City Council Special Meeting · Monday, June 1, 2026 · City Council Digest

4608 segments .txt ↗

0:02 ↗ Okay, welcome everyone. I want to call

0:04 ↗ the June 1st city council meeting to

0:05 ↗ order. There are no excused absences.

0:08 ↗ Everybody is here and I want to start by

0:10 ↗ asking everyone to join if the for the

0:12 ↗ pledge of

0:13 ↗ >> allegiance

0:18 ↗ to the flag.

0:34 ↗ The next item of business is special

0:36 ↗ business ID 2014 Belleview Colleg's 60th

0:40 ↗ anniversary anniversary proclamation. I

0:42 ↗ want to invite uh Dr. David May, the

0:44 ↗ president of Belby College to the left

0:46 ↗ turn.

0:55 ↗ Oh, we're going over there.

1:06 ↗ Okay. Whereas Belleview College was

1:08 ↗ founded in 1966 and over the past 60

1:11 ↗ years has become one of Washington's

1:13 ↗ leading institutions of higher

1:15 ↗ education, serving more than 600,000

1:17 ↗ students across the region. I will add

1:19 ↗ that includes all six of my children.

1:21 ↗ Whereas Belby College has provided

1:23 ↗ accessible and affordable educational

1:24 ↗ opportunities that have benefited

1:26 ↗ countless students, families, and

1:27 ↗ workforce professionals in Isqua

1:29 ↗ community and throughout the east side.

1:31 ↗ And whereas Belby College supports

1:32 ↗ students success through academic,

1:34 ↗ professional, and workforce training

1:36 ↗ programs that strengthen the regional

1:38 ↗ economy and create opportunities for

1:39 ↗ future generations. And whereas Belby

1:41 ↗ College contributes significantly to the

1:44 ↗ East King County economy with the

1:45 ↗ regional study, estimating the college

1:47 ↗ annually infuses more than $185 million

1:51 ↗ through its institutional operations and

1:52 ↗ the economic impact of its graduates.

1:55 ↗ And whereas Belby College partners with

1:56 ↗ hundreds of local businesses and

1:58 ↗ employers across the region that provide

2:00 ↗ students with work-based learning,

2:01 ↗ internships, and industry aligned

2:03 ↗ training programs, helping thousands of

2:05 ↗ learners each year develop the skills

2:06 ↗ employees seek high demand fields. And

2:09 ↗ whereas Belby College provides lifelong

2:11 ↗ learning opportunities for learners of

2:12 ↗ all ages across the east side region,

2:15 ↗ including Isiziqua and surrounding

2:16 ↗ communities. Now therefore, I, Mark

2:18 ↗ Mullet, mayor of the city of Isqua, to

2:20 ↗ hereby proclaim June 1st, 2026 to

2:22 ↗ celebrate 60 years of Belleview College

2:25 ↗ and the city of Isiqua, and ask the

2:26 ↗ community to join me in recognizing and

2:29 ↗ expressing their appreciation for the

2:30 ↗ role Belleby College has served in our

2:32 ↗ community. In witness, whereof, I hereby

2:34 ↗ set my hand and seal the city of Isqua

2:36 ↗ on this first day of June, 2026.

2:42 ↗ Let's do the photo and then I'll give

2:43 ↗ you the thing. Want to do the photo

2:45 ↗ first while you're after? We'll do the

2:47 ↗ photo and then uh

2:48 ↗ >> do the photo.

2:51 ↗ >> Oh, we have two photos. I like it.

2:53 ↗ >> You You came with your own photo crew.

3:06 ↗ >> It's all yours.

3:14 ↗ >> Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Um,

3:16 ↗ President Mart, uh, members of the

3:18 ↗ council, thank you for the invitation.

3:21 ↗ Thank you very much for supporting the

3:22 ↗ proclamation, and thank you for just a

3:24 ↗ couple minutes of your very, very

3:26 ↗ valuable time this evening. This is a

3:28 ↗ relationship that extends even more than

3:30 ↗ 60 years. The business and civic

3:33 ↗ community in Isiqua was part of the push

3:36 ↗ to create Belleview College in the 1963

3:39 ↗ and 1965 legislative session. Without

3:42 ↗ the support of this community, Belleview

3:44 ↗ College simply wouldn't exist. And as

3:46 ↗ Mayor Mullet suggested, it has been more

3:49 ↗ than 18,000 students in Isiqua and the

3:52 ↗ surrounding area in the last 5 years.

3:54 ↗ And so we really are educating this

3:57 ↗ community to live, to work, to play, and

4:02 ↗ to give back to this community. It's

4:04 ↗ education, but it's also partnership

4:06 ↗ with Costco to provide highquality,

4:10 ↗ lowcost child care for their employees,

4:13 ↗ for our students, and also for citizens

4:15 ↗ here in Isiqua and beyond. And so the

4:18 ↗ partnership extends and has extended

4:21 ↗ far into the past for 60 more and more

4:24 ↗ years. And I'm very, very excited to see

4:27 ↗ where the next 60 years of partnership

4:29 ↗ between Belleview College and the city

4:31 ↗ of Isiqua can take us. Thank you very

4:33 ↗ much.

4:49 ↗ The next item of business is ID2031s

4:53 ↗ LGBTQIA+

4:54 ↗ pride month proclamation. I want to

4:56 ↗ invite Jason Rey from East Side Pride

4:58 ↗ Pacific Northwest to the lectern.

5:02 ↗ Oh yes, come on up. The more the

5:04 ↗ marrier.

5:07 ↗ Whereas June is recognized as Pride

5:09 ↗ Month commemorating the 1969 Stonewall

5:12 ↗ uprising and honoring the ongoing

5:13 ↗ struggle for 2SL GBTQIA plus rights. And

5:17 ↗ whereas Pride Month celebrates the two

5:19 ↗ spirit lesbian, gay, bisexual,

5:21 ↗ transgender queer questioning

5:22 ↗ interex, and asexual plus community who

5:25 ↗ are our family, friends, neighbors, and

5:26 ↗ co-workers and who meaningfully

5:28 ↗ contribute to our community in

5:29 ↗ innumerable ways. Whereas the city of

5:31 ↗ Isqua is committed to being an inclusive

5:33 ↗ and welcoming community where all

5:35 ↗ residents and visitors regardless of

5:37 ↗ sexual orientation, gender identity, or

5:39 ↗ gender expression, feel safe, affirmed,

5:42 ↗ and empowered to live authentically. And

5:45 ↗ whereas the city stands in opposition to

5:47 ↗ discrimination and actions that seek to

5:49 ↗ erase or marginalize queer and trans

5:51 ↗ individuals, remains committed to

5:53 ↗ fostering belonging through inclusive

5:55 ↗ policies, public engagement, education,

5:58 ↗ and partnerships year round. Whereas the

6:00 ↗ city honors the resilience, creativity,

6:02 ↗ contributions, and leadership of

6:03 ↗ 2SLGBTQIA plus individuals and affirms

6:06 ↗ its role as a sanctuary of dignity,

6:08 ↗ equity, and belonging for 2LGBTQI

6:11 ↗ plus community, their families, and

6:13 ↗ their allies to demonstrate its

6:14 ↗ commitment to these same core values for

6:17 ↗ all residents and visitors. Now,

6:18 ↗ therefore, I, Mark Mullet, mayor of the

6:20 ↗ city of Isqua, do hereby proclaim the

6:22 ↗ month of June to be 2slgpqia

6:25 ↗ plus pride month in the city of Isiqua.

6:27 ↗ And I invite the Isqua community to come

6:29 ↗ together to recognize the contributions

6:31 ↗ and achievements of the 2slgq IIA plus

6:34 ↗ community in witness whereof I hereby

6:35 ↗ set my hand and seal to the city of

6:37 ↗ Isqua on this first day of June 2026.

6:46 ↗ We'll do the photo and then you

7:05 ↗ Thank you, mayor, and thank you, city

7:07 ↗ council.

7:08 ↗ As you've mentioned, uh Jason Rey, who

7:11 ↗ is the East Side Pride Pacific Northwest

7:14 ↗ is leaison, and my name is Cheryl Smith,

7:17 ↗ and I'm a leadership member of East Side

7:19 ↗ Pride Pacific Northwest. Also, most

7:22 ↗ importantly, I'm here as a proud parent

7:26 ↗ of a transgender daughter.

7:29 ↗ This is the first time saying these

7:31 ↗ words in public.

7:35 ↗ Why? Because Isaacqua's created a space

7:37 ↗ where my child can visit and know

7:40 ↗ they're welcome, safe, and respected.

7:43 ↗ And I feel safe here, too, as an ally.

7:46 ↗ Is it proclamation flags, public art,

7:50 ↗ and window decals send a message to your

7:53 ↗ LGBTQIA

7:55 ↗ to us plus residents, allies, and

7:58 ↗ visitors that all are very welcome.

8:00 ↗ These are important gestures of

8:02 ↗ inclusion. Inclusion means continuing to

8:05 ↗ show up just not in Pride Month, but all

8:08 ↗ year long. It means supporting policies

8:10 ↗ that protect queer and trans people like

8:13 ↗ Juniper Blessing.

8:15 ↗ It's about partnering with pride

8:17 ↗ organizations like East Side Pride

8:18 ↗ Pacific Northwest. It's about

8:20 ↗ celebrating the lives that we all live

8:22 ↗ on a daily basis.

8:24 ↗ Thank you to the city of Isaac for what

8:27 ↗ you're doing and that you continue to do

8:29 ↗ for the Pride communities, our families,

8:31 ↗ and our allies. I'm grateful to be

8:34 ↗ accepting this proclamation with Jason

8:36 ↗ on behalf of East Side Pride Pacific

8:37 ↗ Northwest. Thank you.

8:50 ↗ The next item of business is ID 2038,

8:53 ↗ recognition of facilities maintenance

8:54 ↗ supervisor G Harvey. And I think we're

8:56 ↗ going to have Autumn come on up to do

8:59 ↗ the honors.

9:01 ↗ Yes, Gar, you have to come up as well.

9:08 ↗ Hi, I'm Autumn Monahan, the

9:09 ↗ administrative services director, and

9:11 ↗ I've had the pleasure of working with G

9:12 ↗ for many years. He has served the

9:14 ↗ community of Isiqua for 14 years,

9:17 ↗ leading our facilities team. Um, he is

9:20 ↗ taking on his next great adventure in

9:22 ↗ Eastern Washington. We will be very sad

9:24 ↗ to see him go, but I'm also very excited

9:26 ↗ that you're taking this next chapter in

9:28 ↗ your life.

9:29 ↗ G is an exceptional leader for our

9:31 ↗ facilities team who oversee a wide

9:34 ↗ variety of facilities in Isiqua. That's

9:36 ↗ not just office space, leased spaces,

9:39 ↗ but also really complex facilities like

9:41 ↗ a pool or a jail. Um, and it's it's been

9:45 ↗ a fun ride.

9:48 ↗ Um, he's always been ready to go for

9:51 ↗ projects large and small. large projects

9:54 ↗ like how do we take years and years of

9:56 ↗ stuff out of city hall northwest before

9:57 ↗ selling it to small projects like

10:00 ↗ answering my call two weeks ago when a

10:02 ↗ squirrel caused a power outage in this

10:04 ↗ building ahead of a council committee

10:05 ↗ meeting. Uh he has always answered the

10:08 ↗ call and um been there to support us

10:10 ↗ whatever we need. We were just doing

10:12 ↗ some due diligence on a property we're

10:14 ↗ purchasing for city hall and G was uh

10:17 ↗ just scouring every inch of that

10:19 ↗ building and reported back that he

10:21 ↗ thinks he knows that building now better

10:22 ↗ than his own home.

10:25 ↗ And I would say that's fair to say all

10:27 ↗ of the buildings you know extremely well

10:30 ↗ and your historical knowledge of those

10:32 ↗ properties has been so helpful over the

10:34 ↗ years.

10:36 ↗ I'm so grateful for your leadership. I'm

10:38 ↗ so grateful for your creativity and your

10:41 ↗ problem solving. I've really, really

10:43 ↗ enjoyed working with you and it's thanks

10:45 ↗ to

10:47 ↗ your years of service that thousands of

10:49 ↗ people have enjoyed our public

10:51 ↗ facilities over the years and that

10:53 ↗ you've enabled all of us as staff to

10:55 ↗ serve the community as well. And that's

10:57 ↗ a remarkable legacy. So, thank you so

10:59 ↗ much and good luck on your next chapter.

11:01 ↗ >> Thank you.

11:02 ↗ >> Thanks, G.

11:09 ↗ You get a plaque. You get a plaque.

11:15 ↗ >> Genie's passing.

11:22 ↗ >> Hey, I think it's yours. I wasn't I

11:25 ↗ wasn't really prepared for that, but

11:27 ↗ that's okay. Um, I just really want to

11:30 ↗ uh thank the city for the opportunity um

11:34 ↗ to be part of the team. It's uh it's

11:37 ↗ been an honor. It's been a pleasure to

11:38 ↗ serve the city. Um the staff and you

11:42 ↗ know all the uh citizens and and my

11:44 ↗ team. I couldn't have couldn't have done

11:46 ↗ it without my team. My uh my team is an

11:48 ↗ important piece. It was a very hard

11:50 ↗ decision to make. Um but in the end, my

11:52 ↗ wife's the one that kind of pushed me

11:54 ↗ through the decision. So again, just

11:56 ↗ thanks for the opportunity. Um, and I

11:59 ↗ will miss everything and uh, everything

12:02 ↗ I've learned here, I'm going to take

12:03 ↗ with me. So there's a an equestrian farm

12:06 ↗ that's going to have a little piece of

12:07 ↗ visiqua in it just from what I've

12:08 ↗ learned.

12:10 ↗ >> Where's the first place you're traveling

12:11 ↗ to?

12:15 ↗ >> Ellensburg is not your normal first

12:17 ↗ destination for someone to go to when

12:18 ↗ they retire.

12:31 ↗ Okay, the next item of business is

12:33 ↗ audience comments. Uh comments made in

12:36 ↗ person or they can be made virtually.

12:37 ↗ Although I'm trying to figure out how

12:39 ↗ our virtual thing is working, but I

12:41 ↗ think it's okay. Uh those of you signed

12:43 ↗ up will be called on first. If you're on

12:45 ↗ the phone, you can press star three. And

12:48 ↗ if you did not sign up, do not panic. We

12:50 ↗ will give you a chance to share comments

12:53 ↗ towards the end. And with that, Madame

12:56 ↗ Clerk, are there folks signed up for

12:58 ↗ audience comments?

12:59 ↗ >> Yes, Mayor.

13:00 ↗ >> Right.

13:04 ↗ First up, I have uh Robert Row.

13:09 ↗ I believe I see you online. Mr. Row, I

13:12 ↗ will uh promote you to a panelist and

13:15 ↗ from there you should be able to unmute

13:17 ↗ yourself.

13:25 ↗ Okay, Mr. Row, I have promoted you to a

13:27 ↗ panelist. You should be able to unmute

13:28 ↗ and if you would like to share your uh

13:30 ↗ video as well, you should be able to do

13:32 ↗ that.

13:34 ↗ >> I see it.

13:40 ↗ >> All right. Is everything Can you guys

13:42 ↗ hear me?

13:43 ↗ >> We can.

13:46 ↗ >> Okay. Um, first I would like to begin by

13:50 ↗ saying to the east side and Washington

13:53 ↗ State, happy Pride Month. That is very

13:56 ↗ important to me having a sister who's

14:00 ↗ um lesbian and married with two

14:03 ↗ children. So, that was awesome to hear

14:06 ↗ the city council announce that.

14:09 ↗ Um,

14:10 ↗ it's nice to see you guys again,

14:12 ↗ especially the mayor.

14:15 ↗ Uh, I wish I was here to comment about

14:18 ↗ how awesome it is here to live in Isqua

14:21 ↗ Highlands

14:23 ↗ and the convenience what you guys have

14:26 ↗ done for the Sound Transit bus stops,

14:29 ↗ the beautiful views.

14:31 ↗ But I have to say again, man, that the

14:34 ↗ noise

14:35 ↗ pollution here is

14:39 ↗ is insane. Um, I'm I know the comments

14:43 ↗ that I'm reading are a little bit

14:45 ↗ different. I'm just paraphrasing from

14:47 ↗ what I wrote down, but I just like to

14:49 ↗ know that

14:51 ↗ what has been done

14:54 ↗ to combat the noise from these delivery

14:56 ↗ companies that come at 11:30 at night

15:02 ↗ um to 12:30 in the morning delivering.

15:06 ↗ You know, I live here in Discovery West

15:08 ↗ Apartments

15:10 ↗ and I have talked a lot about this and I

15:14 ↗ have sent many complaints. One

15:17 ↗ officer who I have talked to, I don't

15:20 ↗ know if it's a real person or not, but

15:22 ↗ it was a officer

15:24 ↗ Matthew F.

15:27 ↗ Um, he had a very hard time

15:32 ↗ finding out why QCD delivery is

15:35 ↗ delivering to Swedish Hospital at 11:30

15:39 ↗ at night when one of the biggest food

15:41 ↗ deliveries, US food, delivers at the

15:44 ↗ proper time around 11 and 10 a.m. So, I

15:48 ↗ I know the mayor is probably getting

15:50 ↗ tired of this, but I am getting tired of

15:52 ↗ this, too, you know, because I'm tired

15:54 ↗ of the lip service that I'm hearing from

15:56 ↗ his office saying, "Oh, we'll get back

15:59 ↗ to you." And they never do,

16:02 ↗ you know. So, I'm I'm requesting the

16:06 ↗ city council to implement and enforce

16:11 ↗ IMC

16:13 ↗ N or 9.22 22

16:16 ↗ to levy fines of $100 for every offense.

16:23 ↗ You know, Mayor, I'm asking you

16:25 ↗ directly, Mr. Mayor Mullet,

16:29 ↗ would you like it if I parked a semi

16:33 ↗ in your neighborhood at 11:30 at night?

16:37 ↗ Sir, it is unacceptable.

16:40 ↗ I have sent a YouTube link for you guys

16:43 ↗ to watch and I am more than a hundred

16:47 ↗ yards away from that hospital what is

16:50 ↗ necessary

16:53 ↗ but my whole apartment vibrates so I

16:57 ↗ thought it was just me. Next time I'm

17:00 ↗ bringing residence

17:03 ↗ something must be done.

17:08 ↗ Thank you for your time.

17:10 ↗ Thank you very much,

17:13 ↗ Clerk Mueller.

17:19 ↗ Thank you. Next on our list is uh Fire

17:23 ↗ Chief Will AO.

17:31 ↗ Well, good evening, honorable mayor and

17:34 ↗ members of the city council. Sorry. Uh

17:38 ↗ my name is Will Aaho and I proudly serve

17:40 ↗ as your fire chief for East Side Fire

17:41 ↗ and Rescue and thank you for the

17:43 ↗ opportunity to speak tonight. As the

17:46 ↗ city begins its discussion about the

17:48 ↗ future of fire service, I wanted to

17:50 ↗ provide some context for the

17:51 ↗ conversations currently taking place at

17:54 ↗ East Side Fire and Rescue Board. For 27

17:58 ↗ years, the East Side Fire and Rescue has

18:00 ↗ been built on partnerships. The original

18:03 ↗ agencies came together to because they

18:05 ↗ believed that a shared fire service

18:07 ↗ model could provide highquality

18:10 ↗ emergency services more efficiently and

18:12 ↗ more effectively than each agency

18:15 ↗ operating independently.

18:17 ↗ That partnership has served our

18:19 ↗ communities well. Today, Epher protects

18:22 ↗ nearly 229,000 community members across

18:25 ↗ 277 square miles from 16 fire stations.

18:30 ↗ We're governed by a board of directors

18:32 ↗ with representation from each

18:34 ↗ participating agency along with advisory

18:37 ↗ members from our contract agencies. At

18:40 ↗ the same time, Epher's structure is

18:42 ↗ unique. We do not have independent

18:45 ↗ taxing authority. Instead, our budget is

18:48 ↗ funded through contributions from our

18:51 ↗ partner and contract agencies. That

18:53 ↗ means each agency must determine how

18:55 ↗ best to fund its share of regional fire

18:59 ↗ and emergency services. As costs

19:01 ↗ continue to increase, that model creates

19:04 ↗ challenges not only for the individual

19:06 ↗ agencies, but also for Epher's abilities

19:09 ↗ to plan for stable and sustainable uh

19:12 ↗ service delivery.

19:14 ↗ Because of that, the epher board began

19:16 ↗ an education process earlier this year

19:18 ↗ to better understand the available

19:20 ↗ governance and funding options. Those

19:23 ↗ options included continuing under the

19:25 ↗ current interlocal agreement, evaluating

19:28 ↗ annexation and or merging into a fire

19:30 ↗ district and considering a regional fire

19:33 ↗ authority model. At the June Epher board

19:36 ↗ meeting, the board will be asked whether

19:38 ↗ there is a direction Epher should focus

19:40 ↗ on uh for further education and

19:43 ↗ discussion. That does not replace the

19:46 ↗ authority of city council, the fire

19:48 ↗ districts or any individual agencies.

19:51 ↗ The final decision rests with each

19:54 ↗ jurisdiction and depending on the option

19:56 ↗ potentially the voters.

19:58 ↗ The purpose of Epher's work is to make

20:00 ↗ sure each community has clear un uh

20:04 ↗ clear information, understanding of the

20:06 ↗ available options and has a voice in

20:09 ↗ shaping the future of the fire service.

20:11 ↗ I appreciate that Isiziqua is taking an

20:15 ↗ active interest in evaluating its future

20:17 ↗ fire service needs. My request is that

20:20 ↗ the city remain engaged in the epher

20:22 ↗ process as well so that Isiziqua's voice

20:26 ↗ continues to be part of the regional

20:28 ↗ conversation.

20:30 ↗ East Side Fire and Rescue has

20:31 ↗ demonstrated for nearly three decades

20:34 ↗ that collaboration can protect

20:35 ↗ communities well as we look to the

20:38 ↗ future. The goal is to ensure the same

20:40 ↗ level of service remains sustainable,

20:43 ↗ predictable, and accountable to the

20:46 ↗ communities we so honory serve.

20:50 ↗ I am available for any questions um

20:53 ↗ today. And thank you so much for your

20:55 ↗ time.

20:55 ↗ >> Thank you very much, Chief. Are you able

20:57 ↗ to stay till later in Okay, excellent.

20:59 ↗ That's awesome. Thank you very much.

21:02 ↗ Uh Clerk Mueller.

21:05 ↗ >> Yes. Next, we have Sarah Ryder.

21:18 ↗ Hello, Sarah Ryder, resident of Talis.

21:22 ↗ Um, a few things I'm going to talk to

21:23 ↗ you about today. First thing is my own

21:26 ↗ thing and then I'm going to represent

21:27 ↗ the group that you've seen that we've

21:28 ↗ brought today. The first thing I wanted

21:30 ↗ to say is that I'm 100% on board with

21:32 ↗ the tasers for our um police department.

21:36 ↗ uh to me is very important to give them

21:38 ↗ the best tools that they can use for

21:40 ↗ deescalation and their own safety. So I

21:43 ↗ wanted to say that on behalf of myself

21:45 ↗ on behalf of the group um we have

21:47 ↗ started a petition. I'm not going to

21:49 ↗ read the whole thing. The first part

21:51 ↗ you've already addressed with your

21:52 ↗ resolution and we thank you for that. We

21:54 ↗ thank you that you've heard us. We read

21:56 ↗ through the resolution. We think it's

21:57 ↗ awesome. But the second part is we're

21:59 ↗ still going to push for that city

22:00 ↗ ordinance. I know that it's on the books

22:02 ↗ for July, but we want to be very clear

22:05 ↗ that we still want that. So, we do have

22:06 ↗ a petition with uh around 200 signatures

22:10 ↗ from different people around Isiqu. I'm

22:12 ↗ not sure if I present this to you or not

22:14 ↗ or how that works.

22:15 ↗ >> You can bring it forward, city clerk.

22:17 ↗ >> I'll read I'll read it first and then

22:20 ↗ >> I just didn't know how the handing of

22:21 ↗ stuff goes. I want to don't know the

22:24 ↗ decorum, if you will. Um but any further

22:27 ↗ consideration of ALPR technology in

22:29 ↗ Isiqua must be narrow in scope. An

22:32 ↗ application is possible. Pursue only if

22:34 ↗ truly required. Citizens rights and

22:37 ↗ concerns must be protected as strictly

22:38 ↗ as they can be. Examples of protections

22:42 ↗ that should be implemented include the

22:43 ↗ following. Data and imagery collected by

22:46 ↗ ALPRs owned by the city of Isiqua and

22:49 ↗ its departments must be stored in secure

22:51 ↗ closed loop systems owned by Isiqua city

22:54 ↗ government. must be shown to be

22:56 ↗ architecturally inaccessible to outside

22:59 ↗ entities. Must include only license

23:01 ↗ plates and emphatically must not include

23:03 ↗ faces or identifying fe physical

23:05 ↗ features of drivers or passengers of

23:07 ↗ vehicles. Must not be transmitted to

23:10 ↗ servers or entities outside of Isiqua.

23:12 ↗ Must not be stored if it does not

23:14 ↗ generate an alarm related to a wanted or

23:16 ↗ missing person, stolen vehicle, active

23:18 ↗ warrant, or serious criminal offense.

23:21 ↗ and any privatelyowned ALPRs in the city

23:23 ↗ of Isiqua must be positioned such that

23:26 ↗ they do not collect data or imagery from

23:28 ↗ public streets, from public property or

23:31 ↗ avenues of travel that the owner of the

23:32 ↗ ALPR does not own themselves. So, Isiqua

23:36 ↗ City government has distinguished itself

23:39 ↗ in the past few weeks by enacting

23:41 ↗ important initial measures. We thank you

23:43 ↗ for that so much. We know that you've

23:44 ↗ heard us. So we appreciate you

23:47 ↗ responding to our deep concerns that are

23:48 ↗ held by Isiqua's residents and visitors.

23:51 ↗ And it is now our opportunity to

23:54 ↗ distinguish ourselves further by

23:56 ↗ cementing in a law full and forceful

24:00 ↗ protections for those same people. We

24:03 ↗ ask is city government not to waste this

24:05 ↗ chance. And now I can present our our

24:08 ↗ list of people if that's cool.

24:10 ↗ >> Excellent. Thank you.

24:17 ↗ Thank you very much.

24:20 ↗ >> There's no one further signed up to

24:21 ↗ speak tonight, mayor.

24:22 ↗ >> All right. Is there anybody else in the

24:24 ↗ audience?

24:26 ↗ Going once. Going twice. Okay. With

24:29 ↗ that, audience comments are closed. The

24:32 ↗ next item of business is the consent

24:34 ↗ calendar. I do not have any remarks on

24:36 ↗ the consent calendar. Are there any

24:38 ↗ committee chairs or chair design who

24:39 ↗ would like to report on any of the

24:40 ↗ consent calendar items?

24:43 ↗ Not seeing anything.

24:46 ↗ Uh I think our city clerk has minor

24:48 ↗ updates to announce prior to approval.

24:52 ↗ >> Thank you, mayor. Per the current

24:53 ↗ council rules, two corrections were made

24:55 ↗ to the draft minutes for the May 11th,

24:57 ↗ 2026 committee of the whole meeting,

24:59 ↗ which is consent calendar item C on

25:01 ↗ tonight's agenda. Both corrections were

25:03 ↗ on page two under agenda item B

25:06 ↗ regarding the IPD Congressional

25:08 ↗ Community Appropriations Grant. These

25:10 ↗ corrections were distributed earlier

25:11 ↗ today to the city council for review.

25:13 ↗ With approval of the consent calendar,

25:15 ↗ you will be approving this revised

25:17 ↗ version of the May 11th meeting minutes.

25:20 ↗ Additionally, there was a typo located

25:21 ↗ on AB9183

25:24 ↗ for the 2025 water main replacement

25:26 ↗ project WT015.

25:28 ↗ In the financial information section,

25:31 ↗ 44,548,000

25:33 ↗ is cited to have been transferred.

25:35 ↗ However, this should have been $44,548

25:39 ↗ as cited in the table just below on the

25:41 ↗ same page.

25:43 ↗ >> Right. I mean, what's a couple zeros

25:45 ↗ amongst friends? Uh, okay. The consent

25:48 ↗ to calendar was distributed to council

25:49 ↗ in advance if authorized the items on

25:51 ↗ the consent calendar will be considered

25:52 ↗ together and approved by one motion.

25:54 ↗ Have the payables and payroll been

25:56 ↗ reviewed?

25:58 ↗ >> They have. They have.

26:00 ↗ >> All right. I know. I think we need two

26:01 ↗ of those. Uh, does any council member

26:03 ↗ want to remove any items from the

26:04 ↗ consent calendar considered under

26:06 ↗ regular business?

26:08 ↗ >> Okay, not seeing any. Is there a motion?

26:10 ↗ Uh, council president Martz.

26:11 ↗ >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move to adopt

26:14 ↗ the consent calendar with the

26:15 ↗ distributed amendments and scrivener

26:17 ↗ changes.

26:18 ↗ >> Second.

26:19 ↗ >> All right, it's been moved and seconded.

26:22 ↗ All those in favor? The motion is to

26:24 ↗ approve the consent calendar as

26:25 ↗ presented has been moved and seconded.

26:26 ↗ All those in favor say I.

26:28 ↗ >> I.

26:31 ↗ All those opposed? Nay. And that passes

26:33 ↗ unanimously. The next item of business

26:35 ↗ is public hearing AB 91135

26:39 ↗ 2027 2032 six-year transportation

26:41 ↗ improvement plan.

26:43 ↗ We are going to open the public hearing.

26:45 ↗ I'm going to invite transportation

26:46 ↗ engineering manager John Mortonson to

26:48 ↗ present this item.

26:54 ↗ >> Thank you very much, Mayor Mullet. Good

26:56 ↗ evening, council members. I'm John

26:57 ↗ Mortonson, transportation engineering

26:59 ↗ manager. Give me a minute. I'll load up

27:01 ↗ my presentation and talk to you about

27:04 ↗ the transportation improvement program.

27:36 ↗ Tonight's topic is the 2027 to 2032

27:40 ↗ transportation improvement program.

27:48 ↗ The purpose of tonight's item is to

27:50 ↗ review the updates to the 2027 to 2032

27:54 ↗ transportation improvement program and

27:56 ↗ to hold a public hearing as required by

27:58 ↗ state law.

28:03 ↗ The direction that the administration is

28:05 ↗ seeking from the council tonight are

28:08 ↗ with regards to the major themes and

28:10 ↗ changes to the transportation

28:12 ↗ improvement program. Specifically, the

28:14 ↗ emphasis on smaller scale projects,

28:17 ↗ prioritization of performing maintenance

28:20 ↗ projects over new construction, and the

28:23 ↗ more extensive use of debt, specifically

28:26 ↗ funded by the transportation benefit

28:28 ↗ district sales tax. revenue that will

28:31 ↗ sunset in the future.

28:35 ↗ But before I go into those, I want to

28:36 ↗ give a little bit of a background. The

28:39 ↗ kind of the hierarchy of how this all

28:41 ↗ fits together is the city has the

28:43 ↗ comprehensive plan that has the vision,

28:45 ↗ goals, and policies that then feed into

28:48 ↗ the functional plans like the climate

28:50 ↗ and action plan and the mobility action

28:54 ↗ plan. And out of those plans, it they

28:58 ↗ feed into the transportation improvement

29:00 ↗ program.

29:03 ↗ A little bit more of a background. The

29:05 ↗ city is required to adopt a six-year

29:09 ↗ transportation improvement program every

29:11 ↗ year according to RCW35.77.010.

29:16 ↗ And the way the city of Esquad does this

29:18 ↗ is in odd years like last year, it's the

29:23 ↗ transportation improvement program is

29:25 ↗ part of the larger capital improvement

29:29 ↗ plan. And this is a time when the city

29:32 ↗ can make larger scale changes. Um

29:36 ↗ because the city council has the

29:37 ↗ opportunity to weigh the different

29:40 ↗ projects, whether it's transportation

29:42 ↗ project, a facilities project, a park

29:44 ↗ project. um and many more.

29:48 ↗ And then in even years like this year,

29:50 ↗ it's done as a standalone process

29:53 ↗ and for the most part is a limited

29:55 ↗ update.

29:57 ↗ The projects that are in the

29:58 ↗ transportation improvement program are

30:00 ↗ used to

30:02 ↗ establish

30:03 ↗ impact fees as well as bicycle and

30:05 ↗ pedestrian mitigation fees. and

30:09 ↗ the projects that are in the six-year

30:11 ↗ transportation improvement program. Some

30:14 ↗ of them are projects that are to help

30:16 ↗ prepare the city for growth that will be

30:18 ↗ coming with the regional growth center

30:20 ↗ as well as other projects though are in

30:23 ↗ response to community needs.

30:29 ↗ And inside the six-year transportation

30:31 ↗ improvement program, there's a project

30:33 ↗ summary that explains what the project

30:35 ↗ is, the estimated costs, the potential

30:38 ↗ funding sources, and when the project

30:40 ↗ may occur. And I do want to emphasize

30:42 ↗ that the transportation improvement

30:44 ↗ program, it is a planning document. It

30:47 ↗ is not the budget that here later on

30:50 ↗ this year the council will be

30:52 ↗ deliberating the two-year bianium budget

30:55 ↗ and that is the actual budget that puts

30:57 ↗ into motion

30:59 ↗ what projects will and will not be done

31:01 ↗ in the next two years.

31:04 ↗ So why are projects included in the

31:07 ↗ six-year tip? Sometimes they establish

31:10 ↗ uh they satisfy the goals in the

31:12 ↗ mobility action plan or the

31:14 ↗ transportation element of the

31:15 ↗ comprehensive plan. Sometimes they come

31:17 ↗ out of other plans or studies like the

31:19 ↗ transit study and I'll talk about a

31:20 ↗ project that came out of the transit

31:22 ↗ study. Some of the projects are a result

31:25 ↗ of feedback that the administration

31:27 ↗ receives from the community whether it's

31:29 ↗ through cclick fix or just talking to

31:31 ↗ residents out in the community.

31:35 ↗ They also meet the goals of the

31:36 ↗ administration specifically

31:39 ↗ the prioritization of maintenance,

31:41 ↗ implementing small-cale projects that

31:43 ↗ are have an immediate benefit to the

31:46 ↗ community and including relieving

31:48 ↗ congestion for vehicles. And the update

31:52 ↗ also includes um revisions based on

31:56 ↗ revenue projections to match current

31:58 ↗ forecasts.

32:02 ↗ Inside the this year's packet was um an

32:06 ↗ update from last year's capital

32:08 ↗ improvement plan and how the projects

32:12 ↗ were prioritized with last year's CIP

32:14 ↗ process which involved legal mandate or

32:18 ↗ addressing life and safety concerns like

32:21 ↗ the black nugget retaining wall

32:24 ↗ community priority. That's a big part of

32:27 ↗ why we do a lot of these projects like

32:28 ↗ the Northwest Mammish Road non-motorized

32:31 ↗ project. Community livability and

32:34 ↗ quality of life, climate resiliency or

32:38 ↗ environmental benefit, the ability for

32:41 ↗ the administration to deliver the

32:42 ↗ project, replacement or capital

32:45 ↗ maintenance of existing infrastructure

32:47 ↗ like the pavement management program.

32:50 ↗ And a longstanding commitment

32:55 ↗ As part of this tip process, we spent

32:57 ↗ the administration spent a lot of time

33:00 ↗ working on balancing revenue with

33:03 ↗ expenditures. And there's a number of

33:04 ↗ pressures that were on under for these

33:08 ↗ projects. One of them was a delay in

33:11 ↗ implementing the school zone safety

33:13 ↗ camera deployment, which reduced revenue

33:15 ↗ in the school zone safety fund.

33:20 ↗ This update also proposes

33:23 ↗ being more aggressive with implementing

33:25 ↗ debt from the transportation benefit

33:27 ↗ district to implement projects so that

33:29 ↗ way the community can receive the

33:31 ↗ benefits sooner rather than later as

33:33 ↗ project costs continue to rise.

33:37 ↗ On the expenditure side, there's demands

33:40 ↗ for real estate excise tax in last

33:43 ↗ year's CIP that surpass the revenue that

33:48 ↗ is coming in. And so as part of this,

33:51 ↗ the administration had to make some

33:52 ↗ adjustments to align the actual revenues

33:56 ↗ that are coming in with the and

34:00 ↗ expenditures. And then there's a lot of

34:02 ↗ regional and national global economic

34:05 ↗ factors creating uncertainty. Oil costs

34:09 ↗ and diesel fuel costs are a big impact

34:12 ↗ on the cost of implementing these

34:14 ↗ projects.

34:19 ↗ So now I'm going to go over the update

34:21 ↗ in the proposed 2027 to 2032

34:24 ↗ transportation improvement program.

34:29 ↗ The themes of this update were an

34:32 ↗ emphasis on smaller scale projects that

34:34 ↗ could be implemented so the community

34:36 ↗ could receive the benefit rather than

34:38 ↗ waiting year after year while a project

34:41 ↗ slugs through design.

34:44 ↗ Prioritizing maintenance over building

34:46 ↗ new and the more extensive use of debt

34:49 ↗ specifically

34:51 ↗ funded by the transportation benefit

34:52 ↗ district sales tax that is set to

34:55 ↗ sunset.

34:57 ↗ Some of the specific project changes are

35:00 ↗ for project TR 12, the front street and

35:05 ↗ sunset left turn improvements that was

35:07 ↗ added to the six-year

35:10 ↗ program. And then the Gilman Bridge

35:14 ↗ rehabilitation project. This was one

35:16 ↗ that has been in the budget and council

35:19 ↗ has approved it, but just the timing of

35:22 ↗ when we do the tip and when we get the

35:24 ↗ funding for the project, it wasn't in

35:26 ↗ it. So, it's not a new project. It's

35:29 ↗ just added as a technicality. Some of

35:32 ↗ the projects that moved up are the

35:35 ↗ signalization project at Front Street

35:37 ↗ and Dogwood, as well as the pavement um

35:43 ↗ repair job at the location of 190th

35:46 ↗ Place and 191st Avenue Southeast. This

35:50 ↗ is a location up the road from the

35:52 ↗ Cougar Mountain Zoo where the pavement's

35:55 ↗ in really poor condition. And the reason

35:58 ↗ why this project was moved up is

36:01 ↗ There's going to be a new storm water

36:04 ↗ requirement beginning in July of 2027

36:08 ↗ that would make this project prohibitly

36:10 ↗ expensive. And so the goal is to permit

36:14 ↗ this project before the change. That way

36:16 ↗ it is a an affordable project.

36:19 ↗ And a couple projects were moved out

36:21 ↗ into the future. The central Equiqua

36:23 ↗ multimodal I90 crossing was moved out.

36:26 ↗ We the administration recently completed

36:29 ↗ a planning study that identified a

36:31 ↗ preferred location for the crossing, but

36:34 ↗ there are some council concerns about

36:36 ↗ the project and the overall costs and

36:38 ↗ how it would look along Gilman

36:40 ↗ Boulevard. And so that project's been

36:43 ↗ moved to the future years rather than

36:46 ↗ advancing it in the next six years. And

36:48 ↗ then TR84, the transit signal priority

36:51 ↗ pilot project. And this project was not

36:54 ↗ moved because transit signal priority

36:58 ↗ isn't a priority. It still is a priority

37:00 ↗ for the administration. However, a pilot

37:03 ↗ project was not the best avenue to go

37:06 ↗ about doing that when reading King

37:08 ↗ County Metro's guidelines for transit

37:11 ↗ signal priority projects that it's

37:14 ↗ better to do that along. So the let me

37:16 ↗ back up. The pilot project would have

37:19 ↗ implemented transit signal priority at

37:22 ↗ one location, but the guidelines talk

37:24 ↗ about how it's much better to do it

37:26 ↗ along a corridor. And there's a certain

37:29 ↗ bus frequency that the city of Esqua

37:31 ↗ does not have that is the best practice

37:34 ↗ for implementing transit signal

37:36 ↗ priorities. So, it's still a priority,

37:38 ↗ but the city needs more buses and it the

37:44 ↗ recommendation from the administration

37:45 ↗ is to do this as part of a corridor with

37:49 ↗ buses rather than at a spot location.

37:54 ↗ I'm going to talk a little bit about the

37:55 ↗ project TR012,

37:58 ↗ the front and sunset left turn

38:00 ↗ improvement projects. So, this has been

38:02 ↗ a concurrency project in our long-term

38:05 ↗ project list for many, many years. And

38:09 ↗ it came to the forefront in 2023 when

38:13 ↗ the administration did a transit study

38:15 ↗ that looked at improvements that the

38:17 ↗ city can do to help improve access,

38:20 ↗ speed, and reliability of transit. And

38:24 ↗ this is an intersection that has

38:26 ↗ currently the 554 bus coming from

38:28 ↗ Newport Way onto Sunset and then

38:31 ↗ continuing up to the Highlands and then

38:32 ↗ in reverse. And then starting this fall,

38:35 ↗ the revised 556 bus is going to go along

38:39 ↗ Gilman and then front to Sunset and then

38:43 ↗ likewise in reverse. And so this project

38:46 ↗ is intended to improve the speed and

38:50 ↗ reliability of the bus routes along

38:52 ↗ here. And what it will do is redesign

38:55 ↗ the intersection on the west leg for

38:59 ↗ eastbound traffic. It'll add a through

39:02 ↗ right turn lane and then have a

39:05 ↗ standalone left turn lane. And then

39:08 ↗ what's called phase two. And depending

39:10 ↗ on what the traffic analysis and the

39:14 ↗ cost estimate determined as well as a

39:16 ↗ grant application. Oops.

39:20 ↗ Hold on.

39:24 ↗ Stop sharing. Just give me a minute. Oh,

39:28 ↗ it is not letting me share.

39:35 ↗ There we go.

39:40 ↗ All right. Oh, you're back.

39:41 ↗ >> Wonderful.

39:43 ↗ And so then the phase the second part of

39:46 ↗ this project would work on the east leg

39:49 ↗ of this intersection where it would

39:51 ↗ convert the existing right turn lane

39:54 ↗ into a right through lane and then the

39:57 ↗ existing

39:59 ↗ through left turn lane would become a

40:02 ↗ left turn lane. And these improvements

40:04 ↗ will reduce congestion for everyone at

40:08 ↗ the intersection, but especially for the

40:10 ↗ bus movements.

40:17 ↗ Some of the Now I'm going to talk about

40:19 ↗ some of the primary drivers for changes

40:21 ↗ to existing projects. And that one of

40:25 ↗ the things that we did for the two

40:28 ↗ Newport projects, the SR900 to 54th and

40:31 ↗ Maple to Sunset, we created and as well

40:34 ↗ as the strategic small capital project,

40:37 ↗ what I call tiplets. So right now,

40:40 ↗ Newport Way SR900 to 54th, it is TR022.

40:45 ↗ Well, what we did is we created TR22A,

40:48 ↗ TR22B, and TR22C. And the reason why we

40:52 ↗ did it is that project is going to be

40:53 ↗ constructed in to phases. And we wanted

40:56 ↗ to show as part of this update how that

41:00 ↗ project would get constructed in phases

41:04 ↗ to add a little bit more transparency.

41:07 ↗ And then the strategic small capital

41:09 ↗ project. One of the things that this

41:11 ↗ update did is it identified some

41:15 ↗ larger small projects that would be good

41:18 ↗ candidates for the transportation

41:20 ↗ improvement board's complete streets

41:22 ↗ grant. And one of the things that the

41:24 ↗ transportation improvement board likes

41:26 ↗ is to see projects listed in the public

41:30 ↗ agency's tip. And so we want to start

41:32 ↗ listing those to help improve our

41:34 ↗ chances of receiving external funds as

41:38 ↗ well as to also show the community the

41:40 ↗ specific small improvements that the

41:42 ↗ administration is planning to make.

41:46 ↗ I mentioned a little bit about TR 101

41:50 ↗ that that project was moved up in order

41:52 ↗ to

41:55 ↗ get permitted before changes to the

41:57 ↗ storm water requirements.

41:59 ↗ Um, additional costs were added to

42:02 ↗ TR033.

42:03 ↗ That's the Black Nugget retaining wall

42:05 ↗ to based on where the design's at, the

42:08 ↗ cost estimate has increased. And then TR

42:12 ↗ 80, 90, 91, and 92. These are all the IT

42:17 ↗ replacement projects, and those have

42:20 ↗ been updated based on the current

42:21 ↗ replacement schedules.

42:26 ↗ The projects listed here are the ones

42:28 ↗ that the administration is proposing to

42:30 ↗ use transportation benefit district back

42:33 ↗ for that is signalization project at the

42:36 ↗ intersection of front street and

42:38 ↗ dogwood. This is one that the

42:39 ↗ administration has heard a lot from the

42:43 ↗ transportation advisory board that this

42:45 ↗ is a priority project.

42:47 ↗ TR23A Newport Way Maple to Sunset. Um,

42:52 ↗ next one is a big priority for the

42:55 ↗ administration. TR028,

42:58 ↗ Northwest Seamish Road Non-motorized

43:01 ↗ Improvement Project.

43:03 ↗ TR99, this is a bridge scour repair

43:07 ↗ project

43:09 ↗ for the bridge that goes over Isawak Paw

43:11 ↗ Creek along Southeast 56th Street. It's

43:15 ↗ to help protect the

43:18 ↗ lightweight film material on the east

43:21 ↗ side of the creek um from potential

43:25 ↗ damage due to creek scour and the TR 101

43:30 ↗ 190th place and 191st Avenue project.

43:39 ↗ something to consider for the

43:40 ↗ transportation benefit district back

43:42 ↗ debt. The TBD sales tax expires in 2034

43:47 ↗ and the council at that time may choose

43:50 ↗ to reauthorize the tax or not.

43:54 ↗ If the tax is renewed, then TBD revenues

43:57 ↗ can likely support any debt issued for a

44:00 ↗ project throughout the life of the debt

44:03 ↗ service. However, if the tax is not

44:06 ↗ renewed, then the debt service for these

44:09 ↗ projects will need to be paid for from

44:11 ↗ another source such as the general fund.

44:16 ↗ The transportation improvement program

44:18 ↗ went to both the transportation advisory

44:21 ↗ board as well as the environmental

44:23 ↗ board. I'm going to talk a little bit

44:24 ↗ about the feedback that the

44:26 ↗ administration got from those boards. On

44:28 ↗ March 25th, the administration presented

44:30 ↗ the tip to the tab and generally the

44:35 ↗ feedback supported the proposed changes.

44:38 ↗ Some of the members on the tab

44:40 ↗ questioned the criteria from the

44:42 ↗ mobility action plan

44:45 ↗ and increasing wanted to increase the

44:48 ↗ objectivity to the criteria in the

44:50 ↗ mobility action plan that was used to

44:52 ↗ evaluate these projects. And some

44:55 ↗ members had questions about the use of

44:58 ↗ debt as a financial practice and

45:01 ↗ expressed concerns about additional

45:03 ↗ non-permeable payment.

45:07 ↗ The board also highlighted safety

45:08 ↗ concerns and a preference for bicycle

45:11 ↗ and pedestrian facilities as a priority

45:14 ↗ in the tip.

45:17 ↗ On April 16th of this year, the tip was

45:20 ↗ presented to the environmental board and

45:22 ↗ again the environmental board generally

45:24 ↗ supported the proposed tip updates.

45:27 ↗ Members noted several corridors for

45:29 ↗ additional bicycle facilities and the

45:33 ↗ potential to protect and enhance tree

45:35 ↗ canopy throughout the tip. and board

45:40 ↗ members had questions about specific

45:43 ↗ projects, jurisdiction working with King

45:45 ↗ County Metro and East Scooter programs.

45:51 ↗ And then on May 12th, the TIP was

45:53 ↗ presented to the mobility and

45:55 ↗ infrastructure committee. And again, the

45:57 ↗ support was generally or the the

46:00 ↗ committee generally supported the tip

46:02 ↗ updates. Members noted the importance of

46:05 ↗ having the Northwest Seamish Road

46:07 ↗ non-motorized improvement project as

46:09 ↗ part of the 2027 to 2028 operating

46:13 ↗ budget.

46:15 ↗ Not losing bicycle and pedestrian

46:17 ↗ facilities while focusing on congestion

46:19 ↗ relief. And there's a brief discussion

46:22 ↗ on impact fees.

46:25 ↗ The direction that the administration is

46:27 ↗ seeking from the council

46:30 ↗ are the major themes and changes with

46:33 ↗ this update. Specificly,

46:36 ↗ the emphasis on smaller scale projects,

46:38 ↗ the prioritization of maintenance over

46:41 ↗ new construction, and the use of debt

46:45 ↗ specifically

46:47 ↗ funded by the transportation benefit

46:49 ↗ district

46:50 ↗ with tax revenue that is scheduled to

46:52 ↗ sunset. And we did add a slide to the

46:56 ↗ presentation to talk about projects that

46:58 ↗ add bicycle and pedestrian facilities. I

47:01 ↗ know there are some concerns based on

47:03 ↗ the performance metrics that were

47:06 ↗ reported out. And so the proposed

47:09 ↗ six-year transportation improvement

47:10 ↗ program has over 16,000 ft of bikeways

47:16 ↗ proposed to be constructed. And I've got

47:19 ↗ a list here of the projects that make

47:21 ↗ improvements to pedestrian or bicycle

47:25 ↗ facilities.

47:28 ↗ The timing and next steps.

47:31 ↗ Right now, we're here on June 1st to

47:33 ↗ conduct a public hearing.

47:36 ↗ And then on June 15th, the

47:39 ↗ administration is going to propose

47:41 ↗ council adopt the

47:44 ↗ transportation improvement program. And

47:47 ↗ then once it's adopted within 30 days,

47:49 ↗ the administration will

47:53 ↗ submit the six-year tip to the state.

47:58 ↗ And that concludes my presentation.

48:01 ↗ >> Thank you very much, John. Council

48:02 ↗ member Joe is chair of the mobility

48:04 ↗ infrastructure committee. Would you like

48:05 ↗ to summarize the committee's

48:06 ↗ recommendations on this item?

48:09 ↗ >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh we reviewed uh

48:12 ↗ this particular topic at our mobility

48:15 ↗ and infrastructure meeting on May 12th.

48:17 ↗ Um it does highlight uh some of the

48:20 ↗ topics that were discussed at our May

48:22 ↗ 9th retreat. We appreciate the uh

48:25 ↗ administration's efforts to find small

48:28 ↗ projects that we can get done in a

48:31 ↗ timely manner to show that we're making

48:32 ↗ improvements uh to transportation in the

48:35 ↗ city of Isiqua so that people that live

48:37 ↗ in the city are able to get from point A

48:40 ↗ to point B, whether it's from school to

48:42 ↗ Costco or whether it's from um you know

48:45 ↗ um Target over to uh the the the park

48:49 ↗ and ride or the park and ride in the

48:51 ↗ Highlands. Um so we do appreciate the uh

48:54 ↗ emphasis on the Dogwood uh intersection

48:58 ↗ stoplight and the sunset stoplight as

49:01 ↗ well. Um the committee was generally in

49:04 ↗ favor of the proposal from the

49:06 ↗ administration. uh there was an emphasis

49:08 ↗ on um exploring and continuing to

49:11 ↗ explore uh other ways to get funding

49:13 ↗ including councilmatic bonds in the

49:16 ↗ future as a point of conversation for us

49:19 ↗ so we can continue to make those

49:20 ↗ improvements along the way. Um, I won't

49:23 ↗ speak directly for uh, Council President

49:25 ↗ Marts, but he did uh, put in a pitch for

49:28 ↗ uh, Council Matter Bonds. And uh, also

49:31 ↗ wanted to talk a little bit about the

49:32 ↗ the wall behind Fred Meyer and the

49:35 ↗ potential uh, liability and the

49:38 ↗ potential way that we need to seek

49:40 ↗ additional funding from our partners

49:41 ↗ with with King County. But overall, the

49:44 ↗ committee was generally in favor of of

49:45 ↗ this going forward. Thank you.

49:47 ↗ >> Excellent. Thank you very much. Uh,

49:50 ↗ okay. With that, I'm going to open this

49:52 ↗ public hearing at 7:58 p.m. and we're

49:56 ↗ going to go back to audience comments.

49:58 ↗ If you're joining virtually, uh, please

50:00 ↗ raise your virtual hand or send the host

50:03 ↗ a chat message. And

50:06 ↗ clerk Mueller, do we have folks signed

50:08 ↗ up in the room for audience comments?

50:14 ↗ >> I don't see anyone at this time with a

50:15 ↗ raised hand uh virtually. Uh we did have

50:18 ↗ one individual sign up uh online. Um I'm

50:21 ↗ unsure if they are virtual or in person.

50:23 ↗ I have Earl Pigot.

50:27 ↗ Looking for Earl.

50:30 ↗ Not seeing Earl online or in person. Is

50:34 ↗ there anybody in the room who has a

50:35 ↗ desire to speak in the transformation?

50:37 ↗ Oh, come on up.

50:40 ↗ Let's go to the lectern in the middle

50:41 ↗ and you just have to hit the button.

50:52 ↗ Thank you. Um, there's a a dangerous

50:55 ↗ turn on Newport Way.

50:58 ↗ >> Can you please state your name in

50:59 ↗ relation I'm so sorry. I do this

51:01 ↗ relation to the city. Thanks.

51:02 ↗ >> I'm Margaret Escobar and I live on

51:05 ↗ Squawk Mountain and I've lived in Isiqua

51:08 ↗ for

51:09 ↗ um 25 30 years. Um there's a dangerous

51:13 ↗ turn of where um sunset goes into

51:17 ↗ Mountain Park Drive and crosses Newport

51:19 ↗ Way. I live up on Squawk Mountain and so

51:22 ↗ I've seen numerous accidents there. Um

51:27 ↗ both lefts are dangerous. Both if you're

51:31 ↗ um going straight across and people are

51:33 ↗ making lefts in front of you. If you're

51:36 ↗ making a left onto Mountain Park Drive

51:38 ↗ from Newport Way, um there's a kind of a

51:41 ↗ rise and you can't see the car coming

51:44 ↗ and people are very impatient. I mean,

51:46 ↗ I've seen probably weekly almost hitting

51:50 ↗ each other and I've seen several um

51:53 ↗ dangerous

51:54 ↗ um accidents over the years. Um is there

51:58 ↗ a plan to put dedicated red light left

52:01 ↗ turns on that crossing? It's pretty

52:05 ↗ crowded. It's pretty well traveled and

52:08 ↗ there's no dedicated like left like you

52:10 ↗ have to make a left and judge traffic in

52:13 ↗ order to to it in all the directions. I

52:16 ↗ think it would be um I know it's costs

52:19 ↗ money but it would be a move to make the

52:21 ↗ city safer.

52:23 ↗ Excellent. Thank you very much. We're

52:25 ↗ nor what I would suggest is leave your

52:27 ↗ contact information with our city clerk

52:30 ↗ and uh and then we can get back to you

52:32 ↗ in terms of your specific ask and uh by

52:34 ↗ email. Thank you very much.

52:38 ↗ >> Is there anybody else in the room who

52:39 ↗ would like to make

52:41 ↗ comments? Okay, not seeing any.

52:45 ↗ The audience comments are now going to

52:49 ↗ be closed. City council, is there any

52:51 ↗ objection to closing the public hearing?

52:54 ↗ Okay, not seeing any. The public hearing

52:57 ↗ is now closed. We are now going to go to

53:01 ↗ council questions

53:03 ↗ uh for John.

53:07 ↗ Looking looking

53:09 ↗ council member Nichols.

53:12 ↗ Thank you. Um first of all, thank you

53:14 ↗ for the great presentation and all the

53:16 ↗ work that's gone into this, all the

53:17 ↗ feedback that's been requested and

53:18 ↗ implemented. Uh the first question I've

53:20 ↗ got is on that feedback. Uh one of the

53:22 ↗ things that you mentioned was that for

53:24 ↗ both TAP and the environmental board

53:25 ↗ that they highlighted safety concerns

53:27 ↗ and a preference for additional bike and

53:29 ↗ pedestrian facilities as raising in

53:32 ↗ priority in the tip. Um I appreciated

53:34 ↗ the list of uh projects that you

53:36 ↗ presented that included elements that

53:38 ↗ touch on our uh pedestrian and bike

53:41 ↗ facilities. Uh but I wanted to know what

53:43 ↗ was altered in the plan as a result of

53:44 ↗ that feedback. What was brought was

53:46 ↗ anything altered to incorporate their

53:47 ↗ feedback versus what they were

53:50 ↗ originally presented with.

53:57 ↗ There were no alterations based on that

53:59 ↗ feedback.

54:02 ↗ >> Is there an opportunity to take their

54:05 ↗ feedback into account and

54:08 ↗ rep prioritize based on the the board

54:11 ↗ and commission's feedback?

54:16 ↗ My preference would be to if there is a

54:19 ↗ change in the prioritization to include

54:21 ↗ it as part of the budget deliberations

54:25 ↗ for the 2027 to 28 budget bienium

54:29 ↗ budget. Um just because and yes the tip

54:33 ↗ could technically be changed but my

54:36 ↗ recommendation would be to if there are

54:41 ↗ if there is a desire to make changes to

54:44 ↗ the transportation projects in the next

54:46 ↗ two years to do it as part of the budget

54:49 ↗ process not as part of the tip process

54:51 ↗ but

54:53 ↗ I think both are possible.

54:58 ↗ Councilor Walsh.

55:01 ↗ >> Thank you. Um John, I'm wondering toward

55:04 ↗ that same concept of pedestrian bike

55:08 ↗ infrastructure and all of that. Um

55:12 ↗ how should we determine or kind of

55:15 ↗ understand the fact that we have

55:18 ↗ separate um impact fees set up for bike

55:21 ↗ and pedestrian versus transportation?

55:25 ↗ Um, do we have a sense whether or not

55:27 ↗ having a specific much smaller budget

55:31 ↗ for bike and pedestrian infrastructure

55:35 ↗ increases

55:36 ↗ um access to funding for that type of

55:39 ↗ project or whether it decreases their

55:44 ↗ focus um within the larger

55:46 ↗ transportation budget? Do we know how

55:49 ↗ that funding model impacts our choice of

55:52 ↗ projects and whether or not we can

55:54 ↗ effectively do something?

55:56 ↗ >> Oh, thank you very much. I I love that

55:57 ↗ question, Council Member Walsh. Um, I'll

56:00 ↗ try and be concise and not go on too

56:02 ↗ long of a rant here. Um, because this is

56:04 ↗ something that I'm really excited for.

56:06 ↗ So the way Isqua has it right now is

56:11 ↗ long time ago a council decided that

56:15 ↗ wanted to fund non-motorized projects

56:18 ↗ and so the city has a

56:24 ↗ bike ped mitigation fee that funds bike

56:27 ↗ ped projects and then as part of our

56:30 ↗ transportation concurrency where there's

56:32 ↗ an adopted level of service at

56:34 ↗ intersections We have traffic impact

56:38 ↗ fees. And then

56:41 ↗ I will say that traffic impact fee

56:44 ↗ funded projects do include bike ped

56:47 ↗ facilities like Newport Way. Uh the

56:52 ↗ challenge that we have with the bike ped

56:54 ↗ mitigation fees is it's a short list of

56:57 ↗ projects and the city has not updated

56:59 ↗ the traffic impact fees or bike ped

57:03 ↗ mitigation fees since 2019.

57:07 ↗ And since 2019, the city has done a lot

57:11 ↗ of work to prioritize multimodal

57:14 ↗ transportation. And the projects that we

57:16 ↗ want to do with the

57:19 ↗ non-motorized fees are different than

57:21 ↗ what we wanted to do back in 2019. And

57:23 ↗ so the challenge is is there's a short

57:26 ↗ list and not a lot of the projects on

57:28 ↗ that list are the projects that we're

57:31 ↗ hearing from the community that the

57:33 ↗ community wants us to build. So the

57:35 ↗ administration has also heard from the

57:37 ↗ city council a desire to lower traffic

57:39 ↗ impact fees. And there's been some

57:42 ↗ changes in state law since the city last

57:45 ↗ adopted traffic impact fees in 2019. And

57:48 ↗ that trafficked impact fees can also be

57:52 ↗ used to construct bike and ped

57:54 ↗ facilities um that are standalone bike

57:58 ↗ ped facilities, not just tied to

58:01 ↗ capacity projects for cars. And so I

58:06 ↗ think that in the future a good policy

58:08 ↗ discussion would be how to go about

58:11 ↗ looking at possibly lowering the traffic

58:14 ↗ impact fees. What does the city want for

58:16 ↗ concurrency and how those could be

58:19 ↗ utilized whether it's for a congestion

58:22 ↗ relief project for growth from

58:25 ↗ development or how it could be used for

58:28 ↗ bike ped facilities. And so I hope I'm

58:32 ↗ answering your question, but that's how

58:34 ↗ I see it.

58:35 ↗ >> Okay. I really appreciate that related

58:37 ↗ to um the you know what our financial

58:40 ↗ situation is with this separation and

58:43 ↗ hearing that we can use some of those

58:46 ↗ traffic impact fees or mitigation fees

58:48 ↗ for bike and pedestrian um pieces. But I

58:52 ↗ think I also heard and I just want to

58:54 ↗ clarify there that maybe we don't have

58:56 ↗ the most upto-date list of bike and

59:00 ↗ pedestrian projects that the community

59:02 ↗ has said that they're interested in

59:05 ↗ included in this tip and so is there a

59:10 ↗ plan to

59:14 ↗ do a better job of updating that and

59:17 ↗ maybe taking the the feedback that we

59:19 ↗ heard from TAB. So I would say that the

59:22 ↗ projects in the tip are ones that are

59:25 ↗ community priority that the ones that

59:27 ↗ are it's the list of projects that can

59:30 ↗ use the bike ped mitigation fees are

59:34 ↗ not necessarily the ones that are the

59:36 ↗ highest priority right now. And I also

59:39 ↗ would say that when the city updates the

59:43 ↗ traffic impact fees, one of the things

59:45 ↗ that I would want to evaluate is merging

59:48 ↗ those two programs together now that

59:51 ↗ there's been a change in state law. So I

59:53 ↗ would say that the six-year tip has a

59:55 ↗ lot of the community's non-motorized uh

59:58 ↗ priorities. For example, there's a

1:00:01 ↗ project to do a interim sidewalk project

1:00:03 ↗ on Isqua Pine Lake Road. That's one in

1:00:06 ↗ the nine years I've been with the city.

1:00:08 ↗ I've been hearing over and over again

1:00:10 ↗ residents saying, "We just want to walk

1:00:11 ↗ to the Highlands and then I'd have to

1:00:14 ↗ tell them, well, we got this $17 million

1:00:16 ↗ project." And then they would say, "I

1:00:18 ↗ don't want to wait. I just want to

1:00:20 ↗ safely walk." So trying to

1:00:23 ↗ implement these projects that we've been

1:00:25 ↗ hearing from the community. It just is

1:00:28 ↗ instead of using well that wouldn't be a

1:00:30 ↗ location probably to use mitigation fees

1:00:32 ↗ but u trying to utilize the revenue that

1:00:37 ↗ the city has to the best extent possible

1:00:40 ↗ to meet the community's desires is what

1:00:42 ↗ we're always working for with this

1:00:44 ↗ transportation improvement program.

1:00:50 ↗ >> All right. Uh so actions being requested

1:00:53 ↗ at the June 15th city council meeting.

1:00:54 ↗ However, if you have feedback on the

1:00:56 ↗ major themes and changes with this

1:00:57 ↗ update, this is sort of the time to

1:01:00 ↗ share that feedback. Uh,

1:01:04 ↗ and oh, Council President Marks.

1:01:08 ↗ So, uh, I I had a whole stem winder of a

1:01:12 ↗ speech at committee. Um, I'm going to

1:01:15 ↗ save that stemwinder speech if I need it

1:01:18 ↗ on the 15th. I'm meeting with manager

1:01:20 ↗ Mortonson and Director Moon earlier on

1:01:22 ↗ the day on the 15th. And uh I I will

1:01:24 ↗ just I'll save my STEM minder speech.

1:01:26 ↗ It's about TTRO28, which has been uh I

1:01:31 ↗ won't go into it. We all know how I feel

1:01:33 ↗ about TTRO 28 and how long we've been

1:01:35 ↗ waiting uh to uh put sidewalks into uh

1:01:39 ↗ South Cove. So hopefully my conversation

1:01:42 ↗ will go well and I won't ever share with

1:01:44 ↗ that stemwinder speech again. Thank you.

1:01:46 ↗ Well, I think and the administration's

1:01:48 ↗ been very public that the 2728 budget is

1:01:51 ↗ going to fund through bonding the TBD

1:01:54 ↗ tax that non-motorized improvement so

1:01:57 ↗ they can get into the town. Uh, Council

1:01:59 ↗ Member Boyd,

1:02:01 ↗ >> um, I have a question, John, and if you

1:02:04 ↗ can't answer it, then I I apologize for

1:02:05 ↗ not asking you in advance. Um, not

1:02:07 ↗ keeping to the no surprises rule here,

1:02:08 ↗ but just about the Black Nugget

1:02:09 ↗ retaining wall. You mentioned that um

1:02:11 ↗ cost has gone up since initial

1:02:13 ↗ estimates, but um I know back um on my

1:02:16 ↗ TAB days, we had looked at a couple

1:02:18 ↗ different alternatives and I don't know

1:02:19 ↗ if the cost increased. Uh does it get to

1:02:22 ↗ either of those alternatives? I believe

1:02:23 ↗ the lowest cost alternative had been

1:02:25 ↗ chosen, but if you could just give a

1:02:26 ↗ little more context on that, I'd

1:02:28 ↗ appreciate it.

1:02:29 ↗ >> Yeah, it so the preferred alternative

1:02:32 ↗ that is proceeding with design, it is

1:02:35 ↗ the lowest cost one. Um, the solution is

1:02:40 ↗ to build a retaining wall in front of

1:02:42 ↗ the existing retaining wall and the

1:02:45 ↗ costs are just due to geotechnical

1:02:47 ↗ conditions and needing to do more work

1:02:50 ↗ for that.

1:02:54 ↗ >> Okay, Council Member Nichols,

1:02:57 ↗ >> one more and this is on how things come

1:02:59 ↗ off. Um,

1:03:01 ↗ are we going to take some things off of

1:03:03 ↗ the tip at some point? that I mean the

1:03:04 ↗ one that pops out to me is the central

1:03:06 ↗ multimotal crossing. Um I wasn't on

1:03:09 ↗ council at the time but my recollection

1:03:10 ↗ of council's reaction to that was uh not

1:03:13 ↗ positive. Um

1:03:17 ↗ to be um not as blunt as I could be um

1:03:21 ↗ and it's also extremely large. I think

1:03:22 ↗ that was hund00 million or something

1:03:24 ↗ like that. So that has 20 I think

1:03:26 ↗ >> lots of lots of things. Um, when are we

1:03:29 ↗ get are we planning to re to address

1:03:32 ↗ some of those things that are likely not

1:03:36 ↗ within

1:03:38 ↗ the realm of things that the council or

1:03:40 ↗ the city will actually take on?

1:03:43 ↗ >> The answer to that is as part of looking

1:03:45 ↗ at the traffic impact fees that will be

1:03:49 ↗ considered. And so whenever we do a

1:03:52 ↗ concurrency update, we always like to

1:03:55 ↗ look at a few of the projects and see if

1:03:58 ↗ they are needed or not needed. And the

1:04:00 ↗ last concurrency update, a project was

1:04:03 ↗ eliminated along Northwest Mammoth Road

1:04:05 ↗ that would have widened the already wide

1:04:07 ↗ road, one more lane in each direction.

1:04:09 ↗ Um, but in order to look at which ones

1:04:13 ↗ to take off, it needs to be done

1:04:15 ↗ holistically because right now the city

1:04:17 ↗ hasn't adopted level of service of at

1:04:21 ↗ signalized intersections of D or better

1:04:24 ↗ except for six locations where they can

1:04:26 ↗ be at E or F. And so if we start taking

1:04:29 ↗ projects off, we need to be careful to

1:04:32 ↗ make sure that

1:04:34 ↗ the city is either able to still meet

1:04:37 ↗ the adopted level of service or to

1:04:42 ↗ consider other things. So, um, and I

1:04:47 ↗ don't know what would happen if the city

1:04:48 ↗ does not construct the I90 crossing, but

1:04:51 ↗ some of the things that I would want to

1:04:52 ↗ look at are when the city got its

1:04:54 ↗ regional growth designation, one of the

1:04:56 ↗ requirements was to have a crossing of

1:04:58 ↗ I90. So, I'd want to have a conversation

1:05:00 ↗ with PSRC to see, okay, is that still

1:05:03 ↗ the case? Because I'd want the council

1:05:04 ↗ to know that as how it would impact

1:05:07 ↗ future things with the ESQUA. And then

1:05:08 ↗ I'd also want to know, okay, if we don't

1:05:11 ↗ construct it, what happens to the rest

1:05:15 ↗ of the transportation system because it

1:05:17 ↗ does carry a lot of cars in our future

1:05:19 ↗ traffic model. Um, also understanding

1:05:22 ↗ that it is really expensive and it does

1:05:23 ↗ make the traffic impact fees more

1:05:25 ↗ expensive. So would the council I if if

1:05:29 ↗ and this is a big if if removing that

1:05:32 ↗ project would make it so that way

1:05:34 ↗ intersections were no longer meeting the

1:05:36 ↗ level of service. There's a couple of

1:05:37 ↗ levers the council could say well we

1:05:40 ↗ want to increase the assumption of trips

1:05:42 ↗ that will be done by transit bicycle

1:05:45 ↗ walking and then maybe that might solve

1:05:48 ↗ it. It could be that the council could

1:05:50 ↗ say well we want a lower level of

1:05:52 ↗ service because we want we don't want to

1:05:54 ↗ do this project. So maybe the level of

1:05:56 ↗ service becomes E instead of D. So

1:05:58 ↗ there's a number of possible outcomes

1:06:02 ↗ that got to go through a policy

1:06:04 ↗ discussion before we can start

1:06:06 ↗ eliminating those long-term bigger

1:06:08 ↗ projects.

1:06:12 ↗ >> Deputy President Jen.

1:06:14 ↗ >> Um so kind of going on to that policy

1:06:17 ↗ question. I mean, so it seems like we're

1:06:19 ↗ currently evaluating transportation

1:06:21 ↗ projects based on, you know, how well

1:06:24 ↗ car traffic is moving through our city.

1:06:26 ↗ And given, you know, our future vision

1:06:28 ↗ for what type of community we want

1:06:30 ↗ around light rail, given, you know, we

1:06:32 ↗ have climate goals, presumably we

1:06:34 ↗ probably want to reduce vehicle miles

1:06:36 ↗ traveled. And so I'm wondering, you

1:06:39 ↗ know, is that ever included as a metric

1:06:42 ↗ for evaluating transportation projects?

1:06:45 ↗ And if so, you know, how would that get

1:06:46 ↗ into the policy conversation?

1:06:48 ↗ I

1:06:49 ↗ >> I'll answer it two ways. So, the first

1:06:50 ↗ way is here at Isiqua, we have as part

1:06:54 ↗ of the Isqua climate action plan, a goal

1:06:57 ↗ to reduce vehicle miles traveled. I

1:06:59 ↗ forget the details, but there is a goal

1:07:01 ↗ for a reduction and u

1:07:05 ↗ we're working on ways to measure it.

1:07:06 ↗ Right now, there's regional ways to

1:07:08 ↗ measure it. We recently, as of today,

1:07:11 ↗ got access to a software subscription

1:07:13 ↗ that I think will allow us to be able to

1:07:16 ↗ measure vehicle miles traveled. So

1:07:18 ↗ that's what we're currently doing to

1:07:20 ↗ look at vehicle miles traveled. And then

1:07:23 ↗ there are some agencies like the city of

1:07:26 ↗ Seattle where instead of having their

1:07:28 ↗ level of service be delay at an

1:07:30 ↗ intersection, it is vehicle miles

1:07:33 ↗ traveled. And so that could be an

1:07:35 ↗ alternative. Um, there would be pros and

1:07:37 ↗ cons that could be discussed as part of

1:07:39 ↗ a policy discussion.

1:07:42 ↗ >> Great. Thank you. And do you have a

1:07:43 ↗ sense of when that policy discussion

1:07:45 ↗ might occur?

1:07:47 ↗ >> Well, I will I don't know the exact

1:07:50 ↗ schedule. I've been working on it. I do

1:07:51 ↗ know that the council did say that

1:07:53 ↗ lowering traffic impact fees by the end

1:07:55 ↗ of 27 was a very high priority.

1:08:02 ↗ >> City administrator.

1:08:03 ↗ >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of

1:08:04 ↗ the council. Uh the planning development

1:08:06 ↗ environment committee has tasked staff

1:08:09 ↗ to uh sort through this uh issue of the

1:08:13 ↗ uh all of our impact fees. Um we are

1:08:16 ↗ hoping to come back to the committee in

1:08:18 ↗ the next 60 days with some ideas with

1:08:21 ↗ that. I mean what we are struggling with

1:08:23 ↗ is uh the desire to perhaps change the

1:08:27 ↗ the trajectory of some of our projects

1:08:29 ↗ along with the desire to charge less

1:08:31 ↗ fees. And so um we're going to be

1:08:34 ↗ bringing some options to PTE. I think at

1:08:36 ↗ that point the committee can decide if

1:08:37 ↗ they wish to move this up to the full

1:08:39 ↗ council for discussion uh or uh discuss

1:08:42 ↗ it in committee for some time. But uh

1:08:44 ↗ what we're certainly hearing from

1:08:46 ↗ planning development environment is is

1:08:48 ↗ they would like us to address the impact

1:08:50 ↗ fee question sooner than later.

1:08:53 ↗ >> Great. Thank you,

1:08:54 ↗ >> Council President Marks.

1:08:56 ↗ So, I want to expand on uh council

1:08:58 ↗ member Nichols comments on the central

1:09:00 ↗ Isiqua multimmoal I90 crossing. Uh yes,

1:09:04 ↗ your memory is correct. Um it wasn't

1:09:07 ↗ necessarily that the council I don't

1:09:09 ↗ think the council expressed an opinion

1:09:11 ↗ about having a I90 crossing. They

1:09:14 ↗ expressed an opinion about the study

1:09:15 ↗ that was commissioned and presented to

1:09:18 ↗ us and the majority of the council, as I

1:09:20 ↗ recall, did not like that study and

1:09:23 ↗ chose not to formally accept it. I

1:09:25 ↗ believe we paid the nice people uh their

1:09:27 ↗ bill, but uh we did not want that study

1:09:30 ↗ entered into the record because we had

1:09:33 ↗ such concerns about the contents of that

1:09:35 ↗ study. Um you know, it is interesting to

1:09:39 ↗ hear that that is an essential part of

1:09:41 ↗ the future of the city because as I

1:09:43 ↗ recall, one of the things that we did

1:09:44 ↗ not have in that was a full traffic

1:09:46 ↗ study. We did not torsten the problem,

1:09:48 ↗ right? Torstston being our uh traffic

1:09:51 ↗ consultant who does such amazing studies

1:09:53 ↗ for us. I don't believe we got levels of

1:09:55 ↗ service associated with that potential

1:09:57 ↗ overcrossing and this was one of the

1:09:59 ↗ challenges um that this council

1:10:02 ↗ considered when choosing not to formally

1:10:04 ↗ accept that study. So, um, if in fact

1:10:07 ↗ the administration at some point wants

1:10:09 ↗ to come back and revisit this topic, um,

1:10:12 ↗ I think that a a a pretty comprehens

1:10:16 ↗ comprehensive conversation needs to

1:10:17 ↗ occur about what that study would need

1:10:19 ↗ to contain um to get a a more favorable

1:10:22 ↗ response uh from the council. Thank you.

1:10:27 ↗ Well, I think I share your concerns that

1:10:30 ↗ the project does not seem financially

1:10:31 ↗ feasible, but I think to John's point is

1:10:33 ↗ we make those kind of changes, we have

1:10:35 ↗ to do it thoughtfully to understand the

1:10:37 ↗ impact. So, I think that's the plan as

1:10:39 ↗ we move forward this year is to figure

1:10:40 ↗ out Yeah. what the impacts are. Is it

1:10:44 ↗ Yeah, I think there is agreement that

1:10:46 ↗ projects

1:10:47 ↗ >> Mr. Mayor.

1:10:48 ↗ >> Oh, yeah.

1:10:50 ↗ >> Director Moon, who's in the audience,

1:10:52 ↗ good evening. uh has texted me to let me

1:10:55 ↗ remind me that the the city council did

1:10:57 ↗ accept the pro uh uh report but not the

1:11:00 ↗ recommendations on the report. So just

1:11:02 ↗ to make sure that the record's clear,

1:11:04 ↗ >> I stand corrected.

1:11:07 ↗ >> Uh

1:11:09 ↗ okay. So I guess the the guidance we're

1:11:12 ↗ looking to get is if this returns on the

1:11:14 ↗ June 15th meeting, would after this

1:11:17 ↗ discussion having just happened, would

1:11:18 ↗ it would the preference to have it be on

1:11:20 ↗ consent or on regular business? And I

1:11:22 ↗ will reiterate that the budget will 100%

1:11:25 ↗ fund TR028 and finally build the trail

1:11:28 ↗ from South Copen to town. But once

1:11:30 ↗ again, this is looking for guidance.

1:11:32 ↗ Council member Joe.

1:11:34 ↗ >> Mr. Mayor, I would ask that the public

1:11:36 ↗ hearing remain open and that we continue

1:11:39 ↗ it to the next council meeting so that

1:11:42 ↗ public can have time to analyze this and

1:11:44 ↗ then come back and comment and then we

1:11:46 ↗ can close it out on the regular agenda

1:11:49 ↗ at the next meeting. Be my preference.

1:11:52 ↗ Is there a second?

1:11:54 ↗ >> Second. There's

1:11:55 ↗ >> been a motion and a second. All those in

1:11:58 ↗ favor of continuing the public hearing,

1:12:00 ↗ please say I.

1:12:01 ↗ >> I.

1:12:03 ↗ >> All those opposed. Nay. Okay, that

1:12:06 ↗ passes unanimously. So, we will continue

1:12:08 ↗ the public hearing on the tip and then

1:12:11 ↗ we will come back on June 15th and we

1:12:13 ↗ will have another opportunity for public

1:12:16 ↗ input and then at that point the plan

1:12:18 ↗ will be to to then go to regular

1:12:21 ↗ business and the council can adopt the

1:12:23 ↗ DIP or not at that stage. Excellent.

1:12:26 ↗ Okay. So, that concludes

1:12:29 ↗ that discussion item. We're now going to

1:12:31 ↗ go to regular business. Agenda Bill 9178

1:12:33 ↗ is Squad Police Department's

1:12:34 ↗ Congressional Community Appropriations

1:12:35 ↗ Grant. We're gonna have Dale Marky Crim.

1:13:00 ↗ We go. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of

1:13:04 ↗ the council. uh Dale Marquee Crimp,

1:13:06 ↗ assistant to the city administrator. Uh

1:13:08 ↗ and I am here tonight to present on the

1:13:10 ↗ Isiqua Police Department's uh

1:13:13 ↗ congressional community appropriations

1:13:15 ↗ grant.

1:13:16 ↗ The purpose of my presentation this

1:13:19 ↗ evening is twofold. One is to seek the

1:13:22 ↗ council's approval uh for the acceptance

1:13:25 ↗ of the grant uh for conducted energy

1:13:28 ↗ devices. I will also uh like Sergeant

1:13:31 ↗ Asel call them tasers for the remainder

1:13:33 ↗ of the presentation. um for the Isqua

1:13:35 ↗ Police Department and to PA seeking uh

1:13:40 ↗ council passage of a proposed resolution

1:13:42 ↗ outlining the terms of the grant

1:13:44 ↗ acceptance, the cancellation of the

1:13:47 ↗ flock safety memorandum of understanding

1:13:49 ↗ and uh setting a policy requirement uh a

1:13:53 ↗ policy adoption requirement for any city

1:13:55 ↗ action on automated license plate reader

1:13:58 ↗ technology.

1:14:00 ↗ Bless you. I don't know where it came

1:14:02 ↗ from, but bless you.

1:14:04 ↗ Um, the administration is recommending

1:14:06 ↗ that the city council approve the

1:14:08 ↗ resolution accepting the grant funds and

1:14:10 ↗ outlining how the grant funding will and

1:14:13 ↗ will not be spent.

1:14:16 ↗ But first, a little bit of background or

1:14:19 ↗ a lot of bit of background.

1:14:21 ↗ So, in taking us all the way back um to

1:14:24 ↗ January 2025,

1:14:27 ↗ potentially late December 2024, when the

1:14:30 ↗ Isqua Police Department was first

1:14:31 ↗ considering applying for this grant, um

1:14:35 ↗ at the time they actually initially were

1:14:38 ↗ considering two separate applications,

1:14:40 ↗ one for tasers and one for ALPR

1:14:43 ↗ technology.

1:14:45 ↗ In conversation with Representative

1:14:47 ↗ Shrier's office, the administrator of

1:14:49 ↗ the grant, uh it was recommended to them

1:14:51 ↗ to combine those two requests into one

1:14:55 ↗ single request. Also, it became clear to

1:14:59 ↗ the police department at the time that

1:15:00 ↗ they were considering this that while

1:15:02 ↗ the council was likely quite familiar,

1:15:05 ↗ we found out at the last meeting some

1:15:07 ↗ very familiar with tasers um on the

1:15:10 ↗ receiving end of a taser, um they were

1:15:13 ↗ probably less familiar with ALPR

1:15:14 ↗ technology and that whether or not our

1:15:17 ↗ grant application was accepted, whether

1:15:19 ↗ or not that grant application was then

1:15:21 ↗ funded, the police department did need

1:15:24 ↗ to come to the council to share about AL

1:15:26 ↗ LPR technology in the first place, even

1:15:29 ↗ though the city had no money at the time

1:15:31 ↗ to fund it. Then you can see this

1:15:33 ↗ beautiful green line in the middle of

1:15:35 ↗ this lovely timeline.

1:15:37 ↗ It's meant to represent a long gap, but

1:15:39 ↗ it is a very short line. The city was

1:15:42 ↗ notified in January of 2026

1:15:46 ↗ uh that the the grant request was going

1:15:49 ↗ to be funded. This is kind of a long

1:15:51 ↗ delay. Um but a lot of time had passed

1:15:54 ↗ and a lot had happened in the community

1:15:56 ↗ between the original submission of the

1:15:58 ↗ grant and finding out that it had been

1:16:00 ↗ funded. Um as is shared in the materials

1:16:03 ↗ for tonight. Um not only did we have um

1:16:07 ↗ act federal immigration enforcement

1:16:09 ↗ activity in our community um that really

1:16:12 ↗ called into question the safety,

1:16:13 ↗ security, and data privacy of flock

1:16:17 ↗ safety camera systems. Um, we also had a

1:16:19 ↗ new mayor who had an opportunity to meet

1:16:22 ↗ with the police department and get clear

1:16:23 ↗ on what their priorities were, what the

1:16:26 ↗ funding needs were, and what technology

1:16:28 ↗ was most needed by the department.

1:16:31 ↗ Simultaneously,

1:16:32 ↗ uh, around this early January time, our

1:16:35 ↗ state legislature was considering

1:16:37 ↗ regulation at the state level of ALPR

1:16:39 ↗ technology.

1:16:42 ↗ So, um, in March and April, we heard

1:16:47 ↗ from the community loud and clear, um,

1:16:49 ↗ and also members of the council that

1:16:50 ↗ there was some extreme reservation

1:16:54 ↗ around the city's adoption of ALPR. The

1:16:57 ↗ mayor also met with the police

1:16:58 ↗ department to get clear with them on how

1:17:00 ↗ they wanted to use this money that had

1:17:02 ↗ been awarded. And on April 6th, IPD

1:17:06 ↗ knowing that um tasers were the singular

1:17:10 ↗ priority for them at this point, um they

1:17:13 ↗ went back to Axon, who is the supplier

1:17:15 ↗ of our taser and our bodywn camera

1:17:17 ↗ equipment to get an up-to-date uh quote

1:17:20 ↗ about how much it would cost. At that

1:17:23 ↗ point, uh, the IPD realized or learned

1:17:26 ↗ from Axon that the cost of the tasers,

1:17:28 ↗ as originally quoted, were going to take

1:17:30 ↗ up nearly all of the gr awarded grant

1:17:33 ↗ money. And so they explored other

1:17:36 ↗ options for how they might spend the

1:17:37 ↗ very small amount, the just over 4,500

1:17:39 ↗ remaining dollars in this grant award.

1:17:42 ↗ on May 11th, uh folks much closer to

1:17:46 ↗ this technology than I came and

1:17:47 ↗ presented to the council about both the

1:17:49 ↗ grant and the proposal to the new

1:17:52 ↗ proposal which I have on the next slide

1:17:54 ↗ um on how to spend the money.

1:17:58 ↗ So again, just to reiterate as a bit of

1:18:00 ↗ background, um there was an initial uh

1:18:03 ↗ request

1:18:05 ↗ that was made in the grant um

1:18:07 ↗ application for tasers and for flax

1:18:10 ↗ safety cameras.

1:18:13 ↗ That request was updated um when we went

1:18:15 ↗ back to Axon to request a new quote for

1:18:18 ↗ tasers, finding that it would take

1:18:20 ↗ nearly all of the appropriated dollars

1:18:22 ↗ of the grant towards tasers.

1:18:25 ↗ It was then decided that a better spend

1:18:27 ↗ of that remaining $4,500 would be on

1:18:31 ↗ replacing um the recently uh broken

1:18:35 ↗ interview room camera system in our

1:18:37 ↗ police department.

1:18:41 ↗ Before I talk very briefly about tasers,

1:18:43 ↗ it should be um reiterated the city then

1:18:46 ↗ went back to Representative Shrier's

1:18:48 ↗ office to ensure that this was an okay

1:18:50 ↗ change. That money was granted. it would

1:18:53 ↗ this be an okay change to how we spend

1:18:55 ↗ the money and that was approved

1:18:58 ↗ and now actually Representative Shrier's

1:19:00 ↗ website reflects that change as well.

1:19:04 ↗ So just a a quick reminder on tasers,

1:19:07 ↗ why why the city is requesting money for

1:19:10 ↗ tasers, why this was a really important

1:19:12 ↗ financial request through this

1:19:14 ↗ appropriations um grant. So, as it was

1:19:18 ↗ presented by Sergeant Asbel, someone

1:19:20 ↗ much more an expert in tasers than I,

1:19:22 ↗ um, in consultation with the mayor

1:19:24 ↗ earlier this year, they emphasized that

1:19:27 ↗ taser replacement was essential at this

1:19:30 ↗ point. We have a number of tasers that

1:19:32 ↗ are getting very close to or slightly

1:19:34 ↗ past their useful life, um, which

1:19:37 ↗ reduces safety for both the community

1:19:39 ↗ and our officers.

1:19:41 ↗ New tasers, as we learned about on May

1:19:44 ↗ 11th, um provide added safety for our

1:19:48 ↗ community and our officers through

1:19:50 ↗ updated ways of both signaling that the

1:19:54 ↗ uh device is being used and making sure

1:19:56 ↗ that it's done successfully and

1:19:58 ↗ accurately.

1:20:00 ↗ Also, um, and what I thought was was

1:20:03 ↗ most exciting, um, as a civilian and

1:20:06 ↗ novice, um, is that the these new tasers

1:20:09 ↗ would have connectivity to our bodywn

1:20:11 ↗ camera system, ensuring that anytime a

1:20:13 ↗ taser is taken out of its holster, um,

1:20:16 ↗ it activates not just the body camera of

1:20:18 ↗ the officer with the taser, but the body

1:20:21 ↗ camera of any officers within the

1:20:23 ↗ vicinity of the the scene.

1:20:28 ↗ And I think it's notable that I'd like

1:20:30 ↗ to talk a bit about um the trade-offs

1:20:32 ↗ with the ALPR technology and choosing

1:20:34 ↗ not to pursue that as part of this grant

1:20:36 ↗ process.

1:20:38 ↗ Many members of the community, some who

1:20:39 ↗ are here tonight, some who are just

1:20:41 ↗ here, and oh, some who are standing, um

1:20:44 ↗ have shared very clearly their concerns

1:20:46 ↗ about the use of ALPR and and of flock

1:20:49 ↗ safety systems in particular. Um, while

1:20:53 ↗ the original proposal included uh 12

1:20:56 ↗ flock safety cameras, this proposal

1:20:59 ↗ evolved for valid reasons, not just the

1:21:02 ↗ concerns that were named, but also the

1:21:04 ↗ the data security and the appropriate

1:21:06 ↗ use of the tool. As shared on May 11th,

1:21:09 ↗ um, researcher Phil Nef uh shared

1:21:12 ↗ research that these systems were being

1:21:15 ↗ accessed by federal officers both

1:21:18 ↗ through directly and indirectly. um and

1:21:21 ↗ the lack of security around how the data

1:21:24 ↗ is used and stored brought up a lot of

1:21:26 ↗ questions about the technology as it

1:21:28 ↗ currently exists. And um as also shared

1:21:32 ↗ at that same meeting, ALPR can still be

1:21:35 ↗ an invaluable tool for investigative

1:21:37 ↗ purposes.

1:21:39 ↗ However, no matter the trade-offs, no

1:21:41 ↗ matter where you personally fall on the

1:21:43 ↗ spectrum of ardent support for ALPR or a

1:21:48 ↗ full ban, uh we can all I think agree

1:21:51 ↗ that there's a need for a clear policy

1:21:53 ↗ that regulates ALPR use in line with

1:21:56 ↗ Isiqua's community values before we move

1:21:58 ↗ forward in adopting any technology. And

1:22:01 ↗ so that's why it came out um of the

1:22:04 ↗ proposed use of the grant dollars.

1:22:07 ↗ So, the proposal tonight is to approve

1:22:10 ↗ the acceptance of the 2026 community

1:22:13 ↗ appropriations grant for the purchase of

1:22:15 ↗ new tasers and the replacement of

1:22:17 ↗ interview room camera equipment.

1:22:20 ↗ Specifically, the administration is

1:22:22 ↗ recommending that you pass the city

1:22:24 ↗ council pass a resolution further

1:22:25 ↗ outlining the terms of this grant

1:22:27 ↗ acceptance to include the following.

1:22:29 ↗ that the money will only be spent on

1:22:31 ↗ tasers and interview room camera

1:22:32 ↗ equipment that acknowledges the

1:22:34 ↗ termination of the city's memorandum of

1:22:37 ↗ understanding with flock safety and that

1:22:39 ↗ requires an ALPR reader policy be

1:22:42 ↗ developed public consider publicly

1:22:44 ↗ considered and adopted by ordinance by

1:22:46 ↗ city council before any future city

1:22:48 ↗ action is taken on this technology.

1:22:53 ↗ A bit about why this is the

1:22:55 ↗ administration's proposal.

1:22:57 ↗ So, we're here June 1. I don't have

1:23:00 ↗ quite as uh lovely as a highlight as

1:23:03 ↗ John did in his but June 1 today. Um

1:23:07 ↗ there are two kind of significant

1:23:09 ↗ deadlines that the administration is

1:23:11 ↗ working within right now. One is the

1:23:14 ↗ June 30th deadline where our current

1:23:16 ↗ quote from Axon expires and we would

1:23:19 ↗ need to ask for another quote and the

1:23:21 ↗ other is the September 30th expiration

1:23:23 ↗ of the funds themselves that by which

1:23:25 ↗ date we would need to accept those funds

1:23:27 ↗ or they we do not get them they go away.

1:23:31 ↗ It's not as easy as just saying yes

1:23:33 ↗ there is some administrative work that

1:23:35 ↗ will need to happen to prepare to

1:23:37 ↗ receive to receive the funds. Um, and we

1:23:40 ↗ know that I believe a conversation about

1:23:44 ↗ automat automated license plate reader

1:23:46 ↗ cameras may take longer than a single

1:23:49 ↗ meeting. And with this in mind, we want

1:23:51 ↗ to make sure that we can act on

1:23:53 ↗ accepting the money for the tasers as

1:23:55 ↗ quickly as possible and then turn our

1:23:57 ↗ focus to making sure we have strong

1:23:59 ↗ meaningful policy that regulates a

1:24:01 ↗ technology.

1:24:03 ↗ So, you can see on here the plan is to

1:24:06 ↗ uh come back to council on July 20th to

1:24:09 ↗ be able to start that conversation

1:24:10 ↗ together as a group.

1:24:14 ↗ The options tonight are three-fold. Um

1:24:17 ↗ they of course have some nuance within

1:24:19 ↗ them, but pass, delay, or do not pass.

1:24:23 ↗ The administration is recommending that

1:24:24 ↗ we pass the resolution that you pass the

1:24:26 ↗ resolution this evening. You may of

1:24:28 ↗ course choose to delay, but delaying

1:24:30 ↗ risks the taser quote lapsing, the costs

1:24:33 ↗ increasing, or missing the window to

1:24:35 ↗ accept those grant funds and not

1:24:38 ↗ passing. Um, well, I don't think this

1:24:41 ↗ has been talked about a ton. Um, the

1:24:44 ↗ tasers are going to be in need of

1:24:45 ↗ replacement. This is about, you know,

1:24:48 ↗ half a million dollars that we have to

1:24:51 ↗ accept to spend on essential equipment.

1:24:54 ↗ And if we were to choose not to accept

1:24:56 ↗ uh the grant award, we would need to

1:24:59 ↗ find a new way. The word budget has been

1:25:01 ↗ mentioned many times tonight, a new way

1:25:03 ↗ to fund this essential purchase um that

1:25:07 ↗ would potentially take money out of um

1:25:09 ↗ other commitments, whether it be for

1:25:11 ↗ police facilities or it be the general

1:25:13 ↗ fund at large. So while that might not

1:25:16 ↗ happen tomorrow, it will absolutely be

1:25:18 ↗ the case over the course of the upcoming

1:25:19 ↗ years that this equipment will need to

1:25:21 ↗ be replaced.

1:25:23 ↗ So again, the recommendation tonight uh

1:25:25 ↗ from the administration is to approve

1:25:26 ↗ the resolution accepting the grant funds

1:25:28 ↗ and outlining how the grant funding will

1:25:30 ↗ and will not be spent

1:25:32 ↗ and timing and next steps. Following

1:25:35 ↗ tonight's meeting, if the resolution is

1:25:37 ↗ passed, the administration will take the

1:25:39 ↗ necessary administrative steps to accept

1:25:41 ↗ the grant award and purchase the tasers.

1:25:43 ↗ Um, and also work um to return to the

1:25:49 ↗ council when the tasers are purchased.

1:25:51 ↗ Given the purchase amount, the dollar

1:25:52 ↗ amount is above $300,000, we'd come

1:25:55 ↗ back. So, you would know when those are

1:25:56 ↗ purchased. And then on the bottom half

1:25:58 ↗ of this timeline, you can see the

1:25:59 ↗ workaround automated license plate

1:26:01 ↗ reader cameras that will come back to

1:26:03 ↗ the council. um currently working on uh

1:26:06 ↗ some draft policy matrix, but we'll come

1:26:08 ↗ back to the council on July 20th to talk

1:26:10 ↗ more about that.

1:26:13 ↗ And that is where I'll pause.

1:26:16 ↗ >> All right. Any questions for Dale?

1:26:20 ↗ Looking looking.

1:26:22 ↗ There you go, Jay. That is the ultimate

1:26:25 ↗ sign of success.

1:26:27 ↗ You got in front. Okay. So, not seeing

1:26:32 ↗ any questions. Is there a motion?

1:26:35 ↗ Council President Marts. I move to

1:26:38 ↗ approve resolution number 2026-13

1:26:41 ↗ authorizing the acceptance of $452,477

1:26:46 ↗ in grant funding from the fisc year 26

1:26:49 ↗ discretionary community funding program

1:26:51 ↗ for the purchase of tasers and interview

1:26:53 ↗ room equipment for the Isiqua Police

1:26:55 ↗ Department and restricting any city

1:26:57 ↗ action related to automated license

1:26:59 ↗ plate reader technology until after a

1:27:01 ↗ policy has been adopted by the Isiqua

1:27:03 ↗ City Council and authorized the

1:27:05 ↗ inclusion of 452,000 $477 in revenues

1:27:09 ↗ and related expenditures in a subsequent

1:27:11 ↗ 2025 2026 budget amendment if needed.

1:27:15 ↗ >> Second.

1:27:16 ↗ >> All right, there's been a motion and a

1:27:18 ↗ second. Is there any council discussion?

1:27:20 ↗ Council member Walsh.

1:27:23 ↗ >> Thank you, Dale. Great presentation. Um,

1:27:26 ↗ I think my concern coming out at this

1:27:29 ↗ point was we had talked about this quite

1:27:32 ↗ a lot and there was a lot of information

1:27:33 ↗ out there. He did a really good job of

1:27:36 ↗ explaining to the community that their

1:27:39 ↗ message was heard loud and clear and

1:27:41 ↗ that not only was that said in words,

1:27:44 ↗ but it was also said in the motion and

1:27:47 ↗ the way that the presentation was made

1:27:50 ↗ to show that okay, not only are we doing

1:27:53 ↗ this with the congressional grant

1:27:55 ↗ acceptance, but here's the exact pathway

1:27:58 ↗ that we are taking. So, thank you very

1:28:00 ↗ much for that clarity to the community.

1:28:02 ↗ Thank you very much for showing up. Your

1:28:05 ↗ voices have been loud and clear and

1:28:08 ↗ heard and will be continued to be heard

1:28:10 ↗ as we go through the process of adopting

1:28:13 ↗ that technology. But this is a check

1:28:16 ↗ mark for good community engagement.

1:28:18 ↗ Thank you.

1:28:19 ↗ >> Thank you very much. Council member

1:28:21 ↗ Nichols, you're in the halfway point. I

1:28:23 ↗ can't quite tell. Okay, that was okay.

1:28:25 ↗ Go go go.

1:28:27 ↗ >> Thank you. Um,

1:28:30 ↗ didn't I? Yeah. Um, uh, thank you. I

1:28:34 ↗ want to second everything that, uh,

1:28:35 ↗ Council Member Walsh has stated. Uh,

1:28:36 ↗ again, thank you to Dale. Uh, lots of

1:28:39 ↗ conversations on this topic over the

1:28:41 ↗ past, uh, several months, I think. Um,

1:28:43 ↗ and I know you put a ton of time into

1:28:44 ↗ this, a lot of work, and, uh, there

1:28:46 ↗ you've had to come up to speed on a lot

1:28:48 ↗ of new topics as well. Um, also, thank

1:28:50 ↗ you to the community for coming out and,

1:28:52 ↗ uh, sharing your opinions with us very,

1:28:54 ↗ very clearly. Uh, those opinions were

1:28:55 ↗ heard, and you can see the results of

1:28:57 ↗ those opinions being reflected in what

1:28:59 ↗ you're being presented with tonight. Um,

1:29:01 ↗ so I'll just be brief and say that I

1:29:03 ↗ support the resolution and I'm

1:29:04 ↗ comfortable that it satisfies the

1:29:05 ↗ community concerns that have come up.

1:29:07 ↗ Um, I think this is a a good path

1:29:09 ↗ forward, will give us a chance to set

1:29:11 ↗ some very clear uh guidelines as

1:29:14 ↗ ordinances and uh that we will have more

1:29:16 ↗ opportunity for everyone to take a look

1:29:18 ↗ at those. They'll be there will be

1:29:19 ↗ plenty of time to review them. Uh, and

1:29:22 ↗ feedback will again be very uh helpful

1:29:25 ↗ in that process. And uh, I appreciate

1:29:26 ↗ that y'all will come out for that that

1:29:28 ↗ as well. So again, thanks everybody for

1:29:30 ↗ the good work and uh all the time that

1:29:32 ↗ went into this.

1:29:34 ↗ >> Right, Council Member Adair.

1:29:36 ↗ >> Yeah, echoing the same thing. I I fully

1:29:38 ↗ support this resolution as well as how

1:29:39 ↗ you presented it and really made it very

1:29:41 ↗ clear to both us, the audience, everyone

1:29:43 ↗ who on how we how we got to here, what's

1:29:46 ↗ been done and and addressing all their

1:29:47 ↗ concerns. And the only thing I'm just

1:29:48 ↗ going to really add is just further

1:29:50 ↗ encouragement to the community to reach

1:29:52 ↗ out to us, to talk to others about what

1:29:55 ↗ you want this ordinance to look like.

1:29:57 ↗ Um, I personally have a lot of questions

1:29:59 ↗ in how to shape this and how how we

1:30:02 ↗ address these technology concerns while

1:30:05 ↗ helping public safety and what that

1:30:07 ↗ looks like. And I'm not positive what it

1:30:09 ↗ looks like yet. And so I encourage the

1:30:10 ↗ community to continue to reach out to

1:30:13 ↗ us, but also to you the rest of the

1:30:15 ↗ community so that everyone can give us

1:30:16 ↗ that feedback so that we can draft

1:30:17 ↗ something that really reflects what our

1:30:19 ↗ community needs. So thank you.

1:30:22 ↗ >> All right. Thank you very much. Oh,

1:30:24 ↗ Council President Marts.

1:30:26 ↗ Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, first and

1:30:28 ↗ foremost, I want to thank the public.

1:30:30 ↗ You know, we are not done uh with the

1:30:33 ↗ subject of ALPRs. We This is um to quote

1:30:36 ↗ my favorite politician, this is not the

1:30:39 ↗ end. Uh this is not the beginning of the

1:30:42 ↗ end, but this is perhaps the end of the

1:30:44 ↗ beginning. That's Winston Churchill. Uh

1:30:47 ↗ so, but the public has been both

1:30:50 ↗ consistently passionate and extremely

1:30:53 ↗ focused in its feedback. I mean, I I am

1:30:56 ↗ I am always sensitive to what uh the

1:30:58 ↗ community hears and what our um city

1:31:01 ↗ employees hear and and what I have heard

1:31:03 ↗ is a real respect for the IPD, but a

1:31:06 ↗ real concern about this technology. And

1:31:08 ↗ I think that fundamental um point is

1:31:11 ↗ extremely important for for everyone to

1:31:13 ↗ understand. I want to thank my fellow

1:31:14 ↗ council members on this issue. you know,

1:31:16 ↗ later on a different issue, you're going

1:31:18 ↗ to hear me say that, you know, talk

1:31:20 ↗ about the three biggest issues that

1:31:21 ↗ we've had as a city in the 17 years that

1:31:23 ↗ I've been on. I consider this one of the

1:31:25 ↗ three. And the fact that three

1:31:28 ↗ ostensively four of our council members

1:31:31 ↗ are relatively new um to the council is

1:31:33 ↗ is is really quite extraordinary to have

1:31:36 ↗ such a major issue come up with so many

1:31:39 ↗ um essentially new council members um

1:31:41 ↗ and yet still be able to find um the

1:31:44 ↗ important conversations with the

1:31:46 ↗ administration. Again, we're not done

1:31:47 ↗ with this topic tonight, but we're

1:31:49 ↗ taking a major step forward in both

1:31:51 ↗ addressing community concern and council

1:31:53 ↗ concern. So, I want to thank my fellow

1:31:54 ↗ council members for this important

1:31:56 ↗ discussion and of course I'll be

1:31:57 ↗ supporting this. Thank you.

1:31:59 ↗ >> Thank you, Council Member Boyd.

1:32:02 ↗ >> Thank you, echoing all the thanks for

1:32:04 ↗ the um detailed, incredible work that

1:32:06 ↗ staff has done and uh to the community.

1:32:10 ↗ Um thank you so much for your feedback.

1:32:13 ↗ Um and uh again I welcome echo council

1:32:16 ↗ member Adair of um

1:32:20 ↗ help your feedback will help build what

1:32:23 ↗ ultimately our guard rails will be on

1:32:26 ↗ any future technology. And uh I've often

1:32:31 ↗ uh for me sometimes it's easier to you

1:32:33 ↗ know definitively say what we don't

1:32:34 ↗ want. I think the community has

1:32:36 ↗ definitively said what they do not want

1:32:38 ↗ and then sometimes the more difficult

1:32:40 ↗ work is deciding what we do want. And so

1:32:42 ↗ I look forward to our future policy

1:32:45 ↗ conversation on that. Thank you.

1:32:48 ↗ >> Thank you very much. And Dale, congrats.

1:32:50 ↗ You've been a rock star through this

1:32:51 ↗ whole process. And uh if we gave out

1:32:53 ↗ gold stars, you would get a gold star.

1:32:55 ↗ Uh maybe we should start giving out gold

1:32:57 ↗ stars Wally.

1:32:59 ↗ Okay. There's no further discussion. The

1:33:00 ↗ motion for the council is to approve

1:33:01 ↗ resolution number 2026-13 authorizing

1:33:04 ↗ the acceptance of $452,477

1:33:07 ↗ in grant funding from the fiscal year 26

1:33:09 ↗ discretionary community funding program

1:33:11 ↗ for the purchase of tasers and interview

1:33:12 ↗ room equipment for the Esqua Police

1:33:13 ↗ Department and restricting any city

1:33:15 ↗ action related to automated license

1:33:16 ↗ plate reader technology until after a

1:33:17 ↗ policy has been approved by the city

1:33:19 ↗ council and authorized the inclusion of

1:33:20 ↗ $452,477

1:33:23 ↗ in revenues and related expenditures in

1:33:24 ↗ a subsequent 2026 budget amendment if

1:33:28 ↗ needed. All those in favor, please say

1:33:30 ↗ I.

1:33:31 ↗ >> I.

1:33:33 ↗ >> All those opposed, nay. And that passes

1:33:36 ↗ unanimously. Uh the next item of

1:33:39 ↗ business is ID 2037 Eastside Fire and

1:33:41 ↗ Rescue Long-Term Governance and

1:33:42 ↗ Financing Options. And our city

1:33:44 ↗ administrator is going to give us a

1:33:46 ↗ briefing.

1:33:53 ↗ I was just concerned about our facility

1:33:55 ↗ staff waiting through this for the next

1:33:57 ↗ position, but they said they're okay. Uh

1:34:00 ↗ Mr. Mayor, members of the council, good

1:34:01 ↗ evening. Uh we've placed on the agenda

1:34:03 ↗ this evening at the request of Mayor

1:34:05 ↗ Mullet and the council leadership a

1:34:08 ↗ discussion regarding East Side Fire and

1:34:10 ↗ Rescue uh future organization and

1:34:12 ↗ finance issues. Chief AO, thank you for

1:34:15 ↗ for coming this evening. I think he did

1:34:17 ↗ a nice job of kind of setting uh context

1:34:19 ↗ to this. Uh council member Walsh has

1:34:22 ↗ shared uh updates uh with the Epher

1:34:25 ↗ board's discussions over the last uh

1:34:28 ↗ couple of months, but it was the feeling

1:34:30 ↗ of Mayor Mullet and council leadership

1:34:32 ↗ that perhaps this was an opportune time

1:34:34 ↗ for the council to have a larger

1:34:36 ↗ discussion about where we are at this

1:34:38 ↗ point, what the council feels it needs

1:34:41 ↗ uh to instruct its representatives on

1:34:43 ↗ the Ephraer board as these discussions

1:34:44 ↗ move forward. So, uh, that really is the

1:34:47 ↗ the presentation, Mr. Mayor. Um, we're

1:34:49 ↗ certainly happy to answer any questions.

1:34:50 ↗ Uh, Kristen was on the call, she's no

1:34:53 ↗ longer. Uh, but, uh, we'll be happy to

1:34:56 ↗ answer any questions, but certainly, I

1:34:57 ↗ think between yourself, uh, Council

1:34:59 ↗ President Mart, you could lead the

1:35:01 ↗ discussion, uh, from the the the talks

1:35:04 ↗ that were had last week.

1:35:08 ↗ Council President Marter, the uh

1:35:12 ↗ I think the fairy board is obviously

1:35:15 ↗ going to make a fairly large decision to

1:35:17 ↗ decide kind of as we heard I think from

1:35:21 ↗ Chief Ajo during the public comments in

1:35:23 ↗ terms of the three options going

1:35:25 ↗ forward. And I think at council

1:35:28 ↗ leadership meeting last week on

1:35:29 ↗ Wednesday, I think it was discussed that

1:35:31 ↗ well as council president Mars just said

1:35:33 ↗ like four of our council members are

1:35:35 ↗ fairly new in this process. And I think

1:35:37 ↗ the kind of discussion was to maybe

1:35:41 ↗ discuss if the council is ready to have

1:35:43 ↗ an opinion on those three options

1:35:45 ↗ already or if the council would like to

1:35:46 ↗ kind of request to get more information

1:35:48 ↗ from East Side Fire and Rescue at a

1:35:50 ↗ committee the whole meeting so they can

1:35:52 ↗ understand kind of what the different

1:35:54 ↗ permutations and options look like and

1:35:56 ↗ what the impacts are to the community.

1:35:57 ↗ And I think that's what prompted this

1:35:59 ↗ discussion. And I see council member

1:36:00 ↗ Walsh who is our rep bunny side fire and

1:36:03 ↗ rescue. Council member Walsh.

1:36:05 ↗ >> Thanks. Um, I just wanted to start with

1:36:08 ↗ kind of a clarification on what the June

1:36:12 ↗ meeting is, but also I'm just very

1:36:16 ↗ excited and passionate about this. And

1:36:18 ↗ so, I'm sorry if some of my lengthy

1:36:20 ↗ updates have given the impression that

1:36:22 ↗ things are moving really quickly or that

1:36:24 ↗ we're hitting a point of no return. Um,

1:36:26 ↗ the Ephro board has really tried to take

1:36:28 ↗ a very intentional path in having this

1:36:32 ↗ conversation. As some of you who were on

1:36:34 ↗ council last uh budget cycle know, we've

1:36:38 ↗ had some really difficult budget

1:36:40 ↗ seasons. Um, and seeing those costs

1:36:44 ↗ increase has been really difficult. East

1:36:47 ↗ Side Fire and Rescue really was

1:36:48 ↗ established

1:36:50 ↗ as an innovation in bringing together,

1:36:56 ↗ you know, regional governance for a fire

1:36:59 ↗ service, but we did so before the state

1:37:02 ↗ had any kind of revenue levers. And so

1:37:06 ↗ what we got was this really great cost

1:37:09 ↗ savings from shared services. and we end

1:37:14 ↗ up with, you know, more services than we

1:37:17 ↗ could necessarily do with an individual

1:37:19 ↗ fire service. That's why we've seen so

1:37:21 ↗ many cities and fire districts move

1:37:24 ↗ toward this east side fire and rescue

1:37:26 ↗ model. But what we didn't get was any

1:37:29 ↗ additional revenue levers. And so when

1:37:31 ↗ the state developed this idea of

1:37:35 ↗ regional fire authorities, we saw a lot

1:37:37 ↗ of communities and fire districts

1:37:39 ↗ adopting this. But what East Side Fire

1:37:43 ↗ and Rescue tried to do was this very

1:37:44 ↗ intentional path of saying, "Okay,

1:37:46 ↗ what's our problem statement that's

1:37:48 ↗ around these budget issues and that's a

1:37:51 ↗ similar um and then reviewing all of our

1:37:54 ↗ limited options." So, I'll put it out

1:37:56 ↗ there. There's basically three options.

1:37:58 ↗ Stay the course and continue having all

1:38:00 ↗ of the cities and fire districts fund

1:38:03 ↗ via just their revenue model. The second

1:38:06 ↗ one is consolidate into a fire district.

1:38:11 ↗ Um that gives us additional revenue

1:38:14 ↗ options, but we lose a lot of governance

1:38:18 ↗ because none of us can represent on that

1:38:21 ↗ board. It just becomes an elected fire

1:38:24 ↗ district board. And then the third is

1:38:26 ↗ explore a regional fire authority that

1:38:29 ↗ can give us some of the governance

1:38:32 ↗ options as well as um the additional

1:38:36 ↗ financing levers. There's a few other

1:38:39 ↗ pieces and you know tweaks in there but

1:38:41 ↗ those are the three main ideas. So we

1:38:45 ↗ were reviewing those limited options and

1:38:47 ↗ then discussing the pros and cons of

1:38:49 ↗ each of them from three different

1:38:51 ↗ perspectives. the residents, what do

1:38:54 ↗ they get if we make a change? The

1:38:56 ↗ jurisdictions, you know, the cities and

1:38:58 ↗ the fire districts and also East Side

1:39:00 ↗ Fire and Rescue. So, I wanted to start

1:39:02 ↗ with why you've been hearing a lot about

1:39:04 ↗ that is because East Side Fire and

1:39:06 ↗ Rescue Board has been going through that

1:39:09 ↗ conversation and educating ourselves so

1:39:12 ↗ that we can make an educated movement

1:39:15 ↗ forward. That being said,

1:39:18 ↗ the decision point for Epher on June

1:39:21 ↗ 11th is a vote merely to approve

1:39:25 ↗ that the chief begin education of our

1:39:29 ↗ member jurisdictions, which is the city

1:39:31 ↗ and fire districts.

1:39:33 ↗ There is no vote saying

1:39:36 ↗ regional fire authority is it all of

1:39:39 ↗ that. That decision is the cities and

1:39:42 ↗ the fire districts. Um, but we wanted to

1:39:46 ↗ ensure that the board's questions were

1:39:48 ↗ answered and we could kind of agree on a

1:39:50 ↗ general direction before asking the

1:39:53 ↗ chief to go into all of those

1:39:54 ↗ discussions which we're proposing would

1:39:57 ↗ happen from July to October. Um, so I

1:40:02 ↗ guess I I want to clarify that the

1:40:05 ↗ decision point

1:40:08 ↗ is direction and education, but our

1:40:13 ↗ direction to the chief is going to be

1:40:16 ↗ that each of the cities and fire

1:40:18 ↗ districts should go through the full

1:40:21 ↗ pros and cons of all of these options

1:40:24 ↗ along with the board's recommendation

1:40:26 ↗ because it would be too difficult to it

1:40:30 ↗ it wouldn't be true to just give one

1:40:34 ↗ recommendation and not have that full

1:40:36 ↗ conversation out there. Um, and Isiqua

1:40:41 ↗ maintains the decision authority on

1:40:43 ↗ whether to join a planning committee to

1:40:47 ↗ create a fire district or a regional

1:40:49 ↗ fire authority. Once something like that

1:40:52 ↗ is created, it's about 18 months of

1:40:55 ↗ detailed work on what are all of the

1:40:57 ↗ levers, what are all of the pieces, and

1:41:00 ↗ then everything would go in front of

1:41:03 ↗ voters if we went down um that path. So,

1:41:07 ↗ happy to answer any questions. I'm sure

1:41:09 ↗ the chief can answer a lot of questions,

1:41:12 ↗ but I just wanted to clarify there are

1:41:14 ↗ no

1:41:16 ↗ decisions

1:41:18 ↗ in June at the Eastside Fire and Rescue

1:41:21 ↗ that tie Isaakqua's hands. It's just

1:41:25 ↗ whether or not we feel that we're ready

1:41:29 ↗ um from an eastside fire and rescue

1:41:31 ↗ perspective for the chief to go out and

1:41:32 ↗ start the conversation with each of the

1:41:35 ↗ cities.

1:41:36 ↗ >> Okay. before I call on Council President

1:41:38 ↗ Martz, but I think I mean if I'm looking

1:41:40 ↗ at Chief Ajo correctly from his public

1:41:42 ↗ comments, I thought there was at the

1:41:45 ↗ June 11th meeting going to be a request

1:41:47 ↗ to pick one of those three options as a

1:41:50 ↗ initial

1:41:52 ↗ study path. Is that correct? Mhm.

1:41:55 ↗ >> My direction to the chief as vice chair

1:41:58 ↗ was that we as a board from Epher make a

1:42:03 ↗ recommendation

1:42:04 ↗ of a path and use that and present all

1:42:11 ↗ of the options to each of the cities

1:42:13 ↗ because there is no locking in on

1:42:17 ↗ anything because each of the cities

1:42:20 ↗ would have to choose to join a planning

1:42:22 ↗ committee.

1:42:23 ↗ >> Okay. And I'll turn to Council President

1:42:24 ↗ Marts. I think at leadership the

1:42:26 ↗ discussion was it seemed like the order

1:42:27 ↗ was kind of flip-flopped. It seemed like

1:42:29 ↗ it would be like let's have the

1:42:30 ↗ discussion with the council of how the

1:42:32 ↗ options look so the council could kind

1:42:34 ↗ of weigh in. But go President Council

1:42:36 ↗ President Marts.

1:42:38 ↗ >> So I'm a former member of East Side Fire

1:42:41 ↗ and Rescue board. Um I I think there's a

1:42:45 ↗ lot there's a lot of questions. I don't

1:42:46 ↗ know I don't really understand the the

1:42:49 ↗ timing all that well right at the

1:42:51 ↗ moment. I guess I'm a visual person. and

1:42:52 ↗ I like presentations. Um, at the heart

1:42:55 ↗ of it, um, and I'm not arguing one way

1:42:58 ↗ or the other. I'm just

1:43:00 ↗ enunciating the the questions I guess

1:43:02 ↗ that I have. At the heart of it, it's a

1:43:04 ↗ decision about continuing to carry this

1:43:06 ↗ cost ourselves or to potentially move to

1:43:10 ↗ an option where somebody else carries

1:43:12 ↗ those costs, right? With legislated

1:43:15 ↗ options that are different than us

1:43:17 ↗ carrying those costs. Um, one of the

1:43:20 ↗ things that I haven't seen, I've heard

1:43:22 ↗ whispers. People who are for say one

1:43:25 ↗ thing, people who are against say

1:43:26 ↗ another thing. I would really love to

1:43:28 ↗ see comps. I would really love to see

1:43:30 ↗ what the actual costs of fire districts

1:43:33 ↗ are for residents. What the actual costs

1:43:35 ↗ of RFAS are for residents versus the

1:43:38 ↗ costs that we have because my

1:43:39 ↗ understanding is, and somebody can tell

1:43:42 ↗ me if I'm wrong, but we actually

1:43:44 ↗ Eastside Fire and Rescue does a pretty

1:43:45 ↗ amazing job with the money that it has.

1:43:47 ↗ And we have we pay although costs have

1:43:51 ↗ been going up um we pay a very

1:43:53 ↗ reasonable amount of money still a huge

1:43:55 ↗ number but a but for our residents if

1:43:59 ↗ you ask our residents how much do you

1:44:00 ↗ spend for your $500,000 house or

1:44:03 ↗ whatever um that we do very well with

1:44:06 ↗ East Side Fire and Rescue. So I that's

1:44:07 ↗ part of what I would want to understand

1:44:09 ↗ um before going much further. Um and

1:44:12 ↗ then I'm still I am honestly still

1:44:14 ↗ confused about options and timing. We're

1:44:16 ↗ part of a large group. East Side Fire

1:44:18 ↗ and Rescue in incorporates three cities

1:44:22 ↗ and several fire districts and um

1:44:26 ↗ contract cities. And I won't I I tell

1:44:29 ↗ you today, I don't really understand how

1:44:31 ↗ this, you know, there's game theory on

1:44:33 ↗ this whole thing, right? And I don't

1:44:35 ↗ really understand how the game theory

1:44:37 ↗ works out when there's so many different

1:44:38 ↗ organizations, some of whom are not in

1:44:42 ↗ as and I hate to use the word rosy

1:44:44 ↗ because Wall-E will probably blanch

1:44:46 ↗ because I'm sure our finances aren't

1:44:47 ↗ really rosy, but our finances are rosy

1:44:49 ↗ compared to some of the other partners

1:44:51 ↗ in East Side Fire and Rescue and that

1:44:53 ↗ gets into some of the conversations. So,

1:44:54 ↗ these are all questions that I have and

1:44:56 ↗ again I'm not saying we should do one

1:44:57 ↗ thing or the other, but they're a bunch

1:44:59 ↗ of question marks that I have today

1:45:01 ↗ tonight and wondering how we proceed as

1:45:04 ↗ a city to get those question marks

1:45:07 ↗ answered because I do worry that if we

1:45:10 ↗ go down if if East Side as a

1:45:12 ↗ organization goes down a certain path,

1:45:14 ↗ our options will be limited um after

1:45:17 ↗ that decision is made.

1:45:19 ↗ >> Thank you, Council Member Boyd.

1:45:21 ↗ Um I think it would be helpful for me to

1:45:23 ↗ get some clarity when we talk about uh

1:45:25 ↗ education. I I guess you can tell me if

1:45:27 ↗ my what I'm picturing is correct or not

1:45:30 ↗ not of uh if the board effectively gives

1:45:34 ↗ their preferred path. Um and then that

1:45:38 ↗ means that the chief or representatives

1:45:41 ↗ of the chief go to the different member

1:45:44 ↗ jurisdictions, cities and the education

1:45:47 ↗ portion is them saying this was the

1:45:51 ↗ epher board's preferred path. Here are

1:45:54 ↗ the other paths and just okay sorry if

1:45:56 ↗ I'm just repeating back to you what you

1:45:58 ↗ said but okay if that accurately

1:46:00 ↗ captures it that's helping me understand

1:46:01 ↗ a little better. Thank you. And I think

1:46:03 ↗ tonight's discussion is decide if this

1:46:04 ↗ council is ready to pick one of those

1:46:06 ↗ three preferred paths tonight because

1:46:08 ↗ there's not another council meeting

1:46:10 ↗ between now and June 11th. So that

1:46:13 ↗ decision would have to be made because

1:46:16 ↗ Aqua as a member of Epher at this point

1:46:19 ↗ is expected to take a position on which

1:46:21 ↗ three of those paths to pick and I think

1:46:23 ↗ that's the reason we're having this

1:46:24 ↗ conversation. Council member Nichols

1:46:32 ↗ It seems like there's a good amount of

1:46:33 ↗ confusion just around the timing of

1:46:35 ↗ different events and when so what the

1:46:37 ↗ what so there's confusion around what

1:46:39 ↗ the events are, what the timing of those

1:46:42 ↗ events are and what the implications of

1:46:44 ↗ those events are and also

1:46:50 ↗ doors or not. Um that would probably be

1:46:53 ↗ a a good presentation. We have a June

1:46:56 ↗ 8th cow. Um, I appreciate that's not a

1:47:00 ↗ scheduled meeting, but that seems like

1:47:01 ↗ it might be a good time to if that can

1:47:03 ↗ be put together briefly as a overview of

1:47:08 ↗ just lay out a calendar. Here's the

1:47:10 ↗ decisions that will come. Here's the

1:47:11 ↗ ones that are

1:47:14 ↗ that we that we really can't walk back

1:47:15 ↗ from by statute. Here's the ones that

1:47:19 ↗ even though we could walk back from

1:47:21 ↗ them, they will h they will put us on a

1:47:23 ↗ path that may be harder to walk back

1:47:24 ↗ from. and here's the ones that really

1:47:26 ↗ are not real decisions at all. They're

1:47:29 ↗ moreformational. I think that's the bit

1:47:32 ↗ of information that we're lacking at the

1:47:33 ↗ moment. Uh I don't think there's any way

1:47:35 ↗ we can make a decision tonight. I don't

1:47:36 ↗ see how that would be possible. Um but

1:47:38 ↗ that seems like the biggest missing

1:47:40 ↗ piece that would be good to get out as

1:47:43 ↗ soon as possible essentially. Council

1:47:45 ↗ member Adair.

1:47:47 ↗ >> Uh as uh the other member on East Side

1:47:50 ↗ Fire, um I the only thing I'll add to

1:47:52 ↗ this in terms of my perspective on it

1:47:54 ↗ and the perspective on this decision. Um

1:47:57 ↗ you know, I've had discussions with some

1:47:59 ↗ members here and I've also, you know,

1:48:01 ↗ this has been one of the things on my

1:48:02 ↗ mind a lot because I think this is a

1:48:04 ↗ very big consequential decision and has

1:48:06 ↗ a a ton of complexity to it. So I fully

1:48:08 ↗ understand people's confusions, people's

1:48:10 ↗ questions on this because every option

1:48:12 ↗ has so many different pros and cons and

1:48:15 ↗ things to it. So how I've viewed this

1:48:16 ↗ June meeting discussion has not been a

1:48:19 ↗ this is a point of no return. This is a

1:48:21 ↗ um key decision point other than the

1:48:25 ↗ board having been presented all the

1:48:27 ↗ options. Is there an option that is not

1:48:30 ↗ just stay the course that we should add

1:48:34 ↗ get more information on? Because one of

1:48:36 ↗ the options as mentioned is just stay

1:48:37 ↗ the course, leave everything as is. And

1:48:39 ↗ so if the board were to decide that,

1:48:40 ↗ then everything would stay, nothing

1:48:42 ↗ would change. And more that the board's

1:48:44 ↗ discussion is about do is any of these

1:48:47 ↗ other options worth pursuing? And if so,

1:48:50 ↗ we're saying let's pursue one of these

1:48:52 ↗ options as a possibility to to do

1:48:55 ↗ because everything so many of the

1:48:57 ↗ questions to this that what it's going

1:48:58 ↗ to cost our residents, what it's going

1:49:00 ↗ to be actually can't even fully be known

1:49:03 ↗ yet until we into like even like the

1:49:05 ↗ planning committee. So, it's more

1:49:08 ↗ is this is this something that East Side

1:49:10 ↗ Fire should look into and then again

1:49:12 ↗ start presenting to the city, start

1:49:14 ↗ seeing what city involvement is. And so

1:49:17 ↗ that's how I have perceived this this

1:49:18 ↗ decision to be made next week is that

1:49:21 ↗ are any of these choices worth worth you

1:49:25 ↗ know continuing down the path but I do

1:49:27 ↗ not see it as any kind of you know

1:49:29 ↗ definitive gate that you know requires

1:49:32 ↗ anything that is not able to be backed

1:49:35 ↗ out of it's really just like should we

1:49:38 ↗ proceed should we look into something

1:49:40 ↗ that is not stay the course and so

1:49:41 ↗ that's how I have kind of perceived this

1:49:43 ↗ decision coming up if that helps clarify

1:49:46 ↗ anything for anybody else?

1:49:47 ↗ >> Council member Joe,

1:49:49 ↗ >> thank you. Um,

1:49:52 ↗ when I first came on council in 1999, I

1:49:55 ↗ didn't request uh East Side Fire and

1:49:57 ↗ Rescue as a committee, but I was placed

1:49:58 ↗ on East Side Fire and Rescue as as a

1:50:00 ↗ committee. And they were going through

1:50:02 ↗ the initial growing pains of of a new

1:50:04 ↗ organization. And it was um refreshing

1:50:08 ↗ and invigorating to see a new

1:50:10 ↗ organization get its legs under it under

1:50:12 ↗ under it and and to flourish along the

1:50:15 ↗ way. But at that time there was and

1:50:18 ↗ there always has been discussion of how

1:50:20 ↗ to fund the organization, how to

1:50:22 ↗ properly make sure that uh all the

1:50:24 ↗ members were paying their fair share

1:50:26 ↗ etc. This is one avenue of regional fire

1:50:29 ↗ authority that needs to be explored and

1:50:31 ↗ it was recently put into place by the

1:50:33 ↗ legislature. I think we deserve to have

1:50:36 ↗ it explored, but we also need to keep in

1:50:38 ↗ mind that we probably need more

1:50:39 ↗ information. Um,

1:50:42 ↗ this last month we we devoted $800,000

1:50:45 ↗ in our in our budget to East Side Fire

1:50:48 ↗ and Rescue, which amounts to about 13%

1:50:50 ↗ of the monthly expenditures. So, it's a

1:50:52 ↗ fairly big chunk and we need to make

1:50:54 ↗ sure that we understand all the options

1:50:56 ↗ before we um give our representatives u

1:51:00 ↗ um guidance on how we want to go

1:51:02 ↗ forward. So, I would be in favor of

1:51:03 ↗ bringing it to a Cal when we have the

1:51:05 ↗ appropriate scheduling so that we can

1:51:07 ↗ get some of those questions answered. Um

1:51:10 ↗ uh and uh I would encourage leadership

1:51:12 ↗ to reach out to each of us to um give us

1:51:16 ↗ some additional an additional cheat

1:51:17 ↗ sheet if you will and then we can ask

1:51:19 ↗ our questions from there uh and try to

1:51:22 ↗ have a good basis of of uh the issues

1:51:25 ↗ that we think are are um at the heart of

1:51:27 ↗ things for us right now that can be

1:51:29 ↗ discussed at that uh cal whenever it

1:51:32 ↗ does get scheduled. Thank you.

1:51:34 ↗ Can I ask uh Chief AO would you be able

1:51:37 ↗ to answer a question if you I guess on

1:51:40 ↗ Council Member Joe's

1:51:42 ↗ is there a is is there a time

1:51:45 ↗ sensitivity to making this initial

1:51:48 ↗ decision on June 11th or is that date

1:51:50 ↗ have flexibility to it or what's there I

1:51:53 ↗ guess what's the sense like if if the

1:51:56 ↗ council were to request to have more

1:51:58 ↗ information is it like well we can't

1:52:00 ↗ wait because we have to go forward on

1:52:02 ↗ June 11th for X Y and Z or what's that

1:52:04 ↗ look like? I guess from from Epher's

1:52:06 ↗ perspective.

1:52:06 ↗ >> Yeah, it's a fair question. Um, excuse

1:52:09 ↗ me. Uh, yeah, June 11th is not a a drop

1:52:13 ↗ deadad date on that. That was one that

1:52:15 ↗ we had um decided upon only because

1:52:18 ↗ we've been talking about this since

1:52:20 ↗ March as we go through the educational

1:52:23 ↗ process. Um, there is two partners that

1:52:26 ↗ uh are within East Side Fire and Rescue

1:52:29 ↗ that are have already made a decision

1:52:30 ↗ and they are moving forward. Um uh

1:52:35 ↗ >> is that 38 in in Northbend?

1:52:38 ↗ >> Yeah. And so in fact tomorrow night the

1:52:40 ↗ city of Northbend is going to appoint

1:52:42 ↗ their three planning committee members.

1:52:44 ↗ So some of it was to try to get in

1:52:46 ↗ alignment uh for the overall

1:52:49 ↗ conversation. So there isn't a couple

1:52:51 ↗ partners that are getting either too far

1:52:54 ↗ out ahead of the rest of either overall.

1:52:57 ↗ So we can try to coordinate this as a

1:53:00 ↗ concerted effort and maintain East Side

1:53:03 ↗ Fire as the original founders were um

1:53:06 ↗ deciding uh those we do have some

1:53:08 ↗ partners as uh council member Walsh

1:53:11 ↗ identified was do have some financial

1:53:13 ↗ concerns where they are within two years

1:53:16 ↗ that they have to make some decisions.

1:53:18 ↗ Um, and being this an 18 months a 2-year

1:53:21 ↗ process, uh, the clock is ticking. As

1:53:24 ↗ far as East Side Fire, uh, the existing

1:53:26 ↗ ILA will expire in 31. So, trying to

1:53:31 ↗ coordinate something with, uh, five

1:53:33 ↗ partners plus the potential of

1:53:36 ↗ incorporating some of the contract

1:53:38 ↗ agencies if they so choose, uh, ahead of

1:53:42 ↗ the expiration of that ILA can be a

1:53:45 ↗ lengthy process. um not only as we

1:53:48 ↗ talked about here is educating all of

1:53:50 ↗ our elected bodies, but also the

1:53:52 ↗ education that the community is going to

1:53:55 ↗ to need to understand what the direction

1:53:57 ↗ is um from our governing bodies. So

1:54:00 ↗ yeah, sorry longwinded.

1:54:02 ↗ >> No, no, that's so and then is there an

1:54:05 ↗ example like if 38 and Northbend formed

1:54:08 ↗ an RFA? Yes, sir.

1:54:09 ↗ >> Is there any examples of RF? There's I

1:54:12 ↗ mean East Side Fire and Rescue is such a

1:54:13 ↗ unique model. I think it was kind of

1:54:15 ↗ ahead of its time or still is a unique

1:54:18 ↗ model I guess.

1:54:19 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:54:19 ↗ >> So there's really no examples of RFAS

1:54:21 ↗ partnering with like an Epher because

1:54:22 ↗ Epher is really one of a kind, right? Is

1:54:25 ↗ that fair? So there's really

1:54:26 ↗ >> Yeah. There's no other fire departments

1:54:28 ↗ districts in Washington state that are

1:54:31 ↗ structured the way East Side is.

1:54:32 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:54:33 ↗ >> So yeah, it's a unicorn from that

1:54:34 ↗ standpoint.

1:54:35 ↗ >> Yeah. Council member Walsh.

1:54:37 ↗ >> Yeah. Uh two statements on this. First

1:54:39 ↗ of all, I've talked with the chief. Um

1:54:42 ↗ if Northbend and D38 do form an RFA,

1:54:45 ↗ they can continue to be a part of East

1:54:48 ↗ Side Fire and Rescue even if the other

1:54:50 ↗ um jurisdictions do not. That would just

1:54:53 ↗ much like we have fire districts that

1:54:55 ↗ have um a different funding model and a

1:54:58 ↗ fire benefit charge, they could do so

1:55:01 ↗ and that would be just their payment.

1:55:03 ↗ So, we've asked that question, but one

1:55:06 ↗ of the reasons we are moving on this

1:55:09 ↗ timeline is because D38

1:55:12 ↗ won't have money in two years. And what

1:55:15 ↗ does that mean for East Side Fire and

1:55:17 ↗ Rescue as an organization? Can we keep

1:55:20 ↗ the band together? Can we keep

1:55:21 ↗ everything moving? And then if D38 and

1:55:25 ↗ Northbend are setting up their own RFA

1:55:29 ↗ planning committee,

1:55:32 ↗ you know, I know that we could join in

1:55:38 ↗ at a later date, but I do get worried

1:55:41 ↗ about another organization starting to

1:55:44 ↗ make decisions and going down a path

1:55:48 ↗ that we then have to push into if we

1:55:52 ↗ decide that's the right move for us. So

1:55:56 ↗ I think toward what council member Adair

1:55:59 ↗ said about the idea of why is the East

1:56:02 ↗ Side Fire and Rescue Board making a

1:56:05 ↗ decision and a recommendation at this

1:56:06 ↗ point is just if we recommend to

1:56:10 ↗ continue funding as is. There is no

1:56:13 ↗ action for the chief to take to educate

1:56:17 ↗ all of the cities and fire districts. If

1:56:20 ↗ we do recommend a path forward, then the

1:56:24 ↗ goal is to do all of the education on

1:56:27 ↗ what are the pros and cons of each of

1:56:29 ↗ these

1:56:31 ↗ and why the Epher board recommended a

1:56:35 ↗ certain path um

1:56:38 ↗ but then any organizations can or can't

1:56:43 ↗ join in

1:56:45 ↗ um or continue paying with the current

1:56:49 ↗ model that we have. It just would be it

1:56:53 ↗ would continue to take up a very large

1:56:55 ↗ portion of our budget if we continue on

1:56:58 ↗ um with this same model.

1:57:04 ↗ So I guess

1:57:07 ↗ Chief Ajo, it seems like the the

1:57:08 ↗ decision on June 11 you're saying isn't

1:57:12 ↗ like it's not like a drop dead date, but

1:57:15 ↗ so the

1:57:17 ↗ I guess this would maybe be an offline

1:57:19 ↗ conversation. It's just to figure out

1:57:21 ↗ like is there time for a committee the

1:57:23 ↗ whole discussion to go through some of

1:57:25 ↗ the permutations or not. Uh,

1:57:29 ↗ and that just becomes a question of what

1:57:31 ↗ date makes the most sense for that, I

1:57:33 ↗ guess. But council president Marts.

1:57:35 ↗ >> Yeah, I just want to plus one council

1:57:37 ↗ member Nichols suggestion of bringing it

1:57:39 ↗ to a cow, whether it's on the ETH, which

1:57:41 ↗ I will unfortunately not be able to

1:57:42 ↗ attend, um, or a different date, coming

1:57:45 ↗ back with some of the information, in

1:57:47 ↗ particular the comps. I I hear council

1:57:49 ↗ member Adair. um some of the financials

1:57:52 ↗ aren't particularly understood but we

1:57:54 ↗ can see right granted epher is a unicorn

1:57:57 ↗ okay how do we compare to fire districts

1:57:59 ↗ how do we compare to RFAS that are out

1:58:01 ↗ there right I have heard a lot of

1:58:03 ↗ opinions about RFAS but as you and I

1:58:06 ↗ know the the bucks

1:58:09 ↗ you the bucks really tell a story all

1:58:12 ↗ their own so that plus other

1:58:15 ↗ supplemental information um you know I I

1:58:18 ↗ mean I hear

1:58:21 ↗ There's still this question about game

1:58:22 ↗ theory, right? And there's organizations

1:58:24 ↗ that are already moving forward and

1:58:25 ↗ that's already going to circumscribe

1:58:27 ↗ that's already changing the landscape,

1:58:29 ↗ but I would like to understand the

1:58:30 ↗ landscape um better at that cow whenever

1:58:33 ↗ whenever it occurs. Thank you,

1:58:35 ↗ >> Council Member Dair. Um, I think my

1:58:38 ↗ question is kind of in terms of the

1:58:40 ↗ clarity of this discussion we're having

1:58:42 ↗ here is that is there are we trying to

1:58:45 ↗ get to either an answer on what how

1:58:48 ↗ we're supposed to vote on the 11th or

1:58:51 ↗ trying to see if East Side Fire can have

1:58:53 ↗ not have the decision on that date and

1:58:56 ↗ is that what we're trying to get to

1:58:58 ↗ today? Um, and that's what I'm trying to

1:59:01 ↗ kind of clarify in terms of where where

1:59:02 ↗ we're going in today's discussion. um is

1:59:06 ↗ yeah what we're trying to say here and

1:59:07 ↗ and if if we are saying we need to move

1:59:09 ↗ that date is that possible because like

1:59:11 ↗ it's not just our voice that's at that

1:59:12 ↗ meeting so yeah what that looks like

1:59:15 ↗ >> uh deputy president Jay

1:59:18 ↗ >> um yeah I think I mean I just want to

1:59:20 ↗ reiterate what I think has been said

1:59:22 ↗ before which is that this is you know no

1:59:24 ↗ matter how you slice it fire is a very

1:59:26 ↗ big portion of our city budget second

1:59:29 ↗ possibly only to police in terms of our

1:59:31 ↗ general so any decision that we make I

1:59:34 ↗ do think it is very important that our

1:59:36 ↗ whole council is very cleareyed and

1:59:37 ↗ knowledgeable about all the different

1:59:39 ↗ aspects of it including you know the

1:59:40 ↗ funding models what a fire benefit

1:59:43 ↗ charge is. I mean I have no idea. So I'm

1:59:46 ↗ very much looking forward to being

1:59:47 ↗ educated on this. Um I think you know I

1:59:51 ↗ I do think it's important for us to as a

1:59:54 ↗ council learn about all those different

1:59:55 ↗ things before we make a decision one way

1:59:57 ↗ or the other. If the decision that's

2:00:00 ↗ being made on the 11th really is just,

2:00:02 ↗ you know, oh, this is, you know, giving

2:00:04 ↗ the chief approval to go to the councils

2:00:06 ↗ and educate them about all the different

2:00:09 ↗ options. I think that's fine. But I also

2:00:11 ↗ think it might be a bit premature to

2:00:12 ↗ say, you know, oh, here are the options

2:00:14 ↗ that we think are the best ways forward.

2:00:16 ↗ I think we do need a full, you know,

2:00:19 ↗ exploration of what all the different

2:00:21 ↗ options are before we can say, oh, yeah,

2:00:23 ↗ this is, you know, the one that we want

2:00:25 ↗ to recommend. Unless you know there's

2:00:26 ↗ something where it's too too much staff

2:00:28 ↗ time to go into all three of those

2:00:30 ↗ options in detail and you really can

2:00:31 ↗ only choose one. So I guess my question

2:00:33 ↗ to you Chief Ajo would be is it

2:00:36 ↗ realistic to you know give the full

2:00:38 ↗ council an overview of what all the

2:00:40 ↗ different options are and what the

2:00:41 ↗ potential you know financial etc um

2:00:44 ↗ implications would be.

2:00:45 ↗ >> Yeah. Uh I already have the PowerPoint

2:00:47 ↗ built. We just went through it uh at the

2:00:49 ↗ last epher board meeting and I've uh to

2:00:52 ↗ answer some of your question, I've

2:00:53 ↗ already gone out and started educating

2:00:55 ↗ uh some of our contract agencies. In

2:00:58 ↗ fact, I've got another presentation to

2:00:59 ↗ do tomorrow night uh which is walking

2:01:01 ↗ the commission through uh to council

2:01:04 ↗ member Walsh's comment earlier. We

2:01:06 ↗ didn't want to waste your time if epher

2:01:08 ↗ board says no, we're happy with how it

2:01:10 ↗ is. So then that puts puts a pin in it

2:01:13 ↗ right there. Um, so, uh, it may seem a

2:01:17 ↗ little bit out of sequence, um, on

2:01:19 ↗ there, but we're just trying to

2:01:21 ↗ represect your all of your time.

2:01:26 ↗ >> Council member Boyd.

2:01:28 ↗ >> Thank you, Chief. If I could ask as the

2:01:30 ↗ um I guess newest like alternate member

2:01:34 ↗ of the board who hasn't actually had a

2:01:35 ↗ meeting yet, could you uh talk a little

2:01:37 ↗ bit about the intersections of this um

2:01:41 ↗ you know I'm hearing slower decision

2:01:43 ↗ point uh with the eerone you know

2:01:47 ↗ budgeting process cycle etc.

2:01:50 ↗ >> Yeah, those are run uh two independent

2:01:53 ↗ timelines. Uh we still have to develop a

2:01:56 ↗ 2728 budget process. Um uh our first

2:02:01 ↗ meeting on that is June 9th with the

2:02:03 ↗ subcommittee um uh on that. So the RFA

2:02:08 ↗ conversation or the future consideration

2:02:11 ↗ conversation

2:02:12 ↗ uh that's going to take a lot longer

2:02:15 ↗ through the budget process um to come up

2:02:18 ↗ with the final determination.

2:02:20 ↗ Ideally, we don't have to go through

2:02:21 ↗ another budget process like this. Um but

2:02:25 ↗ that is a decision for you all to make.

2:02:29 ↗ Council member Walsh.

2:02:31 ↗ >> Okay. So reiterating what council member

2:02:33 ↗ Adair said,

2:02:39 ↗ what is the direction for the Epher reps

2:02:43 ↗ for this next meeting? and maybe uh

2:02:47 ↗ talking to the administration, is it

2:02:49 ↗ possible to put something in on the June

2:02:52 ↗ 8th committee of the whole meeting? I

2:02:55 ↗ will say the EA board, it's taken us, I

2:02:59 ↗ don't know, probably three or so hours

2:03:02 ↗ of education on this to get to the point

2:03:06 ↗ where we understand the financials, the

2:03:09 ↗ governance model, what the options are,

2:03:12 ↗ all of those things. So, I think that

2:03:15 ↗ would be a lot to put this council

2:03:17 ↗ through on such a quick time frame. But,

2:03:22 ↗ I mean, I think council member Walsh,

2:03:24 ↗ you just hit kind of the nail on the

2:03:25 ↗ head. I think that's why people are

2:03:26 ↗ saying, is the June 11th date absolutely

2:03:28 ↗ necessary? Because, as I think you just

2:03:30 ↗ accurately 100% described, there's two

2:03:33 ↗ members of this council who sit on the

2:03:34 ↗ Epher board. The presentations have been

2:03:36 ↗ very lengthy and complicated. And I

2:03:38 ↗ think the conversation of leadership was

2:03:41 ↗ can we have one committee the whole

2:03:43 ↗ discussion to kind of have a deeper

2:03:45 ↗ dive. So the entire council kind of gets

2:03:48 ↗ a little more cut up to speed before

2:03:50 ↗ there's a you know just trying to I

2:03:53 ↗ think I understand your sequencing

2:03:55 ↗ question. I think at this point I think

2:03:58 ↗ it's uh it's fair to say the education

2:04:00 ↗ is not going to be a waste of time. I

2:04:02 ↗ think it's going to be valuable. So, I

2:04:05 ↗ think the council, every member of the

2:04:07 ↗ council feels like they have enough

2:04:08 ↗ information to say, "Yes, this makes

2:04:10 ↗ sense." And uh I think that would just

2:04:12 ↗ be the hope, but I think the the

2:04:14 ↗ question is, as you say, we're just one

2:04:17 ↗ member of that board. And so, I don't

2:04:18 ↗ know if that date can be adjusted to

2:04:21 ↗ because I agree with council member

2:04:22 ↗ Walsh doing that same and council

2:04:25 ↗ president Marks isn't here on the 8th.

2:04:27 ↗ So, it would kind of be the committee

2:04:29 ↗ the whole

2:04:31 ↗ which would be July 13th, I think.

2:04:33 ↗ Correct. City administrator would be the

2:04:34 ↗ next one after June 8th. And so it's

2:04:37 ↗ just a it's not like a timeline given

2:04:40 ↗ the big scheme of what we're talking

2:04:41 ↗ about. We're talking about a month uh

2:04:44 ↗ difference or so. But I think there

2:04:46 ↗ would I don't know. That's the question

2:04:48 ↗ for this council. I think is is is the

2:04:50 ↗ request to have the committee the whole

2:04:53 ↗ discussion

2:04:54 ↗ so the council can kind of figure out

2:04:56 ↗ like

2:04:58 ↗ how they would want their ephera reps to

2:05:00 ↗ vote during that

2:05:04 ↗ vote when it does occur of which of

2:05:06 ↗ those three options is the best one to

2:05:08 ↗ kind of go down. So, the other part of

2:05:11 ↗ the question is,

2:05:14 ↗ does the city council feel like this is

2:05:18 ↗ one of those doors that you can't go

2:05:20 ↗ back through? I think we've tried to

2:05:23 ↗ clarify that

2:05:25 ↗ at this point the the goal of Epher

2:05:30 ↗ making a recommendation and sending the

2:05:34 ↗ chief or a representative out to each of

2:05:36 ↗ the jurisdictions is like let's educate

2:05:40 ↗ but there is no decision there isn't

2:05:43 ↗ anything that locks us as a city in to

2:05:47 ↗ any changes. we could continue paying

2:05:50 ↗ via our current model even if every

2:05:53 ↗ other organization within Epher goes a

2:05:57 ↗ different pathway. So I I'm not sure

2:06:01 ↗ what

2:06:03 ↗ the city

2:06:05 ↗ councils need to

2:06:09 ↗ have the information before that vote

2:06:12 ↗ whether that makes sense to me.

2:06:16 ↗ Council member Rair.

2:06:18 ↗ >> Yeah. Again, I'll kind of clarify like

2:06:20 ↗ how was saying my perspective and

2:06:22 ↗ position on this has been almost like

2:06:23 ↗ that the Ephford board has been

2:06:26 ↗ a SSP committee has been a subcommittee

2:06:30 ↗ going through digging in all the details

2:06:32 ↗ and then saying, "Okay, here's what we

2:06:33 ↗ think and now we're going to pass it up

2:06:35 ↗ to council." Is how I've kind of seen

2:06:38 ↗ this decision as about digging all the

2:06:40 ↗ details, seeing what's there, and now

2:06:41 ↗ we're going to pass it to the cities to

2:06:43 ↗ actually look at this and see what each

2:06:44 ↗ city sees. And I feel that once this

2:06:48 ↗ decision made it was in June, I was kind

2:06:50 ↗ of my perspective has been that it was

2:06:52 ↗ going to involve probably quite a few

2:06:55 ↗ months of discussions and education

2:06:57 ↗ throughout this council on these

2:06:58 ↗ different decisions. And so, you know, I

2:07:01 ↗ I I'm I'm not positive that even pushing

2:07:04 ↗ this decision a month is going to be

2:07:05 ↗ enough time to educate this council to

2:07:08 ↗ the extent that I think you want to be

2:07:09 ↗ educated in terms of making a decision.

2:07:11 ↗ Because for me, like saying I've seen

2:07:12 ↗ this decision is not this isn't we're

2:07:14 ↗ making an RFA. let's do this. This is

2:07:16 ↗ okay. This seems worthwhile to get more

2:07:18 ↗ information on and now let's send it to

2:07:21 ↗ all the jurisdictions to now see what

2:07:23 ↗ each individual jurisdiction thinks

2:07:26 ↗ about it and if they support it or not

2:07:28 ↗ because then if they don't again then

2:07:30 ↗ that kills it there as well. So that's

2:07:32 ↗ been my perspective of this decision and

2:07:35 ↗ um how I'm treating it in terms of what

2:07:37 ↗ my thought process.

2:07:39 ↗ >> Deputy President Jane. Yeah, I mean I

2:07:42 ↗ think that if you know the decision on

2:07:44 ↗ June 11th is just okay, is this

2:07:46 ↗ something that's worth informing the

2:07:47 ↗ city councils about and I think the

2:07:50 ↗ answer is yes. Um, and then I think I

2:07:53 ↗ mean based on you know the conversations

2:07:55 ↗ that I've had with you council member

2:07:56 ↗ Adair of like what the steps in the

2:07:59 ↗ process are. I think there's a step in

2:08:01 ↗ the process which is like we would have

2:08:03 ↗ to create a 27 member board with like

2:08:06 ↗ three representatives from every

2:08:08 ↗ jurisdiction to actually explore the

2:08:09 ↗ creation of a regional fire authority.

2:08:11 ↗ And I think that would be a path where

2:08:13 ↗ it's like then you're really committing

2:08:16 ↗ to do it. So I don't think we're at that

2:08:18 ↗ point yet. And I do think it's worth it

2:08:19 ↗ for us to all become educated about the

2:08:22 ↗ issue. And if the vote on the 11th is

2:08:25 ↗ should we become more educated about

2:08:26 ↗ RFAS, then I would personally, you know,

2:08:29 ↗ be supportive of that.

2:08:32 ↗ >> But just to clarify, deputy president,

2:08:33 ↗ you're saying that's different than

2:08:35 ↗ saying this is our preferred route.

2:08:37 ↗ You're saying a vote to educate is a

2:08:39 ↗ slightly different

2:08:41 ↗ >> kind of board decision on the 11th.

2:08:42 ↗ Yeah.

2:08:43 ↗ >> Yeah. I I think if the vote is a vote to

2:08:45 ↗ educate, then I'm in favor of that. And

2:08:47 ↗ if it's a vote to educate about RFA

2:08:50 ↗ specifically or a vote to educate about

2:08:52 ↗ all the options, I would be in favor of

2:08:54 ↗ a vote to educate us about all the

2:08:55 ↗ different options.

2:08:57 ↗ >> Council President Marts.

2:09:00 ↗ >> So, I guess I'll just name my concern.

2:09:03 ↗ Um, if we were to get back information

2:09:05 ↗ that said that every single RFA jams the

2:09:08 ↗ meter on price, right, then I would not

2:09:14 ↗ be in favor of considering going down

2:09:16 ↗ that path because we are a city that can

2:09:19 ↗ afford to fund a fire department if the

2:09:22 ↗ alternative to our city was a 50%

2:09:25 ↗ increase in the cost of fire, even if it

2:09:28 ↗ took it off of our shoulders, right, and

2:09:31 ↗ put it on an independent agency.

2:09:33 ↗ So this is my concern and why I would

2:09:34 ↗ like the information in the form of a

2:09:37 ↗ cow before this body makes a decision. I

2:09:40 ↗ have heard through the rivine that RFAS

2:09:43 ↗ jam the needle on cost. If that's not

2:09:46 ↗ true,

2:09:47 ↗ then it's worth considering. But if it

2:09:49 ↗ is true, then I think it would be a bad

2:09:52 ↗ decision for us to go down that path. So

2:09:54 ↗ that's why I want supplemental

2:09:56 ↗ information. I didn't want to go into it

2:09:57 ↗ tonight because I don't want to didn't

2:09:58 ↗ want to argue about for against RFAS,

2:10:01 ↗ but that's the kind of stuff that real

2:10:04 ↗ data washes away rumor and and innuendo.

2:10:14 ↗ Okay. Uh, city ministry, I'm not sure.

2:10:16 ↗ We've had a good discussion. I I don't I

2:10:19 ↗ think uh leadership will

2:10:23 ↗ be meeting again on Wednesday morning

2:10:25 ↗ and we can kind of

2:10:28 ↗ Mr. Mayor, members of the the council,

2:10:31 ↗ um I think the last point that council

2:10:33 ↗ member Jen made is a very interesting

2:10:35 ↗ one and maybe worth a little bit further

2:10:38 ↗ discussion because I think and please

2:10:40 ↗ correct me deputy council president if

2:10:41 ↗ I'm misstating this is that there is no

2:10:44 ↗ preference in what you said that if the

2:10:48 ↗ board if the epher board says let's

2:10:49 ↗ educate on these items versus saying

2:10:52 ↗ here is a preferred model to educate I

2:10:55 ↗ think that's a significant difference

2:10:57 ↗ and if the council's this evening is

2:10:59 ↗ comfortable with that. Um perhaps that's

2:11:02 ↗ sufficient to ask your representatives

2:11:04 ↗ to make that distinction. Um I also want

2:11:07 ↗ to go back to the council president's

2:11:08 ↗ point about our partners. um some of our

2:11:11 ↗ partners are not in rosy financial

2:11:13 ↗ conditions and I think the circumstances

2:11:15 ↗ that they're facing uh and this question

2:11:18 ↗ are different than this council's and so

2:11:20 ↗ if our representatives are able to share

2:11:23 ↗ the concern of the council that says

2:11:25 ↗ education is great but preference is not

2:11:28 ↗ something that the isqua city council is

2:11:29 ↗ comfortable with at this point maybe

2:11:32 ↗ that's the right context of a discussion

2:11:35 ↗ on June the 11th see what happens have

2:11:38 ↗ your representatives report back and

2:11:40 ↗ then decide next steps. But I think that

2:11:42 ↗ distinction is a very key distinction

2:11:44 ↗ that the deputy council president made

2:11:46 ↗ and I would ask Mr. Mayor maybe the

2:11:49 ↗ council could take a moment to talk

2:11:51 ↗ further about that.

2:11:53 ↗ I mean, I would agree that the deputy

2:11:55 ↗ president Jen suggestion does seem to be

2:11:57 ↗ the best because there is I've heard

2:11:59 ↗ unanimous agreement from all seven.

2:12:01 ↗ Well, I think Council Walsh is very up

2:12:03 ↗ to speed already being the primary rep,

2:12:05 ↗ but I think that the other I think would

2:12:09 ↗ five of the seven would definitely are

2:12:11 ↗ all saying very clearly, we would love

2:12:12 ↗ to learn more and get educated more. So

2:12:14 ↗ I think I think Deputy President Jen

2:12:16 ↗ probably did have the best suggestion so

2:12:19 ↗ far of a possibility of just framing it

2:12:22 ↗ as we're definitely want to be educated

2:12:24 ↗ more. Council member Nichols

2:12:27 ↗ >> or Walsh.

2:12:28 ↗ >> Yeah, I I guess what I was going to say

2:12:30 ↗ off of that is you know with my epher

2:12:33 ↗ hat on epher vice chair hat on the

2:12:37 ↗ request from the board there was to make

2:12:40 ↗ a recommendation

2:12:43 ↗ um there. So, I think that is going to

2:12:44 ↗ be the motion on the table with my

2:12:47 ↗ Isiqua City Council hat on. I can go to

2:12:50 ↗ that meeting and make a request or an

2:12:53 ↗ alternate motion that asks us merely to

2:12:57 ↗ say, do we think the current model

2:13:00 ↗ doesn't work and the others should be

2:13:04 ↗ educated on, you know, or the

2:13:06 ↗ jurisdiction should be educated on

2:13:08 ↗ options and things like that. So, I'm

2:13:10 ↗ comfortable with that. I just don't know

2:13:12 ↗ if that's going to be something that

2:13:14 ↗ passes the board.

2:13:16 ↗ >> And I don't think it's so much the

2:13:17 ↗ current model doesn't work. I just think

2:13:19 ↗ the current model could be working and

2:13:20 ↗ there's still a benefit getting educated

2:13:22 ↗ on other options. So I think I've heard

2:13:25 ↗ consensus from this council tonight.

2:13:27 ↗ Everyone's in favor of getting more

2:13:28 ↗ education of what the options look like

2:13:31 ↗ in the fire space. So it's not I think

2:13:33 ↗ saying the current I don't think you

2:13:35 ↗ even have to say that. I think it's just

2:13:36 ↗ like the motion from isqua's perspective

2:13:39 ↗ would just be we're in favor of getting

2:13:42 ↗ more education of what the options look

2:13:43 ↗ like in the fire space. Uh council

2:13:45 ↗ member Nichols.

2:13:47 ↗ >> Yeah, going a bit off of what council

2:13:51 ↗ Mal said, my I I appreciate the the idea

2:13:55 ↗ from Deputy Council President to try to

2:13:57 ↗ make this into more of anformational ask

2:14:00 ↗ from the board, but we're not in

2:14:02 ↗ control. Um, so we can make that ask,

2:14:05 ↗ but or can still

2:14:07 ↗ uh decide to take a different path than

2:14:09 ↗ we would like since it's a large multi-

2:14:11 ↗ agency board. Um, so it it still could

2:14:13 ↗ be useful for us to try to schedule some

2:14:16 ↗ time assuming it's possible. I don't

2:14:18 ↗ know if it is ahead of that simply to

2:14:20 ↗ arm our uh representatives with the best

2:14:23 ↗ possible set of uh opinion of our best

2:14:27 ↗ consensus at that time. Even if it's not

2:14:29 ↗ a full fully informed consensus, um it

2:14:32 ↗ could be better informed than it is at

2:14:34 ↗ the moment.

2:14:36 ↗ >> Council member Boyd,

2:14:38 ↗ >> I feel like I'm maybe not fully

2:14:40 ↗ appreciating the um

2:14:43 ↗ board decision point, which is not any

2:14:46 ↗ kind of point of no return, uh that says

2:14:48 ↗ this is our preferred alternative. I

2:14:50 ↗ guess is a hybrid of the education piece

2:14:53 ↗ being here are the three different

2:14:56 ↗ options you know status quo say the

2:14:58 ↗ course etc of the three this is the

2:15:01 ↗ board's preferred option but an equal

2:15:05 ↗ amount of time is spent on all the other

2:15:07 ↗ options and maybe there's some context

2:15:09 ↗ given to the discussion of the board

2:15:11 ↗ discussion. um we as a city can still

2:15:15 ↗ decide, you know, hey, thanks board for

2:15:17 ↗ that feedback and the three of us that

2:15:20 ↗ would have weighed in on that. It's a

2:15:21 ↗ bit weird getting on the timeline there

2:15:23 ↗ for me, but um I I don't know. I guess

2:15:26 ↗ I'm not

2:15:28 ↗ having any particular worry about the we

2:15:31 ↗ we can still decide

2:15:34 ↗ what our thoughts are on the decision we

2:15:38 ↗ have to make. Whatever the board's

2:15:40 ↗ preferred alternative is

2:15:45 ↗ >> uh council

2:15:48 ↗ I didn't see who went first Walsh or

2:15:50 ↗ Council Walsh. Go ahead. Um toward

2:15:53 ↗ Council Member Nichols point, I can

2:15:55 ↗ certainly share around the um

2:15:57 ↗ presentation that uh Chief AO has made

2:16:00 ↗ to the East Side Fire and Rescue Board,

2:16:03 ↗ which does include many of the back of

2:16:05 ↗ the napkin things about, you know, the

2:16:08 ↗ finances of these two options and what

2:16:11 ↗ the governance model is. I would be

2:16:13 ↗ happy to give a quick, you know,

2:16:17 ↗ PowerPoint or email about here's the

2:16:19 ↗ pros and cons of each of the three as

2:16:21 ↗ discussed by the board. and I would be

2:16:23 ↗ happy to make some goof to the order

2:16:26 ↗ comments and further discussion on the

2:16:30 ↗ June 8th meeting um after I've sent that

2:16:34 ↗ information out because I do think

2:16:36 ↗ council member Nichols point of I can

2:16:39 ↗ advocate for one way based on this

2:16:41 ↗ conversation

2:16:43 ↗ um but it isn't at all definitive that I

2:16:47 ↗ can change

2:16:49 ↗ what the motion is and what comes out of

2:16:52 ↗ that board recommendation.

2:16:54 ↗ >> Council President Marts.

2:16:56 ↗ >> So I have perhaps a question for Chief

2:16:59 ↗ AO and it comes back to this whole game

2:17:01 ↗ theory thing, right? So let's just say

2:17:06 ↗ we get to the 11th and everybody else

2:17:10 ↗ says go and Isiqua says we don't know

2:17:13 ↗ like we have lots of we have lots of

2:17:15 ↗ questions still. How does that change

2:17:17 ↗ the landscape? because the possibility

2:17:21 ↗ of Isiqua going it alone or forming its

2:17:24 ↗ own fire authority with whoever um you

2:17:27 ↗ know we have the headquarters we have a

2:17:28 ↗ bunch of fire stations we're at the

2:17:30 ↗ heart of the district does it

2:17:32 ↗ fundamentally change and and and our

2:17:35 ↗ partners some of our partners may be

2:17:37 ↗ watching this very council member this

2:17:38 ↗ very meeting this evening wondering how

2:17:40 ↗ isqua is going and hearing that Isiqua

2:17:42 ↗ has a bunch of questions does it does it

2:17:44 ↗ change the conversation that occurs at

2:17:45 ↗ epher

2:17:47 ↗ >> yeah anybody that uh looks at um uh

2:17:54 ↗ pausing a decision to slow up a

2:17:56 ↗ directionfree side. It can have a um a

2:18:01 ↗ slowing effect of what does

2:18:03 ↗ sustainability look like for the

2:18:05 ↗ organization.

2:18:06 ↗ That doesn't preclude uh anybody from

2:18:10 ↗ going a

2:18:14 ↗ uh not a pathway on their own. That's

2:18:16 ↗ probably the poor not not a good way to

2:18:19 ↗ craft that. It does e epher will still

2:18:22 ↗ remain in existence

2:18:25 ↗ even though 38 in you know using 38

2:18:27 ↗ northb going out for an RFA. Uh each

2:18:32 ↗ individual partner has a decision to

2:18:35 ↗ make as far as the timing should

2:18:38 ↗ something uh be worthy of changing.

2:18:41 ↗ So east side as it's currently crafted

2:18:44 ↗ can still remain. Now, we do still have

2:18:46 ↗ that 2031 deadline that we would have to

2:18:48 ↗ address for the ILA

2:18:50 ↗ um piece on there. So, and what we've

2:18:53 ↗ talked about with Epher leadership is

2:18:56 ↗ like, okay, we get to June. Now, our now

2:19:01 ↗ our work begins. We've done the easy

2:19:03 ↗ part. We've educated the Epher board.

2:19:05 ↗ Now, we need to go out and educate each

2:19:07 ↗ of our partners and we need to invest

2:19:09 ↗ that time into the the partners. So uh

2:19:13 ↗ and relying on each of the

2:19:15 ↗ representatives that are put forward to

2:19:17 ↗ help to provide education to each of the

2:19:20 ↗ individual councils and commissions

2:19:22 ↗ moving forward. So we've talked about is

2:19:25 ↗ there a point of no return. The point of

2:19:27 ↗ no return is when you put it to ballot

2:19:30 ↗ whatever the decision is or or don't put

2:19:33 ↗ it to ballot. That's your point of no

2:19:35 ↗ return.

2:19:36 ↗ Even if we get into the planning phase

2:19:40 ↗ of hypothetically say we all decide that

2:19:43 ↗ we're going to go down an RFA, we get in

2:19:45 ↗ the planning phase.

2:19:46 ↗ >> Um, you can opt out at any point during

2:19:50 ↗ during that time.

2:19:51 ↗ >> And my question is a little bit

2:19:52 ↗ different. It's what if everybody else

2:19:54 ↗ is on board? Yes. RFA, go for it

2:19:57 ↗ >> except Isiqua.

2:19:58 ↗ >> And Isiqua says, "We don't know. Um, we

2:20:01 ↗ need more information. We're not sure.

2:20:03 ↗ You can't have our vote tonight. Yeah,

2:20:04 ↗ >> I know you want our vote, but you can't

2:20:06 ↗ have it because we're all concerned and

2:20:08 ↗ confused, right? What does that do to

2:20:11 ↗ the go forward plan if one of the cities

2:20:14 ↗ that is one of the biggest contributors

2:20:16 ↗ both in terms of material and dollars to

2:20:19 ↗ the current organization is only a a

2:20:22 ↗ maybe or a question mark on on the RFA?

2:20:30 ↗ >> Question.

2:20:32 ↗ I think it was directed at Chief Oh. I

2:20:36 ↗ mean,

2:20:37 ↗ >> yeah. Uh it doesn't it it doesn't

2:20:40 ↗ preclude progress being moving forward

2:20:43 ↗ for the overall decisions. So, um it is

2:20:46 ↗ a if if the majority of the folks say we

2:20:49 ↗ need to continue to towards a pathway,

2:20:52 ↗ then we can continue towards a pathway.

2:20:55 ↗ Um, if I is quad needs more information,

2:20:59 ↗ then I just need to understand what

2:21:02 ↗ information you need to help bring uh

2:21:05 ↗ inform you so you can be comfortable

2:21:07 ↗ with the journey or make a decision to

2:21:09 ↗ not. Um, that is still council's

2:21:13 ↗ decision. So, it doesn't it doesn't

2:21:15 ↗ stop.

2:21:17 ↗ >> Thank you, Council Ross.

2:21:21 ↗ From a practical standpoint,

2:21:24 ↗ if I can't convince the East Side Fire

2:21:27 ↗ and Rescue board to go with an

2:21:28 ↗ alternative motion, us abstaining or

2:21:32 ↗ voting no, I believe is two out of seven

2:21:37 ↗ votes. Um, is that correct? Two out of

2:21:41 ↗ eight. So

2:21:44 ↗ if everybody else votes to move forward

2:21:48 ↗ with having a recommendation, I believe

2:21:51 ↗ the next step would be all of the cities

2:21:54 ↗ and districts get educated. So it would

2:21:58 ↗ be no

2:22:00 ↗ different

2:22:02 ↗ just from a practical standpoint if I

2:22:04 ↗ understand the way the voting would

2:22:05 ↗ work.

2:22:08 ↗ My concern isn't whether we can prevail

2:22:10 ↗ on the on the on the 11th. My concern is

2:22:13 ↗ that if the economics change, I mean, if

2:22:16 ↗ if I were one of our fellow cities, I'm

2:22:19 ↗ not going to presume to say which one,

2:22:21 ↗ but um you know, the I suspect the

2:22:24 ↗ economics look different if everybody

2:22:25 ↗ goes in on it versus if there's a

2:22:28 ↗ suspicion that down the road Isiqua

2:22:31 ↗ might want to do something else because

2:22:32 ↗ it can afford to. Uh

2:22:36 ↗ that's this is this comes back to this

2:22:37 ↗ game theory thing, right? And would the

2:22:39 ↗ RFA look different to those other

2:22:43 ↗ entities um knowing that isqua is only a

2:22:47 ↗ maybe and that maybe we do in the end,

2:22:49 ↗ maybe we don't in the end um as opposed

2:22:51 ↗ to being go go.

2:22:54 ↗ I actually can answer that one. So now I

2:22:56 ↗ understand the question a little bit

2:22:57 ↗ better. Yes. If Isiziqua says no then or

2:23:01 ↗ not now uh it does change the economic

2:23:05 ↗ uh landscape for everybody else

2:23:08 ↗ because it's assessed valuation it's

2:23:11 ↗ resource needs and service level

2:23:14 ↗ associated with that. If we're trying to

2:23:16 ↗ do something collectively together,

2:23:19 ↗ there still is ways to craft it so we

2:23:22 ↗ can do it collectively together

2:23:26 ↗ and underneath the the existing epher

2:23:29 ↗ model, but the funding side of it is

2:23:32 ↗ going to look different.

2:23:35 ↗ >> Thank you. I mean, there's a lot of

2:23:36 ↗ weird permutations out there, right? We

2:23:38 ↗ could become a contract city

2:23:40 ↗ >> to a new RFA, right? I mean there's a

2:23:42 ↗ there's just it has the permutations get

2:23:45 ↗ weird very quickly. Thank you.

2:23:46 ↗ >> Yes, sir.

2:23:50 ↗ >> City administrator.

2:23:52 ↗ >> Fascinating discussion and thank you all

2:23:55 ↗ for for taking the time. I think there

2:23:57 ↗ is one thing that Isakiqua can bring to

2:23:59 ↗ the table that will make our partners

2:24:00 ↗ pay attention and that's the issue of

2:24:02 ↗ scrutiny

2:24:04 ↗ that if Isiqua says yes we want to go

2:24:07 ↗ down this path we would prefer there not

2:24:08 ↗ be a preferred path but understand

2:24:10 ↗ partners that we are going to scrutinize

2:24:12 ↗ this in our community we have an

2:24:14 ↗ expectation of transparency we have an

2:24:16 ↗ expectation of sharing full information

2:24:19 ↗ and so you all can do whatever you think

2:24:21 ↗ makes sense in your community but

2:24:23 ↗ understand that we're going to set a

2:24:24 ↗ very high bar here in Isiqua. We're

2:24:26 ↗ going to have community dialogue. We're

2:24:28 ↗ going to ask the kind of questions that

2:24:30 ↗ all of you have raised this evening. And

2:24:32 ↗ that may be a level that our partners

2:24:34 ↗ either haven't thought about or perhaps

2:24:36 ↗ aren't prepared to go down. And so I

2:24:39 ↗ think the one thing that you can do and

2:24:41 ↗ ask your representatives to the Epher

2:24:42 ↗ board to do is to signal the scrutiny

2:24:45 ↗ that you plan to bring to this. And so

2:24:48 ↗ that whatever vote there is ultimately

2:24:49 ↗ for Miqua, understand that there will be

2:24:52 ↗ lots of community dialogue. there'll be

2:24:54 ↗ lots of information shared and the

2:24:56 ↗ expectation is that our partner agencies

2:24:58 ↗ will be doing the same thing and I think

2:25:00 ↗ that may be a very interesting message

2:25:02 ↗ to send and I think may game theory

2:25:06 ↗ council president very much on my mind

2:25:08 ↗ too um that may make some of them have

2:25:11 ↗ to pump the brakes to ever so slightly

2:25:13 ↗ understanding that the level of scrutiny

2:25:15 ↗ the level of transparency that the

2:25:17 ↗ Isiqua City Council intends to use may

2:25:20 ↗ be different than our partners

2:25:28 ↗ Okay, thank you very much chief. Uh I

2:25:31 ↗ think with that we are going to

2:25:35 ↗ move on.

2:25:38 ↗ So I I don't know uh I mean I think it's

2:25:41 ↗ been a great dialogue and to be clear

2:25:44 ↗ this is the first council dialogue on

2:25:46 ↗ this topic as a whole. This tonight that

2:25:48 ↗ just happened. Council President Mart,

2:25:51 ↗ >> can I just ask if our Epher reps feel

2:25:53 ↗ that they are prepared for the meeting

2:25:55 ↗ on the 11th?

2:25:59 ↗ >> Um, I would say no. Um,

2:26:05 ↗ I think what I have heard is an ask

2:26:09 ↗ for

2:26:12 ↗ making an alternate proposal that does

2:26:15 ↗ not include a recommendation. And so

2:26:17 ↗ that I have heard and heard enough

2:26:20 ↗ members say yes. Um

2:26:24 ↗ I don't know if council agrees with what

2:26:28 ↗ city administrator said and I don't know

2:26:31 ↗ if that alternate proposal does not get

2:26:35 ↗ accepted how you want me to vote. So no

2:26:44 ↗ >> I mean I I thought

2:26:47 ↗ I did I mean I appreciated what uh city

2:26:50 ↗ administrator said and that you know I

2:26:52 ↗ feel like I said I've I've treated this

2:26:55 ↗ decision as a point of while the even if

2:26:58 ↗ this even if the board were to make a

2:27:00 ↗ recommendation that this is merely like

2:27:02 ↗ of the options we think this is viable

2:27:04 ↗ so let's pursue it. So even that in and

2:27:06 ↗ of itself has not been a

2:27:09 ↗ strong recommendation in my own mind.

2:27:12 ↗ And so for me being there and being very

2:27:15 ↗ open to the rest of the board about the

2:27:17 ↗ scrutiny we want to apply to it makes

2:27:19 ↗ sense to me and is already where

2:27:22 ↗ my plans were. You know I am on the

2:27:25 ↗ financial committee for the budget just

2:27:27 ↗ this cycle because I want to get dig

2:27:28 ↗ into the details of East Side Fire and

2:27:30 ↗ know everything. You know were we to

2:27:33 ↗ start a planning committee. I do want

2:27:34 ↗ that level of scrutiny. So I am

2:27:37 ↗ comfortable with that kind of a

2:27:39 ↗ statement for our partners to know that

2:27:41 ↗ we are going at this with a ton of

2:27:43 ↗ detail and a ton of not uh suspicion but

2:27:48 ↗ like apprehension like saying I am

2:27:50 ↗ person I personally have apprehension

2:27:52 ↗ about this decision and thus I think

2:27:54 ↗ it's worth pursuing more information on

2:27:57 ↗ it but it's something that I want to do

2:27:59 ↗ a lot of scrutiny on before making any

2:28:01 ↗ kind of final recommendation to voters

2:28:04 ↗ of what should happen. So for me, I am

2:28:07 ↗ comfortable with that kind of a

2:28:08 ↗ statement to be given at the board. Um

2:28:10 ↗ but in terms of how the vote functions,

2:28:12 ↗ that is a fair question in terms of what

2:28:14 ↗ the vote would look like. But my also my

2:28:16 ↗ perspective is that vote again does not

2:28:18 ↗ tie anything. And even if the rest of

2:28:19 ↗ the board says let's go forward, they're

2:28:21 ↗ still approving us to bring you know

2:28:23 ↗ education materials here. And even if

2:28:26 ↗ maybe one of those is emphasized,

2:28:29 ↗ I'm will gladly teach everybody about

2:28:31 ↗ all the other options too. So, you know,

2:28:34 ↗ that's comfortable for me.

2:28:36 ↗ >> Okay. And Council President, just before

2:28:38 ↗ we go to Cresident Marts, I think to

2:28:41 ↗ summarize, I think what Council Walsh

2:28:43 ↗ did say is I think there is support on

2:28:46 ↗ the council to do Deputy President Jen's

2:28:49 ↗ suggestion to say, can we please make

2:28:51 ↗ this a motion that we want to educate

2:28:53 ↗ our members in their full voting bodies

2:28:56 ↗ of the options in front of us? And then

2:28:59 ↗ I think it's now there's a shade of gray

2:29:01 ↗ of if that motion doesn't pass, what

2:29:04 ↗ happens next? Council President Marks.

2:29:06 ↗ >> So, um, this is all like a a game of,

2:29:10 ↗ uh, diplomacy if anybody's ever played

2:29:12 ↗ diplomacy before. Um, I have confidence,

2:29:15 ↗ Council Member Walsh, in your leadership

2:29:17 ↗ that you can go to that body and say,

2:29:22 ↗ and it isn't it isn't whether they will

2:29:24 ↗ agree with you and and vote in support,

2:29:26 ↗ but I think if you go and you say, I

2:29:29 ↗ know so many of you are enthusiastic

2:29:30 ↗ about this option, Isiqua is going to be

2:29:33 ↗ a hard may be a hard cell. You know, I

2:29:36 ↗ encourage all of you to go watch

2:29:37 ↗ Isiqua's council meeting and hear what

2:29:40 ↗ count isqua's concerns are. For

2:29:42 ↗ instance, this evening, I'm going to

2:29:43 ↗ propose X as as as a response from what

2:29:47 ↗ I've heard from this council, but you

2:29:49 ↗ should all the rest of you on the on the

2:29:51 ↗ Epher board should understand isqua's

2:29:53 ↗ concerns. I think you will convey that

2:29:56 ↗ appropriately. And whether that motion

2:29:58 ↗ passes or fails, the very fact that you

2:30:01 ↗ come back and say that as opposed to go

2:30:03 ↗ go go will all those board members have

2:30:06 ↗ have I have great respect for. They've

2:30:08 ↗ been doing this for a while and they c

2:30:09 ↗ and they understand the questions to ask

2:30:12 ↗ when one of the core cities says they're

2:30:15 ↗ have concerns and have questions and are

2:30:17 ↗ not go. Does that is that helpful?

2:30:23 ↗ as it yes if you're still fine with if

2:30:29 ↗ like conveying that message. Yes. But if

2:30:32 ↗ that

2:30:34 ↗ amendment or alternate motion doesn't

2:30:36 ↗ happen still being able to move forward

2:30:40 ↗ like do you want me to abstain at that

2:30:41 ↗ point if that motion doesn't happen?

2:30:49 ↗ I I think I like council member Adair

2:30:53 ↗ view this more like a committee vote

2:30:57 ↗ that scrutinizes something and passes up

2:31:00 ↗ a recommendation but the council can

2:31:03 ↗ absolutely tear things apart and educate

2:31:07 ↗ and you know all of that. So I feel

2:31:09 ↗ comfortable with moving forward with a

2:31:14 ↗ recommendation vote.

2:31:17 ↗ I just want to make sure I am not

2:31:20 ↗ making a movement that the council does

2:31:23 ↗ not agree on. And y'all are trying to do

2:31:27 ↗ this with a lack of information and you

2:31:30 ↗ know rumor information and all of that

2:31:32 ↗ and not knowing what a fire benefit

2:31:34 ↗ charge and all of those things. So

2:31:37 ↗ obviously much like a committee I've

2:31:39 ↗ gone through a lot of those rigors

2:31:43 ↗ but don't make the final decisions.

2:31:48 ↗ >> I mean to answer your question I don't

2:31:50 ↗ think you have a sense of the body

2:31:51 ↗ that's that's ready to vote yes on that

2:31:54 ↗ moving forward with any of those

2:31:55 ↗ options. Right. This body has not looked

2:31:57 ↗ at those various options um as as a as a

2:32:02 ↗ group. So, I would expect I would hope

2:32:04 ↗ that you would vote no. And if it still

2:32:06 ↗ moves forward, you you you did your best

2:32:09 ↗ to convey what this body said tonight,

2:32:10 ↗ which is that we're confused and unsure

2:32:13 ↗ which of those options are best and

2:32:14 ↗ haven't been convinced that an RFA is

2:32:16 ↗ best.

2:32:18 ↗ >> Councilor Boyd,

2:32:20 ↗ >> can uh part of the education aspect also

2:32:22 ↗ be what the vote was? Um I don't know if

2:32:26 ↗ that's helpful in this case of we where

2:32:29 ↗ if it would did come to um an

2:32:32 ↗ alternative proposal

2:32:34 ↗ wasn't approved and the majority of the

2:32:36 ↗ board moved with uh and so if that's

2:32:39 ↗ maybe not what isqua this particular

2:32:41 ↗ body wanted to move forward with but at

2:32:45 ↗ least uh the education including this is

2:32:49 ↗ what each member of the board

2:32:53 ↗ had what their concerns were out or I

2:32:56 ↗ don't know if that's helping us suade

2:32:59 ↗ any of the concerns with this too.

2:33:03 ↗ >> Council Rair,

2:33:06 ↗ >> uh to Council President Mart's uh point,

2:33:08 ↗ my and maybe I'm wrong in terms of this,

2:33:11 ↗ but my view is that a no vote at that

2:33:14 ↗ meeting is a vote saying we want to stay

2:33:17 ↗ the course and we don't want to p look

2:33:19 ↗ into any other option. that that's what

2:33:22 ↗ a no vote represents at that meeting is

2:33:24 ↗ that we've looked at the options of

2:33:26 ↗ funding and we're saying don't pursue

2:33:28 ↗ them other than just stay the course is

2:33:30 ↗ what that no vote represents like saying

2:33:32 ↗ the the vote of yes is saying okay let's

2:33:36 ↗ continue looking into an RFA or a fire

2:33:38 ↗ district and now go educate the the

2:33:41 ↗ jurisdictions about it. So, a vote of no

2:33:43 ↗ at that meeting would be us saying we

2:33:45 ↗ don't want you to pursue any other

2:33:48 ↗ uh potential funding source and that's

2:33:51 ↗ what a no vote would represent at that

2:33:52 ↗ meeting. It'd be my perspective of that

2:33:54 ↗ which is why I think that that doesn't

2:33:56 ↗ quite convey what your intended message

2:33:58 ↗ is. Um because that's the vote again is

2:34:01 ↗ saying if we saying if we all vote if

2:34:04 ↗ the all districts say no at that meeting

2:34:06 ↗ basically no other funding source is

2:34:07 ↗ going to be pursued or investigated.

2:34:10 ↗ So that's what no represents to me. in

2:34:12 ↗ that vote.

2:34:13 ↗ >> But I think uh first off, I think

2:34:16 ↗ council president Marts made it clear.

2:34:17 ↗ He thought council member Walsh and

2:34:19 ↗ yourself would have success in

2:34:21 ↗ explaining to people that the amendment

2:34:24 ↗ proposed by deputy president Jen which

2:34:26 ↗ is we're completely supportive of

2:34:29 ↗ getting educated. It seems like everyone

2:34:31 ↗ in this dis is saying they want to be

2:34:33 ↗ educated for more options and uh so and

2:34:38 ↗ this council did not pick the June 11th

2:34:40 ↗ decision date that was picked by Epher

2:34:42 ↗ and that date was picked before this

2:34:43 ↗ council was updated on with all the

2:34:46 ↗ information they're asking for tonight

2:34:47 ↗ and as deputy president Jen said what's

2:34:49 ↗ a fire benefit charge so it seems like

2:34:51 ↗ you can't make a decision on June 11th

2:34:53 ↗ without so but deputy president Jen go

2:34:55 ↗ ahead

2:34:56 ↗ >> yeah I was going to say I mean

2:34:58 ↗ potentially you know the proposal could

2:35:00 ↗ be to split split the

2:35:02 ↗ uh split it into two votes. One on, you

2:35:04 ↗ know, do we want to get educated and

2:35:06 ↗ then a second vote on whether there's a

2:35:07 ↗ recommendation and then, you know, you

2:35:09 ↗ could vote on those items separately

2:35:10 ↗ because they are completely different

2:35:12 ↗ questions.

2:35:16 ↗ >> Uh Walsh or Nichols? Walsh or

2:35:20 ↗ Nichols. Then we'll go to Walsh. Um, I

2:35:23 ↗ think it's going to be really important

2:35:24 ↗ and I I trust you folks fully to do this

2:35:27 ↗ to communicate with that vote perhaps

2:35:30 ↗ more than what is strictly within the um

2:35:35 ↗ the scope of that vote itself. Um so

2:35:38 ↗ even if formally voting no means that we

2:35:41 ↗ are we would be saying say the course um

2:35:43 ↗ implicit in either a no or abstension is

2:35:48 ↗ can be many other things and we have

2:35:49 ↗ limited tools to communicate that

2:35:54 ↗ type of information that could put us in

2:35:55 ↗ a better position

2:35:57 ↗ further down the line if we do want to

2:35:59 ↗ take harder positions or if we do want

2:36:01 ↗ to push back in other ways that that

2:36:03 ↗ could be a potentially good reason to

2:36:05 ↗ take that position. at that type of a

2:36:07 ↗ meeting. Um, even if having read the

2:36:10 ↗ room, you know that you're not going to

2:36:12 ↗ win that vote and it's it's not going to

2:36:14 ↗ go a certain way. And this is simply

2:36:16 ↗ getting back to Council President Mart's

2:36:18 ↗ comments about the game theory of the

2:36:19 ↗ situation. I appreciate this is going to

2:36:22 ↗ be a potentially difficult negotiation,

2:36:24 ↗ but we do have we are in a situation

2:36:25 ↗ where we should be able to drive a lot

2:36:27 ↗ of that conversation and communicating

2:36:30 ↗ that is going to be

2:36:34 ↗ beyond the formalities of any individual

2:36:36 ↗ vote and what that would mean.

2:36:39 ↗ >> Council Walsh.

2:36:41 ↗ >> Okay. I'm hearing a second option which

2:36:43 ↗ is split the vote. Again, happy to put

2:36:48 ↗ that forward as an option. Happy to

2:36:51 ↗ represent this city as much as possible.

2:37:00 ↗ How do I separate like

2:37:04 ↗ as a subcommittee member, you know, if I

2:37:06 ↗ was part of SSP or something and

2:37:09 ↗ reviewing this, I can vote yes on this

2:37:13 ↗ is the recommendation, it should come to

2:37:15 ↗ full counsel and then choose to vote no

2:37:19 ↗ there. Um,

2:37:24 ↗ I guess I am concerned about the idea of

2:37:26 ↗ voting no as a recommendation.

2:37:31 ↗ Um, if that ends up being the motion,

2:37:33 ↗ just based on

2:37:36 ↗ how rocky the east side fire

2:37:39 ↗ relationship can be. you know, 10 years

2:37:43 ↗ ago, we had a certain city to the north

2:37:46 ↗ of us suggest that they wanted to take

2:37:48 ↗ their toy fire trucks and go home. Um,

2:37:50 ↗ and that would have increased our costs

2:37:53 ↗ dramatically. So, I guess I'm also

2:37:57 ↗ looking at the implications of voting no

2:38:01 ↗ suggesting that

2:38:04 ↗ we want to do things on our own. I

2:38:09 ↗ >> I mean I think people are making it

2:38:10 ↗ clear they're not saying that. I think

2:38:11 ↗ people are saying that

2:38:14 ↗ we're going to I think it'll be crystal

2:38:15 ↗ clear the squad preferences.

2:38:17 ↗ We're not in a position to take a

2:38:19 ↗ position. So please educate us. I mean

2:38:21 ↗ deputy president is Jane going back to

2:38:23 ↗ the original motion. I think that I

2:38:25 ↗ think seems like it's the best path

2:38:27 ↗ forward. And uh and and

2:38:31 ↗ yeah, and I think the middle ground

2:38:33 ↗ between voting no and voting yes is

2:38:34 ↗ obviously just abstaining, saying, "Hey,

2:38:36 ↗ we we told you what we could support

2:38:38 ↗ tonight. We could support a motion to

2:38:41 ↗ get us better educated on what our

2:38:43 ↗ options are." It seems like there is

2:38:44 ↗ unanimous or close to unanimous support

2:38:47 ↗ on this council for that option. And uh

2:38:50 ↗ so and I still think there's a high

2:38:52 ↗ probability that option will pass. I

2:38:55 ↗ just I honestly do I think the Epher

2:38:57 ↗ board is a very reasonable group and I

2:38:59 ↗ think they want to move forward when

2:39:00 ↗ they have as much consensus as possible

2:39:02 ↗ and I think

2:39:05 ↗ I go back to what council president Mart

2:39:07 ↗ said. He was confident I think we can

2:39:08 ↗ get this motion to be approved by the

2:39:10 ↗ board and I agree with him. Council

2:39:12 ↗ member Walsh.

2:39:14 ↗ >> Okay. And I I hear you on that. I can

2:39:17 ↗ move forward. I also agree that it that

2:39:19 ↗ is most likely, but at this point I

2:39:24 ↗ don't know and I've heard a lot from the

2:39:27 ↗ mayor and the council president, but not

2:39:30 ↗ necessarily as much from everyone

2:39:33 ↗ whether there is authority or

2:39:35 ↗ recommendation for a yes, no, or abstain

2:39:38 ↗ vote here. And so without more clarity,

2:39:45 ↗ I don't know how to do that next

2:39:48 ↗ Thursday. So one proposal is I come back

2:39:52 ↗ to the committee of the whole on the 8th

2:39:55 ↗ and

2:39:57 ↗ you know

2:39:59 ↗ get feedback then or get feedback here.

2:40:08 ↗ I'm looking at council leadership to see

2:40:10 ↗ if they have a preference. Uh,

2:40:13 ↗ >> sorry, say again.

2:40:15 ↗ >> Oh,

2:40:15 ↗ >> I'm just saying I I need

2:40:18 ↗ feedback that if I cannot get that

2:40:21 ↗ through whether there should be

2:40:26 ↗ >> she's asking for a recommendation of no,

2:40:28 ↗ abstain, or yes. Yeah,

2:40:29 ↗ >> I think Council Walsh is saying if so

2:40:32 ↗ there's consensus that the goal is for

2:40:34 ↗ Deputy President Jen's amendment to

2:40:37 ↗ hopefully pass and then the question is

2:40:39 ↗ if it doesn't pass I think Council Walsh

2:40:42 ↗ is fairly asking for guidance of no,

2:40:45 ↗ abstain or yes and see if there is a if

2:40:48 ↗ there's four votes for one of those

2:40:50 ↗ options. So Council President Marts,

2:40:52 ↗ >> I think it depends on what the motion

2:40:54 ↗ is. I think if um there's been a

2:40:57 ↗ discussion that I am confused and I was

2:41:00 ↗ trying to look up the agenda for the

2:41:01 ↗ meeting and I couldn't tell from the

2:41:02 ↗ agenda for the meeting what the actual

2:41:04 ↗ proposed motion is. Right. If it is this

2:41:07 ↗ board would like to pursue a regional

2:41:10 ↗ fire authority, then I think you should

2:41:11 ↗ vote no. If the if the motion is this

2:41:14 ↗ board would like to pursue options

2:41:16 ↗ including a fire authority and a

2:41:18 ↗ regional fire and a fire district and

2:41:20 ↗ whatever else. If it's in the spirit

2:41:23 ↗ of what I think you have heard from the

2:41:25 ↗ majority of the council tonight, not

2:41:27 ↗ just the mayor and myself, which is a

2:41:29 ↗ which is not being ready to go down a

2:41:31 ↗ path for an RFA. Um, but if it's in the

2:41:34 ↗ spirit of exploration, then that

2:41:37 ↗ follow-on vote you I I personally would

2:41:40 ↗ be comfortable with you voting yes. But

2:41:41 ↗ if it's we believe that a regional fire

2:41:43 ↗ authority is the way for the east side

2:41:45 ↗ of King County to go, then I think you

2:41:47 ↗ then I think you should vote no because

2:41:48 ↗ I don't think this body has said that.

2:41:50 ↗ But I think you know that and I think

2:41:52 ↗ you'll figure it out. I understand your

2:41:54 ↗ concern tonight. I understand you don't

2:41:55 ↗ want to leave here without more explicit

2:41:57 ↗ guidance and I appreciate that. But I

2:41:59 ↗ think you will in the moment accurately

2:42:02 ↗ reflect what this body has said tonight.

2:42:05 ↗ >> Thank you.

2:42:07 ↗ Is there any other comments from Is that

2:42:09 ↗ a good way to end it? Is folks okay

2:42:12 ↗ ending it there?

2:42:14 ↗ Okay. And uh I I know right now Harvey's

2:42:19 ↗ wishing he retired just I mean

2:42:23 ↗ just one meeting earlier. He's like man

2:42:26 ↗ I picked the wrong meeting to retire

2:42:28 ↗ from the city of Isiqua. Sorry G.

2:42:33 ↗ Okay, we are going to Agenda Bill 9205.

2:42:36 ↗ Oh, wait. Agenda Bill 20. Wait. Oh.

2:42:41 ↗ Yeah. Agenda Bill 9205. Mid-budget

2:42:43 ↗ request to add capital project manager

2:42:44 ↗ facilities full-time employees. Autumn,

2:42:46 ↗ you're up.

2:42:53 ↗ >> Thank you, mayor, and members of the

2:42:55 ↗ city council. My name is Autumn Monahan.

2:42:56 ↗ I'm the administrative services director

2:42:58 ↗ and I promise to be short this evening

2:43:00 ↗ in my presentation um which is an

2:43:03 ↗ overview of a proposed position for a

2:43:05 ↗ capital project manager for facilities.

2:43:09 ↗ The administration's recommendation is

2:43:10 ↗ to authorize the addition of a capital

2:43:12 ↗ project manager full-time position to

2:43:14 ↗ the administrative services department.

2:43:17 ↗ As a little bit of background, um I was

2:43:20 ↗ before you on April 20th where the

2:43:22 ↗ council approved an agreement to

2:43:23 ↗ purchase a building for city hall

2:43:26 ↗ located at 1055 Northwest Maple Street,

2:43:29 ↗ freeing up uh 130 East Sunset Way

2:43:31 ↗ exclusively for police use um once we

2:43:34 ↗ remodel it. The closing is underway for

2:43:37 ↗ that purchase. Um I'm excited to say so

2:43:40 ↗ we're continuing on that process.

2:43:42 ↗ Meanwhile, we have continued design now

2:43:44 ↗ for the police remodel to better refine

2:43:46 ↗ those costs with our design design firm

2:43:49 ↗ DLR group, which helped us before with

2:43:50 ↗ the task force work. We also have put

2:43:53 ↗ out an RFP for um architect help for the

2:43:56 ↗ city hall space planning, uh tenant

2:43:59 ↗ improvements, furniture, and all the

2:44:01 ↗ things needed to move to city hall. uh

2:44:03 ↗ knowing the bulk of work that is ahead

2:44:05 ↗ on both of those massive projects, we're

2:44:08 ↗ here before you tonight proposing for an

2:44:09 ↗ FTE for a proposed capital projects

2:44:12 ↗ manager to support that work.

2:44:16 ↗ As always, we'll be returning to the

2:44:17 ↗ city council as we refine these projects

2:44:20 ↗ um with further details and budget both

2:44:22 ↗ for the city hall move and for the

2:44:24 ↗ police renovation. But as a first step,

2:44:26 ↗ we're looking for resources.

2:44:30 ↗ The duties of this position include

2:44:32 ↗ ensuring successful delivery of these

2:44:33 ↗ projects from planning all the way

2:44:35 ↗ through to construction, coordinating

2:44:37 ↗ with a whole lot of parties including

2:44:39 ↗ internal departments, consultants,

2:44:41 ↗ contractors,

2:44:42 ↗ uh permitting agencies and of course the

2:44:44 ↗ community. Um there is a whole lot of

2:44:46 ↗ just budgeting, scheduling, all the

2:44:48 ↗ things that come with uh uh project

2:44:51 ↗ management as well as contact negotiate

2:44:53 ↗ contract negotiations and really being

2:44:56 ↗ the oversight for consultants.

2:44:59 ↗ the priority projects for this position.

2:45:01 ↗ Um we we have plenty for the first

2:45:03 ↗ several years. Um first with the city

2:45:05 ↗ hall move and then with the police

2:45:07 ↗ station remodel which will take um

2:45:09 ↗ several years to complete.

2:45:12 ↗ Quickly a financial overview. This

2:45:14 ↗ position will cost fully loaded about

2:45:16 ↗ $230,000.

2:45:17 ↗ Um if we are successful in hiring a

2:45:19 ↗ position quickly, which is my goal, that

2:45:22 ↗ would be about $115,000 this year.

2:45:24 ↗ Expenses for this position will largely

2:45:26 ↗ be paid by the associated capital

2:45:28 ↗ projects. And so in the near term, that

2:45:30 ↗ includes funds that we have set aside

2:45:32 ↗ for the city hall project.

2:45:36 ↗ A quick timeline in July, we hope to

2:45:38 ↗ have a contract with an architect for

2:45:39 ↗ that city hall work to really drill down

2:45:41 ↗ on the final space planning and

2:45:43 ↗ improvements needed for that building.

2:45:45 ↗ Hopefully, we're hiring a position come

2:45:46 ↗ August, returning to you with more

2:45:49 ↗ refined planned uh for that project,

2:45:52 ↗ moving to city hall in the first quarter

2:45:54 ↗ of 2027, and then returning to you as

2:45:56 ↗ well with refined details for the police

2:45:59 ↗ remodel.

2:46:02 ↗ And with that, this is the proposed

2:46:03 ↗ motion from administration, and I'm

2:46:04 ↗ happy to answer any questions.

2:46:08 ↗ >> Are there any uh council member?

2:46:10 ↗ >> I had quick question. Now, you answered

2:46:11 ↗ it via email cuz I was asking about the

2:46:13 ↗ numbers cuz like in the provided

2:46:15 ↗ description, the salary was 124 to 164K,

2:46:18 ↗ but the ask was 230K.

2:46:20 ↗ Uh the answer was that that's so you

2:46:22 ↗ know, payroll taxes and benefits. It's

2:46:24 ↗ really 60 to $70,000 on top of the

2:46:27 ↗ salary.

2:46:29 ↗ >> Yes.

2:46:30 ↗ >> But I will add this is uh this is a much

2:46:33 ↗ better value knowing that we have this

2:46:35 ↗ body of work for several years than only

2:46:37 ↗ paying consultants.

2:46:38 ↗ >> True. True. Okay. But just wanted to

2:46:41 ↗ triple check that that was the value of

2:46:42 ↗ all of that.

2:46:43 ↗ >> Yes.

2:46:44 ↗ >> Okay. All right. Thank you,

2:46:45 ↗ >> Council Member Adair. I learned that the

2:46:47 ↗ first week of January and it's a

2:46:48 ↗ depressing reality, but it is a reality.

2:46:50 ↗ It comes to the president Mart.

2:46:52 ↗ >> I will just say the carrying cost in

2:46:54 ↗ private industry is higher. So that's

2:46:56 ↗ that's actually kind of a deal um

2:46:58 ↗ compared to in private industry.

2:47:01 ↗ >> Don't tell my employees.

2:47:06 ↗ >> Okay. I'm not seeing

2:47:08 ↗ any other questions. So, is there a

2:47:12 ↗ motion?

2:47:15 ↗ >> President Council President Marts.

2:47:17 ↗ >> I move to authorize the inclusion of an

2:47:19 ↗ additional capital project manager to

2:47:20 ↗ the city's 2026 staffing levels.

2:47:23 ↗ >> Second.

2:47:24 ↗ >> If there's been a motion, a second. Is

2:47:25 ↗ there any further discussion? Uh, not

2:47:28 ↗ seeing any. All those in favor, please.

2:47:30 ↗ Oh, yeah. I'll just repeat the motion is

2:47:32 ↗ to authorize the inclusion of additional

2:47:33 ↗ capital project manager city's 2026

2:47:35 ↗ staffing levels. All those in favor

2:47:37 ↗ please say I.

2:47:38 ↗ >> I.

2:47:40 ↗ >> All those opposed nay and that passes

2:47:43 ↗ unanimously.

2:47:46 ↗ All right. Thank you very much.

2:47:49 ↗ Yes, we are taking a five minute break.

2:47:52 ↗ We will be back for the final item.

2:54:35 ↗ Okay,

2:54:36 ↗ this city council's fivem minute break

2:54:39 ↗ is over. Uh invite deputy city clerk

2:54:43 ↗ Cassidy Miller to present this item.

2:54:45 ↗ It's amendments to council rules of

2:54:47 ↗ procedure agenda bill 9137.

2:54:56 ↗ Right. Thank you, council. I'm Cassidy

2:54:58 ↗ Miller, deputy city clerk,

2:55:01 ↗ presenting on the uh council rules of

2:55:03 ↗ procedure before you tonight. Um at the

2:55:05 ↗ May 4th, sorry, I do not have a visual

2:55:07 ↗ presentation. Um at the May 4th city

2:55:10 ↗ council meeting, staff and the council

2:55:12 ↗ rules ad hoc committee members presented

2:55:14 ↗ the committee's recommendations and

2:55:15 ↗ answered questions. The city council

2:55:17 ↗ then requested amended language to

2:55:19 ↗ section 3.11 confidentiality to provide

2:55:23 ↗ a process for council members to receive

2:55:25 ↗ a non-confidential version of

2:55:26 ↗ information upon request. There was

2:55:29 ↗ agreement that this item be postponed to

2:55:31 ↗ the June 1st council meeting so that

2:55:33 ↗ language could be provided. The

2:55:35 ↗ following language has been added to

2:55:36 ↗ section 3.11 confidentiality. If a

2:55:39 ↗ council member wishes to share

2:55:41 ↗ information publicly that includes

2:55:43 ↗ confidential content, the city council

2:55:45 ↗ member may request city staff provide a

2:55:47 ↗ version of the information that omits

2:55:49 ↗ the confidential content.

2:55:52 ↗ The resolution provided in your packet

2:55:54 ↗ has been updated to include the revised

2:55:56 ↗ language, which is exhibit C. Tonight,

2:55:58 ↗ the city council can choose to approve

2:56:00 ↗ the resolution adopting the updated

2:56:02 ↗ council rules as presented in exhibit A,

2:56:05 ↗ or can offer amendments. Three potential

2:56:08 ↗ amendments were submitted to the clerk's

2:56:09 ↗ office in advance of tonight's meeting.

2:56:11 ↗ These were distributed to the council

2:56:13 ↗ for review earlier today. Should these

2:56:15 ↗ amendments or any others be made, I can

2:56:17 ↗ bring them up on the screen to help

2:56:18 ↗ ensure that they're captured correctly.

2:56:20 ↗ Thank you.

2:56:24 ↗ >> Okay, I'm looking at the council.

2:56:28 ↗ Are there any questions?

2:56:33 ↗ What's Okay, I'm not

2:56:37 ↗ see any questions. Uh

2:56:41 ↗ I think it looks like everyone's looked

2:56:43 ↗ at the rules, so I think we could just

2:56:46 ↗ go straight to a motion.

2:56:50 ↗ Oh, Council President Walsh, I mean,

2:56:52 ↗ Council Member Walsh. So, um,

2:56:56 ↗ you're proposing

2:56:58 ↗ we had something tabled from the last

2:57:02 ↗ meeting, correct? And so, is this a

2:57:06 ↗ motion that replaces what we had on deck

2:57:11 ↗ or did we not have something tabled?

2:57:17 ↗ >> I think this is the entire rules and

2:57:19 ↗ procedures that were created. Is that

2:57:20 ↗ correct? I think it's everything with an

2:57:21 ↗ amendment already updated in the system.

2:57:26 ↗ Go ahead.

2:57:30 ↗ >> I'm not sure either. I think we have

2:57:32 ↗ three amendments tonight for what was

2:57:34 ↗ presented in the packet and so I think

2:57:36 ↗ that there is something included that

2:57:38 ↗ was in the packet was incorporated based

2:57:40 ↗ on the council's direction and then

2:57:42 ↗ there are three additional amendments.

2:57:45 ↗ I am also a very visual person. So, it

2:57:48 ↗ would be helpful if we are going to have

2:57:52 ↗ a motion um to have something up on the

2:57:56 ↗ screen and then potentially have

2:57:58 ↗ something available if we are to word

2:58:00 ↗ smmith or add amendments. Um because all

2:58:04 ↗ I heard was the confidentiality stuff. I

2:58:07 ↗ don't know what the other portion, but I

2:58:10 ↗ guess a motion hasn't been made, so that

2:58:13 ↗ would happen in that realm.

2:58:17 ↗ Yes, to my understanding, that's

2:58:18 ↗ correct. And I apologize. I um I am not

2:58:22 ↗ aware if there was already a motion on

2:58:24 ↗ the table or if the item was tabled

2:58:26 ↗ before a motion could be made. Um so I

2:58:29 ↗ apologize for that, but um the the

2:58:32 ↗ presented motion was um and I can pull

2:58:34 ↗ that on the screen. um that was provided

2:58:36 ↗ by the city clerk uh is is uh to um

2:58:42 ↗ approve the the resolution and the and

2:58:44 ↗ then adopt the ordinance. Um and then uh

2:58:47 ↗ from that um amendments or new motions

2:58:50 ↗ or amendments to this motion can be made

2:58:52 ↗ uh to um further revise the rules of

2:58:56 ↗ procedure before anything is adopted.

2:59:07 ↗ So I think

2:59:09 ↗ city clerk Miller the question you are

2:59:12 ↗ you looking for the original motion and

2:59:14 ↗ then the amendments or are you looking

2:59:16 ↗ for

2:59:19 ↗ >> I can do whatever you need. I am just

2:59:21 ↗ looking for my share button.

2:59:23 ↗ Let's I would suggest that we take a

2:59:27 ↗ nonb breaking two-minute break to let

2:59:30 ↗ the the clerk's office figure out

2:59:32 ↗ whether we have a standing motion or not

2:59:34 ↗ >> or or we can table the entire item to

2:59:37 ↗ your next meeting.

2:59:39 ↗ >> I I mean I I would like to get at it

2:59:42 ↗ tonight. There's just a question of

2:59:43 ↗ whether the original mo whether there's

2:59:45 ↗ a motion

2:59:47 ↗ >> in already. I I think it's it's worth

2:59:48 ↗ letting the clerk take a couple minutes

2:59:50 ↗ to figure that out and then we can

2:59:52 ↗ either um continue that motion or move a

2:59:55 ↗ new motion.

2:59:58 ↗ >> Okay, we're we're on a two-minute break

3:00:01 ↗ to we'll return.

3:01:39 ↗ Okay, we're back in session. Uh, city

3:01:42 ↗ administrator, update us on where we're

3:01:44 ↗ at.

3:01:45 ↗ >> Yes. Uh, there is no pending motion. Um,

3:01:49 ↗ reading from the staff report, at the

3:01:51 ↗ May 4th council meeting, staff and the

3:01:53 ↗ rules committee presented the

3:01:54 ↗ committee's recommendations. The council

3:01:56 ↗ then requested amended language to

3:01:58 ↗ section 3.11 confidentiality to provide

3:02:00 ↗ a process for council members to receive

3:02:02 ↗ non-confidential version of the

3:02:04 ↗ information upon request. There was

3:02:05 ↗ agreement that this item be postponed

3:02:07 ↗ till June 1 so that language could be

3:02:09 ↗ provided. The language was provided

3:02:11 ↗ section 3.11 confidentiality. If a

3:02:14 ↗ council member wishes to share

3:02:15 ↗ information publicly that includes

3:02:17 ↗ confidential content, the city council

3:02:18 ↗ member may request city staff provide a

3:02:21 ↗ version of that information that omits

3:02:22 ↗ the confidential content. The attached

3:02:24 ↗ resolution has been updated to include

3:02:26 ↗ the revised language. So what is before

3:02:28 ↗ you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council

3:02:30 ↗ is that revision and the recommendation

3:02:33 ↗ is act is to adopt with that language

3:02:36 ↗ included from your May 4 meeting.

3:02:41 ↗ >> Council President Marts.

3:02:42 ↗ >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move to approve

3:02:44 ↗ resolution number 2026-11

3:02:47 ↗ amending various sections of the city

3:02:49 ↗ council rules of procedure as

3:02:50 ↗ recommended by the council rules ad hoc

3:02:52 ↗ committee and repealing resolution

3:02:54 ↗ number 20008-15

3:02:57 ↗ relating to the policy for council

3:02:58 ↗ expenditures and adopt ordinance number

3:03:01 ↗ 3140 amending sections 2.06.110

3:03:06 ↗ and 2.06.120 06.120

3:03:08 ↗ of the Isiqua Municipal Code relating to

3:03:11 ↗ city council meetings in order to align

3:03:12 ↗ them with the city council rules of

3:03:14 ↗ procedure.

3:03:15 ↗ >> Second.

3:03:18 ↗ >> Okay, there's been a motion and a

3:03:20 ↗ second. Is there any discussion or

3:03:22 ↗ additional amendments?

3:03:27 ↗ Council member Nichols.

3:03:28 ↗ >> Um, thank you. I am motioning to amend

3:03:32 ↗ section 3.11 confidentiality. Um,

3:03:37 ↗ how do do you want me to read the

3:03:38 ↗ amendment in its entirety?

3:03:44 ↗ >> Okay,

3:03:53 ↗ there it is.

3:03:55 ↗ I think they he just wanted to show Go

3:03:57 ↗ ahead, Council Member Nichols. But that

3:03:59 ↗ is up there and we will have to read it

3:04:01 ↗ before we vote on the amendment,

3:04:02 ↗ obviously. But for right now, you can

3:04:03 ↗ just speak to it. Okay. So, I'll I'll

3:04:05 ↗ speak briefly. Uh, so first of all, I

3:04:08 ↗ appreciate the city's additions to what

3:04:09 ↗ the ad hoc committee brought to us in

3:04:11 ↗ the fourth. Uh, the amendment that I

3:04:13 ↗ proposed is simply intended to

3:04:15 ↗ strengthen some of the concerns were

3:04:16 ↗ brought up by council members, president

3:04:18 ↗ Martz, and council member Walsh. Uh, to

3:04:21 ↗ strengthen slightly the council members,

3:04:22 ↗ the council, city council's expectations

3:04:24 ↗ of the administration. Really all this

3:04:26 ↗ is intended to do is to make something

3:04:28 ↗ explicit that from my read of this is it

3:04:30 ↗ is at the moment somewhat implicit in

3:04:32 ↗ the rule. That information is

3:04:34 ↗ confidential only if it could be

3:04:36 ↗ withheld under the public records act um

3:04:38 ↗ with a narrow exemption for executive

3:04:40 ↗ session and litigation timing. And

3:04:42 ↗ that's intended to answer council member

3:04:44 ↗ Walsh's question about what makes

3:04:45 ↗ something not confidential. Um as well

3:04:48 ↗ as council member Adair's concern about

3:04:50 ↗ labeling something confidential just

3:04:51 ↗ because it's awkward etc. though that is

3:04:53 ↗ of course strictly hypothetical. Um and

3:04:56 ↗ council president Mar Mart's points

3:04:58 ↗ about tying this to the public records

3:04:59 ↗ act which matters given the penalty here

3:05:01 ↗ can't be forfeiture of office in an

3:05:03 ↗ extreme case. Um it also is intended to

3:05:06 ↗ give a member who questions the

3:05:07 ↗ designation a clear path uh to ask the

3:05:10 ↗ city attorney to review it and get a

3:05:11 ↗ sharable version if needed um and put

3:05:13 ↗ that in writing uh to avoid any lack of

3:05:16 ↗ clarity there. I also appreciate city

3:05:18 ↗ attorney Turpin's review earlier today

3:05:20 ↗ and suggestions uh to the amendment I

3:05:22 ↗ originally proposed which I incorporated

3:05:24 ↗ uh and I would urge adoption.

3:05:28 ↗ >> Council member Walsh.

3:05:30 ↗ >> Second.

3:05:31 ↗ >> There's been a motion a second. Is there

3:05:33 ↗ further discussion?

3:05:36 ↗ >> Council Walsh.

3:05:37 ↗ >> That answers all of the questions that

3:05:39 ↗ were brought up. It's very clear

3:05:41 ↗ language and I appreciate the clarity

3:05:43 ↗ both for staff and council members. Um,

3:05:47 ↗ I think this does a good job.

3:05:50 ↗ >> Okay, seeing no further discussion, the

3:05:51 ↗ amendment for this body is amend section

3:05:54 ↗ 3.11 confidentiality of the council

3:05:55 ↗ rules and procedure and resolution

3:05:56 ↗ number 2026-11 by adding to the end of

3:05:59 ↗ the first paragraph. In doing so, they

3:06:00 ↗ will identify the laws in which the

3:06:02 ↗ information will be withheld in response

3:06:03 ↗ to a public records request. information

3:06:04 ↗ will be designated confidential only

3:06:06 ↗ where it would be withheld in whole and

3:06:08 ↗ relevant part in response to public

3:06:10 ↗ records request under chapter 42.56 RCW

3:06:13 ↗ or where it is reasonably likely to

3:06:14 ↗ become the subject of a specific

3:06:15 ↗ upcoming executive session or relates to

3:06:18 ↗ a pending or potential litigation and

3:06:20 ↗ adding to the end of the second

3:06:21 ↗ paragraph council member questions

3:06:23 ↗ whether information has been properly

3:06:24 ↗ designated as confidential or wishes to

3:06:26 ↗ know the specific sections of the RCW or

3:06:28 ↗ other law under which the information is

3:06:29 ↗ designated as confidential or in any

3:06:31 ↗ time limit for such designation may ask

3:06:33 ↗ the city attorney to review the

3:06:34 ↗ designation may request a written

3:06:36 ↗ explanation and a version that emits

3:06:38 ↗ only the confidential contents of the

3:06:39 ↗ remainder may be shared. All those in

3:06:42 ↗ favor of the amendment, please say I.

3:06:45 ↗ >> I.

3:06:46 ↗ >> I.

3:06:46 ↗ >> All those opposed

3:06:49 ↗ and that amendment is adopted.

3:06:52 ↗ Other amendments.

3:06:57 ↗ >> I move amendment

3:07:01 ↗ 3.1A.

3:07:03 ↗ I'm so sorry. This is my first time

3:07:05 ↗ doing this.

3:07:09 ↗ >> Do I keep reading it?

3:07:11 ↗ >> We can see it. So, you can speak to the

3:07:13 ↗ amendment. I'll repeat it before we

3:07:15 ↗ vote.

3:07:15 ↗ >> All right. Um I uh had asked for some

3:07:18 ↗ clarity on effectively this just changes

3:07:20 ↗ council leadership to council president

3:07:22 ↗ to better clarify um when you would like

3:07:25 ↗ to attend remotely. Who gives a thumbs

3:07:28 ↗ up for that?

3:07:33 ↗ Uh, council Walsh.

3:07:35 ↗ >> Second.

3:07:37 ↗ >> Got a motion, a second. Is there any

3:07:38 ↗ other discussion?

3:07:41 ↗ >> Okay. Not seeing any, I will read the

3:07:44 ↗ amendment is the section 3.10

3:07:47 ↗ apprentices a virtual remote attendance

3:07:49 ↗ of the council rules procedure and

3:07:51 ↗ resolution 2026-11 by replacing council

3:07:53 ↗ leadership with council president in the

3:07:55 ↗ sentence. virtual attendance granted for

3:07:57 ↗ reasons other than those listed above.

3:07:59 ↗ Uh medical issue illness or quarantine

3:08:01 ↗ or travel and city business may not

3:08:02 ↗ exceed a total of five meetings per year

3:08:03 ↗ without approval of council leadership

3:08:06 ↗ to be considered an excuse absence. So

3:08:07 ↗ it's just basically

3:08:10 ↗ you know replacing council leadership

3:08:12 ↗ with council president. All those in

3:08:14 ↗ favor please say I.

3:08:15 ↗ >> I.

3:08:16 ↗ >> All those opposed.

3:08:18 ↗ That amendment is adopted.

3:08:21 ↗ Council president Marts.

3:08:23 ↗ >> Thank you Mr. Mayor. I want to move to

3:08:25 ↗ the uh proposed amendment to section

3:08:27 ↗ 4.08 subc sub one

3:08:33 ↗ and following uh this evening's pattern

3:08:36 ↗ I will speak to it. I said earlier

3:08:38 ↗ tonight that I would speak I would say

3:08:40 ↗ the three things that have been the

3:08:41 ↗ biggest deal um to council in the 17

3:08:44 ↗ years that have been on uh Oakrest

3:08:46 ↗ pedestrian death uh Chel sites uh it was

3:08:50 ↗ only one meeting but it was the it was

3:08:51 ↗ the famous 7 hour and 45minute meeting

3:08:54 ↗ and of course ALPRs. So in all of these

3:08:58 ↗ we were able to accomplish what we

3:09:00 ↗ wanted to accomplish without setting

3:09:01 ↗ finite time limits on public engagement.

3:09:04 ↗ um we did it through um respecting what

3:09:07 ↗ we heard and repeating it back to the

3:09:09 ↗ public and letting people have

3:09:10 ↗ non-verbal support for it. I have seen

3:09:13 ↗ people use time limits and game it um by

3:09:17 ↗ the choice of speakers and people wind

3:09:20 ↗ up feeling scuzzy. So if we didn't need

3:09:22 ↗ it for those things, I don't think we

3:09:23 ↗ need to have it in the code, which is

3:09:25 ↗ why I support this amendment. Thank you.

3:09:34 ↗ Second.

3:09:34 ↗ >> I'll second him.

3:09:35 ↗ >> Okay. There's been a motion, a second.

3:09:40 ↗ >> I I'll speak to if I could.

3:09:41 ↗ >> Go ahead, Council Member Joe.

3:09:42 ↗ >> Uh I appreciate the manner that council

3:09:45 ↗ leadership has been able to guide and

3:09:47 ↗ navigate us through these uh big issues,

3:09:50 ↗ including the recent conversation with

3:09:52 ↗ the the flock cameras. Um I do have uh a

3:09:57 ↗ great deal of trust in the leadership

3:09:59 ↗ that they will be able to um guide the

3:10:02 ↗ public participation in a way where

3:10:03 ↗ everyone feels seen and heard and valued

3:10:06 ↗ along the way and so I am okay with the

3:10:09 ↗ amendment uh that's before the committee

3:10:11 ↗ and we'll be supporting it. Thank you.

3:10:12 ↗ Uh before the council. Thank you.

3:10:16 ↗ >> Okay. Not seeing any other discussion.

3:10:20 ↗ Uh the motion is to approve amendment

3:10:24 ↗ 4.4.08

3:10:26 ↗ parentheses C parentheses 1 rules of

3:10:27 ↗ public participation amend section 4.08

3:10:30 ↗ C-1 uh rules for public participation of

3:10:32 ↗ the council rules of procedure

3:10:34 ↗ resolution 2026-11 by striking and to

3:10:37 ↗ set an overall maximum duration for the

3:10:38 ↗ public comment period. If maximum

3:10:40 ↗ duration is set efforts will be made to

3:10:41 ↗ ensure there is an equal opportunity for

3:10:42 ↗ individuals to speak in support of an

3:10:44 ↗ opposition to an issue. So that both

3:10:47 ↗ those sentences would be removed. All

3:10:49 ↗ those in favor, please say I.

3:10:50 ↗ >> I.

3:10:51 ↗ >> I.

3:10:52 ↗ >> All those opposed, nay.

3:10:54 ↗ That amendment is adopted.

3:10:58 ↗ Council president's remarks.

3:10:59 ↗ >> The hour is late, but um I just want to

3:11:02 ↗ thank once again uh clerk Geyser for um

3:11:06 ↗ you know, she is a sort of regionally

3:11:10 ↗ maybe even statewide recognized expert

3:11:13 ↗ um in the field of clerking. and this is

3:11:15 ↗ the third or the fourth um major ad hoc

3:11:18 ↗ in the last five or six years that that

3:11:21 ↗ she has helped uh walk through um and

3:11:24 ↗ done a sterling job. So although she's

3:11:26 ↗ not here tonight, I just I want to say

3:11:27 ↗ thank you so much. We're so lucky to

3:11:29 ↗ have her as our chief clerk.

3:11:32 ↗ >> Excellent. Okay. And there is no further

3:11:36 ↗ discussion. And the motion for the

3:11:37 ↗ council is to approve resolution number

3:11:39 ↗ 2026-11

3:11:41 ↗ as amended amending various sections of

3:11:44 ↗ the city council rules and procedure as

3:11:45 ↗ recommended by the council rules ad hoc

3:11:47 ↗ committee and repealing resolution

3:11:48 ↗ number 2008-15 relating to the policy

3:11:51 ↗ for council expenditures and adopt

3:11:52 ↗ ordinance number 3140 amending sections

3:11:55 ↗ 2.06.110

3:11:57 ↗ and 2.06.120 of the Isqua municipal code

3:12:00 ↗ relating to the city council meetings in

3:12:01 ↗ order to align them with the city

3:12:03 ↗ council rules and procedures. All those

3:12:06 ↗ in favor, please say I.

3:12:08 ↗ >> I.

3:12:10 ↗ >> All those opposed, nay.

3:12:12 ↗ And that passes unanimously. The next

3:12:14 ↗ item of business is Oh,

3:12:19 ↗ >> the new rules are in effect.

3:12:22 ↗ >> And they've already caused a beverage

3:12:23 ↗ spill.

3:12:24 ↗ >> Yeah.

3:12:45 ↗ Yeah, I was going to put an order.

3:12:48 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah.

3:12:54 ↗ >> Okay. It is impressive to see how

3:12:56 ↗ quickly the council has already adopted

3:12:58 ↗ to the new rules. And with that, we're

3:13:01 ↗ going to go to an old rule, which is

3:13:02 ↗ committee reports. Council member Boyd.

3:13:07 ↗ >> I think this is my last week. Well, I

3:13:09 ↗ have I'll have no report. I don't really

3:13:11 ↗ actually know how that works with being

3:13:12 ↗ an alternate, but um I'm appointed as

3:13:16 ↗ alternate to Epher. And I guess my

3:13:19 ↗ update is that I am in the queue uh for

3:13:22 ↗ being appointed to the Puget Sound

3:13:24 ↗ Regional Council's Transportation Policy

3:13:26 ↗ Board, but there's a few other steps I

3:13:28 ↗ need to clear before that becomes a

3:13:30 ↗ reality. So,

3:13:31 ↗ >> excellent.

3:13:32 ↗ >> Yep.

3:13:32 ↗ >> All right, Council Member Dair.

3:13:34 ↗ >> Uh I have one report. I had a uh meeting

3:13:37 ↗ with the WIA8

3:13:39 ↗ salmon recovery on May 21st. There were

3:13:42 ↗ two presentations on legislative one was

3:13:44 ↗ on legislative updates and planning for

3:13:45 ↗ next year's session. Another was on

3:13:48 ↗ coastal streams and nearshore

3:13:50 ↗ restoration projects. Um but the main

3:13:52 ↗ agenda was approval of the grant review

3:13:54 ↗ committee's funding recommendations

3:13:56 ↗ which included nearly 6.5 million of

3:13:58 ↗ grants to go to the to go before the

3:14:02 ↗ King County Flood Control District and

3:14:04 ↗ Salmon Recovery Boards to be this was

3:14:06 ↗ their recommendations for what should be

3:14:07 ↗ awarded. Uh included in those were a few

3:14:10 ↗ different Isiqua specific grants

3:14:12 ↗ including the uh funding for the Isiqua

3:14:15 ↗ Miawaki forest like Seamish UWRP uh

3:14:19 ↗ repairing stewardship areas along Isiqua

3:14:21 ↗ and Tibbitz Creeks weed treatment at the

3:14:23 ↗ mouth of Isqua Creek.

3:14:26 ↗ Sorry, we're getting late.

3:14:27 ↗ >> It's okay. You're fine. You're

3:14:29 ↗ >> meeting of six PPD Q in Isiqua Creek and

3:14:32 ↗ uh Laughing Jacobs Restoration

3:14:34 ↗ Construction. Um, and the next meeting

3:14:37 ↗ is an in-person one on July 16th, though

3:14:39 ↗ I don't believe I can actually attend

3:14:40 ↗ that in person. We will see how that

3:14:42 ↗ shakes up. And that concludes my report.

3:14:45 ↗ >> Thank you very much, Council Member

3:14:46 ↗ Nichols.

3:14:47 ↗ >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have no

3:14:48 ↗ committees to report on tonight. Coun

3:14:50 ↗ Walsh.

3:14:55 ↗ >> I can see why you had a hard time

3:14:57 ↗ getting to the thing over here. Okay.

3:14:59 ↗ Um, I have three reports. Uh, the

3:15:01 ↗ planning, development, and environment

3:15:03 ↗ uh committee meets tomorrow. topics

3:15:05 ↗ include the goals and outcomes chart um

3:15:08 ↗ which we made recommendations for

3:15:10 ↗ modifications at the last meeting and

3:15:12 ↗ they're coming back with um those

3:15:14 ↗ changes. Um the clarifying amendments to

3:15:18 ↗ title 18 are land use code and the first

3:15:22 ↗ two code ordinances for um the building

3:15:28 ↗ um better group um which is on stepbacks

3:15:32 ↗ and open amenity space. Um east side

3:15:36 ↗ fire and race rescue will meet next

3:15:38 ↗ Thursday June 11th.

3:15:41 ↗ Um, I think we've talked about that one

3:15:43 ↗ enough, so I'll leave that there. Um,

3:15:46 ↗ uh, ARCH, uh, Council of Electeds, the

3:15:49 ↗ Regional Coalition for Housing, met

3:15:51 ↗ March 21st, and we received a

3:15:53 ↗ presentation on financing and local

3:15:55 ↗ funding for affordable housing. Um, we

3:15:58 ↗ also provided input on um, how regional

3:16:02 ↗ contributions to groups like ARCH should

3:16:06 ↗ be given credit for affordable housing

3:16:09 ↗ investments um, at the state and county

3:16:12 ↗ level. And so Arch is going to advocate

3:16:15 ↗ and kind of lobby on behalf of the

3:16:18 ↗ cities to say, "Hey, if we contribute to

3:16:22 ↗ housing that is built in Belleview or

3:16:24 ↗ Redmond um or any other arch city, we

3:16:27 ↗ should get credit for it." Now, that

3:16:31 ↗ being said, we still need to determine

3:16:33 ↗ if the state or King County are really,

3:16:36 ↗ you know, how they are evaluating our

3:16:39 ↗ five-year mid um comp plan to see

3:16:42 ↗ whether or not we are effective at doing

3:16:45 ↗ our jobs, whether they're really

3:16:46 ↗ counting number of units or rather are

3:16:49 ↗ we making movement toward policy. So, I

3:16:52 ↗ don't know how that will end up going,

3:16:53 ↗ but that concludes my report. All

3:16:56 ↗ >> right, council member Joe.

3:16:57 ↗ >> Thank you. The mobility and

3:16:59 ↗ infrastructure committee uh met on May

3:17:02 ↗ 12th. Uh we discussed the the um tip

3:17:06 ↗ this evening. The other item that was on

3:17:08 ↗ the agenda was um discussing

3:17:12 ↗ frontage requirements and um taking down

3:17:15 ↗ power lines in front of public

3:17:17 ↗ facilities as it relates to um Seamish

3:17:20 ↗ Water and Sewer District. That'll be

3:17:23 ↗ coming back later to the council in

3:17:26 ↗ June.

3:17:27 ↗ The June 11th meeting meeting is

3:17:29 ↗ cancelled

3:17:31 ↗ uh for M&I.

3:17:33 ↗ Eltech uh met today and uh on the good

3:17:38 ↗ side of things, uh the committee decided

3:17:41 ↗ to open a new round of funding uh for

3:17:44 ↗ what we call this the second shoulder

3:17:46 ↗ season, which is a little bit later in

3:17:48 ↗ the year. Um $100,000 of funding will be

3:17:51 ↗ opened up. awards can go up to $55,000

3:17:56 ↗ uh in order to encourage uh large

3:17:59 ↗ projects or innovative projects that

3:18:00 ↗ might help uh nonprofits or community

3:18:03 ↗ groups. Um the idea is to um kind of

3:18:07 ↗ grease the wheel or prime the pump, so

3:18:09 ↗ to speak, for economic vitality and um

3:18:13 ↗ uh helping our local businesses. June

3:18:16 ↗ 10th, those applications will open up.

3:18:18 ↗ uh approximately they'll be due around

3:18:21 ↗ July 10th and reviewed by Eltech at the

3:18:24 ↗ end of July.

3:18:26 ↗ Cascade Water Alliance uh board meeting

3:18:28 ↗ will be June 24th. Um and June 16th will

3:18:32 ↗ be the finance and intergovernmental

3:18:34 ↗ committee that I serve on. That

3:18:36 ↗ concludes my report. Thank you,

3:18:38 ↗ >> Deputy President Jen.

3:18:39 ↗ >> Great. Three reports from me tonight. Um

3:18:41 ↗ first, the King County Regional

3:18:42 ↗ Homelessness Authority Governing Board

3:18:44 ↗ met on Friday, May 22nd. We received

3:18:48 ↗ briefings on the continuum of care, 2025

3:18:50 ↗ accomplishments in 2026 priorities and

3:18:53 ↗ on severe weather shelters in the

3:18:55 ↗ region. The King County Flood Control

3:18:57 ↗ District Advisory Committee met on

3:19:00 ↗ Friday, May 22nd. Um, we received an

3:19:03 ↗ overview of the flood control district

3:19:04 ↗ project process and we also talked about

3:19:07 ↗ some potential tours of flood

3:19:09 ↗ infrastructure across the county. So, I

3:19:11 ↗ might get to go on some tours, which is

3:19:13 ↗ very exciting. Um, and the East Side

3:19:15 ↗ Transportation Partnership is meeting

3:19:17 ↗ next Friday, June 12th at 8 a.m. in

3:19:21 ↗ Woodenville. So, we'll uh go up there

3:19:23 ↗ and see everyone in person. And that

3:19:25 ↗ concludes my report.

3:19:26 ↗ >> Right. Council President Mart.

3:19:28 ↗ >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Sound Cities

3:19:30 ↗ Association Public Issues Committee will

3:19:32 ↗ be meeting next Wednesday, June 10th at

3:19:34 ↗ 7 p.m. I will not be able to attend. So,

3:19:36 ↗ council member Adair will be uh

3:19:39 ↗ representing Isiqua on deck that

3:19:41 ↗ evening. That concludes my report.

3:19:44 ↗ Excellent. The mayor's report, the park

3:19:46 ↗ bond renewal open house is tomorrow

3:19:48 ↗ night at Pickering Barn from 6:00 to

3:19:50 ↗ 7:00 p.m. and we'll have all the

3:19:52 ↗ projects will be posted and people can

3:19:53 ↗ come and ask questions, learn about what

3:19:55 ↗ projects are in the park bond renewal.

3:19:56 ↗ Garage Pride at the community center

3:19:58 ↗ lawn that will celebrate Pride Month in

3:20:00 ↗ Isqua. The garage pride is this Friday.

3:20:02 ↗ All ages bring the Isqua community

3:20:04 ↗ together to celebrate queer joy with an

3:20:05 ↗ afternoon of connection, creativity, and

3:20:07 ↗ celebration. Enjoy yard games, crafts,

3:20:09 ↗ freebies, and a taco truck. Uh this will

3:20:11 ↗ be happening on Friday, June 5th at the

3:20:12 ↗ community center lawn from 3 to 6:00

3:20:14 ↗ p.m. organized by the teens of the

3:20:16 ↗ garage and 50 years of Esqua Singers

3:20:19 ↗ concert. So celebrate 50 years of music,

3:20:21 ↗ community, and tradition with the Esqua

3:20:22 ↗ Singers 50th anniversary concert. The

3:20:25 ↗ special performance will commemorate

3:20:26 ↗ five decades of coral excellence. And so

3:20:28 ↗ it's the golden anniversary concert is

3:20:30 ↗ this Saturday, June 6th, at the Faith

3:20:32 ↗ Church on Inqu.

3:20:37 ↗ And that concludes the Makers report.

3:20:40 ↗ Good of the order. Council member Joe.

3:20:43 ↗ >> Thank you. Um, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to

3:20:46 ↗ thank you for your participation as a

3:20:48 ↗ keynote speaker at the Memorial Day

3:20:49 ↗ celebration. I thought you did a great

3:20:52 ↗ job recognizing the service of all of

3:20:55 ↗ our uh branches of of the armed forces

3:20:58 ↗ and you made some very nice comments. I

3:21:00 ↗ also want to acknowledge the three other

3:21:02 ↗ council members that were there. We had

3:21:05 ↗ a quorum, but we did not discuss any

3:21:07 ↗ business. Um, thank you Deputy Council

3:21:11 ↗ President Jang,

3:21:13 ↗ uh, Council Member Nichols and Council

3:21:15 ↗ Member um, Boyd for attending that. Uh,

3:21:19 ↗ it was a great event to to go to. Um, I

3:21:22 ↗ also wanted to follow our newly adopted

3:21:25 ↗ rules. Um, we um, under 3.12, I believe,

3:21:30 ↗ I'm supposed to let people know that I

3:21:33 ↗ would like to attend the National League

3:21:34 ↗ of Cities in November. And if others

3:21:37 ↗ want to join and go to that, it will be

3:21:40 ↗ an expense over $500 and we would want

3:21:42 ↗ to schedule it to go to the order at an

3:21:44 ↗ appropriate time for council. So if

3:21:46 ↗ others are interested in going going to

3:21:48 ↗ Nashville, um please let leadership or

3:21:51 ↗ the administration know. Thank you.

3:21:53 ↗ >> Thank you very much. I will say we

3:21:55 ↗ learned at the memorial service from the

3:21:57 ↗ community volunteers who water the the

3:22:00 ↗ little new flowers around the blue

3:22:02 ↗ memorial that they needed access to a

3:22:04 ↗ water tap, which they have been given

3:22:05 ↗ this week. And so that problem was

3:22:07 ↗ raised and solved. That was uh yeah

3:22:10 ↗ really appreciated from that group. So

3:22:13 ↗ the upcoming council meetings Monday

3:22:15 ↗ June 8th committee the whole will be

3:22:17 ↗ right here. It's about climate action

3:22:19 ↗ plan economic development plan action

3:22:21 ↗ downtown association will present

3:22:23 ↗ operations and potential 2026.

3:22:25 ↗ Uh Monday June 15th is the city council

3:22:27 ↗ regular meeting. We're going to have a

3:22:28 ↗ reception for the Isqua Hall of Fame

3:22:30 ↗ winner Fred Nestrom at 6:30 p.m. And

3:22:32 ↗ then we will discuss the Isqua district

3:22:35 ↗ and city joint use agreement which we

3:22:37 ↗ met with the school district this

3:22:39 ↗ afternoon and we left it on the agenda

3:22:41 ↗ for June 15. So that's a good sign.

3:22:43 ↗ There is no executive session tonight

3:22:45 ↗ and being no further business before

3:22:47 ↗ this council is journeying at 10:31. I

3:22:50 ↗ cannot claim this was a meeting of

3:22:52 ↗ brevity but it is still adjourned.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Paul Adair

Erika Boyd

Kelly Jiang

Russell Joe

Tola Marts

Kevin Nichols

and Councilmember Lindsey Walsh

Staff (2)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator, Andrea Lehner, Deputy City Administrator, Rachel Bender Turpin, City Attorney

Cassidy Mueller, Deputy City Clerk

Motions and votes (8)

approve the consent agenda as presented.

Moved by Council President Marts · seconded by Deputy Council President Jiang

Carried 7-0

In favor: Paul Adair, Erika Boyd, Kelly Jiang, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Kevin Nichols, and Councilmember Lindsey Walsh

Continue the public hearing to the June 15, 2026 City Council meeting.

Moved by Councilmember Joe · seconded by Council President Marts

Carried 7-0