City Council Special Meeting · Monday, June 29, 2026 · City Council Digest

5488 segments .txt ↗

0:27 ↗ Oh, and Arsen is right on time as well.

0:30 ↗ Uh,

0:31 ↗ welcome everyone. I want to call the

0:33 ↗ June 29th city council meeting to order.

0:35 ↗ There are no excused absences this

0:37 ↗ evening. And before we begin, I'd like

0:38 ↗ to make a change to the agenda to move

0:40 ↗ regular business item uh C AB9192 school

0:44 ↗ district interlocal agreement joint use

0:47 ↗ development of facilities programs uh to

0:49 ↗ occur before the park bond renewal. So

0:52 ↗ right now that is item C. Park bond is

0:54 ↗ item B. We would flip those two around.

0:56 ↗ And is there any objection to swapping

0:58 ↗ those two?

1:00 ↗ Not seeing any. That is how we will

1:02 ↗ proceed for today's order of business.

1:05 ↗ We now want to do the pledge of

1:06 ↗ allegiance. Please join me if you're

1:08 ↗ willing.

1:12 ↗ I

1:12 ↗ >> pledge allegiance to the flag of the

1:14 ↗ United States of America and to the

1:17 ↗ republic for which it stands, one nation

1:20 ↗ under God, indivisible, with liberty and

1:23 ↗ justice for all.

1:28 ↗ >> Okay. The next item of business is ID

1:33 ↗ 2049, disability pride month

1:35 ↗ proclamation. And we're going to invite

1:37 ↗ Rashny from Kindering to the Lecter. I

1:40 ↗ will meet you up there.

1:57 ↗ Whereas the American with Disabilities

1:58 ↗ Act, ADA, was passed by the US Congress

2:01 ↗ on July 26th, 1990 to ensure the civil

2:04 ↗ rights of citizens with disabilities.

2:06 ↗ And whereas the ADA is recognized as one

2:08 ↗ of the most important civil rights laws

2:09 ↗ in history. Whereas the city of Isqua

2:11 ↗ acknowledges the barriers and challenges

2:13 ↗ faced by individuals with disabilities,

2:15 ↗ including societal attitudes, built and

2:18 ↗ architectural barriers, lack of

2:20 ↗ accessibility discrimination and

2:22 ↗ unequal opportunities. And whereas

2:24 ↗ disability pride month is a time to

2:26 ↗ celebrate the achievements,

2:27 ↗ contributions, and resiliency of

2:29 ↗ individuals with disabilities in our

2:31 ↗ community and to promote inclusion,

2:33 ↗ acceptance, and understanding of

2:34 ↗ disability as a natural part of human

2:36 ↗ diversity. Whereas we appreciate the

2:38 ↗ efforts of disability rights activists,

2:40 ↗ organizations, and advocates who work

2:42 ↗ tirelessly to advance the rights,

2:44 ↗ independence, and well-being of

2:46 ↗ individuals with disabilities and to

2:48 ↗ create a more inclusive and accessible

2:50 ↗ world for all. Now therefore, I, Mark

2:52 ↗ Mullet, mayor of the city of Isquad, do

2:53 ↗ hereby proclaim the month of July 2026

2:56 ↗ to be disability pride month in the city

2:58 ↗ of Isqua and invite the community and

2:59 ↗ join me in celebrating individuals with

3:02 ↗ disabilities.

3:08 ↗ Wally, do you want to do the picture

3:10 ↗ first?

3:10 ↗ >> Sure.

3:10 ↗ >> We'll do the rush. Then you're

3:20 ↗ >> mic is yours.

3:28 ↗ Good evening, Mayor Mallet, council

3:30 ↗ members, and city staff. I'm Roshni

3:33 ↗ Karthikayan and I serve as the

3:35 ↗ communications lead at Kindering. I'm

3:37 ↗ here tonight on behalf of Kindering and

3:39 ↗ as a resident of Isiqua to thank you for

3:42 ↗ recognizing disability pride month. As

3:45 ↗ you may know, Kindred is a local

3:47 ↗ nonprofit serving children with

3:49 ↗ disabilities, developmental delays, and

3:51 ↗ diverse needs. We provide early

3:53 ↗ supports, pediatric therapies, inclusive

3:56 ↗ preschool, and more. Last year, we

3:58 ↗ served 126 young children from the city

4:00 ↗ of Isiqua. So why is disability pride

4:03 ↗ important to kindering? It is important

4:05 ↗ because we work with lots of wonderful

4:07 ↗ little kids with disabilities who will

4:09 ↗ grow up into wonderful adults with

4:11 ↗ disabilities and we want them to grow up

4:13 ↗ in a world that supports, includes, and

4:16 ↗ celebrates them for who they are.

4:18 ↗ Morgan, a kindering parent shared, open

4:21 ↗ quote, I celebrate disability pride

4:23 ↗ because I am so incredibly proud of my

4:26 ↗ daughter. She faces challenges that many

4:28 ↗ people never see. Yet, she meets the

4:30 ↗ world with determination, resilience,

4:32 ↗ and one of the biggest smiles I've ever

4:34 ↗ known. Watching her navigate obstacles,

4:36 ↗ finding joy in little things, and

4:38 ↗ continue to grow into exactly who she

4:40 ↗ has, who she is has taught me so much.

4:44 ↗ Disability pride is about celebrating

4:45 ↗ her, honoring her experiences, and

4:48 ↗ recognizing the strength, value, and

4:50 ↗ beauty she brings into the world just by

4:52 ↗ being herself. Close quote. And that is

4:54 ↗ exactly why what you're doing with this

4:57 ↗ proclamation today. You're sending a

4:59 ↗ clear message to our families that you

5:02 ↗ care about their kids now. You will care

5:04 ↗ about them as adults and you will treat

5:06 ↗ them with the respect and dignity that

5:08 ↗ they deserve. We appreciate the city

5:10 ↗ promoting disability inclusion in the

5:12 ↗ small but powerful way. On behalf of

5:14 ↗ Kindering, once again, thank you all so

5:17 ↗ much.

5:18 ↗ >> Thank you. Thank you.

5:26 ↗ Next is ID 2046 parks and community

5:29 ↗ services month and I think we have Jeff

5:31 ↗ Watley here. And uh

5:35 ↗ whereas parks, recreation and community

5:37 ↗ services are an integral part of our

5:39 ↗ community. And whereas parks and

5:40 ↗ community services strengthen his

5:42 ↗ squad's identity by providing

5:44 ↗ exceptional parks, trails, green spaces,

5:46 ↗ and recreation facilities that reflect

5:48 ↗ and celebrate community character,

5:50 ↗ history culture aesthetics and

5:52 ↗ landscape. And yes, all parks people

5:54 ↗ keep coming up. This is good. Uh whereas

5:56 ↗ Esqua Parks and Community Services

5:58 ↗ fosters social cohesiveness and creates

6:00 ↗ memorable experiences through

6:01 ↗ recreational arts and human service

6:03 ↗ programs that provide opportunities to

6:05 ↗ come together, promote social equity,

6:07 ↗ connect social networks, and ensure the

6:09 ↗ entire community has access to these

6:11 ↗ program benefits. And whereas Isqua

6:13 ↗ Parks and Community Services helps to

6:15 ↗ sustain and steward our natural

6:17 ↗ resources by protecting open space and

6:19 ↗ habitat, connecting people to nature,

6:21 ↗ promoting the vital ecological function

6:23 ↗ of our city-owned public land, and

6:25 ↗ increasing our resilience in the face of

6:27 ↗ natural disaster threats and climate

6:29 ↗ change. Now therefore, I, Mark Mullet,

6:31 ↗ mayor of the city of Isqua, do hereby

6:32 ↗ proclaim July 2026 to be parks and

6:35 ↗ community services month in the city of

6:36 ↗ Isqua and invite the community to join

6:38 ↗ me in thanking the staff of the parks

6:40 ↗ and community service department for

6:42 ↗ their service and outstanding

6:43 ↗ contributions.

6:47 ↗ Okay, we doing a bigger joint photo,

6:49 ↗ Wally before

6:51 ↗ >> we'll do it with all team.

6:56 ↗ >> I don't know.

7:09 ↗ to introduce you.

7:13 ↗ >> Well, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Uh,

7:15 ↗ thank you, councel. Um, as a

7:17 ↗ proclamation certainly would would

7:19 ↗ suggest, uh, this department is a

7:21 ↗ compilation of a lot of diverse

7:23 ↗ professionals and a lot of diverse, um,

7:25 ↗ services provided to the to the

7:27 ↗ community. Um, this is very well res

7:30 ↗ represented in and some of the staff who

7:31 ↗ are are here to join us. I'm seeing if

7:34 ↗ LCA Monahan from human services joined

7:36 ↗ as well. She didn't, but let me

7:37 ↗ introduce um, this certainly again

7:40 ↗ reflects the diversity and the and the

7:42 ↗ just the value and strength of this

7:44 ↗ department. Amy Dukes uh, with our arts

7:46 ↗ team, arts manager. Um, Brandon Fesus

7:49 ↗ with our recreation team at the

7:51 ↗ community center. Morgan Sheen uh, park

7:53 ↗ operations uh, and Robin Spear and park

7:56 ↗ planning. Um, when you think about

7:58 ↗ recreation and human services and arts

8:01 ↗ and park operations and park planning,

8:03 ↗ uh, we really are a five ring circus.

8:06 ↗ Um, they are all connected. They all do

8:08 ↗ make sense. Um, it's an amazing team

8:10 ↗ that really, uh, loves this community

8:12 ↗ and, uh, loves loves, um, helping, uh,

8:15 ↗ Isua be a better place, uh, day by day.

8:18 ↗ So, thank you so much,

8:35 ↗ Okay. Next item of business is audience

8:38 ↗ comments. Uh comments can be made in

8:40 ↗ person or virtual. And if you sign in

8:43 ↗ advance, you will be called on first.

8:44 ↗ And if you're doing it virtually, you

8:46 ↗ can raise your virtual hand. If you're

8:47 ↗ on the phone, you have the option to do

8:49 ↗ star three. Uh, as a reminder, written

8:53 ↗ comments can also be submitted at any

8:54 ↗ time to city council. It is quais.gov.

8:57 ↗ And madame clerk, uh, we want to start

9:00 ↗ calling up the folks who signed up.

9:02 ↗ >> Sure. Cassidy Zoo.

9:05 ↗ Is Cassidy here?

9:08 ↗ Okay. Next, Chandra Ryder.

9:17 ↗ >> Good evening. My name is Shandra Ryder

9:19 ↗ and I live in the Talis neighborhood

9:21 ↗ with my wife Sarah. Um before I get

9:23 ↗ started, I want to thank the city

9:25 ↗ council, the mayor, and the city

9:26 ↗ administrator. Over the last couple of

9:29 ↗ months since we've started coming to

9:30 ↗ council meetings, we have discovered

9:32 ↗ that we are very lucky in Isiqua to have

9:35 ↗ a leadership team that is so engaged in

9:37 ↗ the community and really appreciates the

9:39 ↗ input and listens to the input um and

9:42 ↗ takes that feedback seriously. We are

9:44 ↗ proud to support a lot of the

9:46 ↗ initiatives that the council has put

9:48 ↗ forward and approved um such as the T

9:50 ↗ performance improvement plan, um the

9:53 ↗ environmental plans. Um we're happy to

9:56 ↗ support the opportunity center tonight

9:58 ↗ and the park spawn. Um I'm also going to

10:01 ↗ be commenting on the appointment of our

10:03 ↗ new police chief. And that's again where

10:06 ↗ I want to extend my thanks to everybody

10:08 ↗ that I'm looking at for um taking our

10:11 ↗ comments and our feedback seriously and

10:13 ↗ helping arrange a community meeting last

10:15 ↗ night where we could talk directly with

10:17 ↗ Chief Milelet. Um he what I want to say

10:21 ↗ about that first and foremost and what

10:23 ↗ took all of us by surprise the most was

10:25 ↗ how open he was. Um he answered all of

10:29 ↗ our questions. Um he gave us more

10:31 ↗ context. He went above and beyond. and I

10:35 ↗ have lots of experience working with

10:37 ↗ police chiefs. Those are rare qualities

10:39 ↗ that you see in a police chief. So, um I

10:42 ↗ want to thank Chief Mlet for his time. I

10:44 ↗ want to thank Mayor Mullet and the city

10:46 ↗ council for helping arrange that

10:47 ↗ meeting. Um as I told him last night, my

10:50 ↗ personal red flags have been turned into

10:52 ↗ yellow flags. And um I support the

10:56 ↗ council's decision tonight, whichever

10:58 ↗ way that that goes. if he is appointed

11:00 ↗ as police chief. He has shared his ideas

11:04 ↗ and his goals for the city of Isiqua.

11:07 ↗ And uh I understand with my experience

11:10 ↗ that that's going to take all of us to

11:11 ↗ implement those ideas. I think those

11:14 ↗ ideas are great ideas and I think

11:15 ↗ they're very progressive for any police

11:17 ↗ department. Um and I hope that we all as

11:21 ↗ a commit community and a city can rise

11:24 ↗ to the challenge of supporting that.

11:26 ↗ Thank you very much.

11:28 ↗ Thank you. Thank you.

11:32 ↗ Next up,

11:34 ↗ >> Sandra Writer.

11:41 ↗ >> So, I also live in Talis with my wife.

11:44 ↗ Um, yeah, I just wanted to thank

11:46 ↗ everyone for arranging the community

11:49 ↗ meeting with Chief Mallette. Um, we

11:52 ↗ definitely had some concerns going into

11:54 ↗ it and like she said, we've both worked

11:56 ↗ with a lot of chief of policees,

11:58 ↗ polices, chief, I don't know, multiple

12:03 ↗ people who are chief of police, I don't

12:05 ↗ know how to say it. Anyways, um, and we

12:08 ↗ did notice just how open he was. He

12:10 ↗ wasn't defensive. I I told him myself, I

12:13 ↗ said, 'You know, if someone asked me,

12:14 ↗ hey, do you want to go into a room where

12:15 ↗ everyone's going to talk about the worst

12:17 ↗ day you've ever had on the job and, you

12:20 ↗ know, criticize your work? Do you want

12:21 ↗ to do that? I'd be like, no, I'm I'm

12:24 ↗ good. Thank you. But no. And he was

12:26 ↗ willing to do that. He was willing to

12:27 ↗ meet with us. He didn't know what he was

12:28 ↗ walking into. Um, and we were just taken

12:32 ↗ aback by just his his openness, his

12:34 ↗ honesty. Um, so yes, I I will say for

12:38 ↗ myself, I would be a yes for him. I do

12:41 ↗ think he is uh an excellent um person

12:44 ↗ and we look forward to helping his

12:47 ↗ vision come to fruition in Isqua and

12:49 ↗ also yes for park bonds yes for

12:51 ↗ opportunity center.

12:54 ↗ >> Thank you very much. I might start

12:56 ↗ paying you to come to more meetings and

12:57 ↗ just keep testifying. Uh madam clerk,

13:00 ↗ >> no one further is signed up and we don't

13:02 ↗ have anyone from the public with us

13:04 ↗ online at this time.

13:05 ↗ >> Oh hey, this is your chance.

13:08 ↗ >> Oh, you're okay. Come on up. Just share

13:10 ↗ your name, your relationship with the

13:12 ↗ city, and off you go.

13:20 ↗ >> I am Terry Fulton. I have lived in

13:23 ↗ Isiqua for 41 years, seen many, many

13:26 ↗ changes, and I am here to support the

13:29 ↗ parks bond. Um, I'm representing the

13:31 ↗ pickle ball community. Um, and I have

13:35 ↗ many friends who are also tennis players

13:37 ↗ and I can say actually I was talking to

13:40 ↗ they happen to be one of my clients

13:42 ↗ today. I was talking to them and she is

13:44 ↗ a tennis player and I was saying oh do

13:46 ↗ you play at Tibbitz? And she goes oh no

13:48 ↗ the pickle ball players have overtaken

13:50 ↗ it and that's sort of like um that's not

13:53 ↗ exactly the case. And then she goes yeah

13:55 ↗ well the pickleball players play on the

13:57 ↗ first court where the backboard is. We

13:58 ↗ can't even go there and hit balls on the

14:00 ↗ backboard. So, I strongly support the

14:03 ↗ bond that would um uh put more pickle

14:07 ↗ ball courts up in um Central Park. Um I

14:11 ↗ know, you know, everyone in the pickle

14:12 ↗ ball community would really appreciate

14:14 ↗ that. It's, you know, tough in the

14:16 ↗ summer. You know, we we play outside in

14:19 ↗ the winter. You know, we're playing in

14:20 ↗ at the community center and, you know,

14:22 ↗ we we love that. And um anyway, I just

14:25 ↗ wanted to come here and say I think it's

14:28 ↗ very important that we are able to fund

14:30 ↗ something like that.

14:33 ↗ >> Excellent. Thank you very much. So Mark,

14:35 ↗ June 29th, 2026 is the day everyone

14:37 ↗ discovered there's a pickle ball lobby

14:39 ↗ in Isiqua and it's alive and well. And

14:42 ↗ uh is there anybody else wishing to

14:45 ↗ comment? It is totally Oh, come on up.

15:03 ↗ The lights are left on uh old time about

15:07 ↗ 18 years. This is what they call just in

15:09 ↗ time training or uh inventory. So flash

15:12 ↗ back to work. So leaving that aside, uh

15:15 ↗ I guess I want to talk on four topics

15:16 ↗ tonight. Share with you thoughts that I

15:19 ↗ had. Uh, I'm going to briefly pull up my

15:21 ↗ cell phone, not because I'm watching for

15:22 ↗ the phone, but I kind remind myself to

15:24 ↗ keep on track with what we're talking

15:26 ↗ about.

15:34 ↗ So, basically, I'll probably forget some

15:36 ↗ of what I'm going to say, but I want to

15:38 ↗ be respectful of your time. Uh, the

15:40 ↗ first on the park bond proposal, thanks

15:43 ↗ for director Watlin for meeting with me.

15:46 ↗ Uh first thing is that I'm strongly

15:48 ↗ opposed because I don't think we've had

15:50 ↗ a chance to define what our park

15:52 ↗ priorities are. We're not g we're gonna

15:54 ↗ have what 20

15:57 ↗ some odd million dollar chance at this.

16:00 ↗ We haven't really identified what I

16:01 ↗ think what our priorities are strong

16:02 ↗ enough is communitywide. We're pushing

16:04 ↗ this to go through before we've had time

16:07 ↗ to identify what those priorities are.

16:09 ↗ Uh that said, I want to be transparent.

16:11 ↗ I'm a big opponent of the dark park in

16:14 ↗ any form. it kind of got wedged in, but

16:16 ↗ I wanted to be transparent and about

16:18 ↗ that in front. Uh I just think we're

16:21 ↗ rushing this and go now. We're not going

16:22 ↗ to get the priorities we need. We're

16:24 ↗ gonna end up with some facilities that

16:26 ↗ are going to be need to be replaced or

16:30 ↗ maintained before we have a chance to

16:32 ↗ find those. So, I'd ask you to

16:36 ↗ uh wait until we find that better. Uh

16:39 ↗ that said, I guess I'm

16:42 ↗ that's my big concern concern with it.

16:45 ↗ We haven't taken the time to identify

16:46 ↗ what those priorities are. I'm admit I'm

16:49 ↗ not a fan of some of the while I'm a fan

16:52 ↗ of the X house most I don't also don't

16:54 ↗ know that I see that we're in a dire

16:56 ↗ need for more hacking trails in we're

16:59 ↗ already well known for that. There's

17:01 ↗ just too many questions. I'm sorry. I do

17:04 ↗ have to look at my cell phone to remind

17:07 ↗ myself of the other things I want to

17:08 ↗ talk about.

17:19 ↗ I hate the dead silence.

17:35 ↗ I guess I also don't know about the

17:36 ↗ playfield facilities. I don't know that

17:38 ↗ we are gearing up towards a larger

17:43 ↗ area than

17:46 ↗ the city our size normally has for this

17:48 ↗ type of facilities. So, I'm tend to be

17:50 ↗ inclined against the uh is is a quest

17:54 ↗ school district in the city on local

17:57 ↗ agreements with park facilities. Uh

18:00 ↗ transitorian development. I like the

18:02 ↗ idea, but we've just been told we're

18:05 ↗ going to be back in 2050 for a park for

18:09 ↗ a transitory or transitory development

18:11 ↗ train coming to Isqua.

18:14 ↗ uh title 18 land code.

18:21 ↗ I guess I don't think we've looked at

18:23 ↗ this realistically enough to say what it

18:24 ↗ is that we

18:27 ↗ uh expect to get development from the

18:30 ↗ train coming through. Uh I've always

18:32 ↗ been I'm getting off target a little

18:34 ↗ bit. Um

18:38 ↗ the step back the step back step backs

18:41 ↗ 15. The way I heard it explained one

18:42 ↗ time is there was a proposal to change

18:45 ↗ this step step back from the bottom of

18:47 ↗ the fifth floor to the bottom of the

18:48 ↗ sixth floor. That was defeated in the

18:50 ↗ PPC. I'd like to see that reinstated at

18:52 ↗ the fifth floor. But more realistically,

18:56 ↗ I'd like us to look at all the things we

18:57 ↗ talked about. We defined a set of

19:00 ↗ culture and criteria things we wanted

19:02 ↗ when we agreed to become a regional

19:03 ↗ growth center. And we just need to be

19:05 ↗ setting these aside and not defining

19:07 ↗ what the things are that we want. When

19:10 ↗ we decided to become regional growth

19:11 ↗ center, we said some things we wanted to

19:14 ↗ have maintained and we're not defining

19:16 ↗ what those are. We're just going through

19:17 ↗ and changing them without understanding

19:19 ↗ what we lose or why those are

19:21 ↗ maintained. So, I disagree with the step

19:24 ↗ back or I would set it to

19:28 ↗ uh

19:30 ↗ bottom of the fifth floor rather than

19:31 ↗ the bottom of the sixth floor as was

19:32 ↗ recommended by the PBC. I'd also like to

19:35 ↗ see the

19:37 ↗ uh community area with inside each of

19:39 ↗ the proposed new parking

19:44 ↗ building units not decrease the the

19:48 ↗ minimum facilities. With that, I rambled

19:50 ↗ long enough. Thank you for your time. I

19:51 ↗ appreciate it.

19:53 ↗ >> All right. Thank you very much, Steve.

19:56 ↗ Is there anybody else here for audience

19:59 ↗ comments?

20:00 ↗ Looking going once, going twice. With

20:04 ↗ that, audience comments are closed. Uh

20:09 ↗ the next item of business is the consent

20:12 ↗ calendar. I do not have any remarks on

20:15 ↗ the consent calendar. Do any of the

20:17 ↗ committee chairs or chairs as Oh,

20:19 ↗ council member Walsh. Thank you. Um,

20:22 ↗ let's see. Get my email up here. Um, I

20:27 ↗ just want to take a moment to speak

20:28 ↗ about AB 91182, which is the title 18

20:31 ↗ land use code clarifying amendments.

20:34 ↗ This item was reviewed by the planning,

20:36 ↗ development, environment committee on

20:38 ↗ June 2nd. It's essentially cleanup and

20:41 ↗ clarifications that have been building

20:43 ↗ up over the last year. So I wanted to

20:45 ↗ clarify that this does not include any

20:47 ↗ of the promoting building business

20:50 ↗ promoting building investment work

20:52 ↗ scheduled for the next two years that we

20:54 ↗ recently adopted we recently approved

20:57 ↗ that's coming later in the meeting as

20:58 ↗ the first item. This is just the

21:00 ↗ clarifying items and we supported this

21:02 ↗ unanimously.

21:04 ↗ >> Right. Thank you very much. Uh consent

21:06 ↗ calendar was distributed in advance. Uh

21:09 ↗ they will be approved in one motion.

21:10 ↗ Have payables and payroll been reviewed?

21:13 ↗ >> They have.

21:14 ↗ They have

21:16 ↗ >> I see two. Uh does any council want to

21:19 ↗ remove any items from the consent

21:20 ↗ calendar?

21:22 ↗ >> Not seeing any. Is there a motion?

21:25 ↗ >> Mr. Mayor, I move we approve the consent

21:27 ↗ calendar as presented in tonight's

21:28 ↗ agenda.

21:29 ↗ >> Second.

21:30 ↗ >> There's been a motion and a second. Uh

21:32 ↗ all those in favor, please say I.

21:34 ↗ >> I. I.

21:36 ↗ >> Those opposed? Nay. And that passes

21:39 ↗ unanimously. So that takes us to the

21:41 ↗ first item of regular business, which is

21:43 ↗ AB9211,

21:45 ↗ the police chief appointment. And so, as

21:48 ↗ we know, Chief Paul Schwan retired on

21:51 ↗ June 1st of this year, and we then had a

21:54 ↗ nationwide search uh to find a new

21:56 ↗ police chief. We did have, I think it

21:58 ↗ was 21 applicants apply for that job. We

22:01 ↗ had three people come in from various

22:04 ↗ locations in the country, uh, plus one

22:07 ↗ internal candidate, and we had a group

22:08 ↗ of panels. It was community panels. It

22:11 ↗ was staff panels. Uh folks from the

22:13 ↗ council, three council members were on

22:15 ↗ the panel. We had a member from the

22:17 ↗ equity board on the panel. And uh and so

22:20 ↗ everyone got a chance to interview these

22:21 ↗ four finalists that were there that day.

22:24 ↗ And then I basically took into

22:26 ↗ consideration the recommendations from

22:27 ↗ those various panels. And that's how we

22:29 ↗ landed on Chief Steve Milelet. And I

22:33 ↗ would say when I first went to the

22:36 ↗ conference of mayors back in January and

22:37 ↗ you get a chance to ask mayors like

22:39 ↗ what's your advice in terms of being new

22:41 ↗ to this role and it's unanimous. Every

22:44 ↗ mayor says the most important hire

22:45 ↗ you'll make is your chief of police. And

22:48 ↗ so I think out of the gate I took this

22:50 ↗ decision very seriously to make sure

22:52 ↗ that we did pick someone that we thought

22:55 ↗ could represent this community. And to

22:58 ↗ be honest, it was really nice to hear

22:59 ↗ the comments. Uh to go from two red

23:02 ↗ lights to a yellow light and a green

23:04 ↗ light makes me want Chief Mlet to be in

23:06 ↗ my passenger seat cuz I seem to hit a

23:08 ↗ lot of red lights every time I come to

23:09 ↗ city hall and they seem to be red longer

23:11 ↗ than I want them to be. So that's really

23:13 ↗ a testament I think to why I do think we

23:15 ↗ have a good candidate here. And uh and

23:19 ↗ with that, is there a motion?

23:25 ↗ And the motion would be I'm looking to

23:29 ↗ our

23:32 ↗ to confirm the mayor's appointment of

23:33 ↗ chief of police.

23:34 ↗ >> So the motion is to confirm Steve

23:36 ↗ Milelet as Council President Marks. I

23:40 ↗ move we approve uh the mayor's

23:44 ↗ appointment of Steve Milelet as chief of

23:46 ↗ police for the city of Isaklaw.

23:48 ↗ Confirm.

23:50 ↗ >> Second.

23:51 ↗ >> Okay, there is a motion and a second. Is

23:54 ↗ there any council discussion? Council

23:55 ↗ member Walsh.

23:58 ↗ >> Um thank you. I wanted to start out by

24:01 ↗ just saying I really appreciate the

24:03 ↗ public engagement on this topic. This is

24:05 ↗ another one where we got um quite a few

24:07 ↗ emails and there were quite a few

24:09 ↗ questions on there, but it wasn't a

24:12 ↗ point where people stopped with just

24:15 ↗ questions. They further talked to

24:17 ↗ council members and they said, "What was

24:19 ↗ your perspective?" And we had council

24:21 ↗ members talk to other council members

24:23 ↗ from Belleview um who had history with

24:26 ↗ Chief Milelet. And so there was a lot of

24:29 ↗ due diligence on this. Um there are

24:32 ↗ three things that your city council does

24:35 ↗ really truly. One is approve a budget

24:38 ↗ that spends your money based on your

24:40 ↗ priorities. Um the second is set

24:42 ↗ policies across the city. And the third

24:45 ↗ is approve the hiring of our top

24:47 ↗ officials. And all three of those are

24:50 ↗ really the important areas where we're

24:53 ↗ doing our due diligence and where the

24:55 ↗ public's feedback is really essential.

24:58 ↗ Um, I participated on that hiring

25:00 ↗ committee with two other council members

25:03 ↗ as I also did when we hired former Chief

25:05 ↗ Paula Schwan and I was very impressed

25:08 ↗ with um, Chief Millet's experience,

25:11 ↗ knowledge of the area um, and just the

25:14 ↗ way that he engaged on this interview.

25:16 ↗ So, I am very grateful that we have this

25:19 ↗ opportunity to make this decision. you

25:21 ↗ know, sometimes we go through a national

25:23 ↗ hiring process and the candidates just

25:26 ↗ don't bubble up to the level of what we

25:30 ↗ need in ESUA. And so, it was really nice

25:32 ↗ to see um someone come through that did

25:35 ↗ that the um hiring committees uh were

25:39 ↗ looking at it and saying, "Yes, this is

25:40 ↗ a really good fit." And then to have the

25:43 ↗ public come through and really ask the

25:46 ↗ questions and um see Chief Milelet

25:50 ↗ respond to that and say yes. Yes, I want

25:52 ↗ to meet with everybody. Yes, I want to

25:55 ↗ have that engagement really confirmed um

25:58 ↗ that decision for me. So I am in full

26:00 ↗ support and I appreciate that we have

26:02 ↗ this opportunity.

26:06 ↗ >> Excellent. Uh oh, Deputy President Jay.

26:10 ↗ >> Great. Um, yeah, I want to echo

26:12 ↗ everything that Council Member Walsh

26:14 ↗ said. Um, I also had the opportunity to

26:16 ↗ serve on the interview panel alongside

26:18 ↗ representatives from the community,

26:19 ↗ Council President Martz, Council Member

26:21 ↗ Walsh, and um, Chief Millet was the

26:23 ↗ unanimous top choice of every member of

26:25 ↗ our panel based on his responses. Um,

26:28 ↗ also, you know, I will note that after

26:30 ↗ um, he was announced as the newly

26:32 ↗ appointed police chief, you know, I go

26:34 ↗ to various events and everyone who I

26:35 ↗ talked to from Belleview was very

26:37 ↗ excited like, "Oh, I heard you have a

26:38 ↗ new police chief. who's our old police

26:40 ↗ chief. Um, and so, you know, heard a lot

26:42 ↗ of positive feedback from folks in

26:44 ↗ Belleview as well. Um, I think one thing

26:48 ↗ that a lot of members of the public

26:50 ↗ might not be aware of is that we operate

26:53 ↗ jail and given our recent record here in

26:55 ↗ Isiqua, including two overdose deaths in

26:58 ↗ 2023. I believe it's really crucial that

27:00 ↗ we have a police chief who genuinely

27:02 ↗ cares about the well-being in everyone,

27:04 ↗ every single person in our care. And

27:06 ↗ based on our conversations with Chief

27:08 ↗ Milelet, I believe he cares and will do

27:11 ↗ the work to make sure that we are, you

27:13 ↗ know, living up to our values here in

27:15 ↗ Isiqua.

27:16 ↗ Um, in both Belron, also Chief Millet

27:19 ↗ made progress in diversifying the police

27:21 ↗ force to represent the communities he

27:23 ↗ served. Um, in particular in Belleview,

27:25 ↗ one, um, example that I think I heard

27:28 ↗ from someone, one of the council members

27:30 ↗ in Belleview that I talked to was that,

27:32 ↗ you know, when there was a rise in

27:33 ↗ anti-Asian hate crimes in the beginning

27:35 ↗ of the pandemic, you know, he actually

27:36 ↗ brought in one of the officers who was

27:38 ↗ Chinese to speak, you know, to the

27:40 ↗ community in Chinese. And for me as a

27:42 ↗ Chinese American, I think that's really

27:43 ↗ meaningful. And so I have full faith

27:44 ↗ that he'll be able to do um, similar

27:47 ↗ work to engage the community here in

27:48 ↗ Isiqua, which I think is an area where,

27:50 ↗ you know, we could make some progress. I

27:53 ↗ will also say, you know, there have been

27:54 ↗ a lot of questions that have arisen

27:56 ↗ through this process that's been raised

27:58 ↗ by the community and they do deserve to

28:00 ↗ be taken seriously and I want to give a

28:01 ↗ huge kudos to Chief Mlet for, you know,

28:04 ↗ taking the time yesterday and for our

28:06 ↗ community members on such short notice

28:07 ↗ to, you know, spend two hours talking

28:09 ↗ through all of these items. I would say,

28:12 ↗ you know, my yes vote comes with an

28:14 ↗ expectation that Chief Millet engages

28:15 ↗ openly, acts with accountability, and

28:17 ↗ demonstrates through his conduct that

28:19 ↗ these concerns were heard. and I know

28:21 ↗ that, you know, he's taken a good first

28:23 ↗ step with that with yesterday's

28:24 ↗ community meeting, but we know that we

28:26 ↗ all need to continue to do the work to

28:28 ↗ earn the trust of the community. And

28:29 ↗ that concludes my rocks.

28:31 ↗ >> All right, Council Member Adair.

28:35 ↗ >> Uh, yes. So, yeah, so echoing the same

28:38 ↗ statements. Um, I really tried to kind

28:40 ↗ of feel the weight of this decision as

28:42 ↗ really being kind of the most important

28:43 ↗ uh vote I'm have likely made thus far.

28:47 ↗ um and really put a lot of thought and

28:49 ↗ research and care into this. Um you know

28:51 ↗ I was not on the you know the interview

28:52 ↗ committee but so once his name came up I

28:54 ↗ tried to really research look at his

28:56 ↗ background look at the informations we

28:57 ↗ were provided in terms of his

28:59 ↗ application and really do my uh due

29:02 ↗ diligence u met with him privately also

29:04 ↗ to ask a lot of the questions and some

29:06 ↗ of the questions that have been brought

29:06 ↗ up to us. Um and I felt through all of

29:09 ↗ that that I did feel that he was the

29:12 ↗ right person for the job. Um, you know,

29:14 ↗ I was looking for someone who would

29:16 ↗ really prioritize um, community- based

29:18 ↗ policing that would be um, trying to

29:21 ↗ build a lot of trust with the community

29:23 ↗ with, you know, all demographics, all

29:25 ↗ the people that are a part of this

29:26 ↗ community. Um, I really wanted, you

29:28 ↗ know, to create a very positive trusting

29:30 ↗ relationship between the police and

29:32 ↗ emphasis on the serve aspect of that

29:34 ↗ role. Um, and, you know, his answers,

29:38 ↗ you know, gave me confidence that he

29:40 ↗ would do that. um you know so I you know

29:45 ↗ as he's said and through his meetings I

29:47 ↗ do think he has promised to bring a lot

29:49 ↗ of transparency to really work with

29:51 ↗ people and meet people where they are

29:53 ↗ and that I feel he is going to work with

29:56 ↗ council and the residents to really

29:58 ↗ build something you know from the

29:59 ↗ community up really do the job and you

30:02 ↗ know most importantly listen to what we

30:04 ↗ have to say and what we want out of this

30:05 ↗ police force so for all those reasons I

30:07 ↗ will be voting to confirm yes for his

30:09 ↗ appointment.

30:11 ↗ Thank you, Council Member Boyd.

30:14 ↗ >> Thank you. Um, echoing off of the

30:18 ↗ comments of my colleagues here that I

30:20 ↗ have been very impressed um, overall

30:22 ↗ with Chief Milelet and how he's really

30:24 ↗ been able to just run head-on into any

30:26 ↗ questions that he's faced. um you know

30:28 ↗ the concerns from the community I don't

30:31 ↗ take those lightly and um I've been able

30:33 ↗ to ask and um get his context uh for the

30:38 ↗ concerns that have come up and I know

30:39 ↗ he's addressed those himself as well and

30:42 ↗ um I think it just goes to the fact that

30:46 ↗ um one of the council members mentioned

30:47 ↗ how just the steward of trust that the

30:50 ↗ police chief is and um based off of the

30:53 ↗ decision-m skills um your leadership

30:56 ↗ I've seen and just your brief weekend

30:58 ↗ here. I'm very encouraged by that and I

31:01 ↗ think you know I know I'll keep watching

31:04 ↗ to see how that continues. Um should you

31:08 ↗ be confirmed and um I for based off what

31:12 ↗ I've seen from your character this

31:14 ↗ weekend, I'm a guess.

31:18 ↗ Chief Miley Chanel, Council Member

31:20 ↗ Boyd's mom was a police officer and

31:22 ↗ council member Adair's stepfather was a

31:24 ↗ police officer in Texas actually for uh

31:26 ↗ Council President Marks.

31:29 ↗ >> Thank you. So uh this is an

31:32 ↗ extraordinarily important uh

31:33 ↗ appointment. Public safety has become in

31:38 ↗ recent years such a complicated topic

31:40 ↗ around our nation and I'm from

31:41 ↗ Minneapolis so I've seen it, you know,

31:45 ↗ horribly impact otherwise. um otherwise

31:49 ↗ great places to live where where

31:50 ↗ communities had a hard time defining how

31:52 ↗ they needed the public safety system to

31:54 ↗ operate. So u this subject of the

31:57 ↗ officer involved shooting in Akran came

31:59 ↗ up in the interview panel and one of the

32:01 ↗ things that impressed me uh about Steve

32:05 ↗ was that he was real honest about uh the

32:08 ↗ process that they went through um the

32:12 ↗ challenges that he had with his police

32:14 ↗ force. You know, one of the pieces of

32:16 ↗ information that that people didn't

32:19 ↗ necessarily know until they got involved

32:21 ↗ in the conversation over the last couple

32:22 ↗ weeks is is when you talk about the

32:26 ↗ importance of public safety, um you

32:29 ↗ know, having the when he was chief there

32:32 ↗ in Akran, um he got the Ohio Attorney

32:35 ↗ General's Bureau of Criminal

32:36 ↗ Investigation involved in that officer

32:38 ↗ involved shooting. um that's a standard

32:40 ↗ of public safety that we have in

32:42 ↗ Washington and it was an element of

32:44 ↗ understanding that if he was going to

32:46 ↗ become our chief that he would

32:48 ↗ understand um how we view public safety

32:51 ↗ in this community. So it was it was

32:52 ↗ really really important to me. He also

32:54 ↗ talked about his engagement with

32:56 ↗ communities of color during that uh

32:59 ↗ during that time which which was you

33:01 ↗ know so traumatic for the folks of

33:03 ↗ Akran. Um and so it I you know really

33:06 ↗ really impressed me that um he would

33:08 ↗ keep our communities of color and our

33:10 ↗ historically underrepresented

33:12 ↗ communities here in Isiqua safe. So it

33:14 ↗ made me very positive about him as a

33:17 ↗ applicant and I'll be excited to support

33:19 ↗ his uh confirmation this evening. Thank

33:21 ↗ you.

33:22 ↗ >> Thank you. Council member Nichols.

33:25 ↗ >> Thank you. Um before I say anything

33:27 ↗ else, I want to just thank everybody who

33:29 ↗ put the time and effort into this

33:30 ↗ process. I I know this is a lot of work

33:32 ↗ from the staff. um managing a long

33:35 ↗ executive search like this takes a lot

33:37 ↗ of time and it needs to be done very

33:38 ↗ carefully. Um also my fellow council

33:40 ↗ members for all the seriousness that

33:42 ↗ they've brought into it and the uh

33:44 ↗ concerns from the community and the

33:45 ↗ comments from the community. I think uh

33:47 ↗ hiring is the most consequential

33:50 ↗ consequential decision any organization

33:52 ↗ makes and uh it really is worth getting

33:54 ↗ right. Uh and I'm really grateful for

33:56 ↗ the care everybody has put into getting

33:57 ↗ it right. Um I will admit I was very

34:00 ↗ concerned about a number of things. I

34:02 ↗ read both in the press that were emailed

34:04 ↗ to us uh and that members of the public

34:06 ↗ have brought before us. Um after

34:09 ↗ listening to Chief Mlet extensively

34:10 ↗ though, including two hours yesterday

34:12 ↗ that I joined to listen to joined uh

34:14 ↗ with him uh to listen on my part as he

34:17 ↗ spent his Sunday talking with community

34:18 ↗ members who did not pull punches on any

34:20 ↗ of those topics. I will say I am greatly

34:23 ↗ reassured. Um I particularly look

34:26 ↗ forward to seeing him implement the

34:27 ↗ community engagement efforts he's

34:29 ↗ described. Uh we have many different

34:30 ↗ groups within Isqua, some of whom are

34:33 ↗ very comfortable writing in, speaking

34:34 ↗ up, and advocating for both themselves

34:36 ↗ and others. We also have many

34:38 ↗ communities that demonstrabably do not,

34:40 ↗ and we never hear from them. I was

34:42 ↗ impressed with the efforts he led in

34:43 ↗ Belleview to bring in diverse members of

34:45 ↗ his community and give them a voice. He

34:47 ↗ bragged that he has seen crime numbers

34:49 ↗ go up after instituting these in the

34:51 ↗ past, not because crime has increased,

34:52 ↗ but because the residents are

34:54 ↗ comfortable reporting them. I look

34:56 ↗ forward to seeing that same in Isqua and

34:58 ↗ hope we can all be good partners in

34:59 ↗ making everyone in our community feel

35:01 ↗ the safety they deserve. So, I will be a

35:03 ↗ yes.

35:05 ↗ >> Thank you, Council Member Joe.

35:07 ↗ >> Thank you. I also will be a yes this

35:09 ↗ evening. Um just want to let uh the

35:13 ↗ community know my perspective a little

35:15 ↗ bit. As many of you know, um I have

35:17 ↗ served as the prom judge here in the

35:20 ↗ Isqua District Court. Used to be here.

35:22 ↗ it's now cross town, but uh served on

35:25 ↗ the bench here. I al also served as a

35:28 ↗ prosecuting attorney for four east side

35:30 ↗ cities for over 10 years. Um so I bring

35:34 ↗ that perspective to this um process

35:37 ↗ along the way. And uh it was interesting

35:40 ↗ because I I wasn't scheduled to meet

35:43 ↗ with Steve until Sunday, but on Friday I

35:47 ↗ was having breakfast at a local uh

35:49 ↗ restaurant and and uh he happened to be

35:52 ↗ there uh with uh our city administrator.

35:55 ↗ And so I sat down with him and started

35:58 ↗ peppering him with questions. I was

36:00 ↗ quite impressed that he was able to um

36:04 ↗ take my impromptu light

36:07 ↗ cross-examination

36:09 ↗ uh in stride and and answer questions um

36:13 ↗ to my full reassurance and the the full

36:17 ↗ uh ability to uh address my concerns

36:21 ↗ there. Um, one of the things that I was

36:23 ↗ impressed with was the again the

36:26 ↗ Belleview process where he brought in

36:28 ↗ um, Aar Bian from the Asian community

36:31 ↗ uh, and other leaders in minority

36:35 ↗ communities to work on community

36:37 ↗ policing. And one of the last questions

36:39 ↗ I asked him was that I know that it was

36:41 ↗ from a different time, but we used to

36:44 ↗ have police officers that came to our

36:46 ↗ Rotary Club meetings and our Kowanas

36:50 ↗ meetings and showed up at the different

36:52 ↗ events. And he goes, he said, "I I

36:56 ↗ really want to reinstitute that because

36:58 ↗ community policing is so important to

36:59 ↗ me. Our officers and our police

37:01 ↗ department doesn't know what's happening

37:02 ↗ in our community unless we're part of

37:04 ↗ the community and involved with the

37:06 ↗ community." And that um really impressed

37:09 ↗ me as well because it's pleasing on one

37:12 ↗ hand, but it's community building on the

37:14 ↗ other. And I think Steve's going to

37:16 ↗ bring that both aspects of that to this

37:18 ↗ job. And I fully support his uh

37:20 ↗ confirmation uh this evening. Thank you.

37:24 ↗ >> Thank you very much. If there's no

37:25 ↗ further discussion, the motion for the

37:27 ↗ council is to confirm the mayor's

37:28 ↗ appointment of Stephen Mlet as police

37:30 ↗ chief of the city of Isqua effective

37:32 ↗ July 16th, 2026. All those in favor,

37:35 ↗ please say I. I.

37:38 ↗ >> All those opposed? Nay. That passes

37:41 ↗ unanimously. So, please join me in

37:43 ↗ welcoming Chief Mlet. And Chief Mlette,

37:44 ↗ if you want to meet me up here, you can

37:46 ↗ make a few remarks.

37:58 ↗ >> Good evening, Mayor Mullet, members of

38:00 ↗ council, Mr. Bobitz. Um, I I'm humbled.

38:04 ↗ I truly truly am. Um um I feel a

38:07 ↗ tremendous amount of pride. Um I thank

38:10 ↗ you for your confidence and your

38:12 ↗ support. I promise you the things that I

38:14 ↗ say I will deliver on. What you see

38:16 ↗ truly is what you get there. I whatever

38:18 ↗ I say comes out of my mouth is the truth

38:20 ↗ as I know it to be in that moment. Um I

38:23 ↗ am very very excited to be joining uh

38:26 ↗ the leadership team and leading the men

38:28 ↗ and women of the Isqua Police

38:30 ↗ Department. I don't say this because of

38:32 ↗ the confirmation. I remember this when I

38:35 ↗ was a chief in Belleview. You have a

38:37 ↗ good police department. You truly do.

38:40 ↗ And as I was driving around on Sunday

38:42 ↗ morning with Officer James and we're

38:44 ↗ driving through the neighborhoods, I saw

38:46 ↗ something that I hadn't seen in a very

38:48 ↗ very long time. People actually waving

38:50 ↗ at the police, a dad standing there with

38:53 ↗ his his son, his probably four years

38:54 ↗ old, pointing at the police car as we're

38:56 ↗ coming up and encouraging him to wave.

38:59 ↗ To me, that's that shows me and is a

39:01 ↗ testament to the relationship between

39:04 ↗ the police and this community. There's

39:06 ↗ always room for improvement, always. But

39:08 ↗ whatever foundation that of positivity

39:11 ↗ that I'm inheriting, we're just going to

39:12 ↗ continue to build off of. Um, and yes, I

39:16 ↗ do listen intently and I thank the

39:19 ↗ community um for their questions and the

39:22 ↗ opportunity to allow me to present the

39:24 ↗ Paul Harvey rest of the story. Um, and

39:27 ↗ and I I promise you I will not let you

39:30 ↗ down. I thank you very much, mayor, for

39:31 ↗ for the nomination. Um, and I can't wait

39:34 ↗ to get back to the Pacific Northwest and

39:36 ↗ this beautiful, beautiful community.

39:37 ↗ Thank you.

39:45 ↗ I know. I think Ohio right now is 30°

39:48 ↗ warmer with 100% humidity. Uh, Council

39:52 ↗ Member Dere, this may only be your most

39:54 ↗ important vote until two more items.

39:55 ↗ when you get a vote for pickle ball. So

39:57 ↗ that's uh so chief millet going to enjoy

39:59 ↗ his moment of glory for at least a

40:01 ↗ couple agenda items. Uh the next is

40:03 ↗ agenda bill 9192 is cross school

40:05 ↗ district and city interlocal agreement

40:07 ↗ for joint use and development of

40:08 ↗ facilities programs maintenance and

40:11 ↗ operations and parks director Jeff

40:14 ↗ Watling. It's all yours.

40:16 ↗ >> All right, mayor. Thank you so much.

40:18 ↗ Good evening council. Uh Jeff Watling

40:20 ↗ again. Um and thank you Tisha uh Clerk

40:24 ↗ Gieser for uh running the slides on both

40:27 ↗ of these presentations back toback. So

40:29 ↗ thanks so much. Um next slide

40:34 ↗ with this item uh the joint use

40:36 ↗ agreement with this school district.

40:38 ↗ purpose um and recommendation. Uh the

40:40 ↗ purpose is uh uh to present um our

40:43 ↗ recommendation administration's

40:45 ↗ recommendation and seek um your

40:47 ↗ authorization for the mayor uh to sign

40:49 ↗ this updated joint use agreement between

40:51 ↗ the city and the Isagua school district.

40:54 ↗ Next slide.

40:56 ↗ Oh, I do have the clicker. Next slide,

40:59 ↗ Jeff.

41:02 ↗ Next slide, Jeff.

41:06 ↗ Turn it on, Jeff.

41:09 ↗ There we go. All right. Thank you.

41:12 ↗ Little levity. Um, this slide is really

41:16 ↗ to to I think uh trying to answer the

41:18 ↗ question, why why is a joint use

41:20 ↗ agreement between two independent public

41:22 ↗ agencies um of value? Um what is the

41:25 ↗ intent really? Um four areas I want to

41:29 ↗ highlight. One is uh the mutual interest

41:31 ↗ that both of these agencies, a city and

41:33 ↗ a school district, have in supporting

41:35 ↗ community programs, both for education,

41:37 ↗ for recreation, um and athletics. Um a

41:41 ↗ joint use agreement also recognizes that

41:43 ↗ all city and school district assets are

41:45 ↗ publicly owned uh by the residents of

41:48 ↗ that community. Um, a joint use

41:49 ↗ agreement allows for a much more

41:51 ↗ cost-effective way to deliver services

41:53 ↗ and programs both uh the school district

41:56 ↗ as well as the city uh running um

41:59 ↗ running programs. Um and lastly uh the

42:03 ↗ properties are made available to the

42:05 ↗ other agency as a first priority um

42:07 ↗ after scheduling uh for its own programs

42:10 ↗ and services um have been met. So

42:13 ↗ tremendous efficiencies

42:18 ↗ and as I look at the background I think

42:20 ↗ we can see that as a testament here in

42:22 ↗ Isiqua. We've had a current joint use

42:24 ↗ agreement um and the current joint use

42:26 ↗ agreement has been in place uh since

42:28 ↗ 2003. Um uh so we have a great history

42:32 ↗ in working with the school district. Um

42:34 ↗ we also uh recognized it was time uh to

42:37 ↗ review and and likely update uh this

42:39 ↗ joint use agreement. Uh so in April of

42:42 ↗ 2024

42:44 ↗ uh those of you council members who were

42:46 ↗ uh here at the time uh will recall we

42:48 ↗ had a joint meeting between the school

42:50 ↗ board and the Isqua city council that

42:51 ↗ April. Uh this was a topic uh that

42:54 ↗ myself and Martin Turney uh presented as

42:56 ↗ an opportunity to uh pursue a renewal.

43:00 ↗ Um we got some great um um feedback um a

43:03 ↗ great discussion uh by both council and

43:05 ↗ school board that really helped to set

43:08 ↗ uh the course um uh for that uh for that

43:11 ↗ work. Uh so we began that in earnest in

43:13 ↗ 2024 and 2025. A lot of great staff work

43:17 ↗ um happened. Um a new framework to a new

43:20 ↗ draft was created. Um fast forward a bit

43:24 ↗ to to early 2026.

43:26 ↗ uh school boards, our school board,

43:28 ↗ school district staff uh joined me uh at

43:31 ↗ a parkboard meeting in January uh where

43:33 ↗ we presented u the the framework of that

43:36 ↗ draft. Um Parkboard unanimous

43:39 ↗ unanimously supported uh moving forward

43:41 ↗ with that. Um later uh this year uh in

43:46 ↗ April uh another joint meeting between

43:48 ↗ the school board and the city council

43:50 ↗ occurred. Um, at that meeting, um, I

43:53 ↗ unfortunately wasn't able to attend, but

43:55 ↗ I know school district staff provided an

43:56 ↗ update on where, uh, that agreement was

44:00 ↗ was at. Um, not on this timeline because

44:03 ↗ it happened so recently, forgive me,

44:05 ↗ but, uh, just last Thursday, um, on June

44:08 ↗ 25th, um, I had the chance to present at

44:11 ↗ the school board meeting. Um uh my

44:14 ↗ presentation focused not only on the

44:16 ↗ park bond renewal but also the

44:18 ↗ importance and the relationship that

44:19 ↗ park bond renewal has uh with this joint

44:22 ↗ use agreement. Um very very positive

44:24 ↗ feedback from the school board on both

44:26 ↗ of those items. I'm going I'm going to

44:28 ↗ provide a little bit more um of an

44:30 ↗ update a couple slides from now under um

44:33 ↗ under next steps.

44:39 ↗ But first, uh, just to highlight, uh,

44:42 ↗ really some of the the the primary

44:44 ↗ additions, um, and changes, uh, to the

44:46 ↗ joint use agreement. Um, and I really

44:48 ↗ put these in in two pretty, uh,

44:51 ↗ prominent categories. Uh, the first

44:53 ↗ significant change has to do with

44:54 ↗ scheduling, um, and access. Um, what

44:57 ↗ we've done in this updated agreement is

44:59 ↗ further clarify uh, the process for

45:02 ↗ scheduling and and that coordination. uh

45:04 ↗ so much of this joint use agreement and

45:06 ↗ really the the implementation of this

45:09 ↗ joint use agreement is done very much at

45:11 ↗ a frontline staff level. So it was a

45:14 ↗ very important in this um update to

45:17 ↗ clarify the process and understand how

45:20 ↗ different facilities are scheduled uh

45:22 ↗ should require a different or

45:24 ↗ understanding of a different scheduling

45:26 ↗ process. So, uh, we broke down different

45:29 ↗ ways that, uh, that scheduling

45:30 ↗ partnering would happen with gymnasiums,

45:33 ↗ uh, with fields and and city parks, uh,

45:36 ↗ with the Julius Bone Pool, uh, with the

45:38 ↗ Israel High School Performing Arts

45:40 ↗ Center. Um, again, all important public

45:43 ↗ assets, but all have a a little

45:45 ↗ different scheduling mechanism. So, uh,

45:48 ↗ this update has really, um, I think I

45:51 ↗ think modernized our approach, um, and

45:53 ↗ laid out a a good framework, um, as

45:55 ↗ opposed to the 2003 plan. In that

45:58 ↗ regard, another key element in addition

46:00 ↗ to this joint use agreement is

46:02 ↗ establishing, um, a process for possible

46:05 ↗ joint capital projects and programs. Not

46:07 ↗ just talking about it, but laying out in

46:10 ↗ uh, this plan a methodology for what

46:12 ↗ that would look like. Um and that could

46:15 ↗ include joint capital projects uh such

46:17 ↗ as athletic fields um like community

46:19 ↗ sports fields at elementary schools uh

46:22 ↗ that might be uh in our future. um would

46:24 ↗ also create a mechanism for um joint

46:28 ↗ capital projects around uh additional

46:30 ↗ pool capacity um or any other um capital

46:33 ↗ uh projects or programs that might

46:35 ↗ become available where the the joint use

46:37 ↗ agreement doesn't try and define every

46:39 ↗ single one of those that might happen in

46:41 ↗ the future. But it creates a process

46:43 ↗ which in which addendum agreements would

46:46 ↗ be uh created for each of those capital

46:48 ↗ projects that would then spell out the

46:50 ↗ specifics of how is it funded, how is it

46:53 ↗ being built, how is it going to be

46:54 ↗ maintained, um what are the roles and

46:57 ↗ responsibilities of each agency within

46:59 ↗ that um that capital project or um or

47:02 ↗ program. So a a a great um tool and

47:06 ↗ mechanism that this joint use agreement

47:08 ↗ um could serve for many years to come.

47:13 ↗ So, some next steps. Um, and again,

47:16 ↗ forgive me. I I should have updated this

47:18 ↗ uh from from last Thursday. Um um before

47:21 ↗ I jump into these next steps, um should

47:24 ↗ um should you authorize mayor to to to

47:26 ↗ enter into this agreement? Um um we also

47:29 ↗ need the school board uh to to enter

47:32 ↗ into this uh agreement. So, like any

47:34 ↗ joint use agreement, we're coordinating

47:36 ↗ the adoption authorization of of each um

47:40 ↗ of each agency. Um the next school board

47:43 ↗ meeting is on August 13th. Uh the school

47:46 ↗ board is scheduled to adopt um and

47:48 ↗ authorize the this agreement that

47:50 ↗ evening. Um, at the the Thursday, June

47:53 ↗ 25th meeting that I attended, uh,

47:56 ↗ following my presentation, uh, Wall-Ally

47:58 ↗ and I were provided an update uh by the

48:01 ↗ school district staff on, uh, the

48:03 ↗ discussions they've had with the school

48:04 ↗ board. Uh, they were very positive, very

48:07 ↗ happy to report that, uh, the school

48:09 ↗ board has no, uh, programmatic questions

48:12 ↗ or concerns about the the joint use

48:14 ↗ agreement. Uh, there were a couple of

48:17 ↗ um, more legal questions that they're

48:20 ↗ running down. they uh school board staff

48:22 ↗ running down with their legal team. Um

48:24 ↗ I've updated Rachel Turpin, our city

48:26 ↗ attorney um as to those discussions. Uh

48:29 ↗ we will work through those. Um a lot of

48:32 ↗ those legal questions had to do with

48:33 ↗ some language around indemnification

48:36 ↗ um as well as some language around uh

48:39 ↗ dispute resolution. But again more

48:41 ↗ technical um what we've we've learned is

48:44 ↗ there is um tremendous support from the

48:47 ↗ school board uh for all the programmatic

48:49 ↗ elements of uh the joint use agreement.

48:52 ↗ Uh so with that said, uh following um

48:55 ↗ that key next step of both agencies

48:57 ↗ authorizing the joint use agreement, um

49:00 ↗ this fall, uh we would um jump straight

49:03 ↗ into implementation and operationalizing

49:06 ↗ uh this agreement at a staff level uh

49:08 ↗ between both agencies. Um and then um

49:12 ↗ later this winter uh should there be a

49:14 ↗ potential park bond put on the ballot

49:16 ↗ and should voters um approve that uh we

49:19 ↗ would begin working this winter on

49:21 ↗ entering um into addendum agreements uh

49:24 ↗ for each of those community sports field

49:27 ↗ uh projects.

49:32 ↗ So options before you tonight um um as

49:37 ↗ administration recommends the first

49:38 ↗ option is to approve the motion and

49:40 ↗ authorize the mayor to enter into that

49:42 ↗ agreement. Um uh another option uh

49:45 ↗ should you not want to do that is refer

49:48 ↗ uh this agenda bill to service of safety

49:49 ↗ and parks committee for more discussion.

49:52 ↗ Um, another option you would have is,

49:54 ↗ um, if you don't support this is, um,

49:57 ↗ not updating the joint use agreement and

49:58 ↗ continuing with the 2003 joint use

50:01 ↗ agreement that we have in place right

50:03 ↗ now.

50:06 ↗ But with that, our recommendation is

50:08 ↗ that you authorize the mayor to enter

50:09 ↗ into this uh, agreement. Um and again as

50:13 ↗ you see the language there uh provided

50:16 ↗ um that uh the parties um may make re

50:19 ↗ revisions that not substantially change

50:21 ↗ the terms um of that agreement um or

50:24 ↗ change any of the programmatic terms um

50:26 ↗ if approved by the city attorney. So

50:28 ↗ with that, thank you very much. I'm

50:29 ↗ available for questions.

50:32 ↗ >> Council member,

50:33 ↗ >> uh yeah, I had a couple questions. Um so

50:35 ↗ for the scheduling updates that you did

50:38 ↗ um what were there were can you explain

50:40 ↗ a little bit like maybe what some of the

50:41 ↗ problems were with the current agreement

50:43 ↗ in terms of that um as well as in the

50:46 ↗ updated versions did we get any like

50:48 ↗ more access to things or anything that

50:50 ↗ happened there?

50:52 ↗ >> Yeah, great great questions. Yeah, I

50:54 ↗ would say um operationally what we a a

50:57 ↗ couple things we recognized as

50:59 ↗ challenges in the in the prior

51:00 ↗ agreement. Um, one um it it didn't

51:05 ↗ differentiate between a scheduling

51:07 ↗ process for say the performing arts

51:10 ↗ center uh from scheduling um a gym. Um

51:14 ↗ it um um didn't have a a a a mechanism

51:19 ↗ in place on how to most efficiently

51:22 ↗ schedule the variety of of again public

51:25 ↗ assets that both we manage and the

51:27 ↗ school district manages. Um, another u

51:30 ↗ reality of that 2003 agreement that we

51:33 ↗ wanted to address um was financial um

51:36 ↗ and that the prior agreement had the

51:37 ↗ city paying for half of a full-time

51:40 ↗ staff person of the school district, a

51:42 ↗ facility scheduler. Um and so uh through

51:46 ↗ uh this work and through this update uh

51:48 ↗ we felt that was important uh given um

51:52 ↗ again I think the important roles that

51:53 ↗ we both play in managing our own

51:55 ↗ facilities that we should no longer pay

51:57 ↗ for half of a school district staff.

52:02 ↗ >> Fantastic. And then my other question

52:03 ↗ was will those will that scheduling

52:06 ↗ agreement apply to the potential new cap

52:09 ↗ fields that we might make or will a new

52:12 ↗ agreement need to make for those

52:13 ↗ specifically?

52:15 ↗ >> So a new interlocal agreement wouldn't

52:17 ↗ need to be made. The mechanism for those

52:19 ↗ capital projects would be an addendum

52:21 ↗ agreement would be created. That

52:22 ↗ addendum would be an attachment to this

52:24 ↗ interlocal. That addendum will spell out

52:27 ↗ um how those fields will be maintained

52:29 ↗ and scheduled. what I shared with the

52:32 ↗ school board and what I I've shared uh

52:34 ↗ with with you all and the park board in

52:36 ↗ prior agreements and been very clear

52:37 ↗ with school district staff is it would

52:40 ↗ be our goal that through um again should

52:43 ↗ should a bond be approved should we be

52:47 ↗ entering into an addendum agreement with

52:49 ↗ um those elementary school fields the

52:52 ↗ city would be the funer of the project

52:55 ↗ we would be the maintainer and the city

52:57 ↗ would be the scheduler um of those

52:59 ↗ fields and So, um that addendum

53:02 ↗ mechanism allows those elementary school

53:04 ↗ fields um that the city would be

53:06 ↗ investing in to be managed and scheduled

53:08 ↗ differently um than uh some of the other

53:11 ↗ existing fields. I hope that helps.

53:15 ↗ >> Council member Nichols,

53:18 ↗ >> thank you. Um some follow-up questions

53:20 ↗ on that addendum and the on the

53:22 ↗ scheduling piece in particular. Uh so

53:24 ↗ I'd emailed you on this before. You gave

53:25 ↗ a a great answer at the time. My

53:27 ↗ question was basically um we have as a

53:30 ↗ city different policies on how we allow

53:33 ↗ access to our our outdoor facilities in

53:35 ↗ general versus many of the school

53:36 ↗ facilities. A lot of the newer school

53:38 ↗ facilities, their turf facilities in

53:40 ↗ particular, oftentimes have access fees

53:42 ↗ associated with them. And my my hope was

53:44 ↗ that we would be able to control this as

53:46 ↗ a city and not have publicly funded

53:49 ↗ fields, require access fees.

53:52 ↗ scheduling for big events and uh sports

53:54 ↗ aside, individual being able to access

53:56 ↗ those fields at any time, I think is

53:58 ↗ something that most of us expect out of

53:59 ↗ our parks. Um has did that discussion

54:03 ↗ proceed any further? Do you I don't

54:05 ↗ think there's anything new in this

54:06 ↗ agreement as is, but you must have

54:08 ↗ discussed the addendums that you'll

54:10 ↗ follow up with this in more detail. And

54:12 ↗ do you have any more um detail that you

54:15 ↗ can share on that topic?

54:17 ↗ >> Yeah, I I believe so. If I'm following

54:19 ↗ your question, um, pertaining to

54:23 ↗ existing school district fields at the

54:25 ↗ middle school or high school and how

54:27 ↗ they manage them, this interlocal Oh,

54:30 ↗ >> oh, sorry. No, I I don't mean that. I

54:32 ↗ mean the the ones that this bond will

54:34 ↗ fund. Okay. If this bond is to fund new

54:36 ↗ things, will we be will will the city be

54:38 ↗ able to set its policies on public

54:40 ↗ access, not for existing fields that the

54:43 ↗ schools already own?

54:44 ↗ >> Thank you, Council Member Nichols. Yes.

54:46 ↗ Yes. the addendum agreement. This the

54:49 ↗ framework of this agreement as well as

54:50 ↗ the addendum agreement would give us the

54:52 ↗ ability to set scheduling um parameters

54:57 ↗ um very clearly and very differently uh

54:59 ↗ to allow public use um of those um

55:04 ↗ elementary school community sports

55:05 ↗ fields to function just as a

55:07 ↗ neighborhood park would um after after

55:10 ↗ school hours. Obviously during school

55:12 ↗ hours, um it would it would be serving

55:14 ↗ its primary purpose as a as a school

55:17 ↗ amenity. Uh but after school, evenings,

55:20 ↗ weekends, uh summer hours, uh those

55:23 ↗ community sports fields would be managed

55:25 ↗ and function just like a sports field

55:27 ↗ would in any one of our neighborhood or

55:29 ↗ community parks. Okay. Thank you. Yo,

55:36 ↗ >> thank you, director, for all of your

55:38 ↗ work on this uh agreement. Appreciate

55:42 ↗ it. Um, you brought up the um performing

55:46 ↗ arts center. I had a couple of questions

55:48 ↗ about that. Um, we have, um, supported

55:52 ↗ in the past through our ELTAC grants and

55:54 ↗ other funding the film festival and the

55:58 ↗ Nutcracker event. Um uh I have heard

56:01 ↗ some challenges with scheduling uh with

56:04 ↗ the school district in the past. Could

56:06 ↗ you comment on how this agreement will

56:09 ↗ help smooth that scheduling over should

56:11 ↗ it be adopted?

56:12 ↗ >> Yeah, absolutely. Thank you for the

56:14 ↗ question. Um Amy Dukes, our arts

56:16 ↗ manager, still in the audience. Um Amy

56:18 ↗ played a key role in uh framing up what

56:22 ↗ that performing arts scheduling se

56:23 ↗ section looks like um and how uh we want

56:27 ↗ to administer it. Um yes, I expect it to

56:31 ↗ um address some of the challenges that

56:32 ↗ we saw from some prior years uh where um

56:37 ↗ it became very very hard for community

56:39 ↗ groups to access that site. So the

56:41 ↗ intent of this interlocal agreement is

56:43 ↗ um in many ways the arts manager um Amy

56:47 ↗ would uh serve as facilitator uh for um

56:51 ↗ any community groups that are interested

56:53 ↗ whether we're funding them through ELTAC

56:55 ↗ or through arts grants. Um uh but be

56:58 ↗ that um public that cityside conduit

57:01 ↗ that would work directly with um school

57:04 ↗ district administration, not just um the

57:07 ↗ arts director of the community um um the

57:11 ↗ performing arts center uh but work with

57:13 ↗ district staff um um setting a and I

57:17 ↗ don't have the the schedule dates

57:19 ↗ memorized but we were very specific in

57:22 ↗ amount of time and lead time that we

57:24 ↗ want uh to have schedules confirmed. Uh

57:28 ↗ we also recognize um and put in place um

57:32 ↗ operationally that um there are large

57:35 ↗ when there's large regional community

57:37 ↗ events requested, there will be a a

57:39 ↗ large uh lead time uh that we will want

57:42 ↗ and expect. And I would say even as

57:44 ↗ we've been negotiating this new new

57:46 ↗ agreement, um it's been encouraging to

57:48 ↗ see um um at the same time we've been

57:52 ↗ finalizing this uh the approach the

57:54 ↗ district's taken to the performing arts

57:55 ↗ center the last couple of months has

57:57 ↗ greatly improved and in seeing the film

57:59 ↗ festival there for the very first time,

58:01 ↗ seeing the Nutcracker performance uh

58:03 ↗ there in December, I think the school

58:05 ↗ district has also seen the value and the

58:07 ↗ benefits uh that an agreement like this

58:10 ↗ and cooperating uh in public use of that

58:13 ↗ will will be a big benefit. So,

58:16 ↗ >> okay. So, um if the school district

58:19 ↗ approves this in August and we approve

58:21 ↗ this this evening, um will I have your

58:24 ↗ assurances that we'll have enough lead

58:27 ↗ time to get those November and December

58:29 ↗ events uh smoothed out and uh scheduled?

58:33 ↗ >> Yes, I believe Amy's already working on

58:35 ↗ getting dates set for Nutcracker. Um and

58:39 ↗ those are are well underway. So, I think

58:42 ↗ the film festival may have been moved to

58:43 ↗ January, right? The film festival, I

58:45 ↗ think they're doing January now.

58:46 ↗ >> Yes. Yes. Correct.

58:51 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you very much, Jeff. Uh, is

58:54 ↗ there any other council

58:57 ↗ discussion or questions on the inter Oh,

59:00 ↗ council member boy

59:02 ↗ >> a really specific question about the um

59:04 ↗ e house and it's okay if I can send it

59:06 ↗ in writing afterwards cuz I didn't give

59:07 ↗ you a heads up, but um the do the

59:09 ↗ renovations include any part of the

59:12 ↗ landscaping on the outside? I've heard

59:14 ↗ uh just one uh community member very

59:16 ↗ interested in I think there's some rose

59:17 ↗ bushes maybe around it that they're

59:20 ↗ interested in preserving. your one

59:21 ↗ agenda by your one agenda bill item.

59:24 ↗ >> So sorry, never mind.

59:27 ↗ >> I'll hold that to the I'll hold that

59:29 ↗ answer.

59:31 ↗ >> Uh okay. On the interlocal agreement

59:35 ↗ if there's

59:37 ↗ no further council discussion, is there

59:38 ↗ a motion? Council President Marks.

59:40 ↗ >> Mr. Mr. Mayor, I move to authorize the

59:42 ↗ mayor to enter into the updated

59:43 ↗ interlocal agreement for joint use in

59:45 ↗ development of facilities, programs,

59:47 ↗ maintenance, and operations between the

59:49 ↗ Isiqua school district and the city of

59:50 ↗ Isiqua in substantially the same form as

59:52 ↗ the attached agreement exhibit A,

59:54 ↗ provided the parties may make revisions

59:56 ↗ that do not substantially change the

59:58 ↗ terms of the attached agreement or

59:59 ↗ change the programmatic terms of the

1:00:01 ↗ agreement if approved by the city

1:00:02 ↗ attorney.

1:00:04 ↗ >> Second.

1:00:05 ↗ >> Okay, there's been a motion and a

1:00:07 ↗ second. Uh, Council Member Walsh.

1:00:11 ↗ Thank you. Um

1:00:14 ↗ I'm kind of disappointed

1:00:16 ↗ that the addendum for the special

1:00:19 ↗ circumstances isn't coming through at

1:00:21 ↗ this point. Um, I understand the special

1:00:25 ↗ circumstances where the city might make

1:00:26 ↗ a capital investment and how that

1:00:28 ↗ changes uh scheduling priorities because

1:00:31 ↗ that was really what was important um in

1:00:35 ↗ going forward with the idea of going to

1:00:38 ↗ the community and saying that yes, we

1:00:41 ↗ have an interlocal agreement that will

1:00:45 ↗ substantially change and make sure that

1:00:49 ↗ the funds that the community puts into

1:00:52 ↗ place means that these facilities um

1:00:55 ↗ will have much more public access than

1:00:58 ↗ the current um school facilities do. Um

1:01:04 ↗ so I I want to put that out there. I I

1:01:07 ↗ want to make sure that that is a

1:01:09 ↗ priority and that

1:01:12 ↗ I don't think the community should wait

1:01:15 ↗ until after a park bond is potentially

1:01:18 ↗ approved

1:01:20 ↗ to know what the details are on that. I

1:01:23 ↗ appreciate your assurance that everybody

1:01:25 ↗ says that the idea is we're going to

1:01:29 ↗ have priority for scheduling and that

1:01:32 ↗ the public will be able to engage this.

1:01:34 ↗ But words on paper um in that case

1:01:37 ↗ really matter. Um so I'm a little bit

1:01:39 ↗ disappointed in that. Um that being

1:01:42 ↗ said, I do appreciate all of the efforts

1:01:44 ↗ to modernize this. I did read over the

1:01:48 ↗ um improvements to scheduling for

1:01:52 ↗ um the

1:01:54 ↗ um facilities um that the uh school

1:01:58 ↗ district currently has. And so I I

1:02:00 ↗ appreciate that. I appreciate that we

1:02:01 ↗ are no longer paying half of the salary

1:02:04 ↗ of a scheduler for facilities that we

1:02:06 ↗ are not gaining access to. Um, and that

1:02:09 ↗ this is an improvement over the 2003

1:02:11 ↗ version. So, I will be supporting this

1:02:12 ↗ tonight. Um, but I do want to hear back

1:02:15 ↗ that we are going to have it as a

1:02:18 ↗ priority to get that addendum pulled

1:02:21 ↗ together so that the community knows

1:02:23 ↗ that their investments um, if they so

1:02:26 ↗ choose are have an agreement behind them

1:02:29 ↗ that provide them access.

1:02:31 ↗ >> And then Jeeoff, correct me if I'm

1:02:33 ↗ wrong, but part of our challenge is the

1:02:35 ↗ addendum for Clark is different than the

1:02:37 ↗ addendum for IBE. It's different than

1:02:39 ↗ the addendum at Grand Ridge because

1:02:40 ↗ they'll use their fields for different

1:02:43 ↗ hours after school. Is that correct or

1:02:45 ↗ >> Yeah, all all three of these will be

1:02:48 ↗ separate addendum agreements. I I I I

1:02:50 ↗ hear you. Um but I I know attending the

1:02:53 ↗ school board meeting Thursday night um

1:02:56 ↗ and presenting specifically on the

1:02:58 ↗ framework of those community sports

1:02:59 ↗ fields and talking directly through our

1:03:02 ↗ expectation and hope and and hearing the

1:03:04 ↗ positive feedback, extremely positive

1:03:06 ↗ feedback. Um, thank you. I I I hear you.

1:03:09 ↗ It will be a priority. Um Um, and it's I

1:03:14 ↗ stand with a a high degree of certainty

1:03:16 ↗ that there is high mutual support for

1:03:19 ↗ getting this done.

1:03:22 ↗ >> Deputy President Jay,

1:03:23 ↗ >> um, do you have an estimate on the

1:03:25 ↗ timeline for getting those addendum

1:03:27 ↗ agreements done at this point?

1:03:31 ↗ >> Uh,

1:03:32 ↗ no. Soon as soon as soon as possible.

1:03:36 ↗ But would it be before the park bond

1:03:38 ↗ goes to the voters in November?

1:03:40 ↗ >> It would be either somewhere right in

1:03:43 ↗ that time frame or or shortly after.

1:03:45 ↗ Again, I hard to hard to lay down a

1:03:49 ↗ timeline when it's two agencies. Um I I

1:03:53 ↗ don't know what their timeline is.

1:03:55 ↗ >> Yeah, totally understand.

1:03:56 ↗ >> Work will begin in earnest. Right.

1:04:00 ↗ >> Council President Marts.

1:04:03 ↗ Well, I'm excited about the possibility

1:04:05 ↗ of this agreement. Um, I feel like at

1:04:08 ↗ least a few times a year

1:04:11 ↗ folks in the community who do not

1:04:13 ↗ understand that the city of Isiqua and

1:04:15 ↗ the Isiqua school district are two

1:04:18 ↗ separate governmental organizations that

1:04:21 ↗ um only share the word Isiqua. And you

1:04:25 ↗ know, other than that, they're they

1:04:26 ↗ they're completely different and with

1:04:29 ↗ different operating models. And uh but

1:04:32 ↗ yet these are the two um entities of

1:04:35 ↗ government that many folks in our

1:04:37 ↗ community have the most interaction

1:04:38 ↗ with, right? Like you're not out in a

1:04:40 ↗ sailboat dodging a missile submarine or

1:04:42 ↗ whatever. So, you know, you don't you

1:04:44 ↗ don't deal with the federal government

1:04:45 ↗ all that much. Um, so it's really

1:04:47 ↗ important that our two uh governmental

1:04:51 ↗ organizations interact in ways that

1:04:54 ↗ benefit the community, the ways in ways

1:04:56 ↗ that stretch dollars best for the

1:04:59 ↗ community, provide services best for the

1:05:02 ↗ community, and it is not always thus.

1:05:05 ↗ Um, so this is uh this is an important

1:05:07 ↗ step forward and I hope that we will

1:05:10 ↗ continue to find creative opportunities

1:05:12 ↗ um to leverage both our best assets and

1:05:15 ↗ the school district's best assets going

1:05:17 ↗ forward. Thank you.

1:05:19 ↗ >> Has the federal government trying to

1:05:20 ↗ shoot down your boat lately?

1:05:22 ↗ >> I I see I I see out of the way of the

1:05:24 ↗ ballistic missile subs when I am uh

1:05:26 ↗ transiting Hood Canal.

1:05:29 ↗ >> Council member Nichols. Um, on that

1:05:31 ↗ note, um, I echo the, uh, the excitement

1:05:36 ↗ that Council President Martz um, offered

1:05:39 ↗ on this. I I would really like to see

1:05:40 ↗ our our schools and our municipality,

1:05:44 ↗ uh, working together however we possibly

1:05:45 ↗ can. Uh, we have the same people in many

1:05:48 ↗ cases paying for the same types of

1:05:49 ↗ things. Um, and if we can reduce

1:05:51 ↗ duplication and find ways to synergize

1:05:53 ↗ and make everything work better, this is

1:05:55 ↗ all great. So, I really, really applaud

1:05:57 ↗ this effort. Um, I I will take I will

1:06:01 ↗ use a slightly different word um than

1:06:04 ↗ Council Member Walsh did as far as being

1:06:06 ↗ disappointed about the addendum. I'm I'm

1:06:08 ↗ not disappointed per se. I think I'm

1:06:10 ↗ more anxious. Um

1:06:13 ↗ because I think it is it I'll I'll

1:06:15 ↗ express also that this is a key aspect

1:06:17 ↗ of this agreement to go well for me. Um,

1:06:21 ↗ I think in this case though, we we

1:06:24 ↗ really have to just trust that you folks

1:06:26 ↗ will be able to negotiate this and get

1:06:28 ↗ it done. Um, and I don't want to get in

1:06:30 ↗ the way of that and say that even though

1:06:32 ↗ I'm nervous about this, I want to have

1:06:33 ↗ that done first because I think we will

1:06:35 ↗ just not get it at all. And I think that

1:06:36 ↗ would be a great shame. So, please, um,

1:06:39 ↗ you know, understand our anxiousness,

1:06:41 ↗ but also appreciate our, you know, our

1:06:43 ↗ our trust in you to to get this get this

1:06:45 ↗ signed in a way that will be maximally

1:06:48 ↗ beneficial to all of us. And I

1:06:49 ↗ appreciate negotiations are always hard,

1:06:51 ↗ uh, no matter what they are. Um, and I

1:06:54 ↗ imagine negotiations between two

1:06:56 ↗ government agencies can't be any easier

1:06:58 ↗ than any other type of negotiation I'm

1:07:00 ↗ familiar with. So, uh, I appreciate the

1:07:02 ↗ difficulty and, um, please also just if

1:07:04 ↗ you can keep us updated along the way

1:07:06 ↗ and let us know if there's anything that

1:07:07 ↗ we can do to help. Right.

1:07:09 ↗ >> Council member Joe.

1:07:12 ↗ >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh I'm a little

1:07:13 ↗ nostalgic because I was on council in

1:07:16 ↗ 2003 when we first approved this

1:07:19 ↗ agreement and uh it was with great

1:07:21 ↗ optimism that we were going to have the

1:07:24 ↗ opportunity to share facilities and um

1:07:27 ↗ hopefully have a

1:07:30 ↗ scheduler in the schools that could help

1:07:32 ↗ coordinate uh those activities. Uh it's

1:07:36 ↗ not often that in my time on council

1:07:38 ↗ I've had an opportunity to take a piece

1:07:40 ↗ of legislation and make it better uh 23

1:07:44 ↗ years later. So I'm quite pleased to be

1:07:46 ↗ able to do that. I'm quite optimistic

1:07:48 ↗ that we will be able to have better

1:07:50 ↗ coordination with our arts groups and

1:07:52 ↗ our groups that want to come in and use

1:07:54 ↗ the uh performing arts center. It's a

1:07:56 ↗ wonderful facility. 600 seat capacity

1:08:00 ↗ and um modern sound now, modern sound

1:08:04 ↗ board. Uh the acoustics are great in

1:08:06 ↗ there now and we need to use it as a

1:08:08 ↗ community asset for all the groups that

1:08:11 ↗ want to come in and show uh the great

1:08:14 ↗ depth and um uh richness of our cultural

1:08:20 ↗ heritage and our cultural groups here in

1:08:21 ↗ Esqua. So, I'm quite excited to support

1:08:24 ↗ this this evening. Thank you.

1:08:27 ↗ For those in the audience doing math,

1:08:29 ↗ how a young gentleman like council

1:08:30 ↗ member Joe could have been on the

1:08:31 ↗ council in 2003. He was 12 years old at

1:08:33 ↗ that point in time. The youngest council

1:08:34 ↗ member in America. Uh okay. No further

1:08:38 ↗ discussion. The motion for the council

1:08:40 ↗ is to authorize the mayor to enter into

1:08:41 ↗ the updated interlocal agreement for

1:08:43 ↗ joint use development of facilities,

1:08:44 ↗ programs, maintenance, and operations

1:08:46 ↗ between the Isqua school district and

1:08:47 ↗ the city of Isqua in substantially the

1:08:49 ↗ same form as the attached agreement

1:08:50 ↗ exhibit A. provided the parties may make

1:08:52 ↗ revisions that do not substantially

1:08:53 ↗ change the terms of the attached

1:08:54 ↗ agreement or change programmatic terms

1:08:56 ↗ of the agreement if approved by our city

1:08:58 ↗ attorney Rachel who's very wise. Uh all

1:09:02 ↗ those in favor please say I.

1:09:04 ↗ >> I.

1:09:06 ↗ >> All those opposed? Nay. And that passes

1:09:10 ↗ unanimously.

1:09:11 ↗ Okay, we're getting into Council Member

1:09:13 ↗ Boyd's next question. Agenda Bill 9193

1:09:15 ↗ Park Bond renewal November general

1:09:17 ↗ election ballot item. Jeff, it's still

1:09:20 ↗ yours.

1:09:21 ↗ >> Thank you, mayor. Hello again. Still

1:09:23 ↗ Jeff.

1:09:25 ↗ >> At least now you know how to work the

1:09:26 ↗ clicker.

1:09:27 ↗ >> What's that? And I hear Jeff knows how

1:09:29 ↗ to work the clicker now.

1:09:32 ↗ >> Yes. An improved Jeff. Yes. All right.

1:09:34 ↗ Thank you. Uh purpose and recommendation

1:09:37 ↗ uh for this item is to present and to

1:09:40 ↗ seek council authorization uh for a park

1:09:42 ↗ bond renewal to go to voters on the

1:09:44 ↗ November 3rd general election. Um,

1:09:47 ↗ administration recommends that the

1:09:48 ↗ council adopt uh the attached ballot

1:09:51 ↗ ordinance uh placing a park bond renewal

1:09:53 ↗ request uh for funding for the

1:09:55 ↗ identified projects uh before I is

1:09:58 ↗ voters um on the November 3rd ballot.

1:10:03 ↗ My intent of the presentation tonight,

1:10:04 ↗ we've talked a lot. I want to thank you

1:10:06 ↗ council for a lot of the conversations

1:10:08 ↗ that we've had over the over the last

1:10:10 ↗ couple of months. um they've really

1:10:12 ↗ helped to uh to shape. I don't intend to

1:10:15 ↗ go over all of those items that we

1:10:17 ↗ discussed, but trying to provide some

1:10:19 ↗ quick some quick background, some

1:10:21 ↗ context, and really um get into your uh

1:10:24 ↗ discussion. Um but as to background, um

1:10:28 ↗ voter approved Bark B park bonds um have

1:10:31 ↗ been a primary uh funding tool uh used

1:10:34 ↗ for capital projects here in Isiqua uh

1:10:36 ↗ within our parks and trail system. Um,

1:10:39 ↗ ISCU has used this tool significantly.

1:10:41 ↗ Um, and most recently, um, in 2006, uh,

1:10:45 ↗ when voters approved a $6.25 million,

1:10:48 ↗ uh, bond measure. Um, and then again in

1:10:50 ↗ 2013, uh, voters approved a $10 million,

1:10:55 ↗ uh, park bond, uh, measure. Um, a

1:10:57 ↗ portion of these park bonds are retiring

1:11:00 ↗ um, at the end of this year. Um, with

1:11:03 ↗ Mayor Mullet's leadership, um, we he

1:11:07 ↗ made it a priority, uh, to explore, uh,

1:11:10 ↗ renewing uh, these expiring, retiring,

1:11:13 ↗ uh, park bonds, um, uh, to see if we

1:11:16 ↗ want to make, um, additional priority

1:11:19 ↗ um, investments into our parks and

1:11:20 ↗ trails uh, that would not uh, currently

1:11:23 ↗ be feasible to fund um, right now.

1:11:27 ↗ Thank you, Mayor Mullet, for having us

1:11:30 ↗ explore this

1:11:32 ↗ in that exploration. Uh we began a lot

1:11:35 ↗ of work um and discussion not only with

1:11:40 ↗ council.

1:11:43 ↗ Uh oh,

1:11:52 ↗ back I go. There we go.

1:11:55 ↗ uh a lot of discussions with um your

1:11:57 ↗ park board, with our park board. Um over

1:12:01 ↗ uh um four separate um conversations we

1:12:05 ↗ had with the park board, we really began

1:12:07 ↗ to um look foundationally at the adopted

1:12:11 ↗ uh 2024 park system plan. Um as I've

1:12:14 ↗ shared with you before, um a lot of

1:12:17 ↗ public engagement went into that park

1:12:18 ↗ plan update. Um specifically around um

1:12:22 ↗ reinvesting into the park system. Um,

1:12:25 ↗ for those familiar with that 2024 park

1:12:27 ↗ plan, one of the foundational elements

1:12:29 ↗ of that is to identify not only priority

1:12:32 ↗ projects, but prioritize them as

1:12:34 ↗ near-term, midterm or long-term

1:12:36 ↗ priorities. Um, it was those near-term

1:12:38 ↗ priorities that really became the

1:12:40 ↗ foundation uh for projects that we might

1:12:42 ↗ consider for this park bond renewal. Um,

1:12:45 ↗ so again, um, these projects uh were did

1:12:49 ↗ not come out of thin air. They really

1:12:50 ↗ came out of previous community

1:12:52 ↗ engagement. um and priority projects and

1:12:56 ↗ investments uh that the community's

1:12:58 ↗ identified.

1:13:00 ↗ Um uh along with those discussions uh

1:13:03 ↗ with the park board um on the May 18th

1:13:05 ↗ park board meeting uh they the park

1:13:07 ↗ board uh made a recommendation uh

1:13:10 ↗ unanimously seeking and and recommending

1:13:12 ↗ for you council uh to move ahead and

1:13:15 ↗ place this uh park bond renewal on uh

1:13:19 ↗ the November ballot. Um um you'll see in

1:13:22 ↗ my staff report um um the specifics of

1:13:25 ↗ that recommendation. Uh they had a

1:13:27 ↗ second point to that recommendation of

1:13:29 ↗ not only proceeding with the the park

1:13:32 ↗ bond at the renewal rate which is 8

1:13:34 ↗ cents per 10,000 uh which would not

1:13:36 ↗ represent a um funding increase uh for

1:13:41 ↗ um property owners. They also asked that

1:13:44 ↗ uh the city continue to to reactivate uh

1:13:47 ↗ the pool advisory committee uh so that

1:13:50 ↗ uh the idea the concept the priority of

1:13:54 ↗ um expansion of the Julius bone pool

1:13:56 ↗ though not on this ballot measure remain

1:13:58 ↗ um a conversation with the community as

1:14:00 ↗ we try and explore ways uh to fund that

1:14:03 ↗ needed priority as well.

1:14:06 ↗ Uh following the city council retreat,

1:14:09 ↗ the discussion we had on May 9th, uh you

1:14:11 ↗ asked that we um have a public meeting.

1:14:13 ↗ Uh we had a public meeting scheduled and

1:14:15 ↗ followed through with that um June 2nd

1:14:17 ↗ at Pickering Barn. Um again a

1:14:21 ↗ overwhelmingly positive feedback um as

1:14:23 ↗ to uh the purpose of this bond renewal

1:14:26 ↗ and also the the bundle of of projects

1:14:32 ↗ along with that all that community

1:14:34 ↗ discussion and conversation with the

1:14:35 ↗ park board. Um a lot of review and

1:14:37 ↗ feedback with you the city council. Um

1:14:41 ↗ uh on April 6th we had a committee the

1:14:43 ↗ whole conversation. Um, a lot of great

1:14:46 ↗ feedback, a lot of questions you asked

1:14:48 ↗ as as that was your f first real look at

1:14:51 ↗ this. Um, so appreciated that that

1:14:54 ↗ honest uh feedback from all of you. Uh,

1:14:56 ↗ that led to a rather robust conversation

1:14:58 ↗ at services, safety, and parks. um on

1:15:01 ↗ May 5th as we went through all of those

1:15:03 ↗ questions and items that u related to

1:15:06 ↗ both financial questions also um sort of

1:15:10 ↗ u makeup of of the projects uh

1:15:13 ↗ themselves um as well as um size and uh

1:15:17 ↗ um uh size of the potential uh levy

1:15:20 ↗ package

1:15:22 ↗ from that meeting on May 5th. uh that

1:15:25 ↗ later that week on May 9th, we came back

1:15:27 ↗ to the entire city council, had a

1:15:29 ↗ another really good discussion on uh

1:15:32 ↗ this uh potential opportunity for the

1:15:34 ↗ bond renewal on May 9th. Um at that

1:15:37 ↗ meeting u began to get um again some um

1:15:41 ↗ good feedback and a sense of um coming

1:15:44 ↗ together from um all of you. Um here we

1:15:48 ↗ are now in June. um additional um

1:15:51 ↗ community conversations um the

1:15:53 ↗ opportunity I had to present to school

1:15:55 ↗ board last Thursday night um

1:15:57 ↗ specifically on uh the bond um and um

1:16:01 ↗ more specifically the community sports

1:16:03 ↗ field projects uh that are proposed. Um

1:16:07 ↗ there was again overwhelming

1:16:09 ↗ um uh positivity and overwhelming

1:16:11 ↗ support from the the school board um on

1:16:15 ↗ um these projects being included and u

1:16:18 ↗ again moving forward with that a

1:16:19 ↗ commitment of um an addendum agreement.

1:16:23 ↗ real quickly

1:16:25 ↗ to the to the package itself.

1:16:28 ↗ Um the the proposed park bond renewal

1:16:32 ↗ projects uh we would have for this

1:16:34 ↗ ordinance um include 10 projects. Um

1:16:37 ↗ along with those three uh community

1:16:39 ↗ sports fields at the three elementary

1:16:41 ↗ schools that that uh reside within the

1:16:44 ↗ city of Isiqua. Uh we're proposing two

1:16:47 ↗ the creation of two new trail corridors,

1:16:49 ↗ one on Cougar Mountain and one on Squawk

1:16:52 ↗ Mountain. Uh these projects take uh

1:16:54 ↗ immediate advantage of the acquisitions

1:16:56 ↗ we've been so successful in in the last

1:16:58 ↗ five or six years with the Bergsma

1:17:01 ↗ acquisition on Cougar Mountain creating

1:17:03 ↗ a trail corridor uh that would lead

1:17:06 ↗ right up into uh the regional uh Cougar

1:17:09 ↗ Mountain Trail Network that King County

1:17:10 ↗ Parks manages just outside of the city.

1:17:13 ↗ Um and then um equally on Squawk

1:17:15 ↗ Mountain, two acquisitions that we did

1:17:17 ↗ over the last couple years have created

1:17:18 ↗ a 35 acre corridor uh that would for the

1:17:22 ↗ first time create a trail network from

1:17:23 ↗ the valley floor up into Squawk Mountain

1:17:26 ↗ um state park and the trail network

1:17:28 ↗ there. um trail head improvements um at

1:17:31 ↗ our Senator Bill Ramos Memorial Trail

1:17:33 ↗ Head on East Sunset Way. Uh that's um so

1:17:37 ↗ importantly serves uh West Tiger

1:17:38 ↗ Mountain uh would be a a project. Um um

1:17:42 ↗ an e house restoration at Confluence

1:17:44 ↗ Park as I point to council member Boyd

1:17:45 ↗ and look forward to that question. Um is

1:17:47 ↗ also on this. Um Confluence Park is such

1:17:50 ↗ a key community park. Uh this would

1:17:52 ↗ provide um a really really important um

1:17:56 ↗ um investment into that northeast corner

1:17:58 ↗ of the park that that really needs some

1:18:00 ↗ definition. Uh two projects at Tibets

1:18:02 ↗ Valley Park are proposed. One is uh

1:18:05 ↗ creating an expanded and all-inclusive

1:18:07 ↗ playground at Tibets Valley Park. Um as

1:18:10 ↗ well at Tibets Valley Park. Um creating

1:18:12 ↗ our second um neighborhoodsized um off

1:18:15 ↗ leash dog area or dog park. Um and then

1:18:18 ↗ last but certainly not least to our to

1:18:20 ↗ our our pickle ball lobby um and pickle

1:18:23 ↗ ball posy out there would be some

1:18:25 ↗ expanded courts um pick additional

1:18:27 ↗ pickleball port courts at um Central

1:18:30 ↗ Park um um creating eight new pickle

1:18:34 ↗ ball um courts

1:18:36 ↗ from a um funding perspective. Um uh

1:18:42 ↗ you'll see in the ordinance uh these

1:18:43 ↗ projects would be completed uh with bond

1:18:46 ↗ funding that would be a maximum of $18

1:18:48 ↗ million. That $18 million would then be

1:18:51 ↗ leveraged with grant revenues as well as

1:18:54 ↗ other revenues um such as park impact

1:18:56 ↗ fees um totaling uh about $25 million um

1:19:01 ↗ that these all of these projects uh

1:19:03 ↗ represent. Um what that would mean to um

1:19:07 ↗ voters and to property owners would be

1:19:10 ↗ um an 8 cents per 10,000 rate. Uh that

1:19:13 ↗ is the rate that's retiring. Um um the

1:19:16 ↗ commitment would be staying at that or

1:19:18 ↗ actually going a little bit below that.

1:19:20 ↗ um as we seek to replace those retiring

1:19:22 ↗ bonds.

1:19:26 ↗ A map of what these 10 projects

1:19:28 ↗ represent is really again a goal that

1:19:30 ↗ you said um overwhelmingly that we had

1:19:33 ↗ from the get-go is um making sure these

1:19:35 ↗ investments have some geographic

1:19:37 ↗ diversity uh within the community which

1:19:40 ↗ um I think they accomplish.

1:19:46 ↗ Should you adopt this ordinance tonight?

1:19:48 ↗ Um some immediate next steps that we

1:19:51 ↗ would need to take um is we would um

1:19:53 ↗ immediately be seeking applications um

1:19:55 ↗ and selection. Uh the mayor would select

1:19:58 ↗ a recommend a pro and con committee um

1:20:02 ↗ um that would come back to you for city

1:20:05 ↗ council confirmation um at the July 20th

1:20:08 ↗ regular meeting. This is important

1:20:10 ↗ because of the timeline we need to by

1:20:12 ↗ August 4th um have uh those names um

1:20:16 ↗ provided to King County um elections. Um

1:20:20 ↗ equally next steps important next steps

1:20:22 ↗ there are some other materials that will

1:20:24 ↗ be due there in early August uh to meet

1:20:27 ↗ that November ballot.

1:20:30 ↗ So though this um request um um feels

1:20:35 ↗ maybe like an end, it really represents

1:20:37 ↗ a beginning um of a lot of work ahead um

1:20:40 ↗ should we move forward.

1:20:45 ↗ Thank you. Um I've certainly again

1:20:47 ↗ appreciated the discussions, the

1:20:48 ↗ questions, the feedback that we've had

1:20:50 ↗ over the past couple of months. Um um uh

1:20:54 ↗ it's taken a lot of work to get here and

1:20:56 ↗ um again available for um any questions.

1:21:00 ↗ We recommend the adoption of this ballot

1:21:02 ↗ ordinance.

1:21:03 ↗ And

1:21:04 ↗ >> I would say for folks before going on

1:21:06 ↗ questions like the language here is what

1:21:07 ↗ you would see on the actual ballot.

1:21:09 ↗ There is an additional 250word

1:21:12 ↗ explanatory statement that is then there

1:21:16 ↗ that's like has to be approved as being

1:21:19 ↗ kind of non-biased just just the

1:21:21 ↗ information of what's happening. And

1:21:22 ↗ then you have your pro and con

1:21:23 ↗ statements that would also be in the

1:21:25 ↗ voters's guide. But I think in the

1:21:27 ↗ actual ballot as you're circling your

1:21:29 ↗ bubble would be the language you see in

1:21:31 ↗ front of you here. Uh questions.

1:21:35 ↗ Council member Boyd.

1:21:37 ↗ >> Thank you. I don't know if we have a

1:21:38 ↗ process for like I have to buy everyone

1:21:40 ↗ donuts if I jump the gun on an agenda

1:21:41 ↗ item or something, but apologies. Thank

1:21:44 ↗ you for your patience with me. Um can

1:21:46 ↗ you talk to me about the e house

1:21:47 ↗ project, the preservation?

1:21:49 ↗ um explicitly says that and uh is does

1:21:53 ↗ that also include kind of the

1:21:55 ↗ landscaping around it or I think there's

1:21:57 ↗ um some interest in preserving

1:21:59 ↗ >> um yes it does. I'd be curious what what

1:22:02 ↗ the specific question is how far the

1:22:03 ↗ landscaping is but yes absolutely one of

1:22:05 ↗ the things we want to do and one of the

1:22:07 ↗ goals of that restoration from the

1:22:08 ↗ beginning is incorporate it better into

1:22:10 ↗ the park. Uh so not only landscaping on

1:22:12 ↗ the front but also in particular how the

1:22:15 ↗ back side of the e house relates to the

1:22:18 ↗ playground and the rest of the park. U

1:22:20 ↗ this project would include some

1:22:23 ↗ plaza-like improvements that would again

1:22:25 ↗ create a a cleaner um more accessible

1:22:29 ↗ transition from uh the house into the

1:22:32 ↗ park.

1:22:32 ↗ >> Okay. Thank youair.

1:22:36 ↗ Um and just for a clarification for you

1:22:38 ↗ know community members and stuff like

1:22:39 ↗ that um you know this the bond get let's

1:22:41 ↗ say the bond is approved let's say the

1:22:42 ↗ voters then approve it then each project

1:22:44 ↗ would have a level of community

1:22:46 ↗ engagement as it actually was being teed

1:22:48 ↗ up and being act you know and shovel

1:22:51 ↗ ready and things like that. So there

1:22:52 ↗ would be more community input into each

1:22:54 ↗ of these projects as we actually got to

1:22:56 ↗ their you know start and end.

1:22:58 ↗ >> Yes. Thank you council member Dere.

1:22:59 ↗ You're absolutely right. Uh there would

1:23:00 ↗ be a degree of community engagement um

1:23:02 ↗ as each of these projects were being

1:23:04 ↗ designed. Yep.

1:23:10 ↗ >> Okay. Seeing no other questions for

1:23:13 ↗ Jeff.

1:23:15 ↗ Is there um Oh, council member. Is there

1:23:19 ↗ a motion? Council member Dair. Okay.

1:23:21 ↗ Here we go. A lot of language here. All

1:23:23 ↗ right. Uh, I move to adopt ordinance

1:23:25 ↗ number 3142 providing for the submission

1:23:28 ↗ to the voters of the city at a special

1:23:30 ↗ election to be held within the city on

1:23:31 ↗ November 3rd, 2026 in conjunction with

1:23:34 ↗ the state general election to be held on

1:23:35 ↗ the same date of a proposition

1:23:37 ↗ authorizing the city to issue its

1:23:38 ↗ general obligation bonds for the purpose

1:23:40 ↗ of improving, constructing,

1:23:42 ↗ reconstructing renovating and

1:23:44 ↗ equipping various parks and open space

1:23:45 ↗ properties and relating capital

1:23:47 ↗ improvements in the principal amount of

1:23:48 ↗ no more than $18 million provided by

1:23:51 ↗ annual property tax levies to be paid in

1:23:53 ↗ excess of regular property tax levies

1:23:55 ↗ and to levy those excess property taxes.

1:23:59 ↗ >> Second.

1:24:00 ↗ >> Okay, it's been moved by former park

1:24:02 ↗ board member Adair, now council member

1:24:04 ↗ Adair, and seconded by council member

1:24:06 ↗ Boyd. Is there any further discussion?

1:24:10 ↗ Deputy President Jane.

1:24:12 ↗ >> Great. Well, um I just want to say how

1:24:15 ↗ excited I am for this park bond. Um I

1:24:18 ↗ moved to Isiqua because of the parks and

1:24:21 ↗ access to trails that we have. So, for

1:24:23 ↗ me personally, it's very very exciting

1:24:24 ↗ to see that we are getting new trails

1:24:26 ↗ and trail head renovations as part of

1:24:28 ↗ this package. Um,

1:24:31 ↗ and also I think what's really great

1:24:32 ↗ about this package is that there's

1:24:33 ↗ something for everyone. Whether you're a

1:24:35 ↗ pickle ball player, a dog owner, someone

1:24:37 ↗ with kids who wants to play on the

1:24:38 ↗ playground, someone with kids in the

1:24:40 ↗ schools. Speaking of which, I think the

1:24:42 ↗ turf field at IBE and Clark, that's the

1:24:46 ↗ most support we've ever gotten as a city

1:24:49 ↗ council for anything we've ever done, at

1:24:50 ↗ least in my time on council, which

1:24:52 ↗ hasn't been that long. Um, but I mean, I

1:24:54 ↗ think I think the total count of emails

1:24:56 ↗ we got in support of that was like 130,

1:24:57 ↗ which is a lot. So, you know, people in

1:25:01 ↗ Isiqua really love our parks and really

1:25:02 ↗ want to invest in um making them even

1:25:05 ↗ better. And so, I'm really excited to

1:25:06 ↗ support this. Um, there's a couple other

1:25:10 ↗ things that I just want to flag. So, I

1:25:11 ↗ think, you know, as we're thinking about

1:25:13 ↗ remodeling the Senator Bill Ramos

1:25:14 ↗ Memorial Trail Head, which is like

1:25:16 ↗ pothole city right now. So, totally in

1:25:18 ↗ support of making it a lot nicer. Um,

1:25:21 ↗ you know, as we're also thinking about

1:25:22 ↗ how we can increase, you know, bike

1:25:24 ↗ connectivity through our city. I think

1:25:26 ↗ one of the big missing gaps we have is

1:25:27 ↗ from, you know, the Isqua Highlands down

1:25:29 ↗ into town. Right now, it's like you get

1:25:31 ↗ off the trail and then you're like on

1:25:33 ↗ the sidewalk next to the Ramos trail

1:25:34 ↗ head. then that sidewalk, you know, if

1:25:37 ↗ you keep going, there's like utility

1:25:38 ↗ poles in the middle of the sidewalk. So,

1:25:40 ↗ it's not great. But if we can, you know,

1:25:42 ↗ use this trail head renovation to think

1:25:44 ↗ about, you know, potentially can we

1:25:45 ↗ actually have the trail head as a way

1:25:47 ↗ for bikes to move through and then, you

1:25:49 ↗ know, onto, you know, neighborhood

1:25:51 ↗ streets that could then have a really

1:25:53 ↗ slow speed limit, which actually

1:25:54 ↗ probably the people living there would

1:25:55 ↗ be in favor of because they don't like

1:25:57 ↗ having cars speeding by. You know, just

1:25:58 ↗ thinking about how we can leverage these

1:26:00 ↗ investments to also do other great

1:26:02 ↗ things in our city. Um, and you know the

1:26:04 ↗ list of projects that we have on here,

1:26:07 ↗ it's all the projects that are going to

1:26:08 ↗ be funded by the park fund, but it's

1:26:09 ↗ also not comprehensive of all the park

1:26:12 ↗ projects that are in the works. There's

1:26:13 ↗ other park projects that are being in,

1:26:15 ↗ you know, funded by our regular, you

1:26:17 ↗ know, park funds and capital dollars.

1:26:20 ↗ And in particular, I know council member

1:26:21 ↗ Boyd's a big fan of having um a new park

1:26:24 ↗ in North Isiqua, which currently, you

1:26:25 ↗ know, in our park strategic plan is

1:26:27 ↗ identified as a parks desert. So, I know

1:26:29 ↗ there's um you know projects in the

1:26:30 ↗ works, but they're not quite ready for

1:26:32 ↗ the park bond uh you know this level of

1:26:35 ↗ funding quite yet, but they're in the

1:26:36 ↗ works and you know hopefully maybe some

1:26:38 ↗ developers will pay to do that and won't

1:26:41 ↗ even need a taxpayer fund. So, all in

1:26:43 ↗ all, very very excited about this park

1:26:44 ↗ bond and all the different investments

1:26:46 ↗ it's going to make in uh Isqua and I'm

1:26:49 ↗ excited to be pay you know a little bit

1:26:51 ↗ more in property taxes every year to

1:26:53 ↗ support that. So, thank you Council

1:26:55 ↗ >> Walsh.

1:27:06 ↗ Yeah, not a problem. I was just

1:27:08 ↗ collecting my thoughts. You know, I

1:27:09 ↗ don't have much to add really in that

1:27:10 ↗ obviously, like, you know, as parks

1:27:12 ↗ board member, I've been very excited

1:27:14 ↗ about this. I'm really excited to be

1:27:16 ↗ approving this and getting these

1:27:17 ↗ projects up and running, provided the

1:27:19 ↗ voters agree to it, obviously. Um, and

1:27:22 ↗ just wanted to once again, you know,

1:27:24 ↗ commend the parks department, Jeff, and

1:27:25 ↗ everyone in there for all the work that

1:27:27 ↗ goes into this as well as all the

1:27:28 ↗ continued work you do on parks, um, and

1:27:30 ↗ developing these plans and will continue

1:27:32 ↗ to do to actually get them made. Um, I

1:27:36 ↗ have, you know, I was, I try to stay

1:27:38 ↗ really involved with this. You know, I

1:27:39 ↗ went to the parks open house that was on

1:27:41 ↗ this and then when we had our time at um

1:27:44 ↗ the uh farmers market, a lot of people

1:27:47 ↗ have talked to me about it and I've seen

1:27:48 ↗ a lot of positive uh response to this

1:27:51 ↗ and it just goes to show how important

1:27:53 ↗ the parks are to this city and our

1:27:55 ↗ identity and I just love that we have

1:27:57 ↗ found a way to, you know, stick with

1:28:00 ↗ existing dollars, not affect their

1:28:01 ↗ taxes, but still give people more. Um,

1:28:04 ↗ and I really look forward to this and

1:28:06 ↗ hope it is the vote is successful and

1:28:07 ↗ that we get to see all of these. So

1:28:09 ↗ again, thank you for all your hard work

1:28:10 ↗ and I'm excited for this.

1:28:12 ↗ >> Council member Dar's kids have not only

1:28:14 ↗ been to Sound Transit Board meetings,

1:28:15 ↗ but also park board openhouse meetings.

1:28:17 ↗ They are getting full exposure to civic

1:28:20 ↗ government. Uh, Council Member Walsh,

1:28:23 ↗ >> thank you. Um, I'm probably in the

1:28:26 ↗ minority tonight, but I'm going to be

1:28:28 ↗ voting no on this. Um, and it's not

1:28:30 ↗ because I believe these projects are bad

1:28:33 ↗ options. I think these are fantastic

1:28:35 ↗ projects. Um, I think they've been

1:28:38 ↗ vetted through our park planning and all

1:28:41 ↗ of these things. Um, but ultimately

1:28:44 ↗ because I have to evaluate this like the

1:28:46 ↗ voters will um not as a renewal to

1:28:49 ↗ continue certain circum certain

1:28:51 ↗ services, but as a property tax when

1:28:55 ↗ money is tight. And further, that's the

1:28:58 ↗ way that I look at our own budget. Um,

1:29:01 ↗ evaluating where we are most in need.

1:29:04 ↗ And I think we should only go to the

1:29:06 ↗ voters for financial support of those

1:29:09 ↗ types of things, which in my mind is

1:29:12 ↗ things like operations and for services

1:29:15 ↗ that we provide um on a very very tight

1:29:19 ↗ budget. Um, things like public safety,

1:29:21 ↗ fire, human services. And so while I

1:29:25 ↗ very much appreciate all of these

1:29:28 ↗ capital projects and would love to have

1:29:30 ↗ the money to do so, um I think we have

1:29:34 ↗ higher needs tonight. Um as we are

1:29:38 ↗ evaluating things, I recognize that many

1:29:40 ↗ of my fellow council members have not

1:29:42 ↗ gone through a budget cycle and have not

1:29:43 ↗ seen really truly how tight those

1:29:46 ↗ situations of operations can get. Um,

1:29:50 ↗ and so if we are going to go to the

1:29:52 ↗ voters, I I think those are the areas

1:29:55 ↗ that I would prefer to um put the

1:29:57 ↗ funding in. So I will be voting no, but

1:30:00 ↗ I appreciate if this goes through the

1:30:02 ↗ ability to create those projects for the

1:30:05 ↗ residents.

1:30:06 ↗ >> Council member Nichols,

1:30:09 ↗ >> thank you. Um, so once again, uh, I

1:30:12 ↗ think this is a fantastic plan that's

1:30:14 ↗ been put together, uh, remarkably well,

1:30:17 ↗ uh, for the amount of time that you had

1:30:18 ↗ to put it together. So I greatly

1:30:20 ↗ appreciate that. Um, you know, it's this

1:30:23 ↗ cannot have been easy. So thank you for

1:30:25 ↗ getting these these set these options

1:30:28 ↗ together for us to evaluate and

1:30:30 ↗ understand and and start uh talking to

1:30:32 ↗ the public about. Um, I will be a yes on

1:30:34 ↗ this. I think it's a um a very good

1:30:37 ↗ opportunity for our community to enhance

1:30:39 ↗ some of the things that we all love the

1:30:41 ↗ best about our community. Uh, my family

1:30:44 ↗ moved to Isqua for a bunch of reasons,

1:30:45 ↗ but two of the top ones were both our

1:30:47 ↗ schools and our parks. um this is a nice

1:30:49 ↗ way to combine supporting both of those

1:30:51 ↗ into the same effort um in with a a good

1:30:53 ↗ part of that funding and it has lots of

1:30:55 ↗ other great um uh option great additions

1:30:59 ↗ in there as well. Um I am I'm personally

1:31:02 ↗ very comfortable going to the voters and

1:31:04 ↗ asking for the funding to do this. Um I

1:31:07 ↗ think that um

1:31:10 ↗ the the residents of Isiqua love our

1:31:13 ↗ parks. They love our the the amenities

1:31:14 ↗ that they provide and that they will be

1:31:16 ↗ comfortable with this as a as funding

1:31:20 ↗ that they will help support. I also

1:31:21 ↗ recognize that we we do will have many

1:31:23 ↗ difficult budget conversations in the

1:31:25 ↗ future and I I appreciate Council Member

1:31:27 ↗ Walsh's perspective there. Um I think

1:31:30 ↗ that we will have to make lots of

1:31:33 ↗ choices at that time and I'm I'm also

1:31:34 ↗ comfortable asking the voters to pay for

1:31:38 ↗ and

1:31:40 ↗ asking the voters to um to fund the

1:31:42 ↗ services that they that they need. And I

1:31:44 ↗ think we're going to have to do that.

1:31:45 ↗ And I'm I'm well aware of that that

1:31:46 ↗ those will be continuing conversations

1:31:48 ↗ that we will have. Um so once again in

1:31:51 ↗ summary, I am very much in support of

1:31:52 ↗ this. Um, I am I I think that this is

1:31:55 ↗ something that the voters of Isqua will

1:31:56 ↗ approve and that they will support and

1:31:58 ↗ that these will be projects that we will

1:32:00 ↗ all love and that um they will also give

1:32:02 ↗ us an opportunity to um flex our muscles

1:32:06 ↗ as a a government that can build some

1:32:08 ↗ build cool things quickly um and show

1:32:10 ↗ them the voters that uh when they

1:32:12 ↗ approve funds like this we will get

1:32:14 ↗ things done on time within budget um and

1:32:16 ↗ that they can trust us to continue to

1:32:18 ↗ deliver great things for the city.

1:32:21 ↗ Thank you, Council President Marts.

1:32:24 ↗ >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to commend

1:32:25 ↗ the staff. Um this process um began

1:32:28 ↗ months ago, a number of months ago and

1:32:31 ↗ uh staff took parks board input,

1:32:36 ↗ services, safety and parks, uh the

1:32:38 ↗ strategic plan, uh further feedback from

1:32:42 ↗ this body, uh and crafted it all into

1:32:46 ↗ something that uh really makes the most

1:32:50 ↗ uh if approved by the voters will make

1:32:52 ↗ the most of our dollars. This is a

1:32:54 ↗ replacement bond. Um so for members of

1:32:56 ↗ the public what that means is that um

1:32:59 ↗ the effort is to have the the monies

1:33:02 ↗ basically replace the bonds that are

1:33:05 ↗ expiring. Um I think that's important.

1:33:09 ↗ This doesn't represent a substantial new

1:33:12 ↗ uh impact on the voters. Really what it

1:33:15 ↗ is is uh showing this parks department

1:33:18 ↗ is really really good at uh maintaining

1:33:22 ↗ good parks facilities. The public tells

1:33:24 ↗ us time and time again that not only are

1:33:27 ↗ parks important, but the city does a

1:33:29 ↗ good job with parks. I wish we could say

1:33:32 ↗ that all the issues that are important

1:33:33 ↗ to the public that we do as well on

1:33:36 ↗ those issues as we do on parks issues.

1:33:38 ↗ Our our life would be a lot easier if

1:33:40 ↗ that were the case, but it's not. Um,

1:33:42 ↗ but they but we really do a good job

1:33:43 ↗ with these with these bond monies that

1:33:46 ↗ come in historically, and I believe

1:33:48 ↗ we'll continue to do that if the public

1:33:50 ↗ supports this bond. So, I'm very much in

1:33:52 ↗ support of this this evening. Thank you,

1:33:54 ↗ >> Council Member Joe. Thank you. I was in

1:33:59 ↗ Confluence Park this weekend taking a

1:34:01 ↗ slow slow jog and uh pass through

1:34:05 ↗ Margaret's Meadow and my son uh took a

1:34:09 ↗ hike on Margaret's Way on Sunday. And

1:34:14 ↗ for those of you that don't know who

1:34:15 ↗ Margaret was, it was Margaret Mloud and

1:34:18 ↗ she was a person that did a tremendous

1:34:20 ↗ job getting grants for our parks. Uh

1:34:23 ↗ many of the hills that we have today

1:34:24 ↗ were preserved because of Margaret and

1:34:27 ↗ the parks and open space that we have uh

1:34:29 ↗ can be attributed to all the hard work

1:34:31 ↗ that she did. Um I was on council in

1:34:34 ↗ 2006 when we first approved the bond

1:34:36 ↗ that we're thinking about renewing now.

1:34:39 ↗ And uh the money that we put away over

1:34:42 ↗ all those years uh came through as

1:34:44 ↗ purchases of property that helped

1:34:46 ↗ preserve our forested hillsides that

1:34:48 ↗ helped preserve open space for us. Um,

1:34:51 ↗ the parks department with Margaret's

1:34:54 ↗ legacy does a fantastic job leveraging

1:34:57 ↗ the dollars that we put out through

1:35:00 ↗ these bond issuances and leveraging them

1:35:03 ↗ to

1:35:06 ↗ make those dollars punch far above their

1:35:08 ↗ weight and get Isiqua preservation of

1:35:12 ↗ land facilities uh with uh using that

1:35:17 ↗ money to leverage our our ability to to

1:35:19 ↗ to get things done with the Sierra Club

1:35:22 ↗ or the county or um the arts

1:35:25 ↗ organizations, whatever it might be.

1:35:27 ↗ When we come to the table with money,

1:35:28 ↗ because we put the money away through

1:35:30 ↗ this bond issuance, it makes our

1:35:33 ↗ proposals

1:35:36 ↗ be more competitive on that on that

1:35:38 ↗ scale when we're competing against

1:35:39 ↗ everyone else for other funding and

1:35:42 ↗ grants. Um, this bond from my point of

1:35:45 ↗ view is an investment, a continued

1:35:49 ↗ investment by the citizens of Isqua to

1:35:50 ↗ say we believe in our parks. We're going

1:35:52 ↗ to put this bond money aside and we're

1:35:54 ↗ going to rely on our parks department

1:35:57 ↗ through the long history of leveraging

1:35:59 ↗ these funds to make these funds go

1:36:02 ↗ farther than they should and to allow it

1:36:04 ↗ squad to punch far above their weight to

1:36:06 ↗ get open space and park amenities for

1:36:09 ↗ their citizens. So, I'm fully in support

1:36:11 ↗ of this and I appreciate all the hard

1:36:12 ↗ work that's been done and uh I think

1:36:14 ↗ Margaret would be happy uh as she's

1:36:17 ↗ looking down from heaven. Thanks.

1:36:20 ↗ >> I was not aware we'd have to get halfway

1:36:21 ↗ through our agenda before we hit an item

1:36:23 ↗ that Council Member Joe had not been

1:36:24 ↗ part of 20 plus years ago. Council

1:36:27 ↗ member Voit,

1:36:28 ↗ >> um I'm very excited to uh be in favor of

1:36:32 ↗ this and uh that wasn't always

1:36:34 ↗ necessarily the case. When I very first

1:36:36 ↗ was appointed, I was concerned at not

1:36:38 ↗ seeing anything uh in North Isiqua when

1:36:41 ↗ it was identified, you know, throughout

1:36:42 ↗ the parks plan and after I've had

1:36:44 ↗ conversations with you, Director

1:36:45 ↗ Watling, and just, you know, given the

1:36:47 ↗ amount of time, right, I'm assured that

1:36:50 ↗ uh as Council Member Jen had said, uh

1:36:51 ↗ earlier that, you know, we can do things

1:36:54 ↗ in concurrence with this um and uh the

1:36:57 ↗ amount of projects that are identified

1:36:59 ↗ for uh you know, no effectively no cost

1:37:02 ↗ increase uh um should the voters pass

1:37:05 ↗ this. Uh it was really great to be able

1:37:08 ↗ to um tell folks that at the farmers

1:37:11 ↗ market when they were looking at the

1:37:12 ↗ maps and I was able to show just how

1:37:15 ↗ spread across the city um things are.

1:37:17 ↗ And so um really appreciate all the

1:37:19 ↗ great work that you've done on this in a

1:37:21 ↗ short amount of time and looking forward

1:37:23 ↗ to continuing to you know bang on my

1:37:27 ↗ little pot and pan about North Isiqua in

1:37:29 ↗ conjunctions with this and um yeah,

1:37:32 ↗ thank you so much for your work. Can I

1:37:34 ↗ also add a personal thank you for the I

1:37:37 ↗ know at you Pole City the Ramos memorial

1:37:39 ↗ trail head but that trail head now has

1:37:42 ↗ memorial in the word for it and so um

1:37:44 ↗ for someone who he was my boss and

1:37:46 ↗ mentor just the care that's going into

1:37:48 ↗ um that site um for practical purposes

1:37:51 ↗ right for the users of it but also for

1:37:54 ↗ me as someone who views that effectively

1:37:56 ↗ as memorial um I'm really excited for

1:37:59 ↗ the transformation that I'll see thank

1:38:01 ↗ you

1:38:03 ↗ >> excellent Thank you very much. Uh seeing

1:38:06 ↗ no further discussion, motion for the

1:38:09 ↗ council is adopt ordinance number 3142

1:38:11 ↗ providing for submission of the voters

1:38:13 ↗ of the city at a special election to be

1:38:14 ↗ held within the city on November 3rd,

1:38:16 ↗ 2026 in conjunction with the state

1:38:18 ↗ general election be held on the same

1:38:19 ↗ date of a proposition authorizing the

1:38:20 ↗ city to issue its general obligation

1:38:22 ↗ bonds for the purpose of improving,

1:38:23 ↗ constructing reconstructing

1:38:24 ↗ renovating, and equipping various parks

1:38:26 ↗ and open space properties related to

1:38:28 ↗ capital improvements and the principal

1:38:29 ↗ amount of no more than $18 million

1:38:31 ↗ payable by annual property tax levies

1:38:32 ↗ made in excess regular property tax

1:38:34 ↗ levies to levy those excess property

1:38:36 ↗ taxes. All those in favor, please say I.

1:38:39 ↗ >> I.

1:38:41 ↗ >> All those opposed? No.

1:38:43 ↗ >> No.

1:38:45 ↗ >> Okay. And that passes six to one with

1:38:49 ↗ council member Walsh voting no. Which

1:38:52 ↗ now moves us on to the fourth agenda

1:38:55 ↗ bill item which brought which brings our

1:38:58 ↗ departing deputy city administrator to

1:39:01 ↗ the council chambers because it's so

1:39:02 ↗ important to her. Uh the uh so agenda

1:39:07 ↗ bill 9212 transarian development

1:39:09 ↗ opportunity center purchase and sale

1:39:10 ↗ agreement. We'll have deputy city

1:39:13 ↗ administrator Andrea Snider. And when is

1:39:15 ↗ your fash is your official last day of

1:39:18 ↗ the city squad? Tomorrow or

1:39:19 ↗ >> it's uh Wednesday, July 1st is my

1:39:21 ↗ official last day.

1:39:22 ↗ >> There you go. Wednesday, July 1st. And

1:39:24 ↗ then uh and then I think Jillian's also

1:39:26 ↗ going to be pinch hitting. And

1:39:29 ↗ >> uh well, more than pinch hitting. So I

1:39:30 ↗ invite Jillian to come up so you can set

1:39:32 ↗ up the PowerPoint. I know that takes

1:39:33 ↗ some time. And while she's doing that, I

1:39:35 ↗ just wanted to give some opening remarks

1:39:37 ↗ for this very big item before council.

1:39:40 ↗ Um uh so uh I am pleased to be here

1:39:44 ↗ tonight uh to provide some uh

1:39:46 ↗ introductory remarks. This will be the

1:39:48 ↗ last time uh before you as a

1:39:51 ↗ representative of the Siqua

1:39:53 ↗ administration. So um don't worry, I'm

1:39:55 ↗ not going to make any other surprise

1:39:56 ↗ appearances. Uh but just wanted to uh

1:40:00 ↗ introduce this item and um our guest

1:40:04 ↗ tonight really marks kind of a a change

1:40:07 ↗ in this project. The past many meetings

1:40:10 ↗ we've had on the toodoc

1:40:13 ↗ the um we have focused a lot on the to

1:40:17 ↗ portion of the transportation um or or

1:40:21 ↗ transit oriented development portion

1:40:22 ↗ which is the housing and the whole

1:40:24 ↗ development. I am pleased to let you

1:40:26 ↗ know that the permits have been issued

1:40:28 ↗ for the first uh housing project on that

1:40:32 ↗ site. And so that work is underway.

1:40:35 ↗ Now, we're going to shift gears and talk

1:40:37 ↗ more about the opportunity center, the

1:40:40 ↗ OC part of that acronym. And that's

1:40:43 ↗ something that we haven't always talked

1:40:45 ↗ much about in the council chambers. And

1:40:46 ↗ that's really where the bulk of the work

1:40:48 ↗ with um council is going to be moving

1:40:51 ↗ forward. And also, it represents kind of

1:40:54 ↗ a changing of the guard. So, as you

1:40:56 ↗ know, uh I am leaving this is my last

1:40:59 ↗ city council meeting as I said. Also, we

1:41:01 ↗ have Dan Landis with us tonight who is

1:41:04 ↗ been the project manager for this

1:41:06 ↗ project since the very beginning. Dan

1:41:08 ↗ Landis with King County Housing

1:41:09 ↗ Authority. Dan is going to be retiring

1:41:13 ↗ uh really tomorrow. Okay. Tomorrow. And

1:41:18 ↗ he has been working on this project

1:41:20 ↗ tirelessly on King County Housing

1:41:21 ↗ Authorities behalf since the city issued

1:41:23 ↗ the RFP back in 2017.

1:41:27 ↗ So, um, wanted to acknowledge Dan and

1:41:30 ↗ all of the work that he has done to make

1:41:31 ↗ this project happen as, um, it's been

1:41:36 ↗ many years of problem solving and

1:41:38 ↗ commitment and KCHA didn't pull out

1:41:41 ↗ despite all of the complications and how

1:41:43 ↗ much this project has taken in terms of

1:41:45 ↗ staff time and also just investment. So,

1:41:48 ↗ wanted to acknowledge Dan. Also with us

1:41:49 ↗ tonight is Nate who is the project

1:41:51 ↗ manager moving forward uh for uh the TOD

1:41:56 ↗ and uh the OC in terms of we are um

1:42:00 ↗ looking at this condominium unit within

1:42:02 ↗ the greater development of the project.

1:42:04 ↗ So wanted to um also as we talk about

1:42:07 ↗ the changing of the guard um really

1:42:09 ↗ introduce Jillian Stro who is our

1:42:11 ↗ management analyst. You've seen her

1:42:12 ↗ before but she is the day-to-day project

1:42:14 ↗ manager on behalf of the city. And so

1:42:17 ↗ not quite the pinch hitter, she uh is

1:42:19 ↗ the subject matter expert and is going

1:42:21 ↗ to be handling the presentation tonight.

1:42:23 ↗ She is absolutely the expert who knows

1:42:25 ↗ everything about this project, the

1:42:26 ↗ tenants, all the process that we've been

1:42:28 ↗ through over the past couple of years.

1:42:30 ↗ Jillian has all of those details and

1:42:32 ↗ will be managing the project for the

1:42:34 ↗ opportunity center uh moving forward. So

1:42:36 ↗ with that, Jillian, take it away.

1:42:39 ↗ >> And and Dan, I apologize if we expedited

1:42:41 ↗ your retirement by three or four years.

1:42:43 ↗ We know this we know this project has

1:42:45 ↗ not been easy. Uh Jillian,

1:42:49 ↗ >> thank you for that introduction. Um long

1:42:51 ↗ awaited I think is a is a good way to

1:42:53 ↗ describe the the discussion we're going

1:42:54 ↗ to have tonight. So like Andrea

1:42:57 ↗ mentioned, we're here tonight to discuss

1:42:58 ↗ the purchase and sale agreement of the

1:43:00 ↗ opportunity center as well as the condo

1:43:01 ↗ agreements that travel with it.

1:43:04 ↗ Um, so we're seeking council approval on

1:43:06 ↗ purchasing the opportunity center, the

1:43:08 ↗ funding used to make that purchase, as

1:43:09 ↗ well as authorizing the mayor for some

1:43:11 ↗ uh decisions that may or may not be

1:43:13 ↗ needed as we work through the purchase

1:43:14 ↗ over the next year and a half or so, as

1:43:17 ↗ well as feedback on those condo

1:43:18 ↗ agreements tonight. So, I'm not going to

1:43:21 ↗ read through um all of the

1:43:22 ↗ recommendations here because we're going

1:43:24 ↗ to spend a lot of time discussing them

1:43:25 ↗ tonight. I'll just note that the um that

1:43:30 ↗ the first recommendation is to purchase

1:43:32 ↗ the opportunity center from KCHA and

1:43:34 ↗ designate that funding. The next three

1:43:36 ↗ agreements again relate to the um

1:43:38 ↗ authorizations for the mayor that may be

1:43:40 ↗ needed in the future.

1:43:44 ↗ So, let's talk a little bit about what

1:43:45 ↗ the opportunity center is. So, there's a

1:43:47 ↗ diagram on the right of your screen.

1:43:49 ↗ This is the this is the lot that's east

1:43:50 ↗ of the transit center on the valley

1:43:53 ↗ floor. On the north side, there's going

1:43:54 ↗ to be that affordable housing

1:43:55 ↗ development. On the ground floor, the

1:43:58 ↗ city would own a 10,000 square ft

1:44:00 ↗ commercial condo. 10,4 uh 10,438

1:44:04 ↗ ft if you want to be particular. Um

1:44:07 ↗ there will also be um Leo House units in

1:44:10 ↗ this building and it'll be affordable

1:44:12 ↗ housing above it. The um KCHA will own

1:44:16 ↗ the land and is developing the site per

1:44:18 ↗ the 2022 ILA. They're providing the

1:44:20 ↗ shell of the or the commercial condo

1:44:22 ↗ shell for the opportunity center at cost

1:44:25 ↗ to the city rather than market rate. The

1:44:28 ↗ city has long designated that there'll

1:44:29 ↗ be the provision of sliding scale or

1:44:32 ↗ public behavioral health, dental health

1:44:33 ↗ or medical health services out of this

1:44:36 ↗ space um and that the city would seek

1:44:38 ↗ tenants and um offer below market rate

1:44:41 ↗ rents to ensure that these services were

1:44:42 ↗ provided in the community.

1:44:47 ↗ Like has already been mentioned, this

1:44:48 ↗ project has been underway for a very

1:44:50 ↗ long time. So I'll just hit a couple of

1:44:51 ↗ the highlights that that have brought us

1:44:53 ↗ here today. So in 2016, the city issued

1:44:56 ↗ the RFP to redevelop the tood site. At

1:44:59 ↗ the time, the city did not own the land.

1:45:00 ↗ Um but they had a very clear vision for

1:45:02 ↗ mixed use affordable and market rate

1:45:05 ↗ housing as well as um the provision of

1:45:07 ↗ these human services and behavioral

1:45:09 ↗ health services on the site. In 2017,

1:45:12 ↗ the city entered into or selected KCHA

1:45:15 ↗ and Spectrum to develop the site for

1:45:17 ↗ affordable and market rate housing that

1:45:20 ↗ their proposals included the provision

1:45:22 ↗ of the opportunity center at that time.

1:45:24 ↗ In 2018, city council directed the

1:45:26 ↗ administration to find behavioral

1:45:28 ↗ health, dental, or medical health

1:45:29 ↗ services providers. And the city

1:45:32 ↗ selected Valley City's behavioral health

1:45:34 ↗ as well as Health Point to provide

1:45:36 ↗ behavioral health and dental health

1:45:37 ↗ services in the site or in the

1:45:39 ↗ opportunity center. In 2019, the city

1:45:42 ↗ was awarded a direct appropriation of $3

1:45:44 ↗ million under the state's behavioral

1:45:46 ↗ health program. And then in 2022, a lot

1:45:49 ↗ of work in the interim came to a head.

1:45:51 ↗ So, first there was an interlocal

1:45:53 ↗ agreement with KCHA for um a Tibet

1:45:56 ↗ Tibbitz Valley Park lease to relocate a

1:45:58 ↗ cell tower that was on the site. It's in

1:46:00 ↗ this ILA that it's designated that KCHA

1:46:02 ↗ would provide the opportunity center to

1:46:05 ↗ the city at cost. This is also the year

1:46:07 ↗ when KCHA secured land control.

1:46:10 ↗ Additionally, Spectrum, the market rate

1:46:11 ↗ developer, dropped out of the

1:46:12 ↗ partnership at this time. In 2024, KCHA

1:46:15 ↗ began design and in the subsequent year,

1:46:18 ↗ the cell tower was removed from the

1:46:19 ↗ site. The city sought reappropriation of

1:46:22 ↗ the $3 million to a more flexible state

1:46:24 ↗ program from the behavioral health

1:46:25 ↗ program and thanks to our legislative

1:46:27 ↗ delegation that was awarded. Our health

1:46:30 ↗ services providers also dropped out of

1:46:31 ↗ the partnership at the time. They had

1:46:33 ↗ been on board for seven or eight years

1:46:35 ↗ at this point and the the environment

1:46:37 ↗ around behavioral health provision,

1:46:39 ↗ public behavioral health provision had

1:46:41 ↗ changed dramatically in that time

1:46:42 ↗ considering the federal um announcements

1:46:45 ↗ that were made regarding Medicaid

1:46:47 ↗ reimbursements for public behavioral

1:46:49 ↗ health services that were going to take

1:46:50 ↗ effect in the 2829 time frame.

1:46:53 ↗ So the administr the administration came

1:46:55 ↗ to the services safety and parks

1:46:57 ↗ committee as well as the council for

1:46:59 ↗ direction on how to proceed with the

1:47:00 ↗ opportunity center knowing that we

1:47:01 ↗ didn't have those health services

1:47:03 ↗ partners on board anymore. The council

1:47:05 ↗ and committee both gave direction that

1:47:07 ↗ we should proceed with the the

1:47:09 ↗ acquisition of the opportunity center.

1:47:11 ↗ So KCHA and the administration have been

1:47:13 ↗ working over the the better part of the

1:47:14 ↗ last year on that purchase and sale

1:47:16 ↗ agreement and the condo agreements that

1:47:18 ↗ are in front of you tonight.

1:47:21 ↗ So, let's talk a little bit about why

1:47:22 ↗ this is a good investment of city funds

1:47:24 ↗ and why it's been a priority for so

1:47:26 ↗ long. The 2017 community needs

1:47:29 ↗ assessment noted that mental health

1:47:30 ↗ distress across age groups was a was a

1:47:32 ↗ prime concern in Isiqua and that there

1:47:35 ↗ was no public behavioral health services

1:47:37 ↗ for adults in 2026. That gap remains.

1:47:41 ↗ There are still no public behavioral

1:47:43 ↗ health services for adults. So, this has

1:47:46 ↗ been a long-standing community need

1:47:47 ↗ originating with the human services

1:47:49 ↗ campus idea and it was enshrined in the

1:47:51 ↗ RFP um for selecting our developers in

1:47:54 ↗ 2016 and in selecting the service

1:47:56 ↗ providers in 2018. So, it's been a

1:47:58 ↗ long-standing community priority given

1:48:00 ↗ both the need and the gap that exists in

1:48:02 ↗ Isiqua.

1:48:05 ↗ Because our health services providers

1:48:07 ↗ dropped out in 2025, the administration

1:48:09 ↗ brought a couple of options to the

1:48:10 ↗ services safety and parks and later the

1:48:12 ↗ council. We brought options that

1:48:14 ↗ included pursuing different models for

1:48:17 ↗ service provision. Something like the

1:48:18 ↗ Together Center where we have quite a

1:48:20 ↗ few tenants in the opportunity space

1:48:22 ↗ rather than the one or two that we had

1:48:24 ↗ previously been seeking. Um other uses

1:48:26 ↗ for the the opportunity space like

1:48:28 ↗ transitional housing or not purchasing

1:48:30 ↗ the opportunity center at that time

1:48:32 ↗ where the project was at in design would

1:48:35 ↗ have been a good time for KCHA to pivot

1:48:37 ↗ without losing time or money on the

1:48:39 ↗ design and keeping their their overall

1:48:41 ↗ schedule. So that's why we we had

1:48:43 ↗ offered those options to services,

1:48:44 ↗ safety and parks or to and then to the

1:48:47 ↗ city council. City council gave

1:48:49 ↗ unanimous direction in September of 2025

1:48:52 ↗ to proceed with the acquisition of the

1:48:54 ↗ opportunity center.

1:48:56 ↗ So with that, let's talk about the

1:48:58 ↗ purchase and sale agreement.

1:49:00 ↗ So there are quite a few folks who are

1:49:02 ↗ kind of involved in this. So I just want

1:49:04 ↗ to kind of quickly lay out who all the

1:49:06 ↗ agreements are between. The city is

1:49:08 ↗ purchasing the condominium from

1:49:09 ↗ Trailhead Apartments LLP. KCHA is the

1:49:13 ↗ general partner of Trail Head Apartments

1:49:14 ↗ and they are here tonight in case you

1:49:15 ↗ want to hear more about that because

1:49:16 ↗ that's really their purview to explain.

1:49:19 ↗ There are also the condo agreements, the

1:49:21 ↗ declaration, articles and bylaws that

1:49:23 ↗ travel with the purchase. Because we're

1:49:25 ↗ purchasing a condo that has not yet been

1:49:27 ↗ built, but we will have to establish

1:49:28 ↗ what our working relationship is with

1:49:30 ↗ the other unit owners. the the

1:49:32 ↗ agreements for governing that

1:49:34 ↗ relationship are attached to the

1:49:36 ↗ purchase and sale agreement. They would

1:49:38 ↗ be entered into by Trail Head Apartments

1:49:40 ↗ and the Trail Head Plaza condominium of

1:49:42 ↗ which the city would be one of the

1:49:43 ↗ owners. So those terms have been

1:49:46 ↗ negotiated with with each of the units

1:49:48 ↗ owners, the city and Leo House and

1:49:50 ↗ they're necessary to purchase the the

1:49:52 ↗ opportunity center condo.

1:49:56 ↗ So, the initial purchase price for the

1:49:59 ↗ opportunity center condo, the unfinished

1:50:01 ↗ shell, is 7,536,237.

1:50:06 ↗ This is an initial purchase price

1:50:08 ↗ because it has not yet been constructed.

1:50:10 ↗ The way this agreement will work is that

1:50:13 ↗ um in 2027 when the construction is

1:50:16 ↗ finished and we're at construction

1:50:18 ↗ closing, the city would u pay the final

1:50:21 ↗ purchase price minus the money put down

1:50:23 ↗ in 2026 for the earnest money payment or

1:50:27 ↗ 5% of the initial purchase price.

1:50:30 ↗ There are a lot of provisions for what

1:50:32 ↗ happens if the the purchase price

1:50:34 ↗ increases that we're going to talk about

1:50:36 ↗ tonight. Um, and the first one I want to

1:50:37 ↗ note that is that additional costs of

1:50:40 ↗ $376,812

1:50:42 ↗ or 5% of the initial purchase price,

1:50:45 ↗ those costs are the city's

1:50:47 ↗ responsibility. Additional costs beyond

1:50:49 ↗ that are split split evenly between the

1:50:51 ↗ city and the seller.

1:50:53 ↗ I also want to note that the the

1:50:56 ↗ purchase price includes a fair bit of

1:50:58 ↗ contingency. There's a $500,000

1:51:00 ↗ contingency built in as a line item to

1:51:02 ↗ the budget in exhibit B of the PSA.

1:51:04 ↗ There's also contingency that both

1:51:06 ↗ Walsh, the construction manager, and

1:51:08 ↗ KCHA are carrying, which reduces the

1:51:11 ↗ likelihood of us needing to go above the

1:51:13 ↗ purchase price as we as we work through

1:51:15 ↗ this agreement. I'll also note that what

1:51:18 ↗ we're getting for for this purchase is

1:51:20 ↗ the 10,000 foot condo as well as 38

1:51:23 ↗ dedicated parking spaces on the ground

1:51:25 ↗ floor of the parking structure structure

1:51:27 ↗ to support our tenants and their

1:51:29 ↗ clients.

1:51:32 ↗ So when we received the initial purchase

1:51:33 ↗ price, we compared it to properties um

1:51:36 ↗ in the area to make sure that we were

1:51:38 ↗ this was a good use of city funds. So we

1:51:40 ↗ compared it to medical office space sold

1:51:42 ↗ in the last 2 years, that same kind of

1:51:44 ↗ space for sale uh generally in the east

1:51:47 ↗ side and that kind of space for sale

1:51:49 ↗ currently in Isiqua. The price per

1:51:52 ↗ square foot for the opportunity center

1:51:53 ↗ shell is $722.

1:51:56 ↗ The price per square foot for um spaces

1:51:59 ↗ sold um in the last two years in those

1:52:01 ↗ categories or currently for sale is $618

1:52:04 ↗ to $664 on average. I'll note that this

1:52:08 ↗ is an imperfect comparison for a couple

1:52:10 ↗ of reasons. One, we're getting new build

1:52:12 ↗ construction. We are also getting

1:52:14 ↗ transit or in transit oriented

1:52:16 ↗ development with easy access to the

1:52:18 ↗ services that we would provide. Um and

1:52:20 ↗ the fact that this this development is

1:52:22 ↗ mixed use. Um the average age of the

1:52:25 ↗ properties we compared this to is about

1:52:27 ↗ 50 years. Not all of them had

1:52:28 ↗ renovations. Um but if they did they

1:52:30 ↗ those renovations were about 20 years

1:52:32 ↗ ago. So just to compare a little bit to

1:52:35 ↗ the kinds of properties available

1:52:37 ↗ elsewhere.

1:52:39 ↗ We also have we also wanted to see um

1:52:41 ↗ how this property compared um to other

1:52:44 ↗ other properties available in Isiqua if

1:52:46 ↗ we wanted to locate the opportunity

1:52:48 ↗ center outside of this project. Um, and

1:52:51 ↗ realistically there hasn't been anything

1:52:53 ↗ sold in Isiqua recently that's in the 8

1:52:55 ↗ to 12,000 square foot range, which is

1:52:57 ↗ about what we need. Um, or within a half

1:53:00 ↗ mile of transit, which is necessary for

1:53:02 ↗ for us to use our state grant. I'll also

1:53:05 ↗ note that the city is in the unique

1:53:06 ↗ position of having recently bought a

1:53:07 ↗ city hall and that CBRE had estimated

1:53:10 ↗ that the price per square foot um of

1:53:12 ↗ that office space was going to be about

1:53:14 ↗ $725 in a Siqua and we'd have to do

1:53:17 ↗ tenant improvements to the space. So,

1:53:19 ↗ this is kind of well within what we

1:53:20 ↗ would expect to to pay.

1:53:24 ↗ I'll quickly note about the tenant

1:53:26 ↗ improvements. While they're not subject

1:53:27 ↗ to the PSA tonight, um that they would

1:53:29 ↗ be planned for after construction of the

1:53:31 ↗ building completes in 2027, we would go

1:53:34 ↗ in and construct the interior of the

1:53:35 ↗ opportunity center. The city and our

1:53:38 ↗ tenants would work out through our lease

1:53:39 ↗ agreement who exactly is responsible

1:53:41 ↗ for, you know, for example, getting an

1:53:43 ↗ architect on board and paying for the

1:53:45 ↗ tenant improvements.

1:53:47 ↗ um but they would be to build out the

1:53:49 ↗ HVAC or plumbing, drywall and fixtures

1:53:51 ↗ in the space. We talked with our

1:53:53 ↗ facilities team as well as behavioral

1:53:55 ↗ health providers in the region who um do

1:53:58 ↗ this kind of work and they estimated

1:53:59 ↗ that to build out medical office space

1:54:01 ↗ would be between $225 a square foot to

1:54:04 ↗ $300 a square foot for these kinds of

1:54:07 ↗ improvements. Those estimates are lower

1:54:09 ↗ if it's just behavioral health provided

1:54:10 ↗ in the space and no dental or medical.

1:54:15 ↗ The city has set aside funding for the

1:54:17 ↗ acquisition and tenant improvements for

1:54:19 ↗ the opportunity center for many years.

1:54:21 ↗ There are three main buckets of funds.

1:54:23 ↗ First, the affordable housing fund. The

1:54:24 ↗ city has designated $5 million to go

1:54:27 ↗ towards the opportunity center. There

1:54:30 ↗ are also funds set aside about a million

1:54:32 ↗ in the mitigation fund in the from the

1:54:34 ↗ talis development agreement uh fee and

1:54:36 ↗ loo as well as the human services campus

1:54:39 ↗ and that's about a million dollars to be

1:54:41 ↗ used for affordable housing or human

1:54:42 ↗ services. We also have a $3 million

1:54:45 ↗ direct appropriation in the local

1:54:46 ↗ community program from the state. Um

1:54:49 ↗ I'll note here that a requirement of

1:54:51 ↗ that is that we locate this facility in

1:54:52 ↗ that in a way that has transit access

1:54:54 ↗ which is why that's so important and

1:54:57 ↗ that this funding technically expires at

1:54:59 ↗ the end of the bienium June 30th 2027.

1:55:02 ↗ We anticipate being able to roll over

1:55:05 ↗ till 2029

1:55:07 ↗ um and speaking with our program manager

1:55:09 ↗ at Commerce so that we would receive

1:55:10 ↗ reimbursement after the acquisition in

1:55:12 ↗ early 2028. And I'm happy to answer more

1:55:15 ↗ questions about that.

1:55:17 ↗ Because the initial purchase price for

1:55:19 ↗ the opportunity center is seven and a

1:55:21 ↗ half million, we propose putting down an

1:55:23 ↗ earnest money payment from the

1:55:24 ↗ mitigation funds here in July of 2026

1:55:27 ↗ and then concluding or finishing the

1:55:29 ↗ payment with the construction closing in

1:55:31 ↗ late 2027 using the remainder of the

1:55:33 ↗ mitigation fund set aside, the

1:55:35 ↗ affordable housing fund set aside as

1:55:37 ↗ well as an additional million and a

1:55:38 ↗ halfish of affordable housing funds that

1:55:40 ↗ would need to be set aside to complete

1:55:42 ↗ the purchase.

1:55:43 ↗ the affordable housing fund would be

1:55:47 ↗ um Okay, sorry.

1:55:53 ↗ There we go. Um, so in addition to the

1:55:56 ↗ $5 million set aside, the administration

1:55:58 ↗ is proposing setting aside a million an

1:56:00 ↗ additional 2 and a.5 million from the

1:56:02 ↗ affordable housing fund to cover the

1:56:05 ↗ initial purchase price if there were any

1:56:06 ↗ increases to the purchase price, but

1:56:08 ↗ also potentially some of those tenant

1:56:10 ↗ improvements that we know we might have

1:56:11 ↗ to share with our with our future

1:56:13 ↗ tenants. Finance has confirmed that the

1:56:15 ↗ affordable housing fund can support this

1:56:17 ↗ and the reimbursement from the state

1:56:19 ↗ state grant would go to the affordable

1:56:20 ↗ housing fund meaning there would be um

1:56:23 ↗ sufficient fund balance to designate for

1:56:25 ↗ other capital investments in the future.

1:56:29 ↗ So this kind of concludes the the

1:56:31 ↗ purchase and sale agreement part of the

1:56:32 ↗ presentation before going quickly into

1:56:34 ↗ some of the mayor's authorizations and

1:56:35 ↗ the condo agreements. There are some

1:56:37 ↗ trade-offs that come with not purchasing

1:56:39 ↗ the opportunity center. First, like

1:56:40 ↗ we've discussed, it's improbable that we

1:56:42 ↗ would find suitable space near transit.

1:56:44 ↗ We've conducted these searches in 2025

1:56:46 ↗ and 2026 just to see what was out there

1:56:49 ↗ and see if there's something else in

1:56:50 ↗ Isiqua um that we could where we could

1:56:53 ↗ locate the opportunity center. It's also

1:56:55 ↗ there's also no guarantee that any other

1:56:57 ↗ space found would be less expensive to

1:56:59 ↗ purchase and improve than this space

1:57:01 ↗ here in the uh in the um the TOD

1:57:04 ↗ building. Additionally, the opportunity

1:57:07 ↗ center space that's been reserved in

1:57:08 ↗ that building would be KCHAs to use, and

1:57:11 ↗ they're a housing authority. It's not

1:57:12 ↗ their their business to do a um a

1:57:15 ↗ commercial space. They're doing it at

1:57:16 ↗ the city's request. And they can

1:57:17 ↗ certainly speak more to what that space

1:57:19 ↗ might become if it wasn't going to be

1:57:21 ↗ the opportunity center, but likely

1:57:22 ↗ something that's resident supporting.

1:57:26 ↗ Okay. So, let's talk about the mayor's

1:57:28 ↗ authorization sought tonight. So, the

1:57:30 ↗ first is for material adverse impacts.

1:57:33 ↗ The PSA stipulates that the seller needs

1:57:35 ↗ written approval of changes that qualify

1:57:36 ↗ as material adverse impacts and the city

1:57:39 ↗ has to respond to those changes within

1:57:40 ↗ 10 business days. A material adverse

1:57:43 ↗ impact is an individual or cumulative

1:57:45 ↗ change of $376,812

1:57:48 ↗ or more or any reduction in square

1:57:50 ↗ footage to the opportunity center due to

1:57:52 ↗ unforeseen circumstances.

1:57:55 ↗ Um, we're seeking city council approval

1:57:56 ↗ for the mayor to approve changes due to

1:57:59 ↗ material adverse impacts up to a

1:58:01 ↗ $500,000 increase in purchase price.

1:58:04 ↗ City council approval is required

1:58:06 ↗ because this exceeds what's in the

1:58:07 ↗ financial management policy. I think

1:58:09 ↗ this is easier to to visualize rather

1:58:11 ↗ than talk through. So on your screen you

1:58:14 ↗ have um essentially what would happen at

1:58:17 ↗ various levels of increase to purchase

1:58:19 ↗ price. Um if there were individual or

1:58:22 ↗ cumulative changes of $376,811

1:58:27 ↗ the seller would be responsible for

1:58:29 ↗ approving those changes, not the mayor,

1:58:31 ↗ not the city, and the city would bear

1:58:33 ↗ those costs. That's the material adverse

1:58:36 ↗ impact threshold. After that point, the

1:58:38 ↗ city and the seller share the costs

1:58:40 ↗ evenly. We're seeking additional mayoral

1:58:43 ↗ authority for the next $123,189

1:58:47 ↗ for the mayor to be able to approve

1:58:49 ↗ those change orders for expediency.

1:58:52 ↗ After that point, we're at $500,000

1:58:54 ↗ increase in cost and we would come to

1:58:55 ↗ city c we would propose that we would

1:58:57 ↗ come to city council at that point to

1:58:59 ↗ seek your approval.

1:59:01 ↗ I again want to note that this is

1:59:02 ↗ unlikely given the amount of contingency

1:59:04 ↗ baked into the project. Um but we just

1:59:07 ↗ wanted to be well prepared.

1:59:09 ↗ Additionally, the city may have requests

1:59:10 ↗ that increase the purchase price. These

1:59:12 ↗ are not material adverse impacts. The

1:59:14 ↗ city is solely responsible for this cost

1:59:16 ↗ or seeking city council authority to

1:59:18 ↗ have the mayor authorize increases in

1:59:20 ↗ costs at the city's request. Um that

1:59:23 ↗ would have an individual or cumulative

1:59:25 ↗ effect of less than $3768

1:59:28 ↗ sorry $376,812.

1:59:33 ↗ Okay. The condominium agreements. So

1:59:36 ↗ there are a couple of agreements

1:59:38 ↗ attached to the purchase and sale

1:59:39 ↗ agreement that again govern that

1:59:40 ↗ relationship between all the condo unit

1:59:43 ↗ owners in the north building on the

1:59:45 ↗ site. These agreements are between the

1:59:47 ↗ trailhead plaza condominium of which the

1:59:49 ↗ city would be an owner and the trail

1:59:51 ↗ head apartments group.

1:59:53 ↗ So the documents include the articles of

1:59:56 ↗ incorporation. They define the condo

1:59:58 ↗ association's purpose under RCW as well

2:00:01 ↗ as the five members of the condo board.

2:00:03 ↗ Three of those would be representing

2:00:04 ↗ trailhead Apartments or KCHA. One of

2:00:07 ↗ those would be a representative of the

2:00:09 ↗ city and one of those would be a

2:00:10 ↗ representative representative of Leo

2:00:12 ↗ House.

2:00:15 ↗ There's also the declaration that

2:00:16 ↗ describes the units, their boundaries,

2:00:18 ↗ common elements, um parking and

2:00:21 ↗ permitted uses among other things. It

2:00:23 ↗ importantly also establishes voting

2:00:24 ↗ power because KCHA um or Trail Head

2:00:27 ↗ Apartments owns or has 94% of the

2:00:30 ↗ overall square footage of the building.

2:00:32 ↗ they have a majority of the voting

2:00:34 ↗ power. So there are some elements that

2:00:36 ↗ require unanimous vote like changes to

2:00:39 ↗ um sorry there are some uh actions that

2:00:41 ↗ require unanimous vote uh that uh

2:00:44 ↗ include changes to common elements,

2:00:46 ↗ adoption of the annual budget or any

2:00:47 ↗ changes to the governing governing

2:00:49 ↗ documents. There's also mention in the

2:00:52 ↗ agreements to a grounds lease.

2:00:54 ↗ This is a 99-year lease between Trail

2:00:57 ↗ Head Apartments and King County Housing

2:00:59 ↗ Authority. King County Housing Authority

2:01:01 ↗ would own the land and lease it to Trail

2:01:03 ↗ Head Apartments for the length of this

2:01:05 ↗ term. It establishes ownership of the

2:01:07 ↗ land versus the building. Um, the city's

2:01:09 ↗ ownership is of the condominium unit.

2:01:11 ↗ So, in 99 years, if that building were

2:01:13 ↗ to still be standing, the land and

2:01:16 ↗ everything on it would be conveyed back

2:01:17 ↗ to KCHA and the city would no longer

2:01:19 ↗ have ownership of the building or of the

2:01:22 ↗ condo unit.

2:01:25 ↗ Additionally, there are bylaws that are

2:01:28 ↗ are pretty standard governing meeting

2:01:30 ↗ procedures and how the board can act.

2:01:33 ↗ The final authorization we're seeking

2:01:34 ↗ from you tonight is the appointment to

2:01:36 ↗ the condo board. Once the condominium

2:01:38 ↗ assoc association is created, the city

2:01:40 ↗ needs to appoint a board member. They're

2:01:42 ↗ going to decide on things like signage

2:01:44 ↗ for its tenants, budgets, things like

2:01:46 ↗ that. We're seeking council authority

2:01:48 ↗ for the mayor to appoint the appropriate

2:01:50 ↗ staff member, likely a department

2:01:51 ↗ director. um once the condominium

2:01:54 ↗ association is formed.

2:01:58 ↗ So next steps, if the PSA is approved,

2:02:00 ↗ the earnest money would be would be paid

2:02:02 ↗ here in July of 2026.

2:02:04 ↗ Over the next 18 months, the city would

2:02:06 ↗ continue continue to pursue behavioral

2:02:08 ↗ health, dental, and medical health

2:02:10 ↗ tenants, conducting an RFP process to

2:02:12 ↗ select them, um and beginning the the

2:02:15 ↗ negotiations over lease agreements, as

2:02:16 ↗ well as designing those tenant

2:02:18 ↗ improvements. In late 2027, we would

2:02:20 ↗ close on the purchase of the opportunity

2:02:22 ↗ center, making that final payment, and

2:02:24 ↗ then in 2028, we would receive that

2:02:27 ↗ grant reimbursement and tenant

2:02:28 ↗ improvements to finish the opportunity

2:02:30 ↗ center could begin.

2:02:33 ↗ So, with that, the four motions are in

2:02:35 ↗ front of you tonight, and I'm happy to

2:02:36 ↗ stand for any questions.

2:02:40 ↗ Okay, as you could tell that we are in

2:02:42 ↗ good hands as Andrea moves on to Swami

2:02:45 ↗ Jillian has an amazing grasp of these

2:02:47 ↗ topics and I realize council member Joe

2:02:50 ↗ you might have when we with John

2:02:52 ↗ Writtenhouse put the first million

2:02:53 ↗ dollars aside. You actually could have

2:02:54 ↗ been involved in that. So I might have

2:02:56 ↗ to eat my words of uh on that front.

2:02:59 ↗ Council member Walsh,

2:03:01 ↗ >> thank you and thank you for the great

2:03:03 ↗ presentation. Chillian. Um I am trying

2:03:07 ↗ to understand the funding that we have

2:03:11 ↗ set aside on this project. Obviously

2:03:13 ↗ right now we're talking about the

2:03:15 ↗ opportunity center.

2:03:17 ↗ >> A lot of our previous conversation as

2:03:19 ↗ has been mentioned um was about the

2:03:24 ↗ to portion of the project. And so I'm

2:03:27 ↗ trying to remember the $5 million we set

2:03:32 ↗ aside.

2:03:33 ↗ >> Mhm.

2:03:35 ↗ >> I believe that was set aside, if I

2:03:38 ↗ remember correctly from your emails,

2:03:41 ↗ that was an allocation or a promise that

2:03:45 ↗ was made in 2018. Is that correct?

2:03:48 ↗ >> Yeah. There was um a council

2:03:50 ↗ authorization or direction in 2018 to

2:03:52 ↗ set aside 2.8 8 million for the

2:03:54 ↗ acquisition of the opportunity center,

2:03:56 ↗ an additional 2 and a4 million for the

2:03:59 ↗ tenant improvements for the opportunity

2:04:01 ↗ center. So all for the opportunity

2:04:03 ↗ center in that 5 million.

2:04:04 ↗ >> Okay. And the affordable housing fund

2:04:07 ↗ hadn't been established at that time.

2:04:09 ↗ Um, so the idea that we're putting

2:04:13 ↗ together here is there was a previous

2:04:16 ↗ commitment to just over $5 million and

2:04:20 ↗ here we are saying where those revenue

2:04:24 ↗ or where those dollars will come from.

2:04:26 ↗ Is that correct?

2:04:28 ↗ >> That's correct. And there's been

2:04:29 ↗ planning and allocation of that

2:04:30 ↗ throughout the years. has typically been

2:04:32 ↗ held in the affordable housing fund

2:04:34 ↗ which was previously co-mingled with the

2:04:36 ↗ general fund but it's always been held

2:04:38 ↗ for the opportunity center.

2:04:40 ↗ >> Yeah. So let me ask about that because I

2:04:43 ↗ remember setting aside money from the

2:04:45 ↗ affordable housing fund for the to

2:04:47 ↗ project. I don't remember anything

2:04:50 ↗ specifically from the affordable housing

2:04:52 ↗ fund for the opportunity center. the

2:04:54 ↗ affordable housing fund made IHIP and

2:04:56 ↗ ARCH contributions that would have

2:04:58 ↗ supported the um that did support the

2:05:00 ↗ TOD part of the project, the the part

2:05:03 ↗ that KCHJ is better supposed to speak

2:05:05 ↗ to. Um but then later the $5 million

2:05:10 ↗ previously set aside in the general fund

2:05:13 ↗ when the affordable housing fund was

2:05:14 ↗ created, um those revenues would be

2:05:17 ↗ would be used for for this purchase. And

2:05:22 ↗ that's a set aside that.

2:05:24 ↗ >> So, is this a new proposal then or is

2:05:29 ↗ because I'm I'm really trying to rack my

2:05:31 ↗ brain about when that happened that we

2:05:34 ↗ decided to use affordable housing

2:05:36 ↗ funding for the opportunity center

2:05:39 ↗ portion of things. Um,

2:05:43 ↗ given the timing, so the the $5 million

2:05:47 ↗ set aside happened in 2018. The

2:05:49 ↗ affordable housing sales tax was

2:05:51 ↗ authorized, I believe, in 2020.

2:05:54 ↗ Um and

2:05:58 ↗ there the set aside has always been in

2:06:00 ↗ the affordable housing side of the

2:06:02 ↗ revenues as long as I've been at the

2:06:04 ↗ city. I don't know if there's any other

2:06:06 ↗ history there that we could share, but

2:06:10 ↗ >> Okay. Um, I would still love to be able

2:06:13 ↗ to track that down because I haven't

2:06:15 ↗ been able to um figure that out. But

2:06:19 ↗ so

2:06:21 ↗ we this is moving forward on the

2:06:24 ↗ opportunity center.

2:06:26 ↗ >> There are also costs on the

2:06:29 ↗ transitoriented development side. None

2:06:33 ↗ of that conflicts with each other.

2:06:35 ↗ Correct.

2:06:36 ↗ >> Correct. I believe the city is finished

2:06:38 ↗ its contributions to the TOD side of the

2:06:40 ↗ project with the last IHIP contribution

2:06:43 ↗ and the last dispersement of ARCH funds

2:06:45 ↗ that are obviously co-mingled with other

2:06:46 ↗ cities. Um so there are no more

2:06:49 ↗ dispersements to

2:06:52 ↗ the TOD side of the project.

2:06:55 ↗ One exception which is a grant that

2:06:57 ↗ Jillian actually applied for and was

2:06:59 ↗ successful in which is um when we wave

2:07:02 ↗ affordable housing fees. So permit fees,

2:07:05 ↗ development fees that we charge any

2:07:06 ↗ other development, we waved those. The

2:07:08 ↗ city actually has to pay a portion of

2:07:09 ↗ those back. And so um Jillian was able

2:07:11 ↗ to get a grant to help pay for those.

2:07:13 ↗ And that's something that we had

2:07:14 ↗ anticipated maybe some of those funds

2:07:15 ↗ would be used for, but she was able to

2:07:18 ↗ secure other funding for that. Okay. Um,

2:07:22 ↗ and then further talking about this

2:07:24 ↗ funding breakdown, um, because the

2:07:27 ↗ conversation is the $3 million

2:07:30 ↗ with from the state that is the direct

2:07:34 ↗ appropriation for the local community

2:07:35 ↗ program, as you said, is not anticipated

2:07:38 ↗ until afterward because it's a

2:07:40 ↗ reimbursement.

2:07:41 ↗ >> Yes. Is there anything in this ordinance

2:07:45 ↗ that requires us to reimburse the

2:07:49 ↗ affordable housing fund or is that a

2:07:51 ↗ decision that we make at a later point?

2:07:55 ↗ >> Yeah, let me pull up the motions really

2:07:58 ↗ quick um and talk about just kind of the

2:08:00 ↗ sequencing here. So, in your first

2:08:04 ↗ motion at the very end, it it says that

2:08:06 ↗ this would be this purchase would be

2:08:08 ↗ funded by mitigation and affordable

2:08:09 ↗ housing funds. We spent a lot of time

2:08:11 ↗ talking with finance about what kind of

2:08:13 ↗ language they would need to know to hold

2:08:15 ↗ this as they present to you I believe in

2:08:17 ↗ July about the affordable housing fund

2:08:19 ↗ or at least throughout the budget

2:08:20 ↗ process and their proposal for it. So

2:08:24 ↗ this is what they needed to hold those

2:08:26 ↗ funds. Um and then it's always been our

2:08:29 ↗ understanding if you'd like to add

2:08:31 ↗ additional language that the

2:08:32 ↗ reimbursement go to the funding sources

2:08:34 ↗ that that make the purchase I think that

2:08:36 ↗ would be fine. But that's always been

2:08:38 ↗ our our proposal. Okay. Is that the

2:08:41 ↗ affordable housing fund is made as whole

2:08:43 ↗ as it can be through the the grant

2:08:44 ↗ reimbursement.

2:08:45 ↗ >> Yeah. And maybe I will either we don't

2:08:48 ↗ have finance here, but city

2:08:50 ↗ administrator Bob Quitz, is there

2:08:54 ↗ anything that we need to do to ensure

2:08:57 ↗ that

2:08:58 ↗ when the state reimbures us that the

2:09:02 ↗ those dollars go back to the affordable

2:09:06 ↗ housing fund that it was taken from in

2:09:08 ↗ addition to what the um language here is

2:09:11 ↗ in the proposed motion.

2:09:14 ↗ Uh that is the intent. I'll look at the

2:09:16 ↗ city attorney. Um that could be included

2:09:19 ↗ in this motion or a subsequent motion if

2:09:21 ↗ the council desired.

2:09:24 ↗ >> To the current motion.

2:09:28 ↗ >> No. So during the grant contracting

2:09:29 ↗ process, it would come back before

2:09:31 ↗ before council.

2:09:34 ↗ >> Okay.

2:09:35 ↗ >> Okay. My concern there is that we are

2:09:39 ↗ taking money from a dedicated fund

2:09:41 ↗ without anything that necessarily

2:09:44 ↗ requires us to put the money back. Um

2:09:50 ↗ >> I I think our understanding is we can't

2:09:54 ↗ accept that $3 million grant. We have to

2:09:57 ↗ come back to council and so we're going

2:09:58 ↗ to put it back in the housing fund. I

2:09:59 ↗ mean the housing fund will have three

2:10:01 ↗ and a half$4 million. We have to dip

2:10:03 ↗ into a little of it, I think, to

2:10:05 ↗ complete the final trunch, but the

2:10:07 ↗ second the purchase closes, we get the

2:10:10 ↗ $3 million and the housing fund is made

2:10:12 ↗ whole. And

2:10:15 ↗ and I feel like there I agree with the

2:10:18 ↗ city attorney. I think when we actually

2:10:19 ↗ accept that $3 million, council will I

2:10:23 ↗ mean, we're going to put it back in the

2:10:24 ↗ housing fund, but if we want to make

2:10:25 ↗ that part of the ordinance of where it

2:10:27 ↗ goes, that's really easy to do, I think,

2:10:28 ↗ when

2:10:29 ↗ >> But the appropriate time for that would

2:10:31 ↗ be when we accept the grant dollars.

2:10:36 ↗ >> You can do it tonight, too.

2:10:37 ↗ >> Okay.

2:10:38 ↗ >> Either one would work.

2:10:39 ↗ >> Okay. I'll save that for my comments.

2:10:42 ↗ Um, but that was Yeah, that is one of my

2:10:45 ↗ concern areas there. Thank you,

2:10:47 ↗ >> Council Member Nichols.

2:10:50 ↗ >> Uh, thank you. I'm trying to make the

2:10:52 ↗ math work on a different slide. Can you

2:10:54 ↗ go to um

2:10:57 ↗ uh how do I describe this?

2:11:01 ↗ Um, okay. The title is additional

2:11:04 ↗ affordable housing set aside.

2:11:06 ↗ >> Yeah, right there. Okay. Um,

2:11:09 ↗ so that the 2.5 million where is I'm I'm

2:11:12 ↗ having I can't quite trace where that

2:11:15 ↗ breaks down otherwise. On the slide

2:11:18 ↗ before that, it says 1.4 million is

2:11:20 ↗ needed and is an additional set aside.

2:11:22 ↗ Um, and I don't see another million

2:11:26 ↗ dollars making that up elsewhere. So

2:11:29 ↗ maybe I can make this a clear question.

2:11:32 ↗ Where does that $2.5 million come from?

2:11:34 ↗ And is it distinct from the 1.4 4

2:11:36 ↗ million on the previous slide.

2:11:38 ↗ >> The $2.5 million in additional

2:11:40 ↗ affordable housing funding that we are

2:11:41 ↗ seeking that you designate for the

2:11:43 ↗ purchase of the opportunity center is

2:11:45 ↗ really just to be prudent in planning.

2:11:46 ↗ So this is in case the uh the purchase

2:11:49 ↗ price increases above the initial

2:11:50 ↗ purchase price that we have that we have

2:11:52 ↗ from KCHA of 7.5 million here today. Um

2:11:56 ↗ so that's the additional 1.4 to meet

2:11:59 ↗ that purchase price and an additional

2:12:00 ↗ million in case the purchase price were

2:12:02 ↗ to increase. We also know we have some

2:12:04 ↗ amount of tenant improvement subject to

2:12:07 ↗ the lease agreements with our tenants.

2:12:09 ↗ Um and and all of that to make um so

2:12:13 ↗ this could provide funding for that as

2:12:15 ↗ well.

2:12:16 ↗ >> Okay.

2:12:17 ↗ >> Primary purchase is to ensure that we

2:12:18 ↗ can complete the purchase of

2:12:20 ↗ >> Let me try to restate that to see if I

2:12:21 ↗ got it. So we need 1.4. You you believe

2:12:25 ↗ we need 1.4.

2:12:27 ↗ >> I know that we need Okay, we know we

2:12:29 ↗ need 1.4 for of set aside. The 2.5

2:12:33 ↗ number is adding another million dollars

2:12:35 ↗ of contingency onto that.

2:12:37 ↗ >> Okay.

2:12:38 ↗ >> But I would say a half million is

2:12:40 ↗ contingency. The other half million is

2:12:42 ↗ tenant improvement dollars. Okay.

2:12:45 ↗ >> Does that make sense?

2:12:46 ↗ >> So yeah, so you have that extra half

2:12:49 ↗ million just in case it went all the way

2:12:51 ↗ up to 8 million. But we also know we're

2:12:54 ↗ expecting two to three million of tenant

2:12:55 ↗ improvements. We have no idea based on

2:12:57 ↗ the tenants if we're responsible for 20%

2:13:00 ↗ of that or 80% of that. We think at a

2:13:03 ↗ minimum we're responsible for 20% of the

2:13:05 ↗ tenant improvements. So that 500,000

2:13:07 ↗ lets you at least start on some of the

2:13:09 ↗ tenant improvements right away as we're

2:13:11 ↗ talking to future tenants.

2:13:13 ↗ >> Okay. Got it. Thank you.

2:13:16 ↗ >> Uh Deputy President Jane.

2:13:17 ↗ >> Um I guess you just answered my first

2:13:19 ↗ question which was what city account

2:13:21 ↗ would the tenant improvement funding

2:13:23 ↗ come out of? So, you're saying it would

2:13:24 ↗ come out of the affordable housing fund?

2:13:27 ↗ >> Yeah, that's our plan. Um, city council,

2:13:29 ↗ we could bring a different proposal if

2:13:31 ↗ they were to exceed a certain amount.

2:13:32 ↗ >> Okay. Um, and this just out of

2:13:36 ↗ curiosity, I'm curious how the breakdown

2:13:38 ↗ in cost for the opportunity center is

2:13:40 ↗ calculated given that it's part of a

2:13:41 ↗ larger building like are we prorating

2:13:43 ↗ like a share of the like foundation and

2:13:45 ↗ roof or what's the breakdown? Yeah, I

2:13:47 ↗ think actually I'd like to turn that

2:13:48 ↗ over to to KCHA because they can give

2:13:50 ↗ you a more detailed explanation than

2:13:52 ↗ than I can.

2:13:55 ↗ >> There you go. One day to go to

2:13:57 ↗ retirement and get put to work.

2:14:02 ↗ >> So, Dan Landis, King County Housing

2:14:05 ↗ Authority. Uh we asked our contractor to

2:14:09 ↗ uh look in spec specifically what it's

2:14:12 ↗ what costs um are properly allocated to

2:14:16 ↗ the opportunity center based on it's you

2:14:19 ↗ know different kind of space. It's not

2:14:22 ↗ finished space. Uh it has a higher

2:14:24 ↗ proration of parking than than the other

2:14:27 ↗ rest of the building does. So it's all

2:14:30 ↗ all of the costs are based on what the

2:14:32 ↗ contractor has told us. And we've had a

2:14:34 ↗ lot of back and forth to make sure that

2:14:36 ↗ they got it right. But it's based on the

2:14:37 ↗ square footage. Um, obviously

2:14:41 ↗ our square footage cost is going to be

2:14:42 ↗ higher because for the I mean you have

2:14:46 ↗ more parking, but for the actual space

2:14:47 ↗ itself, your space won't be finished.

2:14:50 ↗ Our space will be finished. So all of

2:14:51 ↗ that's accounted for. Uh, we're not

2:14:53 ↗ prorrating the entire cost. We're we ask

2:14:56 ↗ the contractor to to actually break it

2:14:58 ↗ down.

2:15:00 ↗ >> Great. Thank you. Um, okay. And one last

2:15:03 ↗ question. So I remember when we had

2:15:05 ↗ approved or I think back in, you know,

2:15:08 ↗ July or September of last year where we

2:15:10 ↗ talked about purchasing the opportunity

2:15:11 ↗ center, there was some talk about, you

2:15:12 ↗ know, do we want to have one tenant or

2:15:15 ↗ do we want to have a mixture of

2:15:16 ↗ different tenants? Um so I'm curious

2:15:18 ↗ what the current status is on, you know,

2:15:21 ↗ finding tenants for the opportunity

2:15:22 ↗ center space. Yeah, since getting

2:15:24 ↗ council direction, um the administration

2:15:27 ↗ reached out to a lot of the federally

2:15:29 ↗ qualified health centers and other kind

2:15:30 ↗ of larger providers in the Puget Sound

2:15:33 ↗ region to make them aware of this

2:15:35 ↗ opportunity. We then conducted a letters

2:15:37 ↗ of interest process working with the

2:15:39 ↗ human services team here in Isiqua to

2:15:41 ↗ talk with providers who are already

2:15:42 ↗ providing these services in our

2:15:44 ↗ community and we left it pretty

2:15:46 ↗ open-ended. It was basically a

2:15:48 ↗ questionnaire that was basically how

2:15:49 ↗ much space do you want? What kind of

2:15:51 ↗ services would you like to provide? We

2:15:53 ↗ got a few um a few potential tenants

2:15:56 ↗ from that process. We also have then

2:15:58 ↗ since worked with the Department of

2:16:00 ↗ Community and Human Services at King

2:16:02 ↗ County to advertise this space as well

2:16:05 ↗ and have gotten a a little bit more

2:16:07 ↗ interest um and are currently in talks

2:16:09 ↗ with two to three um different providers

2:16:12 ↗ this week. So,

2:16:14 ↗ >> and Jillian and I's coffee tomorrow

2:16:15 ↗ morning is with Sami Tribe at 8:30. So

2:16:17 ↗ we are going out to Swami Tribe because

2:16:20 ↗ they're a potential partner. Amy Winston

2:16:22 ↗ is from Udub Dentl is potential partner

2:16:24 ↗ on affordable dental access and that

2:16:26 ↗ meeting is next week. So yeah, we're

2:16:27 ↗ actively pursuing people to fill the

2:16:29 ↗ space. Uh council member Adair.

2:16:33 ↗ >> Um for the the mayor authorization of

2:16:36 ↗ the 376 to 500,000. Um it's noted in

2:16:39 ↗ here that if if there is a change that

2:16:42 ↗ increases by more than that, you have to

2:16:44 ↗ return to city council.

2:16:46 ↗ um you know what is the timeline of

2:16:49 ↗ these potential changes is like do we

2:16:52 ↗ what would that process be if we don't

2:16:54 ↗ have a meeting within that 10 business

2:16:56 ↗ days like an emergency session or how we

2:16:58 ↗ do obviously this would be a big change

2:16:59 ↗ and they could just do it without our

2:17:01 ↗ approval. So

2:17:01 ↗ >> Dan or Nate you want to come back up. I

2:17:03 ↗ mean

2:17:03 ↗ >> I'm happy to

2:17:05 ↗ take the first part of it. The PSA

2:17:07 ↗ stipulates that we have to provide a

2:17:08 ↗ response within 10 business days. So,

2:17:10 ↗ we'd have to schedule a special council

2:17:12 ↗ meeting to have the discussion and

2:17:14 ↗ provide a decision. And I think maybe

2:17:16 ↗ that that timing was chosen to not hold

2:17:18 ↗ up the project um on the basis of of

2:17:21 ↗ those change orders more than two weeks.

2:17:24 ↗ But if there if I got that wrong, please

2:17:25 ↗ correct me. Okay.

2:17:28 ↗ And I think part of the comfort level

2:17:31 ↗ here is if you add up the contingencies

2:17:34 ↗ between the two separate buckets that

2:17:36 ↗ are already in that $7.5 million price,

2:17:38 ↗ you you have 7 to $900,000 of

2:17:40 ↗ contingencies if everything went

2:17:42 ↗ perfectly according to plan, which would

2:17:43 ↗ actually come in at less than 7.5

2:17:45 ↗ million. So things have to go wrong to

2:17:47 ↗ get to 7.5 million is sort of how I'm

2:17:49 ↗ thinking about it. And then they have to

2:17:50 ↗ go substantially sort of sideways to get

2:17:54 ↗ to the extra half million. Council

2:17:55 ↗ member Walsh.

2:17:57 ↗ >> Yeah. toward that idea, we should be

2:17:59 ↗ able to watch our costs and if we

2:18:02 ↗ started to get toward these areas, we

2:18:04 ↗ could make an adjustment so that we

2:18:06 ↗ didn't have to face a period when we had

2:18:08 ↗ a 10day special session or something

2:18:11 ↗ like that. But this gives the authority

2:18:15 ↗ within a a smaller scope um but which we

2:18:19 ↗ think is appropriate. Correct. Yeah.

2:18:21 ↗ Okay. I believe that Dan has something

2:18:24 ↗ he'd like to share.

2:18:29 ↗ If I could just add to this. So our

2:18:32 ↗ um interests are very aligned on this.

2:18:34 ↗ Our our costs are about 16 times what

2:18:37 ↗ yours are. And if your costs are going

2:18:39 ↗ up, our costs are going up 16 times

2:18:41 ↗ that. And so we I I think we're going to

2:18:44 ↗ manage this really carefully. We're

2:18:45 ↗ we're confident that our contingencies

2:18:47 ↗ are more than we will need uh before

2:18:50 ↗ anything above the before the purchase

2:18:52 ↗ price would ever change. and uh your

2:18:55 ↗ space is also on the ground floor. So um

2:18:59 ↗ it will be early on in the project where

2:19:02 ↗ uh all of the opportunities for your

2:19:06 ↗ cost to drastically increase would

2:19:07 ↗ happen. Uh we'll we'll continue to have

2:19:10 ↗ risk as we start building above above

2:19:12 ↗ the first floor for ours, but that won't

2:19:14 ↗ impact you anymore. So, I think there

2:19:15 ↗ will be lots of time to figure things

2:19:18 ↗ out if we if we hit that kind of crisis,

2:19:21 ↗ but it will be a much bigger deal for

2:19:24 ↗ our our uh or much more of an

2:19:27 ↗ existential crisis for the project from

2:19:29 ↗ our standpoint just because we would be

2:19:32 ↗ bearing a huge cost.

2:19:34 ↗ >> You could be retired on a beach in

2:19:35 ↗ Jamaica that

2:19:36 ↗ >> I should say. It'll be a bigger a big

2:19:38 ↗ problem for them, right?

2:19:44 ↗ Okay, looking uh not seeing any other

2:19:49 ↗ question. Oh, council member Boyd,

2:19:51 ↗ >> I think I know the answer is yes, but

2:19:53 ↗ just to hear it from you to clarify any

2:19:56 ↗ potential mayoral authorization on the

2:19:59 ↗ cost increase that's just for this

2:20:01 ↗ particular

2:20:02 ↗ >> Yes, that is that is limited to this to

2:20:04 ↗ the purchase of the opportunity center.

2:20:07 ↗ >> I don't get to buy a Porsche.

2:20:11 ↗ Okay. Uh, Council President Martz. Uh,

2:20:16 ↗ seeing no further questions, I move to

2:20:17 ↗ authorize the mayor to execute a

2:20:18 ↗ purchase and sale agreement in

2:20:20 ↗ substantially the form as the attached

2:20:21 ↗ agreement exhibit A as approved by the

2:20:23 ↗ city attorney and other documents

2:20:24 ↗ necessary to purchase the condominium to

2:20:27 ↗ be known as the opportunity center

2:20:29 ↗ located at 1467 Northwest Maple Street

2:20:32 ↗ in Isiqua from Trailhead Apartments LLP

2:20:35 ↗ at costs for the amount of 7,536,237

2:20:40 ↗ plus closing costs to be funded using

2:20:42 ↗ mitigation and affordable housing funds.

2:20:45 ↗ and authorize the mayor to review and

2:20:47 ↗ determine whether to execute change

2:20:49 ↗ orders from material adverse impacts as

2:20:51 ↗ defined in the purchase agreement as

2:20:52 ↗ individually or cumulatively resulting

2:20:54 ↗ in a purchase price increase of $376,812

2:20:59 ↗ to $500,000

2:21:01 ↗ or any reduction in the square footage

2:21:03 ↗ of the opportunity center from the

2:21:05 ↗ approved plans and authorize the mayor

2:21:08 ↗ to review and determine whether to

2:21:09 ↗ execute change orders at the city's

2:21:11 ↗ request that would result individually

2:21:12 ↗ or cumulatively in an increase to the

2:21:14 ↗ purchase price of less than $376,812

2:21:18 ↗ and authorize the mayor to appoint a

2:21:21 ↗ director to serve on the board of

2:21:22 ↗ directors at the Trail Head Plaza

2:21:23 ↗ Condominium Association.

2:21:27 ↗ >> Second.

2:21:28 ↗ >> Okay, there's been a motion and a

2:21:29 ↗ second. Normally, at my turn, I repeat

2:21:31 ↗ the motion, but given that I predict

2:21:33 ↗ this meeting at 9:57 tonight, I'm going

2:21:35 ↗ to say that I will refer to that as the

2:21:37 ↗ motion when it comes time to vote. Uh,

2:21:39 ↗ Council President Marks.

2:21:42 ↗ So, I'm not going to I'm not going to

2:21:44 ↗ talk long because most of have have

2:21:46 ↗ heard most of you have heard me app on

2:21:48 ↗ this issue many many many times before.

2:21:51 ↗ Um, I'll just say that one of the first

2:21:53 ↗ things that I did when running for

2:21:55 ↗ council in 2009 was go with my friend

2:21:58 ↗ Paul Winterstein up to the center in

2:22:00 ↗ Redmond and meet with Pam Mock and

2:22:03 ↗ understand what having these sort of

2:22:06 ↗ community services would can mean to a

2:22:09 ↗ community. Um, we have a natural

2:22:11 ↗ catchment of approximately the size of

2:22:14 ↗ the Isiqua School District. Um, it would

2:22:16 ↗ be very impactful for our community. I

2:22:18 ↗ continue to strongly support this. I've

2:22:20 ↗ been strongly supporting this for 10

2:22:22 ↗ years. I'll be strongly supporting this

2:22:23 ↗ for however much longer it takes. I hope

2:22:25 ↗ the rest of you do as well. Thank you,

2:22:31 ↗ >> Council Member Adair. Uh yeah, and I

2:22:34 ↗ echo that. This is a project that I'm I

2:22:37 ↗ just really, you know, proud of the city

2:22:39 ↗ in terms of the work that has gone into

2:22:41 ↗ this to keep pushing and keep pushing

2:22:43 ↗ forward for something that I think is

2:22:44 ↗ really important and is an example of

2:22:47 ↗ something, you know, governments can do

2:22:49 ↗ if they push hard enough. You know, I do

2:22:51 ↗ have concerns. Obviously, we don't have

2:22:52 ↗ the tenants and there are issues there.

2:22:55 ↗ Um but I am and you know so part of me

2:22:58 ↗ gets a little worried about that aspect

2:23:00 ↗ of it but I do agree that we need to

2:23:02 ↗ continue moving forward and do believe

2:23:04 ↗ that the tenants will be there and that

2:23:06 ↗ they're you know reservations just been

2:23:09 ↗ the climate we're in and how long it has

2:23:10 ↗ taken to get here but that once it's

2:23:12 ↗ actually there in a physical space it

2:23:14 ↗ will not be hard to find those people

2:23:16 ↗ and um I think this will bring a lot of

2:23:19 ↗ good to this community and I'm I'm glad

2:23:21 ↗ we're proceeding and so excited to be

2:23:23 ↗ seeing you know the real tangible, you

2:23:26 ↗ know, uh, results of this. So,

2:23:30 ↗ >> all right.

2:23:32 ↗ Oh, wait. Council Walsh,

2:23:34 ↗ >> thank you. Um, I am in support of this.

2:23:38 ↗ Uh I

2:23:40 ↗ defin my only concerns are using the

2:23:44 ↗ affordable housing funding um, for this.

2:23:47 ↗ And so, yes, I think it's good that we

2:23:51 ↗ are stating on the record that the

2:23:55 ↗ intention is for the $3 million to be

2:23:59 ↗ reimbursed to the affordable housing

2:24:03 ↗ um account um that we have. I think that

2:24:06 ↗ still means that we have a fair amount

2:24:08 ↗ of affordable housing funds going into

2:24:12 ↗ this project. And while I think there

2:24:14 ↗ are crossovers and it certainly serves

2:24:17 ↗ the same population,

2:24:20 ↗ um

2:24:22 ↗ I am always concerned and I guess this

2:24:25 ↗ is just a projection out to um what we

2:24:29 ↗ might be looking at for budget and

2:24:30 ↗ operations.

2:24:32 ↗ um anytime we are proposing using

2:24:35 ↗ affordable housing

2:24:38 ↗ restricted funds for anything other than

2:24:41 ↗ affordable housing capital projects. Um

2:24:44 ↗ this is a capital project and so it has

2:24:46 ↗ that tiein. Um

2:24:49 ↗ but I think any dollar that is not

2:24:53 ↗ building or sustaining affordable

2:24:56 ↗ housing um is something that we need to

2:24:59 ↗ scrutinize um very tightly and so

2:25:04 ↗ I am

2:25:06 ↗ somewhat comfortable with that source of

2:25:09 ↗ funding. Um,

2:25:13 ↗ but man, if there is any way that our

2:25:15 ↗ general fund can reimburse the rest of

2:25:19 ↗ that affordable housing funding, I think

2:25:21 ↗ it's something that we should consider

2:25:24 ↗ um as we look at the costs and how we

2:25:27 ↗ want to stretch that very important um

2:25:31 ↗ set of dollars because if we had not

2:25:33 ↗ adopted that, that money would be going

2:25:35 ↗ to King County and that money would be

2:25:38 ↗ used to build actual affordable housing

2:25:43 ↗ um to serve a a population where we do

2:25:48 ↗ not have very much funding at all. So

2:25:51 ↗ that would be my only ask as we consider

2:25:54 ↗ this as a council in the future if there

2:25:56 ↗ is any way to reimburse that fund. I

2:25:58 ↗ think that is something that we should

2:26:00 ↗ consider doing.

2:26:01 ↗ >> Right. Council member Boy.

2:26:04 ↗ Um, I think one of the more difficult

2:26:06 ↗ things at my day job is if someone if

2:26:08 ↗ I'm doing case work and someone you know

2:26:09 ↗ asks like where can I get services and

2:26:11 ↗ you know if they're local in Isiqua

2:26:13 ↗ sometimes I might have to point them out

2:26:15 ↗ of town for that and there's good

2:26:16 ↗ services regional partners right but I'm

2:26:19 ↗ so excited for the ability and I know

2:26:21 ↗ it's still a few years down the road and

2:26:22 ↗ we still don't have people lined up

2:26:24 ↗ quite yet but I'm um very excited for

2:26:27 ↗ the prospect of having something right

2:26:29 ↗ here that uh the community council's

2:26:31 ↗ past have been working on for a decade

2:26:33 ↗ to get here. Um

2:26:37 ↗ just the ripples of what that will mean

2:26:38 ↗ outward for everyone. Um very excited

2:26:41 ↗ for that. Uh I think we have the great

2:26:43 ↗ example of as uh director Watling

2:26:45 ↗ mentioned with the parks bond of how uh

2:26:48 ↗ the strategic plan and the parks bond

2:26:50 ↗ set the backbone for what we're going

2:26:52 ↗ out for with the parks bond. And uh I

2:26:55 ↗ think it's very identified in the human

2:26:57 ↗ services strategic plan of again and

2:26:59 ↗ again it's identified as um we have no

2:27:02 ↗ adult behavioral health facilities. And

2:27:04 ↗ so I am very excited for the future of

2:27:07 ↗ this.

2:27:08 ↗ >> Deputy President Jane.

2:27:10 ↗ >> Great. Um well first of all I want to

2:27:13 ↗ say I'm very excited to support this

2:27:15 ↗ motion tonight. I know it's been a very

2:27:17 ↗ very long road and I want to give um

2:27:19 ↗ Deputy City Administrator Andrea Leonard

2:27:22 ↗ huge kudos for sticking with this

2:27:24 ↗ project for the better part of a decade

2:27:26 ↗ as you know we work through all this

2:27:28 ↗ stuff and I mean it almost feels unreal

2:27:30 ↗ that we're going to be able to attend

2:27:31 ↗ the groundbreaking of this next month.

2:27:33 ↗ So I'm very very excited for that. Um

2:27:36 ↗ it's also equally exciting to see the

2:27:37 ↗ search for tenants for this space

2:27:39 ↗ becoming more real as we actually

2:27:41 ↗ approach the groundbreaking. So you know

2:27:42 ↗ having identified like actual people who

2:27:44 ↗ are interested in this space I think is

2:27:46 ↗ really exciting. um on the funding

2:27:49 ↗ source piece. So the account that this

2:27:51 ↗ is coming out of, I just want to know

2:27:53 ↗ it's a special 0.1% sales tax that is

2:27:56 ↗ authorized, you know, we have this under

2:27:58 ↗ state law and it's housing and related

2:28:02 ↗ services is the na is the actual name of

2:28:05 ↗ it in the state law and um so you know I

2:28:10 ↗ I do think that this is very much a

2:28:12 ↗ related service for housing. It is

2:28:14 ↗ constructing you know behavioral health

2:28:15 ↗ or you know low-income health or dental

2:28:18 ↗ facility, which I do think is critically

2:28:19 ↗ important and something we should be

2:28:21 ↗ supporting as a city government. Um, you

2:28:24 ↗ know, in terms of this benefit that it

2:28:26 ↗ provides to our community. So, I am

2:28:28 ↗ comfortable with using this funding in

2:28:30 ↗ this way. But that said, I do think we

2:28:32 ↗ need to figure out other ways to use

2:28:34 ↗ these capital dollars and deploy them

2:28:36 ↗ out in the community. Just, you know,

2:28:37 ↗ given the rate of inflation, the longer

2:28:39 ↗ we sit on this money, you know, the less

2:28:41 ↗ and less it becomes worth. So, I think

2:28:42 ↗ we need to, you know, this is one of the

2:28:44 ↗ biggest things that we're going to be

2:28:45 ↗ spending this money on, but we need to

2:28:47 ↗ do more to figure out, you know, with

2:28:48 ↗ the remaining millions that we have in

2:28:50 ↗ this account, how can we put that money

2:28:52 ↗ to work in our community? Um, so that

2:28:54 ↗ said, I'm very excited to be supporting

2:28:56 ↗ this tonight and attending the TOD

2:28:58 ↗ groundbreaking in just a few short

2:28:59 ↗ weeks.

2:29:03 ↗ >> All right. I think

2:29:06 ↗ there's no further discussion. We had a

2:29:08 ↗ motion by Council President Mart. I

2:29:11 ↗ asked everyone to memorize when it was

2:29:12 ↗ read. That is the motion we will be

2:29:14 ↗ voting on. Yes, it is on. As Cer Walsh

2:29:16 ↗ said, is it on the screen in front of

2:29:18 ↗ you? All those in favor, please say I.

2:29:21 ↗ >> I.

2:29:22 ↗ >> All those opposed, nay.

2:29:25 ↗ And that passes unanimously. And I would

2:29:28 ↗ add, when I joined the council back in

2:29:30 ↗ 2009, I filled the retiring seat of John

2:29:33 ↗ Writtenhouse, who was the one who had

2:29:34 ↗ put the first million dollars towards

2:29:36 ↗ this project many moons ago. And so it's

2:29:38 ↗ exciting to see that come full circle

2:29:40 ↗ and knowing that we have Dan and Andrea

2:29:42 ↗ here and their last days. I think these

2:29:44 ↗ are a round of applause for their

2:29:46 ↗ excellent work effort.

2:29:54 ↗ And now we'll move to our last agenda

2:29:56 ↗ item. I realize as mayor predicting the

2:29:59 ↗ end of a council meeting is a fool's

2:30:01 ↗ errand because I don't really talk. You

2:30:04 ↗ guys control the talking. I'm not going

2:30:06 ↗ to bet against people who have more

2:30:07 ↗ control over the outcome on the playing

2:30:09 ↗ field ever again. Uh, agenda bill 9207,

2:30:11 ↗ title 18, land use code promoting

2:30:13 ↗ building investments amendments, three

2:30:15 ↗ stepbacks, and outdoor amenity space,

2:30:18 ↗ which ironically is relevant because

2:30:20 ↗ this conversation came up because King

2:30:23 ↗ County Housing Authority informed us of

2:30:24 ↗ things in our own code that we might

2:30:26 ↗ need to think about adjusting and we

2:30:28 ↗ have many here to present.

2:30:33 ↗ >> Good evening, everybody. Um, let me

2:30:36 ↗ quickly start this. Um,

2:30:40 ↗ um, due to lateness of the hour, I'm

2:30:42 ↗ just going to breeze through it really

2:30:44 ↗ quickly, but feel free to pause and if

2:30:45 ↗ you have questions along the way. Um, so

2:30:48 ↗ this is um, something that we came to

2:30:51 ↗ you all um, to establish our work plan

2:30:54 ↗ for the year or couple of years um, and

2:30:57 ↗ we called it promoting building

2:30:59 ↗ investment in central Isiqua. Um and let

2:31:03 ↗ me see if I can um so the purpose of the

2:31:06 ↗ meeting tonight is um to look at the top

2:31:10 ↗ the first two amendments that have gone

2:31:12 ↗ through the process out of the 17 that

2:31:14 ↗ were put on the work plan. Um

2:31:17 ↗ and those are uh community open space

2:31:20 ↗ and stepbacks. Um so you in terms of the

2:31:25 ↗ work plan it was the council retreat the

2:31:28 ↗ homebuilders staff and the whiteboard

2:31:30 ↗ that led to the 17 that we are currently

2:31:33 ↗ working on. Uh so out of this the top

2:31:36 ↗ two are in front of you tonight. Uh they

2:31:39 ↗ have gone through three touches with

2:31:41 ↗ planning and policy commission. They

2:31:42 ↗ held a public hearing. they then

2:31:45 ↗ planning development and environment

2:31:47 ↗ committee vetted them out and um now

2:31:50 ↗ they're in front of you uh for action.

2:31:53 ↗ Um so the first one step backs um also

2:31:57 ↗ part of your package is uh the goals and

2:32:00 ↗ outcomes and objectives uh that planning

2:32:02 ↗ development and environment committee

2:32:04 ↗ worked on for all 17 that will become

2:32:07 ↗ sort of the the working um north arrow

2:32:10 ↗ for the for planning and policy

2:32:12 ↗ commission and community conversations

2:32:14 ↗ to guide uh these um amendments. Um this

2:32:18 ↗ work happened at the council level at

2:32:20 ↗ the committee level uh but we had

2:32:22 ↗ already started the work on the first

2:32:24 ↗ two with planning and policy commission.

2:32:26 ↗ So for the stepbacks uh you know we

2:32:29 ↗ heard there were higher construction

2:32:30 ↗ costs alignment issues um moisture risks

2:32:34 ↗ uh and so on. Uh there's also a house

2:32:37 ↗ bill that preempts stepbacks for uh all

2:32:40 ↗ of these mass timber uh type of things.

2:32:43 ↗ Um and then the goal here was to reduce

2:32:47 ↗ multiple stepbacks um as long as the

2:32:49 ↗ architectural interest uh goals were

2:32:52 ↗ met. Uh and also there was discussion

2:32:55 ↗ about aligning the requirements of of

2:32:58 ↗ stepbacks in the context of other design

2:33:00 ↗ options. Um so some possible outcomes

2:33:04 ↗ when we um talked to uh planning

2:33:06 ↗ development and environment committee

2:33:08 ↗ was eliminating multiple stepbacks um

2:33:11 ↗ not having them along natural context

2:33:13 ↗ areas and also providing flexibility um

2:33:17 ↗ for the location. Um and so the proposed

2:33:21 ↗ amendments do three things here. They

2:33:23 ↗ allow flexibility in the placement of

2:33:26 ↗ upper level stepbacks along the streets.

2:33:28 ↗ They eliminate uh stepbacks along

2:33:31 ↗ natural environment and they also um um

2:33:37 ↗ uh set up really a five five you know

2:33:40 ↗ dimensions of what the stepbacks uh

2:33:42 ↗ really are. Um so here in strikeout so

2:33:46 ↗ along the natural areas you're no longer

2:33:48 ↗ required to have stepback requirements.

2:33:50 ↗ Um along the um public streets you're

2:33:54 ↗ only required to have one. You can

2:33:56 ↗ choose where you want to put it. Uh as

2:33:59 ↗ low as the base of uh floor two up to

2:34:02 ↗ the base of floor six, five feet in

2:34:04 ↗ depth. Um and then we have this um five

2:34:10 ↗ different styles that you can choose

2:34:11 ↗ your um op your style of architectural

2:34:14 ↗ style in central Eiquay and one of them

2:34:16 ↗ is northwest contemporary style which

2:34:18 ↗ most of the folks choose this. Um we

2:34:20 ↗ also aligned these requirements in this

2:34:23 ↗ particular style with the remainder of

2:34:25 ↗ the the code which again is you have the

2:34:28 ↗ flexibility from floor two to floor six.

2:34:32 ↗ Um there are some additional

2:34:34 ↗ requirements for design. I'm not going

2:34:35 ↗ to get into that. That's not in front of

2:34:37 ↗ you today. Um for natural environments

2:34:40 ↗ there are also some other requirements

2:34:42 ↗ in the code that talk about the

2:34:44 ↗ orientation towards natural environment.

2:34:47 ↗ Um that's not in front of you today. Uh

2:34:50 ↗ moving on to outdoor amenity space

2:34:53 ↗ requirements. Uh really the issue here

2:34:56 ↗ we heard from the builders was um our

2:34:59 ↗ private outdoor spaces like the

2:35:00 ↗ balconies. Um our requirements were

2:35:03 ↗ excessive. Um and they also sort of

2:35:06 ↗ referenced the water penetration issues

2:35:08 ↗ when they put it on every balcony a

2:35:10 ↗ balcony on every unit. Uh so the goal

2:35:13 ↗ was to balance the outdoor amenity space

2:35:15 ↗ with development feasibility um and also

2:35:17 ↗ to find a way to provide residents with

2:35:19 ↗ meaningful outdoor amenity space while

2:35:21 ↗ allowing development. So in this case uh

2:35:24 ↗ what we've done uh in or what's in front

2:35:28 ↗ of you for um action tonight is the

2:35:31 ↗ private uh balcony spaces have been

2:35:33 ↗ reduced. Uh we've streamlined the code

2:35:36 ↗ to eliminate the need for deviations. So

2:35:38 ↗ it's an outright uh permitted reduction.

2:35:42 ↗ And also while we were looking at this

2:35:45 ↗ um there previous state law changes

2:35:47 ↗ happened and if there's converting an

2:35:49 ↗ existing office building uh to um a a

2:35:53 ↗ residential housing projects, there's a

2:35:55 ↗ lot of flexibility built into it. But

2:35:57 ↗ that flexibility did not include

2:35:58 ↗ flexibility from outdoor spaces uh

2:36:00 ↗ amenity spaces. And if you have a glass

2:36:03 ↗ clad building, you're not going to take

2:36:05 ↗ out the glass and put um um balconies.

2:36:09 ↗ So, um so we built in some flexibility

2:36:12 ↗ for those kind of conversions as well.

2:36:14 ↗ Um and so again, I think we I kind of

2:36:19 ↗ talked about this. Uh

2:36:22 ↗ it's going from 50% to 30% of the the

2:36:25 ↗ units have to have balconies. You no

2:36:27 ↗ longer have to get deviations.

2:36:29 ↗ um and it's a permitted outright um

2:36:32 ↗ requirement there. This table kind of

2:36:34 ↗ shows you as we went through this

2:36:36 ↗ process, planning and policy commission

2:36:37 ↗ also looked at really smaller scale

2:36:40 ↗ projects. So we used to say anything up

2:36:42 ↗ to five unit, you know, five plexes

2:36:45 ↗ don't have to have this outdoor space.

2:36:47 ↗ They increased that to nine units. So

2:36:49 ↗ they felt like for smaller infill

2:36:51 ↗ projects that are up to nine units up to

2:36:55 ↗ that you don't have to have um um uh

2:36:59 ↗ common outdoor spaces that those only

2:37:01 ↗ get triggered at 10 or above. Um and

2:37:05 ↗ they the the 50% is now only for 30%. Uh

2:37:09 ↗ it's no longer a deviation. And then

2:37:12 ↗ they added uh this exemption for

2:37:15 ↗ converting a commercial uh building to a

2:37:17 ↗ residential use. You also get some

2:37:19 ↗ flexibility. Um, you still have to

2:37:21 ↗ provide some common amenity space to the

2:37:23 ↗ maximum extent feasible. If there is

2:37:25 ↗ room around the site, you would add it,

2:37:27 ↗ but not to the extent that the code

2:37:29 ↗ requires. So, that's pretty much a

2:37:32 ↗ summary of what's in front of you. If

2:37:34 ↗ the if you adopt these changes tonight,

2:37:36 ↗ they become effective 5 days from

2:37:38 ↗ publication. Uh, we the administration's

2:37:41 ↗ recommendation is that you approve these

2:37:44 ↗ amendments as presented.

2:37:46 ↗ >> Council member Walsh, you're the

2:37:47 ↗ committee chair. Did you want to make

2:37:48 ↗ comments?

2:37:49 ↗ >> Yeah. Um, so PTE reviewed these two

2:37:53 ↗ proposed changes to the land use code.

2:37:56 ↗ Um, I'll start with the second one

2:37:58 ↗ regarding the outdoor amenity areas. We

2:38:01 ↗ unanimously agreed to the changes that

2:38:03 ↗ PPC had recommended and that staff had

2:38:05 ↗ worked up which created more options for

2:38:08 ↗ um private spaces without reducing the

2:38:10 ↗ overall um required outdoor space. Um

2:38:14 ↗ for the stepbacks, the committee

2:38:17 ↗ generally agreed that we need more

2:38:19 ↗ flexibility here and recommended,

2:38:24 ↗ you know, outside of our motion that we

2:38:26 ↗ move forward toward a menu of options

2:38:29 ↗ for design standards. And so that was

2:38:32 ↗ kind of a a change in the approach from

2:38:35 ↗ when we had first um adopted as a

2:38:37 ↗ council the um promoting building

2:38:40 ↗ investments. So we really thought

2:38:43 ↗ stepbacks should be part of a group of

2:38:46 ↗ things much like we do with um some of

2:38:49 ↗ our other sustainability things where we

2:38:51 ↗ give a menu of options and um choices

2:38:53 ↗ can be made there. So after that set of

2:38:57 ↗ feedback, knowing that this had come

2:39:00 ↗ through PPC

2:39:02 ↗ um and was a change in improvement to

2:39:05 ↗ what we currently have in our land use

2:39:07 ↗ code, uh two of the members of PTE

2:39:09 ↗ agreed that we should move forward with

2:39:11 ↗ these stepback adjustments while the

2:39:14 ↗ staff works on that menu of options to

2:39:16 ↗ be presented to us um at a later time.

2:39:18 ↗ Well, one member thought it would be

2:39:20 ↗ better at this point to remove the

2:39:22 ↗ stepback requirements in the interim.

2:39:25 ↗ Um, so there was a little bit of

2:39:26 ↗ disagreement there on how we approach

2:39:29 ↗ it. Um, but there was

2:39:33 ↗ two at least two out of three members um

2:39:36 ↗ on both of these areas.

2:39:40 ↗ >> Council member Gar. Um, so we had some

2:39:43 ↗ emails, you know, on this and you

2:39:45 ↗ responded, you know, I was curious about

2:39:47 ↗ comparisons to other nearby uh, cities

2:39:50 ↗ that we're trying to either emulate or

2:39:53 ↗ do better than and stuff like that. And

2:39:54 ↗ you sent a list of some of them and, you

2:39:56 ↗ know, so like both had no stepbacks, you

2:39:58 ↗ know, Bellingham has 15 ft starting at

2:40:01 ↗ the fourth floor, Edmonds 5 ft deep at

2:40:03 ↗ 26 ft. And you know, there's a few

2:40:06 ↗ variations here. It's not necessarily

2:40:07 ↗ all the areas that maybe we want to

2:40:09 ↗ consider. So are there any that does

2:40:12 ↗ this mirror any other city that's doing

2:40:15 ↗ it in this way that we're proposing in

2:40:16 ↗ the changes here or is that still going

2:40:19 ↗ to also be isqua specific? Um I'm just

2:40:22 ↗ kind of curious in terms of how we're

2:40:23 ↗ modeling this you know if we're trying

2:40:25 ↗ to match places that have more

2:40:26 ↗ development is that what we're doing or

2:40:27 ↗ is this something we're coming up with

2:40:29 ↗ ourselves?

2:40:30 ↗ >> Sure. Um you know um I think we always

2:40:33 ↗ hear comparison between Kirkland and

2:40:35 ↗ Redmond. So, we looked at those um two

2:40:38 ↗ cities um and those are included in your

2:40:41 ↗ um chart there. Redmond has some of of a

2:40:44 ↗ similar thing that but they have a much

2:40:46 ↗ deeper step back. They require 20. So,

2:40:49 ↗ we're requiring only 5 ft. Um Kirkland,

2:40:53 ↗ you know, development up in their

2:40:55 ↗ downtown has a lot of stepbacks of what

2:40:57 ↗ actually got built there. Um and but

2:41:00 ↗ they are also sort of you know so so

2:41:03 ↗ we've gone beyond what Kirkland and

2:41:05 ↗ Redmond require already. So it's it's

2:41:08 ↗ not that we're um more our requirements

2:41:12 ↗ are more excessive than those

2:41:13 ↗ communities if if you're trying to just

2:41:15 ↗ compare. But each each community has

2:41:18 ↗ different conversations. Um Redmond is a

2:41:21 ↗ little bit similar to us because they

2:41:22 ↗ have high water table. They are also

2:41:24 ↗ providing drinking water supply. So they

2:41:26 ↗ have fewer um um you know underground

2:41:30 ↗ parking requirements. So the look and

2:41:33 ↗ feel of those buildings is a little bit

2:41:35 ↗ like ours because you get you know seven

2:41:38 ↗ stories tall building versus uh Kirkland

2:41:41 ↗ where they have been able to get some of

2:41:43 ↗ the underground parking in in their

2:41:45 ↗ buildings. Um I mean it's not not

2:41:47 ↗ doable. It's just more expensive

2:41:49 ↗ sometimes to um with a higher uh

2:41:52 ↗ groundwater. So there's not like a

2:41:55 ↗ perfect like this is what we cop you

2:41:57 ↗ know this is another city. They're a

2:41:59 ↗ little bit all over the place but we

2:42:01 ↗ feel as this went through it it's a good

2:42:03 ↗ it's striking a good balance between um

2:42:07 ↗ still requiring a little bit of a step

2:42:09 ↗ back but giving that flexibility and and

2:42:12 ↗ eliminating it on all sides of the

2:42:13 ↗ building. Um so just focusing on the

2:42:16 ↗ public realm along the street. So like

2:42:18 ↗ if you could so like when you bring up

2:42:20 ↗ in terms of how we are you know you're

2:42:22 ↗ talking about that currently you'd say

2:42:24 ↗ we have a higher requirement than like

2:42:26 ↗ Redmond and then this would put us equal

2:42:28 ↗ or lower requirement.

2:42:30 ↗ >> Yes.

2:42:31 ↗ >> Uh but but the current version would be

2:42:35 ↗ more

2:42:37 ↗ difficult for developers than their

2:42:39 ↗ current ones. You know I see these and I

2:42:41 ↗ see still a lot of like 10 ft deep and

2:42:43 ↗ these have things like these look to me

2:42:45 ↗ very similar to what we already

2:42:46 ↗ currently have. And so that's what I'm

2:42:47 ↗ trying to kind of quantify and

2:42:48 ↗ understand is is our current system

2:42:51 ↗ really that different or more difficult

2:42:54 ↗ than similar cities is what I'm trying

2:42:56 ↗ to get to.

2:42:57 ↗ >> We heard uh that stepbacks are um an an

2:43:01 ↗ issue for the builders. I mean that came

2:43:03 ↗ in through our builders roundt uh

2:43:05 ↗ conversation and we do believe that

2:43:07 ↗ there is uh you know we heard from the

2:43:09 ↗ to developers they are here. I think the

2:43:11 ↗ council approved the housing um

2:43:14 ↗ agreement uh to forgo or or allow that

2:43:18 ↗ same flexibility that's now in the code

2:43:20 ↗ so everyone else has the same

2:43:21 ↗ opportunity that we provided to

2:43:23 ↗ developer. Um so there's some truth to

2:43:26 ↗ the fact that you are you know

2:43:28 ↗ construction costs go up um because of

2:43:30 ↗ the staggering that the size of the

2:43:32 ↗ beams goes up, labor costs are more

2:43:35 ↗ stacking of plumbing and and all of

2:43:37 ↗ those things um are are important. Um so

2:43:43 ↗ yes our current standards to answer your

2:43:46 ↗ question are more designoriented

2:43:50 ↗ uh that require multiple stepbacks and

2:43:52 ↗ things like that. um where what's in

2:43:55 ↗ front of you has gone through a process

2:43:57 ↗ that uh planning and policy commission

2:43:59 ↗ heard from the community, looked at

2:44:01 ↗ what's there, compared it with other

2:44:03 ↗ jurisdictions and and what we've brought

2:44:05 ↗ forth is their recommendation which is

2:44:09 ↗ um not having it along the natural

2:44:12 ↗ context, only requiring it along public

2:44:14 ↗ streets, not having multiple stepbacks,

2:44:16 ↗ providing flexibility, and limiting the

2:44:19 ↗ depth to 5T. It can be more, but from a

2:44:22 ↗ city's regulation standpoint, that's the

2:44:25 ↗ bare minimum.

2:44:27 ↗ >> Deputy President Jay.

2:44:28 ↗ >> Yeah. And I um to respond to Council

2:44:31 ↗ Member Adair. Hopefully that's okay. Um

2:44:34 ↗ I think you know, you'd mentioned this

2:44:36 ↗ kind of came in response to requests

2:44:37 ↗ from the um from King County Housing

2:44:39 ↗ Authority. So last year, you know, when

2:44:41 ↗ they were in the design process, they

2:44:42 ↗ came to us and were like, "Hey, the step

2:44:44 ↗ back requirement you have basically we

2:44:45 ↗ were saying it's required at the fifth

2:44:47 ↗ floor." So that's in the part that's a

2:44:49 ↗ wood structure. So normally, you know,

2:44:51 ↗ with a five-story building, you can like

2:44:53 ↗ stack all of them and have all the wood

2:44:54 ↗ beams, you know, going up and down. But

2:44:56 ↗ then if you had it at the fifth floor,

2:44:57 ↗ that would be in the middle of where the

2:44:58 ↗ wood is. So because it's an eight story

2:45:00 ↗ building, you had three floors of

2:45:01 ↗ concrete, five floors of wood, and they

2:45:03 ↗ said it would add it would cost $1.2

2:45:05 ↗ million to do this. Um, and you know,

2:45:08 ↗ given that it's like a publicly funded

2:45:10 ↗ housing project, we felt like it was and

2:45:13 ↗ they were retaining the step, just

2:45:15 ↗ putting it where it switches from

2:45:17 ↗ concrete to wood at the third floor. And

2:45:19 ↗ actually in the renderings, the one with

2:45:21 ↗ the third floor step back looked better

2:45:23 ↗ than the one with the fifth floor step

2:45:24 ↗ back. And I I showed the pictures, the

2:45:26 ↗ renderings to like multiple of my

2:45:28 ↗ friends to get their take on the, you

2:45:30 ↗ know, relative aesthetics. And so they,

2:45:32 ↗ you know, they all agreed. Um, so I

2:45:34 ↗ think this

2:45:36 ↗ change,

2:45:38 ↗ you know, in my opinion, based on the

2:45:40 ↗ one project that we've seen, actually

2:45:41 ↗ makes the buildings look slightly

2:45:43 ↗ better. Um,

2:45:45 ↗ and also reduces costs cuz I think there

2:45:48 ↗ is an argument to be made that it's

2:45:51 ↗ important to have things that look nice.

2:45:53 ↗ You know, people want to look at nice

2:45:54 ↗ things. But also is it like is having a

2:45:57 ↗ step back that costs 1.2 million really

2:45:59 ↗ the best aesthetic investment if we're

2:46:01 ↗ talking $1.2 million. Like how many

2:46:03 ↗ murals could we put in our city for $1.2

2:46:05 ↗ million? And would that actually make

2:46:07 ↗ people's you like does that have a

2:46:10 ↗ bigger aesthetic impact? you know,

2:46:11 ↗ murals, landscaping, all that kind of

2:46:13 ↗ stuff, you know, just if we're thinking

2:46:15 ↗ about the relative cost of different

2:46:17 ↗ aesthetic improvements. So, that's my

2:46:19 ↗ >> feel potential mural amendment coming. I

2:46:21 ↗ like it. Uh, Council Member Nichols,

2:46:24 ↗ >> uh, quickly on the range of options that

2:46:26 ↗ were considered, uh, did PPC consider an

2:46:28 ↗ option like both that has no step back

2:46:31 ↗ requirements?

2:46:33 ↗ um you know they my um Kristen Leon

2:46:36 ↗ who's not here uh explored all different

2:46:40 ↗ options with them. I don't specifically

2:46:42 ↗ remember if they was like um they

2:46:45 ↗ definitely talked about it along the

2:46:47 ↗ natural context areas to eliminate that.

2:46:49 ↗ That's where they ended up uh with the

2:46:52 ↗ natural context because the code itself

2:46:54 ↗ currently requires that same um step

2:46:57 ↗ back along natural context but they

2:46:58 ↗ didn't they felt along the public realm

2:47:00 ↗ along public street we still needed to

2:47:02 ↗ maintain one step back.

2:47:03 ↗ >> So the the this I want to pick on this

2:47:05 ↗ because this is going to be the crux of

2:47:06 ↗ my comments in a few moments when you

2:47:08 ↗ say they that all options were explored.

2:47:11 ↗ Um I want to correct my understanding

2:47:13 ↗ but I I didn't see PPC discussing that.

2:47:16 ↗ So I wanted to see if that was in fact

2:47:18 ↗ the case to remove stepback requirements

2:47:20 ↗ entirely.

2:47:22 ↗ >> You know, I'll have to look at the the

2:47:23 ↗ actual questions that were posed to

2:47:25 ↗ them. Um we were asking them policy

2:47:27 ↗ questions along more broadly. So it

2:47:31 ↗ didn't come we didn't at staff level if

2:47:34 ↗ you're asking if we said no stepbacks

2:47:35 ↗ should be required along uh the public

2:47:38 ↗ realm. I don't think that was uh

2:47:40 ↗ presented in that way. Yes.

2:47:47 ↗ Okay. Not seeing any other questions

2:47:52 ↗ or many. Is there

2:47:54 ↗ a motion? Customer Walsh.

2:47:57 ↗ >> Thank you. I move to adopt ordinance

2:48:00 ↗ number 3143 amending chapters 18.6000,

2:48:05 ↗ 18.602, 602 and 18.702

2:48:09 ↗ of the Isqua Municipal Code to allow

2:48:11 ↗ flexibility for upper level stepbacks

2:48:14 ↗ and adopt ordinance number 3144 amending

2:48:19 ↗ chapter 18.608

2:48:22 ↗ community amenity spaces of the Isqua

2:48:24 ↗ Municipal Code to reduce the amount of

2:48:26 ↗ required open amenity space in

2:48:28 ↗ multifamily residential developments.

2:48:31 ↗ >> Second.

2:48:32 ↗ >> Okay. Pay attention to what council

2:48:34 ↗ member Walsh just said. I'm once again

2:48:36 ↗ not going to repeat that. Uh, Council

2:48:37 ↗ Member Nichols.

2:48:40 ↗ >> Okay, I'm going to go on for a little

2:48:41 ↗ bit, so apologies in advance. Um, I know

2:48:44 ↗ it's late, but uh, this is this is the

2:48:46 ↗ first one of these that we're talking

2:48:47 ↗ about, and I think it's really important

2:48:49 ↗ that we get the process for this right.

2:48:52 ↗ Um, so I'm going to suggest that we vote

2:48:55 ↗ no on the proposed amendments to

2:48:57 ↗ ordinance number 3143, so stepbacks, uh,

2:49:00 ↗ and send it back to either PPC or PDE.

2:49:04 ↗ does I don't think it matters a lot uh

2:49:06 ↗ with a greater set of options to

2:49:07 ↗ investigate um at our PD committee on

2:49:10 ↗ the second I think it's fair to say but

2:49:12 ↗ please chime in after that all three of

2:49:14 ↗ us were aligned that one we wanted to

2:49:16 ↗ see stepback requirements reduced from

2:49:18 ↗ their current level um and that we

2:49:21 ↗ weren't fully satisfied with the options

2:49:22 ↗ that we were presented um I think we

2:49:25 ↗ differed primarily on timing of when and

2:49:27 ↗ how to address that um and whether we

2:49:29 ↗ should have this as a kind of an interim

2:49:31 ↗ set of rules on this topic while we wait

2:49:33 ↗ for it to become back to come back to

2:49:35 ↗ deal with it um as an option in

2:49:37 ↗ architectural standards. Um but please

2:49:39 ↗ correct me in a moment if I'm if I'm

2:49:40 ↗ misquing anyone.

2:49:43 ↗ Turning back the clock a little bit um

2:49:46 ↗ just kind of zooming out and looking at

2:49:48 ↗ what we're doing overall. On Mar on our

2:49:50 ↗ March 9th meeting when we endorsed this

2:49:52 ↗ housing work plan as a whole, Council

2:49:54 ↗ President Mart said something I think

2:49:56 ↗ we've also all agreed should guide our

2:49:58 ↗ work. Um, and he spoke about the big

2:50:00 ↗ knobs on the stereo, and I I think I'm

2:50:02 ↗ quoting him correctly there, that we are

2:50:04 ↗ trying to tune and that we should run

2:50:06 ↗ them through their full range rather

2:50:08 ↗ than picking two points on the dial and

2:50:10 ↗ calling it done. Uh, I really agree with

2:50:12 ↗ that and I I agreed then and I agree

2:50:14 ↗ now, but that's not quite what happened

2:50:16 ↗ here. And I think it's because this is

2:50:17 ↗ the first set of things we were looking

2:50:19 ↗ at and that that guidance wasn't fully

2:50:21 ↗ understood because we didn't get that

2:50:23 ↗ full range. Um, we got some flexibility

2:50:26 ↗ that was added. That's great. uh but it

2:50:28 ↗ does still leave substantial stepback

2:50:30 ↗ requirements in place. So this the

2:50:32 ↗ direction of this vector was as PD

2:50:34 ↗ requested but the magnitudes we wanted

2:50:36 ↗ to see were overly constrained.

2:50:39 ↗ Um and again if you'll grant me a little

2:50:41 ↗ more time to go on a little historical

2:50:43 ↗ interlude here because I think it's

2:50:44 ↗ important for the context um of why this

2:50:47 ↗ is so important on this particular

2:50:48 ↗ topic. So my homework on where stepbacks

2:50:51 ↗ came from leaves me really concerned

2:50:53 ↗ frankly um and is motivating my

2:50:55 ↗ stubbornness on this topic. The first

2:50:58 ↗ time stepbacks appear in our transcript

2:51:00 ↗ is a 2017 development commission meeting

2:51:02 ↗ um and there were some troubling

2:51:04 ↗ comments in it. One commissioner pressed

2:51:06 ↗ the consultant who was proposing these

2:51:08 ↗ new rules on exactly this risk that I'm

2:51:10 ↗ worried about about costs um that I I

2:51:12 ↗ believe we've seen materialize. Um he

2:51:15 ↗ said that design standards like these

2:51:16 ↗ will aggregate in aggregate will price

2:51:19 ↗ people out um and that a place like ours

2:51:21 ↗ will become quote very self- selecting

2:51:24 ↗ and quote a boutiquey place. Um the

2:51:27 ↗ consultant's answer to that was that

2:51:29 ↗ affordability was quote out of scope.

2:51:33 ↗ This was the answer in this commission

2:51:34 ↗ when this con when the stepback

2:51:35 ↗ commission was first concept was first

2:51:37 ↗ brought up. Affordability was declared

2:51:39 ↗ out of scope. I don't think

2:51:41 ↗ affordability should ever be declared

2:51:42 ↗ out of scope. Um, and that punt on this

2:51:45 ↗ topic has lasted a decade and it's in

2:51:47 ↗ front of us tonight. And I think we

2:51:48 ↗ really owe it to our residents to get

2:51:50 ↗ this right.

2:51:53 ↗ Deputy Council President Jiang raised

2:51:55 ↗ one of the examples of the cost of this

2:51:56 ↗ um $1.2 million. And one example we had,

2:51:59 ↗ I've also talked to several home local

2:52:01 ↗ home builders about what this means for

2:52:02 ↗ people who actually live in these units,

2:52:04 ↗ what the rent increase would be for them

2:52:06 ↗ due to this particular requirement as

2:52:08 ↗ we've got it. It is hard to calculate

2:52:10 ↗ precisely. There's there's a lot of

2:52:11 ↗ market dynamics at play. I'm not going

2:52:12 ↗ to pretend these are exact numbers, but

2:52:14 ↗ their estimates landed at somewhere

2:52:16 ↗ between 20 to $40 per unit per month for

2:52:18 ↗ a step back um for a single regulation

2:52:22 ↗ um with benefits that are at at that are

2:52:25 ↗ arguably questionable. Um and I think

2:52:27 ↗ that's a lot to ask. Um it's five to 10

2:52:29 ↗ times more than what we just asked, what

2:52:31 ↗ we're going to likely ask residents to

2:52:33 ↗ take on with a park bond that has

2:52:35 ↗ tremendous benefits associated with it.

2:52:37 ↗ Um, I'm also just from a policy and good

2:52:40 ↗ government's perspective concerned about

2:52:41 ↗ seessawing with these types of

2:52:43 ↗ regulations. If we vote yes tonight, but

2:52:45 ↗ we as a as a a council plan to revisit

2:52:48 ↗ this in a few months under architectural

2:52:50 ↗ standards, I think that back and forth

2:52:52 ↗ could actually delay housing because

2:52:54 ↗ anyone watching to see where we what

2:52:56 ↗ we're doing is going to see a moving

2:52:58 ↗ target and there's nothing worse for

2:52:59 ↗ business than in than uncertainty. So,

2:53:02 ↗ I'm a no. Um, thank you for letting me

2:53:04 ↗ ramble on that for a few moments. Um,

2:53:06 ↗ and I would like to see this sent back

2:53:08 ↗ to PPC or PTE. I think either could be

2:53:12 ↗ fine with a full review where we turn

2:53:14 ↗ the knobs all the way up and down and

2:53:16 ↗ see where we land.

2:53:18 ↗ >> Okay. And before Council Walsh, I just

2:53:21 ↗ want to I there's a question for Minnie

2:53:24 ↗ or our city administrator, but can the

2:53:29 ↗ council committees can also recommend

2:53:31 ↗ whatever they want out of the

2:53:33 ↗ committees? Correct.

2:53:34 ↗ >> Correct. Yeah. The process is planning

2:53:36 ↗ and policy commission makes a

2:53:37 ↗ recommendation, planning and development

2:53:39 ↗ environment committee makes a

2:53:41 ↗ recommendation. You as a body are the

2:53:43 ↗ only ones that can actually change the

2:53:44 ↗ law.

2:53:45 ↗ >> Okay. Uh Council Walsh,

2:53:49 ↗ >> thank you. Um,

2:53:53 ↗ Director Dollywal, can you talk about I

2:53:56 ↗ I think the feedback from PD was pretty

2:54:00 ↗ clear beyond this interim period, but

2:54:03 ↗ pretty clear that we wanted to look at a

2:54:07 ↗ menu of design options that would create

2:54:12 ↗ um variability in our buildings and

2:54:15 ↗ other things so that we don't get, you

2:54:17 ↗ know, flat buildings with just you know

2:54:20 ↗ windows or um flat areas. What is the

2:54:25 ↗ timeline or the sense of when that is

2:54:28 ↗ going to come through PPC all the way to

2:54:30 ↗ council? Um so what time period are we

2:54:33 ↗ looking at between potential adoption of

2:54:38 ↗ adjustments to regulations tonight

2:54:40 ↗ versus um a future idea?

2:54:45 ↗ >> Yeah. So the architectural uh standards

2:54:47 ↗ discussion is quarter 4 of 2026. So it's

2:54:51 ↗ a matter of you know next 6 months um to

2:54:55 ↗ get that in in place and and in terms of

2:54:59 ↗ these two amendments these were really

2:55:02 ↗ came from the builder community and so

2:55:04 ↗ in terms of sending the message that you

2:55:06 ↗ know uh that you are interested in m

2:55:09 ↗ taking action taking care of this uh

2:55:12 ↗ early and that's how because these were

2:55:13 ↗ easy to process so they got put on the

2:55:16 ↗ top uh line because we could just bring

2:55:18 ↗ that forward even though they were easy

2:55:20 ↗ to uh to process. But if you look at the

2:55:22 ↗ three packets for planning and policy

2:55:23 ↗ commission, I think I sent you one of

2:55:25 ↗ them. Um, there was a fair amount of

2:55:27 ↗ discussion with them. I mean, we showed

2:55:29 ↗ them a lot of samples. I do have those

2:55:31 ↗ pictures if you want me to pull those up

2:55:33 ↗ uh of what a good design can mean um in

2:55:37 ↗ terms of uh getting this in place. So if

2:55:40 ↗ you adopt this tonight and then when we

2:55:44 ↗ are having a full in-depth conversation

2:55:46 ↗ about the total menu of choices for

2:55:48 ↗ design later this year um we will have

2:55:53 ↗ that policy question with planning and

2:55:54 ↗ policy commission. How does the step

2:55:56 ↗ back fit fit in with the other other

2:55:58 ↗ pieces? And and if this is, you know,

2:56:01 ↗ there's a there's a balance between a

2:56:03 ↗ predictability of telling people what

2:56:05 ↗ the design should be or leaving it too

2:56:07 ↗ broad that, you know, it'll be vetted

2:56:10 ↗ out with the development commission at a

2:56:12 ↗ hearing. But but so so there's always

2:56:15 ↗ that balance of predictability versus

2:56:17 ↗ too much flexibility. And sometimes the

2:56:19 ↗ developers have told us that it's better

2:56:21 ↗ for them to know upfront this is what

2:56:24 ↗ you want and they can incorporate it

2:56:26 ↗ into the designs than leaving it so

2:56:28 ↗ open-ended that they can't get an answer

2:56:30 ↗ to that question either. So um just just

2:56:34 ↗ as some additional background but I'm

2:56:35 ↗ happy to pull up some photos uh if you

2:56:37 ↗ want to look at actual examples.

2:56:41 ↗ So,

2:56:43 ↗ I hear that you're saying that a set of

2:56:48 ↗ design menu options would come back to

2:56:51 ↗ us Q4, but you're also stating in the

2:56:56 ↗ same set of sentences that there is

2:56:59 ↗ concern about presenting a menu of

2:57:02 ↗ options that maybe it provides either

2:57:05 ↗ too much flexibility or too much

2:57:08 ↗ uncertainty to builders. So

2:57:12 ↗ >> it'll happen as part of that

2:57:14 ↗ conversation. So architectural, you

2:57:16 ↗ know, right now they are too hardwired.

2:57:18 ↗ There is not any flexibility of what you

2:57:20 ↗ can do. So as we have that conversation

2:57:23 ↗ with that number eight item on on the

2:57:25 ↗ list of 17 um what you know it can be

2:57:30 ↗ make it nice you know for for the sake

2:57:32 ↗ of easy. Um I mean there's a 1990

2:57:36 ↗ case that they teach in planning schools

2:57:38 ↗ that has Isiqua and Anderson case that

2:57:42 ↗ our our standards were too vague. Uh we

2:57:45 ↗ didn't really say what design standards

2:57:47 ↗ should be met. And so all along the

2:57:48 ↗ school of thought is that you actually

2:57:51 ↗ have design options that that you can

2:57:53 ↗ quantify that they're not so subjective.

2:57:56 ↗ So as we talk about that conversation,

2:57:58 ↗ yes, we'll talk about flexibility, but

2:58:00 ↗ at the same time, it'll have to be

2:58:02 ↗ something that isn't vague and arbitrary

2:58:05 ↗ either.

2:58:06 ↗ >> Yeah. So if one of those options on a

2:58:09 ↗ menu of design options was stepbacks

2:58:11 ↗ with these requirements that we've we

2:58:14 ↗ are potentially adopting today, that

2:58:16 ↗ provides the certainty to a builder who

2:58:21 ↗ might want to look at that versus five

2:58:24 ↗ other options. and evaluate what they

2:58:27 ↗ think would be most appropriate for sure

2:58:30 ↗ their project.

2:58:31 ↗ >> Sure. So, you know, the ultimate goal is

2:58:34 ↗ you're trying to have modulation in a

2:58:36 ↗ building. So, it's not a complete um you

2:58:39 ↗ know, concrete jungle with no sort of

2:58:41 ↗ design sense. Um part of the the the

2:58:44 ↗ intent is to have a base, a middle, and

2:58:46 ↗ a top of the building. Um part of the

2:58:49 ↗ the intent is to have uh variety in

2:58:53 ↗ designs and and so on. Um, so yes, we'll

2:58:57 ↗ have all of that conversation as part of

2:58:58 ↗ that architectural standards

2:59:00 ↗ conversation.

2:59:00 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

2:59:03 ↗ >> Because we're here.

2:59:06 ↗ >> Um, yeah. So, I'm I'm going to be honest

2:59:08 ↗ in that I'm very I'm actually still not

2:59:11 ↗ even fully sure how I want to vote on

2:59:13 ↗ this. Um, you know, I I hear uh Council

2:59:18 ↗ Member uh Nichols points, although

2:59:20 ↗ actually coming at it from a different

2:59:21 ↗ direction and that I'm not

2:59:24 ↗ as uh willing to give up code as is,

2:59:27 ↗ considering the work that went into it.

2:59:29 ↗ I actually do like stepbacks. Um um my

2:59:32 ↗ time in LA saw a lot of development of

2:59:35 ↗ cities that did become these concrete

2:59:37 ↗ boxes that have been spoken of and just

2:59:39 ↗ seemed like prisons or lost all

2:59:41 ↗ identity. Things that were little towns

2:59:43 ↗ that just got wiped out because they

2:59:45 ↗ people just could build cheaply and

2:59:47 ↗ build whatever they wanted and it just

2:59:48 ↗ became places where yes, people lived

2:59:50 ↗ there, but it was not a town. It was not

2:59:51 ↗ a home. Um equally like the loss of

2:59:55 ↗ stepbacks can lead to things like only

2:59:57 ↗ the people at the top can see the

2:59:58 ↗ mountains but no one else can and things

3:00:00 ↗ like that you know views become an issue

3:00:03 ↗ and as well as what the ground forth

3:00:05 ↗ feels like. So, like I'm not one that

3:00:06 ↗ would be, you know, if this said no step

3:00:08 ↗ backs, I would have a lot of concerns.

3:00:10 ↗ Um, the proposed requirements here, I'm

3:00:12 ↗ okay with like, you know, for example,

3:00:13 ↗ the TOD project is a great example. Like

3:00:16 ↗ it's not that there's no step back, they

3:00:17 ↗ just got to drop it down. That to me is

3:00:19 ↗ just fine, especially when coupled with

3:00:21 ↗ a thing of what they are bringing to the

3:00:23 ↗ community in exchange for those changes

3:00:25 ↗ and things like that I think are

3:00:27 ↗ absolutely great where you are bringing

3:00:29 ↗ more to the community and thus yes you

3:00:31 ↗ can get these uh deviations or whatever

3:00:34 ↗ may come to play and so I'm okay with

3:00:36 ↗ the flex that we still have a step back

3:00:38 ↗ but there's flexibility to it because

3:00:40 ↗ yeah if it's 1 million cheaper just to

3:00:41 ↗ put it on three than five that to me is

3:00:44 ↗ is just fine and makes sense let's do

3:00:45 ↗ it. Um, but I can say that I am, you

3:00:48 ↗ know, someone that is, you know, I want

3:00:52 ↗ the real tangible changes that get

3:00:53 ↗ development moving, which, you know, I

3:00:55 ↗ brought up in my email what, you know,

3:00:56 ↗ what they've said, these larger issues,

3:00:58 ↗ you know, the paved buffers and things

3:01:00 ↗ like that. Those feel to me like the

3:01:01 ↗ real concrete barriers to development

3:01:04 ↗ here and individual line item codes are

3:01:07 ↗ everybody has these things and it

3:01:08 ↗ doesn't feel that different to me. So,

3:01:11 ↗ you know, where I'm coming at right now

3:01:12 ↗ is that, you know, I I I'm, you know,

3:01:16 ↗ hesitant to just change codes just

3:01:18 ↗ because we can without it really seeing

3:01:20 ↗ what the tangible benefit is. Uh though

3:01:23 ↗ these in particular I don't have a

3:01:25 ↗ strong aversion to and so likely would

3:01:28 ↗ support these at the moment, but I can

3:01:30 ↗ say that I have some uncertainty

3:01:32 ↗ overall.

3:01:33 ↗ Okay. I'm getting my sequence. I know

3:01:35 ↗ Council Member Nichols and then Deputy

3:01:37 ↗ President Jen and then Council President

3:01:39 ↗ Marks. Is that right? Okay, I'll wait

3:01:41 ↗ since I went first. So,

3:01:43 ↗ >> okay. Deputy Res.

3:01:45 ↗ >> Great. Um, yeah. So, as far as this

3:01:48 ↗ specific amendment goes, I think it's

3:01:50 ↗ fine. I think, you know, the way that

3:01:53 ↗ we've come to this based on the feedback

3:01:55 ↗ from KCHA and kind of seeing the actual

3:01:57 ↗ cost and impact of it, I think it makes

3:01:59 ↗ a lot of sense to kind of do this as an

3:02:01 ↗ interim stop gap. in terms of you know

3:02:03 ↗ the potential menu of options. I

3:02:06 ↗ actually the reason I so this idea was

3:02:10 ↗ kind of inspired by actually this

3:02:12 ↗ architecture firm in Seattle who had

3:02:13 ↗ proposed this as a you know better

3:02:15 ↗ approach to design standards um called

3:02:17 ↗ Neiman Taber and I'm not I'm not going

3:02:18 ↗ to read the whole thing but you know

3:02:20 ↗ they have a few examples of and these

3:02:23 ↗ are like very you know objective things

3:02:25 ↗ that you can give points for. For

3:02:27 ↗ example, they say breaker stone masonry,

3:02:29 ↗ you can get five points for doing that.

3:02:31 ↗ You know, wood siding with the factory

3:02:33 ↗ finish or other pre-treatment to enhance

3:02:34 ↗ aesthetics and durability, two points.

3:02:36 ↗ Um, you know, there's a very, very long

3:02:39 ↗ list of different things that have

3:02:40 ↗ aesthetic qualities, including

3:02:42 ↗ commissioned art. Incorporate

3:02:43 ↗ commissioned artwork in a location

3:02:44 ↗ visible to the public, one point. This

3:02:46 ↗ could be, you know, the murals. And this

3:02:48 ↗ is honestly like just for the It

3:02:50 ↗ basically gives builders the options to

3:02:52 ↗ pick, you know, what makes the most

3:02:54 ↗ sense for your site. and you would have

3:02:55 ↗ to get a certain amount of points and do

3:02:57 ↗ whatever makes the most sense to you

3:03:00 ↗ know provide aesthetic value that people

3:03:02 ↗ like. Um, one thing that I think you

3:03:04 ↗ know folks in isqua would like for

3:03:06 ↗ example would be like oh providing

3:03:08 ↗ additional open space beyond what's the

3:03:10 ↗ code minimum you could get points for

3:03:11 ↗ that. So I think as we explore you know

3:03:14 ↗ what this actually looks like. I think

3:03:18 ↗ the problem and this is kind of what you

3:03:19 ↗ see in Seattle is like because they have

3:03:21 ↗ very strict design regulations actually

3:03:24 ↗ but every building basically looks the

3:03:26 ↗ same and it's because it's like okay

3:03:29 ↗ everyone you know has to do all these

3:03:30 ↗ specific things and so they've figured

3:03:32 ↗ out it's like this is the specific town

3:03:34 ↗ home floor plan that meets all the

3:03:36 ↗ regulations so we're just going to copy

3:03:38 ↗ and paste it everywhere and so you know

3:03:41 ↗ to the extent that we can give more

3:03:42 ↗ optionality and you know do that I think

3:03:46 ↗ I'm very much looking forward to seeing

3:03:48 ↗ what we do on that in Q4. That said, I

3:03:51 ↗ think, you know, for this interim

3:03:52 ↗ period,

3:03:54 ↗ making the stepbacks less, you know,

3:03:57 ↗ prohibitive at by requiring instead of

3:04:00 ↗ requiring them at the fifth floor, we

3:04:02 ↗ can have them anywhere between that

3:04:03 ↗ section, I think, is fine. Um, and then

3:04:07 ↗ for the

3:04:09 ↗ um, open space, I do think I I do think

3:04:12 ↗ it's interesting that we talk about

3:04:14 ↗ common open space in apartment complexes

3:04:18 ↗ as like the equivalent to having access

3:04:22 ↗ to open space, period. In my opinion,

3:04:24 ↗ it's like a lot of these open they're

3:04:26 ↗ like fine, I guess, but really

3:04:29 ↗ I think what we need to be focusing on

3:04:31 ↗ is like do people actually have access

3:04:32 ↗ to parks within a very short walking

3:04:34 ↗ distance of their home? Cuz I especially

3:04:37 ↗ for some of these smaller ones where

3:04:39 ↗ it's like the size of, you know, open

3:04:42 ↗ space that you get. It can be like a

3:04:44 ↗ postage stamp size, you know, little

3:04:46 ↗ pocket park that doesn't even make

3:04:48 ↗ sense, but you're just required to do

3:04:50 ↗ it. So, I think we should think about,

3:04:52 ↗ you know, in terms of access to open

3:04:53 ↗ space, how can we make it so that more

3:04:56 ↗ people are living within, you know,

3:04:58 ↗ close access to like the really great

3:05:00 ↗ parks that we have in our city like

3:05:01 ↗ Confluence Park. Um, so those are some

3:05:03 ↗ of my thoughts. I think, you know, the

3:05:05 ↗ way that we've set up these requirements

3:05:07 ↗ now, I think, you know, it's a good

3:05:09 ↗ balance with making things, you know,

3:05:12 ↗ making it more feasible to do, you know,

3:05:16 ↗ redevelopment in Isiqua. But I do think

3:05:19 ↗ we need to kind of have a bigger picture

3:05:21 ↗ view of you know as we are building out

3:05:25 ↗ the city what like how what are the

3:05:28 ↗ different things we need to do to make

3:05:30 ↗ sure that you know the public realm is

3:05:32 ↗ great and people it remains a great

3:05:34 ↗ place to live even as you know and

3:05:36 ↗ perhaps even gets better as we uh build

3:05:38 ↗ more homes for more people. So I will be

3:05:41 ↗ voting yes

3:05:42 ↗ >> remarks.

3:05:43 ↗ >> Thanks. Um I have a chair for a question

3:05:46 ↗ for chair uh PTE chair uh Walsh. So did

3:05:51 ↗ you in committee look at zero step back

3:05:54 ↗ as was there a discussion about um

3:05:56 ↗ whether zero step back should be uh

3:05:59 ↗ considered?

3:06:04 ↗ I think that idea I was trying to

3:06:06 ↗ remember if you had proposed that

3:06:09 ↗ concept so much as I I think it was more

3:06:13 ↗ about when a conversation would happen

3:06:17 ↗ and whether or not these were

3:06:19 ↗ appropriate ideas as an interim before a

3:06:23 ↗ menu of design options.

3:06:26 ↗ Is that what you would agree?

3:06:28 ↗ >> No.

3:06:32 ↗ Well, well, I'm just because I I am very

3:06:34 ↗ much uh I resonate very much with

3:06:37 ↗ Council Member Nichols idea that we

3:06:39 ↗ should be able to turn the the full

3:06:41 ↗ knob. And so, um and it seems weird to

3:06:44 ↗ me to do an interim step if if we're

3:06:46 ↗ going to consider turning the full knob

3:06:48 ↗ in a few short months. That seems to be

3:06:50 ↗ a weird environment. I will tell you as

3:06:53 ↗ a as a parent of a child who had to look

3:06:56 ↗ for housing not that long ago, um he my

3:07:00 ↗ son loves Newcastle Commons. Newcastle

3:07:03 ↗ Commons doesn't have setbacks. It but it

3:07:05 ↗ doesn't look like a prison and it

3:07:06 ↗ doesn't look like a giant brick and it

3:07:08 ↗ doesn't look like a awful place to live.

3:07:10 ↗ It's a great place to live partially

3:07:11 ↗ because as people have been talking

3:07:13 ↗ about here, it's got open spaces nearby

3:07:15 ↗ and it's got restaurants within walking

3:07:17 ↗ distance and it's got grocery stores

3:07:18 ↗ within a walking distance and and so you

3:07:21 ↗ know I I I have been convinced by

3:07:24 ↗ members of this of this council that um

3:07:27 ↗ you know part of our crisis for

3:07:29 ↗ workforce housing is not having more

3:07:31 ↗ market rate housing. So I'm inherently

3:07:34 ↗ inclined towards opening the solution

3:07:37 ↗ space up wider. So, as chair of PTE,

3:07:41 ↗ um I'm sort of inclined to try to test

3:07:44 ↗ the waters and see if there would be um

3:07:48 ↗ interest on the council now in sending

3:07:50 ↗ this back to PTE and considering that

3:07:53 ↗ further. But I I hesitate to I wanted to

3:07:55 ↗ talk to you about it first as the chair.

3:07:57 ↗ I don't want to be like, I don't like

3:07:58 ↗ the decision you guys came to, so I want

3:08:00 ↗ you to noodle on it some more. That's

3:08:02 ↗ not my That's not my intent.

3:08:04 ↗ >> Yeah. I think our main feedback was we

3:08:08 ↗ wanted a menu of options that a project

3:08:13 ↗ could look at to earn points or whatever

3:08:16 ↗ it is to create the architectural

3:08:19 ↗ interest. And

3:08:21 ↗ looking at how the promoting building

3:08:24 ↗ investments plan for the two years came

3:08:26 ↗ about, we didn't feel like that was

3:08:29 ↗ something that could happen in this time

3:08:31 ↗ frame. So what we were looking at was

3:08:34 ↗ really do we adopt

3:08:38 ↗ an adjustment to these stepbacks

3:08:41 ↗ um in this time period so that we don't

3:08:44 ↗ have the current rules on the books

3:08:48 ↗ versus

3:08:49 ↗ do we and I don't think we really

3:08:52 ↗ appropriately looked at should we

3:08:55 ↗ eliminate stepbacks

3:08:57 ↗ altogether

3:09:00 ↗ in that interim from time. Um because we

3:09:04 ↗ as a committee agreed that the best

3:09:08 ↗ avenue forward to achieve all of the

3:09:11 ↗ goals was to have that menu of options

3:09:13 ↗ and that did not seem like something

3:09:15 ↗ that was available um from a staff

3:09:18 ↗ recommendation at that time.

3:09:21 ↗ >> Thank you for that explanation. Um, I'm

3:09:23 ↗ gonna be a no tonight because the the

3:09:27 ↗ the path that we're taking right now

3:09:29 ↗ does not strike me as having the urgency

3:09:32 ↗ and severity necessary for the housing

3:09:35 ↗ crisis and affordability crisis we have

3:09:37 ↗ in the city right now. So, I'm going to

3:09:38 ↗ be a no, but I would also be an amenable

3:09:40 ↗ to sending it back to committee if the

3:09:42 ↗ committee would be willing to consider a

3:09:44 ↗ broader range of solutions immediately

3:09:46 ↗ that would have more of an impact on

3:09:48 ↗ cost of of build immediately. Thank you,

3:09:52 ↗ >> Council Member Dare or Nichols Dare.

3:09:56 ↗ >> Um, a couple comments just to clarify

3:09:58 ↗ what my my recollection of that meeting

3:10:01 ↗ and memory is faulty, but uh my what my

3:10:04 ↗ recollection was. So, we um we did not

3:10:07 ↗ discuss zero stepbacks. Um I I had

3:10:11 ↗ requested that that be something that we

3:10:13 ↗ discussed, but that wasn't something

3:10:14 ↗ that was presented. Um, I made some kind

3:10:18 ↗ of hamfisted attempts to think through

3:10:21 ↗ how we might be able to do that in the

3:10:22 ↗ meeting, but it's a complic it's it it

3:10:25 ↗ needs to this is one of these things

3:10:27 ↗ that actually does need the process. I

3:10:28 ↗ wasn't going to I I tried to figure out

3:10:31 ↗ if I could just figure out how to like

3:10:32 ↗ amend it on the fly in the meeting. It

3:10:34 ↗ would it would it was going to be wrong.

3:10:35 ↗ So, I didn't want to do that. Um, well,

3:10:38 ↗ I wanted to, but I didn't. Um, so we did

3:10:41 ↗ not discuss that. We didn't go up we and

3:10:43 ↗ uh because it does need that it needs

3:10:45 ↗ some staff presentation ahead of time to

3:10:47 ↗ at least say what are the thing because

3:10:48 ↗ it's it's at least 10 or 15 sentences

3:10:50 ↗ that have to be right in a somewhat

3:10:52 ↗ complicated or ordinance to get this

3:10:53 ↗ there. So we didn't look at it then. Um

3:10:58 ↗ I also I'm I'm concerned that we're

3:11:00 ↗ conflating multiple motions here. Um

3:11:02 ↗ this the motion that we're discussing is

3:11:04 ↗ about this particular amendment to this

3:11:07 ↗ ordinance which is about the stepX. To

3:11:09 ↗ be clear, as far as our our broader

3:11:10 ↗ bigger picture discussions on

3:11:11 ↗ architectural standards go, I'm all for

3:11:13 ↗ that. I think it's really interesting

3:11:15 ↗ and it's going to it could be really

3:11:16 ↗ great. I also I'm extremely skeptical

3:11:19 ↗ we're going to be able to do it in the

3:11:20 ↗ time frame we think we are because I

3:11:22 ↗ think it's going to be really really

3:11:23 ↗ hard. Um, as has been referenced, like

3:11:26 ↗ this could have all sorts of of

3:11:27 ↗ complicated um knockoff effects because

3:11:30 ↗ of the added um the

3:11:36 ↗ I'll just leave it. I think it's going

3:11:38 ↗ to be hard to get a point system that

3:11:40 ↗ has never been done before set up in a

3:11:42 ↗ reasonable amount of time and that we

3:11:44 ↗ shouldn't be conflating this our

3:11:45 ↗ whatever our goals are on stepbacks

3:11:47 ↗ whatever they are with that. I think we

3:11:48 ↗ should just be thinking of that

3:11:49 ↗ separately because I don't think it's

3:11:51 ↗ going to be done in quarter 4. I think

3:11:52 ↗ we're going to debate it a lot and I

3:11:53 ↗ think it's going to need a lot more

3:11:54 ↗ work. Um so I I'm I'm concerned about

3:11:57 ↗ conflating those two things and I think

3:11:58 ↗ we should be treating this as this was

3:12:00 ↗ the first thing on our housing work

3:12:02 ↗ plan. Did we get it right? Um, if not,

3:12:05 ↗ if yes, vote yes. Um, if no, um, and if

3:12:08 ↗ one of those reasons why no is because

3:12:10 ↗ we didn't look at all the options, look

3:12:12 ↗ at the options, come back with at least

3:12:14 ↗ that those options analyzed and then

3:12:16 ↗ present that. Um, and then just finally,

3:12:19 ↗ as a specific point as to um, one of

3:12:21 ↗ council member Zair's questions on the

3:12:22 ↗ the cost of this, we do have we do

3:12:25 ↗ understand somewhat of the cost of this.

3:12:26 ↗ This is what I was getting at as far as

3:12:28 ↗ this having step backs at all is what's

3:12:31 ↗ adding 20 to 40 bucks a month per unit

3:12:33 ↗ in rent. Um, so that's your that that's

3:12:36 ↗ the trade-off. Um, they do have

3:12:38 ↗ aesthetic benefits. I mean, beauty is in

3:12:40 ↗ the eye of the holder clearly, but I

3:12:42 ↗ mean many some will argue they have

3:12:44 ↗ that. And is it worth that cost? So, we

3:12:46 ↗ have we we we can peg this somewhere as

3:12:49 ↗ to what this would cost versus cities

3:12:51 ↗ such as like both that does not have any

3:12:53 ↗ stepback requirements at all. Um, I

3:12:55 ↗ would argue Buffalo is not a concrete

3:12:57 ↗ jungle, but I I I don't know how to

3:12:59 ↗ quantify units of jungleness, so I don't

3:13:00 ↗ want to go down that rabbit hole, per

3:13:02 ↗ se. So, um, that's the I think that

3:13:05 ↗ those are the the sets of comments I

3:13:07 ↗ had.

3:13:08 ↗ >> Council Rick,

3:13:10 ↗ >> uh, just a comment to, uh, Council

3:13:13 ↗ President Marts. Uh, Newcastle Commons

3:13:15 ↗ looks to be five stories, so it would

3:13:16 ↗ still fit in these exa existing stepback

3:13:19 ↗ requirements that we have here, uh, and

3:13:22 ↗ still look the same. So, uh, just to my

3:13:25 ↗ pros step back step set step back uh

3:13:28 ↗ case. Um, as for I I think I'm still

3:13:34 ↗ confused. Like I said, these are

3:13:36 ↗ specific requirements. I am okay with

3:13:38 ↗ them. Um, you know, they add some

3:13:39 ↗ flexibility and and and um, you know, to

3:13:43 ↗ the code and don't, you know, uh,

3:13:46 ↗ jeopardize too much. So, I'm okay with

3:13:48 ↗ these as is. And so now, but it seems

3:13:50 ↗ like we're falling into this broader

3:13:51 ↗ conversation of

3:13:53 ↗ what it's like I'm unsure, like I said,

3:13:56 ↗ if we approve these, how the future

3:13:58 ↗ conversation goes and if we're talking

3:14:01 ↗ about this menu, are we creating more

3:14:02 ↗ confusion? And so I'm uncertain whether

3:14:04 ↗ to vote for this because I think it's

3:14:06 ↗ okay as is, but then we're going to be

3:14:09 ↗ changing things again later or not. And

3:14:11 ↗ so I'm getting a little confused in

3:14:13 ↗ terms of where this discussion is going

3:14:15 ↗ and what this vote will represent in

3:14:18 ↗ terms of the long-term consequences

3:14:20 ↗ and

3:14:22 ↗ whether this should all be reconsidered

3:14:24 ↗ and have a more cohesive package or not.

3:14:26 ↗ Um is where I am. You know, like I don't

3:14:29 ↗ necessarily need more options

3:14:30 ↗ specifically on stepbacks. It's more

3:14:31 ↗ like do we do are we going to be working

3:14:34 ↗ on each of these one by one like this or

3:14:37 ↗ is it that we're trying to get to some

3:14:38 ↗ sort of cumulative larger plan? And so

3:14:42 ↗ that's where I'm kind of concerned in

3:14:43 ↗ terms of how to vote now of whether

3:14:45 ↗ we're locking into some really peacemeal

3:14:47 ↗ way or if we should be just pausing to

3:14:50 ↗ consider it as a more comprehensive plan

3:14:52 ↗ or not.

3:14:54 ↗ >> And I think before I go to council

3:14:56 ↗ member Walsh, I mean I think the we have

3:14:58 ↗ 17 items I mean this is a long list of

3:15:02 ↗ items that you know we're putting

3:15:04 ↗ community planning development to come

3:15:06 ↗ up with improvements on. So I think our

3:15:08 ↗ challenge is every one of those 17 items

3:15:09 ↗ you're basically going to say status quo

3:15:12 ↗ which is fairly rigid and has aqua

3:15:14 ↗ progress that makes it easier to build

3:15:17 ↗ because you providing additional

3:15:19 ↗ flexibility and choices and then there's

3:15:21 ↗ always going to be the full monty choice

3:15:22 ↗ which is just saying we're not

3:15:24 ↗ regulating this field whatsoever. And

3:15:26 ↗ you're going to have that choice

3:15:28 ↗ basically on all 17 of these projects.

3:15:29 ↗ And I hope people realize like the

3:15:31 ↗ committees are going to have that

3:15:32 ↗ choice. Like so committees can always

3:15:36 ↗ say I want to see the full I want to see

3:15:39 ↗ the like removal entirely of any

3:15:42 ↗ regulations in the space. And so I think

3:15:44 ↗ in every all 17 of these I think uh

3:15:49 ↗ that is just going to be in front. And

3:15:50 ↗ so but this conversation is never going

3:15:52 ↗ to get easier on all 17 of these. I mean

3:15:54 ↗ because right now these are the two that

3:15:56 ↗ we I think our assessment was were the

3:15:58 ↗ lowest hanging of fruit that the fruit

3:16:00 ↗ gets higher up the tree as as we go

3:16:02 ↗ further down this list and I think as

3:16:04 ↗ council member Nichols said when we get

3:16:06 ↗ into creating a point system for design

3:16:08 ↗ standards and there's going to be

3:16:09 ↗ arguments do you need 10 points or 15

3:16:10 ↗ points and and how much is open space

3:16:13 ↗ worth is it worth one point or three

3:16:14 ↗ points like it's going to be an endless

3:16:15 ↗ stream of permutations and so it's only

3:16:18 ↗ going to get harder and I think that's

3:16:20 ↗ just where we're at right now and this

3:16:22 ↗ council is going to have to decide I

3:16:23 ↗ like I think first off tonight there's

3:16:26 ↗ always a choice to divide the question

3:16:27 ↗ cuz you have full agreement it sounds

3:16:29 ↗ like in the council on the open space

3:16:31 ↗ amenities and then I think you're going

3:16:32 ↗ to have to decide cuz there's going to

3:16:34 ↗ be members of the council that are

3:16:35 ↗ comfortable removing all the regulations

3:16:37 ↗ and there's going to be members of the

3:16:37 ↗ council that want to remove all the

3:16:39 ↗ regulations and I think it's just going

3:16:41 ↗ to be this is the first of many of these

3:16:43 ↗ to come which I I think is going to be

3:16:45 ↗ our challenge is we're trying to get

3:16:47 ↗ through this but if we want to do it in

3:16:49 ↗ a efficient timely manner we're also

3:16:51 ↗ going to have to make some difficult

3:16:54 ↗ votes where we may not have unanimous

3:16:56 ↗ consensus because there's a reason these

3:16:58 ↗ things haven't changed is they're not

3:17:00 ↗ easy to change. Council member Walsh.

3:17:02 ↗ >> Yeah. And I think that's a great way to

3:17:05 ↗ frame this conversation. Um, I think

3:17:08 ↗ what I would also say is I'm hearing

3:17:12 ↗ from several council members tonight

3:17:14 ↗ that we need to make sure that the staff

3:17:18 ↗ information and that the um council

3:17:21 ↗ committees are treating this with the

3:17:24 ↗ urgency that it deserves. And so I will

3:17:26 ↗ take that as really good feedback and

3:17:29 ↗ something that we can look at. I think

3:17:31 ↗ this is the first piece out of the gate

3:17:35 ↗ and from my perspective I'm comfortable

3:17:38 ↗ moving forward with this as as I would

3:17:41 ↗ say an interim adjustment as we kind of

3:17:45 ↗ look at this larger picture of what are

3:17:47 ↗ the most important biggest levers that

3:17:51 ↗ we can do. How do we pull something

3:17:53 ↗ together that meets our community needs?

3:17:56 ↗ And then also just saying this as an

3:17:59 ↗ adjustment will allow any building under

3:18:03 ↗ the five stories to not have a um step

3:18:08 ↗ back. And so that clears a lot of

3:18:10 ↗ hurdles for what I would say are

3:18:12 ↗ probably the largest set of um

3:18:15 ↗ apartments and condos that we would see

3:18:19 ↗ um in the next year or so. So I think

3:18:22 ↗ this moves us substantially in the

3:18:24 ↗ direction that we want to go. I think it

3:18:27 ↗ also gives us the larger council sense

3:18:32 ↗ of urgency as we look at some of the

3:18:35 ↗ bigger areas that um potentially move

3:18:37 ↗ forward. So that would be my approach,

3:18:40 ↗ but I would love to hear from any other

3:18:42 ↗ council members.

3:18:49 ↗ Council member Joe.

3:18:51 ↗ >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um,

3:18:55 ↗ I think that uh we should go forward

3:18:57 ↗ with both the motions this evening. Um,

3:19:03 ↗ giving some progress or showing some

3:19:05 ↗ progress on

3:19:07 ↗ uh the stepbacks

3:19:09 ↗ will be important to the development

3:19:12 ↗ community. they know

3:19:14 ↗ uh that if it's under five, they don't

3:19:16 ↗ have to worry about that particular

3:19:18 ↗ item.

3:19:19 ↗ We're not building a lot of

3:19:23 ↗ apartments or buildings over five in

3:19:26 ↗ Isiqua that are residential right now,

3:19:28 ↗ but if we set a rule right now for five

3:19:32 ↗ and below as the committee chair is

3:19:35 ↗ suggesting,

3:19:37 ↗ um I think it does give the development

3:19:39 ↗ community

3:19:40 ↗ uh a green light to know that those are

3:19:43 ↗ the rules for now. They can put their

3:19:45 ↗ plans in. they can get vested under

3:19:47 ↗ those rules and go forward if they have

3:19:48 ↗ a project that's appropriate. Um,

3:19:52 ↗ we need to I I I will commend the mayor

3:19:55 ↗ for making great progress with uh the

3:20:00 ↗ issue of housing and uh making Isiqua

3:20:04 ↗ known as a city that is uh more open to

3:20:09 ↗ considering options for housing and

3:20:11 ↗ considering new projects for housing.

3:20:13 ↗ That's uh a a piece of feedback that I

3:20:16 ↗ hear when I'm out in the community. I

3:20:18 ↗ think that approving these amendments

3:20:21 ↗ tonight uh furthers that message and

3:20:24 ↗ also emphasizes that we are trying to

3:20:27 ↗ make progress on these things. If we

3:20:28 ↗ don't approve the the amendments

3:20:32 ↗ tonight,

3:20:34 ↗ uh it may be another year before we're

3:20:36 ↗ going to get to back to them. If we

3:20:39 ↗ approve them tonight, we send the

3:20:41 ↗ development community a message that

3:20:43 ↗ these are the projects that you can that

3:20:45 ↗ we can approve without the stepbacks.

3:20:48 ↗ Um, if you have something that you think

3:20:50 ↗ you want to get put through and get

3:20:53 ↗ vested, go ahead and do it. I think it's

3:20:55 ↗ the right message to send during this

3:20:57 ↗ housing

3:20:58 ↗ uh supply challenge that we're having.

3:21:01 ↗ Um, also in addition to that, we're also

3:21:04 ↗ seeing that housing

3:21:07 ↗ um,

3:21:08 ↗ inventories are rising both for new

3:21:10 ↗ housing and for uh, existing homes. Uh,

3:21:15 ↗ a number of builders have inventory

3:21:17 ↗ that's sitting on their books that they

3:21:20 ↗ can't necessarily get rid of and sell.

3:21:24 ↗ Um, some are taking losses on their

3:21:26 ↗ projects, etc. That's just a short way

3:21:28 ↗ of saying we need to continue to show as

3:21:31 ↗ a council that we are making progress on

3:21:34 ↗ rules that are going to help uh other

3:21:37 ↗ projects come in uh that make sense and

3:21:40 ↗ I think both these amendments, both

3:21:42 ↗ these proposals tonight do that. Thank

3:21:44 ↗ you.

3:21:48 ↗ >> Okay. Uh oh, Deputy President Jane.

3:21:50 ↗ >> Yeah, I think I will also be voting yes

3:21:53 ↗ tonight. I think to council member Joe's

3:21:55 ↗ point, I think saying we're voting no

3:21:57 ↗ because this doesn't go far enough is a

3:22:00 ↗ bit at least to me strange when we

3:22:03 ↗ should, you know, in my opinion it shows

3:22:05 ↗ some progress and that's something we

3:22:06 ↗ can point to as you know we're making

3:22:08 ↗ progress in making it easier and more

3:22:12 ↗ cost effective to build an ISQA. We can

3:22:13 ↗ always revisit stepbacks. we could even,

3:22:16 ↗ you know, put it on for Q3 to say should

3:22:19 ↗ should we do another amendment to

3:22:20 ↗ completely, you know, abolish stepback

3:22:24 ↗ requirements in the city of Isiqua. I

3:22:26 ↗ just like given that there's so many

3:22:28 ↗ other things on the list and like

3:22:31 ↗ anytime, you know, we have to spend

3:22:33 ↗ months going through PPC, PTE, etc.

3:22:36 ↗ At least

3:22:38 ↗ my preference is for us to kind of put

3:22:42 ↗ this one to bed for now and keep moving

3:22:43 ↗ forward with some of our other, you

3:22:45 ↗ know, items that are further like later

3:22:48 ↗ in the timeline, including those that

3:22:50 ↗ may be more substantive, such as the

3:22:54 ↗ paved buffer redevelopment thing.

3:22:57 ↗ Is there a boy?

3:22:59 ↗ >> I plan on voting yes because I don't

3:23:01 ↗ want this to be a case of the perfect

3:23:04 ↗ getting in the way of the good. I

3:23:05 ↗ suppose

3:23:08 ↗ >> her boy gets a brevity award. Council

3:23:10 ↗ President Martz.

3:23:12 ↗ >> So the hour is late and I want to make

3:23:15 ↗ sure that my comments are not

3:23:17 ↗ misconstrued as more grumpy because

3:23:19 ↗ they're not intended to be grumpy. Um,

3:23:22 ↗ one of the reasons that I am voting no

3:23:24 ↗ is I think that there has been a pattern

3:23:28 ↗ for a long time. I'm not going to say

3:23:30 ↗ it's it's this mayor or or this city

3:23:33 ↗ administrator. Uh, I think there's there

3:23:36 ↗ has been, especially with code, um, I

3:23:40 ↗ have a sense sometimes that the

3:23:42 ↗ administration

3:23:43 ↗ um doesn't always send us the breadth of

3:23:46 ↗ consideration that we would like. And so

3:23:49 ↗ one of the reasons I'm going to be

3:23:50 ↗ voting no tonight is in the future

3:23:52 ↗ because this is clearly going to pass. I

3:23:54 ↗ I can I understand how these things

3:23:55 ↗ work. Um but I I really want to see the

3:23:58 ↗ full range in the future. Um I really

3:24:00 ↗ when this when this council says we want

3:24:02 ↗ to see the full range of possibilities,

3:24:04 ↗ we want to see the full range of

3:24:05 ↗ possibilities. We don't want to see a

3:24:07 ↗ subset. I again I'm I'm not not trying

3:24:10 ↗ to be grumpy. Um I'm just setting a

3:24:12 ↗ standard for going f for the future. I

3:24:14 ↗ think council member Nichols is really

3:24:16 ↗ right that we want to see the full knob

3:24:18 ↗ and you can say like don't do zero

3:24:20 ↗ setbacks because you'll create bricks or

3:24:22 ↗ whatever, but I I think we want to

3:24:24 ↗ consider those and and so I want to see

3:24:26 ↗ it in the future and so that's part of

3:24:27 ↗ what my no vote's going to be tonight.

3:24:29 ↗ Thank you.

3:24:32 ↗ >> Okay. Uh see no further discussion. The

3:24:35 ↗ motion for the council, which I will

3:24:37 ↗ reread since it's been an hour, adopt

3:24:41 ↗ ordinance number 3143, amending chapters

3:24:44 ↗ 18.60008.602

3:24:49 ↗ and 18.72 of the Isco Municipal Code to

3:24:51 ↗ allow flexibility for upper level

3:24:53 ↗ stepbacks and adopt ordinance 3144

3:24:55 ↗ amending chapter 18.608 608 community

3:24:57 ↗ amenity spaces disclosive code to reduce

3:25:00 ↗ the amount of required open amenity

3:25:01 ↗ space and multifamily

3:25:04 ↗ residential developments. All those in

3:25:06 ↗ favor please say I

3:25:09 ↗ >> I.

3:25:10 ↗ >> All those opposed, no.

3:25:11 ↗ >> No.

3:25:12 ↗ >> Nope.

3:25:13 ↗ >> That's council president Martz and

3:25:14 ↗ council member Nichols voting no. That

3:25:16 ↗ passes five to two and that will take us

3:25:21 ↗ to committee reports. Council member

3:25:23 ↗ Boy.

3:25:25 ↗ I uh as of last week have been appointed

3:25:28 ↗ to the PSRC Transportation Policy Board.

3:25:31 ↗ Uh my first meeting for that will be

3:25:32 ↗ 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, July 9th. I think

3:25:35 ↗ I have that date right. Then I'll have a

3:25:37 ↗ report.

3:25:38 ↗ >> I know that was your first report,

3:25:40 ↗ right? That's good. Council member,

3:25:42 ↗ >> uh I have three reports. Uh uh on June

3:25:46 ↗ 18th was the first meeting of the sound

3:25:49 ↗ city's equity and inclusion cabinet,

3:25:50 ↗ which I was recently uh appointed to. Uh

3:25:53 ↗ it was just an introductory meeting to

3:25:54 ↗ kind of get to know all the members. We

3:25:56 ↗ tal started talking about what we wanted

3:25:58 ↗ to do. This cabinet hadn't been around

3:26:00 ↗ and so it's kind of newly formed. So

3:26:02 ↗ just kind of getting an idea of what a

3:26:03 ↗ work plan might look like. Uh we mostly

3:26:06 ↗ ended up discussing you know how each of

3:26:07 ↗ our cities have handled different

3:26:09 ↗ immigration issues and are kind of

3:26:10 ↗ looking to collect our experiences and

3:26:13 ↗ resources into like a you know uh

3:26:17 ↗ collective list so that we can all

3:26:18 ↗ discuss and kind of coordinate ideas uh

3:26:21 ↗ there. But so that is you know just

3:26:23 ↗ getting going and more more to come as

3:26:25 ↗ we meet. Um I had June 24th I had the uh

3:26:29 ↗ Kakani ILA management uh meeting. It was

3:26:33 ↗ just really talking about the draft of

3:26:34 ↗ the 2027 budget which does not have very

3:26:37 ↗ much of a increase. So nice and small

3:26:39 ↗ there. Um and some updates to voting

3:26:42 ↗ procedures for uh if there's like an

3:26:44 ↗ emergency and they need to get the

3:26:45 ↗ management community together quickly.

3:26:47 ↗ Uh and then finally just uh earlier

3:26:50 ↗ today was my uh the second meeting for

3:26:52 ↗ the East Side Fire Finance and

3:26:54 ↗ Administrative administration committee.

3:26:56 ↗ Uh so continued budget discussions there

3:26:59 ↗ on drafting that. Uh this was really

3:27:01 ↗ more detail on the operating expenses.

3:27:03 ↗ Um as well as diving in because we

3:27:05 ↗ didn't do it in the first meeting about

3:27:07 ↗ equipment and apparatus and capital

3:27:09 ↗ facilities maintenance. Uh so this is

3:27:12 ↗ still more of the detail and the

3:27:13 ↗ requests on their side and still big

3:27:16 ↗ numbers. But the next meeting will

3:27:17 ↗ likely be where we start to really push

3:27:19 ↗ back uh and get to what will be a

3:27:23 ↗ hopefully uh more uh achievable budget.

3:27:27 ↗ Uh and the next meeting for that is July

3:27:29 ↗ 21st. Uh and that concludes my reports

3:27:32 ↗ for today.

3:27:33 ↗ >> Yman's work you're doing on that

3:27:35 ↗ committee. Uh Council Member Nichols.

3:27:38 ↗ >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have no reports.

3:27:41 ↗ >> Council member Walsh.

3:27:42 ↗ >> Thank you. I just have a list of

3:27:44 ↗ meetings coming up. Uh, planning,

3:27:46 ↗ development, environments next meeting

3:27:48 ↗ is July 7th. East Side Fire and Rescue

3:27:51 ↗ meets next Thursday on July 9th. Agenda

3:27:54 ↗ hasn't yet been adopted. Um, a regional

3:27:57 ↗ coalition for housing committee of

3:28:00 ↗ electeds. Next meeting is July 23rd.

3:28:03 ↗ Again, no uh agenda. And King County

3:28:07 ↗ affordable housing committee next meets

3:28:10 ↗ on July 9th, but it overlaps with aside

3:28:12 ↗ Fire and Rescue, so I will miss it. And

3:28:14 ↗ that concludes my report.

3:28:15 ↗ >> Council member Joe,

3:28:17 ↗ >> thank you. The mobility and

3:28:18 ↗ infrastructure committee is scheduled to

3:28:20 ↗ meet July 14th. Currently, there are no

3:28:22 ↗ items uh on the work plan. However,

3:28:26 ↗ Director Moon may have a wash uh issue

3:28:29 ↗ that may come on the agenda. So, it may

3:28:32 ↗ be cancelled. Uh committee members,

3:28:34 ↗ please uh watch your emails for that. Uh

3:28:37 ↗ Cascade Water Alliance had a board

3:28:39 ↗ meeting on the 24th uh that I attended.

3:28:42 ↗ The main item was a budget discussion.

3:28:44 ↗ Uh water rates are scheduled to rise uh

3:28:47 ↗ by about 12.8% for 2027 for Isiqua. Um

3:28:53 ↗ the uh

3:28:55 ↗ budget is still being formed, but just

3:28:57 ↗ wanted to let people know that is in the

3:28:59 ↗ future potentially. Also, the Cascade

3:29:02 ↗ Supply program uh was discussed. It was

3:29:06 ↗ uh asked that uh there be some further

3:29:09 ↗ work done on that. It is the the

3:29:11 ↗ committee that's going to be overlooking

3:29:13 ↗ the 30 mile transportation line that

3:29:16 ↗ Cascade Water Alliance is building from

3:29:18 ↗ Tacoma to bring water from Tacoma up to

3:29:21 ↗ our system. It's a multi-billion dollar

3:29:22 ↗ project. We want to make sure the

3:29:24 ↗ oversight is correct for that and uh the

3:29:27 ↗ board wanted more work completed before

3:29:29 ↗ that process for oversight is approved.

3:29:32 ↗ It'll probably come back in September.

3:29:34 ↗ Uh the

3:29:37 ↗ uh Eltech committee will be meeting on

3:29:39 ↗ July 28th. We we will be reviewing and

3:29:42 ↗ evaluating the new requests for the

3:29:44 ↗ second round of funding. $100,000 has

3:29:47 ↗ been opened up for new items in the

3:29:49 ↗ second shoulder season to support visits

3:29:52 ↗ from over 50 mi away and overnight

3:29:54 ↗ stays. That concludes my report. Thank

3:29:56 ↗ you,

3:29:57 ↗ >> Deputy President Shen.

3:29:58 ↗ >> Great. I have one report. Um, so the

3:30:01 ↗ King County Regional Homelessness

3:30:02 ↗ Authority Governing Board met last

3:30:04 ↗ Friday, June 26th. We received an update

3:30:07 ↗ on KCRA's corrective action plan, which

3:30:11 ↗ is the plan that they adopted in

3:30:13 ↗ response to their forensic investigation

3:30:16 ↗ findings.

3:30:18 ↗ Um, and then we also received a briefing

3:30:20 ↗ on the point in time count, which has

3:30:23 ↗ been in the news recently. So the

3:30:25 ↗ topline funding topline fund findings

3:30:27 ↗ from that are that overall homelessness

3:30:30 ↗ uh between 2024 and 26 went up by 9% and

3:30:34 ↗ unsheltered homelessness really went up

3:30:35 ↗ by about 21%. And that's actually driven

3:30:38 ↗ in part by the fact that the number of

3:30:40 ↗ shelter beds in King County decreased

3:30:42 ↗ between 2024 to 26 by several hundred. A

3:30:46 ↗ lot of this was actually due to one

3:30:48 ↗ specific uh uh shelter closing. It was

3:30:51 ↗ operated by Mary's Place. It was a

3:30:53 ↗ planned redevelopment where they're

3:30:54 ↗ actually now redeveloping it into

3:30:56 ↗ affordable housing with more units. Um,

3:30:58 ↗ but Mary's Place wanted to move into

3:31:00 ↗ different building but could not find a

3:31:02 ↗ suitable location so they had to close

3:31:03 ↗ it. And so, you know, I think one of the

3:31:05 ↗ things that this really goes to show is

3:31:07 ↗ Seattle really Seattle and King County

3:31:09 ↗ really are an outlier in the country in

3:31:11 ↗ terms of having such a high proportion

3:31:13 ↗ of unsheltered homelessness. And so

3:31:15 ↗ figuring out, you know, how can we have

3:31:17 ↗ more shelters and transitional housing

3:31:19 ↗ available for folks in our community?

3:31:21 ↗ Um, including, you know, some like

3:31:24 ↗ there's some amount in other

3:31:26 ↗ communities. There's none in Isiqua

3:31:27 ↗ right now. And so thinking about how we

3:31:28 ↗ can, you know, assist with that regional

3:31:31 ↗ effort. Um, the other thing to note is

3:31:33 ↗ that the point in time count is

3:31:35 ↗ conducted at the county level, but it

3:31:36 ↗ doesn't have a breakdown on a regional

3:31:38 ↗ or city level. I actually back when they

3:31:40 ↗ did it in January volunteered at the

3:31:42 ↗ site um here in Isiqua um which is uh

3:31:44 ↗ you know colllocated with the meals

3:31:46 ↗ program. So you know there is a very

3:31:49 ↗ significant need not just in King County

3:31:52 ↗ as a whole but in Isqua specifically

3:31:54 ↗ looks very different in different

3:31:55 ↗ communities and so you know we I think

3:31:58 ↗ we at least speaking for myself I feel

3:31:59 ↗ that we have a responsibility to um do

3:32:01 ↗ what we can to help you know address

3:32:04 ↗ this regional crisis. So, um, and one,

3:32:08 ↗ uh, meeting to report. So, the East Side

3:32:10 ↗ Transportation Partnership, our next

3:32:12 ↗ meeting is on July 10th, Friday, July

3:32:14 ↗ 10th. And I think the next uh King

3:32:17 ↗ County Regional Homelessness Authority

3:32:18 ↗ governing board meeting is Friday, July

3:32:20 ↗ 24th at 10 a.m. And then we also have a

3:32:23 ↗ King County Flood Control District

3:32:24 ↗ Advisory Committee meeting uh that same

3:32:27 ↗ day, July 24th, at uh 1:30 p.m. The the

3:32:32 ↗ Flood Control District Advisory

3:32:35 ↗ Committee meeting for June was canceled

3:32:36 ↗ because a lot of people were traveling

3:32:38 ↗ back from the AWC conference in Spokane

3:32:40 ↗ during our normal meeting time. That

3:32:42 ↗ concludes my report. Council President

3:32:44 ↗ Marts,

3:32:45 ↗ >> two things, one sort of boring one a lot

3:32:46 ↗ more interesting. Uh, Sound Cities

3:32:48 ↗ Association board of directors met on

3:32:50 ↗ Wednesday, June 17th at Renton City

3:32:52 ↗ Hall. The only thing we did um that

3:32:54 ↗ really matters is we appointed council

3:32:57 ↗ member Boyd to the as the SEA alternate

3:32:59 ↗ to PSRC transportation policy board as

3:33:01 ↗ she's already mentioned. Uh, however,

3:33:04 ↗ the interesting is upcoming SCA pick

3:33:06 ↗ meeting Wednesday July 8th is actually

3:33:08 ↗ going to be at the Kirkland Justice

3:33:10 ↗ Center. Um, and there is a pre-pick

3:33:14 ↗ meeting that is open to all PIC members

3:33:17 ↗ and it's going to be a corrections

3:33:18 ↗ crisis care center virtual tour. So

3:33:21 ↗ although we're going to be there, it

3:33:23 ↗ says staff from Connections Crisis

3:33:26 ↗ Response Center provide a virtual tour

3:33:28 ↗ and Q&A of the Connections Kirkland

3:33:30 ↗ facility. Again, that's open to

3:33:32 ↗ everybody. um you would then not be

3:33:35 ↗ invited to join us for the PIC meeting

3:33:37 ↗ that occurs immediately thereafter. But

3:33:39 ↗ um this seems like a particularly

3:33:41 ↗ interesting um topic. So then at the PIC

3:33:44 ↗ meeting that will occur starting at 7

3:33:46 ↗ p.m. in the same location, we're going

3:33:47 ↗ to take action on the 2027 solid waste

3:33:50 ↗ rate letter that promises to be spicy.

3:33:52 ↗ Um we're going to have a discussion on

3:33:54 ↗ affordable housing levy part two. Uh

3:33:57 ↗ we're going to have discussion on the

3:33:58 ↗ mid implementation plan. This is the

3:34:00 ↗ mental illness drug dependency sales

3:34:02 ↗ tax. Um, and uh, and its implementation.

3:34:07 ↗ Uh, so it should be an action-packed

3:34:09 ↗ pick meeting and I will report back on

3:34:10 ↗ that afterwards. This concludes my

3:34:12 ↗ report.

3:34:14 ↗ >> Oh, and I'm sorry. Well, sorry, Mr.

3:34:16 ↗ Mayor. One last thing. Anybody who wants

3:34:17 ↗ to car I guess, well, you carpool with

3:34:20 ↗ me, but then you wouldn't be staying for

3:34:22 ↗ the PIC meeting.

3:34:23 ↗ >> You could stay for the PIC meeting. You

3:34:24 ↗ would just have to sit in the back of

3:34:25 ↗ the room quietly and say nothing. So

3:34:28 ↗ anyhow, if anybody wants to come for the

3:34:30 ↗ connections crisis care center and karp

3:34:31 ↗ with me, you'd be welcome. Thank you.

3:34:33 ↗ Yeah,

3:34:34 ↗ >> deputy president Jang and I toured that

3:34:36 ↗ crisis care center in person earlier

3:34:38 ↗ this year. Okay, mayor's report down on

3:34:40 ↗ Fourth of July. This is the week. We've

3:34:43 ↗ been talking about this event for a long

3:34:44 ↗ time. It starts Thursday with the Chalk

3:34:48 ↗ Art Festival. That's noon to 4 here at

3:34:51 ↗ the community center. It's live music,

3:34:53 ↗ lots of entertainment. That is followed

3:34:55 ↗ by Friday. Bring your wagons to the

3:34:57 ↗ senior center 3 to 7. You can decorate a

3:35:00 ↗ wagon. Then you can let it park and hang

3:35:03 ↗ out at the senior center overnight. So

3:35:04 ↗ you don't have to worry about taking

3:35:05 ↗ your wagon back and forth. The more

3:35:08 ↗ creative the wagon design, the better.

3:35:11 ↗ And that brings you then to Saturday,

3:35:14 ↗ the 4th of July. So the farmers market

3:35:15 ↗ moves to Memorial Field. So, the farmers

3:35:17 ↗ market will launch as normal time at

3:35:19 ↗ 9:00 a.m. On the 4th, we will then at

3:35:22 ↗ 10:00 a.m. have uh the parade will

3:35:25 ↗ start. And so, I know there's a lot of

3:35:27 ↗ cool stuff in the parade. It's uh I was

3:35:29 ↗ getting a rundown from Lindsay Marsh on

3:35:32 ↗ the parade items. There's going to be

3:35:33 ↗ horses, going to be marching bands,

3:35:35 ↗ there's going to be clowns and and a lot

3:35:38 ↗ of cool decorated wagons. And so,

3:35:40 ↗ that'll be at 10:00 a.m. on on the 4th.

3:35:44 ↗ That's you can do your wagons, bring

3:35:46 ↗ your pets, and then that evening, there

3:35:48 ↗ will be fireworks on the on Lake

3:35:50 ↗ Smamish. So, people can go watch the

3:35:51 ↗ fireworks Lake Smash. I think that will

3:35:53 ↗ go off roughly at 10:00. And the

3:35:56 ↗ following Tuesday, July 7th, is the

3:35:58 ↗ first Kuanas concerts on the green and a

3:36:00 ↗ prom date mixtape. I suggest you bring

3:36:03 ↗ the disco gliders. They're good. It's a

3:36:05 ↗ especially if you like 80s music. So,

3:36:08 ↗ I've seen them before at Manolia

3:36:09 ↗ Summerfest and I think it's an excellent

3:36:12 ↗ way to launch the Concerts on the Green

3:36:14 ↗ series. That'll be Tuesday at the

3:36:16 ↗ community center at 7 July 7th. And with

3:36:20 ↗ that, we are now at good of the order.

3:36:24 ↗ Good of the order. Not saying good of

3:36:27 ↗ the order. Uh, our next meetings are

3:36:30 ↗ Monday, July 13th committee. The whole

3:36:32 ↗ Oh, emergency management training right

3:36:34 ↗ here. I heard it's going to be crazy

3:36:36 ↗ stuff. I heard you're all going to

3:36:37 ↗ gather around a table and be put through

3:36:39 ↗ emergency management training exercises.

3:36:42 ↗ Uh council members safety training as

3:36:44 ↗ well. Uh the IT staff will be offering

3:36:48 ↗ an optional help session uh at 5:30 p.m.

3:36:50 ↗ on July 13th if you have any tech issues

3:36:52 ↗ with your devices. Uh Monday, July 20th

3:36:55 ↗ will be our council meeting for this

3:36:57 ↗ meeting normally would have happened

3:36:59 ↗ July 6th. The last World Cup game is

3:37:02 ↗ July 6th, so we actually did it on June

3:37:04 ↗ 29th. So, our next city council meeting

3:37:06 ↗ will not be until the 20th. We will then

3:37:09 ↗ have I think uh Dale Marky Crimp will

3:37:11 ↗ give you options on proposed automated

3:37:14 ↗ license plate reader camera use

3:37:15 ↗ policies. Uh I think just in full

3:37:18 ↗ transparency, I think the options will

3:37:20 ↗ be presented in July, but I think the

3:37:22 ↗ focus is going to be on getting the

3:37:24 ↗ budget adopted this year. So, I think

3:37:25 ↗ you're going to have plenty of time to

3:37:27 ↗ think on those options because I don't

3:37:28 ↗ think we're probably going to dive into

3:37:30 ↗ which options go down until the first

3:37:32 ↗ quarter of next year. Uh, street

3:37:34 ↗ standards, frontage improvements for

3:37:35 ↗ public utility projects will be

3:37:36 ↗ addressed. Park bond renewal pro and con

3:37:39 ↗ committee appointments will be made

3:37:41 ↗ along with the climate plan action

3:37:44 ↗ update. And there is no executive

3:37:46 ↗ session tonight. And yes, I completely

3:37:48 ↗ lost the prediction of when this meeting

3:37:50 ↗ would end by a whopping 40 minutes cuz

3:37:53 ↗ it is now 10:37. We are journed.

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.