Park Board · Monday, February 28, 2022 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Park Board About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this board provides guidance and Milissa Ching, Operations Specialist direction in meeting the City’s parks and Email recreational needs by advising the Mayor and Parks & Recreation Director on matters relating to the Regular Members planning; acquisition, development; and operation 2025 - Vacant of parks, facilities and recreational programs inside 2022 of 2025- Danielle Githens the City limits. 2024 - Marlene Waxe 2024 - Zack Szablewski Membership 2023 - Chris Kovac The Park Board is comprised of nine regular 2022 - Bradley Book members, with four-year terms; and two 2022 - Ruben Nieto alternates, with two-year terms. All members are 2022 - Jonathan Richardson appointed by the Mayor and subject to 2022 - Linda Whitworth confirmation by the City Council. Terms expire April 30 of the year listed. For more information, see Alternate Members…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of January 24, 2022

packet pp.5–7

▶ Watch from 1:58 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 01-24-22 Park Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Park Board 7:00 PM Virtual Meeting January 24, 2022 DRAFT MINUTES

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Capital Financing Task Force, (I)

Discussion · 15 min · Brad Book, Park Board Chair · packet pp.9

▶ Watch from 7:46 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Green Issaquah- 2021 review and 2022 work plan, (I)

20 min · Jennifer Fink, Park Planner and Project Administrator

▶ Watch from 19:20

5. REPORTS

Director's Report

▶ Watch from 1:26:08

Chairperson's Report

▶ Watch from 1:26:52

Youth Report

▶ Watch from 1:27:37

3229 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ and you are all set to go

0:02 ↗ hey welcome everyone to the

0:05 ↗ issaquah park board meeting on february

0:07 ↗ 28 2022

0:10 ↗ and

0:15 ↗ i'm going to call the order to

0:17 ↗ start the meeting and begin with roll

0:19 ↗ call so as i move through here

0:23 ↗ um board members please take yourself

0:26 ↗ off mute if you are and acknowledge your

0:28 ↗ attendance when i call your name

0:30 ↗ uh danielle

0:33 ↗ i'm here

0:35 ↗ uh marlene

0:38 ↗ i'm here

0:40 ↗ jack

0:42 ↗ here

0:43 ↗ chris

0:46 ↗ here

0:50 ↗ and jonathan

0:52 ↗ here

0:55 ↗ brenda

0:57 ↗ present

1:01 ↗ oh

1:02 ↗ reuben linda and jeremy don't see those

1:06 ↗ three

1:08 ↗ perhaps they'll join us later but we do

1:10 ↗ have a quorum so thank you for that

1:13 ↗ everybody have an opportunity to review

1:14 ↗ minutes from our last meeting in january

1:18 ↗ any questions or comments or corrections

1:23 ↗ not seeing any hands the only correction

1:25 ↗ i have is i think i pointed this out

1:28 ↗ again last time but

1:30 ↗ as much as i like the concept of carl

1:32 ↗ visiting us by spirit here i don't think

1:34 ↗ he's been in attendance so

1:37 ↗ melissa if you could remove carl from an

1:39 ↗ attendee from our meeting in january and

1:42 ↗ appreciate that

1:43 ↗ yeah i'm gonna

1:44 ↗ reach out to clerks too i think it's a

1:47 ↗ system issue that i don't have control

1:49 ↗ of it just keeps um populating it so

1:51 ↗ i'll reach out to them to make sure that

1:53 ↗ that doesn't show up again okay

1:56 ↗ i didn't have anything else

1:58 ↗ any objections to approval of minutes

2:01 ↗ seeing no objections

2:03 ↗ minutes are hereby approved

2:08 ↗ melissa do we have any uh public

2:11 ↗ comments

2:12 ↗ i'm gonna unmute we have connie marsh on

2:14 ↗ the line tonight so let me mute her and

2:16 ↗ find out if she's got some public

2:17 ↗ comments for us okay

2:23 ↗ oh yes

2:24 ↗ hi

2:25 ↗ hi

2:27 ↗ can i video too

2:30 ↗ sure we'd like to see you if you can

2:32 ↗ well it's not up to me

2:35 ↗ you do that melissa

2:40 ↗ you'll be able to turn your videos ah

2:41 ↗ she did it yep

2:43 ↗ thank you

2:45 ↗ you are saying there you go see my head

2:47 ↗ hey

2:48 ↗ hi hi y'all i'm tony

2:51 ↗ marsh

2:52 ↗ and

2:54 ↗ i live up here on squawk

2:56 ↗ where we have had massive water coming

2:59 ↗ down one side of squawk and not so much

3:01 ↗ coming down the other side of squawk in

3:03 ↗ the rain so that's how narrow our our

3:06 ↗ rain systems are it's always interesting

3:08 ↗ to watch

3:10 ↗ so

3:10 ↗ um i was reading stacy goodman's article

3:14 ↗ in the newspaper about the carbon credit

3:17 ↗ situation for bergsma and whether it's

3:20 ↗ true or not it said that the money is

3:23 ↗ going to go into the general fund now

3:26 ↗ we don't have ear marks in the general

3:28 ↗ fund

3:29 ↗ so there's nothing

3:31 ↗ that would say that the money would be

3:34 ↗ allocated toward

3:39 ↗ anything

3:40 ↗ protective of bursma or ensuring the

3:44 ↗ quality of bergsma if the money goes

3:46 ↗ into the general fund so i don't know if

3:48 ↗ the newspaper article is true

3:51 ↗ but i would request that that money go

3:53 ↗ into

3:55 ↗ a fund

3:56 ↗ earmarked for bergsma

3:58 ↗ and it's um enhancement and weed removal

4:03 ↗ and upkeep because the idea is we're

4:05 ↗ supposed to be keeping high quality

4:07 ↗ forest in ever more excellent condition

4:10 ↗ if we're going to give away carbon

4:12 ↗ credit you don't just put it in the

4:13 ↗ general fund and let it be used for

4:16 ↗ something like

4:18 ↗ paving

4:20 ↗ next thing

4:24 ↗ is the sporting field

4:26 ↗ assessment so i sent you all an email

4:29 ↗ that talked about

4:31 ↗ the need to look at

4:32 ↗ critical areas in our sporting fields

4:36 ↗ because as we found out from hillside

4:38 ↗ park when you have enough water standing

4:41 ↗ in an area it turns into a they call it

4:44 ↗ a wetland and so we cannot really

4:47 ↗ consider what our sporting fields are

4:51 ↗ unless we have the critical airy uh

4:55 ↗ um of them because we have a lot of

4:58 ↗ water

4:59 ↗ sitting in especially tibbetts and our

5:02 ↗ varying parks uh sporting fields that

5:05 ↗ are on on sort of perches like phil

5:08 ↗ and we also have wetland buffer that

5:10 ↗ intrudes into some of those fill areas

5:14 ↗ and i think you you have to plan with

5:17 ↗ all the information in hand

5:20 ↗ which brings me to the next point which

5:23 ↗ is we are now looking at draft language

5:26 ↗ for the new critical areas code

5:29 ↗ 18.8 and it has a thing called

5:32 ↗ public agency

5:34 ↗ exemptions

5:36 ↗ which is one of the things that uh

5:39 ↗ uh interfaces with the parks department

5:43 ↗ and so

5:46 ↗ um

5:47 ↗ as a steward of the land the parks

5:50 ↗ department

5:52 ↗ language

5:55 ↗ should

5:56 ↗ shall

5:58 ↗ support the concept that the parks

6:00 ↗ department is supposed to be protecting

6:02 ↗ our natural environment

6:04 ↗ but there's a nuance in we also have a

6:08 ↗ need for

6:09 ↗ recreational uses

6:12 ↗ so where is that

6:15 ↗ point

6:16 ↗ that should be in the code

6:18 ↗ to protect our lands

6:21 ↗ and allow for recreational uses what i

6:25 ↗ see

6:26 ↗ so far

6:28 ↗ is like a blunt sledgehammer no nuance

6:32 ↗ at all

6:33 ↗ pretty well

6:34 ↗ unenforceable

6:36 ↗ and so i don't think we even have had a

6:39 ↗ conversation

6:40 ↗ about

6:42 ↗ where the parks department should find

6:44 ↗ that sweet spot and now is the time to

6:48 ↗ have that conversation and the more

6:50 ↗ people who will give considered opinions

6:54 ↗ on where that sweet spot should be the

6:57 ↗ better the likelihood that we'll

6:59 ↗ actually get something to make a great

7:02 ↗ parks department and a great environment

7:06 ↗ so if you all wouldn't mind

7:09 ↗ i don't expect you to read the draft

7:11 ↗ code necessarily unless you're crazy but

7:15 ↗ at least ask for an update on what that

7:18 ↗ code says

7:19 ↗ and have a discussion on what you think

7:22 ↗ it should say and what the implications

7:24 ↗ of it all are please

7:26 ↗ please

7:27 ↗ thank you so

7:28 ↗ much thank you connie always good to

7:31 ↗ hear from you

7:36 ↗ melissa we have anybody else standing by

7:38 ↗ to make a comment from the public not

7:40 ↗ tonight no

7:42 ↗ thank you

7:46 ↗ so we're on the regular business uh we

7:48 ↗ have three items this evening to talk

7:49 ↗ about uh first one is the capital

7:52 ↗ finance task force

7:57 ↗ uh we're going to talk about kind of an

7:59 ↗ update on green issaquah

8:02 ↗ and uh we're going to have a

8:03 ↗ presentation on the city-wide athletic

8:06 ↗ fields

8:09 ↗ looks like i'm up first to give a little

8:12 ↗ bit of a recap about the

8:14 ↗ capital finance task force

8:18 ↗ um this has been a long effort you know

8:21 ↗ started in september and we're just kind

8:22 ↗ of winding it up here we our last

8:24 ↗ meeting was uh at february 8th

8:28 ↗ our next meeting is this wednesday march

8:31 ↗ 2nd which is actually also our last

8:33 ↗ meeting

8:35 ↗ we're kind of uh in on february 8th we

8:37 ↗ talked about

8:39 ↗ kind of the draft of the recommendations

8:43 ↗ of the task force

8:45 ↗ and our next meeting is to kind of

8:46 ↗ finalize

8:48 ↗ that

8:49 ↗ recommendation

8:51 ↗ which will be presented to the mayor and

8:54 ↗ city council next monday on march 7th

8:59 ↗ that's a little bit of the timeline

9:02 ↗ this has been

9:03 ↗ an interesting experience we have a lot

9:05 ↗ of um

9:09 ↗ a lot of

9:11 ↗ of pushing

9:13 ↗ initiatives in a variety of different

9:15 ↗ directions and so it's very difficult to

9:17 ↗ reach consensus

9:20 ↗ we've reached

9:21 ↗ agreement on a number of things but we

9:23 ↗ also are a part on a number of key

9:26 ↗ issues as well so it'll be interesting

9:28 ↗ to see how the council

9:31 ↗ moves through that

9:34 ↗ and it'll probably evolve over time

9:36 ↗ because this is kind of a lengthy

9:37 ↗ process um you know in terms of uh to

9:41 ↗ get it started

9:43 ↗ i'd have to say that there's some good

9:45 ↗ news for parks and there's some bad news

9:47 ↗ for parks um i've been pushing some

9:51 ↗ headwind here

9:52 ↗ and

9:53 ↗ unfortunately i'm the only one from

9:55 ↗ parks that's represented on this task

9:57 ↗ force and so i'm kind of the lone ranger

10:00 ↗ in that respect um

10:03 ↗ but um you know it's a difficult

10:05 ↗ situation as i've pointed out before we

10:08 ↗ actually have we've we've kind of

10:10 ↗ centered on three priorities

10:13 ↗ uh that being transportation parks and

10:17 ↗ and essentially

10:19 ↗ you know those are really the three huge

10:22 ↗ aspects of infrastructure for the city

10:26 ↗ and you know a little history

10:30 ↗ over the last years this city has

10:32 ↗ actually grown substantially

10:35 ↗ and uh unfortunately the city hasn't

10:38 ↗ kept up with infrastructure

10:41 ↗ as well as it would have liked to

10:44 ↗ uh for a variety of reasons

10:46 ↗ you know parks probably has kept up

10:48 ↗ better than uh than transportation

10:52 ↗ and maybe facilities as well

10:54 ↗ in part because of the community support

10:57 ↗ for parks

10:58 ↗ uh and in part because we've been

11:01 ↗ successful uh with two bond measures in

11:04 ↗ parks over the last 20 years

11:07 ↗ our last one being 2013

11:13 ↗ and so

11:14 ↗ you know one of the things that came out

11:16 ↗ early on in this process was

11:18 ↗ establishing

11:20 ↗ uh what the community felt the

11:22 ↗ priorities were with some of the big

11:24 ↗ ticket items in infrastructure

11:27 ↗ and transportation really came out with

11:29 ↗ the community as being

11:31 ↗ a high priority and least satisfied and

11:34 ↗ so that's

11:36 ↗ essentially when transportation has come

11:38 ↗ to the top of the list as being the

11:40 ↗ number one priority for

11:42 ↗ uh for infrastructure uh improvements

11:46 ↗ parks actually uh did pretty well there

11:49 ↗ i mean in the sense that it's a priority

11:51 ↗ but it's but the community felt that

11:53 ↗ they're very satisfied with the way

11:55 ↗ parks are have kept up and are doing

11:59 ↗ so that's good and bad it's good in the

12:01 ↗ sense that they've kept up it's bad in

12:03 ↗ the sense that it puts parks

12:06 ↗ in the tail end of the timeline

12:09 ↗ of infrastructure projects

12:13 ↗ the timeline

12:14 ↗ really essentially got broken out into

12:16 ↗ three different categories short medium

12:19 ↗ and long range

12:21 ↗ short range being zero to three years

12:24 ↗ mid-range being four to six years long

12:27 ↗ range being six to nine years

12:31 ↗ and to some extent it was broken out

12:33 ↗ that way because you just can't tackle

12:36 ↗ all of these things at once they really

12:37 ↗ do need to be spaced out because there's

12:40 ↗ no way that the community could ever

12:41 ↗ afford everything at one time

12:46 ↗ we did reach consensus that these next

12:48 ↗ couple years is just really not right

12:51 ↗ for trying to approach the community

12:54 ↗ with any

12:55 ↗ new

12:57 ↗ funding tools

12:59 ↗ i mean we've identified a number of

13:00 ↗ funding tools to be utilized in these

13:03 ↗ three

13:04 ↗ priorities

13:06 ↗ and i'll talk a little bit about that

13:07 ↗ but um

13:09 ↗ did not feel that the next two three

13:11 ↗ years was appropriate i mean we're

13:13 ↗ coming out of a pandemic we're still in

13:15 ↗ the midst of it

13:16 ↗ inflation is really bad

13:19 ↗ now we've got a you know a war on the

13:21 ↗ horizon i mean there's just a lot of

13:23 ↗ social and economic issues that make it

13:26 ↗ not a good time

13:27 ↗ over these next couple years

13:30 ↗ to approach the community on

13:32 ↗ additional funding for infrastructure

13:37 ↗ so given that as a background

13:40 ↗ the short measure is none of these

13:42 ↗ priorities are going to fall within

13:44 ↗ their in terms of any new additional

13:46 ↗ funding tools

13:48 ↗ however

13:49 ↗ the city does actually have 9 million

13:52 ↗ dollars from the american rescue plan

13:55 ↗ act

13:56 ↗ that needs to be

13:59 ↗ spent

14:00 ↗ within the next two years

14:02 ↗ uh so by 2024 actually we need to

14:05 ↗ utilize that nine million dollars

14:09 ↗ um there's a little bit of a catch to it

14:10 ↗ in the sense that um

14:13 ↗ you as long as the project contracts are

14:16 ↗ in place by 2024 you can extend that a

14:19 ↗ little bit you know even to 2026 in

14:22 ↗ terms of when the money has to be paid

14:24 ↗ out but

14:25 ↗ essentially they want to try and

14:27 ↗ accomplish that that arpa money

14:30 ↗ within the next two years so it's

14:33 ↗ actually

14:34 ↗ probably a good time for us to you know

14:37 ↗ have this short term be using money that

14:39 ↗ the federal government is going to give

14:41 ↗ the city for some infrastructure issues

14:44 ↗ we're all over the board in terms of how

14:46 ↗ that money should be distributed

14:48 ↗ um

14:49 ↗ that's not something we've reached

14:51 ↗ consensus on

14:52 ↗ um

14:54 ↗ however we do want us we we have all

14:56 ↗ some agreed that you know transportation

14:58 ↗ probably gets maybe

15:00 ↗ you know the bulk of it to some extent

15:02 ↗ and then facilities and parks

15:05 ↗ will also get a portion of that

15:09 ↗ um

15:11 ↗ in some respects i think it'll be up to

15:13 ↗ the department heads

15:15 ↗ of those three categories to really

15:18 ↗ zero in on the cip

15:21 ↗ over the next two years

15:23 ↗ and even maybe beyond to determine what

15:26 ↗ projects are a high priority that can be

15:28 ↗ accomplished in the next couple years

15:31 ↗ you know and and make a proposal

15:33 ↗ to get you know a portion of that money

15:36 ↗ but it looks like you know parks will at

15:39 ↗ least get a potentially a few million

15:40 ↗ dollars out of this

15:42 ↗ uh arpa money uh over the next couple

15:45 ↗ years

15:47 ↗ which should be in addition to uh

15:49 ↗ general fund money that's already been

15:51 ↗ slated for

15:53 ↗ uh for the next couple years

15:56 ↗ in

15:56 ↗ [Music]

15:58 ↗ in park cip

16:00 ↗ so just to give a little another little

16:02 ↗ recap

16:05 ↗ parks

16:07 ↗ cip has really been established

16:10 ↗ over somewhat of a 20-year period

16:12 ↗ as a result of the park strategic plan

16:15 ↗ that we put in place a few years ago

16:18 ↗ that's essentially what's fueling the

16:20 ↗ cip and and so

16:23 ↗ the six year cip

16:25 ↗ uh there's about a little over 39

16:28 ↗ million dollars worth of projects

16:30 ↗ uh over the next six years

16:33 ↗ in parks

16:34 ↗ um

16:36 ↗ only about

16:37 ↗ roughly

16:39 ↗ one and a half to two million dollars a

16:41 ↗ year of that will be

16:44 ↗ allocated from the general fund

16:47 ↗ so we're missing about 4 million 4.5

16:50 ↗ million dollars a year to be able to

16:53 ↗ keep up with parks infrastructure

16:57 ↗ so that's the dilemma

17:00 ↗ after the six-year cip

17:02 ↗ the longer range there's a hundred and

17:04 ↗ two million dollars

17:06 ↗ and change

17:08 ↗ uh to

17:11 ↗ for for projects that span you know the

17:14 ↗ next 14 years after the six year cip so

17:18 ↗ you know there's a total of a hundred

17:20 ↗ and forty some million dollars in

17:22 ↗ projects that we're trying to

17:24 ↗ to fund and um you know that's that's a

17:27 ↗ challenge

17:30 ↗ i mentioned the good and the bad well

17:32 ↗ the

17:32 ↗ the bad i just talked about it is we're

17:35 ↗ kind of uh stuck in a situation where

17:37 ↗ parks

17:39 ↗ in this recommendation is going to be

17:41 ↗ considered as long term and that's in

17:43 ↗ the six to nine year category

17:48 ↗ the good news is that we have reached

17:50 ↗ consensus on the task force

17:52 ↗ that a metropolitan parks district is

17:55 ↗ really the

17:57 ↗ tool to to examine further and pursue as

18:01 ↗ a as a more sustainable method

18:04 ↗ of

18:05 ↗ funding for infrastructure for parks

18:09 ↗ as some of you know you know we have a

18:12 ↗ bond we've had two of them in the last

18:14 ↗ 20 years

18:16 ↗ typically that money is used up within

18:18 ↗ just a few years and then you have

18:19 ↗ several years that you really don't have

18:21 ↗ a lot of capital to work with you know

18:24 ↗ for

18:24 ↗ for project improvements

18:27 ↗ other than what the general fund has

18:29 ↗ been you know providing

18:31 ↗ you know the general fund money has

18:33 ↗ actually gone up to some extent because

18:35 ↗ the population has gone up and when you

18:37 ↗ have a larger tax base you actually do

18:39 ↗ have

18:40 ↗ potentially more money available

18:43 ↗ but the

18:45 ↗ but

18:46 ↗ essentially it's a pretty much a

18:47 ↗ shortfall

18:48 ↗ the

18:50 ↗ the

18:50 ↗ capacity does exist

18:53 ↗ for a parks district to potentially fund

18:58 ↗ what's needed in the future and so i do

19:00 ↗ think that that's going to be a good

19:02 ↗ instrument

19:03 ↗ moving forward again i don't like the

19:05 ↗ timeline i'm sure many of you don't

19:07 ↗ either

19:08 ↗ but that's kind of what we're stuck with

19:10 ↗ because of the nature of our

19:13 ↗ social and economic dilemma that we're

19:15 ↗ in right now

19:17 ↗ it is going to be something that we'll

19:19 ↗ need to do a fair amount of analysis and

19:21 ↗ examination of um

19:24 ↗ before something like that would be

19:26 ↗ presented to the community because what

19:28 ↗ would happen it would it would go

19:31 ↗ it would be a voter initiative

19:33 ↗ into a ballot

19:35 ↗ and so it's going to probably take a

19:37 ↗ couple years even to prepare for that

19:41 ↗ and so even though

19:43 ↗ it parks might be considered in the long

19:46 ↗ range

19:48 ↗ it needs to get started with the

19:50 ↗ analysis work uh prior to that probably

19:53 ↗ at least two years prior to that

19:56 ↗ and maybe three

19:59 ↗ you know i i'm advocating if if parks is

20:02 ↗ going to be in the long range of six to

20:03 ↗ nine years i'm advocating that at least

20:07 ↗ the analysis work

20:09 ↗ through maybe another task force

20:12 ↗ would get started perhaps

20:15 ↗ in three years

20:17 ↗ possibly four years maybe with the

20:20 ↗ intention of at least trying to put a

20:23 ↗ ballot initiative together by six years

20:26 ↗ so

20:26 ↗ rather than six to nine years try and

20:29 ↗ try and put it in place at the beginning

20:31 ↗ of that range rather than at the end of

20:33 ↗ the range

20:36 ↗ um but a lot of that is going to be you

20:39 ↗ know this has to be pretty flexible in

20:41 ↗ many respects because there's just so

20:44 ↗ much uncertainty in our economy

20:47 ↗ um and it's uncertain you know

20:50 ↗ you know how some of these other

20:52 ↗ measures are going to play out as well

20:55 ↗ i don't want to get too much into

20:57 ↗ transportation and facilities

21:01 ↗ but those are going to require some

21:03 ↗ heavy lifting as well from the community

21:06 ↗ transportation we're zeroing in more on

21:09 ↗ tab transportation advisory board for it

21:12 ↗ for sales tax to perhaps fund that

21:16 ↗ uh and also maybe some bonding

21:20 ↗ there's a couple different types of

21:21 ↗ bonding to consider additionally

21:26 ↗ so i don't know it's a lot to put in

21:28 ↗ front of the community over the next six

21:30 ↗ years quite frankly

21:32 ↗ to

21:33 ↗ to fund all of the infrastructure needs

21:36 ↗ that the city has

21:39 ↗ and so

21:40 ↗ at least this is a start and i think the

21:42 ↗ task force recommendations

21:45 ↗ uh you know are are are a good um

21:50 ↗ platform to start from um and we'll just

21:53 ↗ see how it plays out when we get down to

21:55 ↗ the specifics

21:58 ↗ um

22:04 ↗ brad marlene has a question do you want

22:06 ↗ questions now or do you want to yeah i

22:08 ↗ think i've kind of i've kind of done my

22:10 ↗ little

22:11 ↗ my little talk here let's let's do a

22:13 ↗ little q a here so marlene you had

22:15 ↗ something

22:16 ↗ i have if you'll bear with me i have

22:18 ↗ several questions so i will feed the

22:20 ↗ floor after other people um i think i'm

22:23 ↗ gonna start with the first thing that i

22:24 ↗ heard earlier in your presentation which

22:26 ↗ first of all i appreciate you

22:28 ↗ being a representative on this task

22:29 ↗ force and i know it's a lot of work and

22:31 ↗ compromises always have to be made so

22:33 ↗ um know that i understand that i think

22:35 ↗ the first question i have is it sounded

22:37 ↗ like a big

22:38 ↗ decision-making criteria

22:41 ↗ was how the community sort of forced

22:43 ↗ ranked or ranked the different

22:44 ↗ priorities within

22:47 ↗ you know whether it was transportation

22:49 ↗ or facilities or park

22:51 ↗ one thing that i've noticed in my two

22:52 ↗ years on the spark board is that

22:55 ↗ a very small sample size of our

22:58 ↗ community actually participates in any

23:00 ↗ of that feedback

23:02 ↗ and i also find that we weight that

23:04 ↗ feedback very heavily in our actions

23:07 ↗ i find that disproportionately

23:09 ↗ has a negative impact on people like

23:12 ↗ younger families or people that do not

23:14 ↗ participate in these surveys

23:16 ↗ my first question is did we weigh in to

23:19 ↗ that decision criteria the fact that

23:21 ↗ that demographic typically is skewed

23:25 ↗ well i think that everybody in the task

23:26 ↗ force is aware of what you just said

23:29 ↗ but you have to also kind of um go with

23:32 ↗ what what you have available to you in

23:34 ↗ terms of totally disagree

23:36 ↗ i mean if that's the reason we have a

23:38 ↗ government right is to understand

23:42 ↗ you know we put people in place

23:44 ↗ especially as an elected official

23:46 ↗ to make decisions on behalf because

23:48 ↗ people don't have this kind of time we

23:50 ↗ cannot expect people to be this involved

23:53 ↗ that's why they elect people so if we're

23:55 ↗ putting

23:56 ↗ a ton of prioritization of some tax

23:58 ↗ dollars that people are spending

24:00 ↗ and maybe this is wrong but it's my

24:01 ↗ hunch

24:02 ↗ on a very small sample size that is not

24:04 ↗ very diverse

24:06 ↗ then i think we're making huge mistakes

24:08 ↗ with our tax dollars

24:09 ↗ well you know i wouldn't say everything

24:11 ↗ is put into um

24:14 ↗ you know the data that's just one

24:16 ↗ component of it i mean you know

24:18 ↗ all of the people on the task force you

24:20 ↗ know are are heavily considered as well

24:23 ↗ i mean they're all members of the

24:24 ↗ community they're all chairs of boards

24:26 ↗ and commissions for the most part so

24:28 ↗ they have a pretty important say

24:31 ↗ and the count and the council is really

24:33 ↗ the council and the mayor are the ones

24:34 ↗ that actually have the final say on this

24:37 ↗ and so you know they're you know this

24:39 ↗ has been my experience that that council

24:41 ↗ and the mayor put a lot of weight

24:44 ↗ on community feedback they do community

24:47 ↗ feedback is typically not representative

24:50 ↗ of the people of issaquah broadly

24:52 ↗ so i have a serious problem as a board

24:54 ↗ member

24:56 ↗ not

24:57 ↗ putting parks at the back of the line

25:00 ↗ based on that feedback so i guess that's

25:03 ↗ you know and it's not a criticism of you

25:05 ↗ brad or anybody on the task force this

25:06 ↗ is something i want to be on record

25:08 ↗ saying

25:09 ↗ um as a pretty strong disagreement to

25:11 ↗ the way that this is going down

25:14 ↗ uh i hear you

25:15 ↗ i mean i believe you or believe me i've

25:18 ↗ you know i've had to make arguments um

25:20 ↗ you know you know against this um

25:23 ↗ the timeline aspect of it um

25:26 ↗ but you know i mean realistically

25:29 ↗ um

25:31 ↗ you know i i also to some extent kind of

25:33 ↗ agree you know being a member of this

25:35 ↗ community now for 38 years i also kind

25:38 ↗ of agree that

25:39 ↗ the city has not really kept up with the

25:42 ↗ transportation needs

25:44 ↗ probably as much as they have with parks

25:48 ↗ and so i i don't you know i don't really

25:51 ↗ have any real objection to

25:53 ↗ transportation

25:54 ↗ uh taking the lead

25:56 ↗ you know even so i don't think it's just

25:58 ↗ totally the survey that's there

26:01 ↗ quite frankly it'd be nice if we could

26:03 ↗ do it all uh you know but that's just

26:05 ↗ not practical i mean you just can't go

26:08 ↗ to the community with three large

26:10 ↗ infrastructure priorities

26:12 ↗ at the same time and expect that all of

26:15 ↗ them are going to get passed i mean

26:17 ↗ that's just

26:18 ↗ you know that's not you know likely

26:21 ↗ yeah i and i get it i know it's hard and

26:22 ↗ i know a couple other people have

26:23 ↗ comments just before i sort of see the

26:25 ↗ floor i have a couple other questions

26:27 ↗ okay i know we talked a lot about um

26:29 ↗ sort of the impact of you know current

26:31 ↗ world situations

26:33 ↗ you know on the community and funding

26:35 ↗ and you know i know that that is you

26:37 ↗ know reality in a lot of places i would

26:40 ↗ be curious

26:41 ↗ with what research has been done about

26:43 ↗ the actual impact

26:45 ↗ to um some of the higher paying

26:47 ↗ taxpayers within our community it's been

26:49 ↗ at least my understanding that you know

26:51 ↗ a lot of the folks in our very um

26:55 ↗ privileged community are less impacted

26:57 ↗ not that people in our community are not

26:59 ↗ but i if we talk about the tax base

27:01 ↗ i would be curious i also you know

27:04 ↗ are people willing to fund more i think

27:06 ↗ are we just making that assumption or do

27:08 ↗ we have data that backs up that people

27:10 ↗ are not willing to fund multiple things

27:12 ↗ i guess that would be the question oh i

27:14 ↗ think that that's a huge uncertainty um

27:17 ↗ and i think that that remains to be seen

27:20 ↗ over time that's that's part of one of

27:22 ↗ the things that will have to be sorted

27:24 ↗ out through

27:25 ↗ a lot of analysis work uh both for the

27:28 ↗ transportation and parks for any of this

27:31 ↗ they're gonna it's going to require an

27:32 ↗ awful lot more outreach public meetings

27:35 ↗ more surveys a lot of that to actually

27:38 ↗ see how much the community is willing to

27:40 ↗ support

27:41 ↗ this task force

27:43 ↗ really can't answer that question

27:45 ↗ it was really the the mission of the

27:48 ↗ task force was really to

27:50 ↗ determine priorities

27:52 ↗ come up with a bit of a framework

27:55 ↗ uh and discuss the various tools that

27:57 ↗ are available

27:59 ↗ uh we're not actually the task versus

28:01 ↗ not making a recommendation that yeah

28:03 ↗ just go do all of these things

28:05 ↗ it's just setting up the framework so

28:07 ↗ that you know there are there's going to

28:09 ↗ be some need substantial need moving

28:12 ↗ forward for all of these things to

28:14 ↗ determine what the community really

28:16 ↗ wants to do and what they would be

28:18 ↗ willing to support

28:20 ↗ so yeah and then i think my third point

28:22 ↗ then becomes it sounds like there is

28:24 ↗ federal funding right with a deadline

28:27 ↗ is there an opportunity for this group

28:30 ↗ here on the call today to figure out

28:31 ↗ what are our priorities

28:33 ↗ and do some quick moving to make sure

28:35 ↗ that we have proposals that are in shape

28:37 ↗ and ready to get that funding

28:39 ↗ um at least in my

28:41 ↗ world in the business context sometimes

28:42 ↗ the first person ready with the plan

28:44 ↗ gets the first amount of funding so what

28:46 ↗ can we do

28:48 ↗ to accelerate our timeline for that

28:50 ↗ federal funding

28:52 ↗ uh i think that's a good suggestion of

28:55 ↗ something that we can talk about further

28:58 ↗ um

29:00 ↗ to be in to be ready you know when the

29:03 ↗ council decides how much is going to be

29:05 ↗ allocated to each of these priorities

29:09 ↗ um so i mean i like that idea and i and

29:12 ↗ i do think that you know it would be

29:13 ↗ good to actually go through the you know

29:15 ↗ have a small group perhaps

29:17 ↗ get involved with the six-year cip

29:20 ↗ really focus on some of the key areas

29:22 ↗ that maybe could be accomplished over

29:24 ↗ the next couple years so that a plan

29:27 ↗ could be in place

29:28 ↗ wouldn't want to get too much of your

29:29 ↗ head of yourself though until you have

29:31 ↗ an idea on how much funding the council

29:33 ↗ was going to allocate to parks

29:36 ↗ but i but you know having a rough draft

29:38 ↗ of that i think would be good yeah i'd

29:40 ↗ rather i'd rather lead the witness i

29:42 ↗ think i would work differently than that

29:43 ↗ i would rather say here are the things

29:44 ↗ we can do quickly that have a huge

29:46 ↗ benefit to underserved people in our

29:48 ↗ community

29:49 ↗ and move with speed for the federal

29:51 ↗ funding

29:53 ↗ well i mean i agree with it's pretty

29:54 ↗ pretty short timeline to try and get all

29:56 ↗ this accomplished in a couple years i

29:58 ↗ mean and so i i think it's um

30:02 ↗ you know i i think it's you know pick

30:04 ↗ what you can accomplish and you know

30:07 ↗ some have actually advocated you know

30:09 ↗ that some of this could actually go into

30:11 ↗ design work and stuff i would probably

30:14 ↗ be more inclined to

30:16 ↗ to advocate for things to actually

30:18 ↗ accomplish rather than doing design work

30:20 ↗ agreed i mean quite frankly let's start

30:22 ↗ terping some fields

30:25 ↗ well it could be a number of things and

30:26 ↗ i like your idea your suggestion for

30:29 ↗ perhaps an ad hoc or a separate

30:31 ↗ committee to actually take a look at you

30:33 ↗ know how we would spend a couple million

30:35 ↗ dollars additionally

30:37 ↗ so and i you know rather than to

30:40 ↗ wait until we get some funding you know

30:42 ↗ and then and then work on it it really

30:44 ↗ puts you behind the eight ball if you do

30:46 ↗ it that way so that's something we can

30:47 ↗ talk further and jeff and i can talk

30:49 ↗ about that as well

30:51 ↗ thank you appreciate the time and um

30:54 ↗ again just want to make sure that these

30:55 ↗ comments i definitely appreciate all the

30:57 ↗ work that um the task force is doing and

30:58 ↗ now it's tough to prioritize

31:01 ↗ is that all marlene

31:03 ↗ okay thanks for that

31:06 ↗ uh danielle you have

31:07 ↗ something

31:10 ↗ i agree with everything marlena said so

31:12 ↗ i won't repeat all that um but i but i

31:14 ↗ do think that um

31:17 ↗ you know when you're looking at doing an

31:18 ↗ infrastructure project um you know the

31:21 ↗ projects that we can do as a parks

31:24 ↗ department um are really tangible

31:26 ↗ visible and could make a difference

31:28 ↗ right and so for the city like that

31:31 ↗ really um

31:33 ↗ could be

31:35 ↗ you know if you're looking to to crank

31:36 ↗ something out in a couple years

31:39 ↗ an infrastructure project might be like

31:41 ↗ that money might just be a drop in the

31:43 ↗ bucket right

31:44 ↗ um the other thing i so i like the idea

31:47 ↗ of mark that marlene has and i would

31:49 ↗ really encourage jeff to kind of think

31:51 ↗ about that and

31:53 ↗ uh start working on that and then um

31:58 ↗ you know i guess

32:00 ↗ i'm very disappointed to hear that parks

32:03 ↗ um kind of got pushed pushed into the

32:05 ↗ long-term project funding um one of the

32:08 ↗ reasons why people are satisfied with

32:10 ↗ our parks perhaps is because we have

32:12 ↗ done incremental um improvements right

32:15 ↗ so we had a park bond in something like

32:18 ↗ 2006 and then another one in 2013 we're

32:21 ↗ already past due for one if we were to

32:24 ↗ keep that same rhythm going and if we

32:26 ↗ wait for six more years

32:28 ↗ um and then the projects take time after

32:31 ↗ that we're good you know people are not

32:33 ↗ going to be satisfied um so it's

32:35 ↗ disappointing to me

32:37 ↗ to think that our

32:39 ↗ you know that the next time that we're

32:41 ↗ going to be able to really make

32:42 ↗ significant improvements to our park

32:43 ↗ system might be pushed that far um so

32:45 ↗ i'm hoping that there will be an

32:47 ↗ opportunity for us to advocate to

32:48 ↗ council and the mayor

32:50 ↗ um to shift that timing um because that

32:54 ↗ came from a task force so i'm assuming

32:55 ↗ that they'll um you know take that under

32:58 ↗ advisement but also make their own

33:00 ↗ decisions

33:03 ↗ well i'm disappointed as well danielle

33:05 ↗ and like i said um you know approaching

33:07 ↗ a lot of headwind in this task force uh

33:09 ↗ because of things that i've already

33:11 ↗ talked about in terms of how this pop

33:12 ↗ this timeline was uh you know

33:14 ↗ established and um

33:17 ↗ but you know when you only have one

33:19 ↗ person of 11 um you know you can only do

33:22 ↗ so much so i i do

33:24 ↗ i do think that um you know any

33:27 ↗ individually

33:28 ↗ board members that would like to

33:31 ↗ advocate to the council or to the mayor

33:34 ↗ to speed that up a little bit i think

33:36 ↗ would be welcomed um and um you know i i

33:40 ↗ have voiced what i can

33:42 ↗ but um

33:44 ↗ you know i think more support would only

33:46 ↗ help

33:48 ↗ that forum

33:52 ↗ uh go ahead danielle and then i'll get

33:54 ↗ back to work i i did not want that to

33:56 ↗ that was not a criticism of you brad i

33:58 ↗ understand what you were working working

34:00 ↗ on um

34:02 ↗ um but it

34:05 ↗ but to me strategically it makes sense

34:08 ↗ for the city to actually do projects and

34:11 ↗ funding where they know they've had past

34:13 ↗ support historic support and and check

34:16 ↗ that off the box and transportation

34:18 ↗ we've been struggling with that since

34:20 ↗ i've moved to israel almost 20 years ago

34:22 ↗ and we haven't figured it out right so

34:23 ↗ like that's

34:25 ↗ a big project and it's you know

34:28 ↗ um anyway

34:29 ↗ go ahead marlene

34:31 ↗ oh my question was what is the right

34:33 ↗ forum to do that advocating

34:37 ↗ uh

34:38 ↗ two-fold i would say you could write

34:40 ↗ emails to city council and mayor

34:42 ↗ expressing your viewpoint and you can

34:44 ↗ also get in front of the city council at

34:47 ↗ meetings um during public comments

34:50 ↗ uh you know to voice your advocacy and

34:54 ↗ opinion

34:55 ↗ i mean those are the two areas

34:58 ↗ to approach the city with it

35:00 ↗ is there a time when the city can you

35:02 ↗ remind us you probably said this in your

35:03 ↗ introductory remarks but do we know when

35:05 ↗ this is going to city council

35:08 ↗ march 7th that's uh next monday

35:13 ↗ so if i can add to that brad and i i s

35:15 ↗ great discussion and i don't want to

35:17 ↗ interrupt but here i am interrupting i

35:19 ↗ i'd love that i i've got a couple of

35:20 ↗ observations and thoughts i'd love to

35:23 ↗ share those after everybody discusses um

35:26 ↗ i understand brad if i could add march

35:28 ↗ 7th is the task force presenting

35:32 ↗ their recommendation to the council

35:34 ↗ council won't be discussing that at that

35:36 ↗ night they'll just be receiving the info

35:38 ↗ and then the following study session on

35:40 ↗ march 15th

35:42 ↗ uh council will begin some degree of

35:45 ↗ discussion

35:46 ↗ um on the capital financing uh

35:48 ↗ recommendations so

35:50 ↗ just note that both the 7th and the 15th

35:52 ↗ will be i think some important probably

35:54 ↗ the 15th more than anything will be some

35:56 ↗ important um

35:58 ↗ an important opportunity if if any of

36:00 ↗ you wanted to share your thoughts as

36:01 ↗ residents

36:03 ↗ yeah and it's probably best to advocate

36:06 ↗ within those two meetings because if you

36:08 ↗ wait until when the council is going to

36:10 ↗ make their decision

36:12 ↗ which may be like first part of april

36:15 ↗ then it's kind of already too late

36:16 ↗ they've already got everything baked in

36:18 ↗ by that time

36:20 ↗ so i i agree with jeff actually that

36:22 ↗ 15th might actually be the best time to

36:25 ↗ do it because that's when they're really

36:27 ↗ going through a study session and

36:30 ↗ trying to decide on you know everything

36:32 ↗ that's been presented to them

36:34 ↗ on the seventh that's going to be the

36:36 ↗ initial recommendation from the task

36:38 ↗ force and that'll be the first time a

36:40 ↗ lot of council members will hear it and

36:42 ↗ so

36:44 ↗ uh it would maybe make more sense to

36:46 ↗ them

36:48 ↗ after they've had a chance to get the

36:49 ↗ recommendation and then

36:52 ↗ that following week you know start

36:53 ↗ digesting it

37:01 ↗ any other comments or questions from

37:04 ↗ anybody

37:08 ↗ danielle

37:09 ↗ do we know um with respect to the

37:11 ↗ federal funds like what who's going to

37:13 ↗ decide how those are are

37:15 ↗ are spent is that also city council and

37:18 ↗ is there do we know what the timing for

37:20 ↗ that decision is

37:23 ↗ that's city council

37:24 ↗ uh and uh don't have a timeline of that

37:28 ↗ but given the short fuse of it my guess

37:31 ↗ is that will be a

37:32 ↗ probably a part of that study

37:34 ↗ session uh because you know it's within

37:38 ↗ our recommendations you know in terms of

37:40 ↗ utilization of those arpa funds so my

37:42 ↗ guess is that will also be a part of the

37:44 ↗ discussion um

37:46 ↗ on the 15th that jeff mentioned

37:50 ↗ and and

37:51 ↗ because this needs to be done by 2024 my

37:54 ↗ guess is they're going to want to make a

37:56 ↗ decision on that by april

37:58 ↗ so that they can get an allocation of

38:00 ↗ those funds so that department heads can

38:03 ↗ actually start rolling with projects

38:06 ↗ that's not something that they can wait

38:07 ↗ too long on

38:09 ↗ jeff's wanting to bite at the bid on

38:10 ↗ that i guess

38:12 ↗ go ahead jeff

38:15 ↗ yeah no i

38:16 ↗ yeah i think the conversation starts on

38:18 ↗ the 15th um

38:20 ↗ you know i think

38:22 ↗ as council begins to deliberate and get

38:24 ↗ a sense of all right how do they want to

38:26 ↗ invest that that arpa those arpa funds

38:30 ↗ um i think part of that conversation

38:32 ↗ will be

38:33 ↗ trying to understand what their

38:35 ↗ priorities or goals are is there a

38:37 ↗ process with which

38:38 ↗ they want to

38:40 ↗ um

38:42 ↗ sort of get an understanding of what

38:43 ↗ types of projects what specific projects

38:46 ↗ are are good candidates for those those

38:48 ↗ funds

38:49 ↗ how they want to prioritize and choose

38:51 ↗ amongst those

38:53 ↗ practical realistic

38:55 ↗ capital projects that can get done so

38:58 ↗ all that to say i i think the

39:00 ↗ conversation starts on the 15th i

39:03 ↗ i don't know that there would be a

39:05 ↗ specific directive i i think it's

39:06 ↗ probably a discussion a council level

39:09 ↗ discussion a council level decision that

39:11 ↗ um goes into the spring

39:13 ↗ into april and may as well

39:18 ↗ so more to come

39:19 ↗ i'm just going to point out one more

39:21 ↗ controversy

39:22 ↗ jeff and i have talked about it i might

39:24 ↗ as well tell the board about it as well

39:27 ↗ because it's a little bit of a hot item

39:29 ↗ for me that i've been pushing back on

39:31 ↗ and

39:32 ↗ not been ultra successful because we

39:35 ↗ don't have consensus from the task force

39:38 ↗ is is that um

39:41 ↗ the

39:44 ↗ the tool of a

39:49 ↗ uh of a

39:52 ↗ parks district

39:55 ↗ actually has the ability

40:00 ↗ to fund as much as 10 million dollars a

40:03 ↗ year

40:05 ↗ towards parks

40:07 ↗ and unfortunately some within the task

40:10 ↗ force and maybe even within the city

40:13 ↗ are looking at potentially

40:17 ↗ having rather than having the parks

40:20 ↗ district only fund additional things

40:22 ↗ that are currently unfunded in the

40:24 ↗ future

40:25 ↗ to potentially be utilized

40:28 ↗ to supplant some of the existing money

40:31 ↗ that is currently being allocated from

40:33 ↗ the general fund towards parks

40:36 ↗ i don't know if i said that right so

40:38 ↗ people can understand what i'm saying

40:39 ↗ but i'm pretty irate that that's even

40:42 ↗ something that somebody's willing to

40:43 ↗ consider

40:44 ↗ uh because uh it that's kind of a shell

40:47 ↗ game and and there are several of us on

40:50 ↗ the task force that specifically pointed

40:53 ↗ out that's a shell game the community

40:54 ↗ will never accept it and and you're

40:56 ↗ playing with fire to go down that road

40:59 ↗ so my what i've been pushing for and

41:01 ↗ others as well is that any uh parks

41:04 ↗ district would only be for future

41:06 ↗ unfunded infrastructure

41:10 ↗ rather than to replace any existing

41:12 ↗ general fund money that's currently

41:15 ↗ being allocated by the city

41:17 ↗ because it just doesn't make any sense

41:19 ↗ to add more taxation to this to the

41:22 ↗ community

41:23 ↗ uh you know for parks and then really

41:26 ↗ not get any any additional benefit for

41:28 ↗ that

41:30 ↗ so i don't know that that's an ongoing

41:31 ↗ issue and and the last recommendation

41:34 ↗ letter i just read today that they're

41:35 ↗ still

41:37 ↗ really still saying that that's up in

41:39 ↗ the air and

41:40 ↗ so i you know i

41:42 ↗ i don't know that that's another

41:43 ↗ headwind

41:46 ↗ jeff

41:48 ↗ yeah thanks for bringing that one up too

41:50 ↗ brad um

41:51 ↗ i think you all as park board know and

41:53 ↗ i'll be fully transparent you know i had

41:55 ↗ the chance to share what a park district

41:57 ↗ is

41:58 ↗ uh to the to the capital financing group

42:01 ↗ shared that same information to all of

42:03 ↗ you and within that

42:06 ↗ research and within that analysis i

42:08 ↗ provided i i shared best practice

42:11 ↗ and some of the successful cities that

42:13 ↗ have recently

42:14 ↗ looked at this new new type of park

42:16 ↗ district funding

42:18 ↗ and the best practice being

42:21 ↗ um

42:22 ↗ before that went to voters as that went

42:23 ↗ to voters there was an interlocal

42:25 ↗ agreement um

42:26 ↗ between the the city and the would be

42:30 ↗ park district

42:31 ↗ that interlocal agreement

42:34 ↗ sort of was a a way to be trans to

42:36 ↗ transparently identify

42:39 ↗ this would not be funding that would

42:40 ↗ look to supplant this would be funding

42:42 ↗ that would look to augment

42:45 ↗ existing parks and recreation funding

42:47 ↗ and so i've i've been very transparent

42:50 ↗ with the task force with all of you and

42:52 ↗ would be just as transparent with the

42:53 ↗ community

42:55 ↗ more discussion to be had but if if a

42:58 ↗ park district is something this

42:59 ↗ community wants to discuss

43:02 ↗ talk about

43:03 ↗ uh begin to frame up uh begin to create

43:06 ↗ some definition i as as the parks and

43:09 ↗ community services director would highly

43:11 ↗ recommend that best practice and i've

43:13 ↗ shared this

43:14 ↗ with with other city staff as well

43:18 ↗ that

43:19 ↗ i would not advise

43:21 ↗ any type of

43:23 ↗ park district pursuit that would look

43:24 ↗ like supplanting existing funds uh so

43:28 ↗ that funds could

43:29 ↗ go elsewhere

43:31 ↗ because it simply put that's not a best

43:33 ↗ practice and and

43:35 ↗ communities have been as successful with

43:36 ↗ park districts have done the exact

43:38 ↗ opposite and that's

43:40 ↗ sort of guaranteeing

43:42 ↗ um in an interlocal agreement that

43:44 ↗ existing funding for parks will remain

43:46 ↗ in parks and and that this park district

43:48 ↗ is a way of

43:50 ↗ augmenting adding to adding value uh to

43:52 ↗ the investment the community is already

43:54 ↗ making in that important infrastructure

43:58 ↗ thanks for having that jeff

44:00 ↗ uh just one more headwind just wanted to

44:03 ↗ point that out so everybody's aware of

44:04 ↗ it

44:06 ↗ you know there's a lot of years ahead of

44:07 ↗ us here to try and get this park

44:09 ↗ district thing figured out so it's good

44:10 ↗ to at least flush out what the main

44:12 ↗ controversies are and then we can work

44:15 ↗ on it over time

44:18 ↗ any other comments or questions

44:23 ↗ not seeing any thanks for all that i've

44:26 ↗ extended the time a little bit but this

44:27 ↗ is an important issue i wanna and this

44:29 ↗ is gonna be the last time for us to talk

44:31 ↗ about it before uh you know

44:33 ↗ this goes before council so

44:36 ↗ i am well aware of uh and supportive of

44:39 ↗ the

44:40 ↗ things that marlene and darlene and

44:42 ↗ daniel have said and so

44:45 ↗ it's a matter that again if you

44:48 ↗ make additional comments um i i think

44:51 ↗ that that would be uh helpful

44:54 ↗ hey brad can i add a couple things super

44:56 ↗ fast to this topic first off just thank

44:59 ↗ you

45:00 ↗ certainly on behalf of of staff um i

45:03 ↗ think the rest of the park board uh

45:05 ↗ thank you so much for for um being a

45:08 ↗ voice and being the the park board rep

45:11 ↗ and this really really important

45:12 ↗ conversation um

45:14 ↗ i to marley and danielle thanks for your

45:17 ↗ feedback

45:18 ↗ um

45:19 ↗ i think as you said it marlene you know

45:22 ↗ to think of a forced ranking of

45:25 ↗ these buckets of infrastructure um

45:28 ↗ i think any any vibrant healthy

45:31 ↗ community

45:32 ↗ transportation public transportation

45:34 ↗ infrastructure public park

45:36 ↗ infrastructure public facility

45:38 ↗ infrastructure are all essential to a

45:41 ↗ vibrant community so to

45:43 ↗ try and rank or put one

45:46 ↗ as more important than the other can

45:48 ↗ become really really hard

45:50 ↗ um

45:52 ↗ i

45:53 ↗ i

45:54 ↗ i guess as a staff as i've observed this

45:56 ↗ this feels like

45:58 ↗ a really really important step of a

46:00 ↗ start of some really really important

46:02 ↗ conversations about capital funding um i

46:06 ↗ would agree with what brad shared i i

46:08 ↗ think

46:09 ↗ parks investments that have been made in

46:11 ↗ this community over the last 20 30 years

46:14 ↗ have

46:15 ↗ have demonstrated progress

46:18 ↗ but i would add and i think the feedback

46:20 ↗ we've heard from the community in our

46:21 ↗ park strategic plan they haven't kept up

46:25 ↗ there's there's

46:26 ↗ pent up need and interest for our

46:29 ↗ park system to serve some really really

46:31 ↗ important

46:33 ↗ um city park amenities that

46:37 ↗ those investments haven't kept up either

46:39 ↗ and so

46:40 ↗ um

46:41 ↗ i i guess i would just put a framework

46:43 ↗ around

46:44 ↗ as this recommendation moves forward and

46:46 ↗ again brad the work that you did with

46:48 ↗ the task force to have a group of

46:50 ↗ residents talking about this and taking

46:52 ↗ the long view and now it going to

46:54 ↗ council

46:55 ↗ this is good it's not going to be a

46:59 ↗ it's not going to be just spring this

47:01 ↗ spring that decisions are made

47:03 ↗ this is hopefully setting a framework

47:05 ↗ for

47:06 ↗ more conversation about how you as

47:08 ↗ residents want to invest in

47:11 ↗ all elements of of important public

47:14 ↗ infrastructure um and not feeling like

47:17 ↗ one

47:18 ↗ has to be or somehow is forced to be

47:20 ↗ more important than the other

47:22 ↗ um

47:22 ↗ so um just thought i'd add those

47:25 ↗ comments thanks so much brad again

47:27 ↗ you bet thank you

47:33 ↗ danielle something all right yeah before

47:35 ↗ we move on um

47:37 ↗ i'm wondering

47:38 ↗ i mean

47:39 ↗ you know often

47:40 ↗ there have been times in the in the

47:43 ↗ in the past where we have as a board

47:45 ↗ um

47:46 ↗ you know provided comment um

47:49 ↗ to the city council and the main well to

47:51 ↗ the mayor i mean because that's who

47:52 ↗ we're like technically advised

47:55 ↗ and

47:55 ↗ does it is this one of those

47:59 ↗ you know topics that would be worthy of

48:01 ↗ weighing in um as a board

48:04 ↗ or

48:05 ↗ does that put you in kind of a delicate

48:07 ↗ position since you were part of a

48:09 ↗ of a task force

48:10 ↗ um

48:11 ↗ and maybe i just posed out as something

48:13 ↗ to think about and

48:15 ↗ um we can

48:17 ↗ talk about it at our next meeting too

48:18 ↗ but i don't think we have time to talk

48:21 ↗ about it the next meeting right like i

48:22 ↗ think we need to figure out like if

48:24 ↗ and you know i'd take you know brad's

48:26 ↗ lead on what he thinks is the right

48:27 ↗ thing to do is here based on being part

48:29 ↗ of the task force but i think i'm

48:31 ↗ hearing that maybe

48:34 ↗ there's some dissent from this group in

48:37 ↗ in what's happening

48:39 ↗ um i'd be interested to hear what the

48:41 ↗ rest of the council thinks since uh

48:42 ↗ danielle has been the only ones talking

48:44 ↗ along with brad

48:45 ↗ i would actually say that everybody here

48:48 ↗ is probably

48:50 ↗ on the same page

48:52 ↗ in terms of

48:55 ↗ not agreeing with the timeline that

48:57 ↗ that's being presented

49:00 ↗ whether or not the board as a as a

49:03 ↗ collective force would have any further

49:05 ↗ impact than what's already being

49:08 ↗ presented uh by myself in this task

49:10 ↗ force i i don't know the answer to that

49:13 ↗ um i mean i i you know i i suppose that

49:16 ↗ that's something that we can

49:19 ↗ um

49:20 ↗ you know can think about here and and

49:23 ↗ perhaps you know present at you know

49:26 ↗ collectively on the 15th or something um

49:30 ↗ that would probably be the time to do it

49:33 ↗ um

49:36 ↗ i am you know i don't know

49:38 ↗ i don't know how the council would look

49:40 ↗ at that they they may you know i've

49:43 ↗ already kind of voiced voiced that you

49:45 ↗ know i've also voiced that we've had an

49:47 ↗ ad hoc committee that we've kind of been

49:50 ↗ you know already kind of on the side

49:52 ↗ talking about this as well and

49:55 ↗ uh

49:56 ↗ you know

49:57 ↗ really that it really comes down to you

49:59 ↗ know pushing pushing the timeline

50:02 ↗ uh and whether or not the collective

50:05 ↗ board can have maybe more of an impact

50:07 ↗ than just me on the task force you know

50:10 ↗ to shorten up that timeline

50:13 ↗ uh i don't know it would be it would be

50:15 ↗ worth the effort i suppose um

50:18 ↗ i don't know

50:20 ↗ the the task force probably i mean

50:22 ↗ they're looking at this

50:24 ↗ city council is going to look at this

50:25 ↗ through a different lens probably than

50:27 ↗ the task force

50:28 ↗ um and it might be that some of the

50:30 ↗ points that

50:32 ↗ have been raised in this meeting and and

50:35 ↗ brought by you to the task force

50:37 ↗ might resonate with city council um

50:41 ↗ i would think it's worth a shot i just

50:45 ↗ i can't imagine us being in a position

50:48 ↗ where you know we're waiting 10 years to

50:50 ↗ do any new you know any major capital

50:53 ↗ improvements to our parks

50:55 ↗ well i agree that's kind of the bottom

50:57 ↗ line that's the bottom line in it

50:59 ↗ danielle and i agree with that with that

51:01 ↗ you know because you're right you know

51:03 ↗ we're frankly we're due for another bond

51:05 ↗ measure right now

51:07 ↗ with them underwater even before this

51:09 ↗ rain like we have little leagues

51:11 ↗ starting and the dugouts are underwater

51:13 ↗ even before this rain even happened like

51:16 ↗ we've got a lot of issues here in park

51:18 ↗ that you know don't need to wait

51:22 ↗ um

51:24 ↗ i mean what does everybody think i mean

51:25 ↗ do we want to have a collective park

51:28 ↗ board

51:29 ↗ initiative here to go in front of the

51:32 ↗ front of council i mean i don't know

51:34 ↗ even i don't even know what that would

51:35 ↗ look like

51:36 ↗ essentially it would probably be me

51:39 ↗ you know as chair presenting something

51:41 ↗ on the you know

51:42 ↗ on behalf of the entire board

51:45 ↗ rather than just me presenting something

51:48 ↗ just based on me

51:50 ↗ and so

51:51 ↗ whether that would have more of an

51:52 ↗ impact to the council in their

51:54 ↗ decision-making process i i don't know i

51:56 ↗ mean it wouldn't hurt

51:58 ↗ um

52:00 ↗ i don't know you have any thoughts on

52:01 ↗ that jeff

52:04 ↗ yeah a couple i again i appreciate

52:06 ↗ hearing the discussion the conversation

52:08 ↗ uh

52:09 ↗ brad perhaps if if you and a couple

52:11 ↗ other

52:12 ↗ uh board members want to sort of form an

52:14 ↗ ad hoc i yeah i think drafting something

52:17 ↗ that you could share to the rest of the

52:19 ↗ park board

52:20 ↗ um

52:21 ↗ that would be presented to to council on

52:23 ↗ the 15th

52:24 ↗ um what i'm hearing is not necessarily

52:28 ↗ you know um

52:30 ↗ um

52:34 ↗ pitchforks and and

52:37 ↗ um you know total disagreement with the

52:39 ↗ task force it's more i think could be

52:41 ↗ presented as enthusiastic

52:43 ↗ um hey if consideration of a park

52:45 ↗ district is something we want to do

52:47 ↗ as the park board we think it's

52:49 ↗ important to do that sooner than later

52:51 ↗ um right i mean that that's what i'm

52:54 ↗ i guess one way i would suggest

52:57 ↗ uh phrasing a narrative in what i'm

53:00 ↗ hearing tonight um

53:02 ↗ well quite frankly

53:04 ↗ i can do that

53:05 ↗ on wednesday

53:07 ↗ you know i mean you know i can i can

53:10 ↗ talk to the task force

53:13 ↗ the mayor's going to be there there's

53:14 ↗ already you know two members of the city

53:17 ↗ council on the task force

53:19 ↗ um you know i can convey on you know on

53:22 ↗ our last day of recommendation which is

53:25 ↗ on wednesday the second

53:27 ↗ that collectively the board you know

53:30 ↗ feels that uh for these certain reasons

53:33 ↗ the timeline for parks um you know needs

53:36 ↗ to be shortened up

53:38 ↗ again i've already voiced that myself um

53:42 ↗ and it hasn't you know gone as far as i

53:44 ↗ would have liked you know whether or not

53:47 ↗ me making the statement to the task

53:48 ↗ force that um you know now that we've

53:51 ↗ talked about it there's more support

53:53 ↗ from the board

53:55 ↗ as yeah as an advisory group and thanks

53:58 ↗ for that brad i was gonna add that same

54:00 ↗ suggestion that with the meeting on the

54:02 ↗ tab with the task force on the second if

54:04 ↗ you all as a park board wanted to to

54:07 ↗ take an advisory vote

54:09 ↗ tonight to give voice to

54:12 ↗ just that

54:13 ↗ sort of this enthusiastic hey if the

54:15 ↗ park districts to be considered let's

54:17 ↗ consider it sooner than

54:19 ↗ than later let's begin that exploration

54:21 ↗ work if that's something you all want to

54:23 ↗ say yes to

54:25 ↗ um brad you could then carry that as an

54:27 ↗ advisory vote just saying hey we talked

54:29 ↗ about this as a group and here's where

54:32 ↗ the park board is is

54:34 ↗ presenting another group of residents um

54:38 ↗ who are

54:39 ↗ perhaps sharing a little more enthusiasm

54:41 ↗ than six to nine years

54:45 ↗ and and concerned frankly

54:47 ↗ right with the with waiting for six to

54:50 ↗ nine years right so i i mean i'm

54:52 ↗ enthusiastic to get it started and i'm

54:54 ↗ also really concerned

54:56 ↗ um with the proposed timeline

55:01 ↗ um i i agree

55:03 ↗ i'll leave that for your discussion yep

55:08 ↗ so um

55:10 ↗ i guess i would just say

55:12 ↗ and really it's about timeline is what

55:14 ↗ everybody's having issues with right

55:18 ↗ um

55:19 ↗ wanting to move this up the chain faster

55:23 ↗ i mean if if somebody wants to make a

55:25 ↗ motion uh that the board would

55:29 ↗ uh make a recommendation that that be

55:31 ↗ shortened up you know i then that's

55:34 ↗ something i can take to the task force

55:36 ↗ on wednesday

55:37 ↗ i think this the sooner and marlene kind

55:39 ↗ of touched on this the sooner that

55:41 ↗ something like this is presented

55:44 ↗ the better because otherwise things get

55:46 ↗ baked in

55:47 ↗ and things become in writing parts of

55:50 ↗ recommendations

55:52 ↗ and then it's a lot harder to change

55:53 ↗ them

55:54 ↗ after that occurs so i mean it's you

55:57 ↗ know our opportunity of any any hope to

56:00 ↗ change is now this week uh not a month

56:05 ↗ from now

56:07 ↗ and not to say that you know the council

56:09 ↗ couldn't be persuaded with you know

56:11 ↗ further down the line i just

56:14 ↗ my feeling is is once thing gets baked

56:16 ↗ in it's a lot harder to change it later

56:18 ↗ on

56:23 ↗ can i just ask one clarifying question

56:25 ↗ before we give them um motions

56:28 ↗ and you know so the six to nine year

56:29 ↗ timeline is really for the park district

56:32 ↗ and so what we would be thinking about

56:33 ↗ is as opposed to force ranking

56:35 ↗ everything

56:36 ↗ you know it seems to me my proposal

56:38 ↗ would be that you would prioritize sort

56:39 ↗ of across

56:41 ↗ the different functions versus saying

56:42 ↗ we're going to do everything for

56:44 ↗ transportation

56:45 ↗ this thing and then everything for

56:47 ↗ facilities and everything for parks my

56:49 ↗ perspective is a little more that you

56:50 ↗ would prioritize within each of those

56:52 ↗ three top things

56:54 ↗ and have different timelines across

56:58 ↗ is that kind of what's happening or is

57:00 ↗ that

57:02 ↗ one of the reasons why

57:04 ↗ one of the reasons why things are being

57:06 ↗ jockeyed a bit is because you can't go

57:08 ↗ for instance you can't put together a

57:10 ↗ ballot initiative

57:12 ↗ for transportation parks and facilities

57:16 ↗ and you know distribute all of that on

57:19 ↗ one ballot initiative you'd likely all

57:21 ↗ of them would fail

57:23 ↗ i mean and so that's you know that's

57:24 ↗ that's why it's hard to kind of put

57:26 ↗ everything together in the same timeline

57:29 ↗ um

57:30 ↗ ideally that would be nice but i think

57:32 ↗ when you got to go to the voters and get

57:34 ↗ approval

57:35 ↗ they're more apt to just to prove one

57:37 ↗ thing at a time rather than three things

57:40 ↗ uh and and if you put three things to

57:42 ↗ the voters and

57:44 ↗ and a couple of them fail it it may be

57:46 ↗ difficult you know the year after or

57:48 ↗ even two years after to try and bring it

57:50 ↗ up again so it's really does have to

57:53 ↗ take some real

57:54 ↗ thought you know as to timing of how you

57:57 ↗ put this in front of the voters

58:04 ↗ that's a challenge

58:08 ↗ can we hear from um chris and reuben and

58:11 ↗ jonathan and

58:12 ↗ girl from missing

58:14 ↗ yeah and zach

58:20 ↗ yeah i'm sorry for being late it took me

58:21 ↗ about 10 minutes to get into the meeting

58:24 ↗ i've lost track of the timeline but it

58:26 ↗ you know my concern is the same as

58:28 ↗ everybody else how far off do you put

58:30 ↗ this

58:31 ↗ and i guess i don't know what a

58:33 ↗ i don't know what a decent timeline is

58:35 ↗ but i would think it'd be less than

58:37 ↗ three years

58:43 ↗ yeah i mean i'll agree with what's been

58:44 ↗ said i i have concerns with with that

58:46 ↗ timeline i'm also concerned that i think

58:48 ↗ we've

58:49 ↗ generally done a good job through bond

58:51 ↗ measures and and all the other work

58:52 ↗ that's happened to kind of

58:54 ↗ create infrastructure that's already in

58:56 ↗ place

58:57 ↗ now and to just kind of defund feels

58:59 ↗ like it takes a lot of the

59:00 ↗ forward progress in a moment i'm away

59:02 ↗ from i think what is overall been a very

59:04 ↗ positive program for the community

59:12 ↗ any thoughts chris jack

59:16 ↗ if we're unable to push up the timeline

59:18 ↗ on

59:19 ↗ getting the uh park district

59:22 ↗ would it be

59:23 ↗ possible i suppose to to pursue

59:26 ↗ something like the uh the bond measure

59:29 ↗ again

59:30 ↗ as a

59:32 ↗ i guess my you know we we talked about

59:34 ↗ that a little bit my thoughts about that

59:36 ↗ is um

59:38 ↗ if you were to put together a bond

59:40 ↗ measure

59:41 ↗ it would probably not enable you then to

59:44 ↗ put together a park district at least

59:46 ↗ for a very long time because people are

59:49 ↗ not going to want to vote for both

59:51 ↗ and and if we're looking for something

59:53 ↗ more sustainable long term for funding

59:56 ↗ for parks a park district seems to make

59:58 ↗ better sense than than to go for a bond

1:00:02 ↗ that's just my thought

1:00:03 ↗ on it

1:00:04 ↗ yeah the mechanic zach of a bond measure

1:00:07 ↗ is you're basically putting money on the

1:00:10 ↗ credit card right so you might

1:00:13 ↗ the year that it's voted on

1:00:15 ↗ you get capital money up front but then

1:00:18 ↗ the community the residents are paying

1:00:20 ↗ off the credit card for the probably

1:00:22 ↗ it's typically a 20-year

1:00:24 ↗ bond right so that there's an additional

1:00:28 ↗ property tax payment for for

1:00:30 ↗ um

1:00:31 ↗ for 20 years after that bond and so as

1:00:34 ↗ as brad was saying i think the task

1:00:36 ↗ force really took a look at

1:00:38 ↗ not just the funding type but the

1:00:40 ↗ mechanics of it

1:00:41 ↗ whereas the district is not putting

1:00:43 ↗ money on the credit card a district is

1:00:45 ↗ sort of paying as you go

1:00:47 ↗ um you're getting an annual allotment

1:00:50 ↗ every year

1:00:51 ↗ um and investing that in capital or or

1:00:54 ↗ the the identified projects

1:00:57 ↗ year by year

1:00:58 ↗ as opposed to the like the credit card

1:01:01 ↗ approach as i as they call it

1:01:06 ↗ is the prioritization or

1:01:07 ↗ deprioritization

1:01:09 ↗ as

1:01:10 ↗ we might be experiencing it is that

1:01:12 ↗ strictly for bond options or is that for

1:01:15 ↗ general funds pending

1:01:20 ↗ i'm sure not i don't know what you mean

1:01:22 ↗ by the deep prioritization chris

1:01:25 ↗ well by the task force saying you know

1:01:28 ↗ parks is doing great so let's not spend

1:01:30 ↗ that money now

1:01:32 ↗ let's not prioritize parks now that's

1:01:35 ↗ essentially what was said

1:01:36 ↗ is that applying to general fund

1:01:38 ↗ spending or

1:01:40 ↗ no that's not applying to general fund

1:01:42 ↗ spending that's applying to new uh new

1:01:45 ↗ funding

1:01:48 ↗ so essentially what you know

1:01:51 ↗ currently you know the next couple years

1:01:53 ↗ is

1:01:54 ↗ is kind of already funded by general

1:01:56 ↗ fund and

1:01:57 ↗ 2022 it's 1.5 million 2023 it's 1.3

1:02:03 ↗ million so i mean they've already kind

1:02:05 ↗ of established general funds for capital

1:02:07 ↗ improvements in parks

1:02:09 ↗ uh you know they say roughly that they

1:02:12 ↗ could potentially even fund up to two

1:02:14 ↗ million dollars a year from the general

1:02:15 ↗ fund for parks

1:02:17 ↗ but you know we're still four and a half

1:02:20 ↗ million dollars a year behind that

1:02:22 ↗ funding that we don't have and that's

1:02:23 ↗ why we're kind of going through this

1:02:25 ↗ exercise

1:02:30 ↗ i mean it's going to be hard to

1:02:33 ↗ convince

1:02:34 ↗ anyone

1:02:36 ↗ that this is going to be somehow more

1:02:38 ↗ important than what everybody's

1:02:40 ↗ screaming about which is traffic

1:02:43 ↗ and you know people aren't screaming

1:02:45 ↗ about parks

1:02:47 ↗ um

1:02:48 ↗ so

1:02:51 ↗ we might say something at the next two

1:02:54 ↗ council meetings present something

1:02:57 ↗ uh the effect might be limited

1:03:01 ↗ uh you know because again there's

1:03:04 ↗ there is a group of people with

1:03:05 ↗ pitchforks and torches

1:03:07 ↗ and um

1:03:10 ↗ so maybe we try to pair this up with you

1:03:13 ↗ know two other ideas that were brought

1:03:14 ↗ here which is let's make our wish list

1:03:17 ↗ and try to be out front of the federal

1:03:20 ↗ funding

1:03:21 ↗ uh

1:03:22 ↗ you know right away and i'm sure

1:03:24 ↗ jennifer has that list just waiting in

1:03:27 ↗ you know

1:03:28 ↗ in a folder

1:03:29 ↗ and then um

1:03:31 ↗ the other thing is just really advocate

1:03:33 ↗ for saying look we realize that you're

1:03:35 ↗ going to focus counsel you're going to

1:03:37 ↗ focus on transportation and we get why

1:03:40 ↗ but

1:03:41 ↗ we don't want to be left in a situation

1:03:43 ↗ where people are screaming about parks

1:03:44 ↗ in two more years

1:03:46 ↗ so then we need to accelerate the

1:03:49 ↗ park district

1:03:51 ↗ effort

1:03:53 ↗ i like what chris is saying i think the

1:03:55 ↗ thing that's interesting about traffic

1:03:57 ↗ or about transportations and parks

1:03:59 ↗ is transportation is always something

1:04:01 ↗ you're trying to get to neutral

1:04:03 ↗ like nobody's happy about traffic or

1:04:05 ↗ transportation like you're trying to get

1:04:06 ↗ to like baseline

1:04:08 ↗ versus parks as a satisfier and so if

1:04:11 ↗ i'm in the city council or if i'm the

1:04:13 ↗ mayor

1:04:14 ↗ you know i need to prioritize yes i need

1:04:16 ↗ to get to good or get to neutral on

1:04:18 ↗ traffic

1:04:19 ↗ but what is it that makes issaquah

1:04:21 ↗ issaquah is the park and people move

1:04:23 ↗ here because it's beautiful

1:04:25 ↗ and all of those things so it's like you

1:04:27 ↗ start ignoring the dis the satisfier

1:04:30 ↗ like that is actually more dangerous

1:04:33 ↗ in my opinion to a community than

1:04:36 ↗ ignoring like the dissatisfier the only

1:04:38 ↗ thing that's going to happen with

1:04:39 ↗ traffic is you're going to make some

1:04:40 ↗ improvements and it's going to be okay

1:04:41 ↗ for a couple years and but no one's

1:04:43 ↗ going to like it anyways

1:04:45 ↗ right it's just going to be maybe a get

1:04:47 ↗ to neutral maybe if you're wildly

1:04:48 ↗ successful

1:04:50 ↗ but man you make some improvements to

1:04:51 ↗ park

1:04:52 ↗ your community is happy with you right

1:04:54 ↗ and city council and the mayor

1:04:56 ↗ you know not that they just care about

1:04:58 ↗ that for people to be happy with them

1:04:59 ↗ but they want the community to be happy

1:05:01 ↗ and so it's like what how are we

1:05:03 ↗ focusing both on the community community

1:05:04 ↗ dissatisfiers transportation

1:05:07 ↗ while augmenting i think and i think to

1:05:09 ↗ me that's sort of the the marketing of

1:05:11 ↗ this is

1:05:12 ↗ the satisfier is the park

1:05:14 ↗ you start ignoring it you're going to

1:05:16 ↗ have a different problem

1:05:20 ↗ i agree marlene um

1:05:23 ↗ you know one of the things i don't have

1:05:24 ↗ to convince you guys i'm just trying to

1:05:25 ↗ figure out how do we convince other

1:05:27 ↗ people

1:05:28 ↗ well and one of the things that i try to

1:05:29 ↗ point out

1:05:30 ↗ even when we were arguing about

1:05:33 ↗ priorities is that a lot of times

1:05:35 ↗ transportation people might be filling

1:05:37 ↗ out surveys

1:05:38 ↗ that they're frustrated with

1:05:39 ↗ transportation

1:05:41 ↗ through the city

1:05:43 ↗ but in reality most of anything that the

1:05:45 ↗ city does is not going to resolve that

1:05:47 ↗ because it's more of a regional issue

1:05:50 ↗ and so you know a lot of the funds that

1:05:52 ↗ go you know is kind of you know dealing

1:05:55 ↗ with some of the

1:05:57 ↗ transportation mobility issues to make

1:05:59 ↗ things a little better but they're still

1:06:00 ↗ going to end up having a transportation

1:06:01 ↗ problem even after all of that because

1:06:04 ↗ regional issues are still going to drive

1:06:05 ↗ the you know the delays

1:06:08 ↗ um but i didn't get very far with that

1:06:10 ↗ argument

1:06:11 ↗ and um so

1:06:14 ↗ it has been voiced

1:06:17 ↗ well how about if we have like a simple

1:06:19 ↗ motion that the park board

1:06:23 ↗ enthusiastically supports exploring the

1:06:25 ↗ park district

1:06:27 ↗ is it metropolitan park district or just

1:06:29 ↗ a park district it's called metropolitan

1:06:31 ↗ park district

1:06:32 ↗ exploring a metropolitan park district

1:06:34 ↗ without delay

1:06:36 ↗ and so we're really just supporting

1:06:39 ↗ you know

1:06:40 ↗ starting to look at that you know

1:06:42 ↗ starting that process

1:06:44 ↗ so instead of delaying waiting for four

1:06:46 ↗ years to do that we're

1:06:48 ↗ does that is that strong enough for

1:06:50 ↗ people or do we think we need

1:06:53 ↗ to say that we need to

1:06:55 ↗ that we're opposed to the delay or you

1:06:57 ↗ know classifying

1:06:59 ↗ the timing of the

1:07:01 ↗ park district as a long-term priority

1:07:06 ↗ i think it has to be

1:07:07 ↗ put more into a medium term rather than

1:07:10 ↗ long-term priority not just when you get

1:07:13 ↗ started on reviewing it because you can

1:07:15 ↗ review it next month

1:07:18 ↗ but it's not practical to do that if if

1:07:21 ↗ the city is not supported to do anything

1:07:23 ↗ for six years because that you know

1:07:25 ↗ you're spinning your wheels for six

1:07:26 ↗ years so it's a midterm

1:07:29 ↗ so it's a midterm priority is what we

1:07:31 ↗ would want so we would want to support

1:07:35 ↗ exploring the park district without

1:07:37 ↗ delay and classifying

1:07:41 ↗ what would you say the fund funding um

1:07:46 ↗ into midterm rather than the midterm

1:07:48 ↗ rather than long-term category

1:07:50 ↗ correct right

1:07:57 ↗ so you want to eloquently put that

1:07:59 ↗ together in a one-liner as a motion

1:08:02 ↗ yeah

1:08:11 ↗ i'm a little bit not sure about how to

1:08:13 ↗ do the class so we're classifying is it

1:08:16 ↗ the financing or the funding or what the

1:08:19 ↗ projects like what exactly is in that

1:08:22 ↗ midterm long long-term like what is it

1:08:25 ↗ that were

1:08:26 ↗ fun

1:08:26 ↗ midterm would be funding available

1:08:29 ↗ timing i think

1:08:32 ↗ it's a timing qualifier right right

1:08:34 ↗ timing of

1:08:37 ↗ initiating or basically taking to voters

1:08:40 ↗ in the midterm as opposed to long term

1:08:42 ↗ right

1:08:50 ↗ okay

1:08:51 ↗ so

1:08:52 ↗ um i'd like to move that up um i i'm not

1:08:56 ↗ really sure where you don't really have

1:08:57 ↗ something we're acting on but like that

1:08:59 ↗ the park board

1:09:00 ↗ enthusiastically supports

1:09:03 ↗ exploring the park metropolitan park

1:09:06 ↗ district without delay

1:09:08 ↗ and

1:09:08 ↗ [Music]

1:09:14 ↗ sorry

1:09:15 ↗ and

1:09:20 ↗ taking that to the voters

1:09:24 ↗ in the mid-term rather than long-term

1:09:28 ↗ is that does that make sense or would

1:09:29 ↗ that make sense to people who don't know

1:09:31 ↗ what we're talking about

1:09:33 ↗ danielle what am i hearing you say and

1:09:35 ↗ moving up the timing of moving up the

1:09:38 ↗ timing

1:09:39 ↗ from long term to midterm something like

1:09:41 ↗ that

1:09:46 ↗ yes

1:09:47 ↗ and the motion is this time wordsmithing

1:09:49 ↗ so much fun

1:09:56 ↗ sorry the motion is that the park board

1:09:58 ↗ will

1:09:59 ↗ advocate or

1:10:01 ↗ encourage

1:10:03 ↗ city council to

1:10:08 ↗ do you want to say recommend to city

1:10:10 ↗ council recommends that stronger

1:10:12 ↗ i'm going to put it in the chat here the

1:10:14 ↗ park board recommends

1:10:17 ↗ that

1:10:25 ↗ make sure to type it to everyone when

1:10:26 ↗ you do it

1:10:39 ↗ okay

1:10:40 ↗ i'm sorry you guys

1:10:48 ↗ total typing amnesty too if there's a

1:10:50 ↗ couple of uh

1:10:53 ↗ type of yeah

1:11:19 ↗ she's typing that up

1:11:21 ↗ is there a

1:11:23 ↗ place that we can find from a

1:11:26 ↗ transportation perspective

1:11:28 ↗ what we would actually spend money on

1:11:30 ↗ doing to improve

1:11:32 ↗ like just as a voter i'd love to

1:11:34 ↗ understand like if we want to put that

1:11:35 ↗ in short term and spend a bunch of money

1:11:37 ↗ on it what would it actually do

1:11:41 ↗ well transportation has a cocip set up

1:11:44 ↗ much like parks does

1:11:46 ↗ okay

1:11:47 ↗ and so that's where that information is

1:11:50 ↗ uh how did you find that on the

1:11:51 ↗ earthquake site

1:11:53 ↗ yeah so so marlene within the six-year

1:11:56 ↗ capital improvement plan the six-year

1:11:57 ↗ cip there's a transportation category

1:12:01 ↗ along with the parks category

1:12:03 ↗ that six-year transportation category is

1:12:05 ↗ informed by i guess the acronym is the

1:12:09 ↗ tip the transportation improvement plan

1:12:12 ↗ that's done every

1:12:14 ↗ year so the tip would be

1:12:17 ↗ i guess the the parallel to the park

1:12:19 ↗ strategic plan

1:12:21 ↗ okay yeah

1:12:25 ↗ and i'm not against transportation guys

1:12:27 ↗ like i don't you know don't want to come

1:12:29 ↗ across like that i just you know want to

1:12:31 ↗ understand what it is

1:12:32 ↗ well on this board we're looking i mean

1:12:34 ↗ we're advocating for parks right so i

1:12:37 ↗ think it's okay to be in favor of

1:12:38 ↗ transportation and parks and you know

1:12:42 ↗ it's it can't be one or the other right

1:12:45 ↗ right

1:12:46 ↗ okay i've sent my in the chat i don't

1:12:48 ↗ think that the last part of the it says

1:12:50 ↗ um the park bar recommends that the city

1:12:52 ↗ council commences the exploratory phase

1:12:54 ↗ of the metropolitan park district

1:12:55 ↗ without delay and move up the timing of

1:12:57 ↗ the task force

1:12:59 ↗ it's probably the recommendation from

1:13:01 ↗ the long term to midterm

1:13:04 ↗ that looks good daniel

1:13:06 ↗ is that emotion

1:13:10 ↗ got a motion danielle isomosin yes

1:13:13 ↗ anyone like the second bat

1:13:15 ↗ chris

1:13:16 ↗ seconded okay all in favor please raise

1:13:20 ↗ your hand

1:13:23 ↗ that is uh unanimous

1:13:26 ↗ thank you

1:13:28 ↗ i will take that to the task force on

1:13:31 ↗ wednesday

1:13:35 ↗ i think uh i think we've kind of beat

1:13:37 ↗ that one up a good bit a lot longer than

1:13:40 ↗ i expected about 45 minutes longer than

1:13:42 ↗ we had planned on so sorry to make you

1:13:45 ↗ wait so much matt but this is all good

1:13:47 ↗ stuff for you to know about i suppose

1:13:49 ↗ what's going on behind the the scene

1:13:54 ↗ so that being said uh matt maybe you can

1:13:56 ↗ lighten things up with all the good news

1:13:58 ↗ about green issaquah

1:14:03 ↗ sounds good thanks brad

1:14:06 ↗ um so yeah welcome

1:14:08 ↗ i'm matt meckler i'm our parks

1:14:10 ↗ operations supervisor uh

1:14:12 ↗ kind of talk a little bit about our

1:14:13 ↗ green issaquah program that

1:14:15 ↗ was launched in 2020

1:14:18 ↗ and i know

1:14:20 ↗ melissa has a couple slides she's going

1:14:22 ↗ to share with us um

1:14:25 ↗ the first one's just kind of some of our

1:14:28 ↗ 2021

1:14:29 ↗ impacts that we had you know like i said

1:14:31 ↗ the the green issaquah program was

1:14:33 ↗ kicked off in 2020 but

1:14:35 ↗ with um

1:14:36 ↗ covid

1:14:38 ↗ um issues we really didn't have the

1:14:40 ↗ opportunity to do a lot of volunteer

1:14:42 ↗ events

1:14:44 ↗ but we did have an opportunity to start

1:14:46 ↗ to train some of our forest stewards um

1:14:49 ↗ to help steward some of our open space

1:14:51 ↗ lands

1:14:52 ↗ so um with that being said you know we

1:14:54 ↗ got about 15 people trained to become

1:14:57 ↗ for stewards

1:14:58 ↗ um and out of those 15 people we were

1:15:01 ↗ able to get

1:15:03 ↗ several of our park and open space sites

1:15:05 ↗ kind of um adopted by those stewards so

1:15:08 ↗ one of the uh here's kind of the list of

1:15:10 ↗ the different places so we have

1:15:11 ↗ bernstein park

1:15:12 ↗ uh emily darst park the east sunset way

1:15:15 ↗ trailhead

1:15:17 ↗ northwest dogwood property

1:15:19 ↗ the rainier trail south kind of from the

1:15:21 ↗ community center towards second avenue

1:15:24 ↗ harvey manning park at talus and then

1:15:26 ↗ also telus open space um

1:15:29 ↗ all had stewards that adopted those and

1:15:32 ↗ we've already had several events in in

1:15:34 ↗ 2020 that helped steward some of those

1:15:36 ↗ properties so a lot of you

1:15:38 ↗ may have been to those or maybe even

1:15:40 ↗ participated in some of those events or

1:15:42 ↗ been to those parks or

1:15:44 ↗ trail heads and seen some of the the

1:15:46 ↗ good work that's being done

1:15:48 ↗ um we've we've had a

1:15:50 ↗ you know about 1.75 new acres in

1:15:53 ↗ restoration in 2021

1:15:56 ↗ um

1:15:57 ↗ about 309 volunteers were engaged 113 of

1:16:01 ↗ those were youth

1:16:02 ↗ uh for a total of about 876 hours

1:16:06 ↗ and then we were able to get

1:16:09 ↗ 3589 plants in the ground and of those

1:16:12 ↗ 3 369 were trees so pretty impressive

1:16:16 ↗ numbers for you know not even being able

1:16:18 ↗ to go at full capacity with all of our

1:16:20 ↗ events you know a lot of the volunteer

1:16:22 ↗ events were just limited to

1:16:23 ↗ you know 15

1:16:25 ↗ people or less i think in originally

1:16:28 ↗ some of them were only like five i think

1:16:29 ↗ when kobut was in full full um swing

1:16:32 ↗ and we've been able to increase some of

1:16:33 ↗ those events now to 30 people so

1:16:36 ↗ um

1:16:37 ↗ great things

1:16:39 ↗ [Music]

1:16:40 ↗ we have some recent events that just

1:16:42 ↗ took place we're ready sunset way we had

1:16:44 ↗ one at burnston park a couple weeks ago

1:16:47 ↗ we just had a brand new event one of our

1:16:49 ↗ stewards who adopted emily dars park had

1:16:51 ↗ their first event over

1:16:53 ↗ along the pickering trail so if any of

1:16:55 ↗ you walk along the picnic trail ride

1:16:56 ↗ your bike you may have seen some huge

1:16:58 ↗ piles of blackberries that were just

1:17:00 ↗ from an event this weekend

1:17:02 ↗ and they're actually going to be holding

1:17:04 ↗ another event coming up here on this

1:17:06 ↗ coming saturday too so to do some more

1:17:07 ↗ invasive removal and in preparation for

1:17:10 ↗ a planting event probably in

1:17:13 ↗ early april somewhere around there so

1:17:14 ↗ that'll be exciting

1:17:17 ↗ um

1:17:19 ↗ i guess we'll go to the next slide too

1:17:22 ↗ melissa if you could

1:17:26 ↗ yeah this one's a little i don't know if

1:17:27 ↗ everyone can see it's a little small but

1:17:29 ↗ um the the way the um the green escort

1:17:32 ↗ program is was developed is there's

1:17:34 ↗ there's management units so all of

1:17:36 ↗ issaquah the whole

1:17:38 ↗ um 1 540 acres was kind of evaluated to

1:17:42 ↗ determine you know where where we need

1:17:44 ↗ to do work and so that the two kind of

1:17:47 ↗ um squares are the the top one shows us

1:17:50 ↗ the acreage

1:17:51 ↗ on the kind of the upper left-hand

1:17:54 ↗ corner

1:17:55 ↗ shows us the amount of acres that are

1:17:56 ↗ actually in really good good shape you

1:17:58 ↗ know they have high habitat low

1:18:00 ↗ invasives and then kind of just if you

1:18:03 ↗ go diagonally down from that where that

1:18:05 ↗ 72 is that's those are acres that are

1:18:08 ↗ have a lot of invasives and low habitat

1:18:10 ↗ value that need to be restored so when

1:18:12 ↗ you look at all of our 1500 acres that

1:18:14 ↗ we have plus

1:18:16 ↗ a lot of them are in that that pretty

1:18:18 ↗ good zone there to um

1:18:21 ↗ or they're in good shape that some of

1:18:23 ↗ them just need a little bit of

1:18:24 ↗ management some need a little bit of

1:18:25 ↗ invasive removal some of them need just

1:18:28 ↗ some additional plantings and and

1:18:29 ↗ monitoring

1:18:31 ↗ and then

1:18:32 ↗ as we continue to you know train more

1:18:34 ↗ for stewards and get more of our our

1:18:37 ↗ acreage

1:18:38 ↗ adopted by stewards we're hoping that

1:18:40 ↗ the numbers that you see kind of in that

1:18:42 ↗ upper

1:18:43 ↗ left-hand corner those numbers start to

1:18:44 ↗ get bigger and the numbers down below

1:18:47 ↗ start to get smaller just as we continue

1:18:49 ↗ to do work on those um

1:18:52 ↗ different areas throughout the city

1:18:55 ↗ um with that being said you know like i

1:18:57 ↗ mentioned we have um the emily darst uh

1:19:00 ↗ event coming up this saturday

1:19:02 ↗ we're also in the process of working on

1:19:05 ↗ our earth day arbor day event which

1:19:07 ↗ we've had to delay the last couple years

1:19:09 ↗ because of covid it's also a requirement

1:19:12 ↗ of our tree city usa

1:19:13 ↗ program which the arbor day foundation

1:19:16 ↗ has waived i think they'll probably

1:19:17 ↗ bring that back this year so we're

1:19:19 ↗ looking at sometime in april to do our

1:19:22 ↗ arbor day event

1:19:24 ↗ uh we also work with you know a variety

1:19:26 ↗ of partners too one of them is dia they

1:19:28 ↗ have their beautiful or keep us called

1:19:30 ↗ beautiful day coming up april 23rd

1:19:33 ↗ so that'll

1:19:34 ↗ hopefully do some um stuff in the

1:19:36 ↗ downtown corridor of issaquah i know

1:19:38 ↗ they've branched out and done some work

1:19:40 ↗ at emily dars park and some of the other

1:19:42 ↗ areas too

1:19:43 ↗ and then um starting in probably june or

1:19:46 ↗ july we're going to start another round

1:19:48 ↗ of um

1:19:49 ↗ for steward uh training again and

1:19:51 ↗ recruitment so we'll be um hopefully

1:19:54 ↗ we'll be able to do it in person the

1:19:55 ↗ last few times we've just been doing it

1:19:57 ↗ um virtual so

1:19:59 ↗ uh training some more stewards to become

1:20:02 ↗ uh uh adopting some of more of our park

1:20:06 ↗ sites so that'll be fun

1:20:09 ↗ so i don't know if there's any questions

1:20:10 ↗ um or if jeff you wanted to add anything

1:20:13 ↗ to what we were kind of talking about

1:20:15 ↗ earlier

1:20:17 ↗ boy just a couple of thoughts matt

1:20:19 ↗ excellent work um thanks melissa i think

1:20:22 ↗ you can stop sharing for the time being

1:20:26 ↗ um

1:20:28 ↗ boy yeah i guess a couple of thoughts

1:20:30 ↗ first just

1:20:31 ↗ hats off to matt um as matt mentioned

1:20:34 ↗ you know um greenish aqua as this has

1:20:36 ↗ been a priority to

1:20:38 ↗ to get going um

1:20:40 ↗ 2021 really represented our first full

1:20:42 ↗ year of

1:20:44 ↗ implementation and operationalizing this

1:20:46 ↗ uh in that effort matt is serving as the

1:20:50 ↗ lead

1:20:51 ↗ um in that work in working with fortera

1:20:55 ↗ doing

1:20:56 ↗ first year of implementation in the

1:20:57 ↗ midst of the pandemic is uh

1:21:00 ↗ quite interesting uh but to to

1:21:03 ↗ to know we already have 15 stewards

1:21:06 ↗ trained up

1:21:07 ↗ says a lot for a first year

1:21:09 ↗ um i think just a couple thoughts on

1:21:12 ↗ those two graphics that infographic is

1:21:14 ↗ something

1:21:15 ↗ we want to share with you and the

1:21:17 ↗ community every year and i i we should

1:21:19 ↗ not be surprised to see those numbers

1:21:21 ↗ start to

1:21:22 ↗ incrementally increase as

1:21:26 ↗ more stewards are trained up we're going

1:21:28 ↗ to have another steward training here in

1:21:29 ↗ 2022

1:21:31 ↗ um

1:21:32 ↗ uh melissa chang is actually going to be

1:21:35 ↗ giving really direct support in this

1:21:37 ↗ project and program as well as we're

1:21:39 ↗ growing capacity in 2022 so matt and

1:21:41 ↗ melissa will be

1:21:43 ↗ um

1:21:45 ↗ sort of our two key staff in uh in this

1:21:48 ↗ effort moving forward

1:21:50 ↗ um

1:21:52 ↗ this is an important priority and and

1:21:54 ↗ this not only green issaquah but really

1:21:56 ↗ being a steward of of the urban forest

1:21:59 ↗ uh being the best steward we can of the

1:22:02 ↗ the urban forest that the city owns um

1:22:05 ↗ as a as a first step is a as a high

1:22:07 ↗ priority as well um i guess i i add that

1:22:11 ↗ in context to the prior conversation we

1:22:14 ↗ had which was really really important as

1:22:16 ↗ we look into the future

1:22:18 ↗ and as this community thinks about

1:22:19 ↗ investing into its park system

1:22:23 ↗ these 1500 acres of open space um

1:22:27 ↗ are really really important both for

1:22:28 ↗ environment

1:22:30 ↗ and habitat but also for recreational

1:22:32 ↗ use and so

1:22:33 ↗ um those 1500 acres don't just take care

1:22:36 ↗ of themselves once they're bought they

1:22:38 ↗ really take active stewardship and

1:22:40 ↗ active investment and so

1:22:43 ↗ issaquah's park system is amazing

1:22:46 ↗ i think it greatly defines the

1:22:47 ↗ livability in this community and it's

1:22:50 ↗ it's really balanced in that um

1:22:53 ↗ the system is both

1:22:54 ↗ um an important buffer um an important

1:22:58 ↗ um

1:22:59 ↗ definer of our of the alps and the urban

1:23:03 ↗ forest and and sort of that passive

1:23:04 ↗ recreation that is i think so key to

1:23:07 ↗ this community um just as making

1:23:09 ↗ investments into the accurate active

1:23:11 ↗ recreation priorities of this community

1:23:14 ↗ so

1:23:15 ↗ um i just say that as maybe a bit of a

1:23:17 ↗ bridge between this update on green

1:23:19 ↗ issaquah and why this work is so

1:23:21 ↗ important to us as a department and

1:23:24 ↗ again forterra is not our only strategy

1:23:27 ↗ those numbers represent the great work

1:23:29 ↗ and our partnership with forterra but in

1:23:31 ↗ that is also our partnered work and our

1:23:33 ↗ continued partnered work with mountains

1:23:35 ↗ to sound greenway

1:23:37 ↗ with washington conservation corps

1:23:40 ↗ and other other means and other

1:23:43 ↗ strategies that we've taken to make sure

1:23:46 ↗ we're

1:23:47 ↗ positioning ourselves to be the best

1:23:48 ↗ steward we can of um

1:23:51 ↗ of our city-owned urban forest so

1:23:55 ↗ big thanks matt huge thanks this is a

1:23:57 ↗ big big step

1:24:01 ↗ yeah you're welcome um one thing i

1:24:02 ↗ forgot to mention is right now we have

1:24:04 ↗ about 1600 trees that are should be

1:24:06 ↗ delivered here maybe by the end of this

1:24:09 ↗ week and then another couple hundred

1:24:11 ↗ that are in our nursery so all those

1:24:12 ↗ plants will be plants that we'll be

1:24:14 ↗ planting this spring and then into next

1:24:16 ↗ fall too as we

1:24:17 ↗ continue to have more stewardship events

1:24:19 ↗ too so

1:24:20 ↗ our numbers like jeff said hopefully

1:24:22 ↗ that

1:24:22 ↗ you know 3 369 trees that we planted

1:24:25 ↗ this year will be a little bit higher or

1:24:26 ↗ in 2020 will be a little bit higher in

1:24:28 ↗ 2022 so

1:24:31 ↗ hey matt um

1:24:33 ↗ i know it's kind of still early in the

1:24:35 ↗ program but is there any kind of a

1:24:36 ↗ expectation on an annualized basis to

1:24:39 ↗ actually put together work plans in

1:24:40 ↗ terms of what areas to work on

1:24:43 ↗ throughout the year is that

1:24:45 ↗ going to get established that way or is

1:24:46 ↗ it kind of dependent upon the amount of

1:24:48 ↗ stewards you have in place

1:24:50 ↗ kind of a little bit of both so like i

1:24:51 ↗ mentioned you know the whole um greenest

1:24:53 ↗ squad plan it breaks everything into

1:24:55 ↗ management units and those management

1:24:57 ↗ units are kind of color coded like the

1:24:59 ↗ way the chart is too so there's some

1:25:00 ↗ areas in you know

1:25:02 ↗ bernstein park it might have one little

1:25:04 ↗ pocket in the corner that really needs a

1:25:06 ↗ lot more work than some other other

1:25:08 ↗ areas that are looking pretty good so

1:25:10 ↗ the focus is to work on those high

1:25:12 ↗ priority areas where we can get a lot of

1:25:13 ↗ bang for our buck you know we can get

1:25:15 ↗ the invasives out of there get some

1:25:17 ↗ um get some native vegetation in there

1:25:19 ↗ and get that that parcel looking really

1:25:21 ↗ good so it's yeah it's a combination of

1:25:23 ↗ both i think and then you know focusing

1:25:25 ↗ on those areas where there are a lot of

1:25:26 ↗ high invasives and we can make great

1:25:28 ↗ impact and then also

1:25:30 ↗ you know where our stewards

1:25:32 ↗ want to help out too some of them have

1:25:34 ↗ certain passions or live in

1:25:35 ↗ neighborhoods that they want to work

1:25:36 ↗ close to where you know their this open

1:25:39 ↗ space is so it's it's it's a little bit

1:25:41 ↗ of both

1:25:44 ↗ um have anything more for us matt

1:25:48 ↗ that was kind of that was just kind of

1:25:49 ↗ the real quick overview of 2021

1:25:52 ↗ anybody have any questions

1:25:54 ↗ or comments for matt

1:25:58 ↗ not seeing anybody other than i saw a

1:26:00 ↗ quick hand from jeff

1:26:02 ↗ go ahead jeff

1:26:03 ↗ yeah i just i for context too i i know

1:26:06 ↗ connie had some public comment i was

1:26:08 ↗ going to save it for director's report

1:26:09 ↗ but maybe um

1:26:11 ↗ her comment about what she saw in the i

1:26:14 ↗ think it's the issaquah daily

1:26:16 ↗ article that was listed for carbon

1:26:18 ↗ credits um

1:26:20 ↗ thank you connie for those comments

1:26:22 ↗ um and i think her question

1:26:24 ↗ pertained to

1:26:26 ↗ um i think it was referenced that those

1:26:28 ↗ funds would just go into the general

1:26:29 ↗ fund um

1:26:31 ↗ i can share that as the department

1:26:34 ↗ leading that effort and jen and i will

1:26:35 ↗ continue to work with finance the intent

1:26:37 ↗ is for those funds to be

1:26:39 ↗ um

1:26:41 ↗ in a in a place that they can be

1:26:44 ↗ invested directly into

1:26:47 ↗ um

1:26:49 ↗ not only bergsba or the harvey manning

1:26:51 ↗ property but other

1:26:53 ↗ open space and green issaquah

1:26:56 ↗ investments and not just be absorbed

1:26:58 ↗ into the general fund so we'll certainly

1:27:01 ↗ be following up with finance

1:27:03 ↗ if and when that sale happens the sale

1:27:05 ↗ has not happened yet but if and when the

1:27:07 ↗ sale happens and those funds

1:27:09 ↗ um are provided to the city that uh they

1:27:12 ↗ are in a location that

1:27:15 ↗ can be invested

1:27:17 ↗ directly into

1:27:20 ↗ our city urban forest

1:27:26 ↗ i'm not seeing anything else matt

1:27:29 ↗ appreciate your patience for uh waiting

1:27:31 ↗ for us and especially with the

1:27:34 ↗ presentation tonight so

1:27:36 ↗ nice job that you and the team are doing

1:27:38 ↗ and keep at it really good work all

1:27:40 ↗ right thanks brad thanks everyone

1:27:42 ↗ appreciate the time

1:27:43 ↗ thanks matt

1:27:47 ↗ so that puts us into um

1:27:50 ↗ jennifer

1:27:51 ↗ you're gonna talk about uh citywide

1:27:54 ↗ athletic

1:27:57 ↗ hi good evening everyone

1:27:59 ↗ melissa can you give me privilege to

1:28:01 ↗ share my screen here

1:28:08 ↗ okay you should be all set all right

1:28:10 ↗ thanks

1:28:13 ↗ so hopefully i can go um

1:28:16 ↗ a little quickly

1:28:18 ↗ through the presentation and be

1:28:20 ↗ respectful of time knowing we still have

1:28:21 ↗ other agenda items ahead of us is

1:28:24 ↗ everyone seeing

1:28:26 ↗ yep my powerpoint

1:28:28 ↗ yep that's good

1:28:30 ↗ great

1:28:31 ↗ um

1:28:32 ↗ so tonight i'm here to talk about our

1:28:34 ↗ citywide athletic field assessment

1:28:37 ↗ that we are going to be doing

1:28:39 ↗ um

1:28:40 ↗ the goal of this project is for us to

1:28:43 ↗ review all publicly owned fields

1:28:47 ↗ within city of issaquah city limits

1:28:51 ↗ fields

1:28:52 ↗ that are publicly

1:28:54 ↗ managed um include obviously the city of

1:28:57 ↗ issaquah but also isqua school district

1:29:00 ↗ and lake samamish state park

1:29:03 ↗ there's really two big topics that we're

1:29:05 ↗ looking at

1:29:06 ↗ in this field assessment is how are

1:29:08 ↗ these fields currently serving the

1:29:10 ↗ community

1:29:12 ↗ but also how can these fields better

1:29:14 ↗ serve the community in the future

1:29:19 ↗ the scope of work is kind of two-fold

1:29:22 ↗ here we're doing an analysis and current

1:29:24 ↗ needs assessment um we're going to be

1:29:27 ↗ looking at the condition

1:29:29 ↗ of the fields we're looking at field

1:29:31 ↗ accessibility parking ada access

1:29:34 ↗ all of the things even existing

1:29:36 ↗ agreements because there's a lot of

1:29:38 ↗ fields that have agreements with certain

1:29:40 ↗ clubs and user groups for extended

1:29:42 ↗ period of time where booking and access

1:29:45 ↗ might

1:29:46 ↗ take priority

1:29:48 ↗ for that club over other people being

1:29:50 ↗ able to use those fields

1:29:53 ↗ we're also looking at ball control

1:29:55 ↗ service life of some of the existing

1:29:57 ↗ infrastructure

1:29:58 ↗ surface quality how flat is the field

1:30:01 ↗ the planarity

1:30:02 ↗ what are the current drainage situations

1:30:05 ↗ reliability

1:30:07 ↗ and other infrastructure like does the

1:30:09 ↗ field have seating lights

1:30:12 ↗ things like that we're also going to be

1:30:13 ↗ looking at program

1:30:15 ↗ field program capacity what different

1:30:17 ↗ fields are utilizing different sports

1:30:21 ↗ are utilizing those fields sorry

1:30:23 ↗ and review the usage access to

1:30:26 ↗ scheduling but also the hierarchy of

1:30:28 ↗ some of the sport uses you know

1:30:30 ↗ that are currently existing on those

1:30:32 ↗ fields and um we're also going to be

1:30:35 ↗ engaging

1:30:36 ↗ uh with league representatives to really

1:30:38 ↗ learn more from each of the leagues we

1:30:40 ↗ don't know what that engagement is going

1:30:42 ↗ to look like right now

1:30:44 ↗ but more to come on that as we get

1:30:46 ↗ closer to doing this

1:30:50 ↗ we're also going to be

1:30:51 ↗ taking a look at that other two-fold

1:30:53 ↗ pieces what are future needs and

1:30:55 ↗ opportunities

1:30:56 ↗ we're going to be looking at some change

1:30:59 ↗ both in population growth but also in

1:31:01 ↗ recreational trends

1:31:03 ↗ we're going to be looking at each of the

1:31:05 ↗ field locations

1:31:07 ↗ what a highest field quality

1:31:10 ↗ given that field condition might look at

1:31:13 ↗ might be

1:31:14 ↗ recommend some potential renovations

1:31:16 ↗ these are not going to be formal design

1:31:18 ↗ plans just a rough overlay as to what

1:31:20 ↗ could possibly fit in any given space

1:31:23 ↗ and again remember this is also maybe

1:31:26 ↗ making recommendations on property that

1:31:28 ↗ the city doesn't have the opportunity to

1:31:30 ↗ manage maybe you know working with a

1:31:32 ↗ school district

1:31:34 ↗ and also taking a look at scheduling

1:31:35 ↗ capacity if this

1:31:37 ↗ if

1:31:38 ↗ change were to happen on these fields

1:31:40 ↗ how would that also impact potential

1:31:42 ↗ scheduling capacity and access

1:31:48 ↗ a few items to note there are some

1:31:50 ↗ fields that are currently under

1:31:51 ↗ construction

1:31:53 ↗ with some of the new schools that the

1:31:54 ↗ school district is doing we've got a new

1:31:57 ↗ middle school and a new high school

1:32:00 ↗ going in

1:32:02 ↗ lake smash state park is also actively

1:32:05 ↗ engaged in a master plan update right

1:32:07 ↗ now an environmental impact statement

1:32:10 ↗ when we had an internal meeting we did

1:32:12 ↗ talk to um school district staff as well

1:32:15 ↗ as like smash state park staff in order

1:32:17 ↗ that we're not getting ahead of any

1:32:19 ↗ recommendations that would be coming out

1:32:20 ↗ of uh state parks but do you know they

1:32:23 ↗ have been looking at

1:32:26 ↗ field overlays and we'll have some

1:32:27 ↗ options that are coming out to the

1:32:29 ↗ community

1:32:31 ↗ as part of their environmental impact uh

1:32:34 ↗ process and we're just working with what

1:32:36 ↗ information they are providing for us

1:32:39 ↗ we also have as i mentioned earlier some

1:32:42 ↗ fields have some existing agreements and

1:32:44 ↗ priority access to them and so we're

1:32:46 ↗ going to be looking at that

1:32:48 ↗ um we had our first kickoff meeting for

1:32:51 ↗ the scope of work

1:32:53 ↗ on

1:32:54 ↗ the 16th which seems like yesterday but

1:32:56 ↗ it was actually almost two weeks ago now

1:32:59 ↗ um

1:33:01 ↗ so

1:33:02 ↗ as we get ready to kick off this um just

1:33:04 ↗ wanted to really bring this to you see

1:33:06 ↗ if there's some other items you would

1:33:08 ↗ like us to take a look at

1:33:10 ↗ as part of this work this is really

1:33:12 ↗ again a very high level assessment

1:33:15 ↗ looking at what is currently existing

1:33:17 ↗ um

1:33:18 ↗ knowing that the what it could be is a

1:33:21 ↗ very high level

1:33:23 ↗ um

1:33:24 ↗ high level look given a lot of unknowns

1:33:27 ↗ you know about sight and future

1:33:28 ↗ development um and things like that so

1:33:32 ↗ i would like to open this back up to the

1:33:34 ↗ board and ask if you have any feedback

1:33:36 ↗ for us and if you have any further

1:33:38 ↗ questions

1:33:41 ↗ uh can you take down the screen so i can

1:33:43 ↗ see everyone yes

1:33:50 ↗ so questions anybody

1:33:52 ↗ danielle you got something

1:33:53 ↗ yeah and i'm sorry i was having some

1:33:55 ↗ technical issues during the beginning

1:33:57 ↗ your presentation so you might have

1:33:59 ↗ answered this already um

1:34:00 ↗ but um

1:34:02 ↗ lighting like is that one of the

1:34:03 ↗ categories so we know like

1:34:06 ↗ you know like what are available

1:34:09 ↗ um

1:34:10 ↗ you know like

1:34:11 ↗ length of day that feel can be

1:34:13 ↗ programmed yes as we look at the fields

1:34:15 ↗ that have existing lighting as part of

1:34:17 ↗ that capacity how late those lights can

1:34:19 ↗ operate definitely will be part of that

1:34:22 ↗ um overall

1:34:23 ↗ look at how those fields are being used

1:34:25 ↗ and where some of those access points

1:34:27 ↗ are and you'll do that with the district

1:34:28 ↗ ones as well because some are lit and

1:34:30 ↗ some aren't

1:34:32 ↗ okay

1:34:33 ↗ and granted some of their fields aren't

1:34:34 ↗ even scheduled to be completed

1:34:36 ↗ down the road but we know what

1:34:38 ↗ improvements are going to be occurring

1:34:40 ↗ on those properties so we're able to

1:34:42 ↗ forecast um

1:34:45 ↗ and there'll be a brand new field in

1:34:46 ↗ those locations so got it and do we have

1:34:50 ↗ um

1:34:51 ↗ are you are we looking at any other

1:34:54 ↗ like pieces of land that either the city

1:34:56 ↗ owns or that the school district owns

1:34:59 ↗ like in

1:35:00 ↗ or another public entity like in our

1:35:03 ↗ our area like is there anything else

1:35:05 ↗ that's out there that will be looked at

1:35:07 ↗ other than the state park

1:35:09 ↗ uh no right now we are currently looking

1:35:11 ↗ at what our existing play fields um

1:35:14 ↗ we'll say we're looking at play fields

1:35:17 ↗ even at some of the elementary schools

1:35:18 ↗ that may have

1:35:20 ↗ sand

1:35:21 ↗ lots right now how could those

1:35:22 ↗ potentially be improved

1:35:24 ↗ and

1:35:26 ↗ you know provide some recreational

1:35:27 ↗ access

1:35:28 ↗ maybe in ways that they haven't before

1:35:30 ↗ so we will be taking a look at those as

1:35:32 ↗ well

1:35:33 ↗ and can you speak a little bit about how

1:35:35 ↗ this is going to overlay with the master

1:35:37 ↗ planning process at tibbetts in

1:35:39 ↗ particular because it seems like if

1:35:41 ↗ we're if we're looking at that high

1:35:43 ↗ level like what tibbetts could do

1:35:46 ↗ like how is that going to work with the

1:35:48 ↗ master planning process

1:35:50 ↗ great question um you know the we're

1:35:53 ↗ working with j.a hogan who had the

1:35:55 ↗ privilege of having some of the access

1:35:57 ↗ to information about some of the

1:36:00 ↗ geotechnical and environmental issues

1:36:02 ↗ out there

1:36:03 ↗ i think

1:36:04 ↗ we have directed him to do this work

1:36:07 ↗ independent of that master planning

1:36:09 ↗ process so really just taking a look at

1:36:12 ↗ what's happening out there right now

1:36:15 ↗ and then as we look at the master

1:36:16 ↗ planning and we look at all of our

1:36:18 ↗ fields throughout the system

1:36:21 ↗ that's where we can start looking at

1:36:23 ↗ some of those different capacity issues

1:36:26 ↗ or uses that may be transferred to

1:36:28 ↗ another side or location

1:36:30 ↗ as we start looking at the whole puzzle

1:36:32 ↗ city-wide rather than just one

1:36:34 ↗ individual piece of that puzzle

1:36:36 ↗ and okay so sorry one more question um

1:36:39 ↗ is there going to be an opportunity in

1:36:40 ↗ this process for citizens or the park

1:36:43 ↗ board to weigh in as far as like what

1:36:46 ↗ because just because we have a field

1:36:48 ↗ doesn't mean that it's like optimally

1:36:50 ↗ used or is like works well right for a

1:36:54 ↗ particular sport um i'm thinking for

1:36:57 ↗ example we have two little league fields

1:36:58 ↗ up in central park that are the you know

1:37:00 ↗ the fields are too small really right to

1:37:02 ↗ be like maximum like used so i know that

1:37:06 ↗ you guys are aware of a lot of that but

1:37:07 ↗ probably there might be some some things

1:37:10 ↗ that other people are aware of um

1:37:13 ↗ is there a point in this process that

1:37:16 ↗ that people will

1:37:18 ↗ input will be thought or is it just um

1:37:20 ↗ yes

1:37:23 ↗ we'll be engaging with

1:37:25 ↗ the athletic groups um doing some

1:37:27 ↗ engagement with them i don't know what

1:37:29 ↗ that engagement is going to look like

1:37:31 ↗ yet

1:37:32 ↗ as we get there we'll formulate that but

1:37:34 ↗ yes we'll be looking at

1:37:36 ↗ what how people are currently using

1:37:38 ↗ those sites what use issues they may be

1:37:40 ↗ having

1:37:41 ↗ um

1:37:42 ↗ so we can be informed going forward um

1:37:46 ↗ as we make

1:37:47 ↗ high-level recommendations for those

1:37:49 ↗ spaces

1:37:50 ↗ you know maybe those spaces maybe those

1:37:52 ↗ fields um those uses end up somewhere

1:37:55 ↗ else and maybe those become a different

1:37:57 ↗ type of use in that location um we'll

1:38:00 ↗ have to see again as we start looking at

1:38:02 ↗ the bigger puzzle piece but yes we will

1:38:04 ↗ be engaging in learning about what all

1:38:06 ↗ the hiccups and

1:38:07 ↗ um

1:38:08 ↗ what's working well at each location but

1:38:10 ↗ also what's not and you know as we look

1:38:13 ↗ at these properties

1:38:15 ↗ like the school district you know we had

1:38:16 ↗ that conversation with them that hey

1:38:19 ↗ we might say this isn't working well and

1:38:21 ↗ they're like we understand

1:38:24 ↗ so that was a really good conversation

1:38:25 ↗ be having with them as we're looking at

1:38:27 ↗ how we can

1:38:28 ↗ provide athletic needs across all venues

1:38:31 ↗ across all field spaces available for

1:38:34 ↗ all different sports and activities

1:38:39 ↗ if i could just add real quick to that

1:38:41 ↗ jen thank you

1:38:42 ↗ thanks for that i think also in your

1:38:44 ↗ question danielle as we

1:38:46 ↗ um engage with both the district and the

1:38:48 ↗ state park

1:38:49 ↗ and i would say in that kickoff meeting

1:38:51 ↗ on the 16th both agencies were there and

1:38:53 ↗ are definitely leaning in

1:38:56 ↗ to this effort which is very encouraging

1:38:58 ↗ uh but as we work with both those public

1:39:00 ↗ agencies and also

1:39:02 ↗ with uh the sports groups uh the users

1:39:05 ↗ of these fields as we do the assessment

1:39:07 ↗ we'll also be coming back uh to the park

1:39:09 ↗ board and letting you know how this this

1:39:12 ↗ work is starting to take shape and as

1:39:14 ↗ jen said we're really we're trying to

1:39:16 ↗ capture the big picture of

1:39:18 ↗ how are our current fields working and

1:39:21 ↗ not working how what need do we

1:39:23 ↗ anticipate and as we start to make

1:39:26 ↗ site-specific

1:39:28 ↗ um recommendations at places like

1:39:31 ↗ tibbetts valley park

1:39:32 ↗ um or some of our other master planning

1:39:34 ↗ sites we're informed by

1:39:37 ↗ sort of this bigger

1:39:38 ↗ sense of how we're going to address

1:39:40 ↗ athletic fields

1:39:42 ↗ here in issaquah now and into the future

1:39:47 ↗ starting with existing properties if

1:39:50 ↗ and i think i heard your question here

1:39:52 ↗ this work is not necessarily going to

1:39:54 ↗ try and identify

1:39:56 ↗ potential land to purchase but if this

1:39:59 ↗ work informs us that boy into the future

1:40:02 ↗ as we try and tap the capacity of our

1:40:04 ↗ existing fields

1:40:06 ↗ both school districts state parks city

1:40:09 ↗ facilities um

1:40:11 ↗ if there's a need for

1:40:13 ↗ additional acquisition

1:40:15 ↗ [Music]

1:40:17 ↗ this assessment's gonna not gonna

1:40:19 ↗ necessarily try and identify which site

1:40:21 ↗ but i'm hoping that this work would

1:40:24 ↗ be a sort of taking the long view

1:40:28 ↗ for the city for the community and if

1:40:30 ↗ that's something this community needs to

1:40:32 ↗ consider

1:40:34 ↗ hopefully this this assessment helps us

1:40:36 ↗ identify that

1:40:39 ↗ yeah and then i would the last thing i

1:40:41 ↗ know i said the last one was laughing

1:40:42 ↗ but that maybe this one will be um i did

1:40:46 ↗ we've received an email from connie

1:40:49 ↗ about wetlands

1:40:50 ↗ and you know critical areas and i do

1:40:52 ↗ hope that that is you know part of this

1:40:54 ↗ evaluation because like sometimes it

1:40:56 ↗ feels like

1:40:58 ↗ you know sometimes we're looking at you

1:41:00 ↗ know pieces of property just like on a

1:41:02 ↗ map and like it's easy it looks it looks

1:41:04 ↗ a lot different when you're actually

1:41:06 ↗ like you know feet on the ground and

1:41:08 ↗ like the reality of like the muck and

1:41:10 ↗ the

1:41:11 ↗ you know the wetness of some of our land

1:41:14 ↗ um so hopefully jen you're naughty

1:41:16 ↗ nodding so is that part of the process

1:41:20 ↗ correct

1:41:22 ↗ we will be looking at existing field

1:41:24 ↗ conditions um but to go out and do a

1:41:27 ↗ wetland study or critical areas study

1:41:31 ↗ for each of these sites would be cost

1:41:33 ↗ prohibitive um so right now we're just

1:41:36 ↗ looking at high level you know obviously

1:41:38 ↗ we're coming into the wet season it's

1:41:40 ↗ really good time for us to do this work

1:41:42 ↗ so we can see if there's areas of

1:41:43 ↗ standing water which could allude to

1:41:46 ↗ greater problems we know at tibbetts

1:41:48 ↗ valley park we have additional

1:41:50 ↗ influences that are happening out there

1:41:53 ↗ that's going to be part of that master

1:41:54 ↗ planning work as we start going into

1:41:57 ↗ each of these areas if we know there's

1:41:59 ↗ another park or another programmed space

1:42:02 ↗ that is having some of those capacity or

1:42:04 ↗ what issues

1:42:06 ↗ we'll definitely be paying attention to

1:42:08 ↗ those but we're not going to be able to

1:42:09 ↗ fund

1:42:11 ↗ critical area studies for each of these

1:42:12 ↗ at this stage of the game is just cost

1:42:14 ↗ prohibitive

1:42:16 ↗ so jen along those lines and along what

1:42:18 ↗ connie had mentioned can that at least

1:42:20 ↗ be done at tibbetts and veterans since

1:42:23 ↗ that's the next two

1:42:26 ↗ master plans that we would be working on

1:42:30 ↗ that work is being done

1:42:33 ↗ in that master planning work

1:42:35 ↗ so so um tibbetts for example um you

1:42:40 ↗ know as as we've um

1:42:44 ↗ then going through the pandemic

1:42:46 ↗ um some of the work that we've been

1:42:48 ↗ doing with the consultant team is

1:42:50 ↗ looking at some of those conditions

1:42:52 ↗ looking at the

1:42:54 ↗ um

1:42:55 ↗ um

1:42:57 ↗ the water flow at tibbetts valley park

1:42:59 ↗ understanding uh where water is and

1:43:01 ↗ where water is going and so

1:43:04 ↗ some of that

1:43:05 ↗ um really really important work um and i

1:43:08 ↗ would agree with connie that's a really

1:43:10 ↗ important baseline work that is

1:43:11 ↗ happening through

1:43:13 ↗ the site-specific work um

1:43:16 ↗ just to say what jenna's saying this

1:43:18 ↗ high-level

1:43:19 ↗ city-wide assessment is not necessarily

1:43:23 ↗ the scope that we're going to try and do

1:43:25 ↗ deep critical area analysis on every one

1:43:27 ↗ of those

1:43:28 ↗ the sites but that is a really really

1:43:31 ↗ important step as we start to get

1:43:33 ↗ site specific

1:43:36 ↗ chris i think i saw your hand

1:43:40 ↗ um the

1:43:42 ↗ recommendations there will they include

1:43:46 ↗ i want to confirm so you might look at

1:43:48 ↗ like a

1:43:49 ↗ middle school field that's not lighted

1:43:52 ↗ but if it were lighted you could get so

1:43:53 ↗ many more hours of use

1:43:56 ↗ per day and per year and so it will

1:43:58 ↗ include options like that even if that's

1:44:00 ↗ something the district may have

1:44:02 ↗ previously not been in favor of

1:44:10 ↗ yeah adding field lights to a single

1:44:12 ↗ field

1:44:13 ↗ is

1:44:14 ↗ maybe

1:44:15 ↗ single digit or very low percentage of

1:44:18 ↗ the cost of a whole new field just to

1:44:20 ↗ get lights

1:44:22 ↗ right right so we will be making

1:44:25 ↗ recommendations for those areas but of

1:44:27 ↗ course achieving them will take

1:44:29 ↗ partnership and a lot of efforts to make

1:44:33 ↗ happen but yes we are look taking a look

1:44:35 ↗ at those and the district is

1:44:36 ↗ appreciating us

1:44:37 ↗ um having that perspective

1:44:40 ↗ are both those entities the state park

1:44:42 ↗ and the district receptive to these

1:44:43 ↗ ideas or are they

1:44:45 ↗ what's your perception of that yeah

1:44:48 ↗ again state park being there in a master

1:44:51 ↗ planning effort they're very in tune to

1:44:53 ↗ wanting to

1:44:55 ↗ they've done some work already as part

1:44:56 ↗ of their eis statement we're

1:45:00 ↗ working with the information they're

1:45:01 ↗ providing us but also we're not wanting

1:45:03 ↗ to get too ahead of where they're at

1:45:05 ↗ knowing they're gonna have some

1:45:06 ↗ information about their fields coming

1:45:08 ↗ out um here in the near future for the

1:45:10 ↗ public so

1:45:12 ↗ we're working really closely with them

1:45:13 ↗ as far as timing on some of that and

1:45:16 ↗ then also the school district they're

1:45:18 ↗ very much leaning in

1:45:19 ↗ from our conversation on the 16th

1:45:22 ↗ they look forward to what

1:45:24 ↗ recommendations and how

1:45:26 ↗ we can better serve

1:45:28 ↗ residents and the public

1:45:32 ↗ yeah the meeting on the 16th chris as i

1:45:34 ↗ said i i appreciated that the

1:45:36 ↗ representation from both state parks and

1:45:38 ↗ the district was very strong they seem

1:45:40 ↗ very supportive in this i think your

1:45:42 ↗ example is spot on right how can

1:45:45 ↗ we look at big and relatively small

1:45:48 ↗ investments to increase capacity uh

1:45:51 ↗ within athletic fields um

1:45:53 ↗ to danielle's point right the the fields

1:45:55 ↗ at central park the two baseball fields

1:45:57 ↗ that are

1:45:59 ↗ quite small quite frankly and very

1:46:01 ↗ limiting

1:46:03 ↗ are there opportunities to to look at

1:46:05 ↗ making those incrementally a little bit

1:46:07 ↗ bigger so they can handle more

1:46:10 ↗ baseball softball capacity so these

1:46:12 ↗ recommendations um could take a myriad

1:46:14 ↗ of forms uh but really a chance for us

1:46:17 ↗ to

1:46:20 ↗ look at all of these public publicly

1:46:22 ↗ owned fields and

1:46:24 ↗ see how we can

1:46:26 ↗ maybe squeeze out some additional

1:46:27 ↗ capacity

1:46:29 ↗ get a good return on an investment

1:46:35 ↗ marlene

1:46:37 ↗ yeah a quick question for you just

1:46:39 ↗ i am involved a little bit with the it's

1:46:40 ↗ called little league and i know they are

1:46:42 ↗ always you know interested in fields and

1:46:44 ↗ all those things uh as we are looking at

1:46:47 ↗ some mamish

1:46:48 ↗ curious if people are open to you know

1:46:50 ↗ combining efforts or if there has been

1:46:52 ↗ any conversations about combining

1:46:54 ↗ efforts with some of the non-profit

1:46:55 ↗ sports leagues

1:46:57 ↗ look at grants or funding for some of

1:46:59 ↗ the improvements of this park i don't

1:47:00 ↗ know if that's in scope for what we're

1:47:02 ↗ currently doing or if this is just

1:47:03 ↗ really an evaluation

1:47:05 ↗ but it seems like there might be an

1:47:08 ↗ opportunity to combine forces with some

1:47:10 ↗ of these youth programs as it relates to

1:47:12 ↗ grants and those types of things

1:47:16 ↗ yeah marlene that's a great question i

1:47:18 ↗ that's probably outside the scope of

1:47:21 ↗ this

1:47:22 ↗ higher elevation work

1:47:24 ↗ i think as state parks and and the fact

1:47:26 ↗ that they're tuned into this work as

1:47:28 ↗ they're also doing their master plan

1:47:30 ↗ i think some of those conversations

1:47:33 ↗ really fit well within the master plan

1:47:36 ↗ work that they're

1:47:37 ↗ they're doing and will be sort of coming

1:47:39 ↗ out

1:47:40 ↗ in parallel or parallel timing wise

1:47:43 ↗ to this effort so

1:47:45 ↗ um i think as we're engaging with them

1:47:47 ↗ on this effort as they're completing

1:47:49 ↗ their master plan

1:47:51 ↗ i think some of those creative ideas

1:47:54 ↗ are really really important they

1:47:56 ↗ currently work with a a

1:47:59 ↗ non-profit partner

1:48:03 ↗ in the operation of those fields already

1:48:04 ↗ uh the the issaquah soccer club so

1:48:09 ↗ yeah i know they have those two baseball

1:48:10 ↗ fields but and i don't know if it was

1:48:12 ↗ because of drainage issues but they're

1:48:13 ↗ not usable i wasn't quite sure i don't

1:48:14 ↗ get swampy back there

1:48:16 ↗ um

1:48:17 ↗ but i know we have people driving way

1:48:19 ↗ out um to do use baseball fields so it'd

1:48:22 ↗ be nice to make use of those fields

1:48:25 ↗ and i know that there is interest in

1:48:27 ↗ getting creative and and you know the

1:48:30 ↗ league wanting to put in some legwork

1:48:32 ↗ in partnership with the mammoth ship i

1:48:34 ↗ don't know brad if you're on that group

1:48:35 ↗ as well

1:48:37 ↗ but if we want to make that connection

1:48:38 ↗ offline happy to do that

1:48:41 ↗ i think that historically that that was

1:48:43 ↗ those those fields were a long time ago

1:48:45 ↗ used by as they called little league and

1:48:47 ↗ were maintained by them when they were

1:48:49 ↗ doing that that was before my kids were

1:48:51 ↗ in little league but

1:48:53 ↗ there was

1:48:54 ↗ historical precedence for that

1:48:57 ↗ marlene we could put you in touch with

1:48:59 ↗ state parks it's probably best a direct

1:49:01 ↗ conversation with with state parks

1:49:03 ↗ and their master planning effort

1:49:06 ↗ and what they're thinking of doing with

1:49:07 ↗ that

1:49:09 ↗ with that part of the park

1:49:11 ↗ i will say i do know that part of the

1:49:12 ↗ park there's a lot of

1:49:15 ↗ wetland and stream buffer issues in

1:49:17 ↗ there which i think is also part of why

1:49:19 ↗ those fields have been rendered um not

1:49:22 ↗ highly used at this time

1:49:24 ↗ that was one of my um

1:49:27 ↗ you know one of my hunches but i figured

1:49:29 ↗ it was worth doing some research to

1:49:30 ↗ understand

1:49:32 ↗ yeah there's a lot of critical areas in

1:49:33 ↗ there yeah that's the primary issue is

1:49:36 ↗ the

1:49:37 ↗ the wetness of those fields and then and

1:49:39 ↗ from early parts of the plan of what

1:49:41 ↗ i've seen they're actually considering

1:49:43 ↗ other usage uh beyond fuel

1:49:46 ↗ ball fields and stuff for that area

1:49:50 ↗ um

1:49:51 ↗ where they could actually use portions

1:49:53 ↗ of that area and not necessarily have to

1:49:55 ↗ you know mitigate quite so much

1:49:58 ↗ as they would to use those fields

1:50:01 ↗ more universally

1:50:06 ↗ um

1:50:08 ↗ actually my only question jan is there a

1:50:09 ↗ timeline to when this assessment will be

1:50:12 ↗ completed

1:50:14 ↗ uh we're hoping to finish this in by

1:50:17 ↗ keep by q3 so pretty quick timeline on

1:50:22 ↗ this um just given the depth of

1:50:24 ↗ information i know they're going to be

1:50:25 ↗ going out and doing some site visits

1:50:27 ↗ here in the next week or two

1:50:30 ↗ so um

1:50:31 ↗ hopefully not too long

1:50:33 ↗ of a timeline

1:50:34 ↗ the public engagement piece might push

1:50:36 ↗ that a little bit but um as we get ready

1:50:39 ↗ to

1:50:39 ↗ for the the engagement with the sports

1:50:41 ↗ teams um as we finalize those efforts

1:50:45 ↗ but

1:50:46 ↗ we're looking at q1 uh q3 right now

1:50:49 ↗ so should have that in place before we

1:50:51 ↗ make any final decisions on master

1:50:54 ↗ planning of

1:50:55 ↗ tibbetts and

1:50:57 ↗ veterans correct

1:51:02 ↗ any other questions or comments for jan

1:51:04 ↗ on this topic

1:51:09 ↗ not seeing anything thank you jennifer

1:51:10 ↗ appreciate that

1:51:15 ↗ i guess that moves us on to reports

1:51:19 ↗ and uh

1:51:20 ↗ looks like

1:51:22 ↗ jeff you don't you don't need any uh

1:51:24 ↗ relief here because you didn't have

1:51:26 ↗ anything in the main part of the of the

1:51:28 ↗ discussion here so you ought to be good

1:51:29 ↗ to go here right wow

1:51:32 ↗ i guess i'm not out of words other than

1:51:34 ↗ out of time so a couple of items uh

1:51:37 ↗ really really quick um

1:51:40 ↗ boy one of the i think departmentally

1:51:42 ↗ one of our big um

1:51:45 ↗ work plan items

1:51:46 ↗ operational items this uh first couple

1:51:49 ↗ of months has been staffing so with

1:51:52 ↗ the 22

1:51:55 ↗ budget adoption

1:51:57 ↗ a number of staffing positions that we

1:51:59 ↗ had lost

1:52:00 ↗ through the pandemic uh we're we're

1:52:02 ↗ re-budgeted

1:52:03 ↗ uh we had a couple of um um key staff

1:52:07 ↗ that we lost towards the end of the year

1:52:08 ↗ so we've been in a pretty heavy

1:52:10 ↗ recruitment mode these first eight weeks

1:52:12 ↗ uh within um our recreation

1:52:16 ↗ team

1:52:17 ↗ we have a number of of uh positions a

1:52:20 ↗ senior center supervisor that will be

1:52:21 ↗ coming back a couple of key positions at

1:52:24 ↗ the community center

1:52:26 ↗ a position at the pool

1:52:28 ↗ as well as a position at the pickering

1:52:30 ↗ barn and the farmers market

1:52:33 ↗ have all been out for recruitment and

1:52:34 ↗ there are different

1:52:36 ↗ stages of

1:52:38 ↗ selection process within park operations

1:52:42 ↗ we have a park operations manager as

1:52:45 ↗ well as a couple of of our park

1:52:46 ↗ maintenance worker positions that are

1:52:49 ↗ um uh nearing the end of that

1:52:51 ↗ recruitment and should have staff on

1:52:53 ↗ board um here in the next

1:52:55 ↗ month for those positions so very

1:52:57 ↗ encouraging there

1:52:59 ↗ i think the other encouraging piece of

1:53:01 ↗ these recruitments is even in

1:53:04 ↗ i guess this

1:53:05 ↗ time of

1:53:07 ↗ the pandemic and

1:53:09 ↗ maybe at some point post-pandemic

1:53:12 ↗ recruitment has been

1:53:13 ↗ quite competitive

1:53:15 ↗ but really really pleased to announce

1:53:18 ↗ that

1:53:19 ↗ all of our

1:53:21 ↗ candidate pools have been incredibly

1:53:23 ↗ strong

1:53:24 ↗ i think it speaks well to

1:53:27 ↗ um

1:53:28 ↗ people want to come and work here in

1:53:29 ↗ this community and work in issaquah and

1:53:31 ↗ be part of the culture here in

1:53:34 ↗ the parks department so i've been very

1:53:36 ↗ very encouraged by that

1:53:38 ↗ as those new team members come on board

1:53:41 ↗ um

1:53:42 ↗ culture is really important to us as as

1:53:44 ↗ a department

1:53:46 ↗ and as we're committed to serving this

1:53:47 ↗ community you know anything we do

1:53:50 ↗ whether it's a capital project or

1:53:51 ↗ delivering a recreation program

1:53:54 ↗ it's really key that we do it we serve

1:53:57 ↗ people with people

1:53:59 ↗ and with key staff so

1:54:01 ↗ those have been high priorities for us

1:54:03 ↗ in getting

1:54:04 ↗ those positions filled with the right

1:54:06 ↗ people

1:54:07 ↗ one last item real fast last week at the

1:54:10 ↗ city council meeting on the 22nd of

1:54:12 ↗ february

1:54:13 ↗ council adopted

1:54:15 ↗ some modifications to our recreation

1:54:17 ↗ scholarship program

1:54:19 ↗ so

1:54:19 ↗ tip of the cap to you park board i know

1:54:21 ↗ we had come to you a couple months ago

1:54:23 ↗ with

1:54:24 ↗ uh some suggestions and how we were

1:54:25 ↗ looking at modifying that your feedback

1:54:28 ↗ really helped us to to shape up those

1:54:30 ↗ conversations with council

1:54:32 ↗ those modifications as i said were

1:54:34 ↗ adopted

1:54:35 ↗ [Music]

1:54:37 ↗ last week and we are now

1:54:40 ↗ getting those implemented um hats off

1:54:42 ↗ melissa thank you to you and the

1:54:44 ↗ recreation team so that those are ready

1:54:46 ↗ to go here in the next couple weeks as

1:54:48 ↗ summer day camp registrations and spring

1:54:51 ↗ and summer registrations

1:54:53 ↗ get underway

1:54:58 ↗ thanks for all that is that it jeff

1:55:00 ↗ yep

1:55:04 ↗ i just have a couple real quick things

1:55:08 ↗ uh

1:55:09 ↗ two of which are state park stuff um

1:55:13 ↗ sunset beach picnic area and the trails

1:55:17 ↗ planned at the state park are both

1:55:19 ↗ moving forward

1:55:21 ↗ with funding in place

1:55:24 ↗ for at least a portion of it

1:55:27 ↗ and the design process is about 70

1:55:30 ↗ percent complete i think on sunset

1:55:34 ↗ um

1:55:35 ↗ and so those will be nice uh uh

1:55:38 ↗ improvements at the state park um

1:55:42 ↗ and um

1:55:42 ↗ [Music]

1:55:44 ↗ the flisp group friends group is

1:55:46 ↗ actually having a little uh st patrick's

1:55:49 ↗ day event for something called the

1:55:51 ↗ shamrock stroll which is kind of an

1:55:54 ↗ informative

1:55:55 ↗ walk through the park and look at some

1:55:57 ↗ interpretive signage that starts

1:56:01 ↗ march 16th and runs through the 28th

1:56:04 ↗ and the last thing i have is

1:56:07 ↗ [Music]

1:56:09 ↗ i hope people that want to continue onto

1:56:11 ↗ the board where their terms have ended

1:56:14 ↗ got their applications in because that

1:56:16 ↗ was due by five o'clock today

1:56:19 ↗ uh and uh interviews will be conducted

1:56:23 ↗ in march

1:56:24 ↗ for

1:56:25 ↗ um

1:56:27 ↗ uh those positions that would uh

1:56:30 ↗ continue on for any of you that applied

1:56:33 ↗ uh

1:56:34 ↗ that will start in in may

1:56:36 ↗ and we had the eight positions open so

1:56:39 ↗ it's going to be fast and furious here

1:56:40 ↗ for jeff to pull all that together and

1:56:43 ↗ and

1:56:44 ↗ i guess myself to some extent but i'm

1:56:46 ↗ i'm having to apply myself so i won't be

1:56:49 ↗ on the interview team but

1:56:51 ↗ and jeff i assume will do some we can

1:56:54 ↗ talk further but some outreach to see if

1:56:56 ↗ we can pull together an interview team

1:56:58 ↗ for for some time in march

1:57:02 ↗ absolutely yep

1:57:04 ↗ and

1:57:05 ↗ that's all i had

1:57:07 ↗ and so i guess it's time to shine i

1:57:10 ↗ always hate to make uh

1:57:12 ↗ ryan uh and sean wait but uh at least

1:57:16 ↗ you get to see

1:57:18 ↗ all the juicy action that leads up to it

1:57:20 ↗ so on any of that

1:57:22 ↗ uh sean and uh ryan uh what do you have

1:57:26 ↗ for us for the

1:57:28 ↗ youth board

1:57:29 ↗ sean do you want to take the lead and

1:57:31 ↗ i'll follow up with filling in the gaps

1:57:33 ↗ sure

1:57:34 ↗ um i can intel intelligently talk about

1:57:38 ↗ two of the specific events that we're

1:57:40 ↗ doing to engage the community um at this

1:57:43 ↗ time with the youth board um one has

1:57:45 ↗ already passed um on february 11 the

1:57:48 ↗ youth board did a harry potter night

1:57:51 ↗ engaging the elementary school kids um

1:57:54 ↗ in a in-person event so

1:57:57 ↗ one of the first in-person events for um

1:58:00 ↗ elementary school kids for the city of

1:58:02 ↗ issaquah

1:58:04 ↗ we had quite a few i think 48 we had

1:58:06 ↗ like a full roster of kids come um and

1:58:09 ↗ enjoy a fun night of um activities

1:58:12 ↗ crafts um a little bit of sporting

1:58:15 ↗ action

1:58:16 ↗ um and it was overall a great success um

1:58:19 ↗ the youth board uh we

1:58:22 ↗ debriefed that event on the 15th in our

1:58:25 ↗ in our meeting um

1:58:27 ↗ and we're excited to perhaps do it again

1:58:30 ↗ next year um but it was a huge success

1:58:34 ↗ and the other event i want to touch on

1:58:36 ↗ is the one that's coming up in april

1:58:38 ↗ 23rd

1:58:39 ↗ we have an event for specifically high

1:58:41 ↗ school students also in person um

1:58:44 ↗ hopefully um the pandemic does not

1:58:46 ↗ exacerbate

1:58:48 ↗ the situation and cancel this event but

1:58:51 ↗ this has been a long time in the coming

1:58:53 ↗ we did plan a second annual version of

1:58:56 ↗ this event after the first one was a

1:58:58 ↗ huge success which did not happen due to

1:59:00 ↗ pandemic but now we're doing it for the

1:59:02 ↗ quote unquote third time it's the

1:59:04 ↗ dodgeball and donuts event where high

1:59:06 ↗ school students um come in teams of five

1:59:09 ↗ or six and are it is joined by a law

1:59:12 ↗ enforcement officer or first responder

1:59:16 ↗ off duty of course um and they're

1:59:18 ↗ playing a game of double elimination

1:59:20 ↗ dodgeball and we'll have donuts for

1:59:22 ↗ everyone at the end so those are the two

1:59:24 ↗ events we're planning or have planned

1:59:27 ↗ and is currently planning um ryan why

1:59:29 ↗ don't you give us

1:59:31 ↗ the rest yeah

1:59:33 ↗ uh so in terms of some past work earlier

1:59:36 ↗ this month a group of us came together

1:59:38 ↗ at the community center to make some

1:59:39 ↗ valentine's day cards for the senior

1:59:41 ↗ center so that was a really fun event

1:59:42 ↗ just to get together in person since the

1:59:44 ↗ last time we had an in-person meeting

1:59:45 ↗ was in december

1:59:47 ↗ um and to collaborate with the senior

1:59:48 ↗ center on that it was really fun just to

1:59:50 ↗ let our creative juices flow for a while

1:59:52 ↗ um in terms of some other future things

1:59:55 ↗ our annual state of mind conference is

1:59:57 ↗ happening i believe later this month and

1:59:58 ↗ so that's a mental behavioral health

2:00:00 ↗ conference

2:00:01 ↗ typically geared towards high schoolers

2:00:03 ↗ it's usually held at gibson act high

2:00:04 ↗ school

2:00:05 ↗ so we're hoping to have a lot of

2:00:06 ↗ interesting speakers for that um and

2:00:08 ↗ then finally

2:00:10 ↗ we are hoping to hold i want to say our

2:00:13 ↗ fifth annual triathlon izzy kids

2:00:15 ↗ triathlon in june and so that's a really

2:00:18 ↗ exciting opportunity to be able to hold

2:00:20 ↗ that for the first time in a couple

2:00:22 ↗ years

2:00:23 ↗ and have kids swimming at julia's bone

2:00:25 ↗ pool running around the community center

2:00:26 ↗ and biking

2:00:28 ↗ alongside the community center on that

2:00:29 ↗ trail over there reuben i have those key

2:00:32 ↗ clubs in mind they will be the first

2:00:33 ↗ people i will reach out to for

2:00:34 ↗ volunteers

2:00:36 ↗ um so yeah that is what we have in the

2:00:39 ↗ works for now

2:00:42 ↗ thank you for all that ryan and sean

2:00:44 ↗ especially for all the stuff that you do

2:00:46 ↗ for our youth and

2:00:47 ↗ and sharing that with us and i hope you

2:00:50 ↗ get to share a few of what we do with

2:00:52 ↗ them as well so anybody have any

2:00:54 ↗ questions or comments for either sean or

2:00:58 ↗ ryan

2:01:01 ↗ if not okay appreciate that and uh

2:01:04 ↗ we're off to the tail end here other

2:01:06 ↗ business or announcements anybody have

2:01:08 ↗ anything

2:01:12 ↗ not seeing anything

2:01:14 ↗ so i guess that means we've wrapped it

2:01:16 ↗ up somehow we squeeze it in thanks for

2:01:18 ↗ all your input here tonight and um

2:01:22 ↗ we'll try and make the best of it here

2:01:24 ↗ moving forward so

2:01:26 ↗ so with that have a good evening try and

2:01:29 ↗ stay dry

2:01:30 ↗ meeting is adjourned

2:01:33 ↗ thanks so much everybody thank you

2:01:35 ↗ disgusting

2:01:37 ↗ goodnight

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF