City Council Special Meeting · Monday, August 20, 2018 · City Council Digest

4227 segments .txt ↗

0:12 ↗ welcome to the Monday August

0:15 ↗ if council committee work session we

0:18 ↗ have three items this evening after each

0:20 ↗ of the three we will be taking a public

0:21 ↗ comment we do have a change in order

0:23 ↗ this evening due to some staff

0:27 ↗ compatibility issues schedule-wise that

0:30 ↗ we're going to need to move

0:31 ↗ transportation concurrency to the front

0:33 ↗ but the good news for those if you are

0:35 ↗ here for the Senior Center update is

0:36 ↗ that you won't have to wait until after

0:38 ↗ the solid waste services recycling

0:40 ↗ conversation so it's a bit of you know

0:42 ↗ we do what we can so with that let's

0:45 ↗ move forward with I do 297 I'm sorry I

0:48 ↗ do 266 transportation concurrency with

0:51 ↗ City Administrator moon director Lin and

0:54 ↗ Torsten our consultant

1:16 ↗ that's wrong one I went to right away

1:33 ↗ good evening

1:35 ↗ Emily moon interim city administrator

1:37 ↗ I'm gonna kick off tonight and then turn

1:39 ↗ it over to Torsten our consultant and at

1:43 ↗ the end children will be back up to

1:44 ↗ assist with any questions if you have

1:46 ↗ them directed at him as opposed to

1:48 ↗ Torsten tonight just a quick overview on

1:51 ↗ what we're gonna cover I will certainly

1:55 ↗ try all right

1:58 ↗ the purpose of tonight's presentation is

2:01 ↗ to provide you with a briefing on the

2:04 ↗ results of the concurrency models

2:06 ↗ technical update that's a data run of

2:09 ↗ the system and we're gonna review what

2:12 ↗ the scope of work was that was included

2:14 ↗ in this year's work plan and the related

2:17 ↗ budget allocation and how that fits in

2:19 ↗ with the more comprehensive view of our

2:22 ↗ transportation concurrency so first we

2:29 ↗ just wanted to give you a quick rundown

2:31 ↗ of what tonight's plan is what we're

2:36 ↗ going to be covering and what we're not

2:37 ↗ and this includes the scope of work from

2:40 ↗ this year's project so this is the

2:42 ↗ required update from our municipal code

2:45 ↗ updates the model based on land use and

2:50 ↗ provides data that we use to update our

2:53 ↗ traffic impact fees this is not the

2:57 ↗ scope of work that involves looking at

2:58 ↗ policy goals or the methodology used in

3:01 ↗ concurrency we wanted to give you a

3:05 ↗ sense of where we are on concurrency

3:08 ↗ system and also why we do concurrency so

3:13 ↗ the state growth Management Act requires

3:16 ↗ jurisdictions adopt a level of service

3:18 ↗ or l o s standard for their

3:21 ↗ transportation systems state law

3:23 ↗ requires that improvements for example

3:26 ↗ streets sidewalks bike lanes and the

3:28 ↗ like are needed to maintain its akua's

3:30 ↗ adopted L OS or level of service are

3:33 ↗ installed at the time of development or

3:36 ↗ that a financial commitment is in place

3:38 ↗ to spend the collected fees on

3:40 ↗ appropriate transportation system

3:42 ↗ improvements

3:44 ↗ the city uses a computer model to

3:47 ↗ analyze what motorized and non-motorized

3:49 ↗ transportation projects are needed to

3:51 ↗ maintain the adopted el OS and it common

3:55 ↗ date projected growth the city then

3:57 ↗ accepts rejects prioritizes those

4:01 ↗ transportation projects through adoption

4:04 ↗ of a capital improvement plan when a

4:07 ↗ development is proposed its associated

4:09 ↗ trips are compared to what is available

4:10 ↗ in a citywide trip bank if the

4:14 ↗ developments trips counts were

4:16 ↗ anticipated and are within the citywide

4:19 ↗ trip bank balance its deemed to have

4:21 ↗ past concurrency and it pays an impact

4:24 ↗ fee into the citywide mitigation fund in

4:27 ↗ 2013 the city did a major overhaul of

4:30 ↗ its concurrency system and made changes

4:33 ↗ to policy and the system overall and

4:37 ↗ those changes were implemented in

4:39 ↗ January 2015 we call that some that

4:43 ↗ system the simplified concurrency system

4:45 ↗ so if we use that term that's what we're

4:47 ↗ talking about

4:48 ↗ was that overhaul in 2015 and the

4:51 ↗ process we use today that simplified

4:55 ↗ concurrency system includes a list of

4:57 ↗ capital improvement projects necessary

5:00 ↗ for the city to be concurrent these are

5:03 ↗ projects that are just a subset of our

5:05 ↗ overall transportation improvement plan

5:08 ↗ I also includes a traffic impact fee

5:10 ↗ that developers would pay for

5:12 ↗ concurrency it includes a policy stating

5:15 ↗ that the city would be able to use these

5:17 ↗ fees for any and all of the projects on

5:20 ↗ the list and that no improvement project

5:22 ↗ is tied to any specific development the

5:27 ↗ system also included reaffirmation that

5:29 ↗ the city would have to provide funding

5:31 ↗ for its share of the improvements costs

5:33 ↗ and that the city would need to build

5:35 ↗ the projects the concurrency policy

5:39 ↗ states that a technical update of the

5:41 ↗ model ensuring new development and trips

5:44 ↗ impacts are modeled and that we should

5:47 ↗ perform that update every three years we

5:52 ↗ commence the model update in 2017

5:55 ↗ but it's completion was delayed as staff

5:57 ↗ worked on multiple projects including

5:59 ↗ the building moratorium and as we were

6:02 ↗ coordinating modeling with other

6:04 ↗ planning efforts tonight we're

6:07 ↗ presenting the results of that update

6:08 ↗ the models output is used to update the

6:11 ↗ list and cost of eligible projects which

6:14 ↗ then become the basis for an update of

6:16 ↗ the traffic impact fees so a reminder

6:24 ↗ that our transportation component of our

6:26 ↗ capital plan which we also refer to as a

6:29 ↗ state required tip or t IP or

6:31 ↗ transportation improvement plan includes

6:34 ↗ both concurrency projects and non

6:37 ↗ concurrency related projects the dollar

6:40 ↗ figures on this slide are from the TI P

6:43 ↗ adopted in 2013 and from the prior

6:46 ↗ concurrency update the TI P has been

6:50 ↗ updated since that time and therefore

6:52 ↗ these numbers will change as we move

6:53 ↗ from the technical update we're

6:55 ↗ discussing tonight to the subsequent

6:57 ↗ update of project costs and impact fees

7:01 ↗ in 2014-2015 when these figures were

7:06 ↗ first shown the city estimated that our

7:08 ↗ concurrency project obligation could be

7:11 ↗ met through a combination of grants

7:12 ↗ other city funding sources and developer

7:16 ↗ fees so at this point I'm going to turn

7:21 ↗ it over to Torsten lina and tor cents

7:24 ↗ from ch2m Hill

7:26 ↗ he's the consultant that has helped us

7:29 ↗ to update our model thank you

7:40 ↗ thank you so my name is Torsten if I

7:43 ↗ used a technical term that you don't

7:45 ↗ understand or if I say something that's

7:47 ↗ confusing please don't hesitate to

7:49 ↗ interrupt and ask me to explain okay I

7:53 ↗ try not to but every once in a while I

7:55 ↗ get stuck in it okay so as Emily had

7:59 ↗ pointed out we did a technical update of

8:02 ↗ the concurrency system so there was the

8:05 ↗ policy update that we did in 2013 that

8:09 ↗ was eventually implemented in 2015 and

8:13 ↗ but this go-around was literally taking

8:16 ↗ the same concurrency system and just

8:18 ↗ updating and the things that we updated

8:20 ↗ include getting new traffic counts to

8:23 ↗ make sure that we're keeping up with

8:25 ↗ growth both regionally and within the

8:27 ↗ city so we went from a 2013 baseline to

8:31 ↗ a 2017 baseline all of our counts were

8:34 ↗ collected in 2017 and then we looked at

8:38 ↗ land use so where did we go from land

8:42 ↗ use that was planned in 2013 that is now

8:45 ↗ built and maybe some land use was

8:50 ↗ planned but is no longer going to happen

8:52 ↗ those types of changes and updates we do

8:55 ↗ that technical update but we don't we

8:58 ↗ don't do any policy land use changes so

9:01 ↗ we're not contemplating new growth

9:03 ↗ somewhere that we didn't contemplate

9:05 ↗ before okay and then lastly network

9:09 ↗ changes so anything that might have

9:11 ↗ changed in that CIP that Emily had

9:13 ↗ mentioned over the four years we make

9:16 ↗ sure that we are consistent with the

9:18 ↗ current t IP and that the concurrency

9:21 ↗ system reflects that first and regarding

9:23 ↗ the land use is do we assume build-out

9:28 ↗ at maximum capacity we assume it's not

9:33 ↗ maximum capacity but we do assume a what

9:38 ↗ we're calling it build-out of the city

9:40 ↗ it could be higher than that but it's

9:42 ↗ the amount of land use that we planned

9:45 ↗ for when we did the 2013 update so it is

9:49 ↗ more than what is vested so there's I'm

9:51 ↗ gonna go into the three land use

9:53 ↗ categories

9:54 ↗ we've got existing land use that exists

9:57 ↗ and is on the ground today

9:58 ↗ then there's land use that's been

10:00 ↗ approved by the city we call that

10:01 ↗ pipeline or vested growth that's been

10:04 ↗ approved but it isn't built yet and then

10:07 ↗ there's the land use that is planned for

10:09 ↗ but there's no specific developer or

10:12 ↗ application into the city for that land

10:14 ↗ use it's just land use that we're

10:16 ↗ anticipating may occur and we are

10:20 ↗ planning to occur by 2040 ok then it's

10:22 ↗ that third category where my question is

10:24 ↗ and so when we get to that maybe okay so

10:34 ↗ I'm gonna talk first about the land use

10:36 ↗ changes and there's a lot of numbers and

10:38 ↗ bar charts and everything on this

10:40 ↗ graphic it's a little busy but I'm gonna

10:41 ↗ try and break it down for ya and the

10:44 ↗ thing I want to concentrate on first

10:46 ↗ well first the three bullets the the

10:48 ↗ land use things that we did we did talk

10:50 ↗ to the city of Sammamish and we got an

10:52 ↗ update of their land use since 2013 we

10:56 ↗ always get their land use because part

11:00 ↗ of their city is in within our model

11:01 ↗ window so we want to make sure that

11:03 ↗ we're reflecting any growth or change in

11:05 ↗ land use that's occurred within the city

11:07 ↗ of Sammamish that impacts Issaquah and

11:09 ↗ so we did obtain that and we updated

11:13 ↗ that land use within our model window

11:16 ↗ the other thing that we did is we went

11:18 ↗ through all the concurrency certificates

11:21 ↗ that had been issued since 2013

11:24 ↗ so that's development now that we are

11:26 ↗ considering vested or pipeline that's in

11:29 ↗ the system has been approved but isn't

11:32 ↗ built yet

11:32 ↗ so that land use was updated in the

11:36 ↗ model and then finally towards the very

11:38 ↗ end of the model update the staff and I

11:42 ↗ got together to talk about the fact that

11:44 ↗ the talus and Highlands development

11:46 ↗ agreements are either expired now or

11:49 ↗ about to expire and so we wanted to

11:52 ↗ account for that change because all of

11:56 ↗ that land use had previously been

11:57 ↗ assumed as pipeline or vested growth and

12:01 ↗ with the expiration of the development

12:03 ↗ agreements we moved

12:05 ↗ some of that land use from vested to

12:07 ↗ future growth and I'll talk about that

12:11 ↗ now as I go through these graphics at

12:14 ↗ the top of the page so the first thing

12:17 ↗ to note is the color scheme on the two

12:21 ↗ graphs on the top the blue is existing

12:24 ↗ land use the orange is vested land use

12:28 ↗ so land use that's been approved but

12:31 ↗ hasn't been built yet and then that gray

12:33 ↗ box at the top is the future land use

12:38 ↗ note that on both the commercial graphic

12:43 ↗ and the residential graphic that the top

12:45 ↗ of the two bar charts each one comparing

12:49 ↗ by the way to 2013 that the top is

12:54 ↗ roughly the same and it should be

12:57 ↗ because we weren't reinventing land use

13:00 ↗ we were just moving land-use around from

13:03 ↗ whether it's vested to existing to plant

13:06 ↗ basically documenting what happened over

13:09 ↗ the last four years there was however as

13:13 ↗ you'll note a very slight increase on

13:15 ↗ both sides and that was land use that

13:17 ↗ was approved over the four years that we

13:19 ↗ did not plan for that was not in the

13:22 ↗ system at the time of 2013 but that we

13:25 ↗ want to definitely account for now

13:26 ↗ okay so again very small change but but

13:31 ↗ note that overall the land use did not

13:34 ↗ change and the only change overall is

13:38 ↗ land use that actually happened so it

13:41 ↗ wasn't a policy decision to change

13:42 ↗ anything it was just land use that that

13:45 ↗ came in the door yes okay so for

13:52 ↗ commercial oh I'm sorry you need to be

14:00 ↗ by the microphone to answer like sorry

14:01 ↗ marketing that for commercial it is

14:04 ↗ square feet and for residential its

14:07 ↗ number of units okay Stacy thank you

14:12 ↗ Torsten the I don't understand what the

14:15 ↗ significance

14:16 ↗ of those hearts are like why is that

14:19 ↗ important for us to know so what I

14:20 ↗ wanted to point out is now the

14:22 ↗ significance is let's start with the

14:24 ↗ commercial land use

14:25 ↗ note that the blue bar got taller from

14:29 ↗ 2013 to 2017 something you should expect

14:32 ↗ some of the pipeline development that we

14:36 ↗ had planned for in 2013 actually got

14:38 ↗ built and is now impacting the street

14:42 ↗ network so there are cars on the street

14:43 ↗ related to that development so the blue

14:46 ↗ increased and the orange got smaller so

14:50 ↗ basically all I'm showing here is that

14:52 ↗ we moved land-use from the orange box

14:54 ↗ from the vested to the existing and that

14:58 ↗ reflects then that is reflected in the

15:01 ↗ 2017 traffic counts that we obtained so

15:04 ↗ we're trying to match the new counts to

15:07 ↗ the increase in existing land use okay

15:11 ↗ and yet the aggregate of existing plus

15:18 ↗ pipeline has gone down so you moved some

15:21 ↗ units from pipeline to existing but you

15:25 ↗ moved some from vested sorry you have

15:29 ↗ some from vested to basically invest it

15:32 ↗ correct and so that is the Highlands and

15:36 ↗ the talus expirations so what happened

15:40 ↗ there was they were vested before and we

15:43 ↗ didn't want to just get written out that

15:44 ↗ the development agreement is expired we

15:46 ↗ didn't want to get rid of the land use

15:47 ↗ because we still assume that land use is

15:50 ↗ going to occur but it is no longer

15:52 ↗ vested so we want to move that into the

15:55 ↗ planned pile you bet so that's the

15:59 ↗ difference between the two I won't go

16:00 ↗ into the specifics of the numbers but

16:04 ↗ you can see how things change so there's

16:06 ↗ a more drastic I guess change in that

16:08 ↗ Orange Box for commercial land use than

16:11 ↗ there is for residential but it was all

16:13 ↗ basically it's it's an accounting

16:15 ↗ exercise making sure that we've got all

16:17 ↗ the land use in the correct box and why

16:20 ↗ it's important is because the gray box

16:22 ↗ at the top of all of these is what we

16:25 ↗ can charge an impact fee for we cannot

16:27 ↗ charge an impact fee for the orange

16:29 ↗ or the blue box okay so that's why it's

16:32 ↗ absolutely important that we get the

16:34 ↗ numbers the counting correct on this

16:37 ↗ exercise so these match below if you

16:41 ↗ really like numbers yes sir it's a quick

16:43 ↗ question the reason we can't charge

16:45 ↗ impact fees on the orange and the blue

16:47 ↗ is because we already have correct the

16:50 ↗ orange has definitely already paid an

16:52 ↗ impact fee and part of the blue has paid

16:55 ↗ an impact fee okay great okay so how the

17:00 ↗ top graphics match to the bottom is only

17:03 ↗ if you really want the very specific

17:05 ↗ numbers you should be able to match the

17:07 ↗ 2017 the to 2017 bar charts to the

17:11 ↗ numbers you see in the table below so

17:14 ↗ for instance the residential looks on

17:17 ↗ the bar chart like it's around 26,000 at

17:19 ↗ the very top if you look at so the

17:27 ↗ column labeled 2040 total under

17:29 ↗ residential you'll see the exact number

17:31 ↗ is twenty six thousand six hundred and

17:33 ↗ forty four okay so that's how you can

17:35 ↗ match the two tables together the only

17:37 ↗ other thing I want to point out is this

17:39 ↗ box off to the side on the far right of

17:42 ↗ the table is the land use that we can

17:44 ↗ charge an impact fee for so that's the

17:46 ↗ planned land use that hasn't already

17:49 ↗ paid an impact fee Torstein just walk me

17:53 ↗ through for Issaquah total residential

17:55 ↗ units you've got in 2017 you've got

17:59 ↗ sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty

18:01 ↗ six correct and you say in the pipeline

18:04 ↗ is twenty thousand four hundred and six

18:07 ↗ oh and the twenty forty total is the

18:11 ↗ twenty forty pipeline plus what's left

18:13 ↗ correct

18:14 ↗ okay it's so there's a delta so the

18:16 ↗ between the sixteen seven and the twenty

18:18 ↗ thousand for that three thousand sum is

18:21 ↗ new growth minus CI in villages and I'm

18:26 ↗ like where's that growth gonna be oh

18:27 ↗ there's only ninety three right units

18:29 ↗ which is what I would imagine so the

18:32 ↗ other thing to take away from this table

18:34 ↗ on the far right is note where the

18:39 ↗ growth is occurring so for the

18:42 ↗ or much of the growth it is all in the

18:46 ↗ central is Squa area okay

18:48 ↗ that's these sets of numbers then

18:52 ↗ because of the expirations of the

18:55 ↗ Highlands and talus we did now

18:58 ↗ accommodate some future growth there so

19:03 ↗ that's growth that is now planned for

19:05 ↗ but was used to be vested and then

19:08 ↗ finally we have a nominal amount of

19:10 ↗ growth outside those two big urban areas

19:14 ↗ in the rest of the city about a hundred

19:16 ↗ units of housing is the public allowed -

19:19 ↗ no I'm sorry we don't actually take

19:22 ↗ public questions during this part but

19:24 ↗ you're welcome to I'm gonna take public

19:27 ↗ comment when we're done with this item

19:28 ↗ and if you have comment that you want to

19:30 ↗ make at that point you'll be welcome to

19:31 ↗ do so okay any questions about the

19:36 ↗ glazed-over numbers all right okay so so

19:43 ↗ that was the land use the other major

19:44 ↗ thing that we changed besides traffic

19:46 ↗ the updated traffic counts and the land

19:49 ↗ use was looking at where did we make

19:51 ↗ changes in the network so if you

19:54 ↗ remember back to Emily's introductory

19:57 ↗ presentation there are projects in the

20:00 ↗ TI P that are considered concurrency

20:03 ↗ projects and there are projects that are

20:04 ↗ non concurrency projects so you'll note

20:07 ↗ down the side of this graphic the list

20:10 ↗ of projects are not numerical one two

20:12 ↗ three four five

20:13 ↗ there are missing projects the missing

20:15 ↗ ones from the TI P are ones that are

20:17 ↗ considered non concurrency so I didn't

20:20 ↗ reproduce them here so I don't want you

20:22 ↗ to think that we missed something or

20:23 ↗ forgot something they're just projects

20:25 ↗ that are not considered concurrency

20:26 ↗ projects in order for it to be a

20:29 ↗ concurrency projects project it has to

20:31 ↗ add a vehicle capacity not so non

20:36 ↗ motorized projects unfortunately are not

20:38 ↗ part of the impact fee and that's a

20:41 ↗ state statute it has nothing to do with

20:43 ↗ in Issaquah policy it's you know a state

20:46 ↗ law okay all right so the numbers again

20:52 ↗ down the left side of the table

20:54 ↗ reflect

20:55 ↗ the current TI P project numbers and in

20:59 ↗ the map that's shown on the graphic if

21:01 ↗ the number is in a red box

21:04 ↗ it matches the current TI P any numbers

21:09 ↗ that are in a blue box are projects that

21:11 ↗ were in the 2013 TI p and that are no

21:16 ↗ longer in the current TI p and so those

21:21 ↗ were changes that we needed to discuss

21:25 ↗ reconcile talk through and figure out

21:28 ↗ what to do with for this update okay so

21:31 ↗ i just reproduce the list for you if you

21:34 ↗ want to go you can go through each

21:36 ↗ project if you want i'm not gonna go

21:37 ↗ through the detail of that but basically

21:39 ↗ all the ones listed on this graphic I've

21:42 ↗ got five slides coming up all the ones

21:45 ↗ on this particular slide there were no

21:47 ↗ changes on the then sequentially

21:53 ↗ continuing in the TI P this list there

21:56 ↗ were three and I'm gonna go and they are

21:58 ↗ the three blue boxes that are on the

22:00 ↗ graphic so we'll start with project 2020

22:05 ↗ which is at the top and it is located at

22:08 ↗ the intersection of East Lake Sammamish

22:09 ↗ Parkway and 56 there was a project in

22:14 ↗ the 2013 TI P that included a pedestrian

22:20 ↗ bridge over crossing that allowed us to

22:23 ↗ remove the pedestrian crosswalks at the

22:25 ↗ intersection so that pedestrians could

22:28 ↗ cross it at a second level and the the

22:34 ↗ addition of those over crossings of

22:37 ↗ pedestrians allowed us to remove the

22:39 ↗ minimum green time at the intersections

22:41 ↗ that allowed a pedestrian to cross the

22:44 ↗ road which allowed us to call it a

22:47 ↗ capacity project even though it was

22:49 ↗ really a non motorized project but

22:52 ↗ because it allowed us to retime the

22:54 ↗ intersections removing the pedestrians

22:58 ↗ from that calculation it was considered

23:01 ↗ a capacity project at the time in this

23:04 ↗ year's update the project isn't in the

23:06 ↗ TI p

23:08 ↗ and it's not for us I guess necessarily

23:10 ↗ tonight to argue whether it should or

23:12 ↗ shouldn't be in the TI P because it has

23:14 ↗ nothing to do with concurrency but

23:16 ↗ certainly you can decide whether you

23:17 ↗ want to put it back in the TI P but what

23:22 ↗ I do want to tell you tonight is there

23:24 ↗ is no longer a need at that intersection

23:26 ↗ to have a great separated pedestrian

23:30 ↗ crossing for capacity reasons now there

23:33 ↗ may be for safety reasons or for

23:35 ↗ connectivity reasons or for many other

23:38 ↗ policy reasons that you might want to

23:40 ↗ have that grade crossing but from a

23:42 ↗ capacity standpoint it's not needed and

23:44 ↗ therefore I can't unfortunately

23:47 ↗ allow it to be an impact fee project so

23:51 ↗ that one is not for policy reasons but

23:55 ↗ for technical reasons being removed from

23:58 ↗ another hot list yes what was the change

24:01 ↗ that made it not a capacity related

24:04 ↗ project so it has to do with a lot of

24:07 ↗ things so the changes in land use that

24:10 ↗ occurred and then also the traffic

24:13 ↗ counts that we obtained at that

24:14 ↗ intersection between 2013 and 2017 might

24:18 ↗ have changed such that then the

24:20 ↗ additional growth that we added on top

24:22 ↗ didn't force us to have to remove the

24:27 ↗ pedestrian timings from that

24:30 ↗ intersection so it could be a number of

24:33 ↗ reasons but for for those multitude of

24:37 ↗ reasons it and it was borderline before

24:40 ↗ in 2013 the need to do that pedestrian

24:44 ↗ crossing so so at least at this round

24:48 ↗ it looks like it's no longer needed all

24:54 ↗ right any other questions about number

24:56 ↗ 20 again I don't want to say that

24:59 ↗ project isn't needed it's just not a

25:01 ↗ capacity project anymore there's two

25:05 ↗ that's let's keep going thanks okay okay

25:08 ↗ so I'll go to number 24 next is in

25:11 ↗ intersection it was some turn lane

25:14 ↗ improved

25:15 ↗ that are needed at that intersection and

25:17 ↗ this one I'm a little wishy-washy on I

25:19 ↗ think it was that that project has been

25:22 ↗ included in a separate t IP project and

25:26 ↗ it's the maple 12th yeah okay so that

25:34 ↗ one is right now we're showing it as not

25:38 ↗ included because it is no longer in the

25:40 ↗ city's t IP list and so and it was also

25:45 ↗ not needed for capacity reasons anymore

25:47 ↗ so we did not include it again it's not

25:51 ↗ I want to go back to Emily's if you

25:55 ↗ remember her graphic in fact let's just

25:57 ↗ go to it we are at and so this is

26:08 ↗ basically informing council of the

26:13 ↗ results of the modeling and then this is

26:15 ↗ your opportunity to tell us no you got

26:18 ↗ it wrong do something different before

26:20 ↗ we move into the next steps so this is

26:24 ↗ an example of

26:28 ↗ [Music]

26:30 ↗ we are from our analysis we're showing

26:33 ↗ that that project is no longer needed

26:35 ↗ from a capacity standpoint but it may be

26:38 ↗ needed for other reasons and it may be a

26:40 ↗ policy reason why you want to keep it so

26:43 ↗ this would be your opportunity to tell

26:44 ↗ me Torsten you got it wrong

26:46 ↗ put it back in remember Ramos just to

26:50 ↗ see so I'm assuming those two

26:52 ↗ intersections are further down on your

26:54 ↗ chart service levels yes so cuz you're

27:01 ↗ saying that's what would take them out

27:02 ↗ say you're saying that on its on its own

27:05 ↗ from then till now the level service has

27:08 ↗ improved from E to a D or whatever or it

27:11 ↗ stays below its either level service D

27:14 ↗ or below but it was if it was in the

27:17 ↗ previous one it had to be the

27:20 ↗ improvement was needed in order to

27:22 ↗ maintain a level service D so you're

27:26 ↗ saying that level service has improved

27:28 ↗ over the last four years it has probably

27:32 ↗ because traffic counts reflected a

27:34 ↗ decrease in traffic at that particular

27:37 ↗ intersection between 2013 and 2017 and

27:41 ↗ therefore that improvement is probably

27:43 ↗ no longer needed I'm I could you go to

27:48 ↗ the chart and look at those two day

27:50 ↗ intersections all right we're here so

27:56 ↗ that is intersection 1970

28:04 ↗ it goes correct

28:07 ↗ okay so intersection 70s on this page

28:11 ↗ almost at the bottom so it's level

28:16 ↗ service be today and it in 2040 we're

28:20 ↗ projecting it will operate at little

28:21 ↗ service see and what Emily just wanted

28:25 ↗ me to point out or remind folks is that

28:27 ↗ it could also be a reflection of with

28:30 ↗ the change in land use and the change in

28:33 ↗ transportation projects that traffic has

28:36 ↗ rerouted a different way and no longer

28:39 ↗ wants to use this intersection has maybe

28:41 ↗ chosen a different route to travel

28:44 ↗ rather than this one and that could also

28:46 ↗ be a reflection of why that improvement

28:48 ↗ is no longer needed they said but you're

28:50 ↗ saying that's a B today projected to go

28:52 ↗ to the C correct okay and the other

28:54 ↗ intersection look at both of those I was

28:58 ↗ often maple and then there was also this

29:02 ↗ Sammamish it's like Sammamish pedestrian

29:05 ↗ it was at number 20 yes

29:07 ↗ yeah 20 so number eight so d today and D

29:13 ↗ in the future it's number eight on this

29:16 ↗ graphic up here or on the table now I

29:22 ↗ want it I want it I know this is a

29:25 ↗ really congested intersection and the

29:30 ↗ natural instinct is for everybody to go

29:32 ↗ there is no way by 2040 that

29:35 ↗ interception is still gonna be operating

29:36 ↗ at level service D I want all of you

29:40 ↗ guys to remember there are 285 million

29:43 ↗ dollars worth of projects built into

29:46 ↗ this okay that allow that in even though

29:51 ↗ we're not doing an improvement at that

29:53 ↗ intersection we're doing improvements

29:55 ↗ elsewhere in the city that allow that

29:57 ↗ intersection to remain a level service D

30:00 ↗ so people are using other ways to get

30:02 ↗ from point A to point B in the city just

30:05 ↗ not through that intersection anymore

30:07 ↗ okay okay but that's a D and remains

30:10 ↗ indeed correct versus it does get worse

30:12 ↗ but it's within D yeah thank you

30:16 ↗ tell us a member goodness Thanks so you

30:18 ↗ said this is our opportunity to tell you

30:20 ↗ maybe that you got it wrong yes oh how

30:23 ↗ is how is it that we are supposed to

30:27 ↗ you're out from this information how you

30:29 ↗ might have gotten it wrong well I guess

30:33 ↗ what I'm saying is I can tell you from a

30:35 ↗ technical standpoint and this is gonna

30:37 ↗ sound really pompous thought I got it

30:39 ↗ right what I'm telling you is from a

30:42 ↗ policy standpoint tell me that I got it

30:44 ↗ wrong so in other words maybe at that

30:48 ↗ intersection the one that's got a blue

30:50 ↗ box 24 where I had previously included

30:53 ↗ some right turn pocket improvements even

30:57 ↗ though I'm saying from a technical

30:58 ↗ standpoint you don't need it but maybe

31:01 ↗ from a safety or a political reason or a

31:03 ↗ you know policy reason or whatever you

31:06 ↗ want me to include it then by all means

31:08 ↗ this is your opportunity to tell me no

31:10 ↗ Torsten I want you to include that I

31:12 ↗ think it might have been helpful for us

31:14 ↗ to have some of that detail before the

31:16 ↗ meeting so we could have at least

31:17 ↗ prepared to try to answer the questions

31:20 ↗ about and maybe tonight isn't and maybe

31:23 ↗ I said that wrong too maybe you don't

31:25 ↗ have to tell me tonight but this is this

31:27 ↗ is me communicating to you where we are

31:29 ↗ and if at the end of tonight you say we

31:31 ↗ need time to think about this that's

31:33 ↗ fine I could have given this to you

31:36 ↗ beforehand but you would not have

31:37 ↗ probably gotten the singing out of it

31:40 ↗ without me telling you about it

31:42 ↗ right sure it could have come with a

31:43 ↗ memo to that so some explanation about

31:46 ↗ how we could have prepared even though

31:49 ↗ it's technical information and a lot of

31:51 ↗ numbers a little bit more about what you

31:52 ↗ might be looking for from us would have

31:55 ↗ been helpful to have pre meeting because

31:57 ↗ it's I mean I think it's probably

32:00 ↗ certainly impossible for me to say oh I

32:02 ↗ think you got number 20 wrong because I

32:04 ↗ for my memory know remember everything

32:07 ↗ about that intersection that might help

32:09 ↗ me inform myself about whether you might

32:13 ↗ have gotten something wrong so including

32:15 ↗ it does not change really any of the

32:18 ↗ calculations but what it does do is

32:21 ↗ moving forward it puts it in that impact

32:24 ↗ fee basket of projects that we include

32:27 ↗ so that's really that's really what's

32:31 ↗ important so so I will then have a

32:35 ↗ question for interim City Administrator

32:36 ↗ moon which is if this council wanted to

32:40 ↗ have a little time to think about this

32:43 ↗ what that looks like in terms of when

32:45 ↗ you would want to get feedback from

32:47 ↗ council sure excellent question and we

32:51 ↗ haven't discussed sort of timeline for

32:53 ↗ next steps some of the next steps

32:56 ↗ include updating the projects in the

32:57 ↗ project costs and certainly we want that

32:59 ↗ input before we do that but I don't have

33:01 ↗ a timeline for exactly when we're going

33:03 ↗ to begin that work tonight is just meant

33:06 ↗ to be briefing on what the the model run

33:08 ↗ had to say those subsequent

33:10 ↗ conversations about how projects are

33:14 ↗ changing or what the prioritization is

33:16 ↗ of those projects we do need it

33:18 ↗ scheduled I don't have an answer for you

33:19 ↗ right now but we can certainly provide

33:21 ↗ that after the meeting what our intended

33:22 ↗ timeline would be okay and I think

33:26 ↗ understanding then Council the mechanism

33:29 ↗ for council provide that feedback and

33:30 ↗ when we as a group will be discussing

33:32 ↗ that feedback integrated in deputy

33:37 ↗ council president Bateses

33:38 ↗ thank you and this might be a question

33:40 ↗ for you Emily I'm not I'm not sure but

33:42 ↗ in regard to the three that we have

33:47 ↗ highlighted or the two that we're

33:49 ↗ looking to take out would we receive

33:51 ↗ more information more detailed

33:54 ↗ information about this is being proposed

33:58 ↗ to be taken out because this improvement

34:02 ↗ this improvement and this improvement

34:03 ↗ are going to impact that intersection

34:06 ↗ like detail that would be really

34:09 ↗ specific to those two to help us sure

34:12 ↗ make a better decision okay thank you

34:15 ↗ that's not a winter's time Thank You

34:17 ↗ Torsten it sounds that like through your

34:22 ↗ analysis you made certain results

34:26 ↗ approached or passed certain thresholds

34:29 ↗ and in/out decisions were made

34:34 ↗ algorithmically

34:35 ↗ and yet you're saying that we maybe we

34:38 ↗ can tell you you're wrong so again I

34:41 ↗ want to say what I did was from a

34:43 ↗ technical standpoint it the ones that

34:47 ↗ I'm talking about I'm either gonna tell

34:49 ↗ you they're needed or they're not needed

34:50 ↗ from a capacity standpoint okay and that

34:55 ↗ is what I was charged to do a technical

34:57 ↗ capacity change okay the the things that

35:01 ↗ I'm telling you guys is you always have

35:03 ↗ the power to say well okay I get the

35:06 ↗ technical reason but there might be

35:08 ↗ other reasons why

35:09 ↗ Torsten I don't want you to take that

35:11 ↗ out okay so what you're saying is based

35:16 ↗ upon your calculations and their impact

35:19 ↗ to capacity the state statute doesn't

35:23 ↗ limit us our decisions on what's in or

35:25 ↗ out just upon that that's correct shoes

35:28 ↗ to be in and out for other reasons

35:29 ↗ absolutely okay yes it's just whether or

35:32 ↗ not it's gonna be in the impact fee

35:34 ↗ calculation or not council member Ramos

35:36 ↗ yeah and just a clarification and maybe

35:38 ↗ for the public as well the difference to

35:40 ↗ me if it's in the calculation or not is

35:43 ↗ that if it's in concurrency then that

35:46 ↗ becomes a funding source for us to pay

35:48 ↗ for that improvement correct if it's out

35:50 ↗ then we have to find our own fund

35:53 ↗ somewhere else to pay for that

35:55 ↗ improvement and that's a critical

35:56 ↗ difference not say we can't do it we

35:58 ↗ can't do anything but it's a funding

35:59 ↗ source that makes a difference whether

36:00 ↗ it's part of the concurrency then those

36:02 ↗ impact fees can go for those projects if

36:05 ↗ they're not in a project list those

36:07 ↗ impact fees can't go for other projects

36:09 ↗ yes with one distinction so again back

36:11 ↗ to number 20 that one whether you keep

36:14 ↗ it in the TI p or not there is nothing I

36:17 ↗ can do to include it in the impact fee

36:19 ↗ calculation because there is no capacity

36:21 ↗ benefit associated with it 24 is

36:24 ↗ different

36:25 ↗ in that even though I don't need it to

36:28 ↗ maintain a level service D in ursula

36:31 ↗ Ville Service adding the turn pockets

36:34 ↗ will certainly improve the capacity of

36:36 ↗ the intersection and so I can call it a

36:39 ↗ capacity project and we could still

36:41 ↗ collect an impact fee towards it but it

36:44 ↗ is not needed in order to maintain a

36:47 ↗ level service D optimum winter's night

36:50 ↗ okay thank you

36:51 ↗ yes let's go back to my previous

36:52 ↗ question and we were discussing whether

36:54 ↗ or not a project was in or out Bill's

36:57 ↗ question helped clarify a little bit

36:58 ↗ further it's in or out and whether or

37:00 ↗ not it's on the TI P but it's still your

37:05 ↗ algorithm that says whether or not it

37:07 ↗ qualifies for impact fees correct other

37:13 ↗ questions right now all right we have

37:16 ↗ one more I'm sorry one more project on

37:18 ↗ this map to go through now well two more

37:20 ↗ but number 31 is another one that was on

37:23 ↗ the previous 2013 tip it is not in the

37:29 ↗ current 2017 tip and I don't understand

37:32 ↗ what happened or why it's not there but

37:35 ↗ I'm gonna go to the next graphic and

37:37 ↗ show you that from a modeling standpoint

37:39 ↗ this is that pride the project that I've

37:41 ↗ circled in blue or the road that I've

37:44 ↗ circled in blue is that project it's a

37:47 ↗ brand new road it was needed to allow

37:51 ↗ this the CIP amount of land use to occur

37:55 ↗ and so from this graphic also I wanted

37:59 ↗ to point out the amount of traffic it

38:01 ↗ carries is you know between like 1,300

38:04 ↗ cars during in a one-hour period on any

38:07 ↗ one link so it is a significant project

38:10 ↗ it is needed to maintain level service

38:15 ↗ in the city and so I again I'm pointing

38:18 ↗ out it I've included it in the modeling

38:21 ↗ if you agree and that is a technical

38:25 ↗ recommendation and I'm giving you all

38:27 ↗ I'm saying is it needs to be added back

38:29 ↗ to the to the 2017 AP it's probably just

38:31 ↗ an oversight it got left out by accident

38:34 ↗ whatever we just need to make sure that

38:36 ↗ it gets back into the TI P

38:38 ↗ okay so hi

38:42 ↗ so it's needed it was required it sounds

38:45 ↗ like for the centralist plan and it

38:48 ↗ would carry a ton of capacity correct so

38:50 ↗ how do we how do we tell you that that

38:51 ↗ sounds like it's probably a good idea to

38:53 ↗ keep it how do you tell me I think

38:55 ↗ through your next month or two that you

38:58 ↗ debate these three things that I'm

39:01 ↗ telling you about you just confirm yes

39:04 ↗ Torsten you got that right

39:05 ↗ it's needed technically we understand

39:08 ↗ that get it back into the TI P it cuts

39:12 ↗ them off right so if we don't put it

39:14 ↗ back in the TI P what does it do to all

39:15 ↗ of your downstream so that one if I that

39:18 ↗ one gets removed I would need to rerun

39:20 ↗ the model without that link and rerun

39:23 ↗ all the intersection level service it's

39:25 ↗ a significant effort and so I'm telling

39:29 ↗ you from a technical standpoint it is

39:30 ↗ needed he was first compliment of Ramos

39:36 ↗ council member had two men cup cities so

39:39 ↗ this one I get concern about because

39:40 ↗ that's a Rican or its construction of a

39:43 ↗ whole new Street that doesn't exist

39:44 ↗ cannot exist in musters major

39:46 ↗ redevelopment right other private

39:48 ↗ property owners decide to do something

39:50 ↗ so it's something we have like very

39:52 ↗ little if any control over and to put it

39:55 ↗ in there and saying that has to be done

39:57 ↗ and if it's not it blows the whole model

40:00 ↗ out of the water basically I get real

40:03 ↗ nervous in that situation because

40:05 ↗ there's no way we could just decide that

40:06 ↗ we're gonna do that so by ourselves I'm

40:09 ↗ sorry to interrupt you I don't think and

40:11 ↗ you staff you guys correct me if I'm

40:14 ↗ wrong fights misspeak I don't think you

40:16 ↗ guys as a council would say hey guys go

40:20 ↗ out and build that project for me right

40:22 ↗ now even though the land use isn't here

40:23 ↗ yet because Torsten told me we're gonna

40:25 ↗ need it sometime

40:26 ↗ that project realistically would only

40:29 ↗ occur once you start getting development

40:31 ↗ agreements in that are adjacent to it

40:34 ↗ and then that at that point the

40:36 ↗ developer would be dedicating land would

40:39 ↗ be and and then the land dedication

40:41 ↗ would become

40:42 ↗ a credit towards the impact fee and all

40:45 ↗ that so it's it's a hand-in-hand thing

40:47 ↗ you would you would build the road once

40:50 ↗ the land-use is there and is needed and

40:53 ↗ and allows that road to to get built

40:57 ↗ does that make sense except things all

41:00 ↗ around that could be built to not have

41:02 ↗ that room get there yeah there might be

41:03 ↗ a might redevelop the other side not

41:06 ↗ yeah there's always things without that

41:09 ↗ road it really is a critical piece when

41:12 ↗ you're totally adding a new road to

41:13 ↗ something or not correct realize though

41:15 ↗ also you do have 10 years you know let's

41:18 ↗ say one side of the road a developer

41:20 ↗ came in and decided to do something

41:21 ↗ there the road wouldn't need to be built

41:24 ↗ for it you know statutorily for at least

41:27 ↗ 10 years so you have time to then

41:30 ↗ hopefully get the other side to come in

41:32 ↗ and develop and then you get the road

41:34 ↗ built together and so that's you know

41:37 ↗ how it the arete eclis works there a

41:41 ↗ theoretical number hunt did you still

41:43 ↗ have a question so there are 231 s and

41:48 ↗ 220 pours on the list yeah so the 230

41:52 ↗ ones is that because it was previously

41:53 ↗ 31 and then I came off the TFP and it's

41:55 ↗ been replaced by a new 31 correct yep

41:58 ↗ Thank You deputy council president

42:01 ↗ booties I guess that was actually my

42:05 ↗ question with the the 230 ones and I

42:07 ↗ just wanted to make sure that we we have

42:09 ↗ those broken apart that's the Providence

42:11 ↗ point intersection and then we could be

42:14 ↗ talking about something in the future

42:16 ↗ that's erosion so the blue 31 would be

42:19 ↗ let's say it goes back into the TI P it

42:21 ↗ would become a new number comes my first

42:26 ↗ time my ask of staff would be about this

42:29 ↗ 11th we've done some things with land

42:31 ↗ use and for example required mixed use

42:34 ↗ and I I'm not sure where that ik where

42:39 ↗ this Torsten is map even I couldn't

42:41 ↗ figure out exactly where that Street was

42:44 ↗ on the numbers I know it's east of 12th

42:46 ↗ and and have we done things recently as

42:50 ↗ specifically some of the work items as a

42:52 ↗ result of a moratorium and requiring

42:54 ↗ some land use like vertical mixed-use

42:58 ↗ have we done anything recently that and

43:03 ↗ did we consider this project this this

43:08 ↗ 31 with the green check on it that's not

43:11 ↗ I you don't have to answer me tonight

43:13 ↗ but I'd like to know it seems like it

43:17 ↗ was in and then we lost track of it and

43:20 ↗ did we do anything

43:22 ↗ after losing track of it that we may

43:24 ↗ have done differently if we had been

43:26 ↗ tracking it hopefully that makes sense

43:27 ↗ I'll rephrase later but I'd like to get

43:30 ↗ a that might be a simple yes or no

43:32 ↗ actually it might be a simple no but if

43:35 ↗ it's yes then I would like more

43:36 ↗ information thank you councilmember

43:40 ↗ Goodman I'm not sure my question is

43:44 ↗ similar to Paul's but I'll probably ask

43:46 ↗ it a different way so Torsten you made a

43:49 ↗ comment about this project allowed us to

43:51 ↗ do the land use that allowed us to do

43:55 ↗ something with our land use so there was

43:59 ↗ the big central Issaquah plan effort

44:01 ↗ okay so that there's a large amount of

44:05 ↗ land use associated with that plan

44:07 ↗ that's future land use and this is in

44:11 ↗ that area and so there is land use

44:13 ↗ surrounding that particular project that

44:15 ↗ was assumed to occur by 2040 sure that

44:19 ↗ was my question so I wanted a little bit

44:21 ↗ more detail about what it is that this

44:23 ↗ allows us to do that makes it necessary

44:26 ↗ and again I don't have to have that

44:29 ↗ detail tonight and the reason it might

44:30 ↗ be similar to Paul's is because I'm not

44:32 ↗ sure if it was from the original

44:33 ↗ centralized physical plan or some of the

44:35 ↗ changes that we just made okay I wonder

44:41 ↗ why I just might ask interim City

44:42 ↗ Administrator moon do you have clarity

44:45 ↗ on what council members we understanding

44:46 ↗ Goodman have asked for I guess I do

44:48 ↗ great thank you hey one last project the

44:52 ↗ other 24 that's on the list is a current

44:55 ↗ CIP project

44:59 ↗ the TI P currently does not state the

45:02 ↗ red word which is an vehicle or

45:05 ↗ vehicular however in doing the update

45:09 ↗ with staff this past year we understand

45:14 ↗ that there is a school district

45:17 ↗ potential project located on Holley that

45:21 ↗ would potentially request or require the

45:27 ↗ connection on Holly's so that there is a

45:29 ↗ vehicular connection over the planned

45:32 ↗ bridge project rather than just a

45:35 ↗ pedestrian non motorized connection on

45:37 ↗ that bridge we so we put we in the model

45:43 ↗ we turn that link on to allow the

45:45 ↗ vehicles to use that link and only so

45:48 ↗ that you would have information tonight

45:50 ↗ about whether that's an important

45:53 ↗ project or not so I'm going to provide

45:56 ↗ you that information right here this

45:59 ↗ blue circled link in the model is with

46:05 ↗ the assumption that there is a vehicular

46:07 ↗ connection on Holley all the way through

46:11 ↗ so you can see that the volumes are very

46:14 ↗ low so the only I would say from a

46:19 ↗ capacity standpoint it's not necessarily

46:21 ↗ needed and I wouldn't say that we need

46:26 ↗ to include it in this update but from a

46:31 ↗ development perspective or you know I

46:34 ↗ don't know a negotiation with the

46:35 ↗ district school district I don't know

46:37 ↗ what the you know what the mechanisms

46:40 ↗ are there that would allow that to

46:41 ↗ become a vehicular connection I'm just

46:43 ↗ telling you it's really not needed it

46:46 ↗ really doesn't impact my work moving

46:48 ↗ forward but I wanted you to know that

46:50 ↗ this is what the model is predicting

46:53 ↗ that connection to to reflect in terms

46:58 ↗ of vehicular traffic sounds remember ray

47:00 ↗ so I'm not just wanna be clear on the

47:02 ↗ numbers that we have on this these

47:04 ↗ charts they are trips per

47:08 ↗ in the PMP gower so it's our overall on

47:12 ↗ our period okay the highest hour in the

47:15 ↗ day the M peak PMP okay so we don't have

47:20 ↗ any M date or anything like that

47:23 ↗ that has been an ongoing conversation in

47:28 ↗ the city for a very very long time

47:30 ↗ indeed for this to what to do about

47:32 ↗ known areas that are likely a.m. peak

47:35 ↗ but yes for the 23 years every year too

47:40 ↗ we asked this question so the 20 years

47:42 ↗ I've been working on concurrency the am

47:44 ↗ issue has come up over and over and over

47:45 ↗ again and what we have done in the past

47:50 ↗ and what we continue to do is when there

47:53 ↗ are specific developments that come up

47:54 ↗ that need a significant traffic analysis

47:59 ↗ we always do an AM peak analysis and we

48:02 ↗ derive it from our PM peak model so we

48:04 ↗ reverse the trip tables which is a I

48:06 ↗ know a technical term but we're

48:08 ↗ basically taking trips that would go in

48:10 ↗ one direction in the p.m. and making

48:12 ↗ them go in the other direction in the

48:13 ↗ a.m. and then there is the a.m. is

48:17 ↗ slightly lower than the PM historically

48:19 ↗ overall in terms of traffic volumes and

48:21 ↗ so we do a little reduction associated

48:24 ↗ with that we've always done a test and

48:25 ↗ have shown that the transportation

48:27 ↗ improvements that are needed citywide

48:29 ↗ always accommodate the a.m. peak hour

48:33 ↗ time some equipment well I want to add

48:36 ↗ there is one weird little asterisk right

48:38 ↗ which has to do with schools right

48:40 ↗ because it's not during the peak right

48:43 ↗ and so typical people so you don't any

48:46 ↗ Ana model like that if you just took the

48:48 ↗ PM and reversed it you would miss what's

48:51 ↗ going on around the schools because the

48:54 ↗ a.m. peak occurs right when people are

48:55 ↗ dropping their kids off correct

48:58 ↗ however there's 5 million square feet

49:01 ↗ and I don't know how I forget 26,000

49:03 ↗ housing units in the model the number of

49:06 ↗ trips associated with schools compared

49:10 ↗ to that 5 million in 26,000 is probably

49:14 ↗ 5 4 or 5 percent of the total so it's I

49:18 ↗ don't want to say it's insignificant but

49:20 ↗ it's not

49:21 ↗ a huge number unless you're at Newport

49:24 ↗ in Iskra Hobart row lets you experience

49:27 ↗ that particular intersection right

49:29 ↗ that's a very good that was my exact

49:36 ↗ comment and also I think doing the

49:39 ↗ counts in the mornings is significant

49:40 ↗ for this stretch here I mean it's a

49:43 ↗ short stretch okay and then projects 36

49:51 ↗ 37 38 this slide just has the last three

49:54 ↗ projects and the TTIP that are

49:56 ↗ concurrency considered concurrency

49:58 ↗ projects but there were no changes so

50:00 ↗ nothing really do you say about this one

50:03 ↗ okay so with all those changes I wanted

50:07 ↗ to give you sort of a both the

50:09 ↗ historical look at traffic growth in the

50:12 ↗ city and then of course the change in

50:14 ↗ future growth from the 2013 update to

50:17 ↗ the 2017 update so the firt on the bar

50:20 ↗ chart the first four are obviously all

50:23 ↗ existing volumes that occurred in that

50:25 ↗ year so I went as far back as I had

50:29 ↗ traffic volumes starting in 2004 2007

50:33 ↗ 2013 was the last concurrency update and

50:36 ↗ then of course this update in 2017

50:39 ↗ you'll note that there is a growth in

50:42 ↗ existing traffic that's occurred over

50:44 ↗ the years the orange bar reflects what

50:50 ↗ we call regional traffic and I'm gonna

50:52 ↗ define that for you it is a trip that

50:56 ↗ originates and ends outside the city but

51:00 ↗ goes through the city so it is not a

51:03 ↗ trip that has one end outside the city

51:06 ↗ and one end in the city so if you work

51:09 ↗ in Seattle but live in Issaquah that is

51:12 ↗ not a regional trip it is only a trip

51:15 ↗ that passes through the city never stops

51:17 ↗ and has no end within the city limits

51:21 ↗ that's that orange bar the majority of

51:24 ↗ that orange bar is i-90 okay

51:30 ↗ I asked I'm surprised to see that at the

51:33 ↗ fidelity that we're looking at this

51:35 ↗ right now that regional pass-through

51:37 ↗ does not has not increased since 2007

51:40 ↗ and does not look like it will increase

51:43 ↗ through 2040 right there is a lie in the

51:47 ↗ face of the perception of regional past

51:51 ↗ absolutely it is absolutely opposite of

51:55 ↗ what you would perceive or what would

51:57 ↗ you what you would think would be

51:59 ↗ occurring realize that over the years

52:02 ↗ this aqua has continued to grow and has

52:05 ↗ provided land use here that has become a

52:07 ↗ destination and in 2030 and in 2040 for

52:10 ↗ those years you have continued to create

52:14 ↗ land uses that are destinations for

52:17 ↗ people in Sammamish or Bellevue or you

52:21 ↗ know outside I 90 so there as long as

52:25 ↗ one trip is destined to or originated

52:28 ↗ from Issaquah it is not in that orange

52:29 ↗ yeah but it but if I think Snoqualmie to

52:32 ↗ Seattle Snoqualmie to Bellevue right

52:34 ↗ North Bend to Seattle or on our regional

52:38 ↗ streets Black Diamond to Bellevue

52:40 ↗ Covington to Bellevue Maple Valley to

52:44 ↗ Bellevue but those aren't those

52:47 ↗ increasing over but you're always

52:48 ↗ assuming that it's somebody living and

52:51 ↗ I'm putting words in your mouth but let

52:53 ↗ me check if I'm right that someone is

52:55 ↗ living outside of those Bellevue Seattle

52:58 ↗ areas and working in the Bellevue

53:00 ↗ Seattle area realize that you are

53:02 ↗ creating jobs in Issaquah and that is

53:04 ↗ the whole point use going up right

53:06 ↗ correct it's surprising to me that the

53:08 ↗ Amber is not increasing is right but

53:10 ↗ you're replacing people are no longer

53:13 ↗ wanting to drive that 15 mile stretch

53:16 ↗ they might live out you know past

53:19 ↗ Issaquah 990 but now they're not willing

53:22 ↗ to go into Bellevue or Seattle they want

53:24 ↗ to work in Issaquah so their trip is

53:26 ↗ staying roughly the same over time that

53:29 ↗ changes yes

53:32 ↗ that's member good so that assumes that

53:35 ↗ all of the commercial build-out that we

53:40 ↗ have in our growth plans because what

53:44 ↗ we're finding is that that's not

53:45 ↗ occurring as fast as a residential so

53:48 ↗ there's some so there's it could be also

53:52 ↗ reasonable that we don't get all of that

53:55 ↗ that's correct so this is assuming that

53:58 ↗ all the plans pan out for what we vote

54:00 ↗ yes and I'm really glad you brought that

54:03 ↗ up that is the reason why we do these

54:05 ↗ technical updates every three years to

54:07 ↗ make sure that we are in line with

54:09 ↗ growth as it's occurring as opposed to

54:12 ↗ growth that we hoped would happen is if

54:16 ↗ you go back to one of the first slides

54:17 ↗ doesn't it show how much we have for

54:19 ↗ left and residential correct how much we

54:21 ↗ have left in commercial and we have a

54:23 ↗ vast amount of commercial that's right

54:25 ↗ assuming that I'll get that gets built

54:26 ↗ and the people that are now passing

54:29 ↗ through decided I don't want to work out

54:30 ↗ I don't want to go all the way I stopped

54:32 ↗ here right yeah and we did find in this

54:35 ↗ four year period that some of the

54:38 ↗ commercial became residential some of

54:40 ↗ the growth that we were hoping would be

54:42 ↗ commercial became residential and that's

54:44 ↗ reflected and that's the reason why we

54:46 ↗ do these updates we never want to get so

54:49 ↗ far out that our assumptions are

54:53 ↗ completely out of sync with what's

54:55 ↗ really been occurring and so that's why

54:56 ↗ the code requires this update every

54:59 ↗ three or four years to make sure we're

55:00 ↗ keeping in line with what's actually

55:02 ↗ happening even though we might have

55:05 ↗ planned for something different

55:07 ↗ does that make sense councilmember hunt

55:13 ↗ so I was also struck by the fact that

55:15 ↗ the orange is with a region where there

55:18 ↗ is roughly the same although there's

55:20 ↗ nothing in 2004 and then since 2007 it's

55:22 ↗ all increasing so or it's all it's all

55:25 ↗ the same and I wondered what what if any

55:30 ↗ information about the neighboring cities

55:33 ↗ land-use plans is included in this

55:36 ↗ because we do know that some of our

55:38 ↗ neighboring cities have their own plans

55:40 ↗ for growth yeah so so what information

55:43 ↗ goes into these projections so the

55:47 ↗ Issaquah model includes a portion of

55:49 ↗ Sammamish in it so that one I mentioned

55:51 ↗ to you we did reach out to two Sammamish

55:53 ↗ didn't get their land-use make sure it

55:55 ↗ was updated in our model the rest of the

55:58 ↗ region so King County Bellevue Seattle

56:01 ↗ and anything else that would impact or

56:02 ↗ have influences on traffic coming in and

56:05 ↗ out of the city we got those traffic

56:08 ↗ forecasts from PSR C and then we made

56:11 ↗ sure that the growth that is planned by

56:14 ↗ PSR C for all of those agencies those

56:17 ↗ other cities the traffic that's coming

56:19 ↗ in or out of the city at the boundaries

56:22 ↗ of our model match the PSR C model so we

56:25 ↗ are making sure that we've got that

56:27 ↗ Regional Growth accounted for as it

56:31 ↗ enters our model window or exits our

56:34 ↗ model window does that so if there are a

56:41 ↗ large number of residential units plans

56:43 ↗ on one side of Issaquah and then jobs

56:45 ↗ plans on another side of it squad does

56:46 ↗ it account for the likelihood that those

56:49 ↗ people are going to be regional traffic

56:52 ↗ or does it portion of those will go

56:54 ↗ outside the model window because we have

56:58 ↗ defined from the PSR C model that there

57:01 ↗ is land-use outside of our window and

57:03 ↗ that is and so there's an attraction for

57:06 ↗ a job to be to be linked to a home

57:10 ↗ potentially outside of the city but some

57:12 ↗ of them are going to be linked to homes

57:14 ↗ inside the city as well so it is it's

57:17 ↗ both

57:20 ↗ other questions

57:22 ↗ I'm still struggling a little bit I was

57:24 ↗ just talking to somebody in black

57:26 ↗ diamond they were talking to me about

57:28 ↗ the massive growth that they're

57:30 ↗ undergoing right now yeah and I'm just

57:32 ↗ struggling with the idea that that

57:34 ↗ growth will be matched by the commercial

57:37 ↗ development in our city such that the

57:40 ↗ pass-through of that massive growth in

57:42 ↗ black wouldn't increase the land doesn't

57:43 ↗ increase the regional pass-through so

57:45 ↗ just to pick on black diamond I mean

57:47 ↗ know and I'm down there I'm actually

57:48 ↗ glad you picked on black diamond because

57:50 ↗ when we did the 2013 update we knew that

57:53 ↗ there was that massive growth planned

57:55 ↗ for black diamond and in fact when we

57:57 ↗ went to the PSR C model to again like I

58:01 ↗ said get that model window numbers

58:03 ↗ coming into the city from outside we

58:05 ↗ noted that the PSR C model did not have

58:08 ↗ the amount of growth in black diamond

58:09 ↗ that was that had been expected or that

58:12 ↗ we were hearing about so we actually

58:15 ↗ took the PSR C model added the land use

58:17 ↗ in black diamond that we knew was coming

58:20 ↗ after talking to the city and then

58:23 ↗ that's what we used for our you know

58:25 ↗ model window now since then that's been

58:27 ↗ updated so it was really just a lag in

58:30 ↗ data getting from black diamond to PSR C

58:32 ↗ to make sure that it was you know in the

58:34 ↗ model I think that but back to my

58:36 ↗ earlier question right there's still

58:38 ↗ tons of growth going on in black there

58:40 ↗ is and it's your professional assessment

58:42 ↗ that our build of jobs is going to keep

58:47 ↗ pace with the growth of housing in that

58:50 ↗ area well it's not just Disick well but

58:52 ↗ yes you have five million square feet of

58:54 ↗ commercial growth that's planned that

58:57 ↗ hasn't been that is invested yet but

59:00 ↗ it's planned and then there's still

59:11 ↗ about a million almost two million

59:13 ↗ square feet invested commercials so

59:15 ↗ between the two million that's already

59:18 ↗ vested and is coming and then the five

59:20 ↗ million that's planned that's seven

59:23 ↗ million square feet of commercial space

59:25 ↗ that you're planning for so that is a

59:29 ↗ lot of a lot of commercial space that is

59:32 ↗ job jobs all right okay any other

59:36 ↗ questions before we move on yep

59:39 ↗ councilmember Goodman I just I just have

59:44 ↗ to say that I'm concerned about the

59:45 ↗ number of assumptions that are that and

59:47 ↗ what I'm concerned about the number of

59:49 ↗ assumptions that have to be made to have

59:52 ↗ that know numbers like that the orange

59:56 ↗ pastor look like that because I I think

1:00:00 ↗ it would be very difficult to find it

1:00:02 ↗ anybody in the city besides six people

1:00:05 ↗ who would say yeah that totally makes

1:00:07 ↗ sense because that's not what you think

1:00:09 ↗ that's not what the experiences and I

1:00:11 ↗ just don't believe that we're gonna

1:00:12 ↗ build enough commercial space to take

1:00:16 ↗ care of the pass-through

1:00:18 ↗ traffic and they're still they're still

1:00:21 ↗ gonna come into the city so I think it's

1:00:23 ↗ a I think it's a still a bigger problem

1:00:25 ↗ than the chart shows and I'm not gonna

1:00:27 ↗ disagree with what you're saying cuz I

1:00:29 ↗ know you know that there's always a

1:00:31 ↗ perception that's different than perhaps

1:00:34 ↗ reality another sort of pass-through

1:00:37 ↗ trip that you should think about is a

1:00:39 ↗ trip that the home and a job that are

1:00:43 ↗ both outside of Issaquah but they

1:00:45 ↗ stopped at the Costco on the way to home

1:00:47 ↗ or they stopped to pick up their child

1:00:49 ↗ at daycare or they stopped to pick up

1:00:52 ↗ dry cleaning any one of those is a is a

1:00:55 ↗ trip that is no longer in that Orange

1:00:57 ↗ Box because they stopped in Issaquah

1:00:59 ↗ okay well now it's starting to make a

1:01:01 ↗ little more sense yes they're still on

1:01:03 ↗ the road they're just not in the chart

1:01:04 ↗ correct but they are using in Issaquah

1:01:07 ↗ resource on the way but it starts to

1:01:12 ↗ take out too many cars out of the what's

1:01:14 ↗ actually passed through traffic I mean

1:01:15 ↗ it's right but but realize that has

1:01:17 ↗ nothing to do with the impact fee so we

1:01:19 ↗ don't I mean I know you guys are

1:01:21 ↗ focusing

1:01:21 ↗ that orange box a lot but again it's you

1:01:27 ↗ know it really doesn't impact

1:01:28 ↗ necessarily the impact fee calculation

1:01:31 ↗ sure we just have to we just have to

1:01:33 ↗ have some at least simple comprehensive

1:01:36 ↗ understanding otherwise we really won't

1:01:39 ↗ know what we're doing and so I think we

1:01:41 ↗ do have to dig into a chart like that

1:01:46 ↗ and understand what's in it what's not

1:01:48 ↗ in it what's the what the assumptions

1:01:49 ↗ are because I I can tell you I cannot go

1:01:51 ↗ out on the street tomorrow morning and

1:01:53 ↗ tell people that it's it's basically I

1:02:00 ↗ mean over time at least existing today

1:02:02 ↗ 2017 it's about one third I think that's

1:02:05 ↗ I think that's really believable I don't

1:02:08 ↗ one third of the traffic going through

1:02:10 ↗ Issaquah has both ends outside of Vista

1:02:12 ↗ quad that's a huge number yes but what

1:02:15 ↗ I'm talking about when so when you

1:02:17 ↗ further define to pass through as not

1:02:20 ↗ including pass through that makes a stop

1:02:23 ↗ here then those numbers start to make

1:02:25 ↗ sense so right I'm just trying to

1:02:27 ↗ understand the why why blue and orange

1:02:31 ↗ don't make sense and so you know based

1:02:34 ↗ on my reality and I'm hearing what

1:02:37 ↗ people behind me say because that's

1:02:39 ↗ reality if anybody who drives on the

1:02:41 ↗ streets you're gonna you're gonna know

1:02:42 ↗ that we've got a lot of increasing

1:02:44 ↗ regional paths through traffic for all

1:02:46 ↗ the reasons that we've talked about so I

1:02:48 ↗ have concerns about where we're getting

1:02:49 ↗ our numbers is P SRC really the best

1:02:51 ↗ source concerns about what the

1:02:53 ↗ definition is of regional pass-through

1:02:55 ↗ type of traffic and what's not regional

1:02:56 ↗ pass-through dropping so I'm just trying

1:02:58 ↗ to understand all of this because it

1:03:01 ↗ when you just look at this and you just

1:03:03 ↗ talk about it a high level it doesn't

1:03:04 ↗ make sense that's all Council member

1:03:07 ↗ Ramos yeah I'm gonna pick on this a

1:03:09 ↗ little bit more because it just doesn't

1:03:12 ↗ fall so we've been saying this for a

1:03:14 ↗ long time pass through traffic is

1:03:15 ↗ causing our problem and you got twenty

1:03:18 ↗ thousand going into black diamond you

1:03:19 ↗ had

1:03:20 ↗ we've had 10,000 or more going to Maple

1:03:21 ↗ Valley Sammamish coming there and those

1:03:24 ↗ are coming through and we just did is

1:03:27 ↗ guar Hobart Road study and that study

1:03:30 ↗ just showed that well I forget the

1:03:32 ↗ numbers now is it's sixty five percent

1:03:34 ↗ of those come were going through don't

1:03:38 ↗ quote me on but it was you know I'm

1:03:40 ↗ probably two-thirds or so were passed

1:03:42 ↗ through traffic now if you got tell me

1:03:44 ↗ is they come through they pull off at

1:03:46 ↗ yummy yogurt and get a cup of coffee and

1:03:48 ↗ keep on going

1:03:48 ↗ you're gonna now not count them as

1:03:50 ↗ pastor traffic that doesn't make any

1:03:52 ↗ sense to me

1:03:53 ↗ because their parents do so if they you

1:03:55 ↗ know if they sit at a stoplight for more

1:03:57 ↗ than you know two cycles then they

1:03:58 ↗ wouldn't be passing traffic either to

1:04:00 ↗ get a cup of coffee I mean it's the

1:04:02 ↗ point is they're passing through if you

1:04:05 ↗ stop for you know a cup of coffee it

1:04:07 ↗ doesn't count that that bothers me in

1:04:09 ↗ that sense yeah but but those numbers

1:04:11 ↗ flowing that you're saying it's all

1:04:13 ↗ within the city and that's you know all

1:04:16 ↗ the growth is within the city none of it

1:04:19 ↗ increasing with all those numbers

1:04:21 ↗ growing around us and that's being the

1:04:22 ↗ funnel here at i-90 it just it's really

1:04:25 ↗ hard for me to to get to there when when

1:04:28 ↗ I when I see what's going on and we

1:04:29 ↗ actually have numbers onions call hogar

1:04:30 ↗ Road study to actually show that at

1:04:33 ↗ least that one corridor so I I just look

1:04:37 ↗ at that some way differently yeah just

1:04:40 ↗ some degree I wish I hadn't shown the

1:04:41 ↗ orange box because honestly honestly I'd

1:04:44 ↗ semantics and it really has no impact on

1:04:47 ↗ what we're trying to accomplish here I

1:04:49 ↗ know that you have a very strong feeling

1:04:52 ↗ about what's regional and what's not the

1:04:54 ↗ fact that I cannot call it regional the

1:04:57 ↗ way I'm defining it to be not regional

1:04:59 ↗ in other words it has a destination

1:05:01 ↗ point in the city allows me to collect

1:05:04 ↗ an impact fee and allows you to get

1:05:06 ↗ money to build projects so the fact that

1:05:09 ↗ I'm defining it the way I'm defining it

1:05:11 ↗ is better for you if you want to define

1:05:14 ↗ it a regional trip as a trip that

1:05:17 ↗ originates and ends somewhere outside

1:05:19 ↗ the city and stops in the city that's

1:05:22 ↗ fine

1:05:22 ↗ but I'm gonna do I'm gonna define it the

1:05:26 ↗ way I define it in order to allow you to

1:05:28 ↗ collect the max

1:05:29 ↗ amount of money to build projects in

1:05:32 ↗ this aquire does that help I know him I

1:05:36 ↗ know

1:05:37 ↗ deputy council president Batista

1:05:40 ↗ so thank you that I was just going to

1:05:43 ↗ follow up on that but that I think that

1:05:45 ↗ that helped answer my question but I do

1:05:49 ↗ I just wanted to echo some of the

1:05:52 ↗ concerns that councilmember Goodman

1:05:54 ↗ spoke about in terms of the commercial

1:05:56 ↗ and the jobs and some of those

1:05:58 ↗ assumptions in regard to taking a look

1:06:03 ↗ at that that modeling I just that seems

1:06:07 ↗ so the to the the 20 really the 20 40

1:06:11 ↗ column is our current model the 20 30

1:06:13 ↗ column was the 2013 model we expanded 10

1:06:16 ↗ years because the P SRC model has gone

1:06:18 ↗ out another 10 years but my point is the

1:06:21 ↗ land use component of that bar is not up

1:06:25 ↗ for debate it is a policy decision that

1:06:28 ↗ was made in 2013 it is not up for debate

1:06:31 ↗ tonight and we're not changing land use

1:06:35 ↗ in the city unless you want to go back

1:06:37 ↗ and change the CIP EIS and go through

1:06:39 ↗ that whole planning effort again I know

1:06:41 ↗ I'm saying this really sort of sternly

1:06:43 ↗ but I want I just want to make it clear

1:06:46 ↗ that we're not the land use is not what

1:06:50 ↗ we're talking about tonight other than

1:06:53 ↗ technical changes in land use stuff that

1:06:55 ↗ moved from vested to existing or stuff

1:06:58 ↗ that moved from vested to to plant and

1:07:01 ↗ design I appreciate it thank you I

1:07:03 ↗ appreciate it when we're talking about

1:07:05 ↗ assumptions I think it's good that we

1:07:06 ↗ yeah I know it's called assumptions but

1:07:09 ↗ it's really it's your plan it's the

1:07:11 ↗ city's plan that was adopted in 2015

1:07:14 ↗ through the CIP EIS process so it's not

1:07:17 ↗ an assumption it is your plan for what

1:07:20 ↗ you want to do in the city how's the

1:07:23 ↗ matter winter Stein thank you the

1:07:25 ↗ explanation you gave a moment ago is

1:07:27 ↗ very helpful because I was struggling

1:07:28 ↗ with like my colleagues like the butt of

1:07:30 ↗ that cigarette yeah they're like is the

1:07:33 ↗ pain is the bane of our existence

1:07:34 ↗ however it's that maximum number and the

1:07:38 ↗ amount of blue that real

1:07:40 ↗ matter yes as if if if a project comes

1:07:45 ↗ in so obviously if it's residential

1:07:47 ↗ people are beginning and ending here in

1:07:49 ↗ the assump and now I may be putting

1:07:51 ↗ words in your mouth so I'm looking for

1:07:52 ↗ confirmation but if it's commercial

1:07:55 ↗ related whether it be retail office

1:07:56 ↗ whatever then then it's creating trips

1:08:00 ↗ and they're in the blue correct we can

1:08:05 ↗ collect from that threat and yes I care

1:08:09 ↗ that we have an accurate measurement and

1:08:13 ↗ forecasts of what's truly doesn't begin

1:08:16 ↗ or end because that's passed through

1:08:18 ↗ mm-hmm for the technical definition but

1:08:21 ↗ if we're creating more commercial

1:08:24 ↗ opportunities and people are either

1:08:26 ↗ leaving a job or coming to a job or

1:08:29 ↗ coming to a retail or some other place

1:08:31 ↗ that becomes part of our impact fee

1:08:35 ↗ structure sure that they may they may

1:08:38 ↗ actually be working in Bellevue and

1:08:41 ↗ living in Black Diamond but if they come

1:08:44 ↗ and buy jewelry at some new store that

1:08:46 ↗ shows up we can capture money for that

1:08:49 ↗ that's exactly right

1:08:50 ↗ all right thank you okay back to you

1:09:00 ↗ tourist cards so the result this is the

1:09:03 ↗ last slide the result of all that

1:09:06 ↗ analysis comes down to well it's not the

1:09:08 ↗ last slide but it's the crux boils down

1:09:13 ↗ to then that analytical analysis that we

1:09:16 ↗ do on level of service and does

1:09:19 ↗ everybody understand level service it's

1:09:20 ↗ a a through F sort of like a report card

1:09:23 ↗ a is good F is bad when you get the city

1:09:26 ↗ standard is level service D we need to

1:09:29 ↗ maintain level search D or better except

1:09:32 ↗ at six intersections that were

1:09:34 ↗ identified in the 2013 concurrency

1:09:36 ↗ update and so what we were doing with

1:09:38 ↗ this update is to make sure that

1:09:40 ↗ everything still looks like we're on

1:09:42 ↗ track that with the same land-use that

1:09:45 ↗ we projected in 2013 are we in the same

1:09:48 ↗ place and are the same six intersections

1:09:51 ↗ failing

1:09:53 ↗ are the other 90 some intersections

1:09:55 ↗ still operating a little sirs D or

1:09:56 ↗ better so that was the point of this

1:09:58 ↗ update and what we found is that we went

1:10:02 ↗ from six failing intersections to five

1:10:04 ↗ failing intersections and I am going to

1:10:07 ↗ explain what happened there so five of

1:10:12 ↗ those six are the exact same

1:10:13 ↗ intersections that were failing in 2013

1:10:16 ↗ so it's the same those those five didn't

1:10:20 ↗ change and so we're still in synced with

1:10:23 ↗ that the one intersection that fell off

1:10:25 ↗ the list is the talus and it's just off

1:10:28 ↗ the graphic here is the talus driveway

1:10:33 ↗ on sr 900 and I know all of you are

1:10:36 ↗ gonna say oh my gosh I know that

1:10:40 ↗ intersection operates poorly what

1:10:43 ↗ happened there was two things we

1:10:45 ↗ actually had a drop in volumes on SR 900

1:10:48 ↗ between 2013 and 2017 and the talus

1:10:54 ↗ development agreement expiration removed

1:10:58 ↗ growth from talus that was no long that

1:11:00 ↗ can no longer occur so the number of

1:11:05 ↗ trips that are gonna go through that

1:11:06 ↗ intersection decreased from 2013 to 2017

1:11:09 ↗ and that's what made that intersection

1:11:11 ↗ fall off the list it is still level

1:11:13 ↗ serves D it's not operating great but it

1:11:17 ↗ is no longer your F

1:11:19 ↗ that's remember Goodman can you tell us

1:11:24 ↗ technically the difference or the

1:11:27 ↗ specific improvement like in seconds or

1:11:30 ↗ minutes or whatever it is between a an F

1:11:34 ↗ and a D what would be required in order

1:11:41 ↗ to bring it from an E to a Dean the

1:11:43 ↗ reason I'm asking is because if it

1:11:44 ↗ improves it by whatever a few seconds

1:11:47 ↗ it's on a chart it will show as an

1:11:50 ↗ improvement but nobody will have noticed

1:11:52 ↗ an improvement really right so let's go

1:11:56 ↗ to the table so I think Sheldon you were

1:11:58 ↗ saying second stuff delay so you're

1:12:02 ↗ gonna test my memory here but

1:12:05 ↗ the very first intersection sr 900 in

1:12:08 ↗ the eastbound ramps you'll see it's at

1:12:09 ↗ 70 79 seconds of delay and that results

1:12:13 ↗ that's a level service ee condition I

1:12:15 ↗ believe eighty seconds is the threshold

1:12:17 ↗ that brings it to F so you'll see just

1:12:20 ↗ two intersections below the 93 seconds

1:12:24 ↗ of delay brings it two and a half so

1:12:26 ↗ eighty seconds are below of delay and

1:12:29 ↗ that's average at the intersection not

1:12:31 ↗ any one movement but average overall at

1:12:33 ↗ the intersection eighty seconds of delay

1:12:35 ↗ is a level service F 80 or higher isn't

1:12:40 ↗ half eighty or lower is a da3 the sorry

1:12:46 ↗ does that help okay now what level of

1:12:49 ↗ improvement is needed to bring any one

1:12:52 ↗ of these it all depends on that delay

1:12:54 ↗ number so the higher that delay number

1:12:56 ↗ goes I mean once you're an F it could be

1:12:58 ↗ a hundred and eighty seconds of delay

1:13:00 ↗ but the higher that number goes the more

1:13:03 ↗ expensive it gets to fix so I have a

1:13:08 ↗ question for you which is these all

1:13:11 ↗ assume sort of a stochastic process

1:13:14 ↗ right it presupposes a process that you

1:13:17 ↗ can describe this sort of a normal

1:13:19 ↗ distribution right around some number so

1:13:21 ↗ that we you know a number of 79 we all

1:13:25 ↗ sort of have an idea what that means

1:13:27 ↗ because there's a bunch of stuff around

1:13:29 ↗ 79 and then there's outliers when it

1:13:32 ↗ gets better or worse but it's my

1:13:35 ↗ experience in the city that we have some

1:13:38 ↗ weird completely nonlinear stuff that

1:13:41 ↗ goes on where all of a sudden like in ER

1:13:44 ↗ I've been at intersection 13 when it was

1:13:48 ↗ a thousand seconds yeah right where it

1:13:51 ↗ took me it took I once had a chi had a

1:13:54 ↗ land in charming and I was late for it I

1:13:57 ↗ was at Home Depot and it took me an hour

1:14:00 ↗ to get from Home Depot to them to care

1:14:02 ↗ right so so all of a sudden you're

1:14:05 ↗ you're just not in the realm of a

1:14:09 ↗ probabilistic kind of model that you've

1:14:11 ↗ got here and do we understand when those

1:14:14 ↗ events occur and why they occur

1:14:17 ↗ and how we how we deal with these things

1:14:20 ↗ and I don't believe there was a price

1:14:22 ↗ you know anybody landed an airplane on

1:14:24 ↗ this Oklahoma Road or you know something

1:14:26 ↗ I mean it wasn't there's an approximate

1:14:28 ↗ cause for it to be that crazy right so

1:14:31 ↗ so traffic is definitely a hard thing to

1:14:34 ↗ predict it's a human behavior right

1:14:36 ↗ person decides to go one way or another

1:14:38 ↗ each day depending on the intersection

1:14:41 ↗ they see downstream is congested long in

1:14:44 ↗ a turn here instead today that they

1:14:46 ↗ wouldn't have done yesterday so like you

1:14:48 ↗ said traffic is a behavioral thing that

1:14:51 ↗ we are trying to define with mathematics

1:14:54 ↗ right and the math that goes into these

1:14:58 ↗ calculations does attempt to take into

1:15:02 ↗ account those variabilities in traffic

1:15:05 ↗ okay

1:15:05 ↗ the instance that you described could

1:15:08 ↗ very well be at any one intersection

1:15:11 ↗ we're showing that the volume that's

1:15:13 ↗ approaching that intersection and wants

1:15:15 ↗ to get through it would operate at you

1:15:18 ↗ know again let's take the third

1:15:20 ↗ intersection down SR 912 Sammamish it's

1:15:23 ↗ level service F we're predicting on an

1:15:26 ↗ on an average day you're gonna have

1:15:27 ↗ about 93 seconds of delay there that

1:15:29 ↗ means you're gonna sit through more than

1:15:30 ↗ one cycle to get through but on any

1:15:34 ↗ other given day there could be a

1:15:36 ↗ downstream problem that has caused a

1:15:38 ↗ queue to back up to that intersection

1:15:39 ↗ and now there's an outside influence

1:15:41 ↗ that is affecting that intersection and

1:15:44 ↗ so those are things that unfortunately

1:15:47 ↗ we can't take we can't take into account

1:15:50 ↗ but secondly the city would certainly

1:15:53 ↗ not want to design or pay for those

1:15:55 ↗ outlier if we understood what was

1:16:00 ↗ happening perhaps sometimes it's timing

1:16:03 ↗ right right we do what we would love to

1:16:05 ↗ sequence our lights with highway 900 but

1:16:08 ↗ we don't get to right where a fire truck

1:16:10 ↗ goes through you know you have the

1:16:13 ↗ things on the signals that allow a fire

1:16:15 ↗ truck to go through and Rita you have to

1:16:17 ↗ calm that retime the signals in order to

1:16:20 ↗ allow the fuss that has a significant

1:16:23 ↗ effect on anyone you know any one hour

1:16:26 ↗ of traffic because for the signal system

1:16:28 ↗ to get back in sync and for the

1:16:30 ↗ platooning to reoccur on the

1:16:32 ↗ intersection on the corridor could cause

1:16:35 ↗ like that effect that you saw that one

1:16:36 ↗ and it's something you never saw you

1:16:38 ↗ never saw that ambulance to that fire

1:16:40 ↗ truck go through the intersection but my

1:16:42 ↗ question is are we as a city in any way

1:16:46 ↗ noting when these severely off-nominal

1:16:49 ↗ traffic events occur and attempting to

1:16:52 ↗ do a root cause diagnosis of why they're

1:16:56 ↗ occurring right so that's I guess a

1:16:58 ↗ question for the city on occasion yes I

1:17:05 ↗ can give you examples I know one interim

1:17:08 ↗ City Administrator that calls every once

1:17:10 ↗ in a while and says what the heck is

1:17:11 ↗ going on to get that kind of information

1:17:14 ↗ and I figure out how recently the cause

1:17:18 ↗ may have occurred and entering that into

1:17:22 ↗ sort of the repository so that we can

1:17:25 ↗ have conversations about is there a way

1:17:27 ↗ to minimize impact from events like that

1:17:29 ↗ I don't know that we have a systematic

1:17:34 ↗ way that we're collecting that

1:17:35 ↗ information but we're having those

1:17:38 ↗ conversations okay because I would like

1:17:41 ↗ and I realize I saw you looking at your

1:17:43 ↗ watch I know you have a time I'm more

1:17:45 ↗ worried about getting then agenda item

1:17:47 ↗ but I mean some of those could have for

1:17:50 ↗ instance if we decided that part of our

1:17:51 ↗ problem is not being able to time our

1:17:53 ↗ lights off of highway 900

1:17:55 ↗ that might be an example of something

1:17:57 ↗ that would that would inform our

1:17:59 ↗ legislative agenda right or some other

1:18:01 ↗ mechanism beyond you know this the true

1:18:04 ↗ concurrency model that we try to resolve

1:18:07 ↗ that such that we try to adjust these

1:18:09 ↗ outliers so that people get more at

1:18:10 ↗ least a more predictable sense of what

1:18:13 ↗ traffic is gonna look like

1:18:14 ↗ yeah custom tops another rate no I just

1:18:18 ↗ want to I love this chart it's got all

1:18:20 ↗ sorts of fun numbers in it can you tell

1:18:22 ↗ me what the what each of the columns

1:18:24 ↗ means and what what is delay what is

1:18:27 ↗ total volume entering and what is w over

1:18:30 ↗ C and then what's the little marginal

1:18:34 ↗ letter sure I'll start with control

1:18:36 ↗ which is probably pretty obvious but

1:18:38 ↗ there's signalized on this page you see

1:18:41 ↗ mostly signalized

1:18:42 ↗ on other pages you might see a WSC which

1:18:47 ↗ is always stop control and and why not

1:18:50 ↗ so that tells you how is that

1:18:51 ↗ intersection being operated the next

1:18:54 ↗ column over the lane group is probably

1:18:57 ↗ more of a technical thing but it tells

1:18:59 ↗ what that tells you is for a signalized

1:19:01 ↗ intersection all every single Lane at

1:19:05 ↗ that intersection is calculated in that

1:19:07 ↗ delay calculation and always stop and

1:19:10 ↗ two-way stop controlled intersections

1:19:12 ↗ all the lanes are not included it's only

1:19:14 ↗ the one that's being stopped that's

1:19:17 ↗ included in the calculation okay

1:19:19 ↗ the next column over is level service

1:19:21 ↗ we've talked about that a through F

1:19:23 ↗ delay is the number that is the amount

1:19:27 ↗ of delay on average that's experienced

1:19:29 ↗ at and then going back over to the lane

1:19:31 ↗ group either all the lanes or the subset

1:19:37 ↗ of the lanes depress that average over

1:19:38 ↗ the entire length of the day no it's

1:19:40 ↗ again a peak hour the worst peak hour

1:19:42 ↗ yep over one hour so theoretically

1:19:45 ↗ that's the worst that it would be on a

1:19:47 ↗ typical weekday now I know Saturdays and

1:19:50 ↗ you know noon times sometimes they're a

1:19:52 ↗ little bit weird and different but

1:19:54 ↗ that's a p.m. peak hour average delay

1:19:57 ↗ okay the end total entering volume is

1:20:00 ↗ the amount of traffic that's entering

1:20:02 ↗ the intersection during that one peak

1:20:04 ↗ hour okay and then the V over C is

1:20:08 ↗ called volume

1:20:09 ↗ it stands for volume to capacity it's

1:20:12 ↗ that volume which is of the for example

1:20:14 ↗ the first line five thousand one hundred

1:20:16 ↗ twenty nine cars want to get into the

1:20:18 ↗ intersection and the capacity is the

1:20:20 ↗ amount of capacity the amount of cars

1:20:23 ↗ that that intersection can process in an

1:20:26 ↗ hour and when you see that it's over one

1:20:28 ↗ it's telling you that there are more

1:20:30 ↗ cars that want to go through that

1:20:31 ↗ intersection then the intersection can

1:20:33 ↗ handle

1:20:37 ↗ does that help every council president

1:20:40 ↗ patís thank you

1:20:42 ↗ so my question in regard to level of

1:20:45 ↗ service this might be for Emily and it

1:20:51 ↗ follows up a little bit on council

1:20:53 ↗ president Mart's comment we're talking

1:20:56 ↗ about enf and having failing

1:20:59 ↗ intersections but within d which is

1:21:03 ↗ acceptable but we've got DS that have

1:21:06 ↗ higher rates of delay versus lower rates

1:21:10 ↗ of delay and so when is our opportunity

1:21:13 ↗ to talk about those level of service

1:21:15 ↗ within d and some of those more

1:21:18 ↗ problematic intersections or areas of

1:21:21 ↗ town where D is is it's inching up

1:21:25 ↗ toward E and do we have an opportunity

1:21:28 ↗ to talk about those sure and help me if

1:21:35 ↗ I don't answer your questions straight

1:21:37 ↗ on you have that opportunity in a few

1:21:41 ↗ different ways you can have it as

1:21:43 ↗ follow-up as we schedule a follow-up to

1:21:45 ↗ this meaning you have it during CIP

1:21:49 ↗ conversations as well

1:21:51 ↗ you'd have it if we were to bring

1:21:53 ↗ forward a discussion on concurrency

1:21:56 ↗ policy if I take your question further

1:22:02 ↗ and contemplate what would it mean to

1:22:07 ↗ establish a different cutoff point I

1:22:09 ↗ think that is something that in 2014

1:22:12 ↗ 2015 was part of the conversation and we

1:22:16 ↗ looked at what that would mean

1:22:17 ↗ financially I I think it's also

1:22:21 ↗ important to recognize that it doesn't

1:22:25 ↗ it doesn't dictate where improvements

1:22:29 ↗ are happening so there are projects on

1:22:33 ↗ this list that are shown as D and get

1:22:37 ↗ somewhat better after improvement there

1:22:40 ↗ are some that they continue to get worse

1:22:42 ↗ because volumes go up on neighboring

1:22:45 ↗ streets for example

1:22:48 ↗ so you can you can have that

1:22:50 ↗ conversation but it's certainly if you

1:22:53 ↗ draw the line at a different place it

1:22:55 ↗ will significantly drive costs thank you

1:22:59 ↗ and and my thought was not necessarily

1:23:02 ↗ around drawing the line in a different

1:23:04 ↗ place although when would that

1:23:06 ↗ conversation happen if that happened but

1:23:08 ↗ more to look at some of those that are

1:23:10 ↗ inching up toward E and what potentially

1:23:14 ↗ could be done in those areas thank you

1:23:17 ↗ that answered that customer Ramos just

1:23:20 ↗ looking at some of the light factors and

1:23:22 ↗ just and I know you've done this very

1:23:24 ↗ scientifically and technically and you

1:23:25 ↗ found it through and some things just

1:23:27 ↗ they're a little more difficult to

1:23:29 ↗ swallow so I'm looking at for now second

1:23:32 ↗ Avenue and Front Street number 16 mm-hmm

1:23:34 ↗ okay which shows an 18 second delay now

1:23:38 ↗ I know I've traveled that route a lot in

1:23:40 ↗ p.m. afternoon and it takes me a half an

1:23:42 ↗ hour to get from here to if I go up

1:23:45 ↗ second to front 20 minutes to a half

1:23:46 ↗ hour I can time that I know I allow that

1:23:49 ↗ much time and it's consistent 20 minutes

1:23:52 ↗ to a half an hour to get up to front

1:23:54 ↗ coming from second right here so I'm

1:23:57 ↗ trying to figure out how that ever gets

1:23:59 ↗ to an 18 second delay and I know the

1:24:01 ↗ other front isn't moving really fast

1:24:03 ↗ either a little faster than that maybe

1:24:05 ↗ but you know and so I can I can predict

1:24:09 ↗ that accurate today and it shows 18

1:24:12 ↗ seconds I'm trying to fit that into my

1:24:14 ↗ reality a little bit as I'm sure other

1:24:16 ↗ folks are too because that that's what

1:24:19 ↗ that is today so I'm just trying to

1:24:22 ↗ figure it you know yeah and I'm not

1:24:23 ↗ gonna honestly be able to you know deny

1:24:28 ↗ that that's your experience or not what

1:24:30 ↗ I can all I can do is explain how the

1:24:32 ↗ calculation is done and you know whether

1:24:35 ↗ you accept that or not is you know

1:24:36 ↗ neither here nor there but the 18

1:24:39 ↗ seconds is again an average so your the

1:24:42 ↗ movements that you're making might be a

1:24:44 ↗ movement that is experiencing 50 seconds

1:24:47 ↗ of delay but when that's average to the

1:24:49 ↗ other movements that are experiencing

1:24:50 ↗ two seconds of delay it comes out to

1:24:53 ↗ that 18 so remember always like left

1:24:56 ↗ turns and right turns are typically much

1:24:59 ↗ higher delay than what's shown in the

1:25:01 ↗ table because they're the ones that get

1:25:03 ↗ the least amount of green time at the

1:25:05 ↗ intersection it's the three movements

1:25:07 ↗ that are the heavy movements and they

1:25:09 ↗ usually get the most screen time and

1:25:11 ↗ since it's a weighted average the

1:25:13 ↗ highest volume getting the lowest delay

1:25:15 ↗ makes that number go down the the turn

1:25:20 ↗ movements with the lower volumes and

1:25:23 ↗ least amount of green time in a weighted

1:25:27 ↗ calculation are gonna not reflect the

1:25:31 ↗ overall level of service as much does

1:25:33 ↗ that make sense yeah and I just you know

1:25:37 ↗ many other folks experience delays so

1:25:42 ↗ they're getting so predictable I can now

1:25:45 ↗ predict how long it's going to be if you

1:25:47 ↗ travel that route long enough and you

1:25:49 ↗ can get pretty accurate I guess just

1:25:51 ↗ anecdotally and knowing how long to

1:25:53 ↗ allow for that trip and and I'm getting

1:25:55 ↗ very good at getting to the south end

1:25:56 ↗ now and on time because they're not how

1:25:58 ↗ much time to allow right and it's not 18

1:26:00 ↗ seconds any other questions

1:26:03 ↗ councilmember Hutt

1:26:05 ↗ what is the letters on the far end of

1:26:09 ↗ the oh thank you for thank you for

1:26:11 ↗ asking so these are the levels of

1:26:13 ↗ service from the 2013 update so I just

1:26:17 ↗ provided them here for the six

1:26:19 ↗ intersections that were failing before

1:26:20 ↗ so that you would be able to compare

1:26:22 ↗ what how it changed from before and then

1:26:27 ↗ my other question is are there

1:26:29 ↗ situations where an intersection is

1:26:33 ↗ performing poorly and it becomes so

1:26:36 ↗ predictable that people are basically

1:26:38 ↗ disabled in a different way and then it

1:26:40 ↗ looks like it's improving but really

1:26:42 ↗ it's just that people have realized that

1:26:43 ↗ it's not functioning well so in that

1:26:47 ↗ event so is that kind of behavioral

1:26:49 ↗ thing built in that is definitely built

1:26:51 ↗ into the model when an intersection is

1:26:53 ↗ experiencing significant amounts of

1:26:55 ↗ delay that's part of the calculation and

1:26:57 ↗ the model is allows for rerouting so

1:27:02 ↗ cars will choose a different path if a

1:27:05 ↗ particular intersection or series of

1:27:07 ↗ intersections causes more delay than if

1:27:10 ↗ they went a different way

1:27:12 ↗ all right any other questions all right

1:27:15 ↗ what do you have left thank you guys

1:27:17 ↗ that that's it I mean it's it's the

1:27:19 ↗ series of four tables but you know we've

1:27:21 ↗ been through it I think all right hey in

1:27:25 ↗ councilmember moon you're gonna get it

1:27:26 ↗ back to us Oh Sheldon yes sorry I'll

1:27:37 ↗ make this quick this last slide is to

1:27:40 ↗ talk a little bit about the next steps

1:27:41 ↗ where we're headed with this data that

1:27:43 ↗ Torsten provided us staff as well as the

1:27:47 ↗ consultant we're working to update the

1:27:50 ↗ project that goes on to the concurrency

1:27:54 ↗ impact fee calculations as well as their

1:27:56 ↗ costs i earlier this evening there was

1:27:59 ↗ some discussion about yay or nay on some

1:28:02 ↗ projects or some guidance and so forth

1:28:04 ↗ while we're going ahead and proceeding

1:28:06 ↗ with the knowledge base that we have now

1:28:08 ↗ certainly the input will inform us and

1:28:11 ↗ it's easy to remove a project or add a

1:28:13 ↗ project in as we've got a substantive

1:28:16 ↗ amount of data already for cost

1:28:18 ↗ estimating is expected that once the

1:28:24 ↗ project costs and the project list has

1:28:28 ↗ been updated DSD is working with a

1:28:31 ↗ consultant to update the impact fees

1:28:33 ↗ which will come back to council at the

1:28:35 ↗ latter part of this year probably

1:28:37 ↗ towards the end of the year for council

1:28:38 ↗ review and adoption of the new impact

1:28:41 ↗ fees for traffic as well as

1:28:43 ↗ non-motorized those are also being

1:28:45 ↗ updated it's just not part of

1:28:47 ↗ torstensson's work and then in second

1:28:51 ↗ quarter next year with the adoption of

1:28:53 ↗ the CIP and T IP the projects will be

1:28:56 ↗ all incorporated in there with the new

1:28:58 ↗ values and the like so any questions for

1:29:03 ↗ Sheldon on the on the you are here slide

1:29:07 ↗ ok thank you very much and it's one

1:29:10 ↗ dimension council member who you were

1:29:12 ↗ going to get back to us on

1:29:14 ↗ a custom member apologized interim city

1:29:16 ↗ administrator moon the net is young and

1:29:19 ↗ I'm already flaking out on sort of

1:29:23 ↗ feedback and the timing on when you

1:29:25 ↗ would want to hear back from us I

1:29:26 ↗ certainly will alright thank you

1:29:28 ↗ oh and but we're not actually done with

1:29:31 ↗ this topic entirely we're done with the

1:29:33 ↗ presentation on staff but I will offer

1:29:36 ↗ the public if anyone in the public

1:29:37 ↗ wishes to speak to this issue tonight as

1:29:39 ↗ we think about this I will offer them

1:29:43 ↗ three minutes you sent us such a short

1:29:49 ↗ email I assume of your comments would be

1:29:51 ↗ short as well so if you don't have a

1:29:58 ↗ model that reflect reflects reality it's

1:30:01 ↗ very hard to think that you are going to

1:30:03 ↗ get the proper projects to get the

1:30:05 ↗ community to a place in transportation

1:30:08 ↗ where they are at least feeling

1:30:11 ↗ improvement and I feel that the model

1:30:14 ↗ assumptions potentially are what is

1:30:16 ↗ creating this sort of mind-boggling

1:30:19 ↗ disparity between reality and what is on

1:30:22 ↗ the page one of the things is the

1:30:25 ↗ averaged intersection when you get one

1:30:30 ↗ leg of an intersection that has too much

1:30:32 ↗ delay the system breaks down and this

1:30:36 ↗ model doesn't really reflect that type

1:30:38 ↗ of a thing that happens all day long

1:30:40 ↗ every day in this town and so how do you

1:30:45 ↗ solve that problem now you did a new

1:30:50 ↗ concurrency attempt last time and this

1:30:53 ↗ time it's like we aren't going to

1:30:54 ↗ discuss the policies and whether

1:30:56 ↗ concurrency is working this time I think

1:30:59 ↗ you have to because I think seeing this

1:31:01 ↗ model run and the disparity makes the

1:31:06 ↗ need for a conversation of is I can

1:31:08 ↗ weigh we're doing concurrency going to

1:31:11 ↗ work in the future because did it work

1:31:14 ↗ in Latin this last period of time so I

1:31:16 ↗ would encourage you to have that require

1:31:18 ↗ that conversation there was also a pool

1:31:22 ↗ of trips from that last concurrency I

1:31:25 ↗ didn't see the pool of trips and how

1:31:26 ↗ many trips

1:31:27 ↗ have in theory been put into the pool

1:31:30 ↗ which is sort of the core concurrency

1:31:33 ↗ method at this point in time so it's a

1:31:35 ↗ little harder to gauge what is actually

1:31:37 ↗ happening because that is what we're

1:31:39 ↗ supposed to be doing so perhaps you

1:31:44 ↗ could look at instead of trying to

1:31:47 ↗ figure out how to maximize the amount of

1:31:49 ↗ money that we're making from a model run

1:31:52 ↗ we need a model run to get us the the

1:31:55 ↗ projects that we need to actually make

1:31:57 ↗ it easier to get through town and if we

1:31:59 ↗ insist on just trying to make money I

1:32:01 ↗ don't think that we are looking for

1:32:03 ↗ success because this is the moneymaker

1:32:05 ↗ but we never have the conversation about

1:32:07 ↗ what's important and what is success in

1:32:10 ↗ our town for our community then I'm

1:32:12 ↗ going to say some specific things I

1:32:14 ↗ didn't see st3 and its placement in this

1:32:17 ↗ model yet we're going to 2040 and we all

1:32:19 ↗ know that st3 is going to be a

1:32:22 ↗ massive wacko bring her in of traffic

1:32:25 ↗ potentially so I would like to see that

1:32:28 ↗ listed down and placed into a model and

1:32:31 ↗ I also the Holly Street bridge just

1:32:35 ↗ adding Auto traffic in the middle of

1:32:38 ↗ that quiet neighborhood via sort of a

1:32:41 ↗ concurrency discussion to me is a

1:32:43 ↗ radically bad faith thing for a city

1:32:47 ↗ council to even to consider before it

1:32:49 ↗ went out to that community and said we

1:32:51 ↗ are pondering this what do you think of

1:32:53 ↗ doing this in your neighborhood you just

1:32:55 ↗ don't slide it in here that is the cart

1:32:58 ↗ before the horse as far as I'm concerned

1:33:00 ↗ and then I would like to know if all of

1:33:03 ↗ the assumptions in this model run are

1:33:05 ↗ the exact same assumptions in the model

1:33:08 ↗ run from the prior time we did it

1:33:10 ↗ because the numbers could look so

1:33:12 ↗ different because the assumptions were

1:33:14 ↗ changed you just don't know

1:33:16 ↗ okay with that under three minutes call

1:33:19 ↗ chef

1:33:20 ↗ very close thank you

1:33:22 ↗ well we don't we get we don't actually

1:33:24 ↗ we don't actually clap even council

1:33:28 ↗ meetings but thank you thank you for

1:33:29 ↗ enthusiasm is there anyone else who

1:33:31 ↗ wishes to speak on this topic this

1:33:33 ↗ evening anyone else wishes to speak on

1:33:37 ↗ traffic concurrency going twice last

1:33:40 ↗ chance

1:33:40 ↗ No okay so with that we will now move on

1:33:44 ↗ to ID Oh 297 senior center update

1:33:48 ↗ presented by our Parks and Recreation

1:33:50 ↗ Director Jeff Watling yes welcome to the

1:33:53 ↗ mic all right Thank You Council good

1:33:56 ↗ evening great great to be here boy over

1:34:00 ↗ the past year and a half the Senior

1:34:03 ↗ Center has been transitioning certainly

1:34:06 ↗ into its new future and as I think we've

1:34:09 ↗ done that we've had a chance to converse

1:34:11 ↗ with you a number of times certainly

1:34:14 ↗ with the community a number of times I

1:34:16 ↗ hope what you find is in tonight's

1:34:18 ↗ presentation though it might feel a

1:34:20 ↗ little bit repetitive it really

1:34:23 ↗ represents progress and it represents

1:34:25 ↗ another step and in this policymaking

1:34:29 ↗ decision as to how we want to operate in

1:34:33 ↗ that last year and a half I think it's

1:34:35 ↗ certainly safe to say and great work of

1:34:38 ↗ Courtney and and Brian and senior center

1:34:40 ↗ staff the many Senior Center staff that

1:34:43 ↗ as that operation has stabilized

1:34:46 ↗ discussion of long term operation has

1:34:48 ↗ been allowed to happen

1:34:50 ↗ it's been an important community

1:34:52 ↗ conversation it's been an important

1:34:53 ↗ policy conversation we've had that

1:34:57 ↗ conversation in a variety of forms the

1:35:01 ↗ task force meetings we had last year our

1:35:03 ↗ council and committee discussions the

1:35:06 ↗ conversations we've had at the Senior

1:35:07 ↗ Center with seniors either at coffee

1:35:09 ↗ talk or just and lunchtime conversations

1:35:13 ↗ those conversations have often been

1:35:15 ↗ around conceptual operating models for

1:35:19 ↗ so long we were talked about conceptual

1:35:21 ↗ operating models to the recent work

1:35:23 ↗ you've done these past months with the

1:35:27 ↗ assistance of our consultant the

1:35:28 ↗ conversations we had with put with

1:35:31 ↗ possible partners both regionally and in

1:35:34 ↗ here

1:35:34 ↗ in the city the letter of interest

1:35:37 ↗ process that we went through we're no

1:35:40 ↗ longer at a conceptual conversation

1:35:44 ↗ level we're not talking conceptual

1:35:45 ↗ operating models anymore we're really

1:35:48 ↗ here tonight to begin talking about one

1:35:51 ↗ possible partner who submitted a letter

1:35:54 ↗ of interest and comparing that with what

1:35:58 ↗ long terms city operation would look

1:36:02 ↗ like and so that really I think

1:36:04 ↗ represents a shift as we move forward I

1:36:08 ↗ would just highlight as we move into

1:36:10 ↗ other presentation goals to throughout

1:36:12 ↗ this year and a half along with really

1:36:15 ↗ striving for seamless Center operation

1:36:18 ↗ we've also really sought and desired and

1:36:22 ↗ appreciated the assistance of counsel

1:36:23 ↗ and administration it's certainly our

1:36:26 ↗ goal of staff is to have a very

1:36:28 ↗ transparent conversation around long

1:36:30 ↗ term operation and so look forward to

1:36:35 ↗ this further conversation and and where

1:36:38 ↗ we're where we want to go as a community

1:36:39 ↗ in operation along with this first goal

1:36:43 ↗ that I just highlighted and will

1:36:45 ↗ continue to in terms of where we're at

1:36:47 ↗ in this decision-making process the

1:36:50 ↗ intent tonight is to highlight the

1:36:52 ↗ conversations we've had with Eastside

1:36:54 ↗ friends of seniors regarding their

1:36:56 ↗ possible operating model I think what

1:36:58 ↗ you'll see is they're still also in an

1:37:02 ↗ exploratory place as they're looking at

1:37:05 ↗ and still considering doing this we'll

1:37:08 ↗ also discuss the possible long-term city

1:37:10 ↗ operating model in a little more detail

1:37:13 ↗ and how that compares to this operation

1:37:17 ↗ we've been in currently as interim

1:37:19 ↗ operation I'm going to note and you'll

1:37:22 ↗ note as we go through this for a number

1:37:25 ↗ of reasons unfortunately we're not at a

1:37:27 ↗ same level of clarity as we start

1:37:29 ↗ looking at those examples tonight but at

1:37:32 ↗ least it's a first step and then lastly

1:37:36 ↗ really get to the fundamental policy

1:37:39 ↗ question and begin to look at and

1:37:43 ↗ discuss options for how we might want to

1:37:45 ↗ move forward

1:37:46 ↗ and and how do we collectively want to

1:37:48 ↗ strive to meet the goals of this

1:37:50 ↗ community to meet the goals that were

1:37:53 ↗ really identified as the guiding

1:37:54 ↗ principles by the advisory group in

1:37:57 ↗ their work last year so with that

1:38:01 ↗ Eastside friends of seniors submitted

1:38:03 ↗ their their letter of interest since our

1:38:06 ↗ July 24th work session meeting I've had

1:38:08 ↗ the chance to meet with them three times

1:38:11 ↗ have met with Linda Woodall their

1:38:14 ↗ executive director as well as some of

1:38:16 ↗ their board members who a couple of them

1:38:17 ↗ are here tonight we've certainly got to

1:38:20 ↗ know them and in their their interest

1:38:24 ↗ many of you might be already familiar

1:38:26 ↗ with their work they're currently a

1:38:28 ↗ nonprofit agency they currently partner

1:38:32 ↗ with us we see them as great partners

1:38:35 ↗ already at the Senior Center

1:38:37 ↗ they're a volunteer-based organization

1:38:39 ↗ providing services both in Issaquah and

1:38:42 ↗ Sammamish are their two primary

1:38:44 ↗ communities they're their program model

1:38:47 ↗ their service menu really focuses

1:38:50 ↗ primarily on transportation based work

1:38:52 ↗ as well as some in-home support and

1:38:55 ↗ services that they provide as they get

1:38:58 ↗ to know their clients clients better

1:39:01 ↗ they've certainly noted and they're very

1:39:03 ↗ honest that they do not have any

1:39:06 ↗ experience currently or formerly in

1:39:09 ↗ operations of a Senior Center or

1:39:12 ↗ operating a Senior Center facility so in

1:39:16 ↗ that I think what we've been able to

1:39:19 ↗ pull out from these three conversations

1:39:21 ↗ is they too are exploring this option

1:39:25 ↗ they are still formulating their own

1:39:28 ↗ operating model and budget I don't have

1:39:31 ↗ that to provide to you tonight what

1:39:34 ↗ we've talked about in these

1:39:36 ↗ conversations and begun to to lay out as

1:39:39 ↗ a city and getting an understanding of

1:39:42 ↗ what forms of support they would be

1:39:45 ↗ looking for from the city it's it's

1:39:47 ↗ pretty clear that would take two forms

1:39:50 ↗ of support one in in-kind support this

1:39:55 ↗ would be our services that would be

1:39:57 ↗ assisting them

1:39:58 ↗ this could be everything from facility

1:40:00 ↗ maintenance to fleet maintenance the

1:40:04 ↗ topic of the bus came up as one example

1:40:08 ↗ their IT support would be another type

1:40:11 ↗ of in kind service along with that menu

1:40:13 ↗ perspective menu of services it's pretty

1:40:17 ↗ clear as well that they would be seeking

1:40:19 ↗ financial support in the form of annual

1:40:22 ↗ operations another item of conversation

1:40:28 ↗ that that's come up and has become clear

1:40:30 ↗ as as they're looking at their own

1:40:32 ↗ agency what they really want to be

1:40:34 ↗ careful of is an understanding to go

1:40:39 ↗ into city center our Senior Center

1:40:41 ↗ operations they're going to be needing

1:40:43 ↗ to expand their own operational capacity

1:40:45 ↗ within their agency to be able to absorb

1:40:48 ↗ that that level of service and how that

1:40:51 ↗ service compares to their existing their

1:40:53 ↗ existing program footprint they wouldn't

1:40:55 ↗ want their existing program footprint to

1:40:58 ↗ necessarily just become lost as we start

1:41:03 ↗ looking at timeline they would be

1:41:08 ↗ looking at a first or second quarter of

1:41:11 ↗ 2020 our 2020 in terms of that potential

1:41:17 ↗ operational handoff from the city to

1:41:21 ↗ East Side friends of seniors in that

1:41:24 ↗ timeline and in their own exploratory

1:41:28 ↗ work they've also made known to us that

1:41:31 ↗ they would be requesting as a part of

1:41:34 ↗ that timeline some to 2019 city funding

1:41:37 ↗ for some of their own capacity building

1:41:39 ↗ work and preparations for that

1:41:43 ↗ transition

1:41:48 ↗ so as we get through the presentation

1:41:50 ↗ I'm sure there'll be ample ample

1:41:52 ↗ questions as we go

1:41:54 ↗ or as I wrap up feel free to ask looking

1:41:58 ↗ now at City operation this has been

1:42:02 ↗ built through a lot of work that

1:42:04 ↗ Courtney and Brian and I have done in

1:42:06 ↗ terms of looking at what a city

1:42:10 ↗ operating model might look like in a

1:42:13 ↗ broad overview what we're looking at on

1:42:16 ↗ the revenue side is really the an

1:42:20 ↗ operating model that allows us to be a

1:42:23 ↗ little bit more aggressive in terms of

1:42:27 ↗ revenues I've identified two broad

1:42:30 ↗ categories of revenues fees and charges

1:42:32 ↗ this is your typical center based

1:42:34 ↗ program based rental based revenue that

1:42:39 ↗ we'd be collecting as part of that

1:42:41 ↗ Center operation anticipating about

1:42:44 ↗ sixty four thousand dollars there we

1:42:46 ↗ would also anticipate the ability and

1:42:50 ↗ the capacity to go after Grants and

1:42:51 ↗ other contributions the city is eligible

1:42:55 ↗ for a number of grants one of those

1:42:59 ↗ including the King County vets and

1:43:01 ↗ seniors levy we anticipate about an

1:43:04 ↗ eighty thousand dollar number there

1:43:05 ↗ annually for a estimated total of a

1:43:10 ↗ hundred and forty four thousand and

1:43:11 ↗ revenue that certainly represents a

1:43:13 ↗ significant increase with that ability

1:43:17 ↗ to have that added long-term staffing

1:43:20 ↗ capacity on the expenditure side we

1:43:23 ↗ would see an annual expenditure this

1:43:26 ↗ would include staff and program costs

1:43:29 ↗ and other direct expenses of four

1:43:32 ↗ hundred and sixty two thousand dollars

1:43:34 ↗ that would translate to a net operating

1:43:37 ↗ cost I think it's councilmember Reyes at

1:43:39 ↗ the last meeting what's out-of-pocket

1:43:40 ↗ and out-of-pocket cost of three hundred

1:43:43 ↗ and eighteen thousand dollars annually

1:43:47 ↗ interestingly enough how this compares

1:43:49 ↗ to what is budgeted in 2018 in terms of

1:43:53 ↗ our net operating cost we're at three

1:43:55 ↗ hundred and twenty thousand dollars and

1:43:57 ↗ and some spare dollars seven hundred and

1:44:01 ↗ sixty dollars

1:44:02 ↗ how does that happen you ask I think one

1:44:05 ↗ way that happens I think one way that

1:44:07 ↗ happens is a we are not we do not

1:44:11 ↗ necessarily have the capacity to be

1:44:13 ↗ generating our own revenue so there

1:44:16 ↗ comes a point where looking at the

1:44:19 ↗ ability to staff up in a more

1:44:21 ↗ sustainable long-term way that staffing

1:44:23 ↗ creates the capacity to generate more

1:44:27 ↗ revenue so when you look at a pro-forma

1:44:30 ↗ if you will a cost recovery target our

1:44:34 ↗ current budget is at about a 14% cost

1:44:37 ↗ recovery cost recovery meaning of

1:44:40 ↗ revenues versus expenses the projected

1:44:45 ↗ budget would be about a thirty one

1:44:47 ↗ thirty two percent pro-forma

1:44:49 ↗ of cost recovery which is pretty

1:44:53 ↗ comparable quite comparable to peer

1:44:57 ↗ cities that operate that operate senior

1:45:00 ↗ centers I would note as well this is not

1:45:02 ↗ a static number by any means if we were

1:45:06 ↗ to choose to do long-term City operation

1:45:08 ↗ we'd anticipate the need from a

1:45:11 ↗ year-over-year standpoint to see

1:45:14 ↗ proportionate increases in expenses and

1:45:16 ↗ finding ways that we're also meet

1:45:19 ↗ meeting or are able to create those

1:45:21 ↗ proportional increases on the on the

1:45:23 ↗ revenue side as well all right Jeff yeah

1:45:27 ↗ I would say again this is this would be

1:45:30 ↗ the 2019 assuming a sort of ramp up of

1:45:36 ↗ friends of senior the this would be what

1:45:40 ↗ city what what if we were to choose to

1:45:44 ↗ operate the facility directly as the

1:45:47 ↗ city so this is the comparison team in

1:45:50 ↗ 29 or in whatever yes but if we wanted

1:45:53 ↗ to if the decision the policy decision

1:45:56 ↗ was to convert to City operation and do

1:46:00 ↗ it in a long-term fashion yes this would

1:46:04 ↗ be the the city operating budget

1:46:06 ↗ requested

1:46:11 ↗ continuing on within this model of city

1:46:16 ↗ direct city operation what that budget

1:46:18 ↗ that I just went over what that

1:46:20 ↗ translates to in terms of services what

1:46:23 ↗ that translates into in terms of

1:46:25 ↗ staffing built into that budget would be

1:46:27 ↗ a team of three full-time employees a

1:46:30 ↗ supervisor a coordinator and an aide so

1:46:33 ↗ again that ability to create some

1:46:35 ↗ programmatic capacity it would also

1:46:39 ↗ certainly be much like our other

1:46:41 ↗ facilities the pool in the community

1:46:42 ↗ center a body a part-time staff and as

1:46:44 ↗ well a rather robust body and and team

1:46:49 ↗ of volunteers as well looking at

1:46:53 ↗ programs and services what's built into

1:46:55 ↗ that and what would be anticipated would

1:46:57 ↗ be continuing at five day a week lunch

1:47:01 ↗ service delivery we would look at

1:47:04 ↗ creating some increased capacity within

1:47:09 ↗ social service offerings resource

1:47:13 ↗ referral other other opportunities it

1:47:16 ↗ would create capacity for expanding

1:47:18 ↗ trips and tours

1:47:19 ↗ I'm sorry council member just I know

1:47:22 ↗ we're we were ask you right now this

1:47:25 ↗ staffing how does it compare to what

1:47:29 ↗ you're doing today so today in the

1:47:35 ↗ interim model we have one full-time

1:47:36 ↗ staff person and part-time staff and

1:47:40 ↗ volunteers so we we have so this is so

1:47:47 ↗ the long-term one two three FTEs the

1:47:54 ↗ equivalent you don't have a more

1:47:56 ↗ complete number as far as today just one

1:47:59 ↗ FTE and some part time with those

1:48:01 ↗ equivalent FTEs are I don't have

1:48:05 ↗ equivalent in terms of what they are is

1:48:07 ↗ FTEs I wouldn't I don't in here either

1:48:10 ↗ that would be three full-time staff

1:48:12 ↗ versus now we have one full-time staff

1:48:15 ↗ person

1:48:18 ↗ other questions it's alright oh my god I

1:48:22 ↗ got a poke at that just a memory that

1:48:25 ↗ doesn't foot so if I've got one FTE

1:48:29 ↗ today and it's costing $320,000 net to

1:48:33 ↗ run the Senior Center and you're going

1:48:35 ↗ to triple the number of FTE in nineteen

1:48:39 ↗ to go to this model and we're running

1:48:41 ↗ about the same budget

1:48:43 ↗ I can't reconcile those numbers because

1:48:45 ↗ would you know I know the biggest cost

1:48:48 ↗ driver on this thing is is salaries yeah

1:48:50 ↗ so again I think that that's the net

1:48:53 ↗ operating budget of this year's budget

1:48:56 ↗ that's what's budgeted III don't know

1:48:59 ↗ given that we're at one FTE we are not

1:49:03 ↗ that's not that's likely I'm going to be

1:49:06 ↗ our actual expenses for for a budget so

1:49:12 ↗ I'm gonna say I mean this is an update

1:49:15 ↗ of where we're at and I think this is

1:49:17 ↗ identification of the topic because I

1:49:20 ↗ too want to understand that that that

1:49:23 ↗ one better and so if when you come back

1:49:25 ↗ if next time we chat understanding the

1:49:28 ↗ current full-time and part-time staffing

1:49:31 ↗ and the future full-time and part-time

1:49:33 ↗ and and how that would go into yeah it

1:49:38 ↗ does seem like I didn't have the same

1:49:39 ↗ question like how do we how do we get

1:49:41 ↗ more people for the same amount of money

1:49:42 ↗ and you that we do it with the police

1:49:45 ↗ and so I wanna I want to be clear also

1:49:48 ↗ what I'm comparing is not the expense

1:49:51 ↗ budget I'm comparing the net operating

1:49:53 ↗ cost and so what else we're able to do

1:49:56 ↗ with those additional staff is attain a

1:50:01 ↗ lot more revenue so but yes absolutely

1:50:05 ↗ this is not a budget request let me ask

1:50:07 ↗ you to know their way in 2018 are you

1:50:11 ↗ generating any what's your revenue

1:50:12 ↗ you're generating in 2018 2018 were

1:50:15 ↗ roughly yeah we're generating about

1:50:17 ↗ twenty or thirty thousand dollars some

1:50:20 ↗ of it significantly less that's a member

1:50:23 ↗ hunt

1:50:26 ↗ you had said earlier that as as you

1:50:31 ↗ increase the staffing capacity that that

1:50:34 ↗ would increase the revenue the abilities

1:50:36 ↗ to get more revenue so but then there's

1:50:39 ↗ also in that last night there's an

1:50:42 ↗ expectation that it would be fairly

1:50:44 ↗ constant the 32% cost recovery so does

1:50:48 ↗ that mean that that then you this

1:50:51 ↗ revenue represents what we would expect

1:50:54 ↗ to be with anticipate a year-over-year

1:50:56 ↗ performance will be proportionate but

1:50:59 ↗ it'll be similar so it doesn't it isn't

1:51:02 ↗ expected to change over time this would

1:51:04 ↗ be pretty similar over time with those

1:51:06 ↗ three FTEs that's the amount you would

1:51:08 ↗ expect that we would anticipate that I

1:51:13 ↗ think a key pro forma there's a number

1:51:15 ↗ of pro formas right participation a

1:51:17 ↗ number of things but cost recovery being

1:51:20 ↗ in that thirty to thirty five percent

1:51:22 ↗ cost recovery year-over-year so as

1:51:25 ↗ expenses increased we would also

1:51:28 ↗ anticipate the need to be gathering and

1:51:31 ↗ collecting more revenue but I want to

1:51:35 ↗ address something I saw some hands up in

1:51:38 ↗ the audience this is not unfortunately a

1:51:40 ↗ session where we do Q&A with staff but I

1:51:43 ↗ will be taking comment at the end and if

1:51:45 ↗ you have things that that you have those

1:51:47 ↗ questions that I encourage you to give

1:51:50 ↗ public comment and say you know here's

1:51:53 ↗ some in supplemental information that I

1:51:54 ↗ hope to understand better and that will

1:51:56 ↗ inform us so if you continue to proceed

1:51:59 ↗ you bet all right so how might we

1:52:08 ↗ consider moving forward and certainly

1:52:10 ↗ not asking for direction or a decision

1:52:12 ↗ tonight that certainly was not not the

1:52:15 ↗ intent but as we now have before us

1:52:18 ↗ really the two most immediate options

1:52:21 ↗ for long-term operation you said friends

1:52:24 ↗ of seniors and a third party management

1:52:26 ↗ model or direct city operation here are

1:52:31 ↗ a number of options that we can consider

1:52:35 ↗ would certainly appreciate feedback as

1:52:38 ↗ as I finish this one is pursuing city as

1:52:43 ↗ the long-term operator within that

1:52:46 ↗ option that is probably from a timeline

1:52:49 ↗ standpoint the most ready and available

1:52:52 ↗ it really folds right into the 2019

1:52:55 ↗ budget deliberations with a long term

1:52:59 ↗ operating model fine-tuning and actually

1:53:04 ↗ adopting budget and and staffing levels

1:53:07 ↗ we would then in turn look at

1:53:09 ↗ transitioning right in the first quarter

1:53:12 ↗ of 2019 another option to consider would

1:53:17 ↗ be to move forward with and assume he

1:53:22 ↗ said friends of seniors as the long-term

1:53:24 ↗ operator of the senior center that has a

1:53:28 ↗ little longer runway as I as I mentioned

1:53:30 ↗ earlier what it would mean is the city

1:53:34 ↗ continuing as interim operator in 2019

1:53:37 ↗ given that we wouldn't want to close the

1:53:40 ↗ doors and East Side friends of seniors

1:53:41 ↗ wouldn't be ready to also in 2018 as I

1:53:45 ↗ mentioned earlier he said Friends of

1:53:47 ↗ seniors excuse me would desire some

1:53:49 ↗ capacity funding from the city to help

1:53:52 ↗ in their preparation work in 2018 we

1:53:57 ↗ would then be negotiating that

1:54:00 ↗ management agreement and the terms and

1:54:02 ↗ all the details that go with that if we

1:54:05 ↗ were to accomplish that management

1:54:08 ↗ agreement then the earliest operational

1:54:11 ↗ handoff for East Side friends of seniors

1:54:13 ↗ again would be q1 q2 of 2020 another

1:54:18 ↗ option we could certainly consider

1:54:20 ↗ moving into the later part of this year

1:54:23 ↗ and into early next year would be

1:54:24 ↗ continue to explore you said friends of

1:54:27 ↗ seniors as a potential operator this too

1:54:31 ↗ would mean as we're looking at budget

1:54:34 ↗ process right around the corner we would

1:54:36 ↗ be building a budget framework around

1:54:38 ↗ interim operation should we pursue that

1:54:43 ↗ option both parties in the first quarter

1:54:47 ↗ of next year latter part of this year

1:54:49 ↗ would complete this exploratory work

1:54:51 ↗ within this model I would imagine that

1:54:55 ↗ we would want to or at least his staff

1:54:57 ↗ we would want to establish a firm

1:54:59 ↗ decision date sometime in the first or

1:55:02 ↗ second quarter of 2019 once we reached

1:55:06 ↗ that decision date we would proceed

1:55:09 ↗ accordingly if it was City operation

1:55:13 ↗ that would then likely happen in 2020 if

1:55:16 ↗ at that decision point it was Eastside

1:55:18 ↗ friends of seniors it could then in turn

1:55:22 ↗ push that too late to 2020 or January

1:55:26 ↗ 2021 when that handoff would would occur

1:55:30 ↗ so it's a broad overview I know there's

1:55:36 ↗ many sure many questions and in further

1:55:38 ↗ details that's about a winter Stein

1:55:41 ↗ thank you could you go back a slide

1:55:43 ↗ please

1:55:44 ↗ you bet so listening to you present this

1:55:48 ↗ information well clearly the city is

1:55:51 ↗ operating the senior center in 2019 all

1:55:54 ↗ those options say that and it seems like

1:55:56 ↗ your third category continue to explore

1:55:59 ↗ or is really kind of a precursor to see

1:56:01 ↗ if the second category is even viable

1:56:03 ↗ that's that's the way I heard that and

1:56:06 ↗ and and and so the near-term it seems

1:56:13 ↗ like the only decision that's going to

1:56:14 ↗ be in front of us as a council in 2019

1:56:17 ↗ is what to grant you through the budget

1:56:22 ↗ for 2019 and that one way or another you

1:56:28 ↗ are planning to still explore the other

1:56:31 ↗ option but I don't want to put words in

1:56:34 ↗ your mouth but is that is that right yes

1:56:39 ↗ I think what we are hoping for in this

1:56:46 ↗ process decision-making process is as we

1:56:53 ↗ get direction as to what long-term

1:56:55 ↗ operation is it's going to take a while

1:56:58 ↗ to ramp up and get to that

1:57:01 ↗ yes 2019 will be like lease it will be

1:57:06 ↗ City operation in one form of another

1:57:08 ↗ interim operation though again is not

1:57:12 ↗ does not have within it the capacity to

1:57:16 ↗ sustain over a long period of time and

1:57:19 ↗ and we are

1:57:22 ↗ I think approaching a point where the

1:57:27 ↗ seniors the Senior Center the patrons

1:57:29 ↗ are desiring increased services so

1:57:34 ↗ following so explain to me then the

1:57:36 ↗ difference between what what would be

1:57:39 ↗ different in an interim versus if you

1:57:42 ↗ said okay we're at long-term versus an

1:57:45 ↗ in term operation in 2019 what's the

1:57:48 ↗ difference

1:57:48 ↗ good question inner operation is what

1:57:52 ↗ we're doing right now

1:57:53 ↗ so interim operation is taking one

1:57:55 ↗ full-time staff person an FTE position

1:57:58 ↗ that is budgeted in another part of the

1:58:00 ↗ department and it's been operating the

1:58:03 ↗ senior center with part-time staff and

1:58:06 ↗ volunteers it's been doing a great great

1:58:10 ↗ job but it's really keeping the

1:58:13 ↗ operation going it's not really

1:58:18 ↗ positioning it to be as responsive as we

1:58:22 ↗ might want to be in terms of moving the

1:58:25 ↗ senior center forward long term

1:58:27 ↗ operation long term operation is

1:58:31 ↗ staffing it and positioning in a way to

1:58:35 ↗ have it function on its own in a more

1:58:40 ↗ healthy way okay go back one more slide

1:58:42 ↗ long-term operation from the city up one

1:58:45 ↗ more then no you went to right there

1:58:48 ↗ then Wow then you can begin working on

1:58:52 ↗ the increased social service offerings

1:58:54 ↗ he expanded trips and hours they

1:58:55 ↗ expanded health and wellness programs

1:58:57 ↗ the expanded partnerships with senior

1:58:58 ↗ focus agencies that's what would not

1:59:01 ↗ happen in an interim state correct

1:59:03 ↗ correct

1:59:07 ↗ council member Ramos so back to the

1:59:10 ↗ other slide option I guess I'm trying to

1:59:12 ↗ figure out the difference between the

1:59:15 ↗ second and third bullet so to me you

1:59:18 ↗ know if I don't see the second one as

1:59:23 ↗ possible if the third one still needs to

1:59:25 ↗ happen because the third one says we're

1:59:27 ↗ not sure if we can do it and make it

1:59:29 ↗ work and that's a statement now and the

1:59:32 ↗ second bullet says we're sure we're

1:59:34 ↗ gonna make it work we just have to do

1:59:36 ↗ the work to get it there so I'm kind of

1:59:38 ↗ having you know where we are with you

1:59:41 ↗ know you start yeah because it's like it

1:59:45 ↗ you see I mean it's a question on three

1:59:48 ↗ of whether that partnership is going to

1:59:50 ↗ work right and so the second bullet says

1:59:52 ↗ we're pretty ready to move ahead with

1:59:54 ↗ that partnership and that's why I'm

1:59:55 ↗ having trouble getting behind because

1:59:57 ↗ I'm you know I'm fine with the

1:59:58 ↗ partnership it's just if if they don't

2:00:00 ↗ know that yet then how can we pursue the

2:00:03 ↗ second one yeah I'm merely putting up

2:00:05 ↗ options I'm not recommending option both

2:00:10 ↗ of those possible at the same time

2:00:11 ↗ that's what I'm there not it seems to be

2:00:15 ↗ pretty clear in 2018 we have three

2:00:18 ↗ options in front of us we definitely

2:00:20 ↗ towards go towards having the city be

2:00:22 ↗ the long-term operator we could

2:00:24 ↗ definitely go towards having Eastside

2:00:25 ↗ friends of seniors be the long-term

2:00:27 ↗ operator or we can say we want to take

2:00:29 ↗ some more time we're not ready to make

2:00:31 ↗ that decision and we want to give it a

2:00:33 ↗ little bit more time and get it and make

2:00:35 ↗ that decision in q2 of 2019 with

2:00:37 ↗ additional information so it's really up

2:00:38 ↗ to the seven of us right the 7oo say you

2:00:40 ↗ know what these side friends of seniors

2:00:42 ↗ they're ready to go that's a decision we

2:00:44 ↗ can make or we can seven make a decision

2:00:47 ↗ that says you know what they chose

2:00:48 ↗ promise but we're not quite ready to

2:00:50 ↗ make that decision yet right and of

2:00:52 ↗ course we're not making that decision

2:00:53 ↗ tonight we're not making any decisions

2:00:54 ↗ tonight we're just getting a status on

2:00:56 ↗ on what's coming a PD council president

2:00:59 ↗ patís thank you for the presentation

2:01:01 ↗ Jeff that on the third option the

2:01:06 ↗ management agreement what was the timing

2:01:10 ↗ on that

2:01:11 ↗ so there's no bullet point for it but I

2:01:14 ↗ believe you said that would kind of push

2:01:16 ↗ into 2020 or even 2021 yeah I think with

2:01:22 ↗ if if the collective is we need more

2:01:25 ↗ time to decide then yeah it you're right

2:01:28 ↗ I could have added a bullet that the

2:01:30 ↗ management agreement if we establish a

2:01:31 ↗ firm date and say April 1st no fooling

2:01:36 ↗ and we decide yeah he said friends of

2:01:39 ↗ seniors we're gonna go that way then

2:01:41 ↗ were you know for four months delayed in

2:01:45 ↗ that management agreement process which

2:01:48 ↗ then pushes back probably that

2:01:50 ↗ transitional handoff a little bit and

2:01:54 ↗ what what would would there be certain

2:01:57 ↗ things that you've talked with the group

2:01:59 ↗ about that if they were in the third

2:02:02 ↗ option if there were more time available

2:02:05 ↗ are there certain things that could be

2:02:08 ↗ done to get to get prepped for you know

2:02:11 ↗ going into a full agreement or is it

2:02:15 ↗ that in the second in the second option

2:02:18 ↗ it talks about capacity funding request

2:02:21 ↗ and that kind of thing I'm just

2:02:22 ↗ wondering if it's it's the ability to

2:02:25 ↗ where they would need staff and need to

2:02:28 ↗ get started in that way or within the

2:02:32 ↗ third option if there were certain

2:02:34 ↗ avenues that they could go down that

2:02:37 ↗ would get them prepped for you know

2:02:39 ↗ going into that management agreement

2:02:41 ↗ it's a good question I can't answer it

2:02:43 ↗ because I think more of it is where are

2:02:45 ↗ they where are they there's some clear

2:02:49 ↗ work that they need to do as an agency

2:02:53 ↗ as they're exploring this to put

2:02:55 ↗ together and that we need to see in that

2:02:58 ↗ third option in terms of what's in

2:03:01 ↗ operating what's a what's their

2:03:03 ↗ operating model look like what's a

2:03:04 ↗ budget look like what's their staffing

2:03:06 ↗ need look like so a lot of that work is

2:03:10 ↗ we work in their in their Court

2:03:19 ↗ I'm sorry ma'am we do not need full

2:03:21 ↗ council meetings we do not take question

2:03:23 ↗ and answer during deliberation but we do

2:03:25 ↗ take public comment and we will very

2:03:28 ↗ very shortly

2:03:29 ↗ councilmember Rea did you have a

2:03:31 ↗ question or comment I did but the

2:03:32 ↗ council member hunt was first ever hi

2:03:34 ↗ thank you so there is information about

2:03:38 ↗ the city-owned model for services

2:03:41 ↗ provided and for staffing and for the

2:03:44 ↗ budget but there isn't at this time for

2:03:46 ↗ the Eastside Friends of seniors and so

2:03:48 ↗ to compare these it's hard because

2:03:50 ↗ there's a lot of information for one

2:03:52 ↗ option and very little information for

2:03:56 ↗ the other option at this point so can

2:03:59 ↗ you help me out with any sort of

2:04:02 ↗ information about the expected on any of

2:04:06 ↗ those three points at this point I can't

2:04:09 ↗ I've had three meetings with them I yeah

2:04:17 ↗ administrator mood thank you

2:04:20 ↗ I am gonna just try to capture the three

2:04:24 ↗ actually number two and number three in

2:04:27 ↗ a little different way see if this

2:04:29 ↗ resonates so number two is we're really

2:04:34 ↗ interested in Eastside friends have seen

2:04:36 ↗ ours and we would like to continue it

2:04:39 ↗ explored explore them as an operator and

2:04:42 ↗ thus we are going to be receptive to

2:04:47 ↗ them potentially making a capacity

2:04:49 ↗ funding request so I think councilmember

2:04:53 ↗ Winterson asked you know is the interim

2:04:55 ↗ operation the only kind of

2:04:57 ↗ decision-making that's going to be

2:04:58 ↗ happening or a budgetary impact and the

2:05:02 ↗ answer to that is maybe if if you give

2:05:05 ↗ us some input tonight and say you know

2:05:07 ↗ I'm still interested in number two here

2:05:10 ↗ then we should expect that if Eastside

2:05:12 ↗ friends have seniors is still interested

2:05:14 ↗ in working with us and vetting this

2:05:17 ↗ option that they will come back with

2:05:18 ↗ that funding capacity request in 2019

2:05:23 ↗ what we're hearing from them is that is

2:05:25 ↗ probably necessary for them to continue

2:05:27 ↗ to think about

2:05:28 ↗ the ramp up to being able to deliver

2:05:31 ↗ services on the nearer timeline that one

2:05:34 ↗ of 2020 operation however option three

2:05:39 ↗ is yeah we might still want to explore a

2:05:45 ↗ relationship with Eastside friends of

2:05:46 ↗ seniors but we may not be ready right

2:05:49 ↗ now or in 2019 to think about investing

2:05:53 ↗ in their capacity building and therefore

2:05:57 ↗ we're gonna keep talking but at some

2:05:59 ↗ point in 2019 we're gonna stop talking

2:06:01 ↗ and decide if this is a real option or

2:06:04 ↗ not and then if it looks like we have

2:06:06 ↗ better information at that point in time

2:06:08 ↗ then we would expect them to come back

2:06:11 ↗ with a subsequent capacity building

2:06:13 ↗ request unless they've decided how to

2:06:15 ↗ build that capacity without our funding

2:06:17 ↗ and that just pushes the timeline out on

2:06:21 ↗ that decision-making so that's kind of

2:06:23 ↗ the difference between the two options

2:06:26 ↗ thank you for that clarification

2:06:30 ↗ I no longer have a question I deferred

2:06:36 ↗ to council member hunt because she said

2:06:39 ↗ the question much more eloquently than

2:06:40 ↗ me all right

2:06:42 ↗ other other questions or comments for

2:06:43 ↗ staff before we go to public comment

2:06:47 ↗ councilmember winters time Thank You

2:06:52 ↗ Vicki did kind of ask this so what we

2:06:55 ↗ don't have is a ended it's because it's

2:06:58 ↗ not possible but what we don't have is a

2:07:01 ↗ kind of a B comparison between total

2:07:04 ↗ costs and programs what can the city do

2:07:07 ↗ at what costs what kind of programs how

2:07:09 ↗ many people can they serve level service

2:07:11 ↗ that kind of a lot more detail than

2:07:13 ↗ you're able to provide but obviously

2:07:15 ↗ that would be the best possible way for

2:07:18 ↗ us to make a decision because I assume

2:07:21 ↗ that one of the reasons we're even

2:07:24 ↗ considering a four for

2:07:28 ↗ Contracting for the service is that an

2:07:31 ↗ external party can do more better

2:07:34 ↗ cheaper than we can do as a city because

2:07:38 ↗ if the best option for the best services

2:07:40 ↗ for the best price but for the best

2:07:43 ↗ services is for us to bring it

2:07:45 ↗ internally then then we would do that

2:07:48 ↗ but we look at an OP outside option

2:07:51 ↗ because the services the level of the

2:07:54 ↗ quality of services the whatever and the

2:07:56 ↗ cost they could do it is is better for

2:07:58 ↗ the seniors boss is better for us the

2:08:01 ↗ overall services packages is better for

2:08:03 ↗ the seniors but we're not we're not able

2:08:05 ↗ to make that assessment at all right now

2:08:06 ↗ and and I don't know how we're going to

2:08:09 ↗ get there but it'll be very interesting

2:08:13 ↗ for me to hear perhaps during comments

2:08:17 ↗ tonight or in afterwards about clients

2:08:21 ↗ of the Senior Center about what there's

2:08:28 ↗ what you're experiencing today about the

2:08:33 ↗ programs or the lack of programs or what

2:08:35 ↗ your your hopes or our or maybe some

2:08:40 ↗ aspirations that you've heard of or

2:08:42 ↗ talked about and would like to see in

2:08:44 ↗ this program because that will be

2:08:47 ↗ important to help just judge because if

2:08:50 ↗ we go into just a interim operation in

2:08:53 ↗ 2019 which is kind of I'm gonna put some

2:08:55 ↗ words in your mouth Jeff it's kind of

2:08:57 ↗ more the same of what we've been doing

2:08:58 ↗ in 2018

2:08:59 ↗ then I want to get a sense of how that's

2:09:02 ↗ perceived because I think the long term

2:09:06 ↗ operation for the city and any if we

2:09:08 ↗ were to hand it to an external partner I

2:09:11 ↗ think you're also telling us that you

2:09:13 ↗ think those programs would expand and

2:09:15 ↗ improve upon what we have today that

2:09:17 ↗ would be a hearing so okay so thank you

2:09:20 ↗ sounds member Ramos yeah nicely stated

2:09:25 ↗ appreciate that and that that's

2:09:28 ↗ basically the question I had to and then

2:09:31 ↗ just the technical part for our

2:09:33 ↗ standpoint no matter what we do here in

2:09:35 ↗ 19 budget wise we're gonna plan on

2:09:37 ↗ on operating the senior senator from our

2:09:40 ↗ budget capacity whatever that is so that

2:09:43 ↗ that's a decision that we already made

2:09:45 ↗ the question I have then is at what

2:09:47 ↗ point in time do we need to get to this

2:09:50 ↗ this point where we need to decide okay

2:09:53 ↗ we're gonna we want to continue that cuz

2:09:55 ↗ we want to make it the best possible and

2:09:56 ↗ interim is not the best possible staple

2:09:59 ↗ is the best possible we're gonna get to

2:10:00 ↗ that point or we're going to work with

2:10:03 ↗ the partner to to get there so when do

2:10:05 ↗ when does that have to that information

2:10:07 ↗ come out and we have to make that

2:10:09 ↗ decision

2:10:10 ↗ but for now budget wise for 19 and say

2:10:12 ↗ you know money-wise it's gonna be

2:10:13 ↗ basically where it is regardless of the

2:10:16 ↗ policy of what we're doing pretty much

2:10:18 ↗ am I correct yes and and the questions

2:10:23 ↗ is also ways wisely stated its what's

2:10:27 ↗ the best service we can provide that it

2:10:29 ↗ would do to folks and what is what are

2:10:31 ↗ the what do they want you know that's I

2:10:33 ↗ want to hear some public comment to what

2:10:35 ↗ what would are they desiring from what

2:10:37 ↗ they know and all these studies you've

2:10:38 ↗ worked with them for over many meetings

2:10:40 ↗ and across many things and what's the

2:10:41 ↗ feeling from for the users other counsel

2:10:45 ↗ coming it's been for goodness thank you

2:10:49 ↗ so I've mentioned this before and so

2:10:51 ↗ I'll ask it again my comment is that I

2:10:53 ↗ would be interested in a model and

2:10:56 ↗ operator that would be willing to or

2:11:00 ↗ interested in and able to do self

2:11:03 ↗ sustaining revenue generation so I've

2:11:07 ↗ talked about the Wenatchee model before

2:11:08 ↗ and their ability to fundraise and have

2:11:10 ↗ a thrift store I think they have a

2:11:12 ↗ fairly significant budget we keep

2:11:15 ↗ getting hung up on how much it's going

2:11:16 ↗ to cost the city every year I'm not sure

2:11:19 ↗ that that Center takes any city money

2:11:20 ↗ every year or if they do it's not much

2:11:23 ↗ and and they have a significant budget

2:11:25 ↗ so is there any interest on the part of

2:11:30 ↗ the city to try to find an operator that

2:11:34 ↗ would be interested and have the ability

2:11:37 ↗ to do that yes and as we went through

2:11:41 ↗ our community conversations and our

2:11:44 ↗ conversations with agencies and

2:11:45 ↗ providers and put out a really broad

2:11:48 ↗ cast a really broad net for a letter of

2:11:49 ↗ interest we didn't yeah customer winter

2:11:59 ↗ Stein for clarification Stacy's coming

2:12:03 ↗ prompted me to think of it this way when

2:12:05 ↗ I when I asked about like a comparison

2:12:08 ↗ which we don't have costs two options a

2:12:11 ↗ and B are two my assumption would would

2:12:14 ↗ be because you showed that we could

2:12:19 ↗ through grant writing and attract some

2:12:23 ↗ funds and we know that the previous

2:12:25 ↗ operator will for whatever we think

2:12:27 ↗ about that operation we provided roughly

2:12:31 ↗ half at about ninety nine thousand

2:12:32 ↗ dollars a year so I have a rough cost

2:12:35 ↗ comparison we're looking at something

2:12:38 ↗ more but the point there is that one way

2:12:41 ↗ or the other

2:12:42 ↗ they raised the other half of the money

2:12:45 ↗ that they needed and and so my

2:12:47 ↗ assumption is that if we and I think

2:12:50 ↗ Stacy was even carrying this even

2:12:53 ↗ further I think is is it's not just the

2:12:57 ↗ total cost it's it's really the total

2:13:01 ↗ cost to us because the assumption would

2:13:02 ↗ be that there would be revenue there

2:13:05 ↗ would be other development capacity from

2:13:08 ↗ an organization that took over if they

2:13:10 ↗ took over right they would have ability

2:13:12 ↗ to raise their own funds whether however

2:13:14 ↗ they attracted that I'm not assuming

2:13:16 ↗ fees and stuff like that and like you

2:13:18 ↗ said grants and what-have-you and

2:13:19 ↗ working with other partners too so so

2:13:21 ↗ it's yeah it's a cost comparison but I'm

2:13:23 ↗ assuming that there's a there's a whole

2:13:25 ↗ other revenue stream that they would be

2:13:27 ↗ have some ability to create whether it

2:13:30 ↗ be through a retail store other whatever

2:13:33 ↗ other options we will continue to try

2:13:35 ↗ and get that from them in terms of their

2:13:39 ↗ budget and operating model so some

2:13:43 ↗ thoughts first and foremost for me I

2:13:45 ↗ want to echo that both tonight and later

2:13:48 ↗ the input from the clients of the Senior

2:13:51 ↗ Center is going to be super important to

2:13:53 ↗ me around this question the bill asked

2:13:54 ↗ about you know wouldn t be able to make

2:13:56 ↗ a decision this year would we have to

2:13:57 ↗ wait till next year that's going to be

2:13:59 ↗ have

2:14:00 ↗ in form by by the way what I hear from

2:14:02 ↗ the public at some point I'm gonna want

2:14:05 ↗ to see and this is some of this is

2:14:08 ↗ reiterating programs revenue generation

2:14:09 ↗ what that looks like if we run things

2:14:12 ↗ what that looks like if friends of

2:14:14 ↗ seniors runs things an area that we

2:14:16 ↗ haven't talked about that I would also

2:14:18 ↗ want to see on that day when we make a

2:14:20 ↗ final decision is also the governance

2:14:23 ↗ model you know we had that factored

2:14:26 ↗ heavily into when the last time the

2:14:28 ↗ senior center was private and I think

2:14:31 ↗ everybody would want to understand how

2:14:34 ↗ that might look if the city continued to

2:14:36 ↗ run it and how it might look under a

2:14:38 ↗ private group and if there's a benefit

2:14:40 ↗ one way or the other to you know the

2:14:42 ↗ self decision from that organization

2:14:45 ↗ about how how that building looks and

2:14:48 ↗ how the program to run that are that are

2:14:49 ↗ in it right

2:14:51 ↗ other council questions or comments

2:14:54 ↗ before we open it up to public input is

2:14:56 ↗ there anything else that staff wants to

2:14:58 ↗ cover before we open up to the public

2:15:00 ↗ seeing none I will ask first of all I

2:15:04 ↗ want to thank everybody for waiting I'm

2:15:05 ↗ sorry that we had to move this to second

2:15:07 ↗ I know some of you were concerned about

2:15:09 ↗ the fact that it's now dark and people

2:15:10 ↗ are gonna have to go home in the dark

2:15:11 ↗ and I apologize for that but we are here

2:15:14 ↗ now and here you are and here we are and

2:15:16 ↗ I will ask if anybody wants to come up

2:15:19 ↗ to the microphone if you do you are

2:15:20 ↗ welcome to share your affiliation with

2:15:22 ↗ the city or not Rhianna and three

2:15:29 ↗ minutes as we through minutes each as we

2:15:31 ↗ did with the the previous item three

2:15:34 ↗ minutes each per person not that total

2:15:36 ↗ for the topic oh and I'll also I'll also

2:15:44 ↗ allow we had some clapping earlier and I

2:15:46 ↗ said don't clap if you would like to

2:15:48 ↗ signal an affinity with what the

2:15:51 ↗ previous speaker has said that what

2:15:52 ↗ we've been doing lately is having people

2:15:53 ↗ raise their hands and I will I'll note

2:15:55 ↗ with if something carries quite a bit of

2:15:58 ↗ support in the room without sir welcome

2:16:01 ↗ I'm Jan Delroy I volunteer currently do

2:16:07 ↗ the memoir writing class and also

2:16:11 ↗ contribute money for scholarship

2:16:14 ↗ and program development I would like to

2:16:20 ↗ say this is one place where government

2:16:25 ↗ is really functioning well the program

2:16:28 ↗ over at the Senior Center is being run

2:16:31 ↗ really well I have to thank Jeff and

2:16:35 ↗ Brian and Courtney and the staff it's

2:16:39 ↗ amazing what they've been able to do on

2:16:41 ↗ the short budget that they that they've

2:16:44 ↗ been on and I was on the advisory board

2:16:48 ↗ of working to where we are today I

2:16:54 ↗ strongly feel that the city should

2:16:56 ↗ continue running it the people that I

2:17:00 ↗ talked to are extremely happy with the

2:17:04 ↗ with the operation and how it's going

2:17:07 ↗ and how its Dell developing and how it's

2:17:09 ↗ growing that's about all I have to say

2:17:15 ↗ the city is doing a great job and you

2:17:19 ↗ should be proud of what they've been

2:17:21 ↗ able to do compared to what we came away

2:17:24 ↗ from thank you and I said and I see some

2:17:29 ↗ hands go up and support it those

2:17:31 ↗ comments thank you who would like to

2:17:33 ↗ speak to us next sir

2:17:43 ↗ good evening David Kepler 255 southeast

2:17:46 ↗ and earth Street about a month ago I was

2:17:49 ↗ the only one from in the public that

2:17:51 ↗ came to speak to the council when you

2:17:53 ↗ discuss this a month ago and I said the

2:17:56 ↗ public the people there are very happy

2:17:58 ↗ with how the city is running it jeff has

2:18:01 ↗ got a lot of experience running a great

2:18:03 ↗ Senior Center in Kent and I think we're

2:18:06 ↗ on a very positive path I emphasize then

2:18:09 ↗ and I will again

2:18:10 ↗ volunteer program has to be much further

2:18:12 ↗ developed in the city to support the

2:18:15 ↗ Senior Center and the Park Department in

2:18:17 ↗ general and other parts of the city

2:18:19 ↗ thank you thank you for your comments I

2:18:23 ↗ see some hands go for that as well

2:18:26 ↗ there's anybody else wishing to speak to

2:18:29 ↗ us this evening counsel Dave Wagner

2:18:38 ↗ yeah I'm associated with the city I

2:18:41 ↗ asked these folks several times last

2:18:46 ↗ week in a week before and I'm gonna just

2:18:50 ↗ ask them to put their hands up because I

2:18:51 ↗ asked them to come tonight if you like

2:18:55 ↗ the way the city is running the Senior

2:18:58 ↗ Center right now would you please raise

2:19:00 ↗ your hands thank you for that a couple

2:19:06 ↗ things I want to comment on one is on

2:19:09 ↗ the slide with Jeff knows and Courtney

2:19:13 ↗ knows and Bryan knows because I I asked

2:19:16 ↗ a lot of questions during the taskforce

2:19:18 ↗ and I still will ask the questions I'm

2:19:21 ↗ not the enemy here they know that but

2:19:24 ↗ we've got a much better Senior Center

2:19:27 ↗ now an assumption that we as a city run

2:19:31 ↗ Senior Center could or could not raise

2:19:35 ↗ money as I said to some of you council

2:19:38 ↗ members don't make that assumption

2:19:40 ↗ because I really believe as a city run

2:19:42 ↗ Senior Center we can raise money we will

2:19:46 ↗ raise money you're looking at the poster

2:19:49 ↗ child as council member raynbow snow

2:19:52 ↗ when some of you were busy running a

2:19:55 ↗ campaign to be on the City Council I was

2:19:58 ↗ helping the county get the veterans

2:20:01 ↗ seniors and Human Services levy passed

2:20:04 ↗ and it did pass I fully believe in my

2:20:07 ↗ heart of hearts that we can be effective

2:20:12 ↗ in raising money that will help us be

2:20:17 ↗ the senior center that we really can be

2:20:20 ↗ my my contention is that this interim

2:20:27 ↗ thing is not a good thing for us we were

2:20:31 ↗ in a room in 2017 we're going to be

2:20:34 ↗ finished being interim in 2018 now it

2:20:37 ↗ looks to me very strongly like we will

2:20:41 ↗ be interim in 2019 so we've got to make

2:20:46 ↗ a decision and it shouldn't take us this

2:20:48 ↗ long we've got a great Senior Center now

2:20:52 ↗ it's running much better than it ever

2:20:54 ↗ has and I really want to see it continue

2:20:56 ↗ under city leadership that's my position

2:21:01 ↗ and I think that there will be some of

2:21:03 ↗ these folks in this audience that will

2:21:05 ↗ come up and say the same thing

2:21:07 ↗ Jan and I we're Jan go there yes Jan and

2:21:12 ↗ I suffered through that task force and

2:21:15 ↗ those meetings week after week after

2:21:18 ↗ week and hard questions were asked and

2:21:21 ↗ guess what all those task force

2:21:24 ↗ parameters that you have in your report

2:21:26 ↗ we've achieved them we've got

2:21:28 ↗ transportation now that we're

2:21:30 ↗ transporting seniors we've got

2:21:32 ↗ five-day-a-week meals you know all of

2:21:35 ↗ those things that we asked for we've

2:21:38 ↗ done we've done gung-ho so far I got to

2:21:41 ↗ tell you we're going to be able to do it

2:21:43 ↗ effectively in the future

2:21:44 ↗ and raise money no doubt in my military

2:21:47 ↗ mind Thanks thanks for your comments

2:21:51 ↗ bunch of hands on that one as well

2:21:52 ↗ appreciate it other public comment

2:22:02 ↗ Elizabeth Lopez 100 big bear place I

2:22:05 ↗ don't currently use the Senior Center

2:22:09 ↗ but I have been following this and and

2:22:13 ↗ listening to what you're saying and I

2:22:14 ↗ think it's really important that you pay

2:22:18 ↗ attention to governance now at the

2:22:21 ↗ beginning whoever is handling this but

2:22:26 ↗ particularly if the city is handling it

2:22:31 ↗ you need a way for the people who use

2:22:36 ↗ the center to have a mechanism where

2:22:41 ↗ they can constantly give feedback

2:22:43 ↗ because what they desire right now may

2:22:48 ↗ not be what's desired a couple years

2:22:52 ↗ down the road so the governance model

2:22:55 ↗ needs to allow for a continuous loop of

2:23:01 ↗ feedback and as you spoke about a

2:23:05 ↗ self-sustaining model I'm wondering have

2:23:08 ↗ you checked out that assumption with

2:23:11 ↗ other cities that are running senior

2:23:14 ↗ centers to see if the good ones are

2:23:19 ↗ basically self-sustaining that may not

2:23:22 ↗ be an accurate assumption so yeah I just

2:23:29 ↗ I think there are ways that you could

2:23:32 ↗ check out that assumption and if you

2:23:36 ↗ expect the center to be significantly

2:23:40 ↗ involved in generating revenue ask other

2:23:44 ↗ senior centers how they do that so you

2:23:47 ↗ can bring some ideas to the table and

2:23:49 ↗ then talk about it with the people who

2:23:51 ↗ are actually using the center and

2:23:53 ↗ they'll tell you what their capacities

2:23:56 ↗ are and what their great gifts are and

2:23:58 ↗ I'm sure some of them are very gifted

2:24:00 ↗ but maybe in ways you didn't anticipate

2:24:02 ↗ thank you thank you for comment and

2:24:06 ↗ there were some hands on that as well

2:24:09 ↗ other public comment this evening

2:24:12 ↗ I'm sir she'll come forward

2:24:24 ↗ just to kind of support what she just

2:24:26 ↗ said my name is Harold Edgerton I live

2:24:28 ↗ at Providence Point there's quite a few

2:24:29 ↗ old people that live up there so we go

2:24:32 ↗ down to the Senior Center a lot and we'd

2:24:34 ↗ really enjoy it and it really has

2:24:36 ↗ improved you guys are doing there you're

2:24:38 ↗ doing a great job running it my wife and

2:24:42 ↗ I Val Hoover came from Olympia and we

2:24:48 ↗ used to attend the Tumwater Senior

2:24:50 ↗ Center which is City run and the way

2:24:53 ↗ they were one of the things that they

2:24:54 ↗ did is they had a board made out of

2:24:57 ↗ seniors and they didn't have the last

2:25:01 ↗ say so the people that gave us the money

2:25:03 ↗ is the ones that had the last say so but

2:25:05 ↗ at least at least it allowed the seniors

2:25:09 ↗ to feel like they had some say-so and

2:25:12 ↗ what was going on and you know we took

2:25:14 ↗ it was running really well we had a

2:25:17 ↗ president and a vice president and

2:25:18 ↗ secretary and we took notes and minutes

2:25:21 ↗ and and what it was really it made you

2:25:25 ↗ feel like people cared and I'm really

2:25:29 ↗ hoping that this is just not a formality

2:25:31 ↗ because I've been to a lot of meetings

2:25:33 ↗ like this where it's already been

2:25:36 ↗ decided what's going to happen and it

2:25:37 ↗ only depends on the budget but I'm

2:25:41 ↗ really hoping not because it's running

2:25:43 ↗ really well you gotta have a great staff

2:25:46 ↗ running it and I only see better things

2:25:49 ↗ happening if the city runs it thank you

2:25:52 ↗ very much

2:25:52 ↗ I give you your comments bunch of hands

2:25:55 ↗ going up on that as well anyone else

2:25:59 ↗ wishing to make public comment this

2:26:00 ↗ evening

2:26:02 ↗ anyone else sir

2:26:10 ↗ even counsel my name is Greg Wagner I've

2:26:13 ↗ been a member of the Senior Center since

2:26:16 ↗ 2006 I was involved in this chaos we had

2:26:20 ↗ there back in 15 which sure you members

2:26:22 ↗ know about and since the city's taken

2:26:26 ↗ over which I was hoping for a while back

2:26:29 ↗ the place has been a tremendous

2:26:32 ↗ improvement Courtney's done a very fine

2:26:34 ↗ job the staff is always happy pleasant

2:26:36 ↗ outgoing it's a wonderful place to go

2:26:38 ↗ and I really hope the city maintains

2:26:41 ↗ this and keeps up the good work thank

2:26:43 ↗ you if your comment a bunch of hands on

2:26:46 ↗ that as well

2:26:49 ↗ other public comment this evening

2:27:00 ↗ good evening City Council I'm Terri

2:27:02 ↗ Claypool I'm the board president for

2:27:04 ↗ Eastside friends of seniors and

2:27:05 ↗ appreciate this opportunity there's no

2:27:08 ↗ group that's spending more careful

2:27:13 ↗ consideration about this than the board

2:27:15 ↗ and staff of Eastside Friends of seniors

2:27:16 ↗ other than probably you and Jeff we

2:27:21 ↗ better cheaper more services we want to

2:27:23 ↗ be sure that we really could deliver on

2:27:25 ↗ what you would want from us and at the

2:27:30 ↗ same time continue the services or at

2:27:34 ↗ least not you know have that be a

2:27:36 ↗ detriment to the service that we already

2:27:37 ↗ provide all eyes would be on us clearly

2:27:40 ↗ the the people who use the Senior Center

2:27:44 ↗ are very happy with it and it would be a

2:27:47 ↗ lot easier we would just be waltzing in

2:27:48 ↗ to fix something that isn't you know

2:27:51 ↗ providing such great services but that's

2:27:54 ↗ it matters to us that the people who

2:27:58 ↗ would use the services really care about

2:28:00 ↗ who operates and why they operate the

2:28:02 ↗ service center so you're sensing that we

2:28:05 ↗ need time I think you're sensing when

2:28:07 ↗ you look at this that we need time and

2:28:08 ↗ you're right we are it's an accurate

2:28:11 ↗ sense and it would be no small step and

2:28:13 ↗ I have a lot of confidence in the board

2:28:14 ↗ a lot of confidence in the staff and

2:28:16 ↗ have a lot of confidence in the city

2:28:18 ↗ Issaquah I'm a City resident and I'm

2:28:19 ↗ very excited about it pretty new to the

2:28:21 ↗ whole area but your sense that we need a

2:28:24 ↗ little time is correct I don't know that

2:28:26 ↗ we need more than a year I think we

2:28:28 ↗ could do it we just need to partner and

2:28:30 ↗ talk and keep the communication open and

2:28:32 ↗ bring in lots of residents and Senior

2:28:37 ↗ Center customer input to make sure that

2:28:40 ↗ we're doing the right thing so thank you

2:28:43 ↗ thank you for your comments I see a few

2:28:47 ↗ hands on that one also anyone else

2:28:50 ↗ wishing to make public comment this

2:28:51 ↗ evening any chance the person who had

2:28:56 ↗ asked who had wanted to ask questions

2:28:59 ↗ earlier what it wants to make up with

2:29:00 ↗ Tom it nope I see not okay well going

2:29:04 ↗ twice

2:29:05 ↗ public comment one more and with that

2:29:09 ↗ we're going to close public comment I

2:29:11 ↗ mentioned take just a brief moment as

2:29:13 ↗ council president there was a question

2:29:15 ↗ somebody said I sure hope that this

2:29:17 ↗ hasn't been preordained let me assure

2:29:19 ↗ you this council there are many people

2:29:22 ↗ in the city would love it if the council

2:29:24 ↗ made up these decisions ahead of time

2:29:26 ↗ but we don't we listen to the public

2:29:27 ↗ this is a issue that the council that

2:29:30 ↗ has been near and dear to our hearts for

2:29:32 ↗ a number of years and we will be very

2:29:33 ↗ careful and deliberate 'iv in our

2:29:36 ↗ decision-making on the subject and we

2:29:38 ↗ look forward to hear hearing from more

2:29:39 ↗ of you again and your fellow and your

2:29:43 ↗ fellow clients at the Senior Center as

2:29:45 ↗ this process moves forward so thank you

2:29:48 ↗ very much and with that we're gonna move

2:29:49 ↗ to our final item of the evening which

2:29:52 ↗ is ID zero three zero six solid waste

2:29:55 ↗ services recycling markets and there's

2:30:07 ↗ okay house key

2:30:13 ↗ alright stay with me here nothing

2:30:19 ↗ sharpens the entry like intellect quite

2:30:21 ↗ like being on the final item Aviva

2:30:23 ↗ excellent alright let's make sure

2:30:39 ↗ pull it up this way

2:30:47 ↗ okay all right I was asked to come here

2:30:52 ↗ tonight to give a broad overview of the

2:30:54 ↗ current situation with recycling markets

2:30:57 ↗ and the local impact that the disruption

2:31:01 ↗ in the recycling markets has caused with

2:31:04 ↗ me today to help answer some questions

2:31:05 ↗ at the end

2:31:06 ↗ our Jeff Brown of epicenter services

2:31:08 ↗ Jeff is a consultant that helped write

2:31:11 ↗ our current contract as well as many of

2:31:13 ↗ the other contracts across the state and

2:31:16 ↗ also with me is Kevin Kelly the general

2:31:18 ↗ manager of Recology in Seattle and the

2:31:23 ↗ situation is kind of evolving on a

2:31:25 ↗ week-by-week basis as things continue to

2:31:27 ↗ move forward so they may be able to

2:31:29 ↗ answer some of the more detailed

2:31:30 ↗ questions easier than I can I also

2:31:38 ↗ wanted to say that there's been a lot in

2:31:40 ↗ the news lately and while some haulers

2:31:43 ↗ and jurisdictions have chosen to end

2:31:45 ↗ recycling collection or have landfilled

2:31:48 ↗ bailed recycling we haven't done either

2:31:53 ↗ we haven't been asked to do either and

2:31:55 ↗ we don't plan to do so our current

2:31:59 ↗ collection system started in 2005 when

2:32:03 ↗ we moved from source separated some of

2:32:06 ↗ you may remember those three bins to a

2:32:09 ↗ commingled all-in-one recycling bin and

2:32:16 ↗ in part this was due to the global

2:32:19 ↗ markets opening up and the markets in

2:32:22 ↗ China being able to accept commodities

2:32:24 ↗ that had a little bit more contamination

2:32:25 ↗ than some of the local processors some

2:32:28 ↗ of the pros of this switch were to

2:32:32 ↗ expand that kind of accepted materials

2:32:34 ↗ list it increased diversion which

2:32:37 ↗ diversion is the amount of material of

2:32:40 ↗ the total of three streams that doesn't

2:32:42 ↗ go to the landfill so we'll get into

2:32:45 ↗ diversion rate a little more detailed

2:32:47 ↗ when the county comes out to discuss the

2:32:49 ↗ solid waste comprehensive plan in

2:32:50 ↗ October hopefully but our current

2:32:54 ↗ interim goal with the county is a 70

2:32:56 ↗ percent diversion rate

2:32:59 ↗ our residential rate right now sits at

2:33:01 ↗ about 60% and our commercial rate is

2:33:05 ↗ about 31 percent and our multifamily

2:33:08 ↗ rate is about 28 percent so total were

2:33:12 ↗ just above 40 percent diversion rate for

2:33:15 ↗ the city Paul could you define diversion

2:33:19 ↗ rate yeah so if you take all three

2:33:22 ↗ streams compost recycling and garbage

2:33:26 ↗ the percentage that is not going to the

2:33:29 ↗ landfill as garbage is the diverted

2:33:31 ↗ amount so that's the diversion rate so

2:33:33 ↗ if we're aiming for a 70 percent

2:33:35 ↗ diversion rate only 30 percent of those

2:33:37 ↗ the total material collected would go to

2:33:39 ↗ the landfill

2:33:41 ↗ councilmember hunt is that area or

2:33:44 ↗ weight or how is it how is it fines with

2:33:47 ↗ it it's by tonnage currently and King

2:33:52 ↗ County is assessing and they'll part of

2:33:54 ↗ the reason they'll discuss it more with

2:33:55 ↗ the comp plan is they're trying to

2:33:57 ↗ determine in the future that 70 percent

2:33:59 ↗ is an interim rate and they'll try and

2:34:02 ↗ figure out if there's a better metric to

2:34:04 ↗ use moving forward because there are

2:34:06 ↗ some problems when you do it all by

2:34:09 ↗ tonnage you know food waste weighs a lot

2:34:11 ↗ more than aluminum so look forward to

2:34:16 ↗ more discussion on that there was also

2:34:21 ↗ increased participation in recycling

2:34:23 ↗ when we rolled out commingled recycling

2:34:25 ↗ more people decided to use the carts

2:34:27 ↗ they put more stuff in it there was a

2:34:31 ↗ decrease in litter from having the open

2:34:33 ↗ containers and also a decrease in the

2:34:35 ↗ moisture from rain that ended up in the

2:34:37 ↗ paper recycling in those open boxes

2:34:40 ↗ there were some cons we became a little

2:34:43 ↗ bit dependent on the end market the

2:34:46 ↗ export market that had lower processing

2:34:48 ↗ standards which is kind of the we're

2:34:50 ↗ reaping what we were sowing then and

2:34:53 ↗ there was a higher contamination and

2:34:55 ↗ materials in the commingled processing

2:34:57 ↗ system and we'll show you how that

2:34:59 ↗ system works here in just a second so

2:35:05 ↗ really in short our haulers pick up our

2:35:09 ↗ materials in our commingled bin it's

2:35:11 ↗ sorted at a materials recovery facility

2:35:13 ↗ or a MuRF and there's both mechanical

2:35:16 ↗ processing optical sorting processing

2:35:20 ↗ and hand sorting of materials and I have

2:35:23 ↗ a little video here to show you in just

2:35:24 ↗ a second and then it's sold to domestic

2:35:28 ↗ and export markets some of the materials

2:35:30 ↗ like glass steel and aluminum stay here

2:35:32 ↗ there's local markets for those items

2:35:34 ↗ glass weighs a lot it's expensive to

2:35:37 ↗ ship anywhere and it's not worth a whole

2:35:39 ↗ lot of money plastics paper and

2:35:43 ↗ cardboard tend to go to export markets

2:35:45 ↗ of all the material that we collect

2:35:48 ↗ about 40% of it is mixed paper still

2:35:52 ↗ even with newsprint kind of going away

2:35:56 ↗ 12% is plastic about 40% of the

2:36:00 ↗ commercial market is cardboard 20% of

2:36:03 ↗ the residential is cardboard and then

2:36:05 ↗ glass makes up about 15% in Issaquah 10s

2:36:11 ↗ key questions around carbon

2:36:13 ↗ sequestration so for me there's a but I

2:36:17 ↗ mean recycling there's a bunch of

2:36:18 ↗ different factors involved right but if

2:36:21 ↗ you believe that carbon sequestration is

2:36:24 ↗ the most important environmental issue

2:36:26 ↗ going forward is there a one-to-one

2:36:28 ↗ comparison between recycling and benefit

2:36:34 ↗ an increase in carbon sequestration or

2:36:36 ↗ is there any you know like is is the

2:36:38 ↗ recycling process sometimes like for

2:36:40 ↗ instance if you had a process that

2:36:42 ↗ allowed you to not have to use as much

2:36:44 ↗ glass or new glass right but it but it

2:36:47 ↗ required an energy intensive process

2:36:49 ↗ where you burned a ton of carbon you

2:36:52 ↗ know you could argue that that would

2:36:54 ↗ have a you know the environmental impact

2:36:56 ↗ of such a policy would be complex is it

2:36:59 ↗ complex or is it simple that would be a

2:37:03 ↗ good question for somebody with a little

2:37:04 ↗ more carbon expertise than me I think I

2:37:07 ↗ know there have been studies that show

2:37:08 ↗ glass for example when you use recycled

2:37:11 ↗ cullet in your furnace as opposed to new

2:37:14 ↗ material you actually requires less

2:37:16 ↗ electrical input into your furnace so

2:37:19 ↗ there are a lot of systems where not

2:37:22 ↗ only do you not have to extract the

2:37:24 ↗ virgin material but there's less carbon

2:37:26 ↗ intensity in the product

2:37:27 ↗ of the end product because you're using

2:37:29 ↗ recycled material I don't know for every

2:37:31 ↗ material so I think yeah I'm not totally

2:37:38 ↗ sure but no any feedback more or less or

2:37:44 ↗ less okay because I mean there's a lot

2:37:45 ↗ of silica out there in the world but you

2:37:48 ↗ know putting on one of seven like my 107

2:37:51 ↗ hat for me it's about the carbon

2:37:52 ↗ sequestration got it or carbon or

2:37:56 ↗ reduction of carbon footprint I should

2:37:58 ↗ say rather than see creation yeah

2:38:01 ↗ any other questions right now before you

2:38:03 ↗ keep going okay and when I tried this

2:38:08 ↗ earlier the sound didn't play so I mean

2:38:11 ↗ Airy so this is a video of the MuRF and

2:38:25 ↗ the sorting system that Recology put

2:38:27 ↗ together with Starbucks so you may

2:38:28 ↗ notice a little branding but it's

2:38:32 ↗ overall a very good look at how the Ince

2:38:34 ↗ in the process inside looks right now

2:38:38 ↗ they start by putting it in a plastic

2:38:39 ↗ bag which

2:38:46 ↗ so here's the tipping floor of the

2:38:48 ↗ materials recovery facility where the

2:38:50 ↗ each load comes in and is dumped and as

2:38:53 ↗ you can see it's all mixed together

2:38:55 ↗ there's a feeding system that meters out

2:38:58 ↗ how much runs into the equipment all at

2:39:02 ↗ once and they can monitor that and

2:39:05 ↗ measure it to make sure that the speed

2:39:06 ↗ is acceptable and that there's not too

2:39:08 ↗ much coming in it breaks up any of the

2:39:10 ↗ large compacted pieces that come out of

2:39:13 ↗ the truck because that gets pretty

2:39:14 ↗ squished in the truck sometimes

2:39:24 ↗ and I'm also happy to arrange tours of

2:39:26 ↗ the facility it's fascinating to go to

2:39:28 ↗ the Senior Center speaking of a group

2:39:29 ↗ that has gone is has gone on a tour

2:39:31 ↗ there before and they all loved it and

2:39:35 ↗ so it goes down this meter and the hands

2:39:37 ↗ sort first line is to pull out

2:39:39 ↗ contaminants loose plastic bags are

2:39:42 ↗ probably one of the worst contaminants

2:39:43 ↗ in there so they pull those if it looks

2:39:47 ↗ like a garbage bag and they can't see

2:39:48 ↗ inside it it automatically goes in the

2:39:50 ↗ garbage they're not going to risk

2:39:51 ↗ opening up a bag and dumping whatever's

2:39:53 ↗ in it on the line they pull out large

2:39:58 ↗ chunks of plastic so here they pull out

2:40:01 ↗ the bag they know it's recycling because

2:40:02 ↗ they can see it it's a blue bag and this

2:40:09 ↗ is how fast it runs

2:40:16 ↗ and then it goes through a series of

2:40:18 ↗ screens where the larger material in

2:40:21 ↗ this set of screens floats over the top

2:40:23 ↗ the cardboard and the paper and then all

2:40:25 ↗ the smaller pieces broken glass finds

2:40:27 ↗ shredded paper smaller plastic pieces go

2:40:31 ↗ through that onto another screen which

2:40:32 ↗ runs up to a screen with closer together

2:40:35 ↗ discs and then it goes through another

2:40:37 ↗ line of hand sorting a couple different

2:40:39 ↗ lines of hand sorting and then the

2:40:46 ↗ magnet pulls off the steel there's a

2:40:48 ↗ reverse eddy current magnet that kicks

2:40:50 ↗ off the aluminum and then this is an

2:40:55 ↗ optical sorter that uses jets of air and

2:40:58 ↗ it can detect what type of plastic runs

2:41:00 ↗ over the screen and shoot it off into

2:41:02 ↗ one of two different directions and then

2:41:08 ↗ it gets goes into a bunker where it's

2:41:10 ↗ squished together and bailed and then it

2:41:14 ↗ goes if it's for export it goes into a

2:41:16 ↗ container or if it's for local markets

2:41:20 ↗ it goes into a container that's bound

2:41:22 ↗ for a local market

2:41:29 ↗ so again those plastic bags are a really

2:41:32 ↗ bad contaminant there some other things

2:41:34 ↗ that they find in the stream that are

2:41:35 ↗ really bad our genes

2:41:38 ↗ you know those wrap up a disc screen in

2:41:40 ↗ a really bad way they find all sorts of

2:41:43 ↗ things in there so contamination is both

2:41:47 ↗ things that affect the end quality of

2:41:51 ↗ the material that they're looking to

2:41:53 ↗ have so if plastic ends up in the

2:41:55 ↗ cardboard that's a contaminant

2:41:58 ↗ contamination is also food waste that

2:42:01 ↗ ends up in the recycling stream or other

2:42:03 ↗ things that make the finished baled

2:42:06 ↗ product less recyclable councilmember

2:42:16 ↗ hunt so thank you for this overview and

2:42:19 ↗ the plastic bags you can see why those

2:42:21 ↗ are a problem I wondered if there are

2:42:23 ↗ other if there are other just common

2:42:26 ↗ mistakes you mentioned also genes but

2:42:28 ↗ other common mistakes that are the

2:42:30 ↗ biggest issues with the contamination

2:42:32 ↗ that make things on recyclable yeah I'll

2:42:34 ↗ refer that question to Kevin

2:42:43 ↗ sure so again Kevin Kelly with Recology

2:42:46 ↗ and basically we see any number of

2:42:50 ↗ contaminants come through I would say

2:42:53 ↗ the the top five of three to five are

2:42:56 ↗ film film plastic that isn't hasn't been

2:43:00 ↗ prepared properly so if you have a

2:43:02 ↗ plastic grocery bag we ask that you

2:43:04 ↗ stuff all those together tie it up and

2:43:07 ↗ then as you saw in the video we can

2:43:08 ↗ handle it a little bit better or it

2:43:10 ↗ won't wrap around our screens we get a

2:43:15 ↗ lot of styrofoam that is incorrectly

2:43:17 ↗ placed into the bin and and for that and

2:43:20 ↗ you know we have an option at the

2:43:21 ↗ Recology store down in gilman village

2:43:23 ↗ where you can drop it off food waste is

2:43:25 ↗ a big problem because one it's it's

2:43:29 ↗ moist and it ruins the fiber material

2:43:32 ↗ and then what else those are the three

2:43:42 ↗ biggest that comes to mind I can send a

2:43:43 ↗ more comprehensive list to Micah and he

2:43:45 ↗ can share it with you guys but just

2:43:48 ↗ remember ray don't go anywhere I think

2:43:51 ↗ you might be coming back so this is kind

2:43:54 ↗ of a follow-on to that and what kind of

2:43:55 ↗ public outreach has been done or is done

2:43:57 ↗ regularly to help the public understand

2:43:59 ↗ how to make this process work more

2:44:01 ↗ effectively right so we do a lot of work

2:44:05 ↗ in our office too with restaurants and

2:44:07 ↗ outreach to businesses to make sure that

2:44:09 ↗ their bins are labeled correctly we try

2:44:12 ↗ and work with some of the public

2:44:14 ↗ recycling salmon days for example to try

2:44:17 ↗ and get proper signage Recology is great

2:44:19 ↗ to work with in terms of putting out

2:44:21 ↗ information in the billing we add little

2:44:25 ↗ informational snippets to each of the

2:44:27 ↗ bills annually we have a service guide

2:44:30 ↗ that goes out that has materials lists

2:44:32 ↗ in that service guide and which bin

2:44:35 ↗ people can put them in we do a lot of

2:44:37 ↗ work with the schools because that's you

2:44:41 ↗ know a great place for them to start and

2:44:42 ↗ they're on top of it and fantastic so we

2:44:47 ↗ do a waste zero lunch program with the

2:44:51 ↗ school district and we've done that for

2:44:52 ↗ years running now where

2:44:54 ↗ on earth week they do waste zero

2:44:57 ↗ Wednesday and they compete across all

2:44:59 ↗ the schools to see how little they can

2:45:01 ↗ actually put in the garbage

2:45:02 ↗ and it's like a waste paper basket for

2:45:05 ↗ 500 kids it's absolutely amazing and

2:45:09 ↗ then they carry that out through the

2:45:10 ↗ year too it shows in their end of your

2:45:13 ↗ diversion reports see am I missing

2:45:17 ↗ anything so we we do a lot about that

2:45:20 ↗ some of the messaging is changing a

2:45:22 ↗ little bit because of this and I'll show

2:45:23 ↗ you that at the end of this the

2:45:28 ↗ questions right now all right so like I

2:45:34 ↗ said this is kind of an evolving policy

2:45:38 ↗ coming from China and there have been a

2:45:40 ↗ lot of changes over the last two years

2:45:41 ↗ so if we were talking about all of them

2:45:44 ↗ we could spend a lot of time so I've

2:45:45 ↗ kind of pulled together this broad

2:45:47 ↗ timeline to cover and in broader strokes

2:45:50 ↗ the changes in the policy that's created

2:45:52 ↗ this market turmoil that we're seeing so

2:45:55 ↗ in 2013 the green fence was a policy

2:45:58 ↗ that was enacted that was kind of a

2:46:00 ↗ crackdown on rules and policies that

2:46:02 ↗ already existed but just had been

2:46:05 ↗ ignored or weren't really being enforced

2:46:07 ↗ on the materials that were coming into

2:46:10 ↗ China and so they started that crackdown

2:46:12 ↗ it didn't really impact us that much

2:46:15 ↗ here

2:46:17 ↗ fast forward then to February of 2017

2:46:21 ↗ when they announced a policy called

2:46:24 ↗ national sword and that's specifically

2:46:26 ↗ focused on halting smuggling by groups

2:46:29 ↗ importing materials without permits or

2:46:31 ↗ with fraudulent permits so to try and

2:46:35 ↗ clean up some of the corruption that was

2:46:38 ↗ in there in their import processes

2:46:42 ↗ throughout this whole time we've been

2:46:45 ↗ working with Recology and it's difficult

2:46:49 ↗ for them to get information on policies

2:46:50 ↗ out of China unless it's specifically

2:46:52 ↗ announced so things

2:46:53 ↗ keep shifting and then they find out

2:46:55 ↗ later on for example that no import

2:46:59 ↗ licenses have been issued for the month

2:47:00 ↗ or things like that let's see

2:47:06 ↗ so as as the time line moves on though

2:47:08 ↗ the the focus has shifted from cracking

2:47:13 ↗ down on illegal smuggling to assessing

2:47:16 ↗ quality issues with the material that's

2:47:18 ↗ coming in through this commingled system

2:47:21 ↗ so they've been increasing inspections

2:47:23 ↗ breaking more bails checking every

2:47:25 ↗ container which slows down the whole

2:47:27 ↗ import system in July

2:47:33 ↗ you know they provided notice to the WTO

2:47:35 ↗ confirming that they've planned to ban

2:47:38 ↗ select mixed paper and plastics by the

2:47:42 ↗ end of the year so for January 2018 and

2:47:46 ↗ then in November they announced a 0.5%

2:47:49 ↗ contamination limit on materials that

2:47:51 ↗ were still allowed so outside of that

2:47:53 ↗ mixed paper and plastic that they were

2:47:55 ↗ banning and most of the Murph's around

2:47:57 ↗ here through that sorting process you

2:47:59 ↗ can see 0.5 percent is pretty difficult

2:48:03 ↗ if not impossible to attain as things

2:48:07 ↗ were slowing down there were some

2:48:08 ↗ municipalities down in Oregon some

2:48:10 ↗ counties started stopping their

2:48:12 ↗ recycling programs and then in May China

2:48:18 ↗ just didn't allow any imports of any

2:48:20 ↗ scrap materials into the country right

2:48:24 ↗ around the same time there were some

2:48:25 ↗ tariffs announced and just recently as a

2:48:28 ↗ month ago a 25% tariff on clean

2:48:31 ↗ cardboard has been threatened all of

2:48:36 ↗ that material kind of had to go

2:48:37 ↗ somewhere the China was the largest

2:48:41 ↗ importer of scrap maturer from the

2:48:43 ↗ United States the United States was the

2:48:44 ↗ biggest producer of scrap material in

2:48:46 ↗ the in the world and so the overflow

2:48:50 ↗ started hitting markets in Indonesia

2:48:52 ↗ Vietnam Malaysia and Thailand India

2:48:55 ↗ other countries so in May and June those

2:48:59 ↗ countries started announcing stricter

2:49:00 ↗ standards for the material coming in

2:49:02 ↗ because they obviously didn't want to

2:49:04 ↗ become kind of the dumping ground and in

2:49:07 ↗ July of this summer China announced a

2:49:11 ↗ total ban on imports of scrap proposed

2:49:13 ↗ by 2020 and that timeline may or may not

2:49:17 ↗ shift up so

2:49:19 ↗ the a my hair so I got a couple

2:49:25 ↗ [Music]

2:49:26 ↗ questionable

2:49:28 ↗ there were companies in these countries

2:49:30 ↗ that were making money off doing this

2:49:33 ↗ people weren't doing it cuz they had to

2:49:35 ↗ or because you know I mean people were

2:49:38 ↗ making money so it's weird to me like

2:49:40 ↗ something happened right where it was a

2:49:42 ↗ viable industry and yet these government

2:49:45 ↗ said we don't care that our companies

2:49:47 ↗ are making money and employing people we

2:49:51 ↗ don't want it anyhow so what was that

2:49:53 ↗ about so the overall goal of all of

2:49:55 ↗ these policies from the government

2:49:57 ↗ standpoint there has been to reduce and

2:50:00 ↗ clean up the pollution that's part of

2:50:02 ↗ processing all of this material that was

2:50:05 ↗ happening a lot of it in smaller mills

2:50:08 ↗ that were older and they also have a

2:50:13 ↗ goal of not importing any post-consumer

2:50:16 ↗ scrap but relying on their own markets

2:50:18 ↗ to kind of start to fill in that gap as

2:50:20 ↗ they've created their middle class and

2:50:23 ↗ they're looking to be more

2:50:25 ↗ self-sufficient in both their

2:50:26 ↗ manufacturing and their processing so a

2:50:29 ↗ few things are happening there are a lot

2:50:32 ↗ of mills that are idle right now over

2:50:34 ↗ there because they're not getting the

2:50:36 ↗ scrap material that they need to turn

2:50:39 ↗ pulp into paper board they're shifting

2:50:44 ↗ some of the what they want to be

2:50:45 ↗ responsible back over here to the United

2:50:47 ↗ States and their China is investing in

2:50:50 ↗ Mills here in the United States to

2:50:52 ↗ process that material and then send the

2:50:54 ↗ pulp to China to make the paper pour

2:50:56 ↗ that was gonna be when you were

2:50:57 ↗ anticipating kind of my next question

2:51:00 ↗ right which is why not just do all this

2:51:01 ↗ here and I know you're gonna tell me

2:51:03 ↗ it's more expensive and I'm gonna tell

2:51:05 ↗ you that in general the cost to

2:51:07 ↗ manufacture between China and the US is

2:51:10 ↗ expected to cross in about 2027 at which

2:51:12 ↗ point won't be any cheaper to do stuff

2:51:14 ↗ in China that it is in the United States

2:51:16 ↗ now it'll still be cheaper to do things

2:51:17 ↗ in Indonesia Vietnam Malaysia perhaps

2:51:20 ↗ Thailand but this just points to the

2:51:24 ↗ consumers I mean if we're you're going

2:51:26 ↗ at the end here is like there's

2:51:28 ↗ consideration of fundamentally you know

2:51:31 ↗ sort of dismantling the

2:51:33 ↗ cycling system it seems like the the

2:51:35 ↗ correct perhaps response is to look at

2:51:37 ↗ the market and see what the market will

2:51:39 ↗ bear to do all these things in an

2:51:40 ↗ environmentally sustained way here in

2:51:42 ↗ the United States and brings bring jobs

2:51:44 ↗ to the United States

2:51:45 ↗ you're way out in front of me okay and

2:51:48 ↗ probably where the region is to but I

2:51:50 ↗ think I think that's a correct line of

2:51:53 ↗ thinking okay well so here's what it did

2:52:01 ↗ to the markets in short this is the

2:52:04 ↗ mixed paper market this was from the

2:52:05 ↗ Seattle Times it went from a hundred

2:52:08 ↗ dollars per ton down to where you know

2:52:11 ↗ you almost have to pay for it to get rid

2:52:13 ↗ of the material and then in discussions

2:52:17 ↗ with Recology for them in order to make

2:52:22 ↗ their material marketable they've slowed

2:52:23 ↗ down their lines they've added Pickers

2:52:27 ↗ to the line they've increased over time

2:52:29 ↗ and so that increases their cost to

2:52:32 ↗ process each ton of material well at the

2:52:35 ↗ same time the markets for those

2:52:37 ↗ materials have kind of created so that

2:52:39 ↗ gap there starts to show up in King

2:52:45 ↗ County in general the waste management

2:52:49 ↗ in Republic who have W UTC contractor is

2:52:52 ↗ which is the unincorporated King County

2:52:54 ↗ areas around the cities which cities

2:52:57 ↗ most cities have their own contracts but

2:52:59 ↗ so the W UTC has approved a rate change

2:53:02 ↗ it was a temporary six-month rate change

2:53:06 ↗ on the processing cost and on the market

2:53:08 ↗ price impacts WTC contracts rates are

2:53:12 ↗ set up a little differently than ours so

2:53:14 ↗ this doesn't translate directly we can't

2:53:17 ↗ just take what they did and apply it to

2:53:19 ↗ our rates it wouldn't work out all three

2:53:22 ↗ King County haulers Recology waste

2:53:24 ↗ management public have asked for rate

2:53:25 ↗ relief from their contract cities and

2:53:28 ↗ then King County formed what they call

2:53:30 ↗ the responsible recycling task force and

2:53:33 ↗ they're looking at a couple of different

2:53:34 ↗ things they're looking at messaging and

2:53:37 ↗ how we can coordinate messaging across

2:53:39 ↗ the county for what materials should go

2:53:41 ↗ into the bin and there

2:53:43 ↗ potentially asking cities to change the

2:53:47 ↗ list of materials that go into the bin

2:53:50 ↗ so in our contract there's a few

2:53:53 ↗ recycling commitments I just wanted to

2:53:56 ↗ call them out here there's a requirement

2:53:57 ↗ to recycling compost as part of our

2:53:59 ↗ contract our list of recyclables those

2:54:02 ↗ materials that are accepted are part of

2:54:05 ↗ our contract and so to change any of

2:54:07 ↗ those it would require a contract

2:54:09 ↗ amendment and they were based on winner

2:54:12 ↗ ecology at the time clean escapes made

2:54:14 ↗ their proposal to us they said we can

2:54:17 ↗ accept these materials we have markets

2:54:18 ↗ for these materials send them our way

2:54:21 ↗ and then in the contract expressing and

2:54:25 ↗ marketing recycling and compost is on

2:54:27 ↗ the contractor so the way our contract

2:54:30 ↗ was designed is different than Seattle

2:54:32 ↗ for example where they bear the risk of

2:54:34 ↗ the cost of the market for those

2:54:35 ↗ recyclables we didn't do that

2:54:38 ↗ in our contract because we don't have

2:54:41 ↗ the staff to assess the market all the

2:54:43 ↗ time and you know things like that so

2:54:45 ↗ this made it easier from a contract

2:54:46 ↗ administration standpoint most cities in

2:54:51 ↗ the county are moving very slowly and

2:54:54 ↗ kind of contemplating their different

2:54:56 ↗ options I met with a group of cities

2:54:59 ↗ today we're slowly charting what the

2:55:03 ↗ options are what our contract and legal

2:55:05 ↗ obligations are the King County

2:55:07 ↗ responsible recycling task force like I

2:55:09 ↗ said is determining if materials should

2:55:11 ↗ be removed from the accepted accepted

2:55:13 ↗ list whether we pull those plastic bags

2:55:15 ↗ out that are accepted here whether we

2:55:17 ↗ pull out different kinds of plastics

2:55:19 ↗ that currently have very little market

2:55:22 ↗ and then the messaging that we have you

2:55:26 ↗ know the current status is that the less

2:55:28 ↗ contamination in recycling the more

2:55:30 ↗ marketable that material is and the

2:55:32 ↗ better it is for the hauler and I think

2:55:35 ↗ for the recycling system as a whole the

2:55:38 ↗ messaging to residents right now that's

2:55:40 ↗ going out as clean dry empty because

2:55:43 ↗ that food waste is a big problem it

2:55:45 ↗ ruins the fibers and same with empty and

2:55:49 ↗ then Connie was talking to me a little

2:55:52 ↗ bit about there but the there's an

2:55:54 ↗ effort to reduce what we call wish

2:55:56 ↗ cycling which is

2:55:57 ↗ is looking at material and going well

2:55:59 ↗ you know this looks like it should be

2:56:00 ↗ recycled and tossing it in the bin and

2:56:02 ↗ that's where the styrofoam goes in and

2:56:04 ↗ you know different things like that so

2:56:07 ↗ trying to stick to the list and teach

2:56:10 ↗ people to kind of go back to not quite

2:56:14 ↗ sorting each material out like we used

2:56:16 ↗ to but making sure that the right things

2:56:18 ↗ are ending up in the bin in evaluating

2:56:22 ↗ some of the options just as a general

2:56:24 ↗ overview we're going to come back to

2:56:25 ↗ Council in the fall to go into more

2:56:28 ↗ detail on whether this has a rate

2:56:31 ↗ adjustment impact what we think is

2:56:32 ↗ reasonable whether we should make

2:56:35 ↗ materials list changes whether there

2:56:38 ↗ should be curb site audits and

2:56:40 ↗ contamination monitoring of the

2:56:42 ↗ residential and commercial streams to

2:56:44 ↗ try and pass that education on in as

2:56:46 ↗ direct way as possible about what's in

2:56:48 ↗ the bin and what shouldn't be in the bin

2:56:50 ↗ or you know considering the no action

2:56:52 ↗ alternative as well I have a question

2:56:55 ↗ sure so so right now if I want to I

2:56:59 ↗ think I think they had a service if I

2:57:01 ↗ want to buy something I could take a

2:57:03 ↗ picture of it and Amazon will basically

2:57:05 ↗ tell you how to write this technology

2:57:09 ↗ the the optical recognition technologies

2:57:12 ↗ seems like it seems like we should be

2:57:15 ↗ able to if not right now then very very

2:57:17 ↗ soon take a picture of something and

2:57:19 ↗ have it tell us if that's recyclable or

2:57:22 ↗ not we can do that all over the place

2:57:25 ↗ elsewhere like optical recognition

2:57:27 ↗ technologies are just exploding right is

2:57:31 ↗ that coming I haven't heard of that

2:57:33 ↗ coming I don't know if Kevin have you

2:57:38 ↗ heard of it well it's it's here and it's

2:57:44 ↗ in you saw in the video it's in it's in

2:57:47 ↗ use data in a to a small degree at our

2:57:50 ↗ facility currently so we we fired on

2:57:52 ↗ different types of plastics part of a

2:57:57 ↗ part of the issue with this China

2:57:58 ↗ situation is the notion of cross

2:58:00 ↗ contamination where if a brown material

2:58:02 ↗ ends up with like a white material

2:58:04 ↗ cardboard with paper that's considered

2:58:08 ↗ contaminated and so now what

2:58:13 ↗ manufacturers of Murph's have come up

2:58:16 ↗ with is more robust optical sorting

2:58:18 ↗ technology where you combine near

2:58:21 ↗ infrared technology and color scanning

2:58:24 ↗ so you can determine the material type

2:58:27 ↗ and the color type and now you have two

2:58:29 ↗ different ways of looking at the

2:58:30 ↗ material to determine where it goes sure

2:58:32 ↗ and I get that and that's cool and I

2:58:34 ↗ know an IR spectroscopy really well but

2:58:37 ↗ I'm talking about right somebody takes a

2:58:40 ↗ picture of a piece of styrofoam and it

2:58:42 ↗ says like not recycled right paper cups

2:58:44 ↗ are recyclable right piece of you know

2:58:49 ↗ greasy McDonald's wrap that says clean

2:58:53 ↗ right or whatever right because you

2:58:54 ↗ build a database of visual objects and

2:58:57 ↗ it becomes very easy for an expert

2:58:59 ↗ system to just tell somebody whether

2:59:01 ↗ that's recyclable not recyclable or you

2:59:03 ↗ better clean it so I'm not aware of

2:59:07 ↗ anything like that for the consumer it

2:59:09 ↗ brings up the point though that

2:59:11 ↗ manufacturers probably need to be

2:59:13 ↗ involved in this discussion to make sure

2:59:15 ↗ that they are creating products that can

2:59:17 ↗ in fact be recycled I think even if you

2:59:20 ↗ had technology like that it would not

2:59:23 ↗ necessarily be adopted a hundred percent

2:59:26 ↗ you would still have mistakes and you

2:59:27 ↗ would still have contamination no but I

2:59:29 ↗ think consumers in good faith still

2:59:32 ↗ sometimes they're very confused about

2:59:34 ↗ how to recycle and a tool you know you

2:59:37 ↗ you could I mean it's fairly easy to

2:59:39 ↗ build these databases of known objects

2:59:41 ↗ and you don't even have to catalogue all

2:59:43 ↗ the objects you catalog a few thousand

2:59:45 ↗ in each of the types and then you've put

2:59:46 ↗ an expert system on it and the software

2:59:48 ↗ figures out what it's the picture that

2:59:51 ↗ it's looking at what category it's it's

2:59:53 ↗ closest to sure yeah I something like

2:59:55 ↗ that came along it would make our lives

2:59:58 ↗ a lot better without a doubt

3:00:03 ↗ so I think yeah go ahead

3:00:07 ↗ I wondered about so there's this

3:00:09 ↗ contamination audit that it's shown here

3:00:11 ↗ I wondered about a sort of a lower tech

3:00:13 ↗ version of what Council President Mart's

3:00:16 ↗ was saying but just sort of a something

3:00:18 ↗ to educate people about this is what

3:00:20 ↗ somebody's trash can looks like these

3:00:23 ↗ are some common things that can't be

3:00:24 ↗ recycled and so not everybody's

3:00:26 ↗ individual audit but a sort of

3:00:28 ↗ educational tool that would be like this

3:00:30 ↗ is what this is what is found in the

3:00:32 ↗ garbage that is should be in the garbage

3:00:33 ↗ but it was put in the recycling right

3:00:36 ↗ and what you're looking at on the right

3:00:37 ↗ here is a contamination audit that was

3:00:39 ↗ done of a multi-family property and then

3:00:41 ↗ they take pictures and without any you

3:00:45 ↗ know names can give this report to the

3:00:49 ↗ property manager and they can circulate

3:00:50 ↗ it we haven't started doing that here

3:00:54 ↗ yet it's one of the options that can be

3:00:57 ↗ considered we're talking about something

3:01:02 ↗ different or no I well a little bit

3:01:05 ↗ different but just sort of it's like

3:01:06 ↗ some example ones so like like we have

3:01:10 ↗ these posters right and we can

3:01:13 ↗ distribute them more widely like I said

3:01:15 ↗ this this poster is clipped almost

3:01:17 ↗ directly out of our annual recycling

3:01:19 ↗ guide that goes out to every customer so

3:01:23 ↗ for example they the plastic shopping

3:01:25 ↗ bags that you have to bundle them

3:01:27 ↗ together so that would be the just an

3:01:29 ↗ example of showing what you're not

3:01:30 ↗ supposed to do and then showing what

3:01:31 ↗ you're supposed to do in an example okay

3:01:40 ↗ and then I think the the in takeaway is

3:01:43 ↗ that we're still kind of assessing where

3:01:45 ↗ to go from here

3:01:46 ↗ both are legal and contract parameters

3:01:48 ↗ and we're really working hard to

3:01:51 ↗ coordinate with the other cities in the

3:01:53 ↗ county because we feel like approaching

3:01:55 ↗ this from a city by city basis doesn't

3:01:57 ↗ make as much sense as it does to kind of

3:01:59 ↗ get the whole thing together because

3:02:02 ↗ we're all working with the same system

3:02:03 ↗ and the same new constraints it

3:02:09 ↗ councilmember hunt at the beginning

3:02:12 ↗ towards the beginning of the

3:02:13 ↗ presentation you talked about the change

3:02:15 ↗ in recycling it sounded like we

3:02:16 ↗ previously used more domestic facilities

3:02:20 ↗ to do the recycling and then we've gone

3:02:23 ↗ more and more towards exporting because

3:02:25 ↗ that option was available and now it's

3:02:28 ↗ not so are there any efforts or thought

3:02:31 ↗ about facilities using facilities I

3:02:36 ↗ think council president Mart's such done

3:02:38 ↗ this before but ramping up facilities

3:02:40 ↗ that are in the United States to take on

3:02:43 ↗ more of this recycling efforts and is

3:02:46 ↗ that something that's possible in the

3:02:47 ↗ short term or it's more of a 10 years

3:02:50 ↗ out kind of thing right that's more of a

3:02:52 ↗ long term solution it is starting to

3:02:53 ↗ happen some of the paper mills are being

3:02:56 ↗ a little bit retooled there I don't

3:02:59 ↗ believe there are any right in

3:03:01 ↗ Washington State there's some big ones

3:03:03 ↗ in the Midwest that still accept

3:03:04 ↗ domestic materials and they have issues

3:03:08 ↗ with the amount of contamination from

3:03:10 ↗ the commingled system so they're putting

3:03:12 ↗ in place some processing at those

3:03:15 ↗ there's like I said China has begun

3:03:19 ↗ investing in processing mills here in

3:03:22 ↗ the United States their intention again

3:03:26 ↗ is to have the processing happen here

3:03:28 ↗ and the flaked plastic would be sent to

3:03:30 ↗ China to make products or the pulp from

3:03:33 ↗ a paper mill would be sent to China to

3:03:35 ↗ make cardboard to send back so the other

3:03:38 ↗ thing this is done that I didn't really

3:03:40 ↗ I had a cool picture but the way the

3:03:44 ↗ system was set up it was almost

3:03:45 ↗ back-and-forth shipping scrap would go

3:03:50 ↗ to China finished product would come

3:03:52 ↗ back scrap

3:03:52 ↗ would go back and the disruption that

3:03:55 ↗ this has caused those boats have a much

3:03:58 ↗ longer trip now all the way around

3:04:00 ↗ through Malaysia and other countries and

3:04:05 ↗ so there's kind of a shortage of boats

3:04:07 ↗ to ship things now as well and so it

3:04:09 ↗ slowed down both the product in coming

3:04:12 ↗ into the United States as well as the

3:04:14 ↗ recycling going out and recycling is a

3:04:18 ↗ faucet that once you turn it on you

3:04:20 ↗ can't turn off so that amount of tonnage

3:04:22 ↗ goes into the materials recovery

3:04:24 ↗ facility every day at the same speed

3:04:26 ↗ almost without fail and so it has to go

3:04:30 ↗ somewhere and if there's less shipping

3:04:32 ↗ available some of it can get where

3:04:34 ↗ house-door end up stacking up and that's

3:04:37 ↗ where you can get some other issues like

3:04:38 ↗ you've seen in the news there have been

3:04:40 ↗ some fires at sorting facilities locally

3:04:44 ↗ there have been some other issues with

3:04:46 ↗ it getting wet outside things like that

3:04:51 ↗ that's a member Ramos yeah that was kind

3:04:54 ↗ of my question you started getting to

3:04:55 ↗ that because you know your thing is a

3:04:58 ↗ city's responses are slow contemplative

3:05:00 ↗ trying to figure out where to go but

3:05:02 ↗ this is a real issue that's happening

3:05:03 ↗ today so what you know that's to say

3:05:07 ↗ what's happening today because that's

3:05:08 ↗ you just said the flow is not stopping

3:05:10 ↗ you know that that sounds good for us

3:05:13 ↗ but what's what's it happened in reality

3:05:15 ↗ is it is that going to slowly start

3:05:17 ↗ heading to the landfill because there's

3:05:19 ↗ nowhere else for it to go you can only

3:05:21 ↗ hold on back things up so long and then

3:05:24 ↗ some things are they give so what's

3:05:26 ↗ what's that bigger picture and you're

3:05:28 ↗ saying already some places outside of

3:05:30 ↗ cities sounds like making some

3:05:32 ↗ adjustments but if there's a lot of city

3:05:33 ↗ of happening that yeah and and I think

3:05:37 ↗ this is where the whole kind of global

3:05:39 ↗ perspective comes in it's a lot of

3:05:41 ↗ material and some of it is ending up in

3:05:44 ↗ the landfill some of it is ending up

3:05:47 ↗ being sold at almost rock-bottom prices

3:05:50 ↗ the mills that do accept some of this

3:05:52 ↗ material in the United States are making

3:05:54 ↗ a killing right now because they can get

3:05:56 ↗ as much material as they need for very

3:05:58 ↗ low prices

3:06:01 ↗ I'll let I don't know if Kevin wants to

3:06:04 ↗ speak to it I know it's been an issue

3:06:06 ↗ them for sure and they're continuing to

3:06:09 ↗ operate and they're continuing to market

3:06:11 ↗ material but again that chart kind of

3:06:14 ↗ showed what happens it's it's costing

3:06:17 ↗ them money to do so to operate at the

3:06:19 ↗ way that they've been operating

3:06:22 ↗ councilmember winters time Thank You

3:06:24 ↗ Micah thank you so much for the

3:06:26 ↗ comprehensive report and the very

3:06:28 ↗ holistic approach that I know you and

3:06:30 ↗ that are are your department takes

3:06:33 ↗ toward this like working and talking

3:06:35 ↗ with other cities so I I do appreciate

3:06:37 ↗ that I really didn't know what to expect

3:06:38 ↗ this evening but I appreciate that very

3:06:41 ↗ much

3:06:42 ↗ I also want to say to Recology this is a

3:06:45 ↗ tough economic your post $90

3:06:49 ↗ a ton in the hole now compared to not

3:06:52 ↗ that long ago but so I don't know the

3:06:55 ↗ outcome the long-term outcome of the

3:06:57 ↗ current situation but everything that

3:06:58 ↗ has been done this idea of everything in

3:07:01 ↗ one then the degree of the sorting I

3:07:03 ↗ think one households I know my household

3:07:05 ↗ we've made a real effort to be very

3:07:07 ↗ smart and good with that and I think

3:07:08 ↗ that that makes a big difference I think

3:07:10 ↗ we're raising a generation of kids in

3:07:12 ↗ this community and serve many other

3:07:14 ↗ communities who that you know there's

3:07:18 ↗ they're throwing less away and things

3:07:20 ↗ are going into recycling there's a lot

3:07:22 ↗ of diversion that's going on and part of

3:07:24 ↗ it largely because of what the city has

3:07:27 ↗ done and what Recology waste management

3:07:29 ↗ has done as well and and the investments

3:07:32 ↗ and the improvements you made in your

3:07:33 ↗ facilities the Murph's the material

3:07:36 ↗ recovery recovery facility I do very

3:07:40 ↗ much appreciate that and hope this turns

3:07:42 ↗ out good for everybody I don't know

3:07:44 ↗ where it's going to go but once you know

3:07:46 ↗ it very much appreciated the investments

3:07:48 ↗ and the efforts that you have made so

3:07:49 ↗ far

3:07:50 ↗ and I will say that in the beginning of

3:07:52 ↗ our contract part of what we had and it

3:07:53 ↗ was curbside auditing of our residential

3:07:56 ↗ areas just to check and make sure see

3:07:59 ↗ how it was doing contamination wise and

3:08:01 ↗ residentially in Issaquah it's actually

3:08:04 ↗ very clean material multifamily and

3:08:07 ↗ commercial has a little bit more issue

3:08:08 ↗ with contamination it's harder to it's

3:08:12 ↗ it's a harder customer base to kind of

3:08:14 ↗ crack in terms of providing the

3:08:16 ↗ education and there's also less sort of

3:08:18 ↗ accountability at a multi

3:08:19 ↗ we complex you can't point to who it was

3:08:22 ↗ that did it you know so that's where the

3:08:26 ↗ auditing would potentially come into

3:08:28 ↗ play to help clean that up other push in

3:08:33 ↗ their comments so so I have one it seems

3:08:36 ↗ like there's sort of three potential

3:08:38 ↗ futures you got one where the market

3:08:44 ↗ attempts to correct itself and and

3:08:47 ↗ transfer the new economic model of

3:08:52 ↗ recycling to the consumer in the hopes

3:08:55 ↗ that the consumer will pay it right so

3:08:57 ↗ that's one now there is the whole system

3:08:59 ↗ collapses and you just barrier and

3:09:02 ↗ scenario everything right the third

3:09:05 ↗ there's a third that's kind of and I

3:09:07 ↗ think those are the the only two that

3:09:09 ↗ are actually viable with people like

3:09:11 ↗ like no business is gonna keep losing

3:09:13 ↗ huge amounts of money on every bale of

3:09:15 ↗ recycling right that's not a long term

3:09:17 ↗ nobody's gonna do that long term right

3:09:19 ↗ but there there's a third that I think

3:09:22 ↗ is a is a bad outcome that that might

3:09:24 ↗ happen which is that things just sort of

3:09:26 ↗ amble along and costs increase and there

3:09:31 ↗ and they're attributed to the

3:09:32 ↗ difficulties in recycling but meanwhile

3:09:35 ↗ more and more recycling is going into

3:09:37 ↗ the into the waste stream and more and

3:09:40 ↗ more cycling is getting it recycling is

3:09:42 ↗ getting buried the costs keep going up

3:09:43 ↗ many people say oh those Chinese it's

3:09:45 ↗ because they won't take their stuff

3:09:46 ↗ anymore like it seems like you really

3:09:48 ↗ want to make a decision on if recycling

3:09:51 ↗ is going to work it you have to do it in

3:09:54 ↗ some way that is economically viable or

3:09:57 ↗ you should just bury everything right

3:09:59 ↗ and obviously just burying everything is

3:10:00 ↗ bad idea but what I what I really worry

3:10:04 ↗ about is is dribbling and raveling along

3:10:06 ↗ and costs keep going up and people don't

3:10:09 ↗ have any confidence that the recycling

3:10:11 ↗ is actually getting recycled or will be

3:10:13 ↗ recycled down the road you know and you

3:10:17 ↗ know what I mean and so having some

3:10:19 ↗ sense of okay here's the model that

3:10:22 ↗ we're gonna have going forward and

3:10:24 ↗ here's what it's gonna do for our

3:10:26 ↗ ability to recycle I think this is a

3:10:28 ↗ region that's absolutely takes super

3:10:31 ↗ seriously recycling and it's a

3:10:33 ↗ both on the environment and carbon and

3:10:35 ↗ and all that stuff right but I'm just

3:10:38 ↗ super super worried because there isn't

3:10:40 ↗ a clear path forward right now that it's

3:10:42 ↗ going to muddle along in a way that's

3:10:44 ↗ going to reduce people's confidence in

3:10:45 ↗ recycling and in you know the economics

3:10:49 ↗ of waste management going forward

3:10:52 ↗ frankly right and you know we're a

3:10:55 ↗ little unique here I think with Recology

3:10:57 ↗ the other two major haulers in King

3:10:59 ↗ County also own landfills so the

3:11:00 ↗ economics is different they make money

3:11:05 ↗ either way I also think there's a fourth

3:11:09 ↗ option that if you're interested in

3:11:12 ↗ looking into so the the e-cycle

3:11:15 ↗ washington program was a great model of

3:11:17 ↗ extended producer responsibility and

3:11:19 ↗ hugely successful and it put the cost of

3:11:21 ↗ recycling the product back on the

3:11:23 ↗ producers of the product so computer

3:11:25 ↗ manufacturers paid into the system and

3:11:27 ↗ then they helped pay for and create the

3:11:30 ↗ system that took the tape made the

3:11:31 ↗ take-back Network for all of those

3:11:32 ↗ electronics and the amount of tons that

3:11:36 ↗ got recycled this part of that program

3:11:38 ↗ was fantastic and it was hugely

3:11:40 ↗ successful BC has an extended producer

3:11:43 ↗ responsibility for packaging so

3:11:46 ↗ packaging companies pay into the system

3:11:48 ↗ and then at the end of the life they own

3:11:50 ↗ the packaging that comes back to them so

3:11:53 ↗ there are different models out there too

3:11:54 ↗ other than just putting it on the the

3:11:57 ↗ consumers or land filling it and I think

3:12:02 ↗ you're right this is absolutely a time

3:12:04 ↗ of transition where we're gonna have to

3:12:06 ↗ head in one of those directions and

3:12:09 ↗ there's a lot of discussions going on on

3:12:12 ↗ how that heads and a lot of it as far

3:12:15 ↗ above my head but it's fascinating to

3:12:18 ↗ watch I think and a good opportunity

3:12:21 ↗ neither council member Ramos it's a

3:12:23 ↗ quick one just is you think you slightly

3:12:26 ↗ mentioned the fact of reducing materials

3:12:30 ↗ that are accepted and you know just for

3:12:32 ↗ myself thinking of you know I'd rather

3:12:34 ↗ you know take half the materials and

3:12:36 ↗ recycle them well and the other half

3:12:38 ↗ just give up on them because they

3:12:40 ↗ be done is a way of doing that if we go

3:12:42 ↗ back to you know what was the first

3:12:43 ↗ thing what aluminum cans and then

3:12:44 ↗ bottles right kind of kind of stuff

3:12:45 ↗ steel that's done here whatever those

3:12:47 ↗ kinds of thing you know think about that

3:12:49 ↗ whatever we can do well I'd rather do

3:12:51 ↗ part of it well then try to do more than

3:12:54 ↗ we can get done because it just doesn't

3:12:56 ↗ work and go to that so just my thought

3:12:59 ↗ the general has nothing

3:13:01 ↗ awesome thank you any other comments as

3:13:05 ↗ with the other two topics I will ask if

3:13:07 ↗ there's any public comment this evening

3:13:16 ↗ Davee Kapler again and this is a subject

3:13:20 ↗ I've been biting my tongue for years but

3:13:23 ↗ just the other day I walked by the city

3:13:26 ↗ dumpster out here and there was a

3:13:28 ↗ cannibalized computer in the garbage

3:13:30 ↗ side a whole bunch of steel sides from

3:13:34 ↗ computers or other electronic stuff and

3:13:36 ↗ then of course and the garbage side is a

3:13:39 ↗ whole bunch of recyclable stuff and this

3:13:41 ↗ is chronic the city is you go across the

3:13:45 ↗ street here to the so-called recycle

3:13:48 ↗ container over there that the

3:13:50 ↗ restaurants use and it's full of sopping

3:13:53 ↗ wet garbage mixed in with the

3:13:56 ↗ recyclables it's just crazy

3:13:59 ↗ and it's got to change I think I mean I

3:14:04 ↗ don't think we're following our contract

3:14:06 ↗ because we're delivering we're not

3:14:08 ↗ delivering garbage we're mixing mixed

3:14:10 ↗ garbage and recyclables in one can and

3:14:13 ↗ another can where we're mixing garbage

3:14:16 ↗ and unrecyclable so run recyclable out

3:14:19 ↗ here the city's

3:14:20 ↗ dumpster for recyclables doesn't have a

3:14:24 ↗ lid or it's broken so all the cardboard

3:14:26 ↗ that's in there nine months of the year

3:14:28 ↗ is worthless and just compounds their

3:14:31 ↗ problems we got to get our city act

3:14:34 ↗ together we got to get our community

3:14:36 ↗ together and you've got to do a lot more

3:14:38 ↗ with the result e family in business

3:14:42 ↗ it's it's gross thank you for your

3:14:46 ↗ comments any other public comment this

3:14:48 ↗ evening hearing none we are adjourned

3:14:51 ↗ thank you all very much thank you for

3:14:53 ↗ the viewers at home

3:15:09 ↗ 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 (7)

Mariah Bettise

Stacy Goodman

Victoria Hunt

Tola Marts

Bill Ramos

Chris Reh

Paul Winterstein

Staff (4)

Mary Lou Pauly, Mayor

Emily Moon, Interim City Administrator

Jim Haney, City Attorney

Christine Eggers, City Clerk