Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, June 26, 2014 · City Council Digest

2. COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Committee Members

packet pp.2

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · May 22, 2014

Open packet at p.2 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission About Contacts Created in 1983, this commission serves as a policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides guidance and direction for Issaquah’s Staff Liaison future growth through continued review and improvement to the Trish Heinonen, Planning City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related land use Manager documents. Email

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Meeting Minutes from June 12, 2014

packet pp.3–10

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · May 22, 2014

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MINUTES

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update: Utilities and Public Services Element and Capital Facilities Element

Jason Rogers, Associate Planner · packet pp.11–29

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

Summary: The Capital Facilities Element is a dense document filled with detailed analysis of levels of service and capital investment projections. While necessary under state law, the Element is cumbersome and not user friendly.

1393 segments .txt ↗

0:29 ↗ good good evening everybody and welcome

0:31 ↗ to the June 26th meeting of the planning

0:35 ↗ policy commission welcome all of you out

0:38 ↗ there uh tonight the first thing on our

0:41 ↗ agenda is approval of the minutes from

0:43 ↗ June the 12th do I have a motion to

0:46 ↗ approve the

0:47 ↗ minutes do I have a second is there any

0:50 ↗ discussion any changes all those in

0:53 ↗ favor say I I

0:56 ↗ opposed uh tonight we're going to have a

0:59 ↗ continuation of discussion on the

1:01 ↗ comprehensive Plan update tonight Jason

1:04 ↗ is going to give us an update on the

1:06 ↗ utilities and public services element

1:09 ↗ and the capital facilities element so

1:11 ↗ Jason we're waiting for your update okay

1:14 ↗ thank you uh good evening I'm Jason

1:16 ↗ Rogers associate planner with the

1:17 ↗ development services department and

1:19 ↗ we'll talk about the as as joanes said

1:23 ↗ we'll talk about the uh utilities

1:24 ↗ element and the capital facilities

1:27 ↗ element um so we we'll we'll reviewed

1:30 ↗ the revised draft so we looked at this a

1:32 ↗ month ago you gave us a lot of comments

1:34 ↗ and so we've made um some changes to

1:37 ↗ some of the goals and we've also added

1:38 ↗ in all of the policies um that that we

1:42 ↗ touched on but didn't really talk about

1:43 ↗ last

1:45 ↗ time just a quick reminder of the new

1:47 ↗ format we're looking at you've seen this

1:48 ↗ I think four or five times by

1:51 ↗ now and and then here's the basics again

1:53 ↗ so we've looked at goals um now we're

1:55 ↗ going to look uh more at the policies

1:57 ↗ that we've stuck in um and we're not

2:00 ↗ going to worry too much about

2:00 ↗ implementation at this

2:02 ↗ time so we'll start with the utilities

2:05 ↗ element

2:06 ↗ here and this is just a rehash of of

2:10 ↗ what you saw before about why the

2:11 ↗ utilities element is important um it's

2:14 ↗ talking about all of the um all the

2:17 ↗ utilities we have the sewer the water um

2:20 ↗ garbage things like that and how we

2:22 ↗ provide the service within City Limits

2:24 ↗ and also to how we would we would

2:25 ↗ provide service to potential annexation

2:27 ↗ areas um if they were to be annexed

2:31 ↗ the vision has not changed um there's

2:33 ↗ still a four-fold vision we'll ensure

2:35 ↗ that everything's maintained and

2:36 ↗ improved we'll coordinate the utilities

2:39 ↗ in our public

2:40 ↗ facilities um will encourage

2:42 ↗ conservation efforts and will'll provide

2:44 ↗ efficient and cost- effective um Public

2:48 ↗ Services um we won't don't need to go

2:50 ↗ over the GMA requirements unless you

2:52 ↗ have a specific question about them um

2:54 ↗ these have of course these have not

2:55 ↗ changed state law hasn't

2:58 ↗ changed so then we can get get into the

3:00 ↗ actual goals and so this first goal

3:04 ↗ hasn't um is the same goal you saw a

3:07 ↗ month ago let me find my text here and

3:10 ↗ there are seven policies that support

3:13 ↗ this particular goal and you can see

3:15 ↗ them starting on page 19 of your packet

3:17 ↗ I didn't list them on the PowerPoint

3:19 ↗ because that would be extremely

3:20 ↗ wordy um but like I said this this goal

3:25 ↗ um itself hasn't changed but what what

3:27 ↗ we did is the the former second goal

3:30 ↗ that you saw last month is gone and a

3:33 ↗ lot of it's been incorporated into this

3:35 ↗ goal and that's been incorporated as

3:37 ↗ policies and so for

3:40 ↗ example let me look up what we what I

3:42 ↗ showed you last month so last month the

3:46 ↗ second goal was saying facilitate the

3:47 ↗ provision of

3:48 ↗ reliable uh reliable utility and public

3:51 ↗ services that um that balance public

3:54 ↗ concerns over the potential safety and

3:56 ↗ health and it goes on for quite a while

3:58 ↗ that's now policy A2 under this goal um

4:02 ↗ because that was that wasn't really a

4:04 ↗ goal that's more a policy of how we want

4:05 ↗ to do things um and then the what we

4:08 ↗ then did is we pulled I pulled a lot of

4:11 ↗ the um policies that are present in in

4:14 ↗ the utility element today and

4:16 ↗ Incorporated them under this umbrella um

4:18 ↗ some of them have been rewarded I don't

4:19 ↗ want to go through all of them

4:21 ↗ explicitly but uh certainly if you have

4:23 ↗ a question about specific policy we put

4:25 ↗ in here I'd be happy to talk about it

4:34 ↗ okay we can always come back to this too

4:36 ↗ so uh the second goal goal B here uh

4:40 ↗ says the utility and land use plans

4:42 ↗ should be integrated to ensure utility

4:43 ↗ services are available to support

4:45 ↗ development and um this this goal was

4:50 ↗ present before it used to be number I

4:52 ↗ think was

4:54 ↗ it uh this used to be goal number four

4:57 ↗ so goal three was also removed and it's

4:59 ↗ now integrated under this goal three

5:01 ↗ formerly said process permits and

5:03 ↗ approvals for utility facilities in a

5:05 ↗ fair and timely manner again that

5:07 ↗ doesn't seem like much a goal that's a

5:08 ↗ policy that we should do and so this got

5:10 ↗ integrated under under this um so this

5:13 ↗ goal is now talking a lot about being

5:14 ↗ consistent with other

5:16 ↗ plans um and there are just there's only

5:19 ↗ two policies that support this this

5:20 ↗ particular goal we could certainly add

5:22 ↗ more we could take some take one of them

5:24 ↗ away um but the two policies are like I

5:27 ↗ said process the permits and approvals

5:29 ↗ you a fair timely manner and the second

5:31 ↗ one is require annexations before

5:33 ↗ extending City Public Services with the

5:36 ↗ exception that extensions outside the

5:37 ↗ city the city may be made in response to

5:40 ↗ a health emergency or threat to the city

5:42 ↗ aquifer that's a policy we have today um

5:45 ↗ it's a been long-standing City policy to

5:47 ↗ to do that um people make requests to

5:50 ↗ get city water Andor sewer services for

5:52 ↗ example mostly on East cougar Mound City

5:55 ↗ policy says we can't do that without an

5:57 ↗ annexation and um you okay uh there was

6:02 ↗ a um one change we made during our last

6:04 ↗ policy I forget to which section but I I

6:07 ↗ believe we expanded it um in terms of

6:10 ↗ response to just health or emergency

6:12 ↗ threat to the aquafer uh to City

6:14 ↗ resources more generally so that we

6:16 ↗ could respond to any um threats to those

6:20 ↗ resources rather than just limiting it

6:23 ↗ right okay I'll make that

6:27 ↗ note too many drafts running around

6:31 ↗ which city resour

6:34 ↗ okay any other comments

6:37 ↗ questions all right um so goal

6:41 ↗ C uh this is provide for the city's

6:45 ↗ long-term water needs um so this this

6:48 ↗ goal hasn't again this goal has not

6:50 ↗ changed this is the same water utility

6:51 ↗ goal you saw last time and I and while

6:53 ↗ it's long um part of the issue with the

6:57 ↗ with especially the specific water and

6:58 ↗ SE utility is that there are specific

7:01 ↗ plans for this we decided to move away

7:04 ↗ from Simply repeating all of the same

7:06 ↗ policies that are in the individual

7:09 ↗ utility plans and trying to to

7:11 ↗ streamline it down um the water utility

7:14 ↗ is still tricky though um so the goal

7:16 ↗ hasn't changed we cleaned up the

7:18 ↗ discussion a little bit in the in the

7:19 ↗ element itself and we've got it down to

7:22 ↗ 13 policies and there used to be I don't

7:24 ↗ even 20 something policies I believe

7:27 ↗ specific to water um so there was some

7:30 ↗ so we did quite a bit of

7:33 ↗ consolidation see here

7:36 ↗ sewer oops that's not the right

7:44 ↗ section no I'm sorry there were there

7:46 ↗ were 34 policies now there are 13 so we

7:50 ↗ did a lot of streamlining um we left the

7:53 ↗ implementation items out because the

7:55 ↗ utility system plans talk about

7:56 ↗ implementation fairly specifically um it

7:59 ↗ they talk say for example specific

8:01 ↗ measures to take to address fir flow

8:03 ↗ issues in certain water service areas of

8:06 ↗ the city um they talk about where uh

8:09 ↗ specific improvements to reservoirs

8:11 ↗ might be made might need to be made for

8:12 ↗ future um service expansion or you know

8:15 ↗ formerly at least for seismic safety you

8:18 ↗ know in response to the to the Nali

8:21 ↗ earthquake and and on and on and on

8:23 ↗ those things aren't necessary to have in

8:24 ↗ the conference of plan necessarily

8:26 ↗ they're um and so we we took those out

8:29 ↗ uh we did add a the policy the last

8:32 ↗ policy for this number 13 does

8:34 ↗ incorporate all of the policies of the

8:35 ↗ water system plan by reference so that

8:37 ↗ they're still technically in the

8:39 ↗ conference of plan even if they're not

8:40 ↗ specifically listed

8:43 ↗ anymore so we still have that connection

8:46 ↗ between the the system plan and the

8:48 ↗ comprensive

8:51 ↗ plan um I just have um one question I'm

8:54 ↗ not seeing anywhere in these policies a

8:57 ↗ specific uh reference to conservation

9:01 ↗ generally um I know there's an

9:03 ↗ encouragement of low impact

9:05 ↗ development um but nothing where we're

9:08 ↗ uh incorporating into the plan uh

9:10 ↗ conservation as a general principle or

9:12 ↗ policy we all right where'd it

9:16 ↗ go I thought we had that in

9:21 ↗ there that's

9:23 ↗ police I'm I'm sure it's in the water

9:25 ↗ system plan I mean I know it's a

9:28 ↗ requirement for water system plans to

9:30 ↗ have a actually a chapter on water use

9:34 ↗ efficiency by mandate so I mean yeah

9:38 ↗ it's not maybe in the comprehensive plan

9:39 ↗ but it's in the water system plan so

9:41 ↗ therefore it's in the comp plan sort of

9:44 ↗ I think the other challenge we we have

9:46 ↗ especially when it comes to conservation

9:48 ↗ items is there's there's a bit of a

9:51 ↗ moving Target with some of the

9:52 ↗ sustainability conservation items right

9:54 ↗ now because we're still kicking around

9:56 ↗ whether we want to have a completely

9:58 ↗ separate sustainability element of the

10:00 ↗ compens of plan or if we're going to

10:02 ↗ break all the various sustainability

10:03 ↗ goals and policies into um the component

10:07 ↗ elements uh so and I think that came up

10:09 ↗ during the land use discussion

10:10 ↗ especially where current today there's a

10:12 ↗ lot of things about sustainability that

10:13 ↗ are in the land use element even though

10:16 ↗ that may not be the best place for them

10:17 ↗ and so conservation is certainly

10:19 ↗ important and sustainability is

10:20 ↗ important we get at some aspects of it

10:23 ↗ in in some ways you we'll see it a

10:24 ↗ little more in the capital facilities

10:25 ↗ element um but that's something we'll

10:27 ↗ definitely keep in mind that if we don't

10:29 ↗ end up going that direction we'll make

10:30 ↗ sure to get some some more explicit

10:34 ↗ policies in here thank

10:42 ↗ you

10:44 ↗ okay uh this the goal for the sewer

10:47 ↗ utility um there it go this so This goal

10:51 ↗ got cut down a little bit uh it formerly

10:53 ↗ had some extra text talking about

10:55 ↗ through implementation of the policies

10:57 ↗ within the sewer system plan that's kind

10:58 ↗ of redundant

10:59 ↗ because that's the whole point here is

11:01 ↗ we we're going to we have these policies

11:03 ↗ we're going to make them happen so

11:05 ↗ deleted that that got added uh we added

11:09 ↗ again a reference to the sewer system

11:10 ↗ plan policies um in here it's the it's

11:13 ↗ the third of the policies cleaned up the

11:16 ↗ discussion a little bit um the sewer

11:19 ↗ system plan is

11:21 ↗ surprisingly um or or at least the

11:23 ↗ policies for it there like I said

11:25 ↗ there's only three because a lot of the

11:28 ↗ sewer things ultimately come down to

11:30 ↗ implementation and a lot of things are

11:32 ↗ contained within the sewer system plan

11:33 ↗ itself that don't necessarily need to be

11:36 ↗ related

11:37 ↗ here so one so some of the big ones is

11:40 ↗ simply that within the city limits we

11:42 ↗ want you to connect to the Sewer if at

11:44 ↗ all possible and we we discourage septic

11:47 ↗ systems U that's not to say you can't

11:49 ↗ have a septic system but we want people

11:52 ↗ to be on City

11:57 ↗ sewers all right uh surface water

12:00 ↗ drainage again this this goal got cut

12:03 ↗ down quite a bit because there were

12:05 ↗ references to the isqua creek

12:06 ↗ Basin and non-point action plan there's

12:09 ↗ the storm water management plan the

12:12 ↗ npdes um Phase 2 permit none of that

12:14 ↗ needs to be in the goal because those

12:16 ↗ are all policy items implementation

12:18 ↗ items and so those got removed from the

12:19 ↗ goal so the goal is reads a lot shorter

12:22 ↗ than it used to um those items made it

12:25 ↗ in as policies so policy E1 in this case

12:28 ↗ says

12:29 ↗ Implement those various plans I just

12:31 ↗ listed um and we can update that if we

12:34 ↗ ever adopt any any new plans talking

12:36 ↗ about how we want to protect the

12:38 ↗ Watershed and um and the lake and things

12:40 ↗ like that we clean the discussion again

12:42 ↗ we clean the discussion up a little bit

12:43 ↗ there's a there's still a couple

12:44 ↗ references to figures that we will um

12:47 ↗ finalize later this year when we get the

12:49 ↗ figures sorted

12:51 ↗ out um and then this again the policy is

12:55 ↗ a lot of talk about Implement

12:57 ↗ implementing these various plans and

12:58 ↗ then coordination uh so you know

13:00 ↗ coordinate with property owners along

13:02 ↗ the Creeks to deal to address um

13:04 ↗ flooding for example um coordinate with

13:09 ↗ with other

13:16 ↗ agencies private

13:19 ↗ utilities we didn't change this goal um

13:22 ↗ and we inser the policies there's five

13:24 ↗ of them uh one of them is about

13:27 ↗ soliciting Community input on the

13:29 ↗ sighting of proposed facilities which

13:31 ↗ could have significant impacts uh this

13:33 ↗ is especially appropriate uh I don't

13:35 ↗ know some of you may know that P sound

13:37 ↗ energy is currently in the process of

13:39 ↗ trying to site a new East Side

13:41 ↗ transmission line through Ron Newcastle

13:44 ↗ and bellw which and they're just

13:45 ↗ starting the process it is of course

13:46 ↗ contentious because people don't

13:49 ↗ necessarily like having power lines

13:50 ↗ running through their backyards and

13:51 ↗ these are big high voltage power lines

13:54 ↗ so that's just one example of a

13:55 ↗ situation where we would want you know

13:57 ↗ the utility to do significant public

13:59 ↗ Outreach and try to work with

14:00 ↗ communities to to site these facilities

14:02 ↗ in the best manner possible um another

14:06 ↗ policy is to require undergrounding

14:07 ↗ where it's reasonably feasible I know

14:09 ↗ that language is

14:11 ↗ pretty it it sounds very rubbery but

14:14 ↗ under you know undergrounding is

14:15 ↗ expensive and um it's not always

14:18 ↗ feasible in every place because

14:20 ↗ sometimes the impact of digging a giant

14:22 ↗ a giant trench in the ground is bigger

14:23 ↗ than having an ongoing visual impact but

14:26 ↗ that's a trade-off that you need to

14:27 ↗ analyze um

14:29 ↗ um and then we also included a policy to

14:32 ↗ talk about being consistent with the

14:33 ↗ city's land use goals and Regional

14:36 ↗ goals uh just to keep everything try to

14:38 ↗ keep everything pulling together and be

14:39 ↗ consistent with each

14:42 ↗ other for solid waste um this one this

14:47 ↗ goal got cut down just a little bit that

14:49 ↗ the very last sense in the former goal

14:50 ↗ which was encourage Solid Waste

14:52 ↗ reduction reuse and

14:53 ↗ recycling um throughout the city with

14:56 ↗ new construction that got pulled out and

14:57 ↗ it's now a policy under the goal um and

15:01 ↗ you can see that on the screen there

15:03 ↗ yeah um I just had uh one one issue with

15:07 ↗ this uh in the first paragraph we refer

15:09 ↗ to um Organics as yard debris and food

15:12 ↗ waste and then we switch back and just

15:15 ↗ um within the future conditions talk

15:17 ↗ about Recycling and yard debris

15:19 ↗ specifically rather than Organics so

15:21 ↗ just changing that to Organics

15:23 ↗ throughout for consistency all right

15:25 ↗ thank you

15:34 ↗ yeah and we looked for updated number so

15:36 ↗ in the discussion you know in the future

15:38 ↗ conditions that we're using a 2008

15:39 ↗ number and we're still looking for an

15:41 ↗ updated number from from the office of

15:43 ↗ sustainability but we haven't gotten it

15:45 ↗ as of when I had to put this together so

15:48 ↗ we will get that updated by the end of

15:49 ↗ the

15:53 ↗ year for public

15:57 ↗ services um again this goal got

16:01 ↗ significantly cut down used to be close

16:04 ↗ to a whole paragraph in length now it's

16:06 ↗ we we tried to make it the short concise

16:08 ↗ sentence talking about we just want to

16:11 ↗ provide police fire and emergency

16:13 ↗ medical needs that's a pretty succinct

16:15 ↗ goal um this the part of the sense we

16:17 ↗ removed is now again a policy there's

16:19 ↗ three policy oops I'm looking at the

16:22 ↗ wrong thing there are five policies

16:23 ↗ excuse

16:25 ↗ me um a lot of it's about coordination a

16:28 ↗ lot of it's about support in the you

16:29 ↗ know the fire department the police

16:32 ↗ department and so again pretty

16:39 ↗ straightforward essential public

16:41 ↗ facilities has not changed at all um and

16:44 ↗ the and the policies the three policies

16:47 ↗ we carried them over directly from the

16:49 ↗ existing comprehensive plan this is

16:50 ↗ something we don't like to address in

16:54 ↗ very much because the the requirements

16:56 ↗ under state law are pretty are fairly

16:57 ↗ specific um and so we don't actually

17:00 ↗ have a lot of leeway when it comes to

17:02 ↗ essential public

17:04 ↗ facilities we do include policies to to

17:08 ↗ try to have them be as comp you know as

17:10 ↗ compatible with our land use plans as

17:12 ↗ possible recognizing that sometimes

17:14 ↗ that's not necessarily

17:18 ↗ possible and then finally um we're still

17:20 ↗ reviewing the information technology

17:22 ↗ goal um simply ran out of time we're

17:24 ↗ still working through the the technology

17:27 ↗ task force recommendations

17:29 ↗ and there's and so that's that takes

17:31 ↗ some time to work through and there's

17:32 ↗ still some some other ongoing efforts

17:35 ↗ around the city that we're trying to to

17:36 ↗ plug into this well so we'll bring this

17:39 ↗ back in a lat the information technology

17:41 ↗ Parts back at a later

17:45 ↗ date so that is all of utilities and I

17:48 ↗ know we rolled through that a little

17:49 ↗ quickly so if anybody has questions I

17:52 ↗ can take them or I can move on to

17:53 ↗ Capital

17:57 ↗ facilities all right

18:01 ↗ um didn't change the vision GMA

18:03 ↗ requirements are still the GMA

18:05 ↗ requirements unfortunate fortunately or

18:10 ↗ unfortunately so on to the

18:14 ↗ goals

18:16 ↗ and let me go

18:19 ↗ here so this first goal um didn't change

18:22 ↗ from the last month um where this gets

18:26 ↗ and then we pulled in a lot some of the

18:28 ↗ existing policies four of them

18:30 ↗ specifically that really address this

18:33 ↗ goal so the first one and perhaps most

18:35 ↗ important one is have a six-year Capital

18:39 ↗ facilities plan um this is important

18:42 ↗ because this is how we essentially

18:43 ↗ implement this entire element this is

18:45 ↗ how we

18:46 ↗ identify where our public facilities are

18:49 ↗ what their capacities are are there

18:51 ↗ deficiencies how would we deal with

18:52 ↗ growth if it were to come and so this

18:55 ↗ that specific Capital facilities plan is

18:57 ↗ is the most important part so that's why

18:59 ↗ we identify it first and then we just

19:02 ↗ list off it's essentially a listing of

19:03 ↗ the GMA requirements I noted back here

19:06 ↗ how would you finance it um reassess the

19:09 ↗ land use element you have to have the

19:10 ↗ inventory the forecast and the locations

19:13 ↗ and

19:15 ↗ capacities so very rote but very

19:18 ↗ necessary under state

19:20 ↗ law uh goal B talks about level of

19:23 ↗ service

19:24 ↗ standards and this one

19:29 ↗ um again didn't change from last

19:32 ↗ month uh but there's 10 policies

19:35 ↗ underneath this and we really Tred to

19:37 ↗ consolidate some of the policies because

19:38 ↗ there there were quite there are quite a

19:40 ↗ lot of um Capital facilities policies

19:42 ↗ not all of which are actually fully

19:44 ↗ relevant this

19:46 ↗ one simply sets the level of service for

19:49 ↗ every Capital facility type we have so

19:51 ↗ it talks

19:53 ↗ about water it talk then it talks about

19:55 ↗ storm water management it talks about

19:56 ↗ sewer and then and and on Down the Line

19:58 ↗ we include references to say SM Plateau

20:01 ↗ Water and Sewer District were necessary

20:03 ↗ so yeah uh under B1 um that use of that

20:08 ↗ word

20:09 ↗ domestic um I I think we're referring to

20:12 ↗ that as GE Geographic but the term could

20:16 ↗ also mean um you know household as

20:19 ↗ opposed to business and I just want to

20:22 ↗ ensure that that's clear that we're um

20:25 ↗ ensuring a reliable water supply not

20:26 ↗ just for housing but for businesses as

20:28 ↗ well that that's the implic so under the

20:31 ↗ the way the water system plan is set up

20:33 ↗ that's what it means um we're not

20:34 ↗ looking to provide we're not looking to

20:36 ↗ provide irrigation water I think is the

20:38 ↗ major differentiation

20:40 ↗ here but I'll I'll check with Public

20:43 ↗ Works about changing their the wording a

20:45 ↗ little bit see if and see if that can

20:47 ↗ work for

20:49 ↗ them Jason yeah in uh policy

20:54 ↗ B7 yes uh there's one officer for every

20:58 ↗ every 800 1 76 calls and 145 criminal

21:03 ↗ investigations what

21:05 ↗ if it explodes and there more do you

21:09 ↗ more

21:10 ↗ officers um yeah are there more cost do

21:13 ↗ you add more police how do you change

21:15 ↗ the so so that number comes straight out

21:17 ↗ of the current police rate um police

21:20 ↗ impact rate

21:21 ↗ study uh and so that's that was analyzed

21:24 ↗ by a one of our Consultants who also

21:27 ↗ works who works for the on all of our

21:29 ↗ level of service and impact fees and

21:31 ↗ things like that and so that's and I'll

21:33 ↗ admit that the rate study at this point

21:35 ↗ is from 2008 I believe so it's somewhat

21:37 ↗ old

21:39 ↗ um we're not the C so the the city is

21:43 ↗ not necessarily locked into specifically

21:46 ↗ providing one for 876 this is a metric

21:48 ↗ that informs the council that hey this

21:50 ↗ is the standard we've set this is the

21:51 ↗ standard we we've researched and found

21:53 ↗ works for the city and so if we start

21:57 ↗ getting more calls for Serv maybe that

21:59 ↗ means we need more police officers but

22:00 ↗ if we get fewer maybe it means we're

22:02 ↗ doing a great job and you know we don't

22:05 ↗ we don't need to hire a police officer

22:07 ↗ instead of may we thought we did okay I

22:09 ↗ just want to make sure it wasn't tied

22:11 ↗ into those numbers and that you could

22:12 ↗ change or do whatever you yeah we we

22:14 ↗ definitely

22:22 ↗ can

22:24 ↗ um so practically speaking it does for

22:27 ↗ example the the number of the number of

22:30 ↗ total calls for service over the last

22:32 ↗ five or six years has actually remained

22:34 ↗ very static as the city has continued to

22:36 ↗ grow and expand and so by the level of

22:40 ↗ by the level of service metric we don't

22:41 ↗ need to hire more police officers and

22:43 ↗ fact matters we haven't really hired

22:45 ↗ that many police officers in the last

22:46 ↗ five years but we but we've hired can't

22:49 ↗ remember the number it's it's a couple

22:50 ↗ of new officers because the city is

22:52 ↗ physically you know the city's

22:53 ↗ physically a little bit larger um

22:56 ↗ there's more activity around

22:59 ↗ and

22:59 ↗ so the the difficulty with especially

23:03 ↗ with for police level of service is that

23:06 ↗ police officers are not

23:08 ↗ Capital you don't go out and just you

23:10 ↗ know buy a robot and that's your police

23:12 ↗ officer you buy you know police officers

23:13 ↗ are people and so the rat what the rate

23:15 ↗ study actually does is it

23:17 ↗ relates um this all back to police cars

23:21 ↗ because cars are capital and the general

23:23 ↗ standard is two officers per car and so

23:25 ↗ that's how we kind of back into a level

23:26 ↗ of service for police in a in a Capital

23:28 ↗ facilities manner um it's a little

23:31 ↗ awkward I will admit um but what that

23:33 ↗ lets you do is it lets you um you know

23:37 ↗ they could change the standard and say

23:38 ↗ we're going to have three officers per

23:40 ↗ car we're going to have one officer per

23:41 ↗ car and that would really mess with the

23:44 ↗ with this standard but it's it works and

23:46 ↗ we're as it turns out we're doing just

23:49 ↗ fine on the level of service metric so

23:51 ↗ it does very it does vary um quite a bit

23:55 ↗ year to year but overall we're fine and

23:57 ↗ and maybe the concern is the that we're

24:01 ↗ not capturing that there is that ability

24:03 ↗ to fluctuate you know as we're doing

24:06 ↗ better than those levels now um maybe

24:08 ↗ that's a problem with the goal in terms

24:10 ↗ of expressing that these are minimal

24:12 ↗ level of service standards and not not

24:15 ↗ the

24:16 ↗ cap right

24:22 ↗ um yeah we could see

24:25 ↗ here so I mean if if the goal was

24:28 ↗ suggest set minimal level of service

24:30 ↗ standards or to be used um I think that

24:36 ↗ would cor would help us all with yeah

24:39 ↗ building in that fluctuation well and I

24:41 ↗ think the I mean ultimately the langu

24:43 ↗ the language does say shall be used to

24:45 ↗ evaluate adequate level of service

24:47 ↗ doesn't say this is you are you must

24:49 ↗ provide this period end of story um it's

24:53 ↗ it's an evaluation tool not

24:55 ↗ a not a a hard this is it because then

25:00 ↗ we'd have if you did that we'd see you

25:01 ↗ know you could theoretically see some

25:03 ↗ year-to-year fluctuations where okay

25:05 ↗ we've got a lay off of police officer oh

25:06 ↗ now we have to next year we have to hire

25:08 ↗ two police officers you know and that's

25:10 ↗ not good for anything um B6 and B7 are

25:15 ↗ the Crux of my concern uh as the uh

25:20 ↗ Central esqua plan goes into effect uh

25:23 ↗ and high density becomes a reality uh

25:26 ↗ are the standards for fire protection as

25:29 ↗ well as uh police protection

25:33 ↗ realistic I don't know as I said there

25:36 ↗ so the rate study for fire service is

25:38 ↗ actually very old it's almost 15 years

25:40 ↗ old now because it um predates Eide fire

25:44 ↗ and rescue we we've had to keep it

25:47 ↗ around because we need a way to analyze

25:49 ↗ fire service for the city if it had a

25:51 ↗ separate fire department um in practice

25:55 ↗ that's clearly not the way we operate

25:57 ↗ East Side Fire and Rescue who determines

25:59 ↗ whether they're meeting their response

26:00 ↗ times and things like that and so um

26:04 ↗ this is again this is informational it's

26:06 ↗ not something that we're locked into um

26:09 ↗ we have a brand new fire station on

26:10 ↗ Maple Street next to the transit center

26:12 ↗ they've got some nice equipment

26:14 ↗ there as population grows especially as

26:17 ↗ we implement the centrala plan East Side

26:19 ↗ Fire is probably going to have to

26:20 ↗ acquire some different equipment to be

26:21 ↗ able to to deal with um the types of

26:25 ↗ buildings we're looking to have you know

26:26 ↗ fighting a fire in a large

26:28 ↗ residential apartment structure is

26:30 ↗ pretty is somewhat different from

26:32 ↗ fighting a single family home fire and

26:34 ↗ they'll have to address that

26:35 ↗ but whether they need more fire stations

26:38 ↗ or not is you know that's what this

26:40 ↗ level of service metric addresses

26:43 ↗ specifically

26:45 ↗ um

26:46 ↗ and my concern is a little bit different

26:49 ↗ your standards are being

26:51 ↗ developed uh Based on data after the

26:54 ↗ fact

26:57 ↗ uh high density uh May demand uh

27:01 ↗ anticipation rather than uh followup

27:05 ↗ afterwards in other words what I'm

27:07 ↗ saying is that high density will produce

27:11 ↗ a higher potential for uh for fire uh

27:15 ↗ disastrous fire and high density will

27:19 ↗ perhaps create an increase in crime we

27:21 ↗ don't know that but I think we have to

27:23 ↗ anticipate the possibility yeah and and

27:26 ↗ and we do anticipate it um you know for

27:28 ↗ fire specifically you know multif family

27:31 ↗ structures T generally require

27:33 ↗ sprinklers that reduces fire danger

27:36 ↗ significantly for just for one example

27:39 ↗ so while this is the level of service

27:41 ↗ metric there's very very specific things

27:43 ↗ that are done when reviewing permits

27:45 ↗ that address some of these issues that

27:47 ↗ make it so that because the level of

27:49 ↗ service is a very very high

27:51 ↗ level

27:53 ↗ metric and when you get to the specifics

27:57 ↗ there's some a lot of things we do or

27:58 ↗ don't

27:59 ↗ do um within that yeah mik so I I really

28:03 ↗ started this discussion based on just

28:06 ↗ can we change and expand and and if

28:09 ↗ there are problems and more people and

28:11 ↗ more uh the demand for more services

28:14 ↗ that uh we are not restricted to this we

28:17 ↗ can go and plan in the future but how

28:19 ↗ often do you update the comp plan the

28:22 ↗ comp plan is updated every year okay so

28:24 ↗ next year if we have a problem and it

28:27 ↗ looks like we're going to get more

28:29 ↗ problems in the city then you can adjust

28:32 ↗ this at that time which means that the

28:34 ↗ uh budget will be adjusted based on the

28:37 ↗ need for new

28:40 ↗ Services yeah yeah I think I think the

28:43 ↗ question kind

28:45 ↗ of Falls around the word shall be and

28:49 ↗ that is that it's a fixed number you

28:53 ↗ know the protection shall be per five

28:57 ↗ acres five five square miles but if you

29:00 ↗ take five square miles of single family

29:01 ↗ homes or five square miles of of

29:04 ↗ condominium developments they're totally

29:07 ↗ two different things right I think

29:09 ↗ that's what might be the concern yeah

29:13 ↗ yeah I would point out that the current

29:15 ↗ you know that that point well the the

29:19 ↗ one per five square miles is based you

29:21 ↗ know like I said it's somewhat old but

29:22 ↗ it's still based on significant parts of

29:24 ↗ the city were residential significant

29:26 ↗ parts of the city were commercial

29:27 ↗ develop

29:28 ↗ and so in aggregate it works

29:31 ↗ out

29:33 ↗ um and and like like Jan was pointing

29:35 ↗ out this can be reevaluated in the

29:37 ↗ future it's likely it will um one thing

29:40 ↗ we need to do is we do need to update

29:41 ↗ the rate studies every so often it's

29:44 ↗ been a while due to a variety of factors

29:47 ↗ but uh for example we're updating the

29:48 ↗ transportation the transportation rate

29:51 ↗ study and the concurrency model um

29:53 ↗ that's been going that's been going on

29:55 ↗ for a little over a year and we're

29:56 ↗ trying to have it done by the end of

29:57 ↗ this year we're looking at the parks

29:59 ↗ impact fee and rate study this year as

30:02 ↗ well and so we are slowly starting to

30:03 ↗ update these and bring them more into

30:05 ↗ compli you know more more into

30:07 ↗ conformance with what's on the ground

30:09 ↗ now and what the city's plans are for

30:10 ↗ the future

30:12 ↗ so I do want to go on record as uh as

30:16 ↗ saying that we need to be concerned in

30:18 ↗ terms of what we're going to do if in

30:20 ↗ other words consider possible worst case

30:24 ↗ and be able to uh have plans for how

30:26 ↗ we're going into Finance

30:28 ↗ whatever uh additions

30:31 ↗ changes uh increase in infrastructure is

30:34 ↗ necessary and this goes across the board

30:36 ↗ by the way it's not just police and fire

30:38 ↗ protection it's sewage it's uh it's all

30:43 ↗ infrastructure uh I I'm concerned that

30:46 ↗ the plan is a good plan but the

30:49 ↗ implementation has to anticipate worst

30:54 ↗ case okay any other questions I

30:59 ↗ question

31:10 ↗ yes curious if there's if we're also

31:14 ↗ doing a square footage type of level of

31:17 ↗ service concerned that if we keep

31:19 ↗ growing and we kind of forget that

31:21 ↗ element that you know we're not going to

31:23 ↗ have enough open space I'm just kind of

31:25 ↗ curious how that's Incorporated so the

31:28 ↗ parks level of service was set where it

31:31 ↗ is because it gives the council

31:33 ↗ significant flexibility in how

31:35 ↗ they in in what they do with the money

31:38 ↗ right and and I so I like that that it's

31:40 ↗ there but when it comes to you know a

31:43 ↗ level of service I'd like to see how

31:45 ↗ many how much open space there is per

31:50 ↗ capita and and kind of get a

31:53 ↗ quantifiable measure there let me see I

31:57 ↗ think

31:58 ↗ and we took and we're taking the all

32:00 ↗ these tables out because they're they're

32:03 ↗ problematic to update they're

32:05 ↗ problematic to update on the conference

32:07 ↗ of plan cycle um but

32:11 ↗ the the parks level of service standards

32:13 ↗ and this dates back to the um the rate

32:17 ↗ study which is

32:20 ↗ from I don't know when the last rate

32:23 ↗ study is um and this is being updated

32:25 ↗ now but um in the current comp

32:28 ↗ Conference of plan table CF 14 here let

32:34 ↗ me

32:40 ↗ see there so so this is this is the

32:44 ↗ table from the um this is in the current

32:47 ↗ conference plan and this shows back when

32:49 ↗ the rat say was in I can't remember the

32:50 ↗ date for this to be honest looks like

32:52 ↗ 2006 um what we had how many square feet

32:57 ↗ how many

32:58 ↗ uh and it doesn't break it down per

33:00 ↗ capita it breaks it into a dollar value

33:02 ↗ because this is how the rate study was

33:03 ↗ functioning but the information does

33:05 ↗ exist the parks department does actually

33:08 ↗ have keep a a list of you know how many

33:11 ↗ Community Parks do we need like

33:13 ↗ Confluence Park for example how many tot

33:14 ↗ Lots do we need and they do strive to at

33:17 ↗ Le proposed projects that would get us

33:19 ↗ there but you know for example in the

33:21 ↗ recent economic environment it's been

33:23 ↗ very advantageous to the city to buy

33:25 ↗ land so we oops

33:48 ↗ um so we bought a lot of land um C you

33:51 ↗ know recently we've we've spent a lot of

33:53 ↗ money on Confluence Park because you

33:55 ↗ know that we we recognize the need for a

33:57 ↗ large park in that area of the city the

33:59 ↗ central qua plan talks about the variety

34:02 ↗ of different neighborhood parks that are

34:03 ↗ going to be necessary around those

34:05 ↗ different areas as they grow and so

34:06 ↗ we've certainly taken it into taken it

34:08 ↗ into account it it isn't necessarily

34:10 ↗ reflected in at at this very high level

34:13 ↗ in the conference of plan yeah but but

34:16 ↗ specific plans do take this into account

34:19 ↗ um I think when uh the you guys are

34:22 ↗ supposed to see the parks element I

34:23 ↗ believe at your next meeting and so

34:26 ↗ there'll be more detail about how we

34:28 ↗ plan for parks at that point

34:38 ↗ okay

34:40 ↗ okay we all good on level of

34:46 ↗ service okay um goal C States quite

34:51 ↗ simply

34:52 ↗ correct existing deficiencies this is a

34:55 ↗ little bit of a this is again com from

34:58 ↗ the growth management act it's one of

35:00 ↗ the things we're required to do and so

35:02 ↗ the policies under under this goal talk

35:05 ↗ about we need an inventory we have to

35:06 ↗ identify solutions to identify

35:09 ↗ deficiencies and we have to have a

35:11 ↗ prioritized strategy for correcting the

35:12 ↗ deficiencies and that strategy has to be

35:14 ↗ consistent with the land use element and

35:16 ↗ and its

35:20 ↗ goals um goal

35:23 ↗ D um really quickly going back to goal c

35:27 ↗ um now I know when we discussed this on

35:30 ↗ I believe it

35:31 ↗ was May

35:33 ↗ 22nd

35:36 ↗ um and I don't think we had the direct

35:39 ↗ policy in front of us inventorying the

35:41 ↗ facilities and services at least in

35:43 ↗ terms of the parks plan where we had a

35:45 ↗ table that showed uh how that goal

35:48 ↗ dollar was set um there wasn't any

35:51 ↗ inventory presented is this a new

35:53 ↗ requirement under the GMA or is this

35:55 ↗ something that had existed and we just

35:56 ↗ haven't seen this is something something

35:57 ↗ that's existed for a long long time um

36:01 ↗ the the inventories have always existed

36:02 ↗ but they've been scattered amongst

36:05 ↗ various plans the idea here is to pull

36:07 ↗ it all into the capital facilities plan

36:09 ↗ itself rather than having um so so

36:12 ↗ there's a you guys may not have seen but

36:14 ↗ there's a volume two to the conference

36:16 ↗ plan itself which has a lot of the

36:18 ↗ background data it has at the time it

36:20 ↗ was adopted of course but it has that in

36:22 ↗ that huge inventory of all the capital

36:24 ↗ facilities there's a map um

36:36 ↗ will look like a whole lot of

36:41 ↗ nothing so that looks like a whole lot

36:43 ↗ of nothing at that zoom level but that's

36:45 ↗ the map that's in the current Conference

36:46 ↗ of plan but it doesn't actually show

36:48 ↗ everything that shows a lot of the

36:50 ↗ facilities um you know for example there

36:52 ↗ are no utility facilities on there

36:56 ↗ um so that's something that we're

36:59 ↗ planning to update and make sure we have

37:00 ↗ it all pulled into one place because

37:02 ↗ it's not in one place and and so the

37:04 ↗ inventory as a whole doesn't

37:13 ↗ exist okay so goal D um this is actually

37:18 ↗ a brand new goal um you didn't you would

37:20 ↗ not have seen it last month and this was

37:22 ↗ we wrote this to kind of conglomerate

37:25 ↗ several of the ideas and goals that were

37:27 ↗ in the former capital facilities element

37:29 ↗ that were all talking about a similar

37:30 ↗ thing and there were a lot of policies

37:32 ↗ talking about a similar thing but they

37:33 ↗ were broken up and so we wanted to pull

37:35 ↗ aw this in and get under one

37:37 ↗ umbrella

37:40 ↗ um and this talks so the policies under

37:44 ↗ this talk a lot about you know we can

37:46 ↗ only allow development when we have the

37:48 ↗ the facilities and the essential

37:49 ↗ services are are there um that the

37:54 ↗ development has to provide facilities at

37:56 ↗ its own expense and and we need to

37:58 ↗ provide facilities with an adopted level

38:00 ↗ of service

38:02 ↗ standards so that's where this goal is

38:05 ↗ coming into play as I read D1 uh it I'm

38:10 ↗ a little confused uh does the

38:13 ↗ infrastructure have to be currently in

38:15 ↗ place or in anticipation of future

38:19 ↗ development the capital

38:25 ↗ infrastructure well it says

38:28 ↗ where they are adequate it says that all

38:31 ↗ services must be adequate currently

38:33 ↗ adequate or adequate for future

38:35 ↗ development right but it doesn't say

38:37 ↗ what adequate is that's another

38:43 ↗ issue so so you so you'd want us to

38:46 ↗ Define what adequate means specifically

38:48 ↗ and in terms of uh policy uh D2 uh

38:52 ↗ you're saying that what's not provided

38:54 ↗ the developer must provide it uh before

38:58 ↗ he gets uh uh before he's allowed to uh

39:03 ↗ develop and I wonder if that would

39:05 ↗ discour

39:06 ↗ development uh you'll recall decade ago

39:09 ↗ it did when we essentially shut down all

39:12 ↗ development in isqua because our traffic

39:15 ↗ concurrency model was failing yeah so

39:19 ↗ but again how we Define

39:20 ↗ concurrent comes into play

39:23 ↗ here well if you define current in terms

39:27 ↗ what currently exists uh you'd have to

39:30 ↗ freeze

39:32 ↗ development uh the city currently under

39:35 ↗ its concurrent under its current

39:37 ↗ concurrency management system um

39:41 ↗ passes and that's why development

39:45 ↗ continues I'm not hearing I'm sorry I'm

39:48 ↗ I'm not saying that traffic isn't bad

39:50 ↗ traffic is bad in a lot of places at

39:52 ↗ times but um the the under the current

39:56 ↗ stand

39:58 ↗ s the level of service is adequate

40:01 ↗ that's another issue maybe the current

40:03 ↗ standards are not

40:06 ↗ adequate I would I would recommend that

40:08 ↗ you especially about Transportation I

40:10 ↗ know you talked about it at your last

40:11 ↗ meeting with yeah with Trish and I know

40:13 ↗ you'll see that again probably late next

40:15 ↗ month well I'm concerned when we talk

40:18 ↗ development I'm concerned about

40:20 ↗ uh too soon too fast uh maybe that's not

40:24 ↗ the right maybe that's not the

40:25 ↗ appropriate concern but I don't want to

40:28 ↗ see development get ahead of

40:29 ↗ infrastructure and that's the point I'm

40:31 ↗ I continue to try to make that we need

40:34 ↗ the uh infrastructure we need the

40:35 ↗ capital to pay for it we need to figure

40:38 ↗ out how to get the capital I mean all of

40:40 ↗ this is part of the planning process if

40:42 ↗ you're talking implementing the the

40:45 ↗ central isqua

40:48 ↗ plan and I I would note that D5 seems to

40:51 ↗ capture that by defining the concurrent

40:54 ↗ with development as being six years um

40:57 ↗ of the occupancy being issued and maybe

40:59 ↗ that's the problem is six years is too

41:01 ↗ long a time frame from certificate of

41:03 ↗ occupancy to Services if we get a big

41:05 ↗ boom happening where we have two or

41:07 ↗ three huge developments go up over five

41:10 ↗ years that's going to really impact

41:14 ↗ those concurrency

41:15 ↗ models and I think that's that's a big

41:17 ↗ concern if I'm not even sure that if you

41:20 ↗ want development and if you want to

41:21 ↗ encourage developers to come in here

41:24 ↗ then I think the infrastructure has to

41:26 ↗ be in anticip ation of that development

41:28 ↗ it has to be in place or at least the

41:31 ↗ plans for it have to be in place so that

41:33 ↗ devel the developer knows what his costs

41:36 ↗ are going to be and uh and what is going

41:39 ↗ to be in place for him and uh uh and the

41:44 ↗ isqua plan again which will which will

41:46 ↗ attract

41:47 ↗ development uh needs to show

41:50 ↗ a uh procedures and policy for

41:53 ↗ development and I'm not sure that's

41:55 ↗ there I think the central oqua plan very

42:00 ↗ specifically in some cases describes

42:03 ↗ what is necessary it shows a road

42:04 ↗ Network that needs to be built that does

42:06 ↗ not exist today um you know between in

42:10 ↗ in just in the block between Gilman and

42:13 ↗ mul Street or Maple Street actually and

42:17 ↗ 912 there's two North South Streets in

42:20 ↗ there that don't exist today that the

42:21 ↗ central isal plan calls for So the plan

42:24 ↗ so just for one example the central

42:26 ↗ isall plan is

42:28 ↗ got a lot of that in there and we are

42:29 ↗ planning for it but again existing

42:31 ↗ property owners have to buy in in order

42:34 ↗ for that to happen well they don't have

42:35 ↗ to do any they don't have to develop

42:36 ↗ their properties there's nothing nothing

42:38 ↗ in that plan makes anybody do anything

42:40 ↗ that's what concerns me you your streets

42:42 ↗ plan for instance uh anticipates that

42:46 ↗ everybody on that street is going to

42:48 ↗ cooperate and buy in and if it doesn't

42:50 ↗ happen you're going to have half streets

42:52 ↗ you going to have a hodge podge well the

42:54 ↗ streets don't get built and

42:55 ↗ development's not there so I mean that's

42:58 ↗ the way it

42:59 ↗ is but I I think we are very much

43:01 ↗ planning for future development and this

43:04 ↗ is how this is an extremely you know

43:06 ↗ 10,000 or even 50,000 foot level View

43:09 ↗ and the central plan gets a little

43:11 ↗ deeper into it

43:14 ↗ so I would I recommend if you want to

43:17 ↗ talk more we have it the discussion

43:18 ↗ offline and and with Trish uh just one

43:21 ↗ comment when developers go in to present

43:25 ↗ whatever they want to build um they go

43:27 ↗ through a long process and they know how

43:29 ↗ much they're going to it's going to cost

43:31 ↗ them to build the problem is not the

43:34 ↗ cost that they find out in the beginning

43:36 ↗ the cost is the changing cost down the

43:39 ↗ line and so so that's where any problems

43:43 ↗ coming in but Builders know what they're

43:45 ↗ required to do the the transportation

43:47 ↗ plan tells them how much how many curbs

43:50 ↗ they have to put in how much you know

43:52 ↗ how they have to um get their people

43:56 ↗ from their develop into the into the

43:59 ↗ network of the rest of the uh

44:01 ↗ Transportation if they don't like it um

44:05 ↗ the and if it's going to cost too much

44:08 ↗ the Builder's not going to do it so I

44:10 ↗ mean that's yeah that's a that's

44:12 ↗ realistic and the other thing that's

44:14 ↗ also realistic is that even if the

44:16 ↗ developer says okay fine I'll build my

44:18 ↗ curbs but the my neighbor next to me who

44:21 ↗ is an existing property owner says Hey

44:24 ↗ I've I'm here uh I'm not buying in I'm

44:27 ↗ not interested in uh in this developing

44:31 ↗ the street right now I like it the way

44:33 ↗ it is and I'm not selling and I'm not

44:35 ↗ developing I'm not uh I'm not going to

44:39 ↗ comply I don't need

44:42 ↗ to isn't that what went on with the

44:45 ↗ development that's going in where

44:47 ↗ lombardis is I mean the neighbors all

44:50 ↗ had a chance to come in and decide and

44:53 ↗ hopefully the city made the right

44:54 ↗ decision of uh putting down the

44:57 ↗ requirements and they the Builder met

44:59 ↗ those

45:01 ↗ requirements and you know that's kind of

45:04 ↗ and it was with one single property

45:06 ↗ owner who said he's going to sell so

45:08 ↗ that anybody who is a tenant uh at least

45:12 ↗ if the lease was up it was not going to

45:14 ↗ be renewed and it worked out

45:16 ↗ beautifully but uh uh if uh somebody had

45:21 ↗ a long-term lease and said hey uh I've

45:23 ↗ got a lease I'm

45:25 ↗ staying you know you can't write in

45:28 ↗ every contingency into the plan so let's

45:32 ↗ just uh assume that the city knows what

45:34 ↗ it's doing yeah my concern is I I want

45:37 ↗ to address the what

45:39 ↗ ifs okay anything else on this

45:44 ↗ goal all right goal e and you'll see I

45:49 ↗ um fixed a typo in there it says the

45:52 ↗ capital Improvement plan it should say

45:54 ↗ the capital facilities plan um because

45:57 ↗ that's the term we're using now U this

45:59 ↗ goal was present before um but we did

46:03 ↗ a um we did eliminate one one goal and

46:07 ↗ incorporate it into this goal and so the

46:09 ↗ one that

46:10 ↗ got

46:15 ↗ um um anyway this goal is all about

46:18 ↗ compatibility and

46:19 ↗ consistency so you know we say Capital

46:22 ↗ project should to the extent feasible

46:23 ↗ conform with our development and design

46:25 ↗ standards whether that's the central squ

46:27 ↗ plan or the Old Town design standards um

46:30 ↗ or even the what we call the GRE the

46:32 ↗ green sheets the design stand the the

46:34 ↗ design standards in the um in the land

46:37 ↗ use code that apply anywhere where we

46:40 ↗ don't have more specific design

46:42 ↗ standards um we want capital projects to

46:45 ↗ minimize their impact on surrounding

46:47 ↗ uses we want them to you know and also

46:50 ↗ be consistent with the requirements for

46:52 ↗ the plans of state agencies

47:01 ↗ so goal F the next one is a brand new

47:03 ↗ goal where we try to pull in a lot of

47:05 ↗ the things to talk about financing

47:07 ↗ Capital facilities there were a lot of

47:08 ↗ policies they were a little bit

47:09 ↗ scattered talking about how we Finance

47:12 ↗ it um how we use the six-year um again

47:15 ↗ there's typos in there that'll get

47:17 ↗ fixed capital capital facilities plan

47:21 ↗ not um Improvement

47:23 ↗ plan and so the first one and it's

47:26 ↗ actually very important talks about all

47:27 ↗ City departments shall coordinate

47:29 ↗ longrange financial planning

47:31 ↗ activities um sometimes we don't always

47:34 ↗ do that but it's really important that

47:36 ↗ we do that so that we can have a

47:38 ↗ holistic view of what we need to fund

47:40 ↗ and H and how to do

47:43 ↗ it um talks about Distributing the

47:46 ↗ burden for

47:47 ↗ financing um Capital facilities in

47:51 ↗ places it talks about kind of the the

47:54 ↗ order that you'd want to use different

47:57 ↗ funding sources and so it talks about

47:58 ↗ using general General revenues to fund

48:02 ↗ projects that provide a general benefit

48:04 ↗ to the whole Community um you can use

48:07 ↗ how um where you use long-term borrowing

48:10 ↗ um where the facility would benefit more

48:12 ↗ than one generation so financing the

48:14 ↗ community center for example is a great

48:16 ↗ use of long-term financing because it

48:19 ↗ it's benefitting us now it's going to

48:21 ↗ benefit us in the future it's going to

48:22 ↗ benefit people for a long long time um

48:25 ↗ talks about using you know speci

48:26 ↗ assessment revenue or other

48:27 ↗ self-supporting bonds for more

48:30 ↗ specialized um projects instead of

48:32 ↗ General obligation bonds and of course

48:34 ↗ using grants and other private funds

48:35 ↗ were

48:38 ↗ possible

48:40 ↗ um there's a lot in here talking about

48:42 ↗ impact fees which are somewhat GMA

48:45 ↗ required um and then there's also one

48:47 ↗ about working with the isqua school

48:48 ↗ district on school impact fees because

48:50 ↗ they're the ones who set those not

48:54 ↗ us F2

48:56 ↗ uh I'm concerned about the term high

48:59 ↗ priority shall be given I think

49:02 ↗ uh fund should only be provided for

49:04 ↗ those

49:05 ↗ who who meet uh uh the central

49:10 ↗ comprehensive plan goals uh not just be

49:13 ↗ given high priority but uh I don't think

49:16 ↗ Capital should be expended on anything

49:17 ↗ that doesn't meet the uh Capital

49:19 ↗ Improvement uh the comprehensive plan

49:22 ↗ goals we would have to expend Capital to

49:25 ↗ buy um large quanties of

49:31 ↗ furniture I don't think Furniture meets

49:33 ↗ any of plan

49:35 ↗ goal so I have a general question

49:39 ↗ um so for impact fees a developer is

49:43 ↗ charged an impact fee is there a a state

49:47 ↗ requirement mandate that that in those

49:51 ↗ impact fees have to be associated with

49:53 ↗ the project so I'm just thinking one of

49:56 ↗ my

49:57 ↗ I I get annoyed when I see like just a

50:01 ↗ half built sidewalk MH and sometime I

50:04 ↗ just feel like there's it would be nicer

50:06 ↗ to have one complete street over here

50:08 ↗ rather than a bunch of sidewalks right

50:11 ↗ there so it' be nice if those impact

50:13 ↗ fees can go towards like one project

50:16 ↗ yeah is it that's you know that

50:18 ↗ unfortunately that's a compli the answer

50:20 ↗ to that is a little complicated so under

50:22 ↗ state law the we can assess impact fees

50:25 ↗ we have to spend them within I want to

50:27 ↗ say six years or else we have to refund

50:29 ↗ them we do have to spend the money on

50:32 ↗ something that's at least related to the

50:35 ↗ the development that caused the impact

50:36 ↗ and so we couldn't take money from a

50:38 ↗ development say say downtown here and

50:41 ↗ spend it way out uh in Greenwood Point

50:44 ↗ or in the highlands necessarily because

50:46 ↗ there's not much a rational connection

50:48 ↗ there right with that said of course

50:49 ↗ there's always things we do you know

50:51 ↗ we're always having to improve sidewalks

50:53 ↗ for example where the the sidewalk Quest

50:56 ↗ question gets tricky is a lot of

50:59 ↗ times we we require development to build

51:04 ↗ half Street improvements and so but we

51:06 ↗ can only require them to build that

51:09 ↗ Improvement on their Frontage we can't

51:10 ↗ require them to build it all the way to

51:11 ↗ the corner necessarily because that's

51:14 ↗ not they don't own that property right

51:18 ↗ um oftentimes what we'll do is instead

51:20 ↗ of having the developer build it we'll

51:22 ↗ ask we'll tell them pay us the money

51:25 ↗ we'll collect all the money up and then

51:27 ↗ over and then we'll the city will build

51:29 ↗ the

51:30 ↗ entire sidewalk all at once um but

51:33 ↗ sometimes the developers don't want to

51:34 ↗ do that they just want to build and be

51:35 ↗ and be done and not have to worry about

51:37 ↗ it or sometimes they're really

51:38 ↗ interested in giving us the money and

51:39 ↗ not having to worry about it so it's

51:42 ↗ it's a little inconsistent but over time

51:44 ↗ the idea is that we'll get everything

51:45 ↗ built and consistent um yeah I mean that

51:49 ↗ so I I've seen some situations where

51:52 ↗ standards change in like a 10-year

51:54 ↗ period And so this one sidewalk gets

51:56 ↗ built the standard gets changed and so

51:59 ↗ then you know that then it's like a setb

52:02 ↗ sidewalk and 10 years later so it's just

52:05 ↗ kind of weird anyhow that's just my

52:07 ↗ little gripe that's

52:10 ↗ it I think Ray going back to F2 I think

52:14 ↗ Ry was kind of pointing at maybe I'm

52:16 ↗ wrong or right but I see what his point

52:18 ↗ is you've got a word in there called

52:20 ↗ most consistent and that opens a huge

52:23 ↗ door for spending money on things that

52:25 ↗ are Maybe not part of the comprehensive

52:28 ↗ plan if you close that door by saying

52:31 ↗ consistent with drop the word most

52:34 ↗ you're going to you're going to make it

52:35 ↗ a little more tight and required to be

52:38 ↗ part of and inclusive within the

52:40 ↗ comprehensive plan and not have somebody

52:43 ↗ come in and say well policy F2 says most

52:46 ↗ consistent and this is most consistent

52:48 ↗ with it but maybe it's not consistent

52:51 ↗ with it I don't know yeah I'm also

52:53 ↗ concerned with high priority I don't

52:55 ↗ think that's that's the same I think

52:56 ↗ that uh uh only uh should be the uh the

53:02 ↗ guideline here if it doesn't meet the uh

53:05 ↗ uh the comprehensive plan uh goals and

53:08 ↗ it shouldn't be funded

53:15 ↗ period any other comments go and I would

53:21 ↗ respectfully disagree with that ju Just

53:23 ↗ in terms of the previous comments that

53:24 ↗ there are some capital projects which

53:26 ↗ the comprehensive plan doesn't

53:27 ↗ necessarily address but are necessary

53:30 ↗ for government function um yeah

53:36 ↗ like well you have to am if you have to

53:40 ↗ am the comprehensive

53:46 ↗ to be priority hey R your mic's not

53:51 ↗ on I'm sorry I didn't have my mic on on

53:54 ↗ when I said it okay

54:01 ↗ okay um then we get into the

54:03 ↗ sustainability goal and I I alluded to

54:04 ↗ this earlier when we were talking about

54:06 ↗ um talking about utilities but there is

54:09 ↗ a sustainability goal which is in the

54:12 ↗ the capital facilities element um this

54:14 ↗ one we're we're still trying to work

54:16 ↗ through um the goal the goal exists and

54:20 ↗ you can you can see it on the screen it

54:22 ↗ hasn't it hasn't changed we're working

54:24 ↗ on adding more policies because the only

54:26 ↗ policy that fits under this so far that

54:28 ↗ that was existing

54:29 ↗ is um you know encourage infill

54:32 ↗ Redevelopment and paa development

54:35 ↗ to um to design projects which are

54:38 ↗ resource efficient and

54:40 ↗ sustainable and that's pretty Broad and

54:43 ↗ there's and that's the only goal or the

54:45 ↗ only policy under there so we'd like to

54:46 ↗ add some more policies that could even

54:48 ↗ be much more specific you see the one

54:50 ↗ highlighted there Capital facilities

54:52 ↗ should achieve a lead silver or similar

54:53 ↗ level of certification that's just

54:55 ↗ that's just as an example which is why

54:57 ↗ it's highlighted we we're not

54:58 ↗ necessarily saying that's a policy we

55:00 ↗ want to pursue but those are the types

55:02 ↗ of things we're looking at trying to

55:04 ↗ pull in here a little bit more to to set

55:07 ↗ a few more specific sustainability

55:09 ↗ policies especially for our Capital

55:11 ↗ facilities the new Fire Station 72 over

55:13 ↗ there achieves a very high level of

55:16 ↗ sustainability um you know with its

55:18 ↗ energy usage with with its water

55:20 ↗ usage that's something that we would

55:23 ↗ like to do more of in the future it's

55:24 ↗ obviously quite expensive

55:26 ↗ um for example East Side Fire and Rescue

55:28 ↗ is building a new station over on May uh

55:31 ↗ SE May Valley Road outside the city to

55:34 ↗ they're moving one from from coalfield

55:36 ↗ down into May Valley where can better

55:38 ↗ serve the area but they're going to

55:39 ↗ incorporate quite a few of the features

55:41 ↗ not to the same extent that we did for

55:42 ↗ Fire Station 72 but they're going to

55:44 ↗ incorporate a lot of those to help

55:45 ↗ reduce ongoing operating costs that's an

55:48 ↗ important thing we want to try to

55:49 ↗ identify and and make sure we're getting

55:50 ↗ into not just fire stations but also you

55:53 ↗ know Municipal facilities or you know

55:55 ↗ using it's even using energy efficient

55:57 ↗ lighting at our Parks things like that

55:59 ↗ so we're trying to find better ways to

56:01 ↗ capture a lot of those things especially

56:02 ↗ when it comes to Capital facilities so

56:04 ↗ if you have specific suggestions that

56:06 ↗ we'd be happy to hear them you don't

56:08 ↗ have to tell me now you can email them

56:09 ↗ or something but just keep in mind that

56:12 ↗ we'll you'll probably see a lot more

56:13 ↗ policies when you when we bring this

56:15 ↗ back uh as a fully complete version

56:17 ↗ later this

56:19 ↗ fall Jason when when this comes back

56:21 ↗ could you uh bring us since most of

56:25 ↗ these new new Commissioners haven't seen

56:27 ↗ it the list of the capital Improvement

56:29 ↗ planed and and the tip so that they can

56:32 ↗ see the lists that are already on there

56:34 ↗ and then again explain the process of

56:37 ↗ how uh money coming in is diverted to

56:41 ↗ each one of those projects

56:48 ↗ yes so we we've kind of been going

56:50 ↗ through the next steps as uh here as

56:53 ↗ we've gone you know we can act we can we

56:55 ↗ can talk about goals if if you think we

56:56 ↗ missed one we can certainly add one we

56:58 ↗ can delete one same thing with the

57:00 ↗ policies none of this is set in stone

57:03 ↗ and certainly more opportunity exist to

57:04 ↗ look at this but um we'd like to get

57:07 ↗ this wrapped up as soon as we

57:08 ↗ can is there anything else you'd like to

57:12 ↗ add um no just thank you for again being

57:16 ↗ really well prepared and handling our

57:20 ↗ questions and and I appreciate all all

57:22 ↗ of your um not that I have any uh

57:26 ↗ reason to say this but I I I really

57:29 ↗ appreciate the uh interest that you've

57:31 ↗ all taken and and the ideas and the

57:33 ↗ comments uh that you are expressing so

57:38 ↗ if there's anything else any kind of

57:40 ↗ information that we need to get to you

57:42 ↗ anything any plans that you don't

57:44 ↗ understand that Jason has that he hasn't

57:46 ↗ presented please let him know so that uh

57:48 ↗ he can provide for you I just want to

57:51 ↗ thank you all for bearing bearing

57:53 ↗ through me with these these two elements

57:55 ↗ these are the most technical esoteric

57:57 ↗ elements in the entire conference plan

57:59 ↗ so everything else is a lot more fun so

58:02 ↗ I look at this as you know when you see

58:04 ↗ those um cop shows where they have a

58:07 ↗ board and they have all those red lines

58:09 ↗ going to every everything and so uh you

58:13 ↗ have this well this is in this plan so

58:15 ↗ we got to make sure that it's in there

58:16 ↗ and and so uh I expect the board as big

58:19 ↗ as that those windows back there with

58:22 ↗ all these lines on

58:23 ↗ it that's all I have so is there

58:27 ↗ anything else for the good of the

58:29 ↗ order if not then we actually are ahead

58:34 ↗ of schedule and the meeting is is

58:37 ↗ adjourned at 7:30 thank you all for

58:55 ↗ coming e

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.