City Council Services, Safety & Parks Committee · Tuesday, February 24, 2026 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

City Council Services, Safety & Parks Committee Regular Meeting, January 27

packet pp.5–6

Topics: ParksPublic Safety

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Presented by: Alexis Fitzsimmons, Economic Development & Housing Manager

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Hazard Mitigation Plan Update COM 0229

60 min · Jared Schneider, Emergency Manager · packet pp.7–518

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends that the Committee recommend adoption of the 2025–2030 City of Issaquah Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex to the full City Council.

2446 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ Welcome everyone. I, Council Member

0:10 ↗ Walsh, call the February 24th, 2026 City

0:14 ↗ Council Services, Safety, and Parks

0:16 ↗ Committee to order. I am joined by

0:18 ↗ Deputy Council President uh Mart, and we

0:22 ↗ have an excused absence for our other

0:23 ↗ member, Council Member Nichols. The next

0:26 ↗ item on the agenda is public comment.

0:29 ↗ And I will just note that there is no

0:31 ↗ one in the room. And I do not believe

0:33 ↗ there is anyone online. So I will just

0:36 ↗ note um if anybody does watch this later

0:40 ↗ and wants to make comments, we always

0:42 ↗ welcome them by emailing uh city

0:45 ↗ councilwa.gov.

0:49 ↗ Uh next item of business, approval of

0:51 ↗ the minutes. The minutes were

0:52 ↗ distributed to the committee in advance.

0:54 ↗ Are there any corrections?

0:57 ↗ >> No.

0:58 ↗ >> Okay. Hearing none. Um the minutes are

1:02 ↗ approved as presented.

1:05 ↗ Okay. We have one item on our agenda

1:09 ↗ tonight and that is COM 0229

1:13 ↗ hazard mitigation plan update presented

1:15 ↗ by Jared Snyder, our emergency manager.

1:19 ↗ Um we are going to have staff

1:20 ↗ presentation, committee Q&A, uh any

1:24 ↗ public comments if there is anyone at

1:25 ↗ that point and then committee

1:27 ↗ deliberation and recommendation.

1:29 ↗ So Jared, we will let you take this one

1:34 ↗ away.

1:37 ↗ Thank you, council members. I'm pulling

1:38 ↗ up my presentation.

1:43 ↗ All right, does that look good?

1:48 ↗ All right.

1:51 ↗ Good casting. Okay.

1:54 ↗ Alrighty. Well, uh, first of all, hello

1:57 ↗ and good evening. Thank you for having

1:59 ↗ me here today. It's always a pleasure to

2:02 ↗ get the opportunity to talk about

2:03 ↗ emergency management and, you know, the

2:05 ↗ programs that we have here at the city.

2:07 ↗ Um, and really drill down deep into uh,

2:10 ↗ one of them today being the hazard

2:12 ↗ mitigation plan update. So the purpose

2:15 ↗ that um I'm before you today is to

2:17 ↗ really talk about a few things. One is

2:19 ↗ to review our draft annex to the uh

2:22 ↗ hazard mitigation plan provide fe to get

2:25 ↗ you all to provide feedback or direction

2:27 ↗ on our hazard mitigation strategies.

2:29 ↗ Help us with prioritizing that is and

2:32 ↗ then uh really recommending that the

2:34 ↗ full city council adopt the annex as

2:36 ↗ part of the King County regional hazard

2:37 ↗ mitigation plan or not of course. And

2:39 ↗ then finally at the end, we're going to

2:41 ↗ have a little bit of uh time to uh have

2:44 ↗ uh guidance and feedback provided on the

2:46 ↗ broader emergency management program. As

2:48 ↗ we heard uh via a council retreat, it

2:50 ↗ was brought up and placed on the uh bike

2:52 ↗ rack of uh ideas, if you will. So kind

2:56 ↗ of an opportunity to talk about what

2:58 ↗ we're planning on and some potential

3:00 ↗ areas for growth in the future.

3:03 ↗ So the direction needed is one recommend

3:06 ↗ changes or adoption of Isqua's hazard

3:08 ↗ mitigation plan annex and then give

3:10 ↗ feedback on the broader emergency

3:12 ↗ management program.

3:15 ↗ So uh let's talk about the first item

3:17 ↗ first um recommend changes or adoption

3:20 ↗ of our hazard mitigation plan.

3:22 ↗ Uh to set the tone and really describe

3:25 ↗ where this plan sits in emergency

3:27 ↗ management in the city. Uh as a

3:30 ↗ reminder, we have three major lines of

3:32 ↗ business, if you will, in emergency

3:34 ↗ management. The first being emergency

3:36 ↗ response, of course. You know, that's

3:37 ↗ really uh the bread and butter of or the

3:40 ↗ core function of what we do, making sure

3:42 ↗ that we respond effectively as a city to

3:45 ↗ emergencies uh and disasters alike. The

3:47 ↗ second is community preparedness. That's

3:49 ↗ making sure our residents are ready for

3:50 ↗ disasters. And then third is risk

3:52 ↗ reduction, and that's reducing our

3:54 ↗ long-term uh vulnerability to hazards.

3:57 ↗ And that's really the core of the plan

4:00 ↗ uh that we're talking about today. It's

4:01 ↗ it's almost like the work plan, if you

4:03 ↗ will. So, it's a very important part of

4:06 ↗ what we do uh in emergency management

4:08 ↗ here in the city. And so, I'm happy,

4:10 ↗ like I said, to take a deep dive into it

4:12 ↗ and kind of explain where we would like

4:13 ↗ to take our risk reduction efforts uh in

4:16 ↗ the city.

4:18 ↗ So, first, let's uh start from the top.

4:20 ↗ What what is hazard mitigation planning?

4:23 ↗ And um one, it's federally required. So,

4:26 ↗ it's a it's a federally required plan um

4:29 ↗ that's designed to reduce our risk

4:31 ↗ through targeted investments in

4:33 ↗ mitigation essentially um efforts that

4:36 ↗ reduce our exposure to our many hazards

4:39 ↗ that we have. So part of it is assessing

4:41 ↗ those hazards, what our risks are and

4:43 ↗ vulnerabilities and then finally you

4:46 ↗ know developing the okay what are we

4:48 ↗ going to do about it now that we have a

4:50 ↗ good uh grasp of what our of what our

4:53 ↗ hazards are and our vulnerabilities. Um

4:56 ↗ it also is an opportunity to engage with

4:57 ↗ stakeholders right individuals and

4:59 ↗ partners that is uh in conversations

5:01 ↗ about uh about resilience about

5:04 ↗ mitigation about our hazards. So, it's

5:06 ↗ uh it's an opportunity there. And then

5:08 ↗ really, like I mentioned, it's kind of

5:10 ↗ our work plan for risk reduction through

5:12 ↗ the next 5 years. It's a 5-year plan.

5:16 ↗ So, um let's talk about where we've been

5:19 ↗ with this planning process and and where

5:22 ↗ we are now. So, uh we have participated

5:25 ↗ in King County's base plan. Um and like

5:29 ↗ I mentioned, this plan is an annex on

5:31 ↗ King County's plan. So, they had it's a

5:33 ↗ regional plan. all jurisdictions within

5:36 ↗ King County um have the opportunity to

5:39 ↗ um annex onto the plan as well as

5:40 ↗ special purpose districts, fire

5:42 ↗ districts and the like. Um many have,

5:46 ↗ many have not. Um we are one that is

5:48 ↗ choosing to annex onto the plan.

5:50 ↗ Typically the jurisdictions that do not

5:52 ↗ annex onto the plan are the larger ones

5:53 ↗ like Seattle and Belleview. But for uh

5:56 ↗ medium to smaller sized jurisdictions,

5:58 ↗ it's uh it's truly the way to go as King

6:00 ↗ County cuts down a lot of the work

6:02 ↗ needed to to do these plans. So it it

6:05 ↗ makes sense. So I was actually part of

6:06 ↗ the steering committee for that uh plan

6:08 ↗ and we as such uh we had good

6:11 ↗ representation and um ability to kind of

6:14 ↗ get our feedback if you will into the

6:16 ↗ plan.

6:17 ↗ The next uh part of the planning process

6:19 ↗ is we convened an internal team um

6:22 ↗ internal of city departments um but also

6:25 ↗ external in a sense working with

6:26 ↗ partners like east side fire and rescue

6:28 ↗ and other community organizations that

6:30 ↗ we work with frequently in emergency

6:31 ↗ management to um document our hazards

6:35 ↗ and understand our risks. Uh the next

6:37 ↗ step was using that same group where we

6:40 ↗ started to strategize okay what are we

6:42 ↗ going to do about those hazards and

6:43 ↗ risks now that we feel like we

6:45 ↗ understand them. Uh after that we

6:47 ↗ drafted the plan of which you have seen.

6:50 ↗ Um King County and Washington state

6:52 ↗ approved our plan. They gave us back

6:54 ↗ feedback. We've since incorporated it.

6:56 ↗ Um and that's also part of the document

6:58 ↗ that you have. And then we're here on

7:00 ↗ the flowchart. So um each hazard

7:03 ↗ mitigation plan needs to be approved by

7:06 ↗ uh by the authoritative body for us

7:08 ↗ being city council. So um once it is

7:12 ↗ approved hopefully by city council then

7:15 ↗ we can move for federal approval where

7:18 ↗ FEMA signs off on our plan and says that

7:20 ↗ yes you have a true hazard mitigation

7:23 ↗ plan.

7:25 ↗ Um, so also just backing up real quick

7:28 ↗ too, I I want to I want to state like

7:30 ↗ this is very important also to not just

7:33 ↗ uh not just to develop these strategies,

7:34 ↗ but it also I I don't know if I

7:36 ↗ mentioned this, but this makes us

7:37 ↗ eligible for federal grants at many

7:40 ↗ different grant rounds and levels. And

7:42 ↗ so it's um it's a mechanism that we do

7:44 ↗ really need in place to really partake

7:47 ↗ in those uh opportunities, those federal

7:49 ↗ funding opportunities.

7:51 ↗ So what you see here is the hazards that

7:54 ↗ we plan for um within the context of our

7:57 ↗ annex. So we have two different

7:59 ↗ categories, natural and human caused. So

8:01 ↗ in natural we have earthquake, severe

8:04 ↗ weather. Severe weather is kind of a

8:05 ↗ catch-all if you will for like

8:07 ↗ snowstorms, bomb cyclones, uh uh things

8:10 ↗ of that nature, events of that nature,

8:13 ↗ landslide, wildfire, flood, and volcano.

8:16 ↗ And you know, you might be thinking, you

8:18 ↗ know, is lava going to impact the city

8:20 ↗ of Visquad? No, it's it's not lava. It's

8:22 ↗ more terra, which is like ash fall from

8:24 ↗ volcanoes is what we're planning for. It

8:26 ↗ can actually be uh quite damaging to

8:28 ↗ things like flat roofs, to mechanical

8:30 ↗ equipment, electrical equipment. Um

8:32 ↗ there is there is hazard associated with

8:35 ↗ it. In terms of human-caused hazards,

8:38 ↗ we're planning for hazardous material

8:39 ↗ releases, um health incidents, which are

8:42 ↗ things like pandemics, terrorism, civil

8:45 ↗ disturbance, a cyber incident, and then

8:48 ↗ finally a dam failure. And uh dam

8:50 ↗ failure might also come as a bit of a

8:51 ↗ surprise. Uh but some of our storm water

8:54 ↗ ponds are actually large enough that

8:56 ↗ when they have full pools, they are

8:58 ↗ considered to be uh dams by Washington

9:01 ↗ State Department of Ecology. And if they

9:03 ↗ fail, there could be uh downstream

9:04 ↗ impacts to residents, businesses, and

9:06 ↗ the community alike.

9:09 ↗ So the next step of the planning process

9:12 ↗ was to take a hard look at our hazards

9:15 ↗ um determine their impacts on our

9:17 ↗ community and then where we were

9:18 ↗ vulnerable. And so that group that I

9:20 ↗ mentioned that was made up of uh many

9:22 ↗ different city departments and partners.

9:25 ↗ Uh this is where things landed in our

9:28 ↗ ranking of things. Wildfire and

9:30 ↗ earthquake were the two hazards that um

9:33 ↗ that we saw that we have the highest

9:35 ↗ risk of of of having impacts really

9:37 ↗ within Isiqua followed by extreme

9:40 ↗ weather, cyber incidents, health and

9:41 ↗ volcano and then the rest you can see as

9:43 ↗ kind of diminishing in there. So that's

9:46 ↗ where staff ranked things.

9:48 ↗ >> Yeah. Question council member M.

9:50 ↗ >> Yeah, I have a question. So I'm used to

9:52 ↗ traditional risk management being

9:54 ↗ severity times likelihood.

9:56 ↗ >> Yes.

9:56 ↗ >> Right. So can you explain I I don't

9:59 ↗ understand exposure and susceptibility.

10:02 ↗ >> Yeah.

10:03 ↗ >> As compared to like I said traditional

10:05 ↗ likelihood.

10:06 ↗ >> Yeah. And so that's um that's great that

10:08 ↗ you brought that up. The risk equation

10:11 ↗ changed a little at the federal uh level

10:13 ↗ recently. And so the likelihood is

10:16 ↗ wrapped up into um vulnerability,

10:18 ↗ susceptibility. Now it's uh just a

10:21 ↗ rebranding if you will to some uh sense

10:23 ↗ of it. But, uh, really what they're

10:25 ↗ getting at too, right, is just like the

10:28 ↗ that, yeah, the likelihood of it, like

10:29 ↗ how what what are the odds that this

10:32 ↗ could happen here. So, that's a great

10:33 ↗ thing to flag.

10:34 ↗ >> Okay. And so these numbers you're

10:36 ↗ showing here, 1.74, 1.9, 2.19, these are

10:40 ↗ the risk numbers where you've multiplied

10:42 ↗ severity times exposure times

10:43 ↗ susceptibility.

10:44 ↗ >> That's right. Yeah. So, um, what we did

10:47 ↗ is we had every single staff member or

10:50 ↗ partner, um, who participated, um, go

10:52 ↗ through a scoring matrix and then we

10:55 ↗ added them all up, um, did these

10:56 ↗ equations and this is, uh, the results

10:58 ↗ of that.

10:59 ↗ >> Got it. Okay,

11:02 ↗ >> thank you.

11:02 ↗ >> Yeah, that that seems like a good

11:04 ↗ methodology.

11:05 ↗ >> Um, I did have actually one question

11:08 ↗ when in the section on wildfire. Are you

11:11 ↗ going to get more into details?

11:12 ↗ >> Yes, I I'll save it. I'll save my

11:14 ↗ question.

11:14 ↗ >> Yeah. Um yeah, we'll uh we'll address

11:17 ↗ kind of our approach to wildfire. We

11:18 ↗ have a mitigation strategy that

11:20 ↗ specifically addresses wildfire and so

11:22 ↗ we can uh cover more of it there.

11:24 ↗ >> I'll hold my question. Thanks.

11:25 ↗ >> Okay, awesome. Thank you.

11:29 ↗ >> Um so a big part of hazard mitigation

11:31 ↗ planning too is we also uh turn these

11:34 ↗ plans out to the community, right? Or or

11:36 ↗ engage with the community and hopes to

11:38 ↗ get uh some feedback on where they see

11:40 ↗ their priorities being, right? So, we uh

11:43 ↗ brought this big posterboard sized uh

11:46 ↗ really dot dot activity out to uh many

11:49 ↗ different community engagements asking

11:51 ↗ individuals or is where where what are

11:54 ↗ you most worried about as an Isqua

11:56 ↗ resident, right? What are what keeps you

11:58 ↗ up at night? And you know, it was

12:00 ↗ actually uh it was kind of twofold,

12:01 ↗ right? As you can see the collection of

12:03 ↗ the data here, right? you see that

12:04 ↗ earthquake, severe weather and wildfire

12:07 ↗ were really what the community was

12:09 ↗ worried about as well as cyber incident

12:10 ↗ which I thought was notable as fourth.

12:13 ↗ Um but it was also served as an

12:15 ↗ icebreaker right for our community to

12:17 ↗ talk about this work more in depth right

12:19 ↗ so it wasn't just a put the dot up on

12:21 ↗ the board right and then all right have

12:23 ↗ a nice day right it really served as an

12:25 ↗ opportunity to talk about um not only

12:27 ↗ like what we're trying to do with hazard

12:29 ↗ mitigation but emergency management in

12:31 ↗ general so uh the feedback that we

12:33 ↗ received I think was it was really

12:34 ↗ interesting and beneficial to our plan

12:36 ↗ formation

12:40 ↗ um I want to dive a little bit deeper

12:42 ↗ into mitigation

12:43 ↗ um in itself like why are mitigation

12:46 ↗ projects actually something that we

12:48 ↗ should be doing in Isqua and really it

12:51 ↗ it's a good investment. So it's been

12:53 ↗ well studied and documented um by FEMA

12:55 ↗ that every dollar invested in mitigation

12:58 ↗ saves $6 in future disaster costs. And

13:01 ↗ so that's a 600% return on investment,

13:04 ↗ right? That's a that's a pretty good

13:05 ↗ number when it comes to uh when it comes

13:08 ↗ to money, right? And so to that effect,

13:11 ↗ um, when we do have disasters, it

13:12 ↗ protects our general fund. It preserves

13:14 ↗ economic activity because we're able to,

13:16 ↗ you know, withstand disasters better. It

13:18 ↗ reduces insurance costs not only for the

13:20 ↗ city, but our residents through part of

13:22 ↗ the community rating system, um, which

13:24 ↗ is really speaking to flood insurance.

13:26 ↗ So, a lot of these actions that we take

13:28 ↗ can actually lower our residents um,

13:30 ↗ flood insurance costs, which is a huge

13:32 ↗ service. Uh, the next is it leverages

13:35 ↗ federal funding. Right? Like I

13:36 ↗ mentioned, there's many grants available

13:39 ↗ uh that we hope to take advantage of and

13:41 ↗ including following this big December

13:43 ↗ storm that we had. Um the initial damage

13:46 ↗ estimates for Washington state are $181

13:48 ↗ million of public infrastructure damage,

13:51 ↗ right? So that's jurisdictional damage.

13:53 ↗ And so what that means is following a

13:56 ↗ presidentially declared disaster,

13:58 ↗ typically 15% of that is made available

14:01 ↗ back to the impacted jurisdictions in

14:04 ↗ the form of grants. In this case, that's

14:06 ↗ $27 million in grants. And so, you know,

14:09 ↗ that's a huge opportunity, right, of

14:12 ↗ federal funding that we would like to

14:14 ↗ take advantage of here in Isiqua. And

14:16 ↗ so, um, that's just one example of a

14:18 ↗ grant round. Uh, the next is it protects

14:21 ↗ vulnerable residents, right? We can

14:22 ↗ invest in projects that specifically

14:24 ↗ protect our most vulnerable. It shortens

14:26 ↗ recovery time. You know, recovery time

14:28 ↗ is so essential for getting life back to

14:31 ↗ normal, businesses, right? continuing

14:33 ↗ business and the like. And uh really it

14:36 ↗ futureproofs our infrastructure too,

14:38 ↗ right? So it's it's an investment in the

14:39 ↗ future, right? Making sure that whenever

14:42 ↗ one of these events happen um we're

14:44 ↗ prepared to we're prepared for it and

14:46 ↗ that we don't have to go back and um

14:49 ↗ rebuild uh to the same extent we would

14:52 ↗ otherwise.

14:54 ↗ So I wanted to highlight just a few

14:55 ↗ examples in Isiqua of mitigation in the

14:58 ↗ past. And so um here's an example of

15:00 ↗ some flood buyouts here. What you see in

15:02 ↗ the red circle is two homes. Um, in the

15:05 ↗ next slide, you'll see that those homes

15:07 ↗ we actually bought out and have since

15:08 ↗ turned into green space. That happens to

15:10 ↗ be where we uh put our sandbag or one of

15:12 ↗ our sandbag filling stations uh

15:14 ↗ currently, right? To make uh available

15:16 ↗ to residents on the east fork that

15:17 ↗ typically flood out. Uh that's one

15:20 ↗ example. Two more here is a solar and

15:23 ↗ storage project at Isqua Center. So

15:26 ↗ recently we received funding through uh

15:28 ↗ Washington State Department of Commerce

15:30 ↗ to put not only solar panels but also a

15:32 ↗ battery system that will last for um

15:36 ↗ quite a while to power that building uh

15:38 ↗ following um following power loss, which

15:41 ↗ is great not only for the building

15:43 ↗ itself and our carbon uh reduction

15:45 ↗ goals, but it also keeps a generator, a

15:47 ↗ portable generator in our suite of

15:49 ↗ assets that we can use to, you know, uh

15:52 ↗ put either different resilience hubs or

15:54 ↗ pump stations or the Right. So there's

15:56 ↗ also trickle down impacts from uh money

15:58 ↗ that we spend in these mitigation

16:00 ↗ projects. Uh the last example I wanted

16:02 ↗ to highlight was Confluence Park and

16:04 ↗ this is a drone footage shot from the

16:06 ↗ December flooding that we have and you

16:07 ↗ know you can kind of see how there is

16:09 ↗ flood spilling into Confluence Park. Uh

16:12 ↗ you can't quite tell from this

16:13 ↗ individual picture but there's uh homes

16:16 ↗ right if you look at the top of the of

16:18 ↗ the picture there right that are that

16:19 ↗ are not flooded out but the park there

16:22 ↗ is behaving exactly how we like it.

16:24 ↗ Right. it's becoming um it has this

16:26 ↗ mitigation impact in our community and

16:29 ↗ um you know relatively low impacts to

16:31 ↗ the park itself but big impacts for the

16:34 ↗ community members that you know could

16:35 ↗ have potentially been flooded out by

16:37 ↗ this event. So those are just a few

16:39 ↗ local examples of some mitigation

16:41 ↗ successes that we've had. Um and I hope

16:44 ↗ that kind of serves as like a as a

16:46 ↗ catalyst, you know, for dreaming, if you

16:48 ↗ will, about what we could do in this

16:50 ↗ city when it comes to risk reduction.

16:53 ↗ So with that, um these are the hazard

16:56 ↗ mitigation strategies that our planning

16:58 ↗ group came up with. And I should note

17:00 ↗ that um FEMA requires that we have a

17:04 ↗ hazard mitigation strategy for each of

17:06 ↗ our hazards identified within our plan.

17:08 ↗ So there are some um that are smaller in

17:12 ↗ nature, right, to kind of tackle or very

17:14 ↗ niche, if you will, to tackle some of

17:15 ↗ these um uh more corner cases u for

17:18 ↗ hazards. Some of them are larger. And I

17:20 ↗ should also say too, right, um at this

17:22 ↗ point, most of these mitigation

17:24 ↗ strategies are they're uh aspirational

17:27 ↗ in a sense, right? We're we're not um we

17:29 ↗ can't commit ourselves to doing all of

17:31 ↗ them right now with our existing level

17:33 ↗ of funding, right? But these are the

17:35 ↗ things that we as um as a group, as a

17:38 ↗ planning group have come up with as

17:41 ↗ potential solutions to our risks uh for

17:44 ↗ these hazards. So, um, spending a little

17:46 ↗ bit of time on them because I would love

17:48 ↗ to hear your feedback on what you see as

17:50 ↗ potential priorities for us to, um,

17:53 ↗ maybe put at the top of the list, if you

17:54 ↗ will, uh, for our staff to start working

17:56 ↗ on or to potentially fund and future

17:59 ↗ budget discussions. I just wanted to

18:01 ↗ provide a brief overview of of all of

18:03 ↗ them. So, uh, the first and foremost is

18:06 ↗ critical infrastructure seismic

18:08 ↗ retrofits. So this is taking a look at

18:10 ↗ our critical infrastructure, evaluating

18:13 ↗ um it under our modern understanding of

18:16 ↗ our seismic threat and then really

18:18 ↗ determining what the best course of

18:19 ↗ action is thereafter. Right? So some

18:22 ↗ infrastructure will be fine, some may

18:24 ↗ need uh a retrofit to actually remain

18:26 ↗ functional following a maximum credible

18:28 ↗ earthquake.

18:29 ↗ The next is special flood hazard area

18:32 ↗ risk reduction. So this is uh this is a

18:34 ↗ complimentary mitigation strategy to uh

18:37 ↗ other plans that we have in the city and

18:39 ↗ a lot of the works that public works

18:40 ↗ does to reduce our um flood risk but

18:43 ↗ really what it's looking at is elevating

18:46 ↗ acquiring and mitigating repetitive loss

18:49 ↗ properties but also upgrading our

18:50 ↗ infrastructure for for flooding. I

18:52 ↗ should also mention too if at any point

18:55 ↗ if you want to drill down deeper into

18:56 ↗ any of these I'm definitely happy to to

18:58 ↗ take a break and stop. So, Council

19:00 ↗ Member Marts, um, this is the wildfire

19:02 ↗ risk reduction implementation strategy.

19:04 ↗ Um, so this strategy, it speaks

19:07 ↗ specifically to really adapting our west

19:10 ↗ of West of the Cascades communities and

19:12 ↗ finding mitigation strategies that work

19:15 ↗ for our community. Right? As as I've

19:17 ↗ come before and talked to council about

19:19 ↗ before, there's a big difference between

19:22 ↗ east of the Cascades and West of the

19:23 ↗ Cascades fire regimes. And so making

19:25 ↗ sure that our strategies that we do do

19:27 ↗ are uh tailored to us here at Nisqua.

19:30 ↗ But it's also implementing our wildfire

19:32 ↗ evacuation time estimate study results.

19:34 ↗ So these uh chiefly the main things

19:37 ↗ called out in the mitigation strategy

19:39 ↗ are our evacuation routes. So doing

19:41 ↗ formal studies on um the viability of

19:44 ↗ the engineering behind them, making sure

19:47 ↗ that uh the roads up in Forest Grim and

19:50 ↗ the Highlands are studied and we can see

19:52 ↗ uh take the next step of implementation

19:54 ↗ in those. And of course based on what we

19:57 ↗ find, right, then that's when we can um

19:59 ↗ work them into a potential capital

20:00 ↗ improvement uh project or or the like.

20:04 ↗ And so this is our big wildfire uh

20:07 ↗ project.

20:08 ↗ >> Yeah.

20:09 ↗ >> Great. What's the timeline?

20:10 ↗ >> Yeah. So, this plan, right, is uh this

20:13 ↗ is, if you will, the work plan, right,

20:15 ↗ of our of our risk reduction efforts.

20:17 ↗ And so, I'm hearing that this is a

20:19 ↗ priority and some communication that

20:21 ↗ you've also sent to me. So, you know,

20:23 ↗ this is if this is the direction that

20:24 ↗ council has, we can we can put this at

20:26 ↗ the top of the list. Now, of course, we

20:28 ↗ don't have um currently funding, right,

20:31 ↗ like set aside for for doing those um

20:34 ↗ formal studies, but yeah,

20:36 ↗ >> to be clear, wildfire and I think

20:38 ↗ earthquake are the two highest in your

20:40 ↗ risk management. So, it's not like

20:42 ↗ council member Mart is asking you to go

20:45 ↗ down a rabbit hole on some project of

20:48 ↗ his, right? These are this is one of the

20:50 ↗ two areas that that your own analysis

20:53 ↗ said we need to be the most pro

20:55 ↗ proactive regarding. Absolutely. Yes.

20:57 ↗ Sorry, I I apologize if I implied that.

21:00 ↗ >> I just wanted to be clear for anybody

21:02 ↗ who might be listening that that it ties

21:04 ↗ back to the slide we talked to a little

21:06 ↗ bit ago where you know civil

21:07 ↗ insurrection and volcanic hazards are

21:10 ↗ nothing compared to earthquake and and

21:13 ↗ wildfire hazards. Those are just a whole

21:16 ↗ different level both of um impact should

21:18 ↗ they happen and likelihood of occurring.

21:21 ↗ >> Yeah, that's that's that's exactly

21:23 ↗ right. and you know and the staff agrees

21:24 ↗ yes to your point with that assessment

21:26 ↗ and so

21:27 ↗ >> so what I'm hearing you say is that um

21:30 ↗ although

21:32 ↗ um you said it was uh FEMA requires that

21:35 ↗ we have plans I guess it doesn't require

21:37 ↗ that we execute those plans

21:38 ↗ >> no and so yeah which is

21:40 ↗ >> that's hilarious

21:41 ↗ >> yeah it is it is right it's it's an

21:43 ↗ interesting um honestly I think it it

21:47 ↗ shows that these plans right in

21:48 ↗ themselves like I said are a little more

21:50 ↗ aspirational but I should say the staff

21:52 ↗ is is quite committed to to mitigating

21:55 ↗ and um this is these efforts I would say

21:59 ↗ uh with that federal big grant funding

22:01 ↗ round that's going to be ma made

22:03 ↗ available right these are the types of

22:04 ↗ opportunities that outside of our

22:06 ↗ existing budget right those are the

22:08 ↗ things that we can try to take advantage

22:10 ↗ of to push the timelines on our regular

22:13 ↗ funding mechanisms to make these things

22:15 ↗ happen faster and so um that's

22:18 ↗ absolutely a priority right wildfire was

22:20 ↗ our number two in that in that risk

22:22 ↗ assessment So that's the type of project

22:24 ↗ that we would like to prioritize moving

22:26 ↗ forward. Now the timeline of course um I

22:29 ↗ didn't answer your question about the

22:30 ↗ timeline only because you know um we

22:33 ↗ don't have a solid one yet for when when

22:36 ↗ we would get those more formal studies

22:37 ↗ done but um working towards that is uh

22:40 ↗ is what I'm hearing and and is one of

22:42 ↗ our priorities. So, so, okay. So, if

22:46 ↗ earthquake and wildfire are the two most

22:49 ↗ serious ones, um, is there a point where

22:53 ↗ and and you're saying that we're not

22:55 ↗ going to we're not going to delve into

22:57 ↗ our what we've outlined for FEMA and

23:00 ↗ until

23:01 ↗ >> or until the council funds that

23:04 ↗ activity? Yeah. Is there a point where

23:05 ↗ we get an alleart list where it says we

23:08 ↗ need $437 for this and we need $827 for

23:13 ↗ that? Yeah. So what our plan is to

23:15 ↗ incorporate these mitigation uh projects

23:17 ↗ into the next CIP budget round. And so

23:21 ↗ um that which is yeah thank which is

23:24 ↗ actually something where it it

23:25 ↗ legitimizes this plan right to your

23:27 ↗ point uh council member Marts of making

23:29 ↗ it less aspirational and more concrete

23:31 ↗ right and then it'll be in the regular

23:34 ↗ uh funding process. Okay. And so if

23:35 ↗ we're serious about these things, we can

23:37 ↗ we can actually take those those normal

23:39 ↗ steps and not have to explore these uh

23:42 ↗ roundabout methods, right, of funding

23:43 ↗ and the like. So yes,

23:46 ↗ >> Jared, so on some of these particularly

23:49 ↗ on the two top priorities, can you talk

23:52 ↗ a little bit more about the individual

23:56 ↗ like implementation plan? So like for

24:00 ↗ the wildfire risk reduction on page 45

24:02 ↗ of the annex, it talks about two-year

24:05 ↗ objectives, five-year objectives, and

24:07 ↗ long-term objectives. I assume that came

24:10 ↗ from staff. Does it connect anything

24:12 ↗ into

24:14 ↗ our existing budget or CIP or is that

24:17 ↗ just kind of the next step that you

24:19 ↗ envision there?

24:20 ↗ >> That that is the next step. So, I am

24:22 ↗ yeah, I'm really hoping that this this

24:25 ↗ plan, right, doesn't become shelf art is

24:27 ↗ a term that we sometimes use with plans,

24:30 ↗ right? I I really want to operationalize

24:32 ↗ it and make it a normal part of the the

24:35 ↗ potential um options that we have to

24:38 ↗ fund. So, yeah, those those two-year and

24:41 ↗ fiveyear plans and long-term objectives,

24:43 ↗ right, or those goals, rather, uh that's

24:45 ↗ part of the standard that King County

24:47 ↗ puts out as like a mitigation annex. So,

24:49 ↗ we have to follow those. But uh this

24:51 ↗ sounds like a good opportunity to just

24:52 ↗ talk about like how we plan to go about

24:56 ↗ uh keeping track of our progress towards

24:58 ↗ these mitigation strategies. And um what

25:00 ↗ it looks like is there's a p point of

25:02 ↗ contact assigned to each of the

25:04 ↗ strategies, right? And um I'll have

25:06 ↗ yearly check-ins with those point of

25:08 ↗ contacts to see progress and many of

25:10 ↗ them happen to be uh projects where I am

25:13 ↗ the lead for as well too. And so um

25:15 ↗ we'll have a uh internal tracking sheet

25:18 ↗ of our progress towards those objectives

25:20 ↗ and um we're happy to share back our

25:22 ↗ progress right as we march towards those

25:25 ↗ goals through the through the life of

25:26 ↗ the plan. So yeah

25:31 ↗ um great. So I'll continue uh to talk

25:34 ↗ about the mitigation strategies or

25:36 ↗ highlight a few more of them but uh the

25:38 ↗ next up is Isqua Police Department civil

25:40 ↗ disorder training. So, uh, this is to

25:42 ↗ really establish standardized and

25:44 ↗ recoccurring training for our, uh,

25:46 ↗ police officers to make sure that they

25:48 ↗ feel confident in, uh, responding to

25:50 ↗ civil disturbances.

25:52 ↗ Next is resilience hub imp

25:54 ↗ implementation. So, um, as you may know,

25:57 ↗ we have resilience hubs uh, scattered

26:00 ↗ throughout the city if we're working on

26:01 ↗ expanding them further. um they're meant

26:03 ↗ to be uh locations where people can go

26:06 ↗ to in any disaster, hoping that the

26:08 ↗ lights are on, a place where people can

26:10 ↗ receive some base level of support,

26:12 ↗ right? And so we are um hoping to expand

26:15 ↗ that network and make those locations

26:17 ↗ even more resilient to disasters, right?

26:20 ↗ So that strategy really speaks to the

26:22 ↗ work that we are partnering with

26:23 ↗ sustainability on to make sure that um

26:25 ↗ they are they are available and that

26:27 ↗ they can be these like um these these

26:30 ↗ cornerstones of resilience in our

26:32 ↗ neighborhoods if you will.

26:34 ↗ Uh a community GIS hazard viewer is uh

26:38 ↗ speaking to the need to really get this

26:40 ↗ information out into the community.

26:42 ↗ Right? You you'll see in the plan that

26:43 ↗ we have these maps of these hazard

26:45 ↗ areas, right? But that's not a very

26:47 ↗ user-friendly way of going about finding

26:49 ↗ information and the potential impacts uh

26:52 ↗ to the community. So we'd like to create

26:54 ↗ a hazard viewer where residents um and

26:58 ↗ businesses and even city folks too,

27:00 ↗ right, can have this one place where we

27:02 ↗ can see hazards and understand uh better

27:05 ↗ understand our risk and incorporate them

27:06 ↗ into our planning.

27:08 ↗ The next is city building, seismic

27:10 ↗ analysis and retrofit. So um we talked

27:12 ↗ about critical infrastructure. This is

27:14 ↗ the city building side of things. And so

27:16 ↗ I should mention that um we've been this

27:19 ↗ is one strategy that we carried over

27:21 ↗ from the last plan. Um we've done some

27:23 ↗ work on it already. We've received

27:25 ↗ funding through two grants to do sizing

27:27 ↗ assessments on some of our buildings

27:28 ↗ being uh city hall, the public works

27:30 ↗ campus, and then the next round that's

27:32 ↗ coming up is um really parks buildings.

27:35 ↗ So community center, senior center, uh

27:37 ↗ Pickering Barn, and the ops building uh

27:40 ↗ that facility shares. And so we've

27:42 ↗ found, you know, over the course of

27:44 ↗ those studies, right, about some of the

27:45 ↗ upgrades we need to make to city hall.

27:47 ↗ And so once um once we get through the

27:50 ↗ rest of these assessments, that'll help

27:51 ↗ us prioritize actually or justify rather

27:54 ↗ going after these bigger, larger seismic

27:56 ↗ retrofit projects um and really taking

27:59 ↗ that those studies to the next level, if

28:00 ↗ you will.

28:02 ↗ City critical infrastructure energy

28:04 ↗ resilience. So this is also a carryover

28:06 ↗ from our last uh plan. And really this

28:09 ↗ just speaks to the need to have

28:10 ↗ resilient power systems at our critical

28:12 ↗ facilities being buildings and

28:14 ↗ infrastructure to make sure that they

28:16 ↗ remain operational. Right? I brought up

28:18 ↗ the senior center with the solar and

28:20 ↗ battery um storage, right? But our goal

28:23 ↗ is to to really have um these key

28:25 ↗ elements of our infrastructure hardened.

28:28 ↗ I mean the bomb cyclone was so revoly,

28:30 ↗ right? And just how strained um we can

28:33 ↗ get right when when we're faced with

28:35 ↗ these long power outages.

28:39 ↗ Uh the next is post wildfire development

28:41 ↗ and high-risisk debris flow zones. So uh

28:44 ↗ this is about updating our land use and

28:46 ↗ development regulations to to really

28:49 ↗ take a hard look at what do we do um

28:52 ↗ with an area after a wildfire has burned

28:55 ↗ uh through it or conversely what happens

28:58 ↗ if a wildfire burns um upstream if you

29:01 ↗ will from a development. And the reason

29:03 ↗ we think about that is um you may have

29:06 ↗ seen or heard some communities in

29:08 ↗ California dealing with um mud flows

29:11 ↗ right post wildfire. And so um even if a

29:14 ↗ community isn't necessarily impacted by

29:16 ↗ the flames um they can be impacted by

29:19 ↗ landslides or landslide like situations

29:22 ↗ following a wildfire. So taking a good

29:24 ↗ hard look at that and making sure that

29:26 ↗ you know we have a plan um when it comes

29:29 ↗ to when it comes to those debris flow uh

29:31 ↗ flow zones.

29:33 ↗ The next is a carryover too. So this is

29:35 ↗ addresses um s and tsunami modeling in

29:38 ↗ lakesamish. And so if you're unfamiliar

29:41 ↗ with a s it's essentially like a bathtub

29:44 ↗ effect of like water moving back and

29:46 ↗ forth. And so um this is a uh this is a

29:50 ↗ strategy to take a harder look at that.

29:52 ↗ It's kind of nested. It's part of

29:53 ↗ earthquake as well too. That's the main

29:54 ↗ instigation instigator um if you will

29:58 ↗ for siches. Um and so we actually

30:01 ↗ historically have engaged UDub trying to

30:04 ↗ study this um as a potential project.

30:07 ↗ There was some initial interest but um

30:09 ↗ we're we're still going to keep we're

30:11 ↗ still going to attempt to study that but

30:13 ↗ it's a little bit in lurch.

30:15 ↗ Enhancing air quality and chemical

30:17 ↗ detection near vulnerable populations.

30:19 ↗ This is our uh hazardous materials

30:21 ↗ release. um mitigation strategy. So

30:24 ↗ deploying detection capabilities near

30:26 ↗ high-risisk corridors and vulnerable

30:27 ↗ populations to enable faster response to

30:29 ↗ hazardous area releases. Um we have

30:31 ↗ transportation corridors, a major one

30:33 ↗ I90 that runs through our community. Um

30:37 ↗ there is a lot of hazardous materials

30:40 ↗ that cross through a Siqua every day.

30:42 ↗ Not to mention we have pipelines and

30:44 ↗ facilities that also house a

30:46 ↗ considerable size of um hazardous

30:47 ↗ materials uh just on the dayto-day.

30:50 ↗ Deputy Council President Martz.

30:52 ↗ >> So,

30:53 ↗ as you're discussing all these things,

30:56 ↗ >> um, these are all things that you could

30:58 ↗ do if we wanted to fund them.

31:00 ↗ >> Correct.

31:00 ↗ >> Right. So, this is all these are all

31:02 ↗ you're you're showing us the menu and

31:04 ↗ you're saying if you want the sea bass,

31:06 ↗ here's how we would prepare the sea

31:07 ↗ bass. Yes. If you want the lobster,

31:09 ↗ here's how we would present prepare the

31:11 ↗ lobster. None of this is necessarily

31:13 ↗ things that you are going to do

31:14 ↗ otherwise.

31:15 ↗ >> Correct. Yeah. And so

31:18 ↗ how do we

31:20 ↗ how do we decide? They all have price

31:23 ↗ tags associated with them and as you've

31:25 ↗ mentioned earlier some of them have

31:27 ↗ higher probability times severity and

31:29 ↗ others have lower probability time

31:31 ↗ severity. You know there was a point in

31:33 ↗ this city where one of your predecessors

31:36 ↗ thought a seash wave um was a was a

31:38 ↗ serious risk because we have the ground

31:40 ↗ fault uh that runs into the city which

31:43 ↗ is capable of producing seash waves. Um

31:45 ↗ clearly you know in the score that has

31:48 ↗ been given in this sewaves are not

31:50 ↗ considered near the top of our risk

31:53 ↗ setup. So how do we how does this work?

31:55 ↗ Like it seems like at some point we have

31:57 ↗ to get

31:58 ↗ >> the menu at some point the waiter asks

32:00 ↗ us what we want to order, right? And we

32:02 ↗ say I want the sea bass and I want the

32:04 ↗ lobster and I want um the uh Caesar

32:09 ↗ salad but only if it comes with the

32:10 ↗ anchovies, right? And so when do we when

32:13 ↗ and how do we do that? Yeah, I I love

32:15 ↗ that analogy. Thank you for that. That

32:17 ↗ really I wish I had said that. Thank

32:19 ↗ you. But um that is so I would say this

32:23 ↗ is maybe your opportunity to hear a

32:25 ↗ little bit more about the menu items if

32:27 ↗ you will under this analogy, right? Um

32:30 ↗ but also uh I would say the budget is a

32:32 ↗ big opportunity to order, right? But

32:35 ↗ two, you know, if directed like I'm

32:38 ↗ hearing some priorities already emerge,

32:40 ↗ right? we um we have some capacity to

32:43 ↗ chase some of these mitigation

32:44 ↗ strategies with things like grant

32:45 ↗ funding, right? And so I am constantly

32:48 ↗ on the lookout for for grant funds and

32:51 ↗ apply frequently um for them, right? I

32:53 ↗ think we've done three three grant

32:56 ↗ applications for a new generator at city

32:59 ↗ hall, right? We've mentioned some of the

33:00 ↗ uh other senior center improvements,

33:03 ↗ these seismic studies, right? So even

33:05 ↗ outside of funding, right? if if you

33:08 ↗ order right uh wildfire risk reduction I

33:11 ↗ I'm going to listen to that I'm going to

33:12 ↗ hear that right and say okay when I'm

33:15 ↗ seeing these grant opportunities you

33:17 ↗ know that's that's the project I'm going

33:18 ↗ to put forward we in theory we could put

33:21 ↗ all these forward in grant rounds right

33:23 ↗ we could we could submit every project

33:25 ↗ that we have in hazard mitigation plan

33:28 ↗ we don't have capacity for that you know

33:30 ↗ in emergency management right with our

33:32 ↗ current with our current um staffing and

33:34 ↗ just resources but you know Um that's an

33:37 ↗ option right we can we can we can

33:39 ↗ develop um whatever one of these we

33:42 ↗ would like to like to try to get right

33:44 ↗ um and and order that if you will so um

33:48 ↗ I should say too priorities can change

33:50 ↗ as well right so this plan is considered

33:53 ↗ a living document right so if there is

33:55 ↗ new mitigation strategies new efforts

33:58 ↗ new critical vulnerabilities that make

34:01 ↗ themsel um aware to us you know like we

34:05 ↗ can change and shift our our priorities

34:07 ↗ in that. So this is one opportunity but

34:09 ↗ um really you know there's many too also

34:12 ↗ I welcome any any feedback or any um

34:15 ↗ direction really at the course of the

34:17 ↗ life of this plan. So,

34:19 ↗ >> so Jared, to build on the lovely

34:21 ↗ analogy, um it sounds like this annex

34:25 ↗ says we are required to put together a

34:28 ↗ menu

34:30 ↗ >> of all of the potential hazards and how

34:33 ↗ we would mitigate them, but it will be

34:36 ↗ up to city council if we adopt this and

34:38 ↗ then at a later date to encourage its

34:42 ↗ inclusion in the CIP to budget for

34:46 ↗ spending on those items and to provide

34:50 ↗ our feedback on what are the most

34:51 ↗ important ones for going after things

34:54 ↗ like grants that will help put those

34:58 ↗ items on our plate.

35:00 ↗ >> Yes.

35:02 ↗ >> Continue. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

35:04 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. And I should say too, right,

35:07 ↗ um this this is kind of a jumping off

35:09 ↗ point if you will too for these

35:11 ↗ projects, right? Like for example, if we

35:13 ↗ do get a grant or um do get funding for

35:16 ↗ one of these projects, you know, part of

35:18 ↗ our regular internal process is to come

35:20 ↗ forward, right, to council to talk about

35:22 ↗ that project, you know, and so um this

35:25 ↗ isn't like uh to your point, Council

35:27 ↗ Member Mart, right, if you if you want

35:28 ↗ the anchovies, right, there will be

35:30 ↗ other opportunities to provide feedback

35:33 ↗ and more direction on each of these

35:35 ↗ individual projects um just through our

35:38 ↗ regular uh mechanisms that we have

35:40 ↗ within the

35:44 ↗ All right. Um, so the next one is, uh,

35:48 ↗ upgrading HVAC and air filtration and

35:50 ↗ resilience hubs. And, um, this is about

35:52 ↗ really improving indoor air quality. So,

35:55 ↗ MV 13 air filtration is the really the

35:58 ↗ level that you want to filter wildfire

36:01 ↗ smoke that makes um, air clean, if you

36:04 ↗ will, that uh, vulnerable populations or

36:06 ↗ even just regular individuals can feel

36:08 ↗ comfortable breathing that air. Uh today

36:10 ↗ right now we actually don't have a

36:12 ↗ facility that has that level of air

36:14 ↗ filtration. Um we're working towards

36:17 ↗ that hopefully on the community center

36:19 ↗ but really you know expanding that level

36:21 ↗ of options for our community members

36:24 ↗ right is um something that we would like

36:25 ↗ to do specifically at our resilience

36:27 ↗ hubs being community facing uh uh

36:30 ↗ locations.

36:32 ↗ Um all right last four. So um create

36:35 ↗ public facing dam failure evacuation and

36:37 ↗ warning materials. So, um, as I

36:40 ↗ mentioned, um, many of our community

36:41 ↗ members may be surprised to hear that we

36:44 ↗ have, uh, dams, if you will, um, within

36:46 ↗ Isiqua that have, uh, that are a risk,

36:49 ↗ right? And so, it's a hazard that we

36:51 ↗ just typically don't think about, talk

36:53 ↗ about, or really, um, socialize, um,

36:57 ↗ that broadly. And so this strategy

36:59 ↗ really speaks to making sure that we

37:02 ↗ have evacuation maps that residents know

37:04 ↗ that they live in these damundation

37:06 ↗ zones and then provide some guidance on

37:07 ↗ what they can do to better prepare

37:09 ↗ themselves.

37:11 ↗ Next is developing and exercising a

37:12 ↗ cyber incident response annex. So this

37:15 ↗ is creating and regularly testing um a

37:17 ↗ response plan to protect our critical

37:19 ↗ infrastructure and systems and maintain

37:22 ↗ um and maintain just government

37:24 ↗ continuity during these attacks. I

37:26 ↗ should say this is really just a piece

37:28 ↗ of our cyber um incident like response

37:31 ↗ uh catalog, right? There's much more

37:33 ↗ work that goes into this than just this

37:35 ↗ one strategy, but that's something that

37:37 ↗ we picked out as a potential uh area

37:40 ↗ that we could strengthen in in

37:42 ↗ coordination with our regular cyber uh

37:44 ↗ incident plans.

37:45 ↗ >> Yeah, I was just going to ask on that.

37:47 ↗ Council member Nichols had um questions

37:49 ↗ about that. sounds like a plan to

37:52 ↗ respond, but we also have other things

37:54 ↗ that we do uh that are preventing

37:58 ↗ and things like that obviously. So,

38:01 ↗ >> yes. Yeah. And if um council member

38:03 ↗ Nichols or council would like more

38:04 ↗ information about you know just how we

38:06 ↗ we are prepared for cyber um attacks.

38:09 ↗ Yeah, we're happy to share uh more

38:11 ↗ information.

38:12 ↗ >> Thank you.

38:14 ↗ >> Great. Um next is planning for prolonged

38:16 ↗ regional transportation and supply chain

38:17 ↗ disruptions. So, this is a plan that

38:20 ↗ really speaks to our need to be uh

38:22 ↗ self-sufficient following a major

38:25 ↗ disruption of transportation corridors.

38:28 ↗ Um, you know, it seems somewhat

38:30 ↗ far-fetched sometimes, but I mean, you

38:32 ↗ take the December flooding and it was

38:34 ↗ quite interesting to see, right, we lost

38:36 ↗ eastbound 90, SR 900 and um and then

38:40 ↗ Isqua Hobart, right? All had disruptions

38:43 ↗ on them. And so it was quite uh revoly

38:46 ↗ in one moment in the EOC where in the

38:48 ↗ emergency operations center where we're

38:50 ↗ like wow our our really our only option

38:52 ↗ is to go west you know from the city.

38:54 ↗ And so uh this strategy speaks to just

38:56 ↗ making sure that we're prepared that we

38:58 ↗ have a good list of capabilities local

39:00 ↗ like know our local vendors and

39:03 ↗ contractors have good uh relationships

39:05 ↗ with them and implement some agreements

39:07 ↗ hopefully even with them. And then

39:10 ↗ lastly uh training for city staff on

39:12 ↗ suspicious activity reporting. Right.

39:13 ↗ So, this is making sure this is speaking

39:15 ↗ to our terrorism um hazard, but uh

39:18 ↗ providing city staff with training to

39:19 ↗ recognize and appropriately report

39:21 ↗ suspicious activity to enhance that

39:23 ↗ early threat detection and prevention.

39:26 ↗ Um so, those are our mitigation

39:28 ↗ strategies as they exist. Now, as I

39:30 ↗ mentioned, um this is a living document.

39:33 ↗ New mitigation strategies may be added

39:35 ↗ at any point in the lifetime of the

39:37 ↗ mitigation plan. Um and uh this, like I

39:41 ↗ said, these are jumping off points,

39:42 ↗ right? like if we start to pursue these

39:44 ↗ strategies more in depth, we can alter

39:46 ↗ them, we can change them and really uh

39:49 ↗ make sure that they meet the needs of

39:50 ↗ the city.

39:52 ↗ So um the options that we have today are

39:55 ↗ one to adopt the the annex and so that

39:57 ↗ maintains our grant eligibility for

40:00 ↗ programs like the building resilient

40:02 ↗ infrastructure and communities grant

40:03 ↗ flood mitigation assistance and hazard

40:05 ↗ mitigation grant program funding which

40:07 ↗ is that post- disaster funding pool. Um

40:10 ↗ it also helps align our mitigation um

40:12 ↗ plans with climate infrastructure

40:14 ↗ planning and of course our budget as

40:16 ↗ we've mentioned. Um the second option is

40:19 ↗ that we do not adopt the plan. Um we

40:21 ↗ lose our eligibility for those uh FEMA

40:23 ↗ hazard mitigation dollars but um you

40:26 ↗ know that certainly is is an an option

40:28 ↗ as well.

40:30 ↗ So, our proposal and recommendation is

40:32 ↗ that we do um adopt our hazard

40:34 ↗ mitigation plan um and that it goes to

40:37 ↗ the full city council.

40:41 ↗ So, uh real briefly timing next steps.

40:44 ↗ So, we're here today at the committee

40:45 ↗ review. Uh we anticipate or hopeful for

40:49 ↗ full council adoption this March. Um

40:52 ↗ after that full council adoption, we'll

40:54 ↗ submit our plan to FEMA. Um they may

40:56 ↗ provide feedback. they likely will not

40:58 ↗ at this uh juncture. Um and then after

41:03 ↗ uh plan approval, that gives us the

41:05 ↗ eligibility to apply for those grants to

41:07 ↗ seek that funding. Um, and then finally,

41:09 ↗ once our plan is approved, we're going

41:11 ↗ to um further engage with the community

41:13 ↗ and making sure that the the plan is

41:14 ↗ public, but also showcase and bring the

41:17 ↗ community in in these hazard mitigation

41:18 ↗ efforts that we do choose to prioritize

41:20 ↗ and make sure that they uh stay involved

41:23 ↗ in mitigation and and also just show off

41:25 ↗ some of the work that we are doing in

41:27 ↗ the city, right? And and making sure

41:28 ↗ that people see the work um that that

41:32 ↗ this uh that we are doing to make us

41:33 ↗ more resilient.

41:36 ↗ So with that, that brings us back to the

41:37 ↗ direction needed. So, uh, do you

41:39 ↗ recommend any changes or adoption um, to

41:43 ↗ our hazard mitigation plan as it stands?

41:45 ↗ And I do have those questions from

41:47 ↗ Council Member Nichols, too, that we can

41:48 ↗ address maybe um, at the end after

41:50 ↗ you're

41:51 ↗ >> Yeah, I've got those listed as well. So,

41:53 ↗ um, all of that. Um, Deputy Council

41:56 ↗ President Martz, do you want to start

41:58 ↗ with any feedback on the hazard

42:02 ↗ mitigation plan annex?

42:05 ↗ Um

42:08 ↗ well, if I understand it right, I think

42:10 ↗ it all comes back to uh the slide that

42:13 ↗ you showed with the risks uh results

42:15 ↗ from staff hazard and risk assessment.

42:18 ↗ Um and I think that as a policy matter,

42:21 ↗ can you go back to that slide? Yes. Just

42:22 ↗ so that we can

42:24 ↗ >> refresh our memories on it. There we go.

42:27 ↗ So really the question is how far down

42:30 ↗ do you want to go on that list? Mhm.

42:32 ↗ >> Um, you know, if we were, uh, you know,

42:36 ↗ exceedingly wealthy and had people

42:37 ↗ sitting around with nothing to do, you

42:39 ↗ would do all of them, right? Um, and,

42:42 ↗ uh, so I don't have any, I don't have

42:46 ↗ any questions. We're sort of, um, are we

42:49 ↗ this at the point where we're just

42:51 ↗ >> Yeah. either feedback or you're good

42:54 ↗ with any adoption?

42:56 ↗ >> Yeah, my my feedback is that we should

42:58 ↗ get going on both the earthquake and the

43:00 ↗ wildfire ones. I think those two are I

43:03 ↗ mean extreme weather we already I think

43:05 ↗ have plans for those. Um health

43:08 ↗ incidents and cyber incidents are hard

43:10 ↗ to predict and we don't have knock on

43:13 ↗ wood god forbid um uh a serious volcano

43:16 ↗ risk right around here. So wildfire and

43:18 ↗ earthquake are really just a whole

43:19 ↗ different class right for folks who

43:21 ↗ don't know we have a surface fault that

43:23 ↗ runs from Banebridge Island uh

43:25 ↗ underneath basically I90 all the way

43:28 ↗ into Isiqua. it's capable of producing

43:30 ↗ greater than 1g uh earthquake events and

43:33 ↗ um uh we absolutely need to have plans

43:37 ↗ for things like that. Um subduction

43:40 ↗ fault events are um a regional problem

43:43 ↗ with regional solutions.

43:45 ↗ >> Um and then wildfire as as we've

43:48 ↗ discussed uh you know we are uh have um

43:53 ↗ quite a bit of risk associated with

43:55 ↗ wildfires during the dry season when the

43:56 ↗ fuel loads go up. So, I personally would

43:59 ↗ like to see us getting going on both of

44:01 ↗ those. I'd like to see, you know, if

44:03 ↗ it's if it requires subsequent funding

44:05 ↗ by the council. Um, do it. I mean, you

44:09 ↗ know, bring it before the council, let

44:11 ↗ the seven decide. Um, and then, uh, and

44:14 ↗ then execute on it with timelines. I I I

44:17 ↗ think that both of these things are

44:19 ↗ absolutely critical. I really appreciate

44:20 ↗ you putting this together. This is the

44:22 ↗ most comprehensive conversation about

44:25 ↗ risks in the city that I've seen in 17

44:28 ↗ years. Um, but now it's and speaking as

44:31 ↗ one of seven, like let's get going on

44:33 ↗ these two risks that are that are just

44:35 ↗ qualitatively different than all the

44:36 ↗ other risks. But I'm interested to know

44:38 ↗ what my fellow committee members think.

44:41 ↗ >> Yeah. So, I've got my feedback. I also

44:43 ↗ have Council Member Nichols feedback.

44:45 ↗ So, excuse me for going long, but I'm a

44:49 ↗ community emergency response team

44:51 ↗ member. So, emergency management is kind

44:54 ↗ of my thing. Um, first of all, I think

44:58 ↗ this is a fantastic report. Um, I love

45:02 ↗ to see not only that we have a good risk

45:05 ↗ assessment and calculation, um, but that

45:08 ↗ we also got community feedback and that

45:11 ↗ we are looking at specific hazard

45:14 ↗ mitigations,

45:15 ↗ um, and things that we can do in each of

45:17 ↗ these areas. it's a lot more difficult

45:20 ↗ to just look at it and say prevent

45:22 ↗ wildfire versus we recognize that there

45:25 ↗ are specific hazards that we can

45:27 ↗ mitigate in that area that will make us

45:30 ↗ a safer community. So I like that

45:32 ↗ approach of this report. Um, I think

45:36 ↗ from my perspective, um, I might want to

45:40 ↗ think a little bit more about the

45:45 ↗ impact and exposure of flooding in our

45:48 ↗ community. While it only we only

45:51 ↗ experience flooding in the valley floor

45:54 ↗ areas as much. Um, I think that

45:59 ↗ doesn't take into account the idea that

46:02 ↗ most of our community either uses

46:05 ↗ resources or services or schools or

46:08 ↗ other things in those areas.

46:10 ↗ >> And so that is it it discounts the fact

46:14 ↗ that those areas are used by the entire

46:17 ↗ community even if their personal

46:18 ↗ property isn't impacted by it. Um, and

46:22 ↗ we've seen quite a bit of flooding that

46:25 ↗ has had a full citywide impact even if

46:28 ↗ it only has exposure in those areas. So,

46:32 ↗ I might I might have personally

46:34 ↗ calculated that a little bit differently

46:35 ↗ that way. Um, when we are thinking about

46:39 ↗ investments and use of city funds, I

46:41 ↗ really want to be careful to focus on

46:43 ↗ projects that have a large scale impact.

46:45 ↗ And I think a confluence park flood

46:47 ↗ storage is a really good example of that

46:49 ↗ rather than things that are necessarily

46:51 ↗ related to individual properties such as

46:53 ↗ mitigation for repetitive loss flooding

46:55 ↗ properties. That being said, if we

46:58 ↗ combine it with then taking that and

47:01 ↗ making the river creek a safer place

47:04 ↗ overall, I think that balances out. Um

47:08 ↗ similarly I would be hesitant to invest

47:10 ↗ city funds in things that were new

47:13 ↗ planning areas like the lake seamish

47:16 ↗ s and tsunami modeling um because we

47:21 ↗ already have a lot of planning and

47:23 ↗ understanding of many of these higher

47:26 ↗ >> risk areas. And so that would be my

47:28 ↗ preference there.

47:30 ↗ uh the critical infrastructure seismic

47:32 ↗ risk. I think this is a really great

47:36 ↗ um addition and it seems to be an area

47:38 ↗ where we can not only make investments

47:40 ↗ but also code changes about what needs

47:43 ↗ to be made as a requirement for future

47:46 ↗ infrastructure. And so that would be one

47:48 ↗ that I would want to maybe follow two

47:50 ↗ different paths on. One a budgetary one

47:52 ↗ a um code and policy. Um, when I'm

47:56 ↗ thinking about the report, one of the

47:58 ↗ things I had a hard time understanding

48:00 ↗ was how we're handling all of our 2020

48:04 ↗ uncompleted items.

48:05 ↗ >> Mhm.

48:06 ↗ >> Um, do those continue into our 2025

48:10 ↗ plan? How do they rank in priority

48:12 ↗ compared to the list? You know,

48:14 ↗ >> how is that handled? So when we're

48:17 ↗ looking about the report, I would say I

48:20 ↗ want to see the 2025 mitigation

48:23 ↗ strategies maybe earlier in the report.

48:25 ↗ Better explain what happens to the 2020

48:27 ↗ strategies.

48:29 ↗ Um I would love to see the list of

48:31 ↗ strategies ranked from high to low

48:34 ↗ >> or alphabetical. Right now I couldn't

48:38 ↗ tell why something was in a certain

48:40 ↗ order. Um, and then on each individual

48:43 ↗ mitigation page, I would really like to

48:45 ↗ be able to see the priority, okay?

48:47 ↗ >> High, medium, or low. Um, be so that I

48:49 ↗ didn't have to scroll all the way back

48:51 ↗ up to that list to understand how it,

48:54 ↗ um, fits in.

48:56 ↗ >> And then my final piece of feedback is

49:01 ↗ on the topic of how do we make this

49:03 ↗ actionable? So, I'm glad to hear you've

49:05 ↗ already mentioned the CIP. That was um

49:08 ↗ my th first thought for that 2-year and

49:11 ↗ 5-year objectives. Um I'm wondering if

49:15 ↗ there is an idea of having emergency

49:18 ↗ management called out as a separate

49:20 ↗ category much like parks and

49:21 ↗ transportation are or if the idea would

49:24 ↗ be to fit it into categories. I know we

49:27 ↗ already have on our CIP, we recently did

49:30 ↗ um the capital improvement project plan.

49:33 ↗ We already did um something that gives

49:37 ↗ us

49:39 ↗ what is it the selection criteria and so

49:42 ↗ all of these projects would fit very

49:43 ↗ well in the life and safety um category.

49:48 ↗ So I can understand how they're going to

49:49 ↗ be scored but I would be interested to

49:52 ↗ be able to call out like hey emergency

49:55 ↗ management is this area that isn't just

49:57 ↗ about parks or transportation. It's

50:01 ↗ really kind of its own category.

50:04 ↗ >> Um, let me see if there was anything

50:06 ↗ else in those notes.

50:09 ↗ Yeah. And then toward that idea, could

50:12 ↗ the hazard calculations be used, the

50:15 ↗ risk calculations in our CIP

50:20 ↗ data? Um, because I think that would be

50:22 ↗ a really useful way of showing how

50:24 ↗ important this project is.

50:28 ↗ All of these are going to score very

50:29 ↗ well from a life and safety aspect, but

50:32 ↗ earthquake and wildfire should have some

50:35 ↗ sense of more important than necessarily

50:39 ↗ terrorism or landslide projects.

50:42 ↗ >> So that's my feedback. I can go on to

50:46 ↗ council member Nichols or if you have

50:48 ↗ any thoughts there.

50:49 ↗ >> Yeah, I guess um the first thing I'll

50:51 ↗ address is kind of the old mitigation

50:53 ↗ strategies, right? And so, um,

50:55 ↗ truthfully, the previous iteration of

50:57 ↗ this plan was mostly written in a from a

50:59 ↗ public works perspective. And so, many

51:02 ↗ of the strategies, um, were kind of it

51:05 ↗ was mostly incorporating work that

51:07 ↗ public works was already doing, you

51:10 ↗ know, and using it as a lake to justify

51:13 ↗ uh, grant applications. That probably

51:15 ↗ the one caveat to that is maybe uh, the

51:18 ↗ C theert um, strategy that's pulled from

51:21 ↗ from there. But again, you know,

51:23 ↗ emergency management used to be in

51:24 ↗ public works. So, in some in some extent

51:27 ↗ too, um I would say we're we are funding

51:31 ↗ CERT already like we're well supporting

51:33 ↗ that. I would don't I um don't know what

51:36 ↗ more we would call out in a specific

51:37 ↗ strategy other than like all the other

51:39 ↗ work that we're doing with C existingly.

51:42 ↗ So I think you know for the old

51:43 ↗ strategies you know some of them we did

51:46 ↗ carry over right like the energy

51:47 ↗ resilience and some of these add-ons

51:49 ↗ actually that we tacked on to the plan

51:51 ↗ in like just the last couple years uh

51:53 ↗ like the wildfire the energy resilience

51:55 ↗ and um and some of those we did tack on

51:57 ↗ and so some of them got continued but um

52:00 ↗ the other ones the older ones I'm kind

52:02 ↗ of personally okay letting them expire

52:05 ↗ and if there is maybe elements that we

52:07 ↗ do want to pull out right like we can

52:09 ↗ but you know Um, Council Member um,

52:13 ↗ Walsh, I think it's a good point of like

52:15 ↗ we need to have some accounting of the

52:17 ↗ work that we do to or almost like a a

52:19 ↗ record if you will, right? To cuz I

52:21 ↗ don't want to lose some of the wins that

52:23 ↗ we have, right, when we just move to the

52:25 ↗ next plan and, you know, and and not

52:27 ↗ highlight some of the good work that

52:28 ↗ we've done. So, um, maybe there's a

52:30 ↗ potential way that we could still

52:31 ↗ incorporate them too in that sense. How

52:34 ↗ does that sound?

52:35 ↗ >> Okay.

52:36 ↗ >> Yeah.

52:36 ↗ >> Let me go on to Council Member Nichols.

52:39 ↗ Um, so he brought up some of the same

52:41 ↗ things that Deputy Council President,

52:43 ↗ uh, Martz did about, hey, there's no

52:45 ↗ cost estimates. This isn't, you know, a

52:48 ↗ budget. Um, and so he said it would be

52:51 ↗ really useful to see at least rough cost

52:53 ↗ tiers um, before this is brought before

52:57 ↗ full council or a commitment to deliver

52:59 ↗ them shortly after adoption. And I

53:01 ↗ think, you know, I would be interested

53:03 ↗ to know how do you think that works with

53:06 ↗ this plan versus accomplishing that

53:09 ↗ through another method like the CIP.

53:12 ↗ >> Yeah. And so, um, we talked internally

53:15 ↗ about a potential approach. So, we can

53:17 ↗ incorporate cost estimates if you will,

53:20 ↗ you kind of using like a scale of like

53:21 ↗ $1 sign through, right? If to kind of at

53:24 ↗ least give a sense of how much these

53:27 ↗ projects might cost, right? and and that

53:29 ↗ te's up our ability, right, when we do

53:31 ↗ go to like CIP, right? We can really

53:35 ↗ hammer down and hone in on what those

53:37 ↗ actual costs will be, but it still

53:38 ↗ incorporates that, you know, bird's eye

53:40 ↗ view of of what some of these costs are.

53:42 ↗ And and you know, initially we actually

53:44 ↗ did have we were thinking about cost

53:46 ↗ estimates, but it got kind of tricky

53:48 ↗ with some of the ones like even the

53:50 ↗ seismic assessments for critical

53:51 ↗ infrastructure, right? because it's like

53:53 ↗ we may find that we're in pretty good

53:55 ↗ shape for, you know, a good amount of

53:57 ↗ the water towers or we may find that,

54:00 ↗ you know, oh my word, you know, we need

54:01 ↗ to have multi-million dollar projects.

54:04 ↗ And so there's I think staff were kind

54:06 ↗ of struggling honestly with that that

54:08 ↗ cost estimate part became a little bit

54:10 ↗ of a stumbling block. But what we can

54:12 ↗ commit to though is incorporating I

54:14 ↗ think that that range if you will um or

54:17 ↗ like that symbol symbology a little bit

54:19 ↗ to just give us a sense of how much

54:21 ↗ things will cost and then in when we do

54:23 ↗ go to CIP or grant applications of

54:26 ↗ course we'll like drill down into a real

54:27 ↗ hard number. Does does that sound

54:29 ↗ sufficient?

54:31 ↗ >> Yeah, deputy council president.

54:33 ↗ >> What I I I worry about timelines when

54:37 ↗ you start talking about CIP grant

54:39 ↗ applications. I worry that we're going

54:42 ↗ to build a plan to build a plan to build

54:44 ↗ a plan and that when my term is up in

54:46 ↗ 3.8 years, we still won't be done with

54:48 ↗ these,

54:49 ↗ >> right?

54:49 ↗ >> Um so, uh you know, as an administration

54:55 ↗ um that has an emergency management

54:58 ↗ person, um these these both of these

55:01 ↗ things are desperately needed. So, um,

55:05 ↗ you know, it would be weird to say,

55:08 ↗ okay, well, here's the t-shirt size on

55:11 ↗ these, right? Like wildfire is a medium

55:14 ↗ and earthquake is a large and uh that'll

55:17 ↗ be some monies at some point in the

55:19 ↗ future. you know, I mean, CIP can take a

55:23 ↗ very long time and then the actual work

55:25 ↗ itself takes time and then any uh work

55:28 ↗ that we decide to do as a result of

55:30 ↗ those plans takes time and again I come

55:32 ↗ back to my 3 point eight years and um

55:35 ↗ wanting to have this resolved long

55:37 ↗ before my next this current term is up.

55:40 ↗ So that that's my concern in in in this

55:43 ↗ whole conversation is

55:45 ↗ >> um

55:46 ↗ >> you know the sense of urgency of of

55:48 ↗ getting going on something like this on

55:51 ↗ these two. I think you've correctly

55:53 ↗ identified these two as really being a

55:55 ↗ different level of risk than other um

55:58 ↗ emergency situations that we could

56:00 ↗ possibly have. So how do we how do we

56:03 ↗ get it going? how how do we get the

56:05 ↗ scoping activity um the decision and

56:08 ↗ then the execution in a reasonable

56:10 ↗ amount of time

56:12 ↗ >> um and what is a reasonable amount of

56:14 ↗ time right I I don't think you're I

56:16 ↗ don't think all this is leading you to

56:17 ↗ saying yep and I'll have all this stuff

56:19 ↗ done by the end of the year like that's

56:21 ↗ not what I'm hearing at all

56:22 ↗ >> right yeah and I think that's um that's

56:25 ↗ a challenge that we have right but like

56:26 ↗ I said this is in some sense you know a

56:29 ↗ third of our work plan in emergency

56:31 ↗ management right so this is this is what

56:33 ↗ we're going to working on you know and

56:35 ↗ for so that's my time it's other staff

56:38 ↗ members time it's not just me right

56:40 ↗ there's other departments too so

56:42 ↗ >> I I thought it is if we move forward

56:44 ↗ with it

56:45 ↗ >> oh yes if we if we move forward with it

56:47 ↗ yes

56:47 ↗ >> assuming we move forward

56:48 ↗ >> yes should yes thank you

56:51 ↗ >> yeah and I think I will clarify this

56:53 ↗ kind of gets glombmed alto together in

56:56 ↗ this presentation but the first half is

56:58 ↗ really about this hazard um and

57:01 ↗ mitigation plan and then the second half

57:04 ↗ is and what else should we be doing with

57:07 ↗ emergency management? Where should our

57:09 ↗ focus be? And so I'm hearing very

57:11 ↗ clearly we have two very high

57:14 ↗ priorities. And so I definitely want to

57:16 ↗ drill down when we get into that on

57:19 ↗ being like, okay, what's next?

57:21 ↗ >> Yeah.

57:22 ↗ >> Because it isn't just taking them into

57:24 ↗ the CIP. No.

57:26 ↗ >> Um so okay, um let me just continue

57:29 ↗ through Council Member Nichols. Um he

57:31 ↗ talked about performance measures. So

57:33 ↗ each strategy includes metrics but none

57:36 ↗ have baselines, targets or reporting

57:38 ↗ cadence. Um and he references that hey

57:42 ↗ some of the 2020 stuff didn't get

57:43 ↗ completed. Um so is there a sense with

57:48 ↗ other plans we have kind of created some

57:51 ↗ of those metrics or targets. Is there a

57:54 ↗ sense in here of what we want to

57:56 ↗ accomplish? Not just here's a hazard

57:59 ↗ hazard and here's a mitigation strategy.

58:02 ↗ >> Yeah. What what I would say is that you

58:04 ↗ know these strategies truly are the the

58:07 ↗ jumping off part point, right? Um for us

58:09 ↗ as a city um so as we embark in like in

58:14 ↗ these individual strategies more

58:15 ↗ seriously, right? Like all those kind of

58:17 ↗ classic project management, you know,

58:19 ↗ tools, measures, they they will be

58:22 ↗ applied, you know, to to these efforts.

58:24 ↗ um this plan is is um mostly guiding if

58:29 ↗ you will, right? And a little less

58:30 ↗ tactical is the way that my brain thinks

58:32 ↗ of it. So um yes, so all so those will

58:36 ↗ be um part of our part of our strategies

58:38 ↗ if we choose to move forward with them.

58:42 ↗ >> Okay. Um he also mentioned community

58:44 ↗ engagement. He said,40

58:47 ↗ touch points is really impressive, but

58:49 ↗ there was no sense of how many of those

58:51 ↗ were Isiqua residents. Um, and so he

58:56 ↗ also mentioned he didn't see any

58:57 ↗ evidence of outreach to renters,

58:59 ↗ non-English speakers, or residents in

59:01 ↗ map flood zones, or the wildland urban

59:04 ↗ interface um, populations most affected

59:06 ↗ by the hazards. So, it would be good to

59:08 ↗ know if there was any targeted outreach.

59:13 ↗ >> Yeah, I thought those were really,

59:14 ↗ really good points to bring up and

59:17 ↗ honestly, I think it's opportunities to

59:19 ↗ grow in our community uh, engagement.

59:21 ↗ And um what I would say too is that

59:24 ↗ hopefully you know this is this is not

59:26 ↗ the end of our hazard mitigation right

59:28 ↗ this is just the beginning if you will

59:30 ↗ and so whichever you know what what our

59:33 ↗ strategies when we start to implement

59:34 ↗ them you know we're going to look for

59:35 ↗ that community feedback we're going to

59:37 ↗ look for that more targeted community

59:38 ↗ engagement and so um I love that I loved

59:42 ↗ highlighting those points and I think

59:43 ↗ it's a really good thing that we can

59:44 ↗ carry forward with us into the future.

59:47 ↗ >> Great. And then his last piece was just

59:49 ↗ noticing that the CRS rating uh

59:53 ↗ discrepancy on different pages. So

59:55 ↗ >> it was a good catch. Yes, we we are a

59:58 ↗ community five and working towards a CRS

1:00:01 ↗ rating five working towards four.

1:00:03 ↗ >> Fantastic. So with that, I think um

1:00:07 ↗ generally I have heard both from council

1:00:11 ↗ member Nichols in his um comments but

1:00:14 ↗ also between the two of us general

1:00:16 ↗ support for this annex plan for the

1:00:19 ↗ hazard mitigation plan and um so is

1:00:23 ↗ there any other feedback you need from

1:00:25 ↗ us? A sense of when it's going to come

1:00:29 ↗ back to council and whether or not we

1:00:30 ↗ want to put it on consent or regular

1:00:33 ↗ business? Thank you.

1:00:35 ↗ >> Well, I I just want to foot stomp this

1:00:38 ↗ again. You know, there's a I'm a movie

1:00:41 ↗ guy. There's a scene in the social

1:00:42 ↗ network where uh he says, "If you had

1:00:45 ↗ invented Facebook, you would have

1:00:46 ↗ invented Facebook, right? We will have a

1:00:49 ↗ wildfire and earthquake plan in place

1:00:51 ↗ when we have a wildfire and earthquake

1:00:53 ↗ plan in place." Right? And so I want to

1:00:55 ↗ have a wildfire and earthquake plan in

1:00:57 ↗ place. Um we to do that we have to

1:01:00 ↗ begin, right? Yeah,

1:01:01 ↗ >> we have to accept the annex and we have

1:01:03 ↗ to say we want to see the t-shirting of

1:01:06 ↗ the efforts.

1:01:07 ↗ >> I want a wildfire and earthquake plan in

1:01:09 ↗ place as soon as is reasonable.

1:01:13 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:01:13 ↗ >> So that's, you know, whatever that looks

1:01:16 ↗ like. Um, I just worry that again it's

1:01:18 ↗ we're building a plan to make a plan to

1:01:21 ↗ have a plan and uh, you know, this this

1:01:24 ↗ is really this is super clear guidance

1:01:27 ↗ why wildfire and earthquake plans um,

1:01:30 ↗ need to be the core of our response. So,

1:01:34 ↗ um,

1:01:35 ↗ I just wanted to foot stomp that. Yeah,

1:01:38 ↗ >> foot stomp away. Absolutely. still need

1:01:41 ↗ to uh approve the annex so that we can

1:01:44 ↗ qualify for grants and because we kind

1:01:47 ↗ of just need to do it. Um and so are we

1:01:52 ↗ good to adopt this and do you have a

1:01:56 ↗ sense of consent or regular business?

1:01:59 ↗ >> I am absolutely excited about adopting

1:02:02 ↗ this. In terms of it coming back on

1:02:04 ↗ consent or regular, I guess I would ask

1:02:07 ↗ the administration if they have a

1:02:09 ↗ preference. I think that this report was

1:02:11 ↗ clear enough that I I would be

1:02:13 ↗ comfortable as a junior member of this

1:02:15 ↗ committee um to tell the other uh four

1:02:18 ↗ council members who weren't part of this

1:02:20 ↗ process that um the the the uh the

1:02:23 ↗ committee uh

1:02:26 ↗ video makes it very clear why we want to

1:02:28 ↗ move forward with this and not having it

1:02:30 ↗ be regular. But if the administration

1:02:32 ↗ comes back and said no, we're super

1:02:33 ↗ excited about having this on regular

1:02:35 ↗ business that

1:02:36 ↗ >> Okay. So, it sounds like we are in

1:02:38 ↗ support of this coming to full council

1:02:40 ↗ and comfortable with it being on consent

1:02:42 ↗ unless the administration has any reason

1:02:46 ↗ not to. We always like to highlight the

1:02:48 ↗ great work of our emergency management

1:02:50 ↗ team, but it sounds like we've got the

1:02:53 ↗ rest of the presentation to talk about

1:02:56 ↗ all of the other things that we want to

1:02:59 ↗ foot stomp and deliver the plans that

1:03:03 ↗ council is going to make demands on. So

1:03:06 ↗ take it away.

1:03:07 ↗ >> That's a perfect Yeah. tea up. So um

1:03:10 ↗ yeah, so the second part of the

1:03:11 ↗ presentation is to yeah give feedback on

1:03:14 ↗ really our broader emergency management

1:03:16 ↗ program. Right. We've we've kind of

1:03:17 ↗ heard that, you know, from the mayor but

1:03:19 ↗ also from the council retreat that

1:03:21 ↗ emergency preparedness efforts, you

1:03:23 ↗ know, are a priority and something that

1:03:24 ↗ we should think about. And so I just

1:03:26 ↗ want to share um with this committee a

1:03:28 ↗ little bit about what's on the current

1:03:30 ↗ work plan, some of the things we're

1:03:32 ↗ thinking about, and then really

1:03:33 ↗ opportunities that I see as um growth

1:03:36 ↗ areas to really bring our emergency

1:03:38 ↗ management program to the to the next

1:03:40 ↗ level, if you will. So a little bit of

1:03:43 ↗ background. So things are changing in

1:03:47 ↗ emergency management. One, disasters are

1:03:50 ↗ happening more frequently, right? right

1:03:52 ↗ on this bar graph that you see here on

1:03:54 ↗ the left side of your screen, right? You

1:03:56 ↗ can see this increase in climate driven

1:03:58 ↗ hazards um where there's been declared

1:04:00 ↗ disasters in the last 5 years and you'll

1:04:03 ↗ see severe storm, flood, and fire are

1:04:05 ↗ really the three captured there, but

1:04:07 ↗ also all of their declarations. And so

1:04:08 ↗ those are typically the nonclimate

1:04:10 ↗ driven ones. But um you'll notice that

1:04:12 ↗ bar graph is growing. And you know,

1:04:13 ↗ anecdotally, right, I will even say from

1:04:16 ↗ my almost three years here, right, we've

1:04:18 ↗ had some pretty serious um incidents.

1:04:21 ↗ And so um that's just following the

1:04:23 ↗ trend um for the state. Um two the

1:04:26 ↗ background context is FEMA is also

1:04:29 ↗ changing uh very drastically. So there

1:04:32 ↗ has been huge reductions to uh disaster

1:04:37 ↗ uh response staff to um preparedness

1:04:40 ↗ efforts and really uh funding their

1:04:43 ↗ system as a whole is is changing. And so

1:04:47 ↗ what the uh federal government is asking

1:04:49 ↗ is that local jurisdictions shoulder

1:04:52 ↗ more of uh emergency management and what

1:04:55 ↗ was typically FEMA's role. Um local

1:04:58 ↗ jurisdictions are asked to to take

1:04:59 ↗ bigger parts of that. And so um some of

1:05:02 ↗ these u some of these things that we've

1:05:04 ↗ enjoyed from FEMA being um having

1:05:07 ↗ leadership in in emergency management

1:05:09 ↗ are starting to wayne. And so, um, one

1:05:12 ↗ of the best or one of the most recent

1:05:14 ↗ examples that hit home for us, right, is

1:05:15 ↗ the bomb cyclone. You know, that was a

1:05:17 ↗ disaster that was large enough that

1:05:19 ↗ would have qualified us for public

1:05:21 ↗ assistance funding in uh, previous

1:05:24 ↗ understandings of what our of what our

1:05:26 ↗ thresholds were, but uh, no longer,

1:05:29 ↗ right? That that bar has moved to about

1:05:31 ↗ to be six times higher than what it was,

1:05:34 ↗ you know, um, just a couple years ago.

1:05:36 ↗ And so all that to say is, you know, the

1:05:39 ↗ need for us to be prepared for

1:05:42 ↗ emergencies, effective in our response

1:05:44 ↗ to, you know, um, pursue these risk

1:05:47 ↗ reduction activities, I think is it's

1:05:49 ↗ it's higher, right, than than what it

1:05:51 ↗ was even a couple years ago, just

1:05:52 ↗ because the landscape has changed, uh,

1:05:54 ↗ so drastically in a short period of

1:05:56 ↗ time. Um, so we've talked about, you

1:06:00 ↗ know, risk reduction and in depth,

1:06:02 ↗ right? But there's the two other

1:06:04 ↗ pillars, emergency response and

1:06:05 ↗ community preparedness that we'll take a

1:06:08 ↗ little bit of a diver deep dive into. Um

1:06:10 ↗ now, so here's what's really on the work

1:06:12 ↗ plan this year, if you will, for uh

1:06:15 ↗ emergency management. And so this is

1:06:17 ↗ specifically uh talking about emergency

1:06:19 ↗ response, which is protecting life,

1:06:21 ↗ property, and environment during and

1:06:22 ↗ after emergencies large and small. So uh

1:06:25 ↗ we are updating our comprehensive

1:06:27 ↗ emergency management plan uh this year.

1:06:30 ↗ that is our foundational document that

1:06:32 ↗ describes um how we respond to disasters

1:06:35 ↗ and emergencies within Isiqua. That is

1:06:38 ↗ um it outlines duties, responsibilities,

1:06:41 ↗ operations um really uh our our our

1:06:44 ↗ guiding document for emergencies. So

1:06:46 ↗ that's getting updated this year. Um

1:06:49 ↗ this summer we have some large events

1:06:52 ↗ that are happening here regionally. So

1:06:54 ↗ we're getting ready for them. they are

1:06:56 ↗ chiefly uh the 250th anniversary of the

1:06:59 ↗ US and then also FIFA World Cup, right?

1:07:02 ↗ So um they happen to coincide at the

1:07:04 ↗ same time. So two large events that um

1:07:08 ↗ you know we want to make sure that our

1:07:10 ↗ community and our visitors and um and

1:07:13 ↗ everyone really is just has a safe and

1:07:16 ↗ um and good time at those events. Next

1:07:18 ↗ is resilience hub expansion. Um, as I've

1:07:21 ↗ mentioned before, we're trying to get a

1:07:22 ↗ resilience hub in every neighborhood

1:07:24 ↗ within Isiqua, right? So, that looks

1:07:26 ↗ like working with uh community partners,

1:07:29 ↗ organizations, and to really not only

1:07:32 ↗ identify new locations, but strengthen

1:07:34 ↗ them, make them more resilient, and uh

1:07:36 ↗ support them so they can so we can count

1:07:38 ↗ on them when disaster does strike. And

1:07:41 ↗ then lastly, um I'm excited to to come

1:07:43 ↗ back before council and do some uh

1:07:46 ↗ emergency management training and

1:07:48 ↗ exercise with you all at some point,

1:07:50 ↗ right? Kind of going over uh what your

1:07:52 ↗ role is in emergency, some of the powers

1:07:54 ↗ that you have and really getting an

1:07:56 ↗ opportunity to exercise uh those and and

1:07:58 ↗ have a um and yeah have some after

1:08:01 ↗ action items taken from them. Next is

1:08:04 ↗ community preparedness. So this is um

1:08:06 ↗ about informing and readying the

1:08:08 ↗ community for disasters. So our really

1:08:10 ↗ our chief um way that we go about this

1:08:13 ↗ is serve our community emergency

1:08:15 ↗ response team of which we have

1:08:16 ↗ volunteers that go through a course that

1:08:19 ↗ equips them with skills that can uh not

1:08:21 ↗ only serve them their families but also

1:08:23 ↗ their neighbors and you know um it's in

1:08:25 ↗ community preparedness but we also use

1:08:26 ↗ them in emergency response as well. You

1:08:28 ↗ know supported us in the bomb cyclone

1:08:31 ↗ and in flooding alike. Um doing

1:08:33 ↗ everything from filling sandbags to

1:08:35 ↗ handing out flyers and flood cleanup

1:08:37 ↗ kits. So they they they truly do a lot

1:08:39 ↗ for our community. Um of which our C

1:08:42 ↗ program has grown um immensely. You

1:08:44 ↗ know, we we offer five courses now every

1:08:46 ↗ year um as opposed to the two that we've

1:08:49 ↗ uh traditionally offered. Um our

1:08:52 ↗ volunteer numbers are almost up to 400

1:08:54 ↗ um for cert. And so it's quite it's

1:08:55 ↗ quite the cadre and uh we have a lot of

1:08:58 ↗ great people who are fired up and

1:09:00 ↗ engaged uh with it volunteers speaking

1:09:02 ↗ that really help drive that. So, um,

1:09:04 ↗ that's not all just emergency the

1:09:06 ↗ emergency manager, right? I my hats off

1:09:09 ↗ to these community members who really

1:09:10 ↗ have championed this effort. Next is

1:09:13 ↗ wildfire preparedness, right? So, we've

1:09:15 ↗ done the wildfire evacuation time

1:09:16 ↗ estimate. Um, we still want to socialize

1:09:18 ↗ those results more broadly, make sure

1:09:20 ↗ people understand evacuation, can get

1:09:23 ↗ prepared. Um, ready, set, go is a

1:09:25 ↗ countywide program. Um, it was actually

1:09:27 ↗ used in the flooding, too, to for

1:09:29 ↗ evacuation levels. Um, but we want to

1:09:31 ↗ make sure people are ready for

1:09:32 ↗ wildfires. So, we're talking about doing

1:09:34 ↗ more wildfire trivia nights like that we

1:09:37 ↗ did last year. Uh screening of more

1:09:39 ↗ wildfire documentaries and um really

1:09:41 ↗ updating also our online resources where

1:09:44 ↗ people can learn about these things. Um

1:09:46 ↗ including a GIS map that shows

1:09:49 ↗ neighborhood by neighborhood um what

1:09:51 ↗ your evacuation routes are and um what

1:09:54 ↗ you should consider. So um those are all

1:09:56 ↗ efforts that were that are underway for

1:09:59 ↗ community preparness specifically for

1:10:00 ↗ wildfire. And then lastly, we want to

1:10:03 ↗ invest in more just general uh trainings

1:10:06 ↗ and engagements for the community,

1:10:07 ↗ right? Cert is a big commitment for some

1:10:09 ↗ individuals, right? But we want to make

1:10:11 ↗ sure that we have uh smaller, more

1:10:13 ↗ frequent touch points with the community

1:10:16 ↗ um that can help uh educate and make

1:10:18 ↗ them aware of our of our many hazards.

1:10:20 ↗ And so, uh, we're we're looking for

1:10:23 ↗ we're kind of revamping, if you will,

1:10:25 ↗ some of those efforts, getting away from

1:10:27 ↗ like the traditional just seminar style,

1:10:29 ↗ but going to places where people already

1:10:31 ↗ are, right? Like wildfire trivia is a

1:10:32 ↗ good example of that. Showing up where

1:10:34 ↗ people already hang out and doing, uh,

1:10:36 ↗ education kind of that way. So, um,

1:10:38 ↗ that's all part of community

1:10:40 ↗ preparedness this year. And then, of

1:10:42 ↗ course,

1:10:42 ↗ >> one second before we go, Deputy Council

1:10:44 ↗ President Mart. So, I just I I want to

1:10:49 ↗ make sure I know wildfire prepared

1:10:52 ↗ there's a lot in wildfire preparedness.

1:10:54 ↗ Um I I want to make sure that it's not

1:10:57 ↗ like, hey, we have some pamphlets you

1:10:59 ↗ can read about how to, you know, cut

1:11:01 ↗ brush away from the base of your house.

1:11:04 ↗ Like I just I just want to walk you

1:11:05 ↗ through a scenario, right? A house fire

1:11:07 ↗ on the south side of Squawk Mountain

1:11:10 ↗ during a high fuel load day leads to a

1:11:13 ↗ wildfire that starts that moves north

1:11:16 ↗ coming up over the top of Squawk

1:11:18 ↗ Mountain, right?

1:11:20 ↗ >> The city needs to have a plan.

1:11:23 ↗ Obviously, Epher is, you know, first

1:11:25 ↗ line of response on something like that,

1:11:27 ↗ but the city, you know, IPD, uh, public

1:11:31 ↗ works, you know, the city has to have a

1:11:33 ↗ plan in place for an event like that,

1:11:36 ↗ right? We don't have anything like that

1:11:38 ↗ currently, right?

1:11:39 ↗ >> Um, so that's what I think of when I

1:11:42 ↗ think of wildfire preparedness. I mean

1:11:44 ↗ there is also the cutting brush away

1:11:46 ↗ from the base of your home, but you know

1:11:48 ↗ part of our challenge is that Squawk

1:11:50 ↗ Mountain is steep and the things that

1:11:53 ↗ you can do in Wan that

1:11:56 ↗ reduce the risk of a wildfire to your

1:11:58 ↗ home um we just can't do here. Right.

1:12:01 ↗ >> Right. Um so it's about evacuating

1:12:04 ↗ people. It's about you know critical

1:12:06 ↗ minutes um you know during an event like

1:12:09 ↗ that. Mhm.

1:12:10 ↗ >> So that's, you know, that's got to be

1:12:12 ↗ part of our wildfire preparedness.

1:12:15 ↗ >> Yeah. And thank you for highlighting

1:12:16 ↗ that. That's it'll actually be called

1:12:18 ↗ out as a specific annex to our

1:12:20 ↗ comprehensive emergency management plan,

1:12:22 ↗ too, is is evacuation to really hammer

1:12:25 ↗ out those rules and responsibilities.

1:12:26 ↗ We've um one change that we've had from

1:12:28 ↗ even last wildfire season is we have a

1:12:30 ↗ uh uh a pre-w wildfire checklist, if you

1:12:34 ↗ will. So whenever we have those uh red

1:12:36 ↗ flag days or critical fire weather, we

1:12:39 ↗ actually get together department by

1:12:41 ↗ department in a coordination call and

1:12:43 ↗ you know bring up all the things to

1:12:45 ↗ consider, right? Like do we have keys

1:12:47 ↗ for the right gates to open up these

1:12:48 ↗ emergency access roads, right? Like

1:12:50 ↗ what's our plan for alert notification?

1:12:52 ↗ So yeah, thank you for highlighting

1:12:54 ↗ that. you know, there's there's um room

1:12:57 ↗ to grow there and and I I really expect

1:12:59 ↗ the CMP, the comprehensive emergency

1:13:01 ↗ management plan, we're going to hammer

1:13:03 ↗ out a really all those smaller details,

1:13:06 ↗ but we're taking we're taking steps on

1:13:07 ↗ that, too. So, but thank you for

1:13:09 ↗ highlighting that.

1:13:10 ↗ >> All right. Thanks.

1:13:12 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:13:13 ↗ Okay. And risk reduction, um we we just

1:13:15 ↗ took a deep dive into this, so I'm just

1:13:17 ↗ going to brush over this quickly, right?

1:13:18 ↗ But of course, our hazard mitigation

1:13:20 ↗ plan is um nearing nearing uh officially

1:13:23 ↗ being completed. The seismic assessments

1:13:25 ↗ I've mentioned on some of our city

1:13:27 ↗ buildings. And then of course the

1:13:29 ↗ infrastructure improvements at

1:13:30 ↗ resilience hubs being the solar and

1:13:32 ↗ storage um backup and um air filtration

1:13:35 ↗ upgrades at the community center.

1:13:38 ↗ Whoops. Okay. So with that um with each

1:13:41 ↗ three categories, here are the three um

1:13:44 ↗ major ways that I could see us growing

1:13:47 ↗ our emergency management program. Right.

1:13:49 ↗ So um expanding our incident command

1:13:52 ↗ system and emergency operations center

1:13:54 ↗ training. Um this is really speaking to

1:13:56 ↗ making sure that we have as many people

1:13:59 ↗ in the city trained up on how to work in

1:14:02 ↗ an EOC and uh emergency environment. And

1:14:06 ↗ this really addresses that that need

1:14:08 ↗ that FEMA is pulling back, right, from

1:14:10 ↗ this model where they're coming in,

1:14:12 ↗ right, with a big team of 80 people to

1:14:14 ↗ come support local jurisdictions, you

1:14:17 ↗ know, in a big disaster. You know,

1:14:18 ↗ that's that's not going to happen

1:14:20 ↗ anymore, right? And so we need to make

1:14:22 ↗ sure that from top to bottom, our staff

1:14:24 ↗ feel confident working in that EOC and

1:14:26 ↗ have a good handle and make sure that,

1:14:28 ↗ you know, we don't get overwhelmed by by

1:14:30 ↗ a large incident. And so, um, that's

1:14:33 ↗ >> Can I ask about the the FEMA piece for a

1:14:35 ↗ second? Yeah. Because my understanding

1:14:38 ↗ is that one of the things that's

1:14:40 ↗ occurring right now is FEMA is moving

1:14:42 ↗ more to a block grant type situation,

1:14:44 ↗ right? If you look at the total

1:14:46 ↗ emergency fund expected distribution in

1:14:48 ↗ 2026, it's a little bit less than 20,

1:14:51 ↗ it's less than 2025, but it's about the

1:14:53 ↗ same as 2024. But my understanding is

1:14:55 ↗ what really changes is that they're

1:14:58 ↗ trying to move again towards a block

1:15:00 ↗ grant type system which would cause the

1:15:02 ↗ states to have to look at their own for

1:15:05 ↗ instance insurance policies and you know

1:15:08 ↗ instead of

1:15:09 ↗ >> I mean I'm not going to carry water for

1:15:12 ↗ the you know the way the feds are doing

1:15:14 ↗ things but there is a

1:15:16 ↗ >> you know they're still spending FEMA is

1:15:18 ↗ still spending a lot of money but that

1:15:19 ↗ it's going to go out as block grants. Is

1:15:20 ↗ that our understanding as well? And if

1:15:22 ↗ so, should we be asking more of Olympia?

1:15:24 ↗ Right.

1:15:25 ↗ >> Yeah. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Yeah. I think

1:15:27 ↗ that is that if that is the way that

1:15:30 ↗ they roll things out, I think that is a

1:15:32 ↗ very good next step is to make sure that

1:15:34 ↗ olymp that that trickles down, if you

1:15:36 ↗ will, to local jurisdictions. There's

1:15:38 ↗ some fear, right, that um Washington

1:15:41 ↗ State Emergency Management uh division

1:15:43 ↗ has been uh really underfunded for for a

1:15:46 ↗ long time. And there's this sense that

1:15:49 ↗ um or I should say a little bit of

1:15:51 ↗ concern in local like jurisdictions that

1:15:54 ↗ you know the state will will mostly keep

1:15:57 ↗ those keep those funds right and that it

1:15:59 ↗ won't really um come come down the way

1:16:02 ↗ that the feds are envisioning. And so I

1:16:03 ↗ think that is an advocacy opportunity.

1:16:06 ↗ You know um there is still so much that

1:16:08 ↗ is up in the air when it comes to FEMA,

1:16:11 ↗ right? like they were supposed to um

1:16:13 ↗ they have convened a council over the

1:16:15 ↗ last year that was uh to make

1:16:17 ↗ recommendations about how FEMA can

1:16:19 ↗ change, right? Uh that report was due in

1:16:21 ↗ December, but um it's gotten delayed

1:16:24 ↗ till to March of this year. So, we're

1:16:27 ↗ kind of holding our breath waiting to

1:16:28 ↗ see until March to see what actually um

1:16:31 ↗ comes to fruition with FEMA. But we do

1:16:33 ↗ know, right, that like staff we do know

1:16:36 ↗ staff reductions are happening at FEMA.

1:16:38 ↗ That's for something that's for certain,

1:16:40 ↗ right? But the actual um future of what

1:16:43 ↗ yeah those block grants look like or how

1:16:45 ↗ that might um that money might be

1:16:47 ↗ repurposed to local jurisdictions I

1:16:49 ↗ think is what we're all kind of holding

1:16:50 ↗ our breath for. So yeah, thank you for

1:16:52 ↗ flagging that, Council Member Mertz.

1:16:54 ↗ >> I I just know that being glass half

1:16:57 ↗ full, the idea here is I'm going to pick

1:16:59 ↗ on another state, right? Florida's

1:17:01 ↗ needed insurance reform, hurricane

1:17:03 ↗ insurance reform for decades, and they

1:17:05 ↗ haven't had to do it because they've

1:17:08 ↗ papered over the problem with FEMA money

1:17:10 ↗ every time a hurricane comes through.

1:17:11 ↗ Right. So, again, playing glass half

1:17:14 ↗ full um and giving the benefit of the

1:17:16 ↗ doubt. You know, the hope is that with

1:17:18 ↗ this the the grant, you know, going to

1:17:21 ↗ block grants, it'll cause states then to

1:17:24 ↗ have an incentive to fix their houses,

1:17:26 ↗ you know, so to speak, with insurance

1:17:28 ↗ and and whatnot. So, it just seems like

1:17:32 ↗ >> tracking that and seeing how that

1:17:33 ↗ impacts our legislative agenda and

1:17:36 ↗ making sure, you know, there's very few

1:17:38 ↗ cities that have the the kind of uh both

1:17:41 ↗ both this earthquake and the wildfire

1:17:44 ↗ risk, right?

1:17:45 ↗ >> There there aren't many cities in

1:17:46 ↗ Washington state that have our risk uh

1:17:49 ↗ level.

1:17:50 ↗ >> So, making sure that the state does the

1:17:53 ↗ things that they need to do to put their

1:17:54 ↗ house in order for when the time comes.

1:17:57 ↗ You know, it's a shame if we can't count

1:17:59 ↗ on FEMA the way we used to count on

1:18:01 ↗ FEMA. But if that means we need to count

1:18:02 ↗ on the state and ask the state to step

1:18:04 ↗ up more, then we need to count on the

1:18:06 ↗ state and ask them to step up more.

1:18:08 ↗ >> That's a that's a great um option I

1:18:10 ↗ think opportunity. So yeah, thanks

1:18:12 ↗ thanks for sharing that. Um so the next

1:18:16 ↗ area for growth is really after action

1:18:18 ↗ item followup from from the flooding and

1:18:20 ↗ from the bomb cyclone that we that we've

1:18:22 ↗ recently had. you know, we have a lot of

1:18:24 ↗ items that we could that we've learned

1:18:25 ↗ that we could grow in, right? But we um

1:18:28 ↗ just admittedly don't always have all

1:18:30 ↗ the all the time and all the staff

1:18:32 ↗ capability to chase down and pull all

1:18:34 ↗ those, you know, threads and make sure

1:18:36 ↗ that, you know, we're fully implementing

1:18:38 ↗ our lessons learned. So, that's an area

1:18:40 ↗ for growth really deepening EOC

1:18:43 ↗ emergency operations center subject

1:18:44 ↗ matter expert bench strength, right?

1:18:46 ↗ Like, so as mentioned, you know, I'm a

1:18:48 ↗ division of one, right? And I'm I'm the

1:18:50 ↗ full-time nerd, you know, for for

1:18:52 ↗ emergency management, right? And so

1:18:54 ↗ while we have people who are highly

1:18:56 ↗ capable of operating the EOCC that are

1:18:58 ↗ not me, right? Um having another person

1:19:01 ↗ too, right? That really has the time to

1:19:04 ↗ invest um to to really understand these

1:19:07 ↗ systems, the intricacies, um I think is

1:19:10 ↗ something that would be a boon to the

1:19:12 ↗ city, if you will. expanding

1:19:14 ↗ interjurisdictional mutual aid. So, um

1:19:17 ↗ we can lean on other jurisdictions and

1:19:20 ↗ and their emergency management staff as

1:19:22 ↗ well um to as a way to make ourselves

1:19:25 ↗ more resilient, right? We have we have

1:19:27 ↗ neighbors and as council member Martz

1:19:29 ↗ mentioned, you know, has um we have a

1:19:32 ↗ lot of risks and sometimes a lot of

1:19:34 ↗ things happen in Isqua that are not

1:19:35 ↗ happening in other jurisdictions, right?

1:19:37 ↗ And so what we can do, you know, with

1:19:40 ↗ with more resources is actually train up

1:19:43 ↗ other jurisdiction staff on h how to

1:19:46 ↗ operate in our EOC um within our

1:19:48 ↗ structure. Other jurisdictions do it.

1:19:50 ↗ Kirkland's a good example. They invite

1:19:52 ↗ all like kind of neighboring emergency

1:19:54 ↗ managers once a year to come and learn

1:19:56 ↗ exactly just the I mean it's all instant

1:19:59 ↗ command system, but learn the nuances of

1:20:01 ↗ their of their EOC. And um that's

1:20:03 ↗ something right I see as an opportunity

1:20:05 ↗ for us too.

1:20:08 ↗ um in terms of community preparedness.

1:20:10 ↗ So CERT are some of our you know real

1:20:12 ↗ community champions if you will of commu

1:20:14 ↗ of uh preparedness. So uh but they're

1:20:17 ↗ volunteers and we want to make sure that

1:20:19 ↗ they're engaged and we want to make sure

1:20:20 ↗ that they're passionate and continue to

1:20:22 ↗ be those um those voices in our

1:20:25 ↗ communities really sharing sharing about

1:20:28 ↗ uh disasters and how to get more

1:20:30 ↗ prepared. So we want to keep them

1:20:31 ↗ engaged with monthly engagements. So

1:20:34 ↗ that's bringing in, you know, PSSE to do

1:20:36 ↗ downwire training. That's, you know,

1:20:38 ↗ bringing in the speaker who's gone

1:20:39 ↗ through a wildfire in Eastern Washington

1:20:42 ↗ to share some of their high highlights,

1:20:44 ↗ right? So offering those things to our

1:20:45 ↗ CE uh members uh will only I think serve

1:20:48 ↗ us to kind of strengthen that that

1:20:50 ↗ advocate that we have in the community.

1:20:53 ↗ Neighborhood level education campaigns,

1:20:55 ↗ right? Like each uh Isqua is interesting

1:20:57 ↗ in the sense where each neighborhood has

1:20:59 ↗ a very unique risk profile, if you will,

1:21:02 ↗ right? So wildfire is a really big deal

1:21:05 ↗ in the highlands, squawk talis, right?

1:21:07 ↗ But flooding, you know, it's a it's a it

1:21:10 ↗ has a higher impact down here in the

1:21:12 ↗ valley, right? So kind of tailoring that

1:21:14 ↗ message, bringing that to a neighborhood

1:21:16 ↗ level, right? Um I think would be a

1:21:19 ↗ really good way that we could make our

1:21:21 ↗ community preparedness uh efforts just a

1:21:23 ↗ little bit more engaging, right, for

1:21:24 ↗ residents and really bring it to home.

1:21:26 ↗ Um increased offerings of citywide

1:21:28 ↗ trainings engagement. So I've mentioned

1:21:30 ↗ this a little bit too but just increase

1:21:31 ↗ the frequency right that we have these

1:21:33 ↗ uh these trainings. um in terms of risk

1:21:36 ↗ reduction. So uh mitigation strategy

1:21:39 ↗ implementation you'll you'll notice that

1:21:40 ↗ there's a lot of uh mitigation

1:21:42 ↗ strategies that are assigned to me in

1:21:43 ↗ the mitigation plan right but um as

1:21:46 ↗ mentioned you know it is it's mostly it

1:21:49 ↗ is me who mostly works on on many of

1:21:51 ↗ those and so having um having more help

1:21:54 ↗ implementing those and then really grant

1:21:56 ↗ writing right grants um many of those

1:21:58 ↗ applications are uh quite lengthy

1:22:02 ↗ technical ownorous and you know

1:22:05 ↗ sometimes you don't always get them

1:22:06 ↗ right so there's there's not that

1:22:08 ↗ return, but there's there's more grants

1:22:10 ↗ out there than we have the resources to

1:22:13 ↗ apply for. And so, you know, that's

1:22:15 ↗ another potential area that like um

1:22:18 ↗ future support could help us with,

1:22:20 ↗ right? We could actually have someone um

1:22:22 ↗ helping write more grant applications

1:22:24 ↗ for seismic infrastructure retrofits,

1:22:26 ↗ right? For wildfire, uh you know, um

1:22:30 ↗ evacuation route studies, things like

1:22:31 ↗ that. you know, try to take advantage of

1:22:33 ↗ those big pots of money, you know, that

1:22:35 ↗ are that are actually out there. So, um,

1:22:38 ↗ those are some of the areas that I see,

1:22:40 ↗ right, as potential areas for growth,

1:22:42 ↗ but I would love to hear, um, the

1:22:44 ↗ committee's thoughts on on just, uh, the

1:22:46 ↗ emergency management program, some of

1:22:48 ↗ the areas for growth, and really where

1:22:50 ↗ where we're going now. So,

1:22:53 ↗ >> Deputy Council President Smarts, do you

1:22:55 ↗ want to do any more foot stomping?

1:22:57 ↗ I don't know about footsteping but um uh

1:23:00 ↗ because it's a topic we haven't been

1:23:02 ↗ discussed yet this evening but uh have

1:23:05 ↗ is part of emergency management um

1:23:08 ↗ hardening of our systems against uh uh

1:23:13 ↗ disaster um I'm I'm thinking here a

1:23:17 ↗ little bit about water and and uh uh

1:23:21 ↗ earthquakes but more specifically power

1:23:23 ↗ systems right my understanding is we

1:23:25 ↗ have four separate power systems in the

1:23:27 ↗ city and basically anytime anybody looks

1:23:29 ↗ sideways at us, Squawk Mountain loses

1:23:30 ↗ power, right? Because ours comes over

1:23:32 ↗ the mountain mountains from from the

1:23:34 ↗ east side. So, um have we looked at how

1:23:39 ↗ um you know, we have had over the last

1:23:41 ↗ 20 years a number of multi-day

1:23:44 ↗ situations where squawk has lost power

1:23:46 ↗ for three, four, five, six days. Once

1:23:49 ↗ you get to like six days plus, you know,

1:23:51 ↗ food storage is a big issue and and and

1:23:54 ↗ whatnot. So I I don't see hardening of

1:23:58 ↗ uh of utilities in this list.

1:24:02 ↗ >> Yeah. You know, and that's where we have

1:24:04 ↗ opportunity to partner with PSSE on, you

1:24:06 ↗ know, being the the main provider. And

1:24:08 ↗ so I think our energy resilience

1:24:10 ↗ strategy does call out working with them

1:24:13 ↗ more and, you know, really advocating

1:24:14 ↗ and and seeing if there's opportunities

1:24:17 ↗ to collaborate, right? and and some of

1:24:19 ↗ those grants, you know, the

1:24:21 ↗ collaboration between private and public

1:24:24 ↗ uh entities are uh they help you, right?

1:24:27 ↗ And so really engaging PSSE and saying

1:24:29 ↗ like, hey, you know, if you if you are

1:24:33 ↗ willing to, right, we can chase this

1:24:34 ↗ this money together. So that's certainly

1:24:36 ↗ an area where we can um where we can

1:24:39 ↗ look into uh more and partner with PSSE.

1:24:44 ↗ >> Yeah, I think that would be I think that

1:24:46 ↗ would be important. I think there's been

1:24:47 ↗ a long conversation about in general the

1:24:50 ↗ quality frankly of the power in some

1:24:53 ↗ parts of the city but this whole system

1:24:55 ↗ of having four completely separate it's

1:24:58 ↗ it's great if those four systems um

1:25:00 ↗ backs stop each other but they don't

1:25:01 ↗ right

1:25:02 ↗ >> right it's just you get the one that you

1:25:04 ↗ get and if it goes out and it goes out

1:25:05 ↗ more on squawk than it does any place

1:25:07 ↗ else um you're just out of out of luck

1:25:09 ↗ for a while

1:25:12 ↗ >> so I think that would be an important

1:25:13 ↗ addition

1:25:15 ↗ >> to the

1:25:18 ↗ Anything else? Otherwise, I've got a ton

1:25:20 ↗ of notes. Um, first off, I would say I

1:25:24 ↗ really appreciate taking this moment to

1:25:26 ↗ sit in what are we doing for emergency

1:25:29 ↗ management? What are those three

1:25:32 ↗ category areas of risk reduction,

1:25:34 ↗ preparedness, and emergency response?

1:25:36 ↗ and what does the council and in this

1:25:40 ↗ case the services safety and parks

1:25:41 ↗ committee think are the important areas

1:25:45 ↗ of feedback for you? So I would say um

1:25:51 ↗ my priority is emergency response. Um I

1:25:56 ↗ think it's really important to recognize

1:25:57 ↗ that nobody can do that except for the

1:26:01 ↗ city. Nobody is going to be able to

1:26:03 ↗ seismically retrofit our infrastructure

1:26:07 ↗ so that all of the residents can be

1:26:11 ↗ insured that we can maintain ourselves

1:26:14 ↗ in the midst of an emergency. Um the

1:26:17 ↗ second is risk reduction. You know,

1:26:19 ↗ there's some things that individual

1:26:21 ↗ property owners can do, but a lot of

1:26:23 ↗ them again are city tasks, but sometimes

1:26:26 ↗ they're going to require additional

1:26:27 ↗ funding. And so that's why I would say

1:26:31 ↗ emergency response is really the bread

1:26:35 ↗ and butter, the thing that we need to do

1:26:37 ↗ as well as possible. And then finally,

1:26:40 ↗ community preparedness because community

1:26:43 ↗ members themselves can choose to do that

1:26:46 ↗ work. Um,

1:26:49 ↗ so when I'm looking at those three

1:26:52 ↗ categories for emergency response, I'd

1:26:55 ↗ like to get more information about our

1:26:57 ↗ plans for resilience hub expansion. Um,

1:27:00 ↗ I saw that being really important in the

1:27:03 ↗ bomb cyclone. Um, I know there have been

1:27:06 ↗ plans to do expansion into other

1:27:08 ↗ neighborhoods. I'd like to get a sense

1:27:10 ↗ of what the timeline is for that, what

1:27:13 ↗ actions we're taking, what needs we

1:27:15 ↗ might have in order to make that happen

1:27:18 ↗ faster because from my perspective,

1:27:20 ↗ that's a really important priority. Um,

1:27:22 ↗ I also agree with your idea that the

1:27:26 ↗ incident command center and uh the

1:27:28 ↗ emergency operation center, I probably

1:27:31 ↗ have some of those letters wrong. Um,

1:27:33 ↗ training plus afteraction follow-ups are

1:27:35 ↗ really important. I'd like to get a

1:27:37 ↗ sense if we have the budget and the

1:27:39 ↗ staff to support that. If not, I think

1:27:41 ↗ that is a really high priority for me to

1:27:45 ↗ understand how we can do that emergency

1:27:47 ↗ response better. Um because as you said,

1:27:51 ↗ you are one person and I know you have a

1:27:55 ↗ baby and you're going to get sick

1:27:59 ↗ and so having

1:28:01 ↗ a backup

1:28:03 ↗ in that case I feel is really important.

1:28:06 ↗ So the the cross trainining, the after

1:28:08 ↗ of action follow-ups and the sense of do

1:28:11 ↗ we have the staff um needed there is

1:28:13 ↗ important um for risk reduction, you

1:28:17 ↗ know, with the hazard mitigation plan.

1:28:19 ↗ We talked a little bit about this um as

1:28:22 ↗ far as could this be a separate part of

1:28:24 ↗ our CIP to bring awareness to the

1:28:26 ↗ investments needed and the

1:28:28 ↗ opportunities. But I'd also like to

1:28:31 ↗ think about our investments there in the

1:28:34 ↗ same way that we do the pavement

1:28:35 ↗ management and the concrete management

1:28:38 ↗ plan in that we have a sense of what are

1:28:42 ↗ the needs

1:28:44 ↗ >> and what investments do we need to do on

1:28:46 ↗ an annual basis

1:28:48 ↗ >> to maintain. So we not only have a sense

1:28:52 ↗ of what our entire needs are, but also

1:28:55 ↗ what's our target

1:28:57 ↗ >> for each of the years. And that helps us

1:29:00 ↗ then look at and go, oh, we had a really

1:29:03 ↗ rough year and we reduced some of our

1:29:06 ↗ spending in emergency management, so we

1:29:08 ↗ need to catch up there

1:29:10 ↗ >> rather than just seeing these as

1:29:12 ↗ necessarily individual projects. I think

1:29:15 ↗ this gives us a better sense of what are

1:29:18 ↗ the budgetary needs. Are we investing at

1:29:20 ↗ the correct level? Um,

1:29:23 ↗ and maybe are there different investment

1:29:26 ↗ needs within certain disaster

1:29:28 ↗ categories? Um, that would kind of give

1:29:31 ↗ us a higher level sense of to be fully

1:29:34 ↗ prepared for an earthquake.

1:29:37 ↗ >> Here's all of our needs. Here's what

1:29:40 ↗ we've done. to be prepared for flooding,

1:29:44 ↗ you know, and some of that is going to

1:29:46 ↗ be in the risk reduction section, some

1:29:49 ↗ of that is going to be in the emergency

1:29:51 ↗ response, etc., etc. Um,

1:29:55 ↗ and so toward that idea,

1:30:00 ↗ I think the focus on earthquakes and

1:30:02 ↗ wildfires is really important.

1:30:06 ↗ I will foot stomp here and say I don't

1:30:09 ↗ want to just see another plan for this.

1:30:12 ↗ I think the hazard mitigation plan gives

1:30:15 ↗ us some specific recommendations. And so

1:30:18 ↗ I'd really like to see action on some of

1:30:22 ↗ those so that we can say at the end of

1:30:25 ↗ that 3.8 years that look we've moved the

1:30:28 ↗ needle forward in these four areas and

1:30:31 ↗ this is why you're safer. Having a plan

1:30:36 ↗ doesn't necessarily do that. Um, now

1:30:39 ↗ it's probably going to be important in

1:30:42 ↗ the coordination of Isqua Police

1:30:44 ↗ Department and East Side Fire and Rescue

1:30:46 ↗ and our emergency operations center and

1:30:49 ↗ things like that. Um,

1:30:52 ↗ but gosh darn I want to say we have done

1:30:55 ↗ things and made a difference on specific

1:30:59 ↗ action. So that would be my focus. um in

1:31:03 ↗ that area. And then finally, I'd like to

1:31:06 ↗ see emergency management be a bigger

1:31:08 ↗ part of this committee's role. I think

1:31:10 ↗ this can be a really great way for us to

1:31:13 ↗ push this forward and make sure that it

1:31:15 ↗ is a focus. Um council member Nicker

1:31:18 ↗ Nichols when um talking about the hazard

1:31:20 ↗ mitigation plan recommended that we get

1:31:23 ↗ an annual report on hazard mitigation

1:31:26 ↗ metrics and progress. And so I think

1:31:28 ↗ that could be a great way to involve the

1:31:31 ↗ committee and make sure that we are just

1:31:34 ↗ continually beating the drum on how

1:31:36 ↗ important this is for resident safety,

1:31:39 ↗ for mitigation so that we're not seeing

1:31:42 ↗ expenses down the road, um, and for

1:31:45 ↗ really making sure that we have the risk

1:31:47 ↗ reduction there. So

1:31:50 ↗ feedback, any any thoughts, questions

1:31:55 ↗ on that or do you have what you need?

1:31:58 ↗ You know, I think that that sounds great

1:32:00 ↗ and I think that's a that's a great

1:32:01 ↗ vision honestly for of how we can, you

1:32:05 ↗ know, not just make an emergency

1:32:06 ↗ management um you know, like shelf and

1:32:09 ↗ just pull it down when we have an

1:32:10 ↗ emergency, right? But make it part of

1:32:11 ↗ the regular business that we do in the

1:32:13 ↗ city. And so I very much thank you for

1:32:16 ↗ that feedback and um definitely heard

1:32:19 ↗ and I personally feel like I got really

1:32:22 ↗ good direction um from the committee

1:32:24 ↗ tonight on on where to go with emergency

1:32:26 ↗ management. So thank you both.

1:32:28 ↗ >> Great. So I don't think there's any

1:32:30 ↗ action here. I guess I will um do a

1:32:33 ↗ little side eye to deputy council

1:32:35 ↗ president Martz in that this was

1:32:37 ↗ something that leadership council

1:32:39 ↗ leadership asked us to discuss here so

1:32:42 ↗ that it could then kind of filter

1:32:44 ↗ through and we could figure out maybe in

1:32:47 ↗ our planning and our agenda setting what

1:32:49 ↗ are some of the things that we should

1:32:50 ↗ focus on. So, I will hope that we can

1:32:53 ↗ get the feedback from council leadership

1:32:55 ↗ that all of this was useful and there is

1:32:58 ↗ an action that this is going to take in

1:33:00 ↗ the future once you guys have digested

1:33:02 ↗ it all.

1:33:04 ↗ >> I don't think there's anything here that

1:33:08 ↗ uh I I don't think there's anything here

1:33:10 ↗ that council leadership can go chew on

1:33:14 ↗ to go do a particular thing. I think

1:33:17 ↗ that we have made clear um that we the

1:33:22 ↗ annex makes sense and that we are

1:33:25 ↗ properly sensitized to wildfire and

1:33:28 ↗ earthquake issues. And I think that the

1:33:30 ↗ two of us have made super clear with

1:33:33 ↗ council member Nichols um concurrence

1:33:36 ↗ that we want to see progress on all

1:33:38 ↗ this. So respectfully, I don't think the

1:33:40 ↗ ball's in the council's court. I think

1:33:41 ↗ the ball is in the administration's

1:33:43 ↗ court with this feedback um to figure

1:33:45 ↗ out how and when um it wants to come

1:33:48 ↗ back to tea up um

1:33:51 ↗ you know uh whether there's going to be

1:33:53 ↗ an ask directly of council from general

1:33:56 ↗ fund or whether you want to say we want

1:33:58 ↗ to take six months and try to pursue

1:34:00 ↗ grants you know but I I see it as a

1:34:03 ↗ thing that for the administration to

1:34:04 ↗ come back based on the feedback we've

1:34:05 ↗ provided today. Yeah, maybe I'll just

1:34:08 ↗ ask that if you'll keep an eye on the

1:34:10 ↗ agenda as it gets set and just, you

1:34:13 ↗ know, think about emergency management

1:34:14 ↗ occasionally. Uh,

1:34:16 ↗ >> you know, I do.

1:34:17 ↗ >> I know you do. And I'm giving you, you

1:34:20 ↗ know, the

1:34:22 ↗ >> as the committee chair, I will, uh, I

1:34:24 ↗ will, uh, seek to, uh, to perform that

1:34:27 ↗ task as part of being a leader, part of

1:34:29 ↗ the leadership team.

1:34:30 ↗ >> Excellent. Um, Autumn, anything that you

1:34:34 ↗ need from us on this other than the

1:34:36 ↗ general feedback and sense of urgency?

1:34:40 ↗ >> No, the feedback tonight's been super

1:34:42 ↗ helpful. Thank you.

1:34:43 ↗ >> Okay. Excellent. Well, um, we are

1:34:46 ↗ supposed to also initiate public comment

1:34:49 ↗ um, in a sense of this, but there is no

1:34:52 ↗ one in the room and no one online.

1:34:55 ↗ >> No, we we have had a virtual caller for

1:34:57 ↗ a while. Yes. Okay, we have a virtual

1:35:00 ↗ caller. So, I will just note um that we

1:35:04 ↗ would welcome public comment. If you're

1:35:06 ↗ on the phone, press star three. If you

1:35:08 ↗ joined by computer or smartphone, look

1:35:10 ↗ for the hand icon or send a chat to the

1:35:15 ↗ host. And I will just wait a moment and

1:35:18 ↗ see if we have anybody who wants to make

1:35:20 ↗ comments

1:35:22 ↗ virtually online.

1:35:26 ↗ And are we seeing anything?

1:35:32 ↗ >> Not at this time, chair.

1:35:34 ↗ >> Okay. Well, we always take um comments

1:35:38 ↗ by email. So, you can always email city

1:35:40 ↗ council isawwa.gov.

1:35:43 ↗ And so, that is all of the pieces there.

1:35:48 ↗ Um, final piece of business,

1:35:50 ↗ announcements. Do my fellow committee

1:35:52 ↗ members have any announcements to make?

1:35:54 ↗ No. Okay. Our next committee meeting

1:35:56 ↗ date is April 28th uh 2026. Our March

1:36:01 ↗ 17th meeting has been cancelled and a

1:36:02 ↗ planning, development, and environment

1:36:04 ↗ committee meeting will be held that

1:36:06 ↗ evening instead. And so there being no

1:36:09 ↗ further business, the meeting is

1:36:10 ↗ adjourned at 8:36 p.m.

1:36:13 ↗ Thank you.

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)

Lindsey Walsh

Tola Marts

Staff (2)

Autumn Monahan, Director of Administrative Services

T. Cassidy Mueller, Deputy City Clerk

Excused

Kevin Nichols

Recommendations & actions (2)

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

There being no changes, the minutes were unanimously approved as presented.
The Committee recommended adoption of the 2025-2030 City of Issaquah Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex to the full City Council, placing the item on Consent at the March 16, 2026 City Council meeting.