you there

48:01 ↗ will be things here that people will get

48:04 ↗ uh will feel strongly about and there

48:06 ↗ may be people who feel strongly that

48:08 ↗ we're making the wrong decision and when

48:10 ↗ that time comes I really want to

48:11 ↗ understand how you know our our peer

48:14 ↗ cities Kirkland Belleview uh Redmond

48:17 ↗ Renton you know Kent how they're all uh

48:21 ↗ addressing these things. So I'm just

48:22 ↗ putting that bug in your ear right now.

48:24 ↗ Um because I you know people people love

48:28 ↗ their parks in Isiqua, right?

48:29 ↗ >> Yep. Yep. Thank you for that.

48:31 ↗ Absolutely. Yeah. That that search for

48:33 ↗ best practices will be really important.

48:36 ↗ Thanks.

48:36 ↗ >> And and important in our if we have to

48:38 ↗ make a tough decision to say, you know,

48:40 ↗ that we understand how it's effectively

48:41 ↗ working or not working in in cities like

48:44 ↗ our own in the region.

48:48 ↗ Um, and then I'm looking forward to, you

48:50 ↗ know, the park board's input. You know,

48:52 ↗ it's a dirty secret that uh or a not so

48:56 ↗ secret that, you know, we take the

48:58 ↗ boards uh and under advisement and then

49:01 ↗ we make the decisions that we make. Um,

49:03 ↗ but I think that more times than not,

49:05 ↗ you know, we are heavily influenced by

49:07 ↗ uh how our boards work. So, I'm I'm

49:09 ↗ eager to see the the work output from

49:11 ↗ the park.

49:12 ↗ >> Great. Council member Nichols,

49:16 ↗ >> I would say one of the things I would

49:18 ↗ particularly like to see from the um

49:20 ↗ park board before they come back to us

49:22 ↗ would be a look at I think all of these

49:25 ↗ topics honestly that they're presented

49:27 ↗ with from an equity perspective. Our

49:29 ↗ parks are are our commons. um there are

49:33 ↗ many different people that they need to

49:35 ↗ serve and I would I would hope that we

49:36 ↗ can have some good deliberation on that

49:39 ↗ and and get some get some feedback uh

49:41 ↗ before it comes back to us. Um as far as

49:44 ↗ the overall topics that are up for

49:45 ↗ discussion themselves, I think that it

49:46 ↗ looks pretty comprehensive. I'm sure

49:48 ↗ that there will be others that will be

49:49 ↗ brought up and they'll be they'll have

49:50 ↗ that opportunity. Um so that's that's my

49:52 ↗ only

49:54 ↗ I suppose deliberative comment on that

49:58 ↗ >> and I will I will add one more shameless

50:00 ↗ self-plug. Um when the city of Snwalami

50:04 ↗ looked at their uh drone policies I

50:07 ↗ actually

50:08 ↗ >> went and worked with them on that

50:10 ↗ personally as as a uh FAA uh US UAS uh

50:16 ↗ license holder. um had had quite a bit

50:19 ↗ of familiarity with what the law says

50:22 ↗ and what's possible and and whatnot. So,

50:24 ↗ uh I I don't you know, I'm not going to

50:27 ↗ go sit on in on a parks board meeting,

50:29 ↗ but I just want to let you know that I I

50:30 ↗ have some experience at that if you ever

50:32 ↗ want to talk about how the the how it

50:35 ↗ works with the FAA and municipalities

50:37 ↗ and and what can and can't be uh done by

50:40 ↗ legislation. There's there's weird

50:42 ↗ combinations of of things.

50:44 ↗ >> That's fantastic. I will take you up on

50:46 ↗ that.

50:47 ↗ Do we have any other feedback on these

50:49 ↗ questions, Council Member Nichols?

50:50 ↗ >> Yeah, otherwise I'm good. Thank you.

50:52 ↗ >> Yeah, thank you for this presentation.

50:54 ↗ Yeah.

50:54 ↗ >> Um I Do you have everything you need

50:56 ↗ from us?

50:57 ↗ >> I do. This is terrific. Thank you. We

50:59 ↗ really look forward to rolling up our

51:00 ↗ sleeves with this work. So, thanks.

51:02 ↗ >> Great. I I'll just point out that the

51:04 ↗ last time that that first um set of

51:07 ↗ ordinances were addressed, I didn't have

51:08 ↗ a driver's license. So,

51:10 ↗ >> Okay. I think I just barely had one. So,

51:13 ↗ thank you.

51:14 ↗ >> All right. Um, thank you, Director

51:16 ↗ Watling. Uh, and the last item we have

51:18 ↗ this evening is COOM02072026

51:21 ↗ arts grant recommendations from uh,

51:24 ↗ presented by Amy Dukes, our arts program

51:26 ↗ administrator.

51:34 ↗ >> Oh my gosh, a tripping hazard for me.

51:40 ↗ >> Okay.

52:10 ↗ Good evening. Um, good evening. Council

52:12 ↗ member Nichols and uh Deputy Council

52:15 ↗ President Marts, thanks for having me.

52:17 ↗ I'm Amy Dukes, the cultural arts manager

52:19 ↗ for the city. Um, and I'm here tonight

52:22 ↗ to present to you the 2026 um, arts

52:25 ↗ grant recommendations straight from the

52:27 ↗ arts commission.

52:33 ↗ So my purpose here tonight is to present

52:36 ↗ the proposed arts grants

52:41 ↗ and the direction we need is just uh

52:43 ↗ your your um direction on the

52:46 ↗ advancement of the awards and allocation

52:48 ↗ for the 2026 arts grants.

52:53 ↗ So I wanted to give a little background

52:55 ↗ about the arts grants program. Um it has

52:59 ↗ some particular goals that I wanted to

53:01 ↗ share. Um the arts grants are intended

53:04 ↗ to provide meaningful arts engagement

53:07 ↗ for all ages and all abilities across

53:09 ↗ our community. Um we also hope that the

53:13 ↗ arts grants will help celebrate our

53:15 ↗ community's cultural diversity um

53:17 ↗ cultivate creative and a vibrant arts

53:20 ↗ community and support local arts and

53:23 ↗ culture organizations and artists. So

53:25 ↗ really um supporting our creative

53:27 ↗ economy and our creative um ecosystem.

53:34 ↗ And we are currently uh making arts

53:38 ↗ grants through two open um programs um

53:42 ↗ which the grant recommendations tonight

53:44 ↗ include both. Um, one is arts

53:47 ↗ partnerships and these are intended to

53:49 ↗ support our uh local nonprofit

53:52 ↗ organizations that are singularly

53:55 ↗ focused on arts and culture um and

53:58 ↗ heritage in our community. They may

54:00 ↗ request up to 10% of their operating

54:02 ↗ budget or um a maximum of $25,000.

54:07 ↗ And then arts projects are intended to

54:09 ↗ support um arts projects and programs

54:12 ↗ that are really to benefit the

54:14 ↗ community. Um, and they can be um

54:17 ↗ delivered by um arts organizations or

54:21 ↗ other organizations that don't have arts

54:23 ↗ as their primary focus, but that um want

54:26 ↗ to use arts as a tool to reach the

54:28 ↗ community. Um, and the max request for

54:31 ↗ those projects is $5,000.

54:37 ↗ So, as the uh applicants are filling out

54:40 ↗ our application and the arts commission

54:42 ↗ is evaluating the applications, they're

54:45 ↗ really focusing on three main criteria.

54:48 ↗ And the first one, um, which is really

54:50 ↗ the most important one and weighted the

54:52 ↗ most heavily is public benefit. Um, so

54:56 ↗ all of the applications really need to

54:59 ↗ demonstrate meaningful efforts to create

55:01 ↗ community participation in arts and

55:03 ↗ culture and to reach diverse audiences.

55:09 ↗ Um, the second criteria is artistic

55:11 ↗ value. Um, and we're um intentional in

55:16 ↗ saying value versus sort of quality. Um,

55:19 ↗ we want the program to be valuable to

55:21 ↗ the community. Um and so it should be

55:23 ↗ wellconceived and it should have art as

55:26 ↗ the primary component and it should

55:29 ↗ really be focusing focusing on creating

55:32 ↗ meaningful engagement.

55:36 ↗ And then the last criteria is

55:38 ↗ feasibility and managerial capacity. So

55:41 ↗ um you know it's not super duper easy to

55:44 ↗ uh contract with the city. So, we want

55:47 ↗ to make sure that um the groups that are

55:50 ↗ receiving grants are able to um contract

55:53 ↗ with the city, provide the materials

55:56 ↗ that we require to do that um and that

55:59 ↗ the budgets that they're um presenting

56:01 ↗ are very realistic and that they have

56:04 ↗ somehow shown that they are getting

56:07 ↗ community support or involvement in the

56:08 ↗ creation of their project.

56:13 ↗ So tonight, the grants um that were

56:15 ↗ included in the exhibit A with the staff

56:18 ↗ memo um show $125,000

56:22 ↗ worth of support for 22 arts and culture

56:25 ↗ projects and five arts partnerships.

56:28 ↗ Again, those are the ones that are

56:30 ↗ general operating support to our

56:31 ↗ cultural organizations. Um and

56:34 ↗ administration is recommending the

56:36 ↗ support of those recommendations as

56:39 ↗ proposed by the arts commission. And

56:41 ↗ then I just wanted to show you sort of

56:42 ↗ the breakdown. The arts commission does

56:44 ↗ consider this as they're um deliberating

56:48 ↗ um how the funding is spread among the

56:50 ↗ different types of arts engagement. So

56:53 ↗ you can see it's um pretty well

56:57 ↗ delivered across many different ways of

57:00 ↗ participating in arts and culture.

57:03 ↗ >> Miss Duke, can I ask a question? Um that

57:06 ↗ 125, how did we arrive at 125 and what

57:08 ↗ did we do last year? So last year we

57:11 ↗ also um allocated 125,000. Um we arrived

57:16 ↗ at that number um partially because the

57:20 ↗ um admissions tax, which is what funds

57:22 ↗ the municipal arts fund, um has been

57:24 ↗ receiving about $200,000 worth of um

57:28 ↗ funding in the last couple of years. Um

57:30 ↗ especially a reduced amount since um we

57:34 ↗ went through the pandemic. And um we

57:37 ↗ still want to be able to support our

57:38 ↗ public art projects and um other

57:42 ↗ activities that the arts program does

57:44 ↗ like uh run the creative district. So

57:46 ↗ it's it was a large enough number that

57:49 ↗ we felt like could be supportive with

57:50 ↗ this program, but I will note it is

57:53 ↗ $50,000 less than we um provided in

57:56 ↗ 2024.

57:58 ↗ Um and it is even more less than we did

58:02 ↗ pre- pandemic. So, this funding program

58:05 ↗ has taken a pretty large um um reduction

58:10 ↗ and we're just working our way through

58:12 ↗ it. [laughter]

58:14 ↗ Um fortunately, we do have additional

58:17 ↗ funding for arts and culture

58:18 ↗ organizations coming through at the

58:20 ↗ county level um through the doors open

58:22 ↗ legislation.

58:23 ↗ So, that has helped to some degree. It

58:27 ↗ certainly helped some of our uh local

58:29 ↗ groups, but it there are still groups

58:32 ↗ that are not eligible for those funds.

58:35 ↗ So, um yeah, just something to consider.

58:38 ↗ Thank you for asking.

58:39 ↗ >> Thanks for that explanation.

58:41 ↗ >> So, the 2026 arts grant u funding

58:44 ↗ recommendations to to be more a bit more

58:47 ↗ detailed. These are the uh the five that

58:50 ↗ are recommended for arts partnerships.

58:53 ↗ Um village theater, literary nights. Um,

58:55 ↗ I do want to call out Literary Nights.

58:57 ↗ It was a a program that was initially a

58:59 ↗ project and uh morphed into um a

59:04 ↗ partnership support um recommendation

59:07 ↗ and it actually is something where a

59:09 ↗ group of artists uh worked over a couple

59:12 ↗ of years to form a nonprofit. Um they've

59:14 ↗ received significant um for culture

59:17 ↗ funding um just this past year. And so

59:20 ↗ it this a nice success story of

59:22 ↗ something that kind of um germinated

59:24 ↗ from our arts project um support culture

59:28 ↗ tug also a brand new uh arts

59:30 ↗ organization and then the history

59:32 ↗ museums and master course east side

59:36 ↗ and then the uh project grants

59:40 ↗ lots of things there that hopefully

59:42 ↗ you're familiar with um as well as some

59:45 ↗ new um some new projects and we did

59:48 ↗ receive receive about 20% of the

59:51 ↗ applications were brand new to us. Um

59:54 ↗ there were many more that we wanted to

59:56 ↗ fund that we were not able to fund um

1:00:00 ↗ just simply because of that delta

1:00:02 ↗ between available funds and the um

1:00:05 ↗ amount requested.

1:00:07 ↗ >> Can you talk about the village theater

1:00:09 ↗ and uh that grant recommendation is I

1:00:13 ↗ think lower than I've ever seen for the

1:00:15 ↗ village theater. it it is um so uh last

1:00:18 ↗ year village theater received 22,500

1:00:22 ↗ or 750,000

1:00:24 ↗ um so this is um a reduction from that

1:00:27 ↗ um and at one time they were receiving

1:00:30 ↗ over $50,000 a year from um from the

1:00:34 ↗ city of Isiqua uh they do receive eltac

1:00:37 ↗ funding so they are getting additional

1:00:38 ↗ funds from the city um one of the

1:00:42 ↗ reasons and everyone had a lot of uh

1:00:44 ↗ deliberation about this and kind of

1:00:46 ↗ heartburn over it because they are such

1:00:48 ↗ an important cultural anchor for the

1:00:50 ↗ city and such an important part of our

1:00:52 ↗ creative district. Um, you know, they're

1:00:54 ↗ our largest arts and culture um employer

1:00:57 ↗ in the city, but um they are also

1:01:01 ↗ benefiting greatly from the doors open

1:01:03 ↗ funding. So um that's general operating

1:01:06 ↗ support and they have a very large

1:01:09 ↗ budget and that money is based on

1:01:11 ↗ budget. So, they are receiving hundreds

1:01:13 ↗ of thousands of dollars from the county

1:01:15 ↗ um through that program and um the

1:01:18 ↗ commission just felt like given the

1:01:19 ↗ trade-offs of funding more small

1:01:21 ↗ projects and hopefully incubating more

1:01:24 ↗ groups um it was worth it and that they

1:01:26 ↗ would understand. So, um it's hard hard

1:01:30 ↗ decisions. Um and so,

1:01:32 ↗ >> may I ask how much you get from Eltech?

1:01:35 ↗ >> You know, I don't know off the top of my

1:01:37 ↗ head, but I want to say it's like half a

1:01:39 ↗ million dollars and more. Okay.

1:01:42 ↗ >> Oh, from Oh, I'm sorry. From LTAC. I was

1:01:44 ↗ thinking doors open. You know, that's a

1:01:46 ↗ great question. I don't know the answer

1:01:47 ↗ to that. I think the maximum grants from

1:01:50 ↗ Eltech are

1:01:52 ↗ are they 25 or 15? So, they I think they

1:01:55 ↗ get one of the maximum grant amounts.

1:01:59 ↗ >> I'm happy to get that information to

1:02:01 ↗ you.

1:02:01 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean, I'm still I I realize this

1:02:04 ↗ is a literally a drop in the bucket of

1:02:06 ↗ their overall budget, but it's more

1:02:08 ↗ just, you know, we are incredibly lucky

1:02:11 ↗ to have them, as you say, an anchor in

1:02:14 ↗ the arts community locally. And there's,

1:02:16 ↗ you know, there's a hundred cities that

1:02:18 ↗ would give their eye teeth to have Yes.

1:02:20 ↗ >> You know, the Village Theater. So, I

1:02:21 ↗ always view this as a, you know, a

1:02:24 ↗ recommmitment of our, you know, uh, of

1:02:27 ↗ our engagement with them. And so it it

1:02:29 ↗ concerns me to keep dropping that number

1:02:32 ↗ down.

1:02:32 ↗ >> Yeah. And I I think again the the

1:02:35 ↗ conversation around this with the arts

1:02:36 ↗ commission was very robust this year and

1:02:38 ↗ there was a lot of concern and probably

1:02:41 ↗ this was one of the few that there was

1:02:44 ↗ um conflict over you know the decision.

1:02:47 ↗ So um yeah it was just a really tough

1:02:51 ↗ >> but I I assume you gave the the

1:02:53 ↗ commission a ceiling of 125 right?

1:02:56 ↗ >> Correct. But we as a council writing

1:02:58 ↗ checks and whatnot do not have that same

1:03:00 ↗ requirement, right? Like we could

1:03:03 ↗ >> if we wanted to.

1:03:04 ↗ >> That is correct.

1:03:05 ↗ >> Spend more than that. Okay. Thank you.

1:03:08 ↗ >> Um and then I can just go to

1:03:16 ↗ timeline.

1:03:18 ↗ Um so just to give you an idea of how we

1:03:22 ↗ arrived here, um the application was

1:03:24 ↗ released in September. Um and the

1:03:27 ↗ applications were due October 30th. Um

1:03:30 ↗ the arts commission because of the sort

1:03:32 ↗ of challenging decisionmaking decided to

1:03:35 ↗ take uh three instead of two meetings of

1:03:38 ↗ theirs to talk through um the

1:03:40 ↗ recommendations. And so they did review

1:03:43 ↗ in November, December, and January at

1:03:45 ↗ their meetings. Um then we're here this

1:03:47 ↗ evening um to provide those

1:03:49 ↗ recommendations to you. um hopeful to be

1:03:52 ↗ on an agenda in February to have them um

1:03:56 ↗ move forward and then uh we would

1:03:58 ↗ immediately start contracting. Um all

1:04:01 ↗ funded or uh projects, programs,

1:04:04 ↗ organizations get a site visit. Um and

1:04:08 ↗ also we collect a good amount of data.

1:04:10 ↗ Uh we ask organizations up front how

1:04:12 ↗ they conduct an evaluation um to show

1:04:16 ↗ success and then we um collect that

1:04:18 ↗ information from them.

1:04:22 ↗ So again, the direction that we're

1:04:24 ↗ seeking tonight is um for you to let us

1:04:27 ↗ know how to move forward on the award

1:04:29 ↗ and allocation of the 2026 arts grants.

1:04:33 ↗ And I'm happy to take additional

1:04:34 ↗ questions.

1:04:35 ↗ >> Council member Nichols, you look poised

1:04:37 ↗ with a question.

1:04:38 ↗ >> I'm ready. Yeah. Um and just

1:04:42 ↗ process-wise, help me. So we'll have a

1:04:43 ↗ deliberative phase after this for

1:04:46 ↗ >> correct. We are not at the deliberative

1:04:48 ↗ phase yet. I'd salute the question.

1:04:50 ↗ >> All right. Thank you. Um I have so first

1:04:53 ↗ question is if it would be possible to

1:04:56 ↗ when this is brought back to council and

1:04:58 ↗ as a as an ongoing practice um provide

1:05:02 ↗ the actual grants themselves unless

1:05:04 ↗ there's confidential information on

1:05:07 ↗ salaries or something. I don't know what

1:05:08 ↗ would be in there. Uh and two reasons

1:05:10 ↗ for that. One is um I think it's good to

1:05:13 ↗ be able to dig into the details if we

1:05:14 ↗ want to. And secondly, um, from the

1:05:17 ↗ perspective of someone who's written

1:05:18 ↗ many grants myself, uh, it's good to be

1:05:21 ↗ able to see examples of what gets funded

1:05:23 ↗ and what doesn't and have some good

1:05:25 ↗ examples to help you when you're

1:05:28 ↗ applying to see what types of things the

1:05:31 ↗ city likes to see funded and how it

1:05:33 ↗ likes that information, even just

1:05:34 ↗ structurally how to present these

1:05:35 ↗ things. I think that would be very

1:05:36 ↗ helpful to future applicants. Um, so is

1:05:39 ↗ is that broadly possible? I I appreciate

1:05:42 ↗ there's there's details, but

1:05:44 ↗ >> absolutely um in past years we have

1:05:46 ↗ included all of the grants with the

1:05:48 ↗ packet. Um each grant we had 38 this

1:05:52 ↗ year and each grant is five or six pages

1:05:55 ↗ long. So um just for

1:05:59 ↗ keeping the packet manageable, we didn't

1:06:02 ↗ include them. But I do get requests from

1:06:05 ↗ organizations. I also uh you know do

1:06:08 ↗ make phone calls to all the

1:06:10 ↗ organizations that are not funded to

1:06:12 ↗ have conversations and I do often

1:06:14 ↗ provide they are often seeking an

1:06:16 ↗ example of a of a successful application

1:06:19 ↗ that they might learn from. So we

1:06:21 ↗ provide all of that but happy to include

1:06:23 ↗ it. Um

1:06:24 ↗ >> great yeah I think it would be nice.

1:06:26 ↗ Disk space is cheap so um I don't think

1:06:29 ↗ anybody's printing these things anymore.

1:06:30 ↗ >> Um

1:06:31 ↗ >> true. Uh second is second question is

1:06:34 ↗ possibly related to that but um one of

1:06:36 ↗ the things I noticed is I I think that

1:06:39 ↗ there were no individual artists that

1:06:41 ↗ were funded. Um I believe those are the

1:06:44 ↗ individual artists can apply. It's a

1:06:46 ↗ little hard to tell from the list but I

1:06:47 ↗ think that's the case. So, I just wanted

1:06:49 ↗ to know is when you were reviewing

1:06:52 ↗ these, did you see any were there any

1:06:55 ↗ any structural issues as far as how the

1:06:57 ↗ the process was conducted that might

1:06:59 ↗ have precluded or made it more difficult

1:07:02 ↗ for individual artists to um

1:07:07 ↗ succeed, I suppose. Um, and is this a is

1:07:10 ↗ this a trend? Um, has this been the case

1:07:13 ↗ in in previous years as well? Um, or if

1:07:15 ↗ it it certainly could be a one-off, I

1:07:17 ↗ don't know.

1:07:18 ↗ Um yeah, it is actually a bit of a

1:07:20 ↗ one-off. We typically do support two or

1:07:23 ↗ three individual artist projects a year.

1:07:26 ↗ So um you know I think it's just the

1:07:30 ↗ particular group that we had this year.

1:07:33 ↗ Um and sometimes the organizations

1:07:36 ↗ [clears throat] are not actually

1:07:37 ↗ organizations. They are individual

1:07:39 ↗ artists doing work as something. So, um,

1:07:43 ↗ for instance, the youth art fair is not

1:07:46 ↗ an individual artist, but it is a youth

1:07:48 ↗ art team. So, those are all individual

1:07:51 ↗ artists that there's three or four of

1:07:53 ↗ them that are working together. Um, so

1:07:55 ↗ sometimes it's also hard to tell what is

1:07:58 ↗ an artist, artist team versus an

1:08:00 ↗ organization.

1:08:02 ↗ >> Okay, understood. Okay. Um, that's all

1:08:05 ↗ for my questions.

1:08:06 ↗ >> Great. Thank you.

1:08:09 ↗ >> I don't have any other questions. So

1:08:12 ↗ once again for third and uh third time's

1:08:14 ↗ a charm. Do we have any members of the

1:08:16 ↗ public online?

1:08:18 ↗ >> No, we do not.

1:08:19 ↗ >> All right, we can move to deliberation.

1:08:22 ↗ >> Council member Nichols.

1:08:24 ↗ Yeah, I I may need some help from a

1:08:26 ↗ process side of this, but um

1:08:30 ↗ I think it would be nice to see some

1:08:32 ↗ options presented to council that are at

1:08:35 ↗ slightly different budget levels um to

1:08:39 ↗ uh deput council me president Marks

1:08:40 ↗ Martz's um comments that uh you likely

1:08:44 ↗ wanted them with a a ceiling that seems

1:08:47 ↗ quite reasonable and probably the best

1:08:48 ↗ way to approach this. I suspect that

1:08:50 ↗ there were some runners up. It would be

1:08:52 ↗ nice to know who those are and what the

1:08:56 ↗ second set of uh proposals may be. Um

1:09:03 ↗ again, I may need help on the process

1:09:04 ↗ side of things with how how that

1:09:05 ↗ actually would how we would go about

1:09:07 ↗ that. But that's a that's something that

1:09:09 ↗ I would I think would be useful to see.

1:09:12 ↗ Um and I'm coming at that from the angle

1:09:15 ↗ that I I'm I'm concerned that our arts

1:09:19 ↗ funding is decreasing over time. I don't

1:09:21 ↗ really I I see these as

1:09:24 ↗ crit I mean many of these even you know

1:09:26 ↗ delve into human services frankly too

1:09:27 ↗ like there's there's crossover at some

1:09:29 ↗ point

1:09:29 ↗ >> absolutely and uh

1:09:33 ↗ >> I would hope that we can be deliberate

1:09:35 ↗ about that if we have to um and not

1:09:38 ↗ accidentally slide into that because of

1:09:40 ↗ previous budget decisions that were

1:09:41 ↗ made. And and if if I may just add to

1:09:45 ↗ that, um so uh we're just at this point

1:09:48 ↗ with the arts program trying to live

1:09:50 ↗ within our means. Um so um knowing that

1:09:54 ↗ our funding source is the municipal um

1:09:57 ↗ art the admissions tax that comes into

1:09:58 ↗ the municipal arts fund, we're um that

1:10:01 ↗ is our primary source of funding. um we

1:10:04 ↗ do seek additional grants um and we do

1:10:08 ↗ receive some but often they are for

1:10:10 ↗ specific things like the creative

1:10:12 ↗ district or doing um a recent example

1:10:14 ↗ would be doing the public art in the

1:10:16 ↗ plazas at the senior center and

1:10:18 ↗ pedestrian park. Um, so grants, you

1:10:20 ↗ know, are challenging to just put into

1:10:22 ↗ our sort of um operating um budget, but

1:10:26 ↗ uh we've been trying to live within our

1:10:28 ↗ means and unfortunately our revenue

1:10:30 ↗ stream is just decreased because of

1:10:33 ↗ movie attendance. Um people just don't

1:10:36 ↗ go to the movie as frequently as they

1:10:38 ↗ used to. Um so we are hopeful that we

1:10:41 ↗ can continue to find additional revenue

1:10:44 ↗ streams and um Jeff and I have been

1:10:47 ↗ exploring some other options. Um, but I

1:10:50 ↗ think we're kind of in a challenging

1:10:53 ↗ budget cycle right now and that's really

1:10:55 ↗ just kind of where we are. Um, prior um

1:10:59 ↗ to 2025,

1:11:01 ↗ the council did give additional gen um

1:11:05 ↗ general fund dollars to the arts fund uh

1:11:07 ↗ to help kind of boost the ability of us

1:11:11 ↗ to do programming and granting. But

1:11:13 ↗ right now, we're in just kind of an

1:11:15 ↗ austere moment.

1:11:17 ↗ >> Yeah. And I I respect that. Um I think

1:11:20 ↗ it my preference would be to have some

1:11:24 ↗ options presented based on your best um

1:11:30 ↗ best assessment of what would be the

1:11:32 ↗ next tier. Um and if possible some

1:11:36 ↗ options to fund that general fund or

1:11:38 ↗ otherwise. Um I would I would hate to

1:11:41 ↗ see a decline in movie revenues be

1:11:44 ↗ what kills art funding in the city. like

1:11:46 ↗ we we we may just need to think

1:11:48 ↗ creatively of other sources um and bring

1:11:51 ↗ that up for discussion.

1:11:55 ↗ >> Yeah, I mean I think I think that's a

1:11:57 ↗ very good point. Um I'm still struggling

1:11:59 ↗ a little bit to understand what the

1:12:02 ↗ total amount of revenue is into this

1:12:04 ↗ fund and its relationship.

1:12:08 ↗ You said that the difference between the

1:12:10 ↗ total amount in the fund and 125 is what

1:12:12 ↗ we want to spend on specific individual

1:12:14 ↗ art. Is that right? um on public art.

1:12:18 ↗ So, um for instance, we just wrapped

1:12:21 ↗ more utility boxes that has a cost. Um

1:12:24 ↗ and then we're planning to do a couple

1:12:27 ↗ of murals um this year. So, it's sort of

1:12:30 ↗ a balance. The program has um a a public

1:12:33 ↗ art portfolio. We also have to maintain

1:12:36 ↗ and repair public art as the year goes

1:12:38 ↗ along. Um so the budget is divided

1:12:42 ↗ between the public art piece and this

1:12:44 ↗ granting as well as um programming that

1:12:47 ↗ the arts commission does like the chalk

1:12:49 ↗ art festival in the summer. Um so it's

1:12:51 ↗ just sort of balancing those other

1:12:53 ↗ items.

1:12:54 ↗ >> Got it.

1:12:56 ↗ So [clears throat] this might be a good

1:12:57 ↗ topic to bring up at oh I don't know a

1:12:59 ↗ leadership retreat um as to the overall

1:13:02 ↗ health of our arts funding.

1:13:04 ↗ >> Agreed. Yeah. Thank you.

1:13:06 ↗ And and you're telling me basically that

1:13:08 ↗ if if I wanted to give the village

1:13:11 ↗ theater another 10, you'd have to take

1:13:13 ↗ 10 away from

1:13:14 ↗ >> from somewhere else

1:13:15 ↗ >> from some public art.

1:13:16 ↗ >> Yeah. Which that's about the cost of a

1:13:19 ↗ mural, for example.

1:13:20 ↗ >> Got it. Autumn, you look like you have

1:13:22 ↗ something you want to say.

1:13:24 ↗ >> Just seeking clarity if you're looking

1:13:25 ↗ for options that stay within the budget

1:13:28 ↗ of the art fund that was adopted by

1:13:30 ↗ council or

1:13:36 ↗ I don't think I necessarily am.

1:13:38 ↗ >> Okay.

1:13:40 ↗ >> Now I'm confused because I thought the

1:13:42 ↗ dollar amount was based on what was

1:13:44 ↗ coming in through the uh the tax, but

1:13:49 ↗ now you're saying that this amount came

1:13:50 ↗ out of came from council direction.

1:13:53 ↗ Well, um it is a special fund and so it

1:13:57 ↗ is part of the annual or now by annual

1:14:01 ↗ budget package and we do have to do a

1:14:03 ↗ bit of estimating but the estimating is

1:14:07 ↗ based on um what the emissions tax has

1:14:11 ↗ been trending and it has been pretty

1:14:14 ↗ accurate.

1:14:14 ↗ >> So good faith effort to predict what

1:14:16 ↗ we're going to not because we

1:14:18 ↗ arbitrarily said

1:14:20 ↗ >> 125.

1:14:21 ↗ >> Right. Okay. Right.

1:14:22 ↗ >> It's my understanding too we've reduced

1:14:24 ↗ funding to the arts grants program by

1:14:26 ↗ 60,000 in this current budget. Is that

1:14:29 ↗ correct? Each year

1:14:31 ↗ >> um in 2025

1:14:34 ↗ it was reduced. Yeah. because of those.

1:14:36 ↗ Um so during um during the pandemic and

1:14:40 ↗ prior to the pandemic, the arts program

1:14:42 ↗ had done a pretty good job of of um

1:14:45 ↗ maintaining a a robust fund balance. Um

1:14:49 ↗ which was one of the things that enabled

1:14:51 ↗ us to take part in the Northwest Trolls

1:14:54 ↗ project and actually have a troll. Um

1:14:57 ↗ and so we were keeping kind of a fund

1:14:59 ↗ balance, but then during the pandemic we

1:15:01 ↗ really kind of ate through our our fund

1:15:04 ↗ balance. So now we're just kind of

1:15:06 ↗ living off of our paycheck [laughter]

1:15:09 ↗ and our paycheck has decreased. So

1:15:13 ↗ >> Director Wley,

1:15:15 ↗ >> yeah,

1:15:16 ↗ >> I'm sorry. If I could just add great

1:15:18 ↗ conversation. Thank you so much for the

1:15:20 ↗ questions. I I guess I just would want

1:15:22 ↗ to put a a a finer point on this. Um, as

1:15:27 ↗ arts manager, um, Amy Dukes does an

1:15:30 ↗ amazing job of, um, as we've continued

1:15:34 ↗ to see these diminished revenues. Uh,

1:15:36 ↗ this has been a conversation that she

1:15:38 ↗ and I have had a lot of, um, we've had

1:15:41 ↗ some conversations as we've gone through

1:15:43 ↗ banial budget processes that we really

1:15:46 ↗ are increasingly concerned. Um, reliance

1:15:49 ↗ on one single revenue source that that

1:15:52 ↗ industry has fundamentally changed post

1:15:54 ↗ pandemic. um in terms of admissions tax

1:15:57 ↗ is something that we really um um I

1:16:01 ↗ guess robustly look forward to having a

1:16:03 ↗ conversation to say we we really um

1:16:06 ↗ think finding some alternative funding

1:16:08 ↗ sources and revenue sources to augment

1:16:10 ↗ and add to admissions tax would be

1:16:13 ↗ extremely beneficial. But I guess I'm

1:16:16 ↗ stating a little bit of the obvious

1:16:17 ↗ there. I just want to give a kudos to

1:16:19 ↗ Amy and the work she does with the arts

1:16:20 ↗ commission and knowing as we've had to

1:16:22 ↗ make reductions through some hard budget

1:16:24 ↗ cuts. Still really trying to find smart

1:16:29 ↗ um investments into this community for

1:16:32 ↗ arts even though we've had to do it in

1:16:34 ↗ in a diminished way.

1:16:36 ↗ >> Thanks.

1:16:37 ↗ >> Thank Thank you, Director Wh. And and

1:16:39 ↗ and thank you, Miss Dukes, um as always

1:16:44 ↗ uh for for marshalling this effort. Um,

1:16:47 ↗ I'll I'll [clears throat] just say,

1:16:48 ↗ yeah, I think we need to have um I will

1:16:50 ↗ say for Autumn um and and Jeff's

1:16:53 ↗ benefit, we need to have a conversation

1:16:56 ↗ about this. Um, you know, we we are a

1:16:59 ↗ city. We are not a suburb. We are not a

1:17:03 ↗ place where, you know, people just

1:17:05 ↗ happen to live, right? We're a real

1:17:08 ↗ city. And for me always, our commitment

1:17:12 ↗ to the arts is a big part of what makes

1:17:14 ↗ us a real city. Um and so you know

1:17:20 ↗ [clears throat] seeing these challenges

1:17:21 ↗ really makes me want to have that

1:17:23 ↗ conversation there. Things are tight

1:17:24 ↗ everywhere. Money is tight everywhere.

1:17:26 ↗ But um you know arts are one of those

1:17:29 ↗ areas where a small difference in

1:17:30 ↗ dollars can have a big difference. You

1:17:32 ↗ know it would be horrible to think if we

1:17:35 ↗ had you know two or three or four years

1:17:36 ↗ ago not been able to do the troll

1:17:38 ↗ because of you know a small difference

1:17:41 ↗ in dollars. something that brings so

1:17:43 ↗ much joy to people both in our town and

1:17:45 ↗ outside our town. So, um I, you know,

1:17:48 ↗ hope if as part of a conversation like

1:17:50 ↗ that, we fold in the conversation about

1:17:52 ↗ ELTC and we fold in the conversation

1:17:54 ↗ about the county funding and where

1:17:56 ↗ that's going and are we getting there's

1:17:59 ↗ always the question of are we getting

1:18:00 ↗ our fair share of county funding. Um so,

1:18:03 ↗ uh sounds like there's at least two of

1:18:05 ↗ us that would love to have that

1:18:06 ↗ conversation. Council member Nichols.

1:18:09 ↗ Yeah, and this might be asking for too

1:18:11 ↗ much, but uh even at a high level, it

1:18:13 ↗ would be it would be nice to understand

1:18:17 ↗ some of just roughly impacts of what we

1:18:20 ↗ think some of these funding are from an

1:18:22 ↗ investment perspective, even

1:18:23 ↗ financially. Um I would suspect that the

1:18:25 ↗ money that we spent on the troll for the

1:18:27 ↗ community, um this is a weird sentence

1:18:29 ↗ to say, but um that in terms of tourism

1:18:32 ↗ and additional business generated by

1:18:34 ↗ that, I I mean it's it's a good

1:18:36 ↗ investment, I think. Um, and that's

1:18:39 ↗ that's a a large visible example of a

1:18:43 ↗ single thing, but I think that same uh

1:18:45 ↗ concept likely applies to some of the

1:18:47 ↗ other things that I see that are in this

1:18:48 ↗ grant list. I mean, that are well

1:18:50 ↗ attended public events um that bring

1:18:53 ↗ people to our businesses on Front

1:18:54 ↗ Street. Um, and that likely generate

1:18:56 ↗ quite a bit of economic activity in of

1:18:58 ↗ themselves. Um,

1:19:00 ↗ >> I don't have a clear ask with that

1:19:02 ↗ statement because I don't want to make a

1:19:03 ↗ lot of work on economic analysis, etc.

1:19:05 ↗ But um if there's if there's some way to

1:19:08 ↗ communicate that um that doesn't require

1:19:10 ↗ a ton of

1:19:12 ↗ >> economics basically to to get there, it

1:19:14 ↗ would be nice to know.

1:19:15 ↗ >> I can provide I can provide some data.

1:19:17 ↗ Um we did participate in an economic

1:19:19 ↗ impact uh study for the east side um

1:19:22 ↗ that's just a few years old. So I can

1:19:24 ↗ certainly provide that and the numbers

1:19:26 ↗ are as you would guess quite impressive.

1:19:30 ↗ >> Great. That would be great to include

1:19:31 ↗ when we discuss.

1:19:35 ↗ Great. Uh for the issue at hand right

1:19:38 ↗ now, uh the plan that was presented for

1:19:41 ↗ us, are we uh good to move forward as as

1:19:44 ↗ recommended by the administration?

1:19:45 ↗ >> I am. Yep.

1:19:46 ↗ >> I am as well.

1:19:49 ↗ Autumn, anything else you need from us?

1:19:52 ↗ Do you need a motion? You know, I I I

1:19:54 ↗ also realized um we didn't we didn't go

1:19:57 ↗ we didn't do a motion on the on the

1:19:58 ↗ first measure either.

1:20:01 ↗ >> We have clarity on the first motion.

1:20:02 ↗ Yeah, we're just we're looking for

1:20:04 ↗ guidance. Typically, this is presented

1:20:05 ↗ on consent.

1:20:10 ↗ >> You want you you you want to you want to

1:20:13 ↗ say something in council, don't you?

1:20:14 ↗ >> I don't necessarily want to say

1:20:15 ↗ something, but I I do think it should be

1:20:17 ↗ brought up for discussion that we are

1:20:19 ↗ and that we should be aware. This this

1:20:22 ↗ is the kind of number that I think could

1:20:23 ↗ seem very small in a in a larger budget

1:20:26 ↗ discussion, but when discussed on its

1:20:29 ↗ own, I think the impacts of decreased

1:20:31 ↗ funding could be more visible and I

1:20:33 ↗ suspect alternate opinions may emerge.

1:20:37 ↗ So would it do you want to have a

1:20:39 ↗ discussion in council or do you want to

1:20:40 ↗ have like I can in my report in my

1:20:43 ↗ committee report I can specify um this

1:20:46 ↗ topic and the fact that we asked the

1:20:48 ↗ administration to bring it back at a um

1:20:50 ↗ a more broad conversation at a future

1:20:52 ↗ time or we can have this particular have

1:20:55 ↗ a discussion on this particular item.

1:20:56 ↗ >> Okay. Yeah. Thank you for that

1:20:57 ↗ clarification. I think yeah if if you if

1:20:59 ↗ you bring it up in the report and make

1:21:01 ↗ that clear and then that there will be

1:21:02 ↗ stuff brought back. Yeah, that's fine.

1:21:04 ↗ >> Okay. That's what I'll plan on doing.

1:21:06 ↗ Yeah. Yep.

1:21:07 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:21:08 ↗ >> Thank you. And with that, uh, that was

1:21:11 ↗ the last item on the agenda. Do you have

1:21:13 ↗ anything for good of the order, Council

1:21:15 ↗ Member Nichols? Well done on your first

1:21:17 ↗ committee meeting. Well, you you came

1:21:19 ↗ well prepared and you had lots of

1:21:20 ↗ questions. With that, we are adjourned.

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 (2)

Tola Marts, Acting Chair

Kevin Nichols

Staff (2)

Autumn Monahan, Director of Administrative Services

T. Cassidy Mueller, Deputy City Clerk

Excused

Lindsey Walsh

Recommendations & actions (5)

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

There being no changes, the minutes were unanimously approved as presented.
The Committee recommended this item to be placed on Consent on the February 23, 2026 Council Regular Meeting agenda, adding the full presentation as presented tonight as an exhibit.
The Committee also recommended that staff encourage collaboration with the developer for Parq by Vintage to make their proposal viable for the next IHIP funding cycle.
The Committee recommended that Issaquah's peer cities' rules and code be reviewed and considered during this process, along with a focus on equity.
They also recommended that the agenda bill include all grant applications and more information on the grant evaluation process, along with additional options for Council to consider.