City Council Special Meeting · Tuesday, March 15, 2022 · City Council Digest

AGENDA

The purpose of this special meeting is to allow the City Council to recess into Executive Session to discuss property acquisition per RCW 42.30.220(1)(b) and pending/potential litigation per RCW take approximately 60 minutes; action is anticipated to follow in open session

packet pp.98027

Proposed Motion: Approve settlement agreement related to ORA Talus litigation as discussed in Executive Session

Topics: Land Use

2369 segments .txt ↗

0:07 ↗ camera going yeah

0:10 ↗ great

0:12 ↗ welcome everybody i council member joe

0:14 ↗ called the march 15 council study

0:16 ↗ session to order

0:17 ↗ this meeting will be conducted in person

0:19 ↗ and virtually in compliance with the

0:21 ↗ governor's proclamation related to the

0:23 ↗ covet 19 emergency and open public

0:25 ↗ meetings

0:27 ↗ there are two public comment

0:28 ↗ opportunities at tonight's meeting

0:30 ↗ there's a general public comment

0:31 ↗ opportunity at the beginning of the

0:32 ↗ meeting or

0:34 ↗ you can make comments after the

0:35 ↗ presentation at the end of the meeting

0:37 ↗ council president walsh will also share

0:40 ↗ a summary of any comments that have been

0:41 ↗ emailed regarding tonight's agenda item

0:45 ↗ the first item on the agenda is public

0:46 ↗ comment

0:48 ↗ members of the public may address

0:50 ↗ council at this time in person or

0:52 ↗ virtually

0:53 ↗ those who signed up in advance to make

0:55 ↗ comments will be called on first

0:57 ↗ if you're joining us virtually and would

0:58 ↗ like to make comments please raise your

1:00 ↗ virtual hand

1:02 ↗ if you're on the phone press star three

1:05 ↗ if you've joined by computer or

1:07 ↗ smartphone look for a hand icon this

1:09 ↗ varies by device

1:11 ↗ one option may be to go to the

1:13 ↗ participant panel and choose the raise

1:15 ↗ hand icon in the lower right hand corner

1:18 ↗ i'll wait for a moment to see if anyone

1:20 ↗ wishes to raise their hand

1:26 ↗ has anyone signed up to speak or

1:27 ↗ indicated the desire to speak this

1:29 ↗ evening

1:31 ↗ council member joe no one has signed up

1:33 ↗ previously and i see no virtual hands

1:36 ↗ raised at this moment

1:37 ↗ okay

1:42 ↗ as a reminder written comments can be

1:44 ↗ submitted at any time to council city

1:46 ↗ council at issaquah.gov

1:49 ↗ now turn it over to council president

1:50 ↗ walsh to summarize any emails received

1:54 ↗ thank you councilmember joe we did

1:56 ↗ receive two comments on our agenda item

1:59 ↗ tonight id 1020.

2:01 ↗ the first asks that we better define

2:03 ↗ transportation and consider the

2:05 ↗ overlapping elements in the funding

2:07 ↗ buckets

2:08 ↗ and the second comments asked us

2:11 ↗ said to better understand the

2:13 ↗ transportation funding bucket we should

2:15 ↗ contin consider breaking it down into

2:17 ↗ subcategories based on the problem we're

2:19 ↗ trying to solve and that concludes

2:21 ↗ public comments were received by email

2:24 ↗ thank you council president walsh

2:31 ↗ all right the first substantive

2:34 ↗ item on the agenda is id 1020 capital

2:38 ↗ finance community task force

2:39 ↗ recommendations report

2:41 ↗ and um

2:43 ↗ for the study session the administration

2:45 ↗ is looking for

2:47 ↗ feedback from us the council

2:49 ↗ and they want to seek some guidance

2:51 ↗ about the priorities within the

2:52 ↗ recommendations report

2:54 ↗ in order to create an implementation

2:56 ↗ plan

2:57 ↗ please keep the questions in mind that

2:59 ↗ are going to be on the first page of the

3:02 ↗ presentation from deputy

3:05 ↗ uh city administrator snyder this

3:07 ↗ evening

3:08 ↗ and then

3:10 ↗ we will

3:11 ↗ turn it over to

3:13 ↗ deputy city administrator snyder to go

3:15 ↗ ahead and begin

3:17 ↗ the council presentation

3:23 ↗ thank you councilmember joe and good

3:24 ↗ evening

3:26 ↗ city council and anybody watching

3:28 ↗ i'm andrea snyder the deputy city

3:30 ↗ administrator

3:32 ↗ and want to

3:36 ↗ follow up on our conversation that we

3:38 ↗ had last week with the task force the

3:41 ↗ capital finance community task force and

3:43 ↗ their recommendations

3:45 ↗ um next slide please

3:49 ↗ thank you

3:50 ↗ the purpose for today is really just to

3:52 ↗ get council feedback on the

3:54 ↗ recommendations report last week council

3:57 ↗ received the report but there wasn't a

3:59 ↗ lot of room or time for discussion on

4:01 ↗ council's art and so that's really what

4:03 ↗ today's purpose is so we would like to

4:07 ↗ get

4:08 ↗ guidance from the council on the

4:10 ↗ recommendations your feedback on that

4:12 ↗ report and we'll use that

4:15 ↗ feedback to create an implementation

4:17 ↗ proposal

4:18 ↗ and i wanted to talk to you a little bit

4:20 ↗ about what we're planning for such a

4:22 ↗ proposal what we're talking about is um

4:26 ↗ really the proposal would be something

4:28 ↗ that would focus in more detail on the

4:30 ↗ next two years and those immediate

4:31 ↗ actions

4:32 ↗ uh and then provide more of a high level

4:35 ↗ work plan uh for the medium and long

4:37 ↗ term actions where we'd talk about um

4:40 ↗ we'd outline the general steps and also

4:42 ↗ the timeline to take those steps so

4:44 ↗ that's really what i mean when i say

4:46 ↗ implementation plan or implementation

4:48 ↗ proposal it's how do we put those

4:50 ↗ recommendations into action

4:51 ↗ um

4:52 ↗ providing more detail on those

4:56 ↗ immediate actions so that includes

4:59 ↗ suggestions for arpa which projects

5:01 ↗ should receive art the funding

5:03 ↗ ending fund balance how we would spend

5:05 ↗ that in the interests of

5:06 ↗ furthering our infrastructure needs

5:09 ↗ and perhaps a schedule for light red

5:10 ↗ light cameras

5:12 ↗ or speed cameras depending on your

5:14 ↗ feedback tonight

5:15 ↗ so

5:17 ↗ what we are not

5:19 ↗ trying to focus on tonight is we're not

5:21 ↗ finalizing any of the revenue tools

5:23 ↗ that's not the intention for the

5:24 ↗ discussion tonight

5:26 ↗ we're not

5:28 ↗ picking projects that would be funded in

5:30 ↗ the future

5:31 ↗ or

5:32 ↗ talking about taxation rates in

5:34 ↗ particular

5:35 ↗ or finalizing any of those things it's

5:37 ↗ really just the first step to get your

5:39 ↗ feedback on the recommendations report

5:42 ↗ so pretty high level is where we're

5:44 ↗ hoping to stay today

5:46 ↗ um next slide please

5:50 ↗ thank you and so councilmember joe as

5:52 ↗ you alluded to we do have specific

5:54 ↗ questions to help assist council on

5:56 ↗ providing that feedback for us uh

5:58 ↗ specifically we're looking for

6:01 ↗ feedback on whether council agrees with

6:03 ↗ the task force that the city should

6:05 ↗ focus on transportation as the number

6:07 ↗ one priority for capital investment

6:10 ↗ the task force as you recall from last

6:12 ↗ week looked at

6:14 ↗ capital needs across

6:17 ↗ across various categories including

6:19 ↗ parks and trails uh utilities and

6:23 ↗ transportation

6:24 ↗ and others and so

6:26 ↗ the um

6:28 ↗ this idea of where we need to focus and

6:30 ↗ what we prioritize is really where do we

6:32 ↗ start

6:33 ↗ there's so many needs so many different

6:36 ↗ types of needs this is really just to

6:38 ↗ focus on where do we start and what do

6:39 ↗ we try to address first

6:42 ↗ and so

6:44 ↗ the other thing to note is that

6:46 ↗ when the task force is having

6:48 ↗ conversations about these priorities we

6:51 ↗ know that

6:52 ↗ uh to some degree some revenue tools

6:55 ↗ line up better uh with certain projects

6:58 ↗ um versus others right so there's a

7:01 ↗ well we'll get to that a little bit more

7:03 ↗ specifically later but something to keep

7:04 ↗ in mind so again we're asking does the

7:06 ↗ task force agree that transportation

7:09 ↗ should really be that kind of first

7:10 ↗ focus area for our capital investments

7:14 ↗ second uh are any are there any funding

7:17 ↗ tools recommended by the task force that

7:19 ↗ the city should not explore when we talk

7:22 ↗ about putting this implementation plan

7:24 ↗ together are there things that we should

7:25 ↗ just leave off the list and maybe

7:26 ↗ consider at a later date

7:28 ↗ we want to get that information from you

7:31 ↗ and then third does the city council

7:33 ↗ agree with the recommended time frames

7:35 ↗ for each tool so the task force as

7:38 ↗ you'll see next has recommendations for

7:40 ↗ immediate medium term and long term

7:44 ↗ do those time frames make sense or other

7:46 ↗ things you would rather we rearrange and

7:48 ↗ reprioritize

7:50 ↗ and four

7:52 ↗ does the city council agree with the

7:53 ↗ additional task force recommendation to

7:55 ↗ explore

7:57 ↗ more red light and or speed zone cameras

7:59 ↗ within the city and if you do then we're

8:01 ↗ going to have to uh you know place that

8:03 ↗ on a timeline for when we would take a

8:05 ↗ look at that and put that into our

8:06 ↗ workplace

8:08 ↗ so that's really the four areas that

8:10 ↗ we're hoping to get feedback from you

8:12 ↗ all to this evening but of course we

8:14 ↗ welcome any other feedback that you have

8:16 ↗ on the report

8:18 ↗ next slide please

8:22 ↗ so

8:23 ↗ since the recommendations report was

8:25 ↗ included in your packet and you had a

8:27 ↗ pretty extensive presentation on that

8:29 ↗ last week the background this evening is

8:31 ↗ very brief i just wanted to show you

8:33 ↗ this slide which kind of summarizes uh

8:36 ↗ the task force consideration so in

8:38 ↗ addition to transportation being the

8:39 ↗ number one priority they have the

8:41 ↗ following recommendations regarding

8:43 ↗ revenue tools and time frames and so um

8:47 ↗ short term that's in the zero to three

8:48 ↗ years they recommended looking at the

8:51 ↗ ending fund balance noting that

8:52 ↗ sometimes it's even greater than what

8:54 ↗ the council policy would suggest of 20

8:56 ↗ percent so maybe we should spend that

8:58 ↗ down to something closer to 15

9:02 ↗ and use that

9:04 ↗ extra investment towards capital uh

9:06 ↗ projects also they recommended 9 million

9:10 ↗ out of the 11 million that the city was

9:13 ↗ provided through the

9:14 ↗ american recovery plan act that we use

9:18 ↗ that 9 million towards infrastructure

9:20 ↗ and as you may recall we really only

9:22 ↗ have two years to send that down

9:25 ↗ for the federal guidelines

9:28 ↗ and so the task force recommended with

9:30 ↗ these two areas of funding really it

9:32 ↗ could be a mix of projects across

9:33 ↗ categories per council direction and so

9:36 ↗ they didn't have any more specific

9:37 ↗ guidance on those things just that they

9:39 ↗ really wanted to

9:40 ↗ the city to address this in the

9:43 ↗ immediate future

9:44 ↗ medium term those tools in that four to

9:47 ↗ six years they are recommending the city

9:50 ↗ examine

9:51 ↗ levee lid lifts and

9:54 ↗ transportation benefit district sales

9:56 ↗ tax

9:57 ↗ with the purpose of funding primarily

10:00 ↗ transportation projects but possibly

10:02 ↗ other needs as big as they may fit in

10:05 ↗ with these tools and the city priorities

10:09 ↗ and then in the long term the

10:12 ↗ task force recommended that six to nine

10:14 ↗ year period uh that the city explore a

10:17 ↗ metropolitan parks district

10:19 ↗ and that of course the metropolitan

10:21 ↗ parks district would be used primarily

10:23 ↗ to support parks and trails

10:25 ↗ in capital projects

10:27 ↗ and possibly

10:29 ↗ also some of the operating needs as well

10:31 ↗ and that would be something that we

10:32 ↗ would need to look into a lot more

10:35 ↗ that's a summary of what the

10:38 ↗ revenue tools are as we're recommended

10:39 ↗ by the task force and also the timeline

10:42 ↗ of of things they recommend

10:44 ↗ next slide please

10:48 ↗ great thank you

10:49 ↗ so

10:50 ↗ this uh implementation plan or

10:53 ↗ implementation proposal uh as i said

10:55 ↗ earlier um

10:57 ↗ would really focus on those short medium

11:00 ↗ and long term actions with

11:02 ↗ detail in that short term

11:04 ↗ and then more of a high level work plan

11:07 ↗ and timeline for those medium and long

11:08 ↗ term actions

11:11 ↗ and we would the administration would

11:13 ↗ return to council

11:15 ↗ the committee of the whole or a study

11:16 ↗ session i know that's a little bit

11:18 ↗ influx right now

11:19 ↗ with that implementation proposal to

11:21 ↗ discuss further

11:23 ↗ next slide please

11:31 ↗ so options for you this evening we

11:33 ↗ really just want to get that feedback

11:35 ↗ also

11:37 ↗ if you prefer that we do not return to

11:39 ↗ a committee of the whole

11:41 ↗ or a study session

11:43 ↗ in may you may

11:45 ↗ you know if you'd rather we

11:47 ↗ go to a council committee that's newly

11:49 ↗ formed like mobility infrastructure we

11:51 ↗ can do that with the implementation plan

11:53 ↗ and always of course there's the option

11:55 ↗ of no action on the recommendations if

11:57 ↗ that's what you choose or if you think

11:58 ↗ we should explore this a little bit more

12:01 ↗ there's some additional options for you

12:02 ↗ this evening

12:04 ↗ but really we're hoping first to get

12:05 ↗ that

12:06 ↗ direction and guidance on the report

12:08 ↗ itself so next slide this is where

12:10 ↗ you're

12:12 ↗ at

12:13 ↗ i'm sorry excuse me the

12:14 ↗ administration recommends that we

12:17 ↗ return to the committee of the whole

12:19 ↗ with that implementation proposal

12:21 ↗ hopefully to do that in may next slide

12:26 ↗ um

12:27 ↗ and so again in may is when we will take

12:29 ↗ all the feedback we heard from you this

12:31 ↗ evening and use that to create that

12:34 ↗ proposal

12:36 ↗ so lots more opportunity to discuss

12:38 ↗ what this would look like for the city

12:40 ↗ next slide

12:43 ↗ um so here's those four questions again

12:46 ↗ and

12:47 ↗ if it's helpful we can keep this up

12:49 ↗ for you to look at and help provide

12:52 ↗ answers

12:54 ↗ any questions

13:01 ↗ any questions from the city council

13:06 ↗ okay per our normal um

13:09 ↗ operating procedure we'll do

13:11 ↗ questions from council members and we'll

13:13 ↗ see if there's any public comment after

13:14 ↗ the presentation

13:16 ↗ um council comments

13:18 ↗ and then um

13:20 ↗ i've asked uh

13:22 ↗ deputy city administrator snyder to

13:25 ↗ summarize

13:27 ↗ our discussion so that we're clear and

13:30 ↗ make sure that everything was captured

13:32 ↗ that each of us contributed to the

13:34 ↗ conversation

13:35 ↗ so i'll call for questions

13:37 ↗ an additional time just in case

13:40 ↗ all right saying none uh we'll move on

13:43 ↗ to public comments

13:48 ↗ deputy clerk

13:50 ↗ grabowski are there any uh people signed

13:52 ↗ up or raising their hand for public

13:54 ↗ comment at this time

13:56 ↗ council member joe i do not see any

13:57 ↗ virtual hands raised

14:00 ↗ okay

14:01 ↗ so again as a reminder written comments

14:03 ↗ will be submitted at any time to city

14:05 ↗ council at issaquah.gov

14:08 ↗ okay we'll move on to council comments

14:11 ↗ for our discussion this evening the

14:13 ↗ administration has set out uh four

14:15 ↗ different questions for us

14:19 ↗ to consider as we as we go forward

14:22 ↗ what i think i'd like to do is

14:25 ↗ open up for comments and then

14:27 ↗ we'll pull each one of you at the end to

14:29 ↗ answer all four of the questions

14:31 ↗ in a short summary

14:34 ↗ does that sound all right

14:36 ↗ okay does anyone have any comments for

14:38 ↗ discussion

14:40 ↗ on the plan this evening

14:48 ↗ councilmember martz

14:50 ↗ uh

14:51 ↗ thank you council council member joe uh

14:54 ↗ i i turned my eye to the first question

14:58 ↗ does city council agree with the task

15:00 ↗ force that the city should focus on

15:01 ↗ transportation is the number one

15:03 ↗ priority for capital investment and it

15:05 ↗ raises a question that i had

15:09 ↗ when i was on the task force which is um

15:14 ↗ you know we very purposefully chose to

15:16 ↗ discuss

15:17 ↗ uh

15:18 ↗ the funding side of things and not

15:21 ↗ discuss

15:22 ↗ uh what this the spending side of things

15:25 ↗ and

15:27 ↗ i find myself unable to answer question

15:30 ↗ one until i have an idea of what the

15:33 ↗ options would be transportation-wise if

15:35 ↗ all of the

15:36 ↗ uh

15:37 ↗ if all of the challenges that we have

15:39 ↗ for transportation require 100 million

15:42 ↗ dollar packages

15:44 ↗ then i don't think there's much value in

15:46 ↗ us focusing on transportation because

15:47 ↗ we're not going to write any 100 million

15:48 ↗ dollar checks so i don't really know how

15:50 ↗ to get past this except to say that part

15:54 ↗ of what we have to do this evening is

15:56 ↗ talk about if we're going to ask the

15:57 ↗ administration to come back with a

15:58 ↗ proposal in may

16:00 ↗ what that proposal includes

16:02 ↗ and i think that proposal needs to

16:04 ↗ include the mechanism whereby we

16:07 ↗ identify

16:08 ↗ now that we've said

16:10 ↗ uh

16:12 ↗ broadly speaking the buckets of

16:14 ↗ community interest and i think the task

16:16 ↗ force did a good job at that

16:18 ↗ we need to now

16:19 ↗ have some triaging of the capital uh

16:24 ↗ improvement plan and say

16:26 ↗ what transportation you know what

16:28 ↗ packages under the transportation

16:31 ↗ elements of the capital improvement plan

16:34 ↗ are

16:35 ↗ in our wheelhouse right and um until we

16:39 ↗ do that i mean i the community has

16:41 ↗ raised the question of are these

16:43 ↗ transportation problems solvable at our

16:45 ↗ at our budget level right like we're not

16:47 ↗ going to widen 18.

16:49 ↗ um

16:50 ↗ we're not going to build a road from

16:52 ↗ black diamond you know west to

16:55 ↗ allow their their citizens to not have

16:57 ↗ to come up issaqua hobart road so so

16:59 ↗ that's my concern with this whole

17:01 ↗ activity this evening there's a really

17:03 ↗ essential element which is what are

17:07 ↗ you know what can what what can we

17:08 ↗ actually do in the areas that are

17:11 ↗ prioritized coming out of the capital

17:13 ↗ the capital task force thank you

17:17 ↗ thank you councilmember martz

17:19 ↗ councilmember today michelle

17:21 ↗ and following up on councilmember mark's

17:23 ↗ comments i we received

17:26 ↗ uh two really

17:27 ↗ thoughtful emails and the additional

17:30 ↗ question was raised

17:32 ↗ are we confined to the capital

17:34 ↗ improvement projects list and it appears

17:37 ↗ from

17:38 ↗ the recommendations we received that

17:40 ↗ that was the parameters that the task

17:42 ↗ force followed

17:44 ↗ but the question is does the council

17:46 ↗ need to follow that as parameters or

17:49 ↗ should we be looking outside of the

17:51 ↗ capital improvement projects list so

17:53 ↗ i'll just add that as part of that

17:56 ↗ question that council member marks

17:58 ↗ outlined very well

18:04 ↗ we'll go to council member hunt

18:07 ↗ thank you councilmember joe

18:09 ↗ so

18:10 ↗ i had a concern also that is about the

18:16 ↗ project level um and i know that the

18:19 ↗ task force was tasked with staying above

18:22 ↗ the project level and i i can relate to

18:24 ↗ that having been a challenge because i

18:27 ↗ immediately also go to project level but

18:30 ↗ one of my concerns about the short term

18:32 ↗ and the spending of the this one-time

18:34 ↗ funding that we have

18:36 ↗ with with the arpa funding in particular

18:39 ↗ is that it is a one-time funding

18:42 ↗ mechanism and i think we can very easily

18:45 ↗ set ourselves up for long-term

18:46 ↗ maintenance costs that we then have more

18:50 ↗ maintenance needs that

18:53 ↗ that aren't accounted for with that one

18:54 ↗ time which we do have to spend

18:56 ↗ the other concern i have is around

18:58 ↗ induced demand which is where

19:01 ↗ supply of something increases and the

19:03 ↗ price declines then the demand for that

19:05 ↗ will rise and that's

19:07 ↗ fairly well documented with

19:09 ↗ with

19:10 ↗ highway expansion or with

19:12 ↗ adding lanes for example that

19:15 ↗ for a short period of time it can reduce

19:17 ↗ congestion and then in the longer term

19:18 ↗ it can impact be the faster way to get

19:21 ↗ somewhere so more cars will use that

19:23 ↗ lane and it can

19:24 ↗ exacerbate the problem and then you have

19:26 ↗ more maintenance costs for that lane

19:28 ↗ so i think that it really does depend on

19:31 ↗ the the projects especially those

19:33 ↗ near-term that we

19:34 ↗ have the ability and the plan to

19:37 ↗ maintain

19:38 ↗ those those projects

19:42 ↗ i was thinking that

19:43 ↗ we should then use the transportation

19:47 ↗ improvement

19:48 ↗ project list with the master mobility

19:51 ↗ list and align those that are

19:53 ↗ long-standing

19:54 ↗ projects that we have from those lists

19:56 ↗ that we haven't been able to find in

19:58 ↗ other mechanisms um

20:00 ↗ such as projects in established

20:02 ↗ neighborhoods that haven't been able to

20:04 ↗ be funded with other projects and not

20:06 ↗ eligible for other grants i think that

20:09 ↗ potentially also helps with

20:11 ↗ uh you know if they've been

20:12 ↗ long-standing then they probably also

20:14 ↗ would have the the need would be

20:16 ↗ established in the community which i

20:17 ↗ think would be important on the

20:19 ↗ engagement side

20:22 ↗ so i those are those are some of my

20:24 ↗ concerns with the the just saying yes on

20:27 ↗ the first one i think it really

20:30 ↗ the devil is in the details and i think

20:32 ↗ we will need to work through those

20:34 ↗ details to answer the first question

20:38 ↗ deputy council president hall

20:43 ↗ oh thank you very much

20:45 ↗ councilmember hall here

20:47 ↗ to answer the first question

20:49 ↗ i think i'll probably reiterate

20:51 ↗ a little bit of what's been said but i

20:53 ↗ wrote down some of my thoughts as i was

20:55 ↗ thinking over the weekend so apologies

20:56 ↗ for reading

20:58 ↗ um

20:58 ↗ but yes to the first question i think

21:00 ↗ there's an opportunity for us to get a

21:02 ↗ little deeper than that though so we've

21:04 ↗ received some community input on this

21:05 ↗ recommendation in particular and i think

21:08 ↗ they're on to something kind of

21:09 ↗ important um

21:11 ↗ you know as a former task force member i

21:13 ↗ recognize and acknowledge that we were

21:15 ↗ charged with you know recommending

21:17 ↗ funding solutions for our unfunded

21:19 ↗ infrastructure needs and that meant

21:20 ↗ considering each cip bucket as a fixed

21:23 ↗ list of projects and of course this as

21:26 ↗ you've heard tonight made it

21:28 ↗ difficult to have a more comprehensive

21:30 ↗ discussion about our unfunded

21:31 ↗ transportation infrastructure needs in

21:34 ↗ general

21:35 ↗ but now that these recommendations have

21:37 ↗ come to the city council it i do think

21:39 ↗ that this is the good forum to have that

21:41 ↗ more comprehensive discussion um you

21:44 ↗ know some of the questions that i've

21:45 ↗ been noodling on are you know if we were

21:47 ↗ able to snap our fingers and complete

21:49 ↗ every transportation project currently

21:51 ↗ listed in the cip

21:52 ↗ would that move the needle

21:54 ↗ should this even be about moving the

21:56 ↗ needle you know we certainly weren't

21:57 ↗ thinking about that from a task force

21:58 ↗ level how do we define moving the needle

22:01 ↗ you know and by all that we mean does

22:04 ↗ our cip list of transportation projects

22:07 ↗ meet our desired outcomes for ease of

22:09 ↗ mobility around town in the new

22:11 ↗ direction that we've set forth in the

22:12 ↗ master mobility plan or the mobility

22:14 ↗ master plan

22:16 ↗ and so because of this i think it would

22:17 ↗ be helpful first to understand what the

22:20 ↗ administration thinks of this feedback

22:22 ↗ the community input we've received

22:25 ↗ like we said the task force was solely

22:26 ↗ focused on cip projects so if we

22:28 ↗ consider changing that scope to better

22:31 ↗ um

22:32 ↗ align and better meet our desired

22:34 ↗ outcomes what would that necessarily

22:36 ↗ mean for next steps for implement this

22:39 ↗ implementation plan that's in drafting

22:41 ↗ stage um and i'm i'm not sure what the

22:44 ↗ obvious next step is here and so perhaps

22:46 ↗ if other

22:47 ↗ council members are thinking similarly

22:48 ↗ and it sounds like some of us are the

22:50 ↗ administration could take this as

22:52 ↗ feedback

22:53 ↗ as a direction to consider those

22:55 ↗ questions and return with the

22:56 ↗ recommendation on next steps and maybe

22:58 ↗ that next step is tab discussion or a

23:01 ↗ transportation advisory board discussion

23:03 ↗ maybe that's another study session the

23:05 ↗ session

23:06 ↗ maybe that's just sticking with the

23:07 ↗ original scope of the task force or or

23:10 ↗ maybe you know maybe we really are

23:11 ↗ putting the carpet for the horse here

23:13 ↗ but anyways i just wanted to throw that

23:14 ↗ out there and um be curious to see what

23:16 ↗ the rest of you think and councilmember

23:18 ↗ joe we're waiting on answering the other

23:20 ↗ questions first is that correct

23:24 ↗ yes right now we're just having a

23:25 ↗ general discussion and then i'll pull

23:27 ↗ everybody to see where they end up on

23:30 ↗ all four of the questions okay thanks

23:33 ↗ council president walsh

23:36 ↗ thank you and we'll get to you guys

23:41 ↗ not a problem you're down you're down

23:43 ↗ the edge so you yeah

23:46 ↗ so

23:47 ↗ i think

23:48 ↗ as i'm thinking about this i also

23:51 ↗ struggled with the concept of thinking

23:53 ↗ about transportation as a

23:55 ↗ bucket as a whole

23:57 ↗ and

23:58 ↗ my problem with it

24:00 ↗ comes down to

24:02 ↗ a few things the first being that

24:05 ↗ i think the community

24:09 ↗ when they're

24:10 ↗ addressing transportation and their

24:12 ↗ biggest pain points there it's

24:14 ↗ congestion

24:15 ↗ and

24:16 ↗ that's a regional problem that's not

24:19 ↗ something that we as a city can snap our

24:22 ↗ fingers and solve

24:24 ↗ and

24:26 ↗ in my mind that's one of the reasons why

24:29 ↗ the previous transportation levy failed

24:32 ↗ because

24:33 ↗ it wasn't

24:35 ↗ set out with projects that address

24:39 ↗ transportation congestion it was

24:42 ↗ many safety projects many projects

24:45 ↗ sprinkled around the area and so

24:47 ↗ one of the problems that i face in

24:50 ↗ trying to

24:52 ↗ answer question number one

24:55 ↗ is

24:57 ↗ i think

25:00 ↗ in some cases when i'm looking at it i'm

25:03 ↗ going i don't think we have a project

25:05 ↗ package

25:06 ↗ that

25:07 ↗ to me justifies

25:10 ↗ a

25:12 ↗ tbd transportation levy anything like

25:14 ↗ that

25:16 ↗ and

25:17 ↗ so i have a hard time then looking back

25:20 ↗ at the list of recommendations and

25:22 ↗ saying yes transportation should be at

25:24 ↗ the top i think from my perspective i'd

25:27 ↗ really like

25:29 ↗ to

25:30 ↗ evaluate the funding methods

25:33 ↗ and figure out which one of those we

25:36 ↗ think are viable

25:38 ↗ provide the funding that we need and

25:42 ↗ then

25:43 ↗ go back and say and how does

25:46 ↗ that funding method determine the size

25:49 ↗ and scope of the buckets that we can

25:51 ↗ fund

25:53 ↗ and so

25:54 ↗ my my thought process as much as i agree

25:57 ↗ that transportation is super uber

25:59 ↗ important

26:00 ↗ i want to break it down into multiple

26:02 ↗ sub buckets as was presented to us in an

26:05 ↗ email

26:06 ↗ um and then i want to figure out which

26:09 ↗ funding method

26:11 ↗ is going to enable us to address some of

26:14 ↗ those sub buckets

26:19 ↗ thank you council president walsh

26:21 ↗ council member ray

26:23 ↗ hello thank you thank you councilmember

26:25 ↗ joe

26:26 ↗ i've got a little bit different

26:28 ↗ perspective on the transportation

26:31 ↗ question

26:32 ↗ and i think it was super important to

26:34 ↗ solicit the community feedback and to

26:36 ↗ hear from the community

26:38 ↗ i also

26:40 ↗ think of transportation as a bit tricky

26:42 ↗ to define because as council president

26:44 ↗ wall street is talking about is it

26:46 ↗ congestion is it safety is it intercity

26:48 ↗ mobility is it multimodal

26:50 ↗ and and i'm also um

26:53 ↗ very much um struck by what

26:54 ↗ councilmember hunt said about we're not

26:56 ↗ going to build our way out of traffic

26:57 ↗ problems if we build more capacity they

27:00 ↗ will come so we if we get any relief by

27:02 ↗ building additional capacity it will be

27:05 ↗ transient and we'll have to maintain it

27:08 ↗ in the long run i think the value in

27:11 ↗ this exercise that we went through may

27:13 ↗ not be in saying we're going to focus on

27:15 ↗ transportation but is to help us

27:17 ↗ prioritize what the community thinks are

27:19 ↗ the most

27:20 ↗ viable

27:22 ↗ methods for funding the cip i i believe

27:25 ↗ this all starts with the cip and the

27:27 ↗ transportation improvement plan as the

27:30 ↗ prime mover and that any funding needs

27:32 ↗ to be

27:33 ↗ more to and related to

27:36 ↗ what things on the cip and the

27:37 ↗ transportation improvement plan we think

27:40 ↗ are most important to do

27:42 ↗ and what we got out of this which i

27:44 ↗ think is like extremely valuable is a

27:46 ↗ prioritization of here's the tools you

27:49 ↗ can use going forward so a little

27:50 ↗ different bend it's like let's not say

27:53 ↗ what the answer is right now let's

27:54 ↗ recognize we got some great input as we

27:56 ↗ go into our next capital planning

27:58 ↗ process we've got those in our hip

28:00 ↗ pocket

28:02 ↗ thank you

28:04 ↗ councilmember martz i'm going to go

28:05 ↗ ahead and make my comments and then

28:07 ↗ we'll go ahead and

28:08 ↗ start the second round up for discussion

28:10 ↗ thank you

28:12 ↗ transportation is always a chicken and

28:13 ↗ egg proposition how much money do we

28:16 ↗ have and what projects do we want to

28:17 ↗ complete which one comes first

28:20 ↗ from my point of view

28:22 ↗ we almost need to kind of look at

28:24 ↗ question number two first and decide

28:27 ↗ how much we want to budget for this how

28:29 ↗ much do we want to tax

28:32 ↗ or or obligate our citizens or people

28:34 ↗ who are coming through town for

28:36 ↗ transportation and then from that bucket

28:38 ↗ that we choose

28:40 ↗ it seems to me that we would have you

28:42 ↗ know a gross amount that we could then

28:45 ↗ look at the cip with the administration

28:48 ↗ and look at the transportation

28:49 ↗ improvement plan with the administration

28:51 ↗ prioritize the ones we think we can pay

28:53 ↗ for and get done that will have the most

28:55 ↗ impact on the priorities that we're

28:57 ↗ talking about today for some people it

28:58 ↗ is safety for for kids going to school

29:01 ↗ for other people it's it's i want to be

29:03 ↗ able to get through town as quick as

29:05 ↗ possible to get to costco without having

29:06 ↗ to stop at 17 different lights for

29:08 ↗ instance so if we if we can get um

29:13 ↗ the

29:14 ↗ quote-unquote budget or the amount of

29:15 ↗ funding that we have first and then work

29:17 ↗ with the administration and look at

29:19 ↗ which projects can we complete in the

29:20 ↗ timelines that are there

29:22 ↗ and

29:23 ↗ and come to an agreement those are the

29:24 ↗ ones we want to pursue

29:27 ↗ because we have an agreement between all

29:28 ↗ seven of us to go forward with those it

29:30 ↗ seems to me that that would be a

29:32 ↗ sensible way to to go forward building

29:34 ↗ on council president walsh's comments

29:37 ↗ earlier so those are my thoughts

29:39 ↗ initially councilman remarks

29:42 ↗ thank you councilmember joe just want to

29:44 ↗ add a couple more thoughts

29:46 ↗ one is that

29:50 ↗ that

29:52 ↗ one of the ways to think about

29:54 ↗ uh

29:56 ↗ improvements to an organization is to do

29:58 ↗ a four square where you have cost on one

30:00 ↗ side and you have impact on the other

30:02 ↗ right

30:03 ↗ you want to do the things that have huge

30:05 ↗ impact and small cost first and then

30:08 ↗ it's sort of a fight between big cost

30:10 ↗ big impact small cost small impact and

30:12 ↗ then you never want to do the things

30:13 ↗ that cost a lot and have a small impact

30:15 ↗ right

30:16 ↗ so

30:17 ↗ this is

30:18 ↗ it's hard to have much of a conversation

30:20 ↗ about anything related to transportation

30:23 ↗ without having at least to pick a sub

30:25 ↗ bucket of transportation uh congestion

30:28 ↗ right and to understand the map of the

30:31 ↗ central isquad plan uh in a foursquare

30:33 ↗ system like that and and i mention this

30:35 ↗ because

30:36 ↗ it gets at the other

30:38 ↗ uh

30:39 ↗ thing that you alluded to which is

30:41 ↗ funding tools and the thing we're

30:42 ↗ talking about short term medium and long

30:44 ↗ term right because

30:46 ↗ you can do short term things that have a

30:49 ↗ bunch of impact and have small cost and

30:51 ↗ then you can potentially stretch to do

30:53 ↗ the big things that have a big cost

30:55 ↗ right so 10th avenue over crossing right

30:57 ↗ if we

30:58 ↗ if if the administration went out and

31:01 ↗ found out from the public that the

31:02 ↗ public felt that a 10th avenue over

31:04 ↗ crossing would have a big impact

31:07 ↗ and or cross that with our

31:09 ↗ transportation experts running models

31:11 ↗ and saying in 10th avenue over crossing

31:12 ↗ would have a big impact and if somebody

31:14 ↗ said but it costs 20 million dollars

31:16 ↗ from the city it's going to cost

31:19 ↗ 100 million dollars in the state and 20

31:20 ↗ million dollars from the city you know

31:23 ↗ we would think about digging into our

31:24 ↗ pockets

31:26 ↗ to figure to find 20 million dollars we

31:28 ↗ have

31:29 ↗ can't afford it but we have 160 million

31:31 ↗ dollars in councilmanic bonding

31:32 ↗ authority um so we would we would figure

31:34 ↗ it out right if if the public said it

31:36 ↗ was important and our transportation

31:37 ↗ people said it was important and um and

31:40 ↗ we understood what it cost we wouldn't

31:42 ↗ spend 20 million dollars to pave the

31:44 ↗ sidewalks on sunset right which was one

31:46 ↗ of the things that was in the last bond

31:48 ↗ which i loved because my kids would ride

31:50 ↗ their bikes over

31:51 ↗ um

31:52 ↗ to the highlands but turns out not to

31:54 ↗ have had would not have had much of an

31:56 ↗ impact on congestion so

31:58 ↗ again i come back to this issue of

32:00 ↗ understanding the landscape of what's

32:02 ↗ out there when i say moving the needle

32:04 ↗ it's right to ask which needle and

32:06 ↗ right is it congestion what what are the

32:08 ↗ other markers of transportation that are

32:10 ↗ important but i just feel like coming

32:12 ↗ circling back around chris gave a

32:14 ↗ masterful strategic level view but from

32:15 ↗ my tactical level you know what we see

32:18 ↗ in may i would just love to see a four

32:20 ↗ square of like here's the here's the

32:22 ↗ constellation of transportation options

32:24 ↗ we have in front of us we should do

32:25 ↗ these things in the low-cost high-impact

32:28 ↗ corner we should do those things right

32:29 ↗ away then we can argue about the stuff

32:31 ↗ that's high cost high impact but and

32:33 ↗ tying it back to the funding mechanisms

32:36 ↗ that we that the capital

32:38 ↗ finance committee

32:40 ↗ recommended to us and doing small things

32:42 ↗ with with short-term money and big

32:44 ↗ things with long-term money thank you

32:48 ↗ okay

32:50 ↗ any other initial comments on

32:53 ↗ the proposal

32:55 ↗ before us

32:56 ↗ i think i'll look to

33:01 ↗ deputy council administrator snyder if

33:04 ↗ you'd like to comment on

33:06 ↗ any of the

33:07 ↗ questions or comments that have come

33:09 ↗ from the council i'll also let city

33:11 ↗ administrator bob bobquitz

33:13 ↗ chime in if you'd like to as well

33:17 ↗ thank you councilmember joe so just

33:19 ↗ reiterating the feedback that i heard

33:22 ↗ from council

33:25 ↗ i heard that

33:29 ↗ that there is a desire to kind of break

33:32 ↗ apart

33:33 ↗ that transportation category because it

33:35 ↗ is such a large

33:37 ↗ bucket and to take a look at sub buckets

33:40 ↗ and what might be possible within those

33:42 ↗ sub buckets in terms of having an impact

33:44 ↗ i also heard the desire to

33:47 ↗ take a look at the

33:51 ↗ funding tools financial tools so we have

33:53 ↗ an idea of what that budget could be

33:56 ↗ and then that would help us pick

33:59 ↗ pick projects and pick what a package

34:01 ↗ might look like

34:04 ↗ and

34:05 ↗ also heard that the feedback was

34:07 ↗ generally useful to guide for their

34:09 ↗ decision making on ciptip projects

34:12 ↗ and a desire with our short-term funds

34:15 ↗ not to

34:16 ↗ create a lot of long-term maintenance

34:19 ↗ issues so

34:20 ↗ i'm thinking of that as we look at arpa

34:23 ↗ and other short-term

34:24 ↗ one-time

34:26 ↗ revenues

34:28 ↗ that's what i heard did i miss anything

34:30 ↗ or mischaracterize anything

34:34 ↗ uh that sounds

34:36 ↗ like we caught everything oh councilman

34:38 ↗ remarts

34:41 ↗ the the bit that i want to reiterate is

34:44 ↗ the work in front of us to get

34:46 ↗ community feedback on

34:50 ↗ the

34:51 ↗ benefits of various options in front of

34:53 ↗ us i want to make it super clear there's

34:55 ↗ been a great community engagement on the

34:57 ↗ capital task force so far and it

34:59 ↗ produced good work but there is a

35:01 ↗ equally large or larger i think

35:03 ↗ community engagement effort and it may

35:05 ↗ need to occur before that may report

35:08 ↗ back to council to get a sense of what

35:11 ↗ the community considers important and

35:13 ↗ it's got to be tempered with what our

35:14 ↗ experts consider important but that's

35:15 ↗ that's the piece when you read back what

35:17 ↗ the feedback was to to me it's

35:19 ↗ the the large important community

35:22 ↗ engagement effort thank you

35:24 ↗ thank you councilman martz uh

35:26 ↗ councilmember d michelle okay and then

35:28 ↗ councilman thank you i i'm actually

35:32 ↗ following up on uh councilman remarks uh

35:35 ↗ remarks about uh the mechanisms we're

35:38 ↗ we're looking at

35:39 ↗ the second question is there

35:41 ↗ any funding tools that we don't want and

35:45 ↗ my point of view is that there's one

35:46 ↗ that we should put on so

35:49 ↗ i think we're making a big mistake by

35:51 ↗ not keeping the option open for a voter

35:54 ↗ proof bond as as opposed to councilman

35:57 ↗ manic bonds

36:00 ↗ i think that

36:03 ↗ well i have a real heartburn around

36:06 ↗ sales tax

36:07 ↗ just just to be very open about it and a

36:10 ↗ bond a voter approved bond is a more

36:13 ↗ progressive instrument

36:15 ↗ uh it spreads the pain over a longer

36:17 ↗ period of time

36:19 ↗ we would be able to go out for a larger

36:21 ↗ amount of money because of that

36:23 ↗ and it lends itself to implementing a

36:25 ↗ comprehensive plan because you can

36:26 ↗ include

36:28 ↗ a number of

36:30 ↗ projects on it and i know that the egg

36:33 ↗ store i heard the angst

36:35 ↗ in the

36:36 ↗ task force was the 60

36:38 ↗ threshold

36:40 ↗ and that issaquah has a poor history of

36:43 ↗ supporting bonds which i find a little

36:46 ↗ difficult to believe because we

36:48 ↗ continuously pass huge bonds from the

36:51 ↗ school district

36:52 ↗ and we've also passed huge bonds from

36:54 ↗ the park district and so

36:56 ↗ i feel like we're missing a big

36:58 ↗ opportunity not that that might end up

37:01 ↗ being our choice in the end but while

37:04 ↗ we're going forward and looking at the

37:06 ↗ options we have i would really like to

37:08 ↗ see that as part of the mix so that we

37:11 ↗ can compare

37:13 ↗ going with a voter proof bond with the

37:18 ↗ sales tax the tbd sales tax and with the

37:21 ↗ levy lift

37:22 ↗ and look at how each one of those would

37:24 ↗ play out and i would really like to see

37:26 ↗ that as a third option for mechanisms

37:29 ↗ because very frankly the sales tax is so

37:32 ↗ so difficult for me to swallow that that

37:35 ↗ leaves me with just the levee lift to

37:36 ↗ look at and and

37:38 ↗ as i understand that the levee lifts can

37:40 ↗ only be a six-year

37:43 ↗ mechanism where as a bond has a much

37:45 ↗ longer

37:46 ↗ uh period so i would urge us to put

37:48 ↗ something back on the table

37:50 ↗ so that we have a little bit more

37:52 ↗ choices there and can at least weigh the

37:54 ↗ differences between those

37:56 ↗ so and and alluding again to like

38:00 ↗ councilmember mars i'm sorry

38:01 ↗ councilmember martz i keep

38:04 ↗ keep repeating your comments tonight but

38:06 ↗ he was talking about the robust

38:08 ↗ community engagement and actually

38:10 ↗ i know that the 60 threshold is scary

38:14 ↗ but

38:15 ↗ the community engagement part of it is a

38:17 ↗ really good thing for our community

38:19 ↗ because people get involved

38:21 ↗ they have to either buy in or not buy in

38:23 ↗ and they give us the

38:24 ↗ their feedback on the elements of the

38:27 ↗ bond that are there and

38:29 ↗ i think that

38:31 ↗ having to go out and do that robust

38:33 ↗ community engagement process is a really

38:36 ↗ good reason for

38:38 ↗ putting that mechanism back on the table

38:40 ↗ so i would like to see us do that

38:42 ↗ thank you

38:43 ↗ thank you councilman d michelle

38:45 ↗ councilmember hunt

38:48 ↗ um thank you are we are we moving on to

38:51 ↗ the second question or it sounds like we

38:53 ↗ are okay that's fantastic it's it's

38:55 ↗ great that we're moving forward

38:57 ↗ councilmember joe

38:59 ↗ before we go to the second one i just

39:00 ↗ wanted to

39:02 ↗ make a couple comments first and

39:03 ↗ foremost

39:04 ↗ the plan we would bring back in may

39:07 ↗ would not be a one-step plan it's going

39:09 ↗ to be a multi-step plan so the issues

39:11 ↗ raised regarding

39:12 ↗ community engagement sorry um

39:15 ↗ you know i think we might have plans for

39:17 ↗ future plans for community engagement

39:19 ↗ but i don't want anyone to think that

39:20 ↗ we're going to come back and say okay

39:22 ↗ this is what we're going to do we're

39:23 ↗ going to have this on a bond and this on

39:25 ↗ a tax and

39:26 ↗ council just raise your hand and say aye

39:28 ↗ i mean that's not

39:30 ↗ i don't want to leave anyone with that

39:31 ↗ kind of feeling but we wanted to get the

39:32 ↗ feedback that you're providing this

39:34 ↗ evening and thank you so far so much for

39:36 ↗ the feedback thus far

39:38 ↗ but what you'll see in may really will

39:40 ↗ be next steps it will not be a complete

39:43 ↗ a to z plan i don't want anyone to think

39:45 ↗ that that's what the mayor's planning

39:48 ↗ thank you

39:49 ↗ [Music]

39:50 ↗ councilmember hunt

39:52 ↗ um thank you well i missed the uh

39:56 ↗ opportunity but i did want to add one

39:58 ↗ thing for the first question to our

40:01 ↗ conversation which is i think that it

40:04 ↗ would be very helpful we have the master

40:06 ↗ mobility plan the cip

40:09 ↗ or the tip within the cip and then we

40:11 ↗ also have the climate action plan which

40:14 ↗ references the master mobility plan

40:16 ↗ and i think it would be

40:18 ↗ extremely helpful to this conversation

40:21 ↗ and to

40:22 ↗ the commissions that would be

40:25 ↗ involved with helping us

40:28 ↗ create a plan here to prior to align

40:31 ↗ those plans and maybe prioritize them

40:34 ↗ differently based on for example safety

40:36 ↗ or if you wanted to

40:38 ↗ prioritize based on

40:40 ↗ multimodal or

40:42 ↗ congestion for example and i think i

40:45 ↗ think having that framework and having

40:47 ↗ those plans aligned would be very

40:51 ↗ helpful and i also think we have an

40:52 ↗ opportunity to

40:54 ↗ use the

40:55 ↗ newly created council commission

40:58 ↗ which will

40:59 ↗ be online shortly that will look at

41:02 ↗ infrastructure to also look at aligning

41:05 ↗ those plans because a lot of engagement

41:07 ↗ has gone into

41:08 ↗ all of those

41:09 ↗ plans and

41:11 ↗ i think one step that could then help us

41:13 ↗ get to that next community engagement

41:15 ↗ phase would be to prioritize them and

41:17 ↗ align them and then use that as the

41:19 ↗ basis for going out

41:21 ↗ for further community engagement which i

41:23 ↗ agree will be super important no matter

41:25 ↗ what funding mechanism we go forward

41:27 ↗ with

41:28 ↗ um and then on the funding

41:30 ↗ question the question at hand

41:33 ↗ i i think

41:35 ↗ considering a bond would be smart to

41:38 ↗ consider

41:40 ↗ i'm generally interested in at the very

41:42 ↗ least considering less regressive

41:46 ↗ funding options so i i think we should

41:49 ↗ consider it and um i'm i'm definitely

41:53 ↗ weighing that in my consideration um

41:55 ↗ especially for equity perspective when

41:57 ↗ we look at the other options that are

41:59 ↗ possible so i think we should consider

42:01 ↗ the options that were recommended by the

42:03 ↗ task force and i agree with

42:06 ↗ my fellow councilmember day michelle

42:08 ↗ that we should consider the bond thank

42:09 ↗ you

42:11 ↗ thank you councilmember hunt

42:13 ↗ deputy council president hall

42:17 ↗ thank you real quick on question two

42:19 ↗ then um i do think that all of these

42:22 ↗ funding tools are definitely worth

42:23 ↗ exploring i'm

42:25 ↗ not sure why we wouldn't explore them in

42:27 ↗ the very least i appreciate

42:29 ↗ councilmember d michelle's comments too

42:31 ↗ on voter approved bonds just to play

42:33 ↗ devil's advocate we did have that

42:34 ↗ discussion at the task force level

42:36 ↗ and two arguments kind of rose to the

42:38 ↗ top as to why we did make the

42:40 ↗ recommendation of a transportation

42:41 ↗ benefit district sales tax and that was

42:45 ↗ the regional customer base aspect of it

42:48 ↗ there are so many people who use our

42:49 ↗ roads there's so many people who use

42:50 ↗ services that don't live here in

42:52 ↗ issaquah that come into shop

42:54 ↗ that would then contribute to

42:56 ↗ transportation improvements made around

42:57 ↗ town

42:58 ↗ that was definitely

43:00 ↗ something we discussed and then also

43:03 ↗ whether or not

43:05 ↗ perhaps the administration could comment

43:07 ↗ on this whether or not having

43:09 ↗ a diversity of revenues is important to

43:12 ↗ financial health of a city too

43:14 ↗ and

43:16 ↗ sales tax might might might be

43:18 ↗ regressive and we certainly had quite a

43:19 ↗ conversation about that

43:21 ↗ that there is a benefit to spreading out

43:24 ↗ the amounts are the types of revenues

43:26 ↗ that we collect as a city to

43:28 ↗ for our financial health and if that's

43:30 ↗ wrong if someone on staff could correct

43:31 ↗ me that would be great thanks

43:35 ↗ anyone from the administration want to

43:37 ↗ comment on that last

43:38 ↗ question uh thank you councilmember joe

43:41 ↗ this is andrea snyder again um that

43:45 ↗ councilman uh deputy council president

43:47 ↗ paul that sums up the task force

43:50 ↗ conversations really well and speaks to

43:52 ↗ what was in the report as well

43:54 ↗ excuse me they talked about a mix of

43:56 ↗ revenues including perhaps combining a

43:58 ↗ levy with lift with a tvd sales tax um

44:03 ↗ but

44:04 ↗ i think you captured all the

44:05 ↗ conversations around equity and

44:07 ↗ regressiveness of the taxation choices

44:10 ↗ accurately thank you

44:14 ↗ thank you

44:15 ↗ councilmember ray

44:19 ↗ thank you councilmember joe

44:21 ↗ i'm gonna come at this again from a

44:23 ↗ different angle because that seems to be

44:25 ↗ my uh my my message today um i think the

44:28 ↗ approach to use here isn't what's a good

44:30 ↗ funding mechanism what's not i think

44:32 ↗ it's what's a good investment and what's

44:34 ↗ not and so i think that we look at the

44:37 ↗ things we want to do and we draw a line

44:38 ↗ and say everything above this line we

44:40 ↗ can do and it's a pretty short list

44:42 ↗ and then we look and we use the

44:44 ↗ mart's foursquare and we say what else

44:47 ↗ should be on this funded list what are

44:49 ↗ the things that make sense short term

44:51 ↗ that are you know small small lift small

44:53 ↗ dollars and what are the things that are

44:55 ↗ possibly big lift big dollars and we

44:57 ↗ draw a line under that and we say and

44:58 ↗ the delta between what we can afford

45:00 ↗ today and what we want to do based on

45:02 ↗ the return on investment is x number of

45:05 ↗ dollars and then we start looking at the

45:06 ↗ timeline for that and we say

45:09 ↗ these projects we want to fund this way

45:10 ↗ and these projects we want to fund this

45:12 ↗ way and we do a fund matching it's

45:14 ↗ really good business to match your

45:16 ↗ funding source with your funding needs

45:19 ↗ and

45:20 ↗ some of them you know maybe a bond is

45:22 ↗ the right one for particularly longer

45:23 ↗ term things because it also spreads the

45:25 ↗ cost between our current residents and

45:27 ↗ our future residents and i think that's

45:29 ↗ that's an important thing to do is our

45:30 ↗ future residents will also benefit from

45:32 ↗ those investments

45:34 ↗ i i am moved by the

45:36 ↗ tbd sales tax part of it because it does

45:39 ↗ share the burden between our current

45:41 ↗ residents and those who shop here

45:44 ↗ and use our transportation

45:45 ↗ infrastructure and so that that i

45:47 ↗ understand the regressiveness of the

45:49 ↗ sales tax but the um the equity sorry

45:53 ↗ equity is not the

45:54 ↗ uh the fairness of sharing the cost of

45:56 ↗ those um

45:58 ↗ that

45:59 ↗ tax burden across um everyone who's

46:01 ↗ using the

46:02 ↗ the infrastructure um makes sense to me

46:04 ↗ but again i think we're we're a bit uh

46:07 ↗ car cart before the horse and we ought

46:09 ↗ to figure out what we want to do first

46:11 ↗ look at what we need to raise and then

46:13 ↗ do a

46:14 ↗ capital match to say

46:16 ↗ this funding source for these

46:18 ↗ investments because it makes sense both

46:21 ↗ in terms of our priorities and also

46:23 ↗ because of the time frame

46:24 ↗ of the

46:25 ↗ payback and the time frame of the life

46:28 ↗ of the asset

46:30 ↗ thank you councilman ray

46:34 ↗ council president walsh thanks

46:37 ↗ um

46:38 ↗ i will plus one to what i just heard

46:40 ↗ from council member ray

46:42 ↗ cart before the horse idea

46:45 ↗ the only caveat that i will put on that

46:48 ↗ is

46:49 ↗ i

46:51 ↗ i'm a little bit gun shy from the

46:54 ↗ previous transportation levy

46:56 ↗ and i don't think much has changed in

47:00 ↗ our project mix and i would love to be

47:02 ↗ proven wrong on that and have a

47:05 ↗ community conversation but i am really

47:07 ↗ hesitant to

47:09 ↗ put

47:11 ↗ something out

47:13 ↗ to agree that we should go down a path

47:15 ↗ toward putting something out to the

47:16 ↗ voters when it comes to transportation

47:19 ↗ projects right now so i'm hesitant to

47:21 ↗ put staff time

47:23 ↗ into that unless

47:24 ↗ i can be convinced that

47:27 ↗ we're able to present a list of projects

47:30 ↗ that are

47:30 ↗ different and somehow

47:33 ↗ meet the needs of the community when it

47:36 ↗ comes to congestion or other things that

47:39 ↗ have been identified

47:41 ↗ and so

47:43 ↗ i'm willing to keep it on the list but

47:45 ↗ i'm i'm very hesitant to spend any time

47:48 ↗ toward that idea

47:51 ↗ thank you council president

47:53 ↗ um my thoughts uh for this topic i know

47:57 ↗ that we have talked in prior meetings

48:00 ↗ about community engagement and one of

48:02 ↗ the items that we talked about was

48:03 ↗ having

48:04 ↗ more informal meetings where the council

48:06 ↗ could get feedback and we talked about

48:08 ↗ perhaps

48:09 ↗ a barbecue or another outdoor event as

48:12 ↗ the weather gets better

48:13 ↗ as transportation is seen as the highest

48:16 ↗ priority and the one that gets the most

48:18 ↗ attention

48:19 ↗ i would posit that perhaps that should

48:21 ↗ be the topic of the first

48:23 ↗ uh

48:24 ↗ get to know your council

48:27 ↗ event or however you want to kind of

48:28 ↗ frame it

48:30 ↗ but um

48:32 ↗ it seems to me that we're trying to make

48:34 ↗ our conversations a little bit more uh

48:37 ↗ too formal at times

48:39 ↗ and if we had a general conversation

48:41 ↗ about transportation

48:44 ↗ on the

48:45 ↗ on the calendar excuse me for the uh

48:48 ↗ informal event

48:50 ↗ and we just had a conversation with our

48:52 ↗ our citizens about what they wanted to

48:53 ↗ see and what their

48:55 ↗ main issues were

48:56 ↗ um you know that i think would get the

48:59 ↗ conversation started for us in terms of

49:01 ↗ we're hearing these things from the the

49:03 ↗ members of our community which is what

49:05 ↗ we're supposed to be doing we're

49:06 ↗ supposed to be out and and uh and

49:09 ↗ hearing what our citizens want um this

49:11 ↗ would be one opportunity to do it

49:13 ↗ amongst many that

49:14 ↗ all of you do engage in in our community

49:17 ↗ but that would then start the

49:18 ↗ conversation well if we're really

49:20 ↗ concerned about

49:21 ↗ mobility between one side of town and

49:23 ↗ the other the 10th street overpass

49:26 ↗ project might be the one that we want to

49:28 ↗ look at and you kind of weigh how much

49:30 ↗ interest and how much support is out

49:32 ↗ there for it when you're having those

49:33 ↗ conversations

49:34 ↗ but that may be a way to have those

49:36 ↗ casual conversations that get our

49:38 ↗ discussion going right now i think the

49:41 ↗ seven of us have great ideas and we have

49:44 ↗ priorities that we have that we think

49:46 ↗ are important along the way but we

49:48 ↗ certainly

49:49 ↗ are cognizant that we represent forty

49:51 ↗ thousand people in town and we don't

49:53 ↗ just represent um you know the the

49:56 ↗ fifty people or 60 people that we talk

49:58 ↗ to on a weekly basis so that's my

50:00 ↗ initial thought for engagement out there

50:03 ↗ as we go

50:05 ↗ i had a question for the members

50:09 ↗ that participated in this with sales tax

50:12 ↗ was there any discussion about

50:14 ↗ um tax aversion in other words if we

50:16 ↗ raise our sales tax too much

50:19 ↗ will people be going to redmond or will

50:21 ↗ people be staying in bellevue or just

50:23 ↗ skip issaquah and go to north bend along

50:25 ↗ the way in other words are we shooting

50:26 ↗ ourselves in the foot by raising our

50:28 ↗ taxes along the way and i'd be

50:30 ↗ interested to know if there's a

50:32 ↗ discussion or the administration any

50:34 ↗ thoughts on that as well

50:37 ↗ uh council member joe i'd like to take a

50:39 ↗ first stab at that question this is

50:41 ↗ andrea snyder

50:42 ↗ uh the task force did have that

50:44 ↗ conversation some members were concerned

50:46 ↗ about competitiveness of issaquah

50:48 ↗ businesses if the sales tax were to be

50:50 ↗ raised as part of the conversations with

50:53 ↗ the task force we took a look at

50:55 ↗ what our peer cities and neighboring

50:57 ↗ cities

50:58 ↗ tax rates were when it came to sales tax

51:01 ↗ and found that issaquah was in the

51:03 ↗ middle or sometimes low compared to our

51:06 ↗ peers or neighboring cities

51:09 ↗ so it was certainly something when we

51:10 ↗ think about how much to raise this sales

51:13 ↗ tax what that proposal would look like

51:14 ↗ to keep in mind

51:16 ↗ and

51:17 ↗ do a lot of outreach with the business

51:19 ↗ community as well

51:21 ↗ that was something that the task force

51:23 ↗ emphasized

51:26 ↗ and as a follow-up was was there some

51:28 ↗ discussion about

51:30 ↗ it seems to be the the threshold that

51:33 ↗ always seems to

51:35 ↗ impact people most is is that 10 percent

51:37 ↗ number

51:38 ↗ we're always trying to stay at

51:40 ↗ 9.86 percent not go to 10 percent um

51:45 ↗ how much uh was there a discussion about

51:47 ↗ keeping it under under 10 percent and

51:49 ↗ then

51:50 ↗ um

51:51 ↗ can you give me a little bit of an idea

51:53 ↗ of how much

51:55 ↗ leeway we have to stay under that 10 is

51:58 ↗ it you know .02 or if you if you know

52:04 ↗ i apologize i don't know about the top

52:06 ↗ of my head but we really stayed away

52:08 ↗ from that type of detail at the task

52:10 ↗ force we wanted to be able to

52:12 ↗ talk about the tools in general have a

52:14 ↗ general idea of how much revenue they

52:16 ↗ have the potential for raising just to

52:18 ↗ see what kind of impact

52:19 ↗ we could have with that revenue but we

52:21 ↗ did not discuss rates particularly this

52:24 ↗ was a much higher level conversation

52:26 ↗ knowing that in part rates

52:28 ↗ would also be driven by what are the

52:30 ↗ projects

52:32 ↗ that the community would support

52:34 ↗ and

52:35 ↗ what type what level of taxation would

52:37 ↗ they

52:39 ↗ would they accept and so i think we we

52:42 ↗ avoided such specific conversations

52:44 ↗ because we knew we had a lot of work to

52:45 ↗ do before we got there

52:47 ↗ but i see uh robert mood our chief

52:50 ↗ financial officer has just turned on his

52:52 ↗ camera so maybe he wants to tell us what

52:54 ↗ our sales tax rate is

52:57 ↗ go ahead please

52:58 ↗ yes councilmember joe and uh thank you

53:01 ↗ to the

53:02 ↗ the council as a whole here i'm right

53:04 ↗ now we're

53:05 ↗ 10.1

53:08 ↗ and in comparison bellevue right now is

53:11 ↗ at the same 10.1

53:14 ↗ 10.1

53:16 ↗ covington .87

53:18 ↗ um north bend 0.90

53:22 ↗ snoqualmie

53:24 ↗ 0.89

53:26 ↗ excuse me 8.9 so again we're

53:29 ↗ we're at about 10.1 and so pretty much

53:32 ↗ um we're already over 10 and and the

53:33 ↗ reason for that is

53:35 ↗ um

53:36 ↗ the sound transit obviously makes up

53:38 ↗ that difference so the sound transit did

53:41 ↗ push the city over 10 initially so

53:43 ↗ that's that's where we're at

53:45 ↗ and um just another comment to regarding

53:48 ↗ the sales tax discussion

53:51 ↗ with issaquah right now you know some

53:53 ↗ cities leak sales tax meaning people

53:55 ↗ travel from one city to another i know

53:57 ↗ we had this discussion a little bit with

53:58 ↗ the task force in issaquah's case

54:00 ↗ because we're a hub

54:02 ↗ people such you know coming from

54:03 ↗ stockholm in north bend

54:05 ↗ they're going to not you know if it went

54:07 ↗ up say 0.2 or even 0.1 percent they're

54:10 ↗ not going to stop shopping here because

54:13 ↗ again

54:13 ↗ they would have to drive a lot further

54:15 ↗ to covington for example to save money

54:17 ↗ and it doesn't have the same retail mix

54:19 ↗ that we do so because this equals a hub

54:21 ↗ city

54:22 ↗ um

54:24 ↗ would be the max he could do on the tbe

54:26 ↗ that would be you know a small increase

54:29 ↗ certainly it is an increase and it's

54:30 ↗ something we'd have to discuss with the

54:31 ↗ business community but it would be a

54:33 ↗ small increase in comparison um the city

54:36 ↗ right now on the base sales tax collects

54:38 ↗ 0.85 percent

54:40 ↗ so

54:41 ↗ just not even so 0.85 cents of that one

54:44 ↗ so pretty much if we're at 10.1

54:47 ↗ the city collects less than one percent

54:49 ↗ of that right now so most of that goes

54:50 ↗ to the state plus sound transit and the

54:52 ↗ county so it's a very little piece we

54:54 ↗ receive right now

54:57 ↗ thank you for that information i

54:58 ↗ appreciate that

55:00 ↗ okay

55:01 ↗ let's backtrack a little bit and we

55:03 ↗ added a couple of elements to

55:05 ↗ the answer to question one so i wanted

55:07 ↗ to check in

55:08 ↗ with

55:10 ↗ deputy administrator

55:11 ↗ snyder to make sure that those comments

55:13 ↗ were captured and then we'll

55:16 ↗ go to two and make sure that

55:17 ↗ conversation is all sealed up before we

55:19 ↗ move on

55:23 ↗ uh yeah so extra

55:26 ↗ additional comments that i heard for the

55:28 ↗ first question

55:30 ↗ i heard a couple of comments in support

55:33 ↗ of that

55:34 ↗ cost and impact

55:36 ↗ square that that council member martin

55:39 ↗ suggested making sure that we look at

55:41 ↗ project success projects in that way

55:44 ↗ i heard that

55:46 ↗ we look at the project perhaps alignment

55:49 ↗ with the tip

55:51 ↗ the transportation improvement plan the

55:53 ↗ master mobility plan and the iso clock

55:56 ↗ climate action plan um and that we look

55:58 ↗ at projects from uh

56:00 ↗ that we can align those projects maybe

56:02 ↗ according to other categories like these

56:05 ↗ are projects that might address safety

56:07 ↗ or these are projects that might um

56:09 ↗ further our multimodal goals for example

56:11 ↗ so um

56:13 ↗ heard those comments and i will i

56:16 ↗ suppose wait uh to summarize the

56:18 ↗ comments that i've heard thus far about

56:20 ↗ question number two

56:22 ↗ okay that'd be great

56:24 ↗ additional comments uh on one was

56:27 ↗ anything missed is everyone

56:29 ↗ uh councilmember d michelle

56:32 ↗ thank you council mayor joe

56:34 ↗ just to reiterate at this point i don't

56:36 ↗ think we should take anything off the

56:37 ↗ table and that includes i would like to

56:40 ↗ see the voter

56:42 ↗ approve bonds uh on the list but i think

56:45 ↗ uh council member ray is absolutely

56:47 ↗ right we need that look at

56:51 ↗ matching uh the projects to the

56:53 ↗ appropriate

56:54 ↗ taxing mechanism and that's reason i

56:57 ↗ think that we should be able to look at

56:58 ↗ all of them and be able to weigh weigh

57:00 ↗ them

57:01 ↗ uh carefully as we go down the path so

57:04 ↗ um i don't think we should take anything

57:06 ↗ off i think we should have

57:08 ↗ choices as we go forward as we create

57:11 ↗ the the list that we're going to look at

57:14 ↗ thanks

57:16 ↗ thank you

57:17 ↗ so it segues nicely into any additional

57:20 ↗ comments on

57:22 ↗ question number two from the

57:23 ↗ administration in terms of the the

57:24 ↗ funding options we've had a good

57:26 ↗ discussion about sales tax and

57:29 ↗ funds counsematic bonds were mentioned

57:32 ↗ as well along the way

57:34 ↗ deputy council member hall

57:37 ↗ thank you very much i almost forgot

57:39 ↗ about this one but deputy city

57:41 ↗ administrator schneider

57:44 ↗ the state legislature recently passed

57:47 ↗ the state's new transportation package

57:49 ↗ and in that i believe

57:51 ↗ there's new councilmanic authority under

57:53 ↗ a transportation benefit district so i'm

57:54 ↗ wondering if that info i'm not sure what

57:57 ↗ that is so i'm wondering if that

57:58 ↗ information could be tied into this

58:01 ↗ when you return to council for another

58:03 ↗ update

58:08 ↗ thank you deputy council president hall

58:09 ↗ we'll make sure that it is

58:12 ↗ okay that's a great comment thank you

58:15 ↗ any additional comments on

58:17 ↗ number two

58:20 ↗ okay

58:21 ↗ uh deputy administrator snyder do you

58:23 ↗ want to

58:24 ↗ summarize number two so that we make

58:26 ↗ sure we've captured all the points

58:29 ↗ sure thank you this is andrea snyder

58:31 ↗ again

58:32 ↗ uh

58:33 ↗ what i heard regarding

58:35 ↗ number two is

58:37 ↗ that voter approved bonds should still

58:40 ↗ be on the table to not take them off of

58:42 ↗ the table

58:43 ↗ i heard some concern about the

58:45 ↗ regressive nature of sales tax and

58:48 ↗ also uh other opinions on sales tax that

58:51 ↗ it spreads to costs out to more roadway

58:53 ↗ users who maybe are not within the city

58:56 ↗ um

58:57 ↗ and also some concerns about bonds uh

58:59 ↗ dependent on

59:01 ↗ the projects that the city would try to

59:05 ↗ fund with such bonds

59:07 ↗ and also i heard some ideas about how to

59:10 ↗ have more general

59:12 ↗ informal conversations about

59:13 ↗ transportation

59:15 ↗ transportation needs

59:16 ↗ with the community at future council

59:18 ↗ meetings

59:21 ↗ thank you

59:22 ↗ does that capture

59:24 ↗ our thoughts this evening okay

59:26 ↗ so move on to number three

59:28 ↗ does the city council agree with the

59:30 ↗ recommended time frames for each tool

59:33 ↗ open up for comments

59:41 ↗ council president walsh

59:44 ↗ thank you um

59:46 ↗ i have two thoughts here first um

59:50 ↗ i know in

59:52 ↗ in the list of potential funding tools

59:55 ↗ there was the use of debt and

59:57 ↗ councilmanic bonds and those just

1:00:00 ↗ haven't been listed on the timeline i

1:00:02 ↗ know i asked the question previously and

1:00:04 ↗ you said hey we can

1:00:06 ↗ fit it in at any of these timelines and

1:00:09 ↗ that's good but in order to really

1:00:12 ↗ have a robust conversation and match the

1:00:15 ↗ funding tool

1:00:16 ↗ to

1:00:17 ↗ the project bucket sub bucket need

1:00:21 ↗ i need a better understanding of

1:00:25 ↗ what our revenue options would be for

1:00:29 ↗ each of those

1:00:31 ↗ and

1:00:33 ↗ how like

1:00:34 ↗ if we did if we use debt in the

1:00:38 ↗ three to four year range how much

1:00:41 ↗ revenue would it potentially have versus

1:00:43 ↗ if we waited for the six to nine and

1:00:46 ↗ just kind of

1:00:47 ↗ giving that as um

1:00:49 ↗ as a factor in trying to understand how

1:00:52 ↗ much that would

1:00:53 ↗ potentially provide

1:00:55 ↗ and then my

1:00:57 ↗ second thought is

1:00:59 ↗ i appreciated what the

1:01:02 ↗ task force

1:01:03 ↗ members had said about

1:01:05 ↗ not using the

1:01:08 ↗ park

1:01:09 ↗ district

1:01:10 ↗ as

1:01:13 ↗ a

1:01:13 ↗ way to take

1:01:15 ↗ our current park

1:01:17 ↗ funds out of the general fund and

1:01:20 ↗ backfill with transportation

1:01:23 ↗ i guess my concern is right now we have

1:01:27 ↗ a park strategic plan and items on

1:01:31 ↗ the cip that would fund fairly large

1:01:35 ↗ park projects which

1:01:37 ↗ essentially become

1:01:39 ↗ you know large increases to

1:01:44 ↗ our part capacity and kind of the things

1:01:46 ↗ that we're doing with parks and i have a

1:01:49 ↗ hard time then looking at the cip and

1:01:52 ↗ having those

1:01:53 ↗ on in a

1:01:55 ↗ five to six year time frame if we're not

1:01:58 ↗ looking at parks funding

1:02:00 ↗ uh parks district funding for a six to

1:02:02 ↗ nine year time frame so what i would

1:02:04 ↗ want back from the administration is

1:02:09 ↗ what are the

1:02:10 ↗ parks projects you're the first to do it

1:02:13 ↗ this time it happens every year

1:02:15 ↗ uh every study session

1:02:18 ↗ um what are the the parks projects

1:02:22 ↗ that are scheduled to come before

1:02:26 ↗ a parks district and

1:02:28 ↗ how might we make adjustments because to

1:02:31 ↗ my mind if if we're looking at a parks

1:02:33 ↗ district it's about

1:02:35 ↗ expanding what we can do with parks but

1:02:38 ↗ we've already done the strategic plan

1:02:40 ↗ saying we have a plan to expand what

1:02:42 ↗ we're doing with parks and so i want to

1:02:45 ↗ make sure that we have

1:02:46 ↗ the alignment there and that

1:02:50 ↗ yeah we're not looking at large projects

1:02:53 ↗ before that funding comes into play

1:02:57 ↗ okay

1:02:58 ↗ thank you council president walsh

1:02:59 ↗ councilmember ray

1:03:02 ↗ i'm off my hobby horse i'm

1:03:04 ↗ i'm just going to say i love it i think

1:03:06 ↗ that zero to three years ending fund

1:03:08 ↗ balance and opera funding is spot on

1:03:10 ↗ because because that's available today

1:03:12 ↗ we can start moving and um

1:03:14 ↗ and then the medium term

1:03:16 ↗ whether we do a a bond a levy lift a tbd

1:03:19 ↗ sales tax whatever those will all take

1:03:21 ↗ time so that's to me the right time

1:03:23 ↗ frame for doing those so i think you

1:03:24 ↗ know spot on there i'm not a big fan of

1:03:26 ↗ the parks district not you know not only

1:03:28 ↗ the time frame i'm just not a big fan of

1:03:30 ↗ the idea um you know if we want part

1:03:33 ↗ additional parks funding let's go do a

1:03:35 ↗ parks bond and and let's just be kind of

1:03:37 ↗ upfront about it and and

1:03:39 ↗ i worry about special use districts and

1:03:41 ↗ creating them and losing control over

1:03:44 ↗ them

1:03:45 ↗ as such so that's my only concern so not

1:03:47 ↗ a big fan of that but you know the first

1:03:49 ↗ two items spot on

1:03:52 ↗ thank you councilmember martz

1:03:56 ↗ thank you councilmember joe uh i bring

1:03:58 ↗ it back to council member ray's earlier

1:04:00 ↗ point about uh pond uh project versus

1:04:03 ↗ funding matching and figuring out where

1:04:05 ↗ do you get the benefit versus how do you

1:04:07 ↗ wanna

1:04:08 ↗ uh

1:04:09 ↗ generate the revenue to match the the

1:04:12 ↗ benefit profile on parks bond versus a

1:04:14 ↗ park district i can talk a little bit

1:04:17 ↗ about what the capital finance

1:04:20 ↗ task force

1:04:21 ↗ talked about which is that a district

1:04:23 ↗ can be larger than our bonding authority

1:04:25 ↗ right and so we definitely know that our

1:04:28 ↗ park system is used by a catchment that

1:04:30 ↗ you can roughly

1:04:32 ↗ equilibrate to the school district size

1:04:34 ↗ so maybe uh 250 percent of of our

1:04:38 ↗ population total so the question is how

1:04:40 ↗ do you rightfully um

1:04:43 ↗ uh get the people who benefit to to

1:04:45 ↗ bring it back to your point about

1:04:46 ↗ matching funding to the to the projects

1:04:48 ↗ how do you how do you fairly uh go about

1:04:51 ↗ doing that uh i want to reiterate uh or

1:04:54 ↗ i want to add my voice to the concern

1:04:56 ↗ around progressive versus regressive

1:04:57 ↗ funding and when we have options we have

1:05:01 ↗ the most regressive tax structure west

1:05:02 ↗ to the mississippi river um which is

1:05:05 ↗ horrifying and um so i'm always looking

1:05:08 ↗ for opportunities uh to be poor and

1:05:10 ↗ progressive

1:05:11 ↗ and then i just want to mention around

1:05:13 ↗ councilmanic versus voter approved we

1:05:16 ↗ definitely need to have that

1:05:17 ↗ conversation and

1:05:19 ↗ we need to understand that

1:05:21 ↗ both mechanisms have

1:05:23 ↗ disadvantages

1:05:25 ↗ councilmanic goes directly to our you

1:05:29 ↗ know servicing that debt goes directly

1:05:30 ↗ to our

1:05:32 ↗ general fund bottom line each year

1:05:34 ↗ voter approved reduces voter enthusiasm

1:05:37 ↗ for other stuff right we go before the

1:05:39 ↗ voters with a transportation bond and

1:05:43 ↗ and i agree with council member michelle

1:05:45 ↗ we shouldn't be afraid of going to the

1:05:46 ↗ voters with a well-crafted

1:05:48 ↗ uh package but um it would reduce

1:05:51 ↗ appetite for later park bonds and and

1:05:53 ↗ other kinds of bonds uh that we would

1:05:55 ↗ want to put in front of the voters so so

1:05:57 ↗ they both have uh they both have

1:05:59 ↗ advantages uh and disadvantages they're

1:06:01 ↗ more progressive than a sales tax but we

1:06:04 ↗ will need to as a body have a

1:06:06 ↗ conversation about those options we are

1:06:07 ↗ blessed with having 160 million dollars

1:06:10 ↗ of councilmanic authority right when we

1:06:12 ↗ talk about the state legislature

1:06:14 ↗ allowing municipalities to do more like

1:06:16 ↗ we're not i don't think we've used any

1:06:18 ↗ councilmanic we may have we may have

1:06:20 ↗ technically used councilmanic to do some

1:06:22 ↗ bond restructuring back in the day um

1:06:24 ↗ but we haven't taken any any big ticket

1:06:26 ↗ items with councilmanic bond authority

1:06:29 ↗ in the in the 12 and a half years i've

1:06:30 ↗ been on council so thank you

1:06:34 ↗ thank you for those comments

1:06:35 ↗ anyone else have comments on

1:06:38 ↗ this topic before we get a summary from

1:06:41 ↗ the administration

1:06:43 ↗ city administrator bob fitz yes

1:06:45 ↗ councilmember joe members of the council

1:06:47 ↗ just a word about park districts

1:06:49 ↗ the city council can be the governing

1:06:51 ↗ body of a park district and i think

1:06:53 ↗ certainly the initial discussions we've

1:06:55 ↗ had

1:06:56 ↗ at least among the administration is

1:06:58 ↗ that was what we would contemplate that

1:06:59 ↗ this would not be creating a second

1:07:01 ↗ entity with a separate public board this

1:07:03 ↗ would be something and under washington

1:07:05 ↗ state law there's a couple different

1:07:06 ↗ ways

1:07:07 ↗ you could do that so our hope would be

1:07:08 ↗ we could have further discussions on

1:07:10 ↗ that

1:07:12 ↗ thank you for that clarifying point much

1:07:14 ↗ appreciated

1:07:16 ↗ i'll look to uh

1:07:17 ↗ deputy administrator snyder

1:07:20 ↗ do you have a summary of number three so

1:07:22 ↗ that we can check in and make sure that

1:07:24 ↗ we've uh captured everything this

1:07:26 ↗ evening

1:07:28 ↗ yes thank you councilmember joe this is

1:07:29 ↗ andrea snyder again

1:07:32 ↗ for comments regarding

1:07:34 ↗ the timeline for these tools i heard a

1:07:37 ↗ general support for the timeline

1:07:40 ↗ i heard requests for more information

1:07:42 ↗ regarding the financing tools in

1:07:44 ↗ relation towards revenue tools the

1:07:46 ↗ difference between

1:07:47 ↗ what type of debt would be taken on and

1:07:50 ↗ how that relates to the revenue tool

1:07:52 ↗ i also heard a desire for

1:07:56 ↗ the city to take a look at the parks

1:07:58 ↗ projects that have been planned in the

1:08:00 ↗ next few years and understand which ones

1:08:02 ↗ would be scheduled to come before a

1:08:04 ↗ potential vote on a metropolitan parks

1:08:06 ↗ district and how will we make

1:08:07 ↗ adjustments on that

1:08:09 ↗ i

1:08:11 ↗ i also heard some

1:08:15 ↗ some lack of support for the

1:08:16 ↗ metropolitan parks district and that the

1:08:19 ↗ city

1:08:20 ↗ should consider parked bonds in the

1:08:22 ↗ future

1:08:24 ↗ that's what i have any did i leave

1:08:26 ↗ anything out or do they mischaracterize

1:08:28 ↗ anything i'm looking to the council to

1:08:30 ↗ see if there

1:08:31 ↗ any additional comments or items that

1:08:34 ↗ might have been missed

1:08:36 ↗ seeing none

1:08:37 ↗ i think you captured it thank you

1:08:39 ↗ we'll move on to the fourth question

1:08:41 ↗ then does the city council agree with

1:08:43 ↗ the additional task force recommendation

1:08:45 ↗ to explore additional red lights and or

1:08:48 ↗ speeding

1:08:49 ↗ zone cameras so open up for discussion

1:08:53 ↗ councilmember hunt

1:08:55 ↗ thank you councilmember joe

1:08:57 ↗ my answer to this one is no

1:09:00 ↗ when i first moved from chicago to

1:09:03 ↗ seattle i was shocked by how long the

1:09:04 ↗ yellow lights here lasted and i would

1:09:07 ↗ come to an intersection where the light

1:09:08 ↗ would turn yellow and i'd hit the brakes

1:09:10 ↗ because i expected it to rapidly go to

1:09:12 ↗ red and then i'd sit and wait and wait

1:09:14 ↗ as the yellow would seemingly go on

1:09:16 ↗ forever and why is this chicago

1:09:19 ↗ specifically

1:09:20 ↗ in some cases shortened yellow lights to

1:09:22 ↗ generate revenue from red light cameras

1:09:24 ↗ and if you want more info information on

1:09:26 ↗ this i found an article in time that's

1:09:29 ↗ that's titled cities have found a new

1:09:31 ↗ way to take your money describes this

1:09:33 ↗ phenomenon

1:09:34 ↗ it's a bad motive if it's bundled with

1:09:37 ↗ other revenue and i

1:09:39 ↗ think it certainly looks like that to me

1:09:41 ↗ because we're discussing funding this

1:09:43 ↗ entire evening and then we get to this

1:09:45 ↗ question

1:09:46 ↗ anyone looking at our conversation right

1:09:48 ↗ now can see that we're considering red

1:09:49 ↗ light cameras as a revenue generation

1:09:52 ↗ tool and i i don't support that i'll

1:09:54 ↗ also point out that i found on the

1:09:56 ↗ national conference of state

1:09:57 ↗ legislatures website there's

1:09:59 ↗ seven states that have statutes

1:10:01 ↗ prohibiting using red light cameras to

1:10:03 ↗ issue citations and the main reason is

1:10:06 ↗ the perception of

1:10:07 ↗ the perception that cities are using

1:10:08 ↗ these to generate revenue so this is a

1:10:12 ↗ issue for trust as well and there are

1:10:14 ↗ equity issues with placement of cameras

1:10:16 ↗ and there are equity issues with how

1:10:19 ↗ citations and tickets affect people

1:10:22 ↗ differently they affect behavior of

1:10:24 ↗ people differently depending on how

1:10:27 ↗ important that ticket is to them um so

1:10:30 ↗ it's it there's serious equity issues

1:10:32 ↗ also with you know neighborhoods certain

1:10:33 ↗ neighborhoods experiencing more tickets

1:10:36 ↗ than other neighborhoods

1:10:38 ↗ um so i think if we are going to say

1:10:40 ↗ that we are

1:10:42 ↗ looking at

1:10:44 ↗ this not as revenue again i think that's

1:10:46 ↗ that's an issue because of the context

1:10:49 ↗ but if we're saying that this is a

1:10:50 ↗ safety issue

1:10:52 ↗ i think we have to really look at it

1:10:53 ↗ from that safety lens in some cases

1:10:56 ↗ there have been studies that have shown

1:10:58 ↗ that because like what i did if you slam

1:11:00 ↗ on your brakes you can change the kind

1:11:02 ↗ of accidents that's happening so you're

1:11:04 ↗ changing the behavior of motorists and

1:11:06 ↗ potentially you can get rear end

1:11:08 ↗ collisions instead of

1:11:09 ↗ people running the red lights so you're

1:11:12 ↗ changing the kind of accidents in some

1:11:14 ↗ cases i found an article on that

1:11:16 ↗ crashes up at intersections with red

1:11:18 ↗ light cameras report says which was from

1:11:20 ↗ the florida state highway officials

1:11:23 ↗ so

1:11:24 ↗ um again i think we need to you know we

1:11:26 ↗ need to be careful with this it isn't

1:11:28 ↗ just a slam dunk that we would get

1:11:30 ↗ revenue and make our intersection safer

1:11:32 ↗ and then um

1:11:34 ↗ lastly

1:11:36 ↗ i think if we consider this as a safety

1:11:38 ↗ tool we should look at safety

1:11:41 ↗ first as a bigger picture

1:11:44 ↗ so i understand that we have some

1:11:46 ↗ references to vision zero in our master

1:11:48 ↗ mobility plan

1:11:50 ↗ and that we plan on implementing

1:11:53 ↗ vision zero which is a

1:11:55 ↗ program that neighboring cities have

1:11:56 ↗ used

1:11:57 ↗ to reduce

1:11:58 ↗ traffic

1:11:59 ↗ related

1:12:01 ↗ injuries and deaths and i think using

1:12:03 ↗ vision zero would be a great way to go

1:12:07 ↗ actually you know following through and

1:12:08 ↗ implementing those programs the number

1:12:10 ↗ one priority uh that i found looking

1:12:13 ↗ through vision zero documents was to

1:12:15 ↗ prioritize roadway design

1:12:17 ↗ so you know look at where we have safety

1:12:18 ↗ issues prioritize roadway design

1:12:21 ↗ potentially think through how we might

1:12:23 ↗ make those intersections safer

1:12:25 ↗ and then

1:12:26 ↗ invest in capital safety treatments at

1:12:29 ↗ those

1:12:30 ↗ high issues or high intersections of

1:12:32 ↗ concern

1:12:33 ↗ and

1:12:34 ↗ and then you know potentially we would

1:12:36 ↗ look at other things including

1:12:38 ↗ if we can't address by design than

1:12:40 ↗ perhaps looking at cameras but again i

1:12:43 ↗ really think we need to put some

1:12:44 ↗ distance between this revenue

1:12:46 ↗ conversation

1:12:47 ↗ and red light cameras and speed cameras

1:12:50 ↗ as well and if we have if we look at

1:12:52 ↗ them from a safety perspective i think

1:12:54 ↗ it should be

1:12:55 ↗ as a broader package having to do with

1:12:57 ↗ safety in general and potentially as

1:12:59 ↗ part of vision zero

1:13:01 ↗ so hopefully we can take it off the

1:13:02 ↗ table for this discussion and focus on

1:13:06 ↗ vision zero and other safety as a more

1:13:08 ↗ holistic package

1:13:10 ↗ thank you councilmember hunt and thank

1:13:12 ↗ you for the citations so that we can all

1:13:15 ↗ look it up on our own at home

1:13:17 ↗ councilmember ray

1:13:20 ↗ yeah everything she said

1:13:21 ↗ um

1:13:22 ↗ no i i think that that was well spoken

1:13:24 ↗ and i'll just be one make one additional

1:13:26 ↗ point the state law is pretty clear one

1:13:28 ↗ is you can't the cities are prohibited

1:13:30 ↗ from shortening yellow light cycles

1:13:33 ↗ at intersections with

1:13:37 ↗ red light cameras

1:13:39 ↗ but this is a safety issue and it

1:13:41 ↗ doesn't belong in a funding bill and it

1:13:43 ↗ sends the wrong message to put a safety

1:13:45 ↗ issue in a funding bill and it makes us

1:13:47 ↗ look kind of

1:13:49 ↗ shady so um you know i i i fine idea

1:13:53 ↗ let's talk about it but not here

1:13:57 ↗ moving down the line council member

1:13:59 ↗ martz

1:14:00 ↗ thank you councilmember joe i would be

1:14:02 ↗ remiss if i didn't put on my

1:14:05 ↗ capital financing task force hat for a

1:14:07 ↗ second and say the task force didn't

1:14:09 ↗ view it as shady

1:14:12 ↗ i personally think it's a bad idea i

1:14:14 ↗ agree with the comments that have been

1:14:16 ↗ made so far

1:14:18 ↗ um but you know there was a spirit of

1:14:20 ↗ play stupid games win stupid prizes uh

1:14:23 ↗ around it but i i believe like the last

1:14:26 ↗ several commenters the conversation

1:14:27 ↗ should be around safety not revenue when

1:14:29 ↗ it comes to cameras i have concerns this

1:14:33 ↗ just putting this out for the future i

1:14:35 ↗ have concerns around some elements of

1:14:36 ↗ vision zero because i see

1:14:38 ↗ implementations in places that have 20

1:14:40 ↗ mile an hour speed limits

1:14:42 ↗ that is turning the knob too far so

1:14:45 ↗ i'm excited to see how we can look more

1:14:48 ↗ comprehensively at safety i would not be

1:14:51 ↗ excited about 20 mile an hour permanent

1:14:52 ↗ speed limits in our in our city

1:14:55 ↗ i will also i will i will close my

1:14:57 ↗ comments with an anecdote um so i was

1:14:59 ↗ lucky enough to serve for four years

1:15:01 ↗ with uh under uh well with mayor

1:15:04 ↗ freisinger and uh mayor freisinger back

1:15:07 ↗ in the day would get an amazing amount

1:15:09 ↗ of what i would call hate mail

1:15:11 ↗ on the subject of speed cameras and it

1:15:14 ↗ was the only time i ever saw her not be

1:15:16 ↗ as diplomatic as humanly possible

1:15:18 ↗ because we made it about safety she felt

1:15:21 ↗ 100 percent confident

1:15:23 ↗ telling those people who are complaining

1:15:25 ↗ that they were off base and that as long

1:15:27 ↗ as she was mayor she was going to push

1:15:28 ↗ as hard as she can to keep that camera

1:15:30 ↗ there because it was keeping our kids

1:15:31 ↗ safe so that's the conversation we

1:15:34 ↗ should be having about speed cameras

1:15:35 ↗ thank

1:15:36 ↗ you

1:15:38 ↗ deputy council president hall

1:15:42 ↗ uh thank you very much a lot similarly

1:15:44 ↗ to

1:15:45 ↗ what i've heard tonight although i think

1:15:47 ↗ i a little bit of nuance i do agree that

1:15:50 ↗ we should remove this from the task

1:15:52 ↗ force recommendations discussion but i

1:15:54 ↗ do think it's worthy of exploring

1:15:56 ↗ there are some questions that i think we

1:15:58 ↗ need to be able to answer

1:16:00 ↗ is there a specific problem with regard

1:16:03 ↗ to

1:16:04 ↗ red light violations or speed zones that

1:16:07 ↗ we have data on that we're trying to

1:16:08 ↗ solve here

1:16:10 ↗ um

1:16:12 ↗ is it best practice to consider design

1:16:14 ↗ and engineering solutions before we

1:16:16 ↗ consider the kinds of enforcement

1:16:17 ↗ solutions i i really appreciated uh

1:16:20 ↗ council member hunt's feedback on that

1:16:21 ↗ one in particular

1:16:23 ↗ also how do we learn from other cities

1:16:24 ↗ to ensure both effective public safety

1:16:26 ↗ and equitable outcomes um so i think

1:16:29 ↗ there are probably a couple ways to go

1:16:31 ↗ about answering those questions and the

1:16:32 ↗ questions that we've heard from other

1:16:33 ↗ council members today

1:16:37 ↗ the administration could take this

1:16:38 ↗ feedback and come back with its own

1:16:40 ↗ evaluation or it might be more

1:16:42 ↗ appropriate for the equity board and the

1:16:43 ↗ transportation advisory board to

1:16:46 ↗ consider the item first

1:16:49 ↗ the equity implications of traffic

1:16:51 ↗ of

1:16:53 ↗ traffic light policy are really

1:16:54 ↗ interesting there's actually a long

1:16:56 ↗ history of cities using traffic light

1:16:58 ↗ policy as a tool to target communities

1:17:00 ↗ of color in their cities but on the

1:17:02 ↗ other hand more recently there are also

1:17:05 ↗ advocates um for using these kinds of

1:17:08 ↗ automatic enforcement tools on the basis

1:17:10 ↗ that they drive down interactions with

1:17:11 ↗ police officers and potential deadly

1:17:13 ↗ situations might not necessarily be

1:17:16 ↗ applicable to the issaquah community but

1:17:18 ↗ certainly something worth considering

1:17:21 ↗ and then i also did want to mention i

1:17:22 ↗ found an article in crosscut

1:17:25 ↗ that

1:17:26 ↗ described how auburn is currently in the

1:17:28 ↗ process of installing these kinds of

1:17:30 ↗ automatic enforcement tools as a way to

1:17:32 ↗ slow drivers down

1:17:33 ↗ and make school zones safer which is

1:17:35 ↗ which is what we're talking about here

1:17:37 ↗ but also to shift some of the traffic

1:17:39 ↗ enforcement burden away from their

1:17:40 ↗ police department which is still

1:17:42 ↗ struggling

1:17:43 ↗ with staffing issues right now so i

1:17:44 ↗ thought that would be worth bringing up

1:17:46 ↗ as well since we kind of find ourselves

1:17:48 ↗ in a similar situation thanks

1:17:50 ↗ council president walsh

1:17:51 ↗ [Music]

1:17:53 ↗ thank you um i think i agree with pretty

1:17:56 ↗ much everything i've heard uh plus one

1:18:00 ↗ many times over to what i heard from

1:18:02 ↗ council member hunt

1:18:03 ↗ i will also say that if this had come

1:18:06 ↗ from

1:18:07 ↗ the

1:18:08 ↗ community or there had been an increase

1:18:09 ↗ in accidents or um it had come from the

1:18:14 ↗ transportation advisory board i would

1:18:17 ↗ have looked at it and said oh okay this

1:18:19 ↗ is a good conversation to have so i

1:18:21 ↗ would say probably throw it over to them

1:18:23 ↗ if they feel like that's

1:18:26 ↗ something that we can get benefit from

1:18:27 ↗ then we can have that conversation but

1:18:30 ↗ not within this framework

1:18:32 ↗ thank you

1:18:33 ↗ councilmember d michelle

1:18:35 ↗ thank you i'd be remiss if i didn't say

1:18:37 ↗ i agree with everything everybody said

1:18:40 ↗ thank you

1:18:41 ↗ thank you very much well as many of you

1:18:43 ↗ know for school zones they're 20 miles

1:18:46 ↗ per hour because

1:18:47 ↗ that has been shown to be the speed that

1:18:49 ↗ if a child is hit they will not die

1:18:52 ↗ and so it certainly is a safety measure

1:18:54 ↗ that um has been shown to be effective

1:18:57 ↗ to keep our students safe

1:19:00 ↗ my point

1:19:02 ↗ of view

1:19:03 ↗ right now is it is that there was a

1:19:05 ↗ recent cl seattle times article was

1:19:07 ↗ talked about the fact that infractions

1:19:09 ↗ were down at this time both because of

1:19:11 ↗ staffing because of uh covet itself and

1:19:14 ↗ so it to me it's not an appropriate time

1:19:17 ↗ to

1:19:18 ↗ implement this because it could be seen

1:19:20 ↗ not only is it a revenue driver but also

1:19:22 ↗ you know when tickets are down it's our

1:19:25 ↗ attempt to kind of make it up by putting

1:19:28 ↗ this type of

1:19:31 ↗ you know deterrent out there or or

1:19:35 ↗ you know revenue producer

1:19:38 ↗ i would

1:19:40 ↗ like to see the administration to

1:19:42 ↗ administration to keep an eye out for

1:19:45 ↗ areas where

1:19:46 ↗ it might be appropriate to ratchet down

1:19:48 ↗ the speed limit and then

1:19:51 ↗ if that doesn't work

1:19:52 ↗ put a

1:19:53 ↗ speed camera in that area and that to me

1:19:56 ↗ is a justifiable public safety

1:19:59 ↗ rationale for putting one of those in so

1:20:01 ↗ i'm not completely against doing them

1:20:04 ↗ but we need to find a place where they

1:20:06 ↗ can be applied properly and they can be

1:20:09 ↗ effective in terms of the public safety

1:20:10 ↗ concerns so

1:20:12 ↗ that's my my

1:20:14 ↗ answer on that one so i'll hand it over

1:20:17 ↗ to uh deputy administrator snyder to

1:20:19 ↗ make sure that she caught those don't do

1:20:22 ↗ it uh uh

1:20:24 ↗ comments

1:20:25 ↗ uh indeed i did thank you i thought

1:20:28 ↗ don't do it uh and that we should really

1:20:30 ↗ consider what the problems are with

1:20:32 ↗ safety on our roads

1:20:34 ↗ and align the solutions what the

1:20:35 ↗ problems are

1:20:36 ↗ so thank you for that appreciate all the

1:20:38 ↗ feedback this evening

1:20:41 ↗ with that said i think the next steps

1:20:44 ↗ would be for us to take all the feedback

1:20:46 ↗ you've provided us and to come back with

1:20:48 ↗ that

1:20:50 ↗ implementation

1:20:51 ↗ proposal a list of next steps and come

1:20:54 ↗ back to council in may

1:20:56 ↗ thank you

1:20:59 ↗ thank you very much

1:21:00 ↗ um

1:21:01 ↗ so we can't do any um good of the order

1:21:06 ↗ items but if we're if they're items that

1:21:08 ↗ we want to summarize our conversation i

1:21:10 ↗ see council president walsh has her hand

1:21:13 ↗ up

1:21:15 ↗ thank you i wanted to

1:21:17 ↗ see if the council wanted to continue

1:21:20 ↗ the conversation there was a

1:21:22 ↗ comment in

1:21:24 ↗ the memo that basically said should the

1:21:26 ↗ city delay

1:21:27 ↗ implementation until the council

1:21:29 ↗ committee on mobile

1:21:30 ↗ mobility and infrastructure is formed

1:21:32 ↗ and so i was wondering we didn't really

1:21:36 ↗ touch upon that and whether there is an

1:21:39 ↗ appetite to wait or whether we are

1:21:42 ↗ drive ahead

1:21:45 ↗ all of that i have thoughts but i'll

1:21:49 ↗ okay let's go ahead and have that

1:21:51 ↗ discussion that's a great question for

1:21:52 ↗ us to talk about councilmember ray

1:21:56 ↗ i i think we need to to drive ahead i

1:21:58 ↗ think there's plenty of work to do and

1:22:00 ↗ based on city ministry bob quits

1:22:02 ↗ comments earlier we're not going to have

1:22:03 ↗ a fully big plan in may anyway it's

1:22:06 ↗ going to be a road map so i think kind

1:22:08 ↗ of stacking these things up behind each

1:22:10 ↗ other just delays everything so my my

1:22:12 ↗ vote would be or my inclination because

1:22:15 ↗ we're not voting it would be to

1:22:17 ↗ to keep moving ahead and when the

1:22:19 ↗ infrastructure committee is formed

1:22:21 ↗ they can take it up from there

1:22:24 ↗ thank you other comments

1:22:29 ↗ council president walsh

1:22:31 ↗ well i will just chime in i'm glad to

1:22:33 ↗ hear that i agree i think

1:22:36 ↗ um any committee that's formed should be

1:22:38 ↗ able to focus on the projects that would

1:22:40 ↗ ultimately come out of this but i wanted

1:22:42 ↗ to make sure that um

1:22:44 ↗ this work especially on the funding

1:22:47 ↗ doesn't get delayed until the committees

1:22:49 ↗ are formed

1:22:52 ↗ city administrator bob clinton yes just

1:22:54 ↗ a clarifying question so we anticipate

1:22:57 ↗ the committees will be formed in may um

1:22:59 ↗ would you like this next step to come to

1:23:02 ↗ the committee of the whole and then have

1:23:04 ↗ it go to the

1:23:05 ↗ infrastructure committee or would you

1:23:07 ↗ like

1:23:07 ↗ the next piece of this to go right to

1:23:09 ↗ the infrastructure committee

1:23:13 ↗ i will go ahead and comment on my

1:23:15 ↗ preference

1:23:17 ↗ i think that we as a city council need

1:23:20 ↗ to be out in front having these

1:23:22 ↗ conversations and i think it's healthy

1:23:25 ↗ for us to put it on a council of the

1:23:27 ↗ whole agenda

1:23:29 ↗ to have our conversation and then give

1:23:31 ↗ direction and if it does get referred to

1:23:33 ↗ a committee then they have

1:23:35 ↗ that direction in mind as they're having

1:23:37 ↗ their discussion so but i'll open up to

1:23:39 ↗ other comments if they're any from the

1:23:41 ↗ floor

1:23:43 ↗ deputy council president hall uh thanks

1:23:46 ↗ just also to add to that i think a

1:23:48 ↗ council of the whole meeting is

1:23:49 ↗ appropriate

1:23:51 ↗ the criteria that

1:23:54 ↗ tisha had brought to us at our last

1:23:55 ↗ study session when we were considering

1:23:57 ↗ structure options was council the whole

1:23:59 ↗ meetings would have

1:24:01 ↗ items that have overarching policies um

1:24:04 ↗ that would expand into a couple

1:24:06 ↗ different committees and since parks is

1:24:08 ↗ a part of this discussion too and we've

1:24:09 ↗ decided that that will live in another

1:24:11 ↗ committee i think it would be

1:24:12 ↗ appropriate for a cow meeting

1:24:17 ↗ very good

1:24:18 ↗ does the administration then have the

1:24:20 ↗ guidance that they need on that question

1:24:22 ↗ yes thank you okay

1:24:24 ↗ very good

1:24:26 ↗ all right any other discussion

1:24:29 ↗ related to

1:24:31 ↗ our topic tonight of uh yeah we've had a

1:24:34 ↗ robust discussion about the

1:24:37 ↗ way that we're gonna look at

1:24:38 ↗ transportation projects and the way

1:24:39 ↗ we're gonna fund them um so i i wanna

1:24:43 ↗ thank the capital finance community task

1:24:45 ↗ force

1:24:46 ↗ for all their hard work especially

1:24:48 ↗ council member martian council deputy

1:24:50 ↗ council member

1:24:52 ↗ deputy council president hall

1:24:54 ↗ for their hard work at going to

1:24:56 ↗ additional means to take on this

1:24:58 ↗ appropriate and difficult topic

1:25:00 ↗ it's

1:25:02 ↗ a sign of the dedication that both of

1:25:04 ↗ you have to to step up

1:25:07 ↗ be it looks like there is no other

1:25:10 ↗ business for this meeting so our council

1:25:13 ↗ hall will now be in adjournment

1:25:55 ↗ 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 (12)

Barbara de Michele

Zach Hall

Victoria Hunt

Russell Joe

Tola Marts

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh

Development Director

Jeff Watling, Parks & Community Services

Director

Jennifer Fink, Parks Planner & Project

Administrator

Motions and votes (1)

Postpone the motion to the March 21, 2022 Council meeting. .

Moved by WALSH · seconded by HALL

Carried 7-0