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 (Arrived at 6:06 PM)

Stacy Goodman

Victoria Hunt

Tola Marts

Bill Ramos

Chris Reh

Paul Winterstein (Arrived at 6:04 PM)