[3:15] We are open to the public. Thank you. Let's ensure that Micah's gone lives, standby.

[3:25] Okay, we're like.

[3:27] Thank you.

[3:28] A couple of order, the city council meeting of August 5th, 2026, as you can see tonight's council meeting is being held virtually.

[3:37] Due to critical maintenance and upgrades underway in council chambers. During the meeting, we may take brief breaks as needed to address any technical issues

[3:46] and help ensure the meeting proceeds as smoothly as possible.

[3:51] And Council, thank you so much.

[3:53] Please give me a little grace as we start out.

[3:56] As I get the lay of the landscape here,

[3:58] I'm very appreciative to former Mayor Sweet

[4:01] having done this for quite a long time,

[4:03] but we'll get through it.

[4:05] So, City Clerk, will you please call the roll?

[4:08] Council member Tim Chison.

[4:10] Council member Arnold.

[4:13] Council member Prim.

[4:15] Here.

[4:16] Councilmember Felcon here. Councilmember Paskell.

[4:20] Yeah. Deputy Mayor Black.

[4:23] Here. Mayor Curtis. Here.

[4:26] All right. Our study session tonight is on two items. First, we'll have an update on the

[4:39] We expect to reconvene our regular meeting at 730 City Manager.

[4:46] Okay, thank you, Madam Mayor.

[4:48] So we have the whole 90 minutes of the study session set out for these two topics.

[4:52] It's related topics.

[4:54] I've asked everyone to keep their cameras off and us they're speaking.

[4:57] I want to give a huge thanks to folks of top of work.

[5:00] And finance to put together a lot of really complicated information. And also our consultant team, we're going to hear from who that's on a fabulous job.

[5:08] But it's all going to be led by Jenna Gowlster, a surface painter strategic advisor. And she has lots of help, who people will check in when needed and Tracy don't laugh.

[5:17] It's also here in deputy city manager to chime in as needed, where she is in the tricities. So with that help, we're over to Jenny.

[5:25] Thank you very much.

[5:27] Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the council.

[5:30] Again, I'm Jenny Gals, surface water strategic advisor.

[5:33] And I'm managing the utility rate process for 2027, 2028.

[5:38] And Brooke is kindly running the slides for me right now.

[5:41] Next slide.

[5:46] We have a very knowledgeable group of people.

[5:48] All of whom have helped to develop the budget assumptions and the models that are going to

[5:53] to update curriculums utility rates. The FCS team and myself will be the main presenters, but we

[5:59] do have many other folks standing by as questions arise. Next slide. And before we launch into sort

[6:08] of the mute of the presentation, wanted to just highlight some of the process improvements that have

[6:12] happened since the last great sitting process. We're doing more forecasting of revenues, staff

[6:19] is reviewing and reporting on revenue trends each month so that we have the most up-to-date information.

[6:25] Water and sewer utilities have been split apart so that we could better see how each is

[6:30] fairing financially. The utility policy supervisor is now allocated to water sewer and solid waste.

[6:41] And then we are really working on prioritizing water and sewer engineering and planning. And so

[6:47] those things are really going to help with the transparency and accountability in the process.

[6:52] Next slide. And so tonight is the first three meetings where we're going to discuss utility rates

[7:00] updates. We'll be returning on September 15th with our proposed rates and again on October 20th

[7:06] with our final rates. Tonight we have our consultant team here to provide background on the rate models

[7:13] And to present the preliminary rates, these are rates that we are current fiscal policies.

[7:21] We're also going to be discussing potential ways to moderate these rate increases.

[7:26] And we'll see council guidance on the preferred rates scenario.

[7:29] Note that I have some slides available.

[7:32] After books presentation, if there are questions, I have a set of slides that is available for us to use.

[7:38] Now, I'll introduce FCS's team.

[7:44] Burtisha is a project manager with SES, a Bowman Company.

[7:48] She's been with FCS for over 10 years, and has performed similar rates studies for many

[7:53] cities in the Pacific Northwest, and we're very pleased to have her managing the rate modeling

[7:57] efforts for Kirkland.

[8:00] With her tonight is Amanda Levine, who's managing the solid waste elements of the process.

[8:04] And likewise, it has performed many utility rates studies and engagements over her eight years with FCS, together that walk us through the preliminary rate study results.

[8:16] So, take it away, Brooke.

[8:17] Thank you.

[8:20] Perfect. All right.

[8:21] So, thank you, Jenny.

[8:22] As mentioned, I'm Brooke Tisha with FCS and I do have Amanda Levine with me as well as John Gillarducci.

[8:28] And we're ready to just walk through those preliminary rates for the city's forecast as well as revenue requirements as well.

[8:34] refer to those as through the bulk of this presentation.

[8:39] So a quick agenda here to start, we're going to review a brief background.

[8:43] We're going to talk more about what a revenue requirement is.

[8:46] We'll review the city's fiscal policies and then we'll talk

[8:50] through the revenue requirement results for each utility before

[8:53] wrapping it up with next steps and questions or discussion.

[8:59] So here, again, just a brief background for each of the utilities

[9:02] that we're going to discuss this evening.

[9:04] First, the water utility, the infrastructure associated with the water utility is operated and maintained by the city,

[9:11] the city purchases their water supply through cascade water lines.

[9:16] Similarly, for the wastewater utility, the city operates and maintains the collection system,

[9:21] and uses that system to send wastewater to King County's treatment plants, who they pay for treatment services.

[9:28] On the surface water side, the city operates and maintains the surface water system,

[9:32] working to reduce street flooding and address the health of local water bodies.

[9:37] A surface water is unique and that it gets built through the county's property taxes,

[9:41] as to most customers don't see the bill as directly.

[9:45] And then finally, the city also provides garbage, recycling, and compost curbside collection services

[9:51] through waste management, which is also a contractor, and they pay disposal costs to King County for disposal services as well.

[10:01] So, for tonight's review, we're going to be concentrating on the revenue requirement for each utility.

[10:07] When we talk about a revenue requirement, our goal was to determine the overall amount of revenue needed to satisfy all of the fiscal obligations of each utility on a standalone basis.

[10:19] Our fiscal obligations include our direct expenses, so those are things like our operating at maintenance costs, any existing debt service payments,

[10:28] and any new debt service payments or rate-funded capital that's needed to fund the capital program.

[10:35] Those financial obligations also include indirect expenses, so those are things like maintaining our reserve balances,

[10:42] as well as debt service coverage ratios if we're a utility that has a large amount of debt.

[10:47] The city of Kirkland is not within their utilities currently.

[10:52] For this exercise, we compare a forecast of those obligations to our revenues at their existing levels first to determine whether those revenues are sufficient over the forecast period.

[11:04] And if we see a forecasted deficiency throughout that study period, we can develop a rate plan to help satisfy that deficiency.

[11:12] Well, ideally trying to minimize impacts to customers to the extent possible.

[11:16] And that's going to be our main concentration tonight, revenue requirements for each utility

[11:22] over a multi-year period, or in other words, how much do we need to potentially raise

[11:26] our rates over that timeframe.

[11:31] So before we dive into the results, we want to set the stage first with a review of the city's

[11:36] financial policies.

[11:37] These policies provide some guardrails for the study to help encourage consistent decision-making

[11:43] over time, especially when we have documented fiscal policies like the city does, those

[11:48] It was allowed for consistency even a staff and leadership changes.

[11:53] So first here we have our working capital contingency, which is in place to allow the utility

[11:57] to weather those day to day cash flow fluctuations, the target is 45 days of O&M for water

[12:04] and sewer.

[12:05] It's 100 days of O&M for storm water and 30 days for solid waste.

[12:11] We do see a higher target for storm water here because it's built through those property

[12:14] taxes again and has two larger influx of revenues rather than more of a steady monthly stream.

[12:21] A water and sewer utilities also have another operating contingency layer. It's for a similar

[12:27] purpose to help weather those cash flow fluctuations. This resulted in an additional 12% of ONM

[12:33] held as a reserve target. Together that's just about 90 days. The water sewer and surface water

[12:42] utilities also have capital contingency targets to provide a source of funding for emergency repairs

[12:48] or capital cost overruns. In each case, that target is about 10% of the six year CIP program.

[12:57] And then finally, the water sewer and surface water utilities also aim to fund a dedicated amount

[13:02] of capital investment directly from rates to treat that infrastructure investment like a true cost

[13:08] operating those utilities. Water will seek to fund 125% of annual depreciation costs through rates,

[13:16] sewer will aim to fund 165% of depreciation costs and surface water will seek to fund a

[13:21] 100% of depreciation. This invests the system investment policy really helps ensure that we're

[13:27] replacing system infrastructure as we're using it. A solid waste doesn't have those added capital

[13:33] contingency or a system investment component since the utilities largely contractual costs

[13:38] rather than that direct infrastructure investment.

[13:42] Yeah, go ahead.

[13:43] I see a question or a hand raised.

[13:46] I can raise just one of them.

[13:47] I can comment to the council that there's a lot of information.

[13:50] Could be presented by please.

[13:52] If you have a question during the presentation.

[13:54] Please feel free to raise your hand.

[13:56] I'm going to ask it as we're going.

[13:58] I see another one.

[14:01] Jay.

[14:02] Thank you, Curtin.

[14:03] Thank you, Brooke.

[14:04] I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about why sewer and water have different depreciation

[14:13] numbers because it seems like that infrastructure would be similar to me.

[14:19] And if we don't have that information, it would be something that I would like some follow

[14:24] up off on.

[14:25] Thank you.

[14:26] It's like Tracy will weigh on we and on that first perhaps.

[14:34] You're on, yeah.

[14:37] Thank you. Sorry, but my connection is okay.

[14:39] A really quick answer is that the sewer utility assets were put in place over a much longer period of time.

[14:48] The water utility assets were put in place over a much longer period of time.

[14:52] sewer only became a required service really in sort of the city.

[15:00] 60, the 50s and 60s, where the water utility was built all the way back, you know, starting at the turn of the century.

[15:07] And so, so the sewer assets are actually more concentrated in terms of when they reach their age.

[15:14] And the other thing I just wanted to say quickly about this minimum amount of investment is this is just trying to recognize that the replacements are going to end and flow over time.

[15:25] there'll be bigger and some years smaller in others, but this is a minimum amount to at least recognize

[15:31] an expected failure rate with the actual projects prioritized as part of the system plan,

[15:39] the actual replacements, but it really has to do with the fact that the sewer assets were added

[15:45] in a much more concentrated time period before that at best it was going into septic systems before

[15:53] For that, it was just going where it went, naturally.

[15:58] Thank you, Tracy.

[16:03] I'll head back.

[16:04] Perfect.

[16:04] Thank you.

[16:06] Okay.

[16:06] So we're going to move on now to our first set of revenue requirement results and concentrating

[16:11] here on the water utility.

[16:14] In order to build the financial forecast, we have to include a few assumptions.

[16:19] First, we'll concentrate on the 2026-2032 timeframe as that results study period.

[16:25] with 2027 to 2028 as the identified rate setting timeframe.

[16:30] For the water utility, the combined reserve target is $7.2 million in 2027,

[16:36] and that includes both the operating and working capital reserves as well as the capital contingency.

[16:43] For rate revenue projections, we did work with the city to look historical,

[16:47] look back historically at revenue performance, and the associated heat and precipitation data

[16:53] to try to ensure that we're forecasting revenues on a normalized usage year.

[16:58] 2025 was a more normalized usage year and our 26th

[17:01] budgeted revenue is in alignment with growth assumptions plus actual performance.

[17:07] I'm forecasting future revenues assumes a 0.9% growth rate on average and it also assumes that the

[17:13] Kirkland Care's program participation increases by 10% per year as more customers join that program.

[17:20] On the expense side of things, the city's 2026 to 2028 budgets provide the baseline for expense forecasting,

[17:28] increasing into the future with inflationary assumptions.

[17:33] Costs inflation varies by expense type between 2.5 to 5.5% for many of the internal expenses,

[17:41] total cost increase by about 5.7 on average, which is really driven largely by those cascade water alliance increases,

[17:48] that range from 4.9 to 12.8% depending on the year.

[17:53] Cascade water alliance makes up about 38% of overall water utility costs in 2026.

[18:00] That shares projected to increase to 43% by 2032 as their increased outpace those internal city costs.

[18:09] And then finally here we are anticipating that the water utility will need a new bond to help fund the capital program

[18:14] and are forecasting that debt to be a revenue bond with the 20-year term,

[18:18] a 5% interest rate and a 1% issuance cost.

[18:22] The total capital plan for the water utility is $42 million

[18:26] over the next six years.

[18:30] So here's just taking a closer look at the, yep.

[18:34] Sorry, before you go on question on the previous slide.

[18:39] So when you talk about customer growth and this is my question is on all utilities,

[18:43] is the 0.9% per year, is that an industry standard and my question really is is that

[18:51] anticipating growth based on our comprehensive plan and our CPPs or is that just a

[18:59] general growth number? So it's not necessarily industry standard and it's much

[19:04] more tailored to the city of Kirkland and staff did take a look recently on

[19:08] number of new connections, as well as some near-term history on that.

[19:13] Typically, we don't always align from a rate setting perspective with comprehensive plans

[19:18] because those can typically be a little bit more robust in their growth assumptions because

[19:23] engineers have a different reason for looking at growth.

[19:26] They want to be a little bit more robust.

[19:27] They don't want to dig up the street more than wants to give an example there.

[19:31] So when we're working through growth on the rate setting side of things, we like to look

[19:35] some near-term actuals. Sometimes we'll look at some connection charge revenues to give us a good idea

[19:41] of the number of connections we've been seeing over the last year or two and try to basically

[19:44] run that. That's helpful that just it's based on Kirkland, not

[19:50] absolutely. Yeah, thank you.

[19:56] So here just taking a closer look at the water utility component.

[20:00] We have $17.2 million in rate revenue growing to about $18 million with that customer growth element by 2032.

[20:08] Those revenues are in support of O&M expenses that range from $15.2 million to $20.8 million with inflation.

[20:16] Annual system reimbursement targets increasing from $2.3 million to $3.1 million.

[20:22] Excessing debt service is just over 100,000 annually for the utility and I believe that will be fully repaid by 2033.

[20:28] And then we are assuming some future debt service to a link about 1.1 million.

[20:35] Once the $12.5 million revenue bond is issued to help fund the city's south for a replacement project in

[20:42] 2026 and 27.

[20:44] The total 42 million in capital costs is funded by a mix of direct rate funding at 51%

[20:52] 30% from the $12.5 million revenue bond

[20:57] CFC revenues make up about 19% and then we just have a small amount of developer contributions

[21:03] about 200,000 to round out that capital funding pie there.

[21:11] So in this graph here, we're going to pull together all of the direct obligations of

[21:16] the water utility and the bars.

[21:19] The dark blue or the internal, ohanem expenses, the light blue bar represents our cascade water

[21:24] Alliance expenses, Navy blue or the Cascade Water Alliance membership do's, and then we

[21:30] see the green bars are direct rates under capital, with the yellow bar first appearing

[21:35] in 2027 as the additional debt service.

[21:39] If we compare those four casted costs to our revenues at existing rates, we see that we're

[21:44] just meeting obligations in 2026, maybe a slight efficiency there.

[21:48] However, as removing into 27 and beyond, we would become deficient to fund our rate-funded capital in 2027

[21:55] and we would not be sufficient to cover our new debt service by 2029.

[22:00] And eventually, our water purchase costs as we continue through the study period.

[22:05] So in order to satisfy that deficiency, we're looking at an 8.5% rating increase in 2027,

[22:11] followed by 6.5% from 2028 to 2030 dropping to about 5.15% through 2032.

[22:21] This rate strategy results in a single-family bill impact of approximately $4.81 in 2027 and

[22:28] just under $4.28.

[22:31] The somewhat front-loaded rate strategy would allow the water utility to satisfy the operating

[22:37] and capital contingency targets in all years of this study period,

[22:45] which is shown in this

[22:46] graph here. So with the proposed strategy in place, we would meet our target beginning in

[22:52] 2027 on the operating side and stay at that target through 232. On the capital reserve side,

[22:59] our use of debt and the continued commitment to fund our system reinvestment target allows the

[23:05] reserves to build in preparation for some of those unknown capital infrastructure needs that are

[23:11] going to be coming from the soon to be completed water system plan.

[23:15] The orange line on these graphs has shown to illustrate the effects of the fund balance

[23:19] if we were to hold our rates at the existing levels.

[23:23] So as we saw on the revenue requirement graph, that would result in forecast to deficiencies

[23:28] that would ultimately deplete reserves on both the operating and eventually the capital

[23:33] site.

[23:36] That's pause for a second, I'll see if maybe I have any questions, so literally it's

[23:46] not a quick water drink.

[23:49] Okay, there we go.

[23:50] How can I count the mirror print?

[23:54] Yeah, I wanted to actually, the quality that I should have asked this question earlier,

[23:58] but I think it was two slides ago where you talk about the maintenance,

[24:04] and yeah, this one here at the O&M is, can you just maybe,

[24:10] Because it looks like that's one of the, you know,

[24:13] it is the largest expense that we have.

[24:17] So, can you just walk us through very briefly?

[24:20] Like, what is, like, is that an increase in these types

[24:24] of expenses as compared to prior years?

[24:27] And kind of, what is the primary driver?

[24:30] So, yeah, when we look at this particular

[24:32] on an expense line going from 15.2 to 20.8 million,

[24:36] this is both a combination of the city's internal budget.

[24:39] So that's their, you know, personnel, their benefits,

[24:43] their all of the services that they provide internally.

[24:45] It also includes the cascade water alliance components.

[24:49] So on the internal side, I'm going to flip back here for just a second.

[24:52] So we can talk about the expense inflation.

[24:55] Internally, salaries, benefits, all of those expenses that the city is.

[25:00] Parts of or can control are increasing by between the 2.5 to 5.5%. And we'll typically see the higher increases related to things like benefit costs, because that's what we've seen in the industry, just in real terms, really increases there.

[25:16] What we see as a bigger driver, though, really is the cascade water alliance increases, and they become a larger, proportional share over this timeframe and are driving up those own end costs closer to that 6% over time.

[25:33] So it is a combination of internal and external.

[25:40] Anyone else?

[25:43] Okay.

[25:43] Go ahead.

[25:44] All right.

[25:46] So, as we move into our discussion here for the sewer utility, we're going to see a similar layout to these slides and materials with similar topics that we'll talk about for each.

[25:57] So, similar time frame for each utility, we're going to concentrate on 2026 to 2032 study period with the 27 to 28 concentration for rate setting.

[26:07] For the sewer utility that combined operating capital reserve targets total, just under $8 million in 2027,

[26:15] and similarly for revenue forecasting purposes, oh, do we have a hand or was that in?

[26:22] I think that was the original hand.

[26:24] That was very good.

[26:29] Perfect.

[26:29] Thank you.

[26:30] For revenue forecasting purposes, again, here we did base the 2026 forecast off of 25 actuals plus growth,

[26:38] in the end 25 being a more normalized historical year there, and here we're assuming average

[26:44] system growth of about 0.7% annually. Just like water, we assumed that the Kirkland

[26:50] Care's participation would also increase by 10% per year as more customers took advantage of

[26:55] that program. On the expense side of things, again, we're utilizing the city's 2026-2028

[27:01] budget as the baseline and adding inflation to those future years, those internal costs will inflate

[27:08] between two and a half to five and a half percent really depending on again that expense type.

[27:14] Overall, O&M is increasing by 10.7% annually. And again, this is really driven by external factors

[27:21] related to King County treatment rate increases that range from 11.25 to 12.75% annually.

[27:29] Like we saw on water, King County is becoming a larger share of utility expenses over time,

[27:35] Starting at 44% of total costs in 2026, projected to increase to 56% of total

[27:42] super utility costs by 2032.

[27:45] No new debt is forecast to fund the total capital program of about 31.1 million dollars in

[27:51] escalated project costs on the sewer utility side.

[27:57] So again here we're going to take a closer

[27:58] look at the key components. For sewer we show existing revenue of 20.9 million growing to 30.8 million

[28:05] by 2032. Again, just with that growth assumption, those revenues are in support of

[28:10] O&M expenses of 18.1 million and 26, increasing to 33.3 million. And again, this

[28:17] is one of those areas that's largely driven by those external King County treatment expenses.

[28:23] I'm systemry investment for sewer starts at 3.9 million and 2026 increasing to 4.8 by

[28:29] 2032 and pretty similar with water existing debt services just over a hundred thousand dollars

[28:35] annually. For the sewer utility, we don't have any new future debt service to fund the capital plan,

[28:41] and that total of about 31.1 million in capital projects is planned to be funded through direct

[28:47] rate-funded capital of about 82% and about 18% from CFCs. We have just about 100,000 dollars

[28:53] planned from developer contributions there, so the bulk is really great and CFC funded.

[29:02] Okay, so bringing together the direct obligations for the sewer utility here,

[29:07] the bars are representing those obligations with the dark blue bar being our internal city

[29:12] onem expenses. The light blue or teen county wastewater treatment charges followed by

[29:18] rate-funded capital in the green bar. So what we see here when we compare our forecasted

[29:23] obligations to our revenues that existing rates is that we're forecasting a deficiency in

[29:28] 2026. In order to fund our full rate-funded system investment target of 165% of depreciation,

[29:36] we will need to utilize operating reserves. Moving forward without any rate action,

[29:43] which is noted by that solid black bar in the graph, we'd be deficient to fund our rate

[29:48] funded system investment fully by 2028 and we wouldn't be able to fund our King County treatment

[29:53] charges by the 2029 or 2030 timeframe, at least in full. So in order to correct the

[30:00] Fishing C in 2027. While maintaining our rate funded system reinvestment at 165% of depreciation, as well as maintaining the operating reserve at a minimum of 2 million. The sewer utility is looking at a 19.5% increase in 2027 followed by about 8.95% annually thereafter. The typical single family customer would see an increase at $16.25 a month from this change in 2027.

[30:30] followed by monthly increase of about $13.37 in 2020-28.

[30:35] It should be noted here that a single family

[30:37] sur-customer will see the King County portion

[30:39] of their bill directly passed through,

[30:42] which is a large rate driver, especially a 20-28 and beyond.

[30:50] The thing on, oh, wait, yeah, I was gonna wrap it up real quick

[30:55] and then I'll pause.

[30:56] But here, just taking a look at the operating

[30:58] and the capital reserves for the sewer utility,

[31:00] we are starting 2026 below target on the operating fund. The rate strategy that we're proposing

[31:07] does not immediately correct the fund balance deficiency, and instead slowly grows the reserve

[31:13] back to target through 2032. The upfront rate increase proposed would keep the reserve above

[31:19] $2 million in 2027 and correct the initial cash flow deficiency while still funding rate

[31:25] it's just to reinvestment out those target levels. On the capital side, we see balances ending

[31:31] 2026 at just above $10 million, that reserve would grow with continued rate funding in

[31:37] 2032 about 1525 million. A similar to water, again, with upcoming system plan needs, it can be

[31:44] prudent to maintain those reserve balances and preparation for some of those unknown costs.

[31:51] Happy to pause. Thank you, bro.

[31:59] Council any questions?

[32:09] Okay, we'll go ahead.

[32:11] All right.

[32:12] So next, we're going to review preliminary surface water outcomes.

[32:16] And again, there's similar layout.

[32:18] We're going to show you results through 2032,

[32:21] with the rate sitting period concentrating on 2027 and 2028.

[32:25] The 100 day O&M target,

[32:27] plus the 10% of the CIP results in a six million dollar

[32:30] combined reserve target in 2027 for surface water.

[32:33] And here we typically, again, see more steady revenues, but we reviewed the forecast with

[32:39] that same thought process for forecasting our revenues.

[32:42] So determining whether our 2020 sixth budget was an alignment with a forecast of 25

[32:47] actual plus growth and any associated rating increase.

[32:52] Stormwater utility grows, averages about a half a percent annually, and it also represents

[32:57] a senior discount participation rate growing at about 10 percent annually, which has

[33:03] administered by the county. For expense forecasting, we'll rely again on the cities 2026 to 2028 budgets,

[33:10] plus inflation. Inflation varies here for for surface water between the 2.5 to 5.5% depending on

[33:18] the type of expense. And then overall operating expenses are increasing just under 3% in the forecast

[33:24] because there really are no external cost drivers for the surface water utility to be perhaps

[33:30] pushing that up. We are also not forecasting any new debt for the surface water utility at this

[33:35] point to help fund that $31.7 million capital plan through $232.

[33:44] So looking at the key components here for surface water, we have about $14 million in existing

[33:49] rate revenues, growing to $14.2 million with customer growth. That is in support of

[33:54] that range from 12.8 million to 15.2 million,

[33:59] system reinvestment funding of 3.1 million,

[34:02] increasing to 3.6 million,

[34:04] and then the stormwater utility currently has no existing debt

[34:07] and no future forecasted debt to fund the capital program.

[34:12] A direct, rate-funded capital is anticipated to fund

[34:15] 77% of the capital program,

[34:18] with 16% coming from external funding.

[34:20] That external funding is made up of a Department of Ecology for Givable Loan, as well as some developers, developer contributions.

[34:29] And then finally, we've got CFC revenue that's going to make up the remaining 7% of our funding needs for stormwater.

[34:36] So here again in our revenue requirement forecast, we see those blue bars representing our own MX fences, and then the green bar here is showing direct, great funded capital,

[34:46] Comparing those obligations to existing revenues in 2026, we see the surface water utility is also forecast to be deficient to fully cover the 100% depreciation target for rate-funded capital in order to

[35:00] Fund, the full targeted amount, the utility would need to rely a bit on reserves. Moving forward, if

[35:06] though rate action is taken, the utility would fall short to provide any rate-funded capital

[35:11] by 2020-9, and would eventually not be able to cover their total ONM expenses in the future.

[35:17] So in order to satisfy that deficiency, we're looking at 7.15% increases from 2027-329 before dropping

[35:25] to 2.75 percent thereafter. This strategy is set with the intent to resolve the cash flow

[35:32] deficiency by 2029 and utilize available fund balance to do so. A 7.15 percent increase

[35:40] results in an increase of between $1.65 and $1.77 a month in 2027 and 2028 for a typical

[35:48] single family customer and again these rates are on property taxes. So I have a little bit less

[35:54] visibility than some of our water sewer or salt waste rates.

[36:00] Finally here, looking at fund balances for the storm water utility,

[36:04] we do see on the operating side that we have available fund balance in 2026 that allows

[36:10] us to phase in the rating phase and whether the cash flow deficiency

[36:14] over a three year period. So here fund balance is neat or slightly exceed the operating

[36:20] target in all years of the forecast period with this rate strategy in place.

[36:24] The capital fund will seek growth in reserves as the city continues to fund the full rate fund

[36:30] system reinvestment target growing until 2031 when the city has a large capital expenditure

[36:35] and the reserve will fall but will never fall below the target.

[36:42] We'll pause here for just a second before I hand it to a man there.

[36:55] All right, I see no questions.

[36:58] Yeah, go ahead.

[36:59] Okay, perfect.

[37:00] I will pass it to Amanda to walk through the solid waste discussion and you'll notice a lot of consistency with these slides as well.

[37:08] So go ahead Amanda.

[37:10] Great. Thank you, Brooke. Can you all hear me? Okay. Okay, perfect.

[37:15] And as we went through the slides before just feel free to try men if there are any questions that come up on the solid waste utility.

[37:22] So right now we're looking at the similar screen that we saw for the other utilities with our study data assumptions here.

[37:29] here. Our period for the study is going to be that 2026 to 2032 timeframe. And we're looking

[37:37] at meeting the specific solid waste reserve target of 3 million in 2027. This equates to about

[37:44] 30 days of operating expenses for the utility. With that customer growth, so we're looking

[37:50] at an average of 0.6 in customer growth from that timeframe moving on. That's an average

[37:56] looking at different kinds of customer classes, like residential, commercial, multi-family.

[38:03] And then we're looking at an annual rate revenue of about 32.3 million in 2026,

[38:10] which we will need rate increases to keep pace with the expensive inflation that's happening

[38:15] as you can see in the dark green box.

[38:17] So as Brooke mentioned earlier we have internal costs that are increasing from about 2.5 to 5.5% each year.

[38:26] But there are also contractual costs like the waste management contract and other King County disposal items that are increasing at a higher rate than some of those internal factors.

[38:39] And just to touch on the makeup of those O&M expenses, about 75% of the budget for the solid waste utility are those contractual costs, so that becomes a really big portion of the expenses that need to be covered.

[38:56] Because of those large contractual costs, there are no city-specific CIP items, and there's

[39:03] no new debt for the utility either.

[39:06] So on the next slide, we can look at a slightly condensed version of that revenue requirement

[39:13] summary.

[39:13] There are no capital costs, the system reinvestment and debt aren't a huge portion or a part

[39:19] of at all of the solid waste utility.

[39:21] So you can see in the first box there in 2026, we have our cash operating expenses in the blue.

[39:30] Our waste management charges in that teal blue and then King County charges in the more greenish teal color.

[39:37] So really the majority of those costs are based on contract kind of outside sources.

[39:43] In 2027, the utility requires a 6.75v increase to be able to meet that specific target outlined in the previous slide.

[39:55] So right now, there is a slight deficiency in what is being kept in...

[40:00] In the solid waste utilities fund balance, and so that's 6.5% right stop fund balance within the first year.

[40:08] Pass 2027, the utility can keep a 3.95% rate increase in order to meet those contractual needs over the forecast period.

[40:18] But also anticipating that on a longer scale, we're going to try to meet that 30 day fund balance until 2042.

[40:28] I believe, or 2045 actually, so if we go to that next slide, I'm going to ask the question real quick.

[40:37] Oh yeah.

[40:39] That's a very proud.

[40:40] Go ahead.

[40:46] Shilta.

[40:51] There you go.

[40:56] Count's a very proud.

[40:57] Go ahead.

[40:59] The, the, I'm just looking at the game.

[41:02] Can you hear me?

[41:04] You're, you're breaking a,

[41:12] I think she's frozen.

[41:15] Can you hear me?

[41:16] Yes, go ahead.

[41:24] So, I was just looking back at the O&M expenses again and I just wanted to understand, like, the King,

[41:35] and

[41:41] that's through 2030,

[41:48] or, like, I guess that's one question.

[41:50] Like, how is that broken up?

[41:54] And that, and that, and that's great increases already.

[42:04] Council for your, you're, you're breaking up and we're having trouble, what you try to turn off your video and see if that helps.

[42:21] Try again.

[42:27] We're, we're having trouble hearing you.

[42:31] Okay.

[42:35] No, no worries.

[42:38] I'll ask it later.

[42:40] Thank you.

[42:42] Anyone else have questions?

[42:46] Okay. Go ahead, Amanda.

[42:49] Okay, thank you.

[42:50] And I will maybe try to anticipate what

[42:54] that was kind of asking about the King County disposal.

[42:58] That portion, even though our forecast is going

[43:00] on until 2032, we are continuing those costs

[43:03] throughout the full forecast as well.

[43:06] So those aren't just until 2032.

[43:08] So on this slide below the graph,

[43:11] We have an example bill for the 35 gallon bin and this is going to change by about three dollars in twenty twenty seven with that six point seven five rate increase and then about an average of of two dollars and 30 cents beyond that looking at twenty twenty nine.

[43:30] So if we go to the next slide and take a look at the fun balance assessment, so right now in

[43:37] 2026 we see that blue bar which is below the 30 days of aluminum expenses. In 2027 we see that blue bar

[43:47] actually hit the black dotted line which means that the 6.7% is getting us to meet that target reserve.

[43:54] We do exceed those 30 days once we get to the mid part of our forecast, but we are also

[44:01] anticipating a planned contractual re-negotiation in 2032 and want to keep that in mind and keep our right increases.

[44:09] Having as at least meet our operating targets through the end of the full forecast.

[44:15] So the solid waste utility takes a little bit more of a long-term look because of the nature of those contracts

[44:22] than maybe water, sewer, or storm does when we're thinking about those written creases.

[44:28] For the 30 days, as well, this is something that, as Brooke explained in those previous slides,

[44:35] we are trying to get to in that first year, so that really is what the 6.75 is going towards

[44:40] not 30 days of operating.

[44:44] And I will wrap up the solid waste discussion there if there are

[44:48] any other questions in this utility?

[44:52] Council any questions?

[44:56] All right, go ahead.

[44:59] All right.

[45:00] So, just in conclusion here, thanks to Amanda for that piece, we're going to bring back the combined bill summary here across the four preliminary research strategies that you saw today in inclusive of taxes and other fees.

[45:15] A typical single-family customer would see an impact of approximately $29.10 a month across all four utilities in 2027 that impact would decrease to about $20.65 a month in 2028.

[45:29] Projected rate impacts are forecasted through 2032, but just as a reminder, we're really concentrating on the rate setting period of 2027 and 2028 at this point.

[45:42] And then finally, while we showed you all a set of preliminary rate and capital funding strategies for each of the utilities tonight,

[45:48] We are working with city staff on additional rate scenarios that could include the following adjustments or levers, if you will.

[45:57] So first of all, we will bring back scenarios that include service package expenses to show their impacts on the rate strategies.

[46:05] In order to mitigate some upfront rate increases, we could look at meeting reserved targets by 2032 instead of immediately in 2027 for water surface water and solid waste.

[46:18] And primarily for sewer, we could look to reduce our system reinvestment funding contributions

[46:24] for a period of time to help mitigate those rate increases that are related to that fund balance

[46:30] recovery. The second two levers with guidance from Council could help to ease those near-term rate pressures.

[46:41] Yeah, that's nice to you, question. Council member Oath.

[46:46] Thank you. I'm looking forward to seeing some of these options when you're looking at

[46:51] Reserved targets, can we get multiple options for replenishment for some I'm curious about what are the impacts if we close over

[47:04] A biennium or two instead of all the way out to 232 and you may want to look at options that treat different utilities

[47:12] different. Absolutely.

[47:14] Yeah,

[47:28] it's a rare past goal.

[47:31] Thank you.

[47:34] Question or in a couple comments.

[47:38] One is, it's really, I really like the table at the beginning of the memo that

[47:42] Connect shows all the, the rating increases over the next six years for each of the individual

[47:47] Utilities by percentage.

[47:51] Could you, when, when you come back, could you just have an overall percentage

[47:55] image increased by year when you when you look at all of them together. Sure. That would be helpful.

[48:05] And then, you know, my second comment is, I don't. I'd love to hear someone disagree with this,

[48:12] but it feels like these, these reading creases are going to be really impactful, really impacting,

[48:19] cost of living, affordability, you name it, and I know that everyone's concerned about that,

[48:30] generally, but we tend to kind of compartmentalize things and say, oh well it's because of this

[48:36] little thing here, and then this thing over here, and then this rate over here, and this agency over

[48:42] here, and then it comes across as like we kind of struggle our shoulders and go up, there's nothing we

[48:49] do. And then we just move forward. And I guess I want to challenge that kind of thinking.

[48:59] And I know that we had conversations, regional rate, conversation. I know that we talk about

[49:05] this individually for the different utilities. I just would ask for probably something that's

[49:13] possible but just like more emphasis on like what can we do? Like what is in our purview that

[49:20] actually can a meaningful change? You know what's the the least bad option. So that's just something

[49:32] that's on my mind. It's a frustration of mine. I'm sure it's frustration of others as well.

[49:38] That's like I feel powerless. Thank you. Thank you, city manager.

[49:46] Yeah, so I think we all share

[49:47] that concern that these rates are going up, but the totality of them is not sustain up the community.

[49:53] You know, one of the reasons behind Kirk and Relic pushing for the regenerate summons was, you know,

[49:59] take this and y'all.

[50:04] That's just not something that can be sustained. So in the first summit, what we learned was that a big chunk of the increase is across all utilities, which is regulatory.

[50:12] And so to hear point about challenging assumptions, it's hard for us, particularly in the Pacific Northwest to think about, would you defer some environmental regulations, would you defer some climate commitments in order to save rate impacts, right?

[50:27] So those are the kind of things that need to happen on the original level.

[50:29] And we've been really pushing this new county executive to take out those affordability summons.

[50:36] Because across all of King County is a major player here.

[50:39] So it's huge and energy.

[50:40] So that's one way I think we're going to keep trying.

[50:43] And then we're looking very hard and everything we can do on the current side.

[50:46] I have to keep our own cost out.

[50:48] Well, so we definitely don't want to shrug.

[50:50] Yeah, we definitely don't do what we can.

[50:52] Trying to try to forward here.

[50:54] Thank you for that comment.

[50:57] Deputy Mayor.

[51:00] Thank you, Mayor, and thank you City Manager for reminding us about Kirkland's efforts on the regional, the utility summit.

[51:12] I'm looking forward to the second summit and whether we can start making more progress towards some concrete proposals from the larger group.

[51:25] I share the concern that customer and pastoral race.

[51:28] I think we all do acute concern, which is why, you know, to put it, I think to kind

[51:38] of add a plus one to account for a pastoral, everything that is in our control, one thing I

[51:43] appreciated was already in the proposals and the discussion are some suggestions for how to

[51:50] the rate increase. I just want to emphasize whatever's within our control setting the regional

[51:57] rate summit aside and some of the strategies that may come out of that. Whatever is in our

[52:02] control, I want us to bring all that to bear and I appreciate the staff's initiative already

[52:09] in identifying some of those things. But again, if it's in our control, I'd like to see it as part of

[52:16] our proposal at least to understand what it would mean and what its impact would be.

[52:23] So, I just want to add my voice to that. Thanks.

[52:25] Thank you. Councilmember Kran, welcome back.

[52:27] Okay, let's see if this works. I hope you can have a good.

[52:30] Okay, perfect.

[52:32] So I completely echo what others have said regarding just how impactful these rate increases potentially can be if they continue to be those rates in the future.

[52:44] And I think I just like to understand what is our primary mechanism to now now that we know what is going to be kind of the input into these potentially increases in rates.

[53:02] What are our next steps to, I don't know, assign individuals within the city to say, all right, you go.

[53:13] And you're going to go and work on these regional efforts.

[53:18] And then you are going to go work on potentially looking

[53:22] into our internal mechanisms and how to reduce

[53:25] these rates.

[53:26] I guess what is our overall strategy on steps forward

[53:30] to kind of get this done?

[53:34] Did you manage it?

[53:37] Thank you.

[53:38] It's like you've heard my hand raised, but now.

[53:40] So it's got to play out across a variety of different discussions

[53:45] the council and different cities, strategies. So in the council's budget process, we're going

[53:50] to hear a lot more about the capital projects and the rates and the overall city budget.

[53:56] And we'll talk about some of those things. So some of the things we're looking at, for example,

[53:59] the council did give us permission to bring on traditional staffing to work, particularly with the

[54:04] casket water alliance, the regional wastewater discussions that are going on. Right now we've been

[54:15] discussions. The mayor has been very involved. These discussions.

[54:18] House member Arnold, a deputy mayor.

[54:22] Back to being involved. And obviously, Councilor Pascal is our representative on the

[54:26] Cascade water line. So I think we've been trying to press it in every level to

[54:30] House City of Kirk and Kirk right different analysis, different thinking to sort of

[54:33] challenge people's assumption and try to lower some of the costs.

[54:38] So we're going to be working to state level two. We've had an our work program last time

[54:42] anything that comes out of these summits or ideas is something that they want to be

[54:46] taking to the state level, you know, and so. Right now it's still a big

[54:51] question uphill because these are decades in the making a lot of these decisions

[54:55] I'll just pick up the original levels and it's hard to get out of the challenge.

[55:00] Senator thinking in the short term, as this all kind of struck upon us. But as one as Jenny outlined at the very beginning, we're really trying to change our thinking about our own rates, trying to make process agreements, like splitting our water into your rates out, you know, for decades we haven't done that. So that's an example, a big better, a different analysis of the rates, tracking our revenues more carefully, like carefully at our costs, carefully at our labor costs and other costs. So there's plenty of nowhere in the government. There weren't looking hard at this and trying to come up with creative ways to break the rates.

[55:29] down and to convince the region to help bring great staff as well.

[55:34] So, what's for next time on this slide?

[55:36] And I would just add, appreciate that.

[55:38] I hope the Mayor, Prim in your public issues committee, is another place too to advocate

[55:45] what we can do immediately on affordability.

[55:49] Councillor Arld, did I see your hand up?

[55:52] You did, but City Manager covered, we're also excited about the regional representation by

[55:58] Councillor Pascale at Cascade, myself, the solid waste working group and the Cascade

[56:07] of Repremment, sound cities.

[56:10] Thank you.

[56:11] Deputy Mayor.

[56:13] Good segue.

[56:14] All I was going to do is add, I'm thankful, or the appointment to the Association of

[56:19] Washington City's legislative priorities committee.

[56:22] There, I, on behalf of Kirkland, have been able to elevate this issue with all the members

[56:29] of the legislative party and community, and those are elected officials, Statewide.

[56:35] And so we've gotten a really good response from those other elected officials.

[56:41] So this is becoming a topic that's going to elevate the Statewide.

[56:46] Thank you.

[56:47] prone to do of your hand? Yeah one one more question. So the other thing is I think given just how many factors

[56:54] there are that are going to be contributing to this rate increase across the board for all of our utilities.

[57:00] I think what would be helpful also is like understanding kind of the timing of when each of these

[57:08] individual factors would take and would would become a factor. So that we're prioritizing like okay you know

[57:15] like the King County's going to implement this rate increase by next month.

[57:19] Okay, all of our efforts should go there and we should focus on that.

[57:24] So I just wanted to maybe understand, like, are we factoring in timing as well of like

[57:28] when these various components could be implemented and then kind of prioritizing accordingly?

[57:39] We are.

[57:40] I think the challenge is unfortunately many of them are coming at the same time, right?

[57:46] the reason we call it for the summit and the summit occurred is that it just kind of happens

[57:51] that all of them are hitting the same tipping point of majorating pieces. So I think part of

[57:56] the reason I asked for additional resources to be part of the discussions is we're having

[58:01] to engage everything all at once, you know, the salt waste discussions, the rich on water quality

[58:05] discussions, the casket water lines discussions at our own looking at our own work. But yes that is exactly

[58:13] what we like out in terms of like where we send counts more to testify on our drafts that

[58:17] we make or what staff goes while they monitor. We're really trying to make sure that we're

[58:21] hit the right things at the rate. Great point. Thank you. Anyone else? All right, Jenny

[58:29] Brooke Amanda. Thank you very much. And we'll see soon. Jenny is there something you want to have?

[58:36] I wanted to add a figure code to just the final slide just to wrap up. We'll be coming back to you

[58:42] September 15th with proposed rates that incorporate some of the lovers we talked about today,

[58:48] and then again on October 20th so that we can have our new rates be effective on December 1st

[58:54] for a water sewer and on January 1st for surface water and solid waste. So, thank you.

[59:01] Great, thank you. Perfect, thank you. Thank you, Brooke.

[59:09] We are now going to move on to our second-study session item, which is a perfect set

[59:13] way based on the conversation we just had, which is the Kirkland Cares low-income support

[59:19] program update.

[59:20] City Manager.

[59:24] Thank you, Madam Harris.

[59:25] This was always going to be a business idea, but we felt like it actually made sense to have

[59:28] it as part of the study session.

[59:30] It's really about the impact rate to come forward and come folks.

[59:34] But then also the impact of this program on the overall rates themselves, those two things

[59:38] late, you know, clearly on a pay close attention to both aspects of that. So I

[59:42] here to give you an update on what's been going on with our current affairs program

[59:45] and sort of next steps. We're going to start with Michael Olsen, our director of finance

[59:48] administration, because often it's going to introduce his team that's going to speak.

[59:53] Good evening, my dear Deputy Mayor and council members.

[59:57] Quinn is our program coordinator for

[1:00:00] Over the Kirkland CARES-LOWING CUNCE, report program, and he will be making the presentation

[1:00:03] tonight. And team hands are our operations manager. We'll be available for questions as well as

[1:00:10] myself.

[1:00:13] Go ahead, question?

[1:00:15] All right, good evening, Madam Mayor and Council members. I'm Kling Levy. I'm the current program

[1:00:18] coordinator for the Kirkland CARES-LOWING CUNCE, report program. This presentation is an update

[1:00:22] comprising of about eight slides from the program. We'll cover the following, a brief timeline

[1:00:27] an overview of program activities and administration. Outcomes and growth of the program over the

[1:00:32] last two and a half years and potential expansion options staffhood identified for the new

[1:00:36] future.

[1:00:40] So to begin with a quick recap, City Council added $680,000 in one time funding to

[1:00:45] the 2023-2024 biennial budget for the city's first universal utility relief program,

[1:00:51] expanding what was at the time the senior discount program to include discounts and rebates

[1:00:55] and expand coverage to all qualified low-income residents. The program was designed with

[1:01:00] erection and feedback from council throughout 2023 and established by ordinance that December

[1:01:04] and went into effect on January 1st, 2024. Of the original $680,000 budget funding,

[1:01:11] roughly $200,000 remains and the language of ordinance 04868 still defines the program

[1:01:17] administration and the benefits derived. The program was originally managed by outside contractors,

[1:01:22] but it came internally managed to be getting in 2025.

[1:01:27] So a bit of background on program

[1:01:29] The requirements for eligibility into the program are curriculum residency and a household income below 80% of the area and media income.

[1:01:37] The area and media income is determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and then recalculated every April utilizing data from the Seattle Bellevue H.F.M.A.

[1:01:45] which comprises King's and Homish Counties.

[1:01:48] For 2026, that means the threshold for qualification into the curriculum care's program would be a gross income of 93,350 dollars for a household comprising of two people.

[1:01:58] It goes up and down depending on the members of the household, so we recalculate just based on the amount of individuals within a household.

[1:02:05] Discounts are applied directly to city of Kirkland utility accounts for water, sewer and garbage services, into the city bills directly.

[1:02:13] This count of accounts receive a 50% discount on base water rates, a 25% discount on base sewer rates, and a 40% discount on base garbage rates.

[1:02:21] These discounts do not apply to consumption charges above the base rate and they do not apply to extra charges for extra pickups, late fees or shut-off fees.

[1:02:32] The creation of the Kirkland Care program also expanded coverage to households and multi-family units that are not directly built by the city via these discounts are realized through rebates that the city calculates and then sends to those households.

[1:02:46] For the more we extend rebates to cover Kirkland related fees for businesses, pets and vehicle registrations.

[1:02:54] As I said, these rebates are received through direct check to the service address of a customer, or via in-person pickup.

[1:03:01] Rebates for utilities are sent on a buy monthly basis, and one-time rebates for a qualified businesses, pets, and vehicle registrations are released on a monthly basis.

[1:03:10] eligibility is determined one time at the point of application, and then I buy any

[1:03:14] basis going forward. So this year in 2026, we are re-certifying all of the

[1:03:19] accounts that were certified in 2024. Re-certifying them.

[1:03:28] So we'll review the

[1:03:29] administration of the program along with budget and potential participation

[1:03:32] growth. As I mentioned earlier, the contract with the, with our, it's a

[1:03:36] contract or forward. It was not renewed in 2025. So residents now applied directly

[1:03:40] electronically or via paper application to the city to the city directly. Excuse me, Kurt.

[1:03:48] Yeah, I just want to do a bit there on that that the forward so we put out an RFP for some

[1:03:52] provided administration on the private sector. For it was the only one I chose to reply and after

[1:03:58] they did it for about a year and they decided it was too hard and they withdrew. So the reason that we

[1:04:02] ended up having to bring in houses we actually didn't have anyone else to do it and then when we

[1:04:06] each out. Kelsman from Conan asks me, have we tried to check in with some folks and do this

[1:04:12] on other places? And we found fur folks like Hope Lake, they were actually proposing to do it

[1:04:17] for more than we could do it in house. So part of the reason we resulted, but the temporary

[1:04:21] program coordinator was we found it to be the least expensive way we could do it at least at that time.

[1:04:29] Thank you for the clarification, Craig. So as Craig mentioned, the city has hired a temporary

[1:04:34] program coordinated to assist in administrating the program through 1226 that's me speaking

[1:04:39] to you now and the city continues to accept applications provide support and process recurring

[1:04:43] payments to all applicants to the program. This includes all re-certification, all payment

[1:04:50] processing, all eligibility screening and all outreach the program at this time.

[1:04:57] So a brief

[1:04:58] program summary over the last two minutes.

[1:05:00] The program has expanded coverage of the discount and rebate programs to over 1,000 total households over those two years.

[1:05:07] 792 households now qualify for direct discounts on utility rates and across those households,

[1:05:14] $641,552 for discounted from utility charges between 2024 and the end of June, 2021.

[1:05:21] These discounts do not impact the program budget because they are realized the lack of revenue from utility charges,

[1:05:27] rather than rebated from the program budget directly.

[1:05:31] The average discount per household is somewhat

[1:05:33] bifurcated based on the services

[1:05:35] a household can receive.

[1:05:37] So for instance, a household is in a

[1:05:39] Norstery utility district or wouldn't

[1:05:40] be a water district service area

[1:05:42] and receiving water and sewer services

[1:05:43] from those utility providers.

[1:05:45] They qualify for less discounts

[1:05:46] because they are provided less services

[1:05:48] from the city of Kirkland.

[1:05:50] That being said, a water discount

[1:05:52] for single family residents is about $25 and $74 per

[1:05:56] billing cycle.

[1:05:56] For a sewer discount, it's $41.38, and the most common type of garbage service, a weekly 35 gallon pickup, is $42.

[1:06:04] And it's six cents per billing cycle, so that's two months.

[1:06:08] A garbage only account with the most common type of garbage pickup will receive $250 and $36 in discount annualized.

[1:06:15] While a single family residence, receding a water and sewer and garbage service from the city,

[1:06:20] will receive $655.8 in total discounts on an annual basis.

[1:06:25] Over that same time period, 229 total households qualify for buy monthly utility rebate checks.

[1:06:34] Recurring utility rebates are calculated by CECode and based on the bedroom size of the unit and the utility service provided.

[1:06:40] Recurring utility rebate for a garbage only account will result in $120 in total rebate on an annualized basis.

[1:06:47] While a one bedroom apartment receiving water, sewer and garbage services from the city of Kirkland will receive on average $360 in annual utility rebate.

[1:06:56] And then we also, as I mentioned earlier, provide business pet and vehicle licensing rebates.

[1:07:01] These rebates are applied after initial payment by the customer, and then a receipt is provided to the city to let us know that the payment was made.

[1:07:09] However, I will note that on business and pet licenses, the city also provides discounts to certain customers up front unrelated to the curriculum care program.

[1:07:18] So we see less utilization of business life rebates and pet license rebates for those reasons.

[1:07:26] So here we can see just a graph of overall program growth, as I mentioned earlier, that

[1:07:31] program is expanded, each year's registration from the original 277 senior discount accounts

[1:07:36] in 2023, adding 396 total accounts in 2024, 199 total accounts in 2025, and 149 accounts

[1:07:45] in the first half of 2026.

[1:07:47] These totals reflect the total of new applications, less the accounts that are removed from

[1:07:52] the program due to failure to re-certify or for informing us of a household change that impacts

[1:07:56] their eligibility for the program, such as the move outside of Kirkland, or change in

[1:08:00] the eligibility.

[1:08:02] The majority of the count growth has been driven by residents and single family residences,

[1:08:06] although 20% of the program totals are multi-family residences such as apartment complexes.

[1:08:11] And then I've raked down of those 792 accounts that are receiving direct utility discounts,

[1:08:16] 792 of those are garbage accounts, 444 also receive water services, and 379 of them

[1:08:22] receive sewer services from the city.

[1:08:29] So the outreach that we've conducted over the past year and a half, we've used several

[1:08:32] different avenues to try and expand knowledge about the program locally and increase participation

[1:08:36] in the community.

[1:08:37] This includes distinct one-page mailers with a mailers, with program information that

[1:08:41] accompany rate-change letters to all utility account holders.

[1:08:44] We believe this is particularly effective at the beginning of this year at increasing program

[1:08:47] participation and intended to repeat the effort with future rate-change letters.

[1:08:52] We've also included blurbs in the Kirklander newsletter and staff has appeared on this week

[1:08:55] curriculum podcasts. So our thanks and shout-outs to the communications team and CML for allowing us to do that.

[1:09:02] Staff has also done direct outreach via site visits and multi-family facilities and apartment

[1:09:06] complexes in order to directly assist residents with applications and questions which show

[1:09:10] much of the rebate account growth that we saw in 2025. Finally, staff has met with various local

[1:09:16] organizations to determine if there are potentials for expansion or collaboration between our

[1:09:20] programs. That includes King County Housing Authority, original coalition for housing,

[1:09:25] in more sure utility districts, future sound energy,

[1:09:27] and wouldn't build water district.

[1:09:33] So this is the final slide,

[1:09:34] and this will discuss our continued efforts

[1:09:37] to look at other ways to expand the program,

[1:09:39] both with encouragement itself

[1:09:40] and potentially involving other utility districts.

[1:09:43] So the first option that we have

[1:09:45] and one that we intend on pursuing most readily

[1:09:47] is using data that was correlated

[1:09:49] between the public work service water scheme

[1:09:51] and the King County assessors property tax information.

[1:09:54] Using that, we identified 500 households

[1:09:57] that would qualify for the direct utility discount that do not.

[1:10:00] Currently, have not enrolled in the program. And in an additional 200 households that would qualify for BIMA for utility rebates that have not qualified for the program.

[1:10:08] This opportunity is a little unique in that we're utilizing the assessors determination for property tax exemptions in 2024 and 2025, which was a period that the property tax exemption increased by $30,000 to $84,000 total.

[1:10:23] and became greater than a Kirkland care program's lowest income qualification level of 80 $1,700.

[1:10:29] So that means that for 2,025, the 800 or the 700 households we've identified are more or less guaranteed to qualify for the King Count or the Kirkland cares program.

[1:10:39] Because the assessor's eligibility criteria is more stringent than our program's is.

[1:10:45] So staff is really working through options to onboard the 700 households most efficiently.

[1:10:51] The second option that we have is a potential expansion into the North Shore utility district

[1:10:58] service area.

[1:11:01] Right now, Kirkland Harris program only provides discounts and rebates to Kirkland provided

[1:11:05] garbage services in the area.

[1:11:07] But city code could be amended to allow for payments to North Shore utility district customers

[1:11:10] for the difference between the amounts that North Shore customers pay and receive in discount

[1:11:16] and the amount that Oakland Care's customers would receive in discount because of the difference

[1:11:20] in utility pricing between our areas, the difference in discount amounts and the difference

[1:11:24] in program eligibility requirements, this requires review on a case by case basis for each

[1:11:28] nor surely utility district customer determine whether or not they're already receiving

[1:11:31] nor short discounts and what the difference between that nor short discount and our discount is.

[1:11:38] We've included that as an attachment to our memo to council fair.

[1:11:42] We'd also potentially require a data sharing agreement between us and Norse or utility districts that we would know

[1:11:48] the customer list of everybody they have was on discounts.

[1:11:52] We've also discussed the possibility of a shared application portal,

[1:11:55] so that anybody that applies to Norse or would automatically apply for the curriculum and care program.

[1:11:59] We have not gone down that avenue just yet.

[1:12:03] Thirdly, we intend to re-examine the utility rebate calculations in the coming years.

[1:12:07] This is because the direct utility discounts that we give to Kirkland customers are based on percentages,

[1:12:13] and that's automatically update whenever a new utility rate is adopted by the council.

[1:12:17] However, the amount of utility rebate per household is defined by city code specifically,

[1:12:22] and so that was last determined when the ordinance was voted on in 2024.

[1:12:26] As utility costs increase year to year, these rebates will begin to lag the discount amount that we intend,

[1:12:31] and so only to be re-examined and re-determined.

[1:12:34] Finally, staff will continue to conduct outreach and process payments and applications throughout

[1:12:39] 2020, six while working on potential administration options for 2027 and 2028.

[1:12:48] And finally, I'd like to leave it open for any questions in discussion you might have.

[1:12:52] Thank you, Quinn.

[1:12:53] I'm really proud of this program, and I'm very impressed with the outreach and all the

[1:12:58] work that you've done to expand this program.

[1:13:01] There's obviously a clear need.

[1:13:03] Council Member Felcon. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Well, thank you, Quinn. First of all, I know this is a lot of work to administer this program. I can imagine a lot of details, right?

[1:13:13] Going through and income verification and all of that is not an easy process. So thank you for that. I'm happy to hear that we're signing more people up. I think that's a good thing.

[1:13:22] even based on static meat, that's a good thing, right? But we know sadly that there's also

[1:13:28] growing meat, right, which is how this type, you know, nicely ties in to our former discussion,

[1:13:33] our last agenda item. And I really appreciate you, too, in the memo where you talked about being

[1:13:39] proactive in identifying other people who may qualify for the program as well. I know we're doing a

[1:13:43] lot of that already, but thinking of, you know, how else can we find folks who may be eligible for this

[1:13:49] program. I appreciate you mentioning the shared portal. I think that's a great idea.

[1:13:56] You know, I think it's important for us to fall to reduce our administrative costs,

[1:14:00] but also to reduce burden for applicants, right? We know that those that live with a low income

[1:14:06] have a lot of paperwork and a lot of phone calls and a lot of things, a lot of red tape

[1:14:11] to qualify for the programs that they so desperately need just to survive in our community.

[1:14:16] So I appreciate that the sheer portal could potentially address both of those things because obviously our administrative

[1:14:24] Administration cost here are pretty high proportion of the budget and anything we can do to reduce that

[1:14:29] I wonder if in the meantime I mean looking at like the folks who already qualified for not at like the 50%

[1:14:34] AMI do we have to you know it means test them if they've already qualified for that can we automatically accept them without having to go through our process to

[1:14:45] save again on burden on the administrative cost on us.

[1:14:51] So the short answer is yes based on city code anything that the director of finance deems

[1:14:55] acceptable for our purposes we could use so for instance we do are to use.

[1:15:02] We could also use nuts exempt exemptions in order to get these people on the program. The big is very to that right now, we'll just be getting a list from NUD, which requires something like a data sharing agreement.

[1:15:14] And they have mentioned there. They're willing to do so. We would just need to go through those legal barriers.

[1:15:19] Yeah, that would be great for us to do that, to be able to, as I said, say both the administrative

[1:15:23] cost and burden to them.

[1:15:26] So, thank you.

[1:15:26] I appreciate being proactive and I, and I, I love the idea of a shared portal, but I

[1:15:31] would love that for as many of these different jurisdictions and entities as we possibly could.

[1:15:36] Again, just to have more of an economy of scale savings there.

[1:15:40] So, thank you.

[1:15:42] Thank you.

[1:15:42] Can you answer your passcode?

[1:15:45] Yeah, thank you for that presentation.

[1:15:47] And then information that you shared,

[1:15:51] I'm going to kind of build off a little bit

[1:15:53] of what Councillor Favcone was talking about.

[1:15:57] And the one thing I guess that surprised me a little bit,

[1:16:01] wasn't, I mean, I wasn't surprised about the need

[1:16:05] and the fact that that's like they're going to increase

[1:16:08] with some of the utility costs that were forecasting.

[1:16:14] But I was a little surprised by the administrative costs.

[1:16:17] It looked like 357,000 between 2024 and 2026, which seemed to represent a pretty good chunk of the available funding.

[1:16:30] And so I know that you talked about reducing those administrative costs.

[1:16:35] I just want to emphasize that I think that'd be good, but I don't want to do it.

[1:16:47] those that participate in an efficient way, but my ask is just to track that over time to

[1:16:54] see how we are reducing costs, how effective we are being. So as long as we, so the point

[1:17:01] is that's just continuing tracking that and showing how we're making progress towards that would

[1:17:06] be helpful. Thank you.

[1:17:11] Did you major? Yeah.

[1:17:15] So I just thank you for those comments. I don't want

[1:17:17] that we also highlighted in the string of cost, but one of the things that is important to

[1:17:21] know is that the primary part of that cost is actually quit position, and he has done an

[1:17:26] extraordinary job, not just of reviewing eligibility and stuff, but also this all the work

[1:17:31] and everything, but he much talked about pretty much was also his work and trying to reach out to

[1:17:35] folks. So we did work really hard to try to find an alternative way to provide this service,

[1:17:41] and as I said, we didn't get any proposals and then when I reached out to folks,

[1:17:45] when the charges were. So when we asked everyone else, they're like, well, we did two or three people to do that.

[1:17:50] So we've very, very much about the administrative costs.

[1:17:52] We're going for creative ways to bring that down.

[1:17:55] But we haven't quite figured out that not yet.

[1:17:57] And then the final thing I'd say in terms of the overall cost, what is not really shown on that list is

[1:18:03] the foregone revenue that people get because they get the discount.

[1:18:06] So it's actually a better number than it looks because we basically,

[1:18:11] That's the one that came out of the plot you gave us, but it's not that this counts

[1:18:14] everybody's receiving.

[1:18:16] So, but so now did we definitely want to find a way to bring our numbers down, if we can.

[1:18:23] Thank you.

[1:18:25] Anyone else?

[1:18:26] Quinn, you are doing an excellent job on this.

[1:18:28] I really appreciate it.

[1:18:31] You may have said this in your presentation, but are there, oh, Calzareff, I'll call them.

[1:18:37] Sorry, I didn't see you, but I'll go ahead and finish.

[1:18:39] Are there other, are you getting requests from applicants for other types of relief, is there anything coming up that we're not capturing now?

[1:18:53] I would say the greatest amount of requests that we get there outside our current ability to do anything about is really just expanded discounts of what we already provide

[1:19:04] or misunderstandings about the current related nature of the fees.

[1:19:07] So, for instance, for the vehicle registration,

[1:19:09] we're only rebating that $20 fee

[1:19:10] that the city of Kirkland assesses on a car registration.

[1:19:14] Often when people hear about the program, they'll hear,

[1:19:17] you know, oh, I can get help with my vehicle registration

[1:19:19] and the cost is in the hundreds of dollars.

[1:19:20] The $20 fee, well, appreciated,

[1:19:22] is not what somebody imagines when they hear about that.

[1:19:25] For other city services, we don't hear as much.

[1:19:28] not hurt as much, but we have tried to increase our communication about exactly what we

[1:19:34] provide to try and limit those sort of situations going forward.

[1:19:40] Okay, thank you.

[1:19:41] Councillor Falkov.

[1:19:43] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[1:19:45] Thank you for the explanation, Quinn, and also City Manager for your remarks about, you know,

[1:19:50] the cost driver being quit in position, right, which is really important, but I do think as

[1:19:55] as we talked about the need continuing to grow, not only like, and, you know,

[1:20:00] We're talking about just the overall cost per customer or per resident, right? That that dollar value will likely increase, but also the number of residents who qualify may also likely increase.

[1:20:12] So I see this as a, you know, how to make your position as efficient as possible, right? And so as we grow, even if the dollar amount remains the same, you know, plus, you know, annual, you know, pay increases that the percentage of a decrease because the total pie is going to be larger.

[1:20:28] to your percentage of the pipe that is the cost of your time would be slightly less like we

[1:20:33] already talked about some of the other things but also I love for us to look at instead of

[1:20:37] annually every two years doing means testing right I know that there's precedent for that

[1:20:42] and some other organizations that do means testing that may save you some time and also like to

[1:20:48] look at what other cities are doing to expand some sort of share portal right to see if this is

[1:20:52] something we can encourage in other cities which is be good for residents but also to help economy

[1:20:57] So, again, thank you so much.

[1:21:02] Thank you.

[1:21:02] Councillor Timchus, did I see your hand?

[1:21:07] All right.

[1:21:07] Anyone else?

[1:21:11] All right.

[1:21:11] Quinn, are you who is that a hit?

[1:21:14] That's all I've got.

[1:21:15] Thank you, Council.

[1:21:16] Awesome.

[1:21:16] Thanks so much.

[1:21:19] Okay.

[1:21:20] We are concluding our study session a few minutes early.

[1:21:24] So, we will be back at 7.30 for our regular meeting.

[1:21:27] Thanks, everybody.

[1:21:29] If breaks is needed to address any technical issues and help ensure that the meeting proceeds

[1:21:35] as smoothly as possible, I do see a number of people in the Rose Hill room.

[1:21:41] Thank you for joining us.

[1:21:43] We do not have any proclamations on our agenda, so we will start tonight's regular meeting

[1:21:49] with items from the audience.

[1:21:53] So, this is a time in our meeting when we normally hear from the public.

[1:21:57] Please limit your remarks to three minutes.

[1:21:59] we will provide up to a total of 45 minutes for our items from the audience with no more than six

[1:22:05] speakers on a subject regardless of their position on the subject. To address the council during

[1:22:11] this item through the audience, please sign up using the online public comment instruction link.

[1:22:17] Your first and last name displayed in Zoom must match the registration form. For those participating

[1:22:24] by phone please dial star nine to be recognized to speak. I am soon the audience is an important

[1:22:30] part of our business meeting. We ask that everyone be treated with kindness and respect.

[1:22:36] Please do not clap or applaud or otherwise openly express your agreement or disagreement with

[1:22:41] a speaker. When that happens even when supporting a speaker it can be disruptive of the meeting

[1:22:47] and discourage others who are sharing a different viewpoint. We discourage people for

[1:22:53] using obscenities and making personal attacks against others, and we ask that you direct your

[1:22:59] comments to Council, not to staff or audience members.

[1:23:03] In addition, because they can be disruptive, signs and placards are not allowed in Council

[1:23:09] Chambers, or the Rose Hill Room, during our meetings regardless of their content.

[1:23:14] As a reminder, state law does not allow items from the audience to be used for promoting,

[1:23:20] opposing or discussing a candidate's campaign or ballot proposition.

[1:23:28] Kirkland prides itself on being a respectful, welcoming community.

[1:23:32] We want everyone to feel like they belong in Council Chambers or the Rose Hill Room

[1:23:38] expressing their views points.

[1:23:40] City Clerk, could we have signed up to speak?

[1:23:44] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[1:23:45] At this point, we do have 12 guests wishing to speak.

[1:23:47] We'll take the first three in this order.

[1:23:49] Christy jacket following us on site Jerry not on site and also Alicia Remira's on site. Please approach the podium

[1:24:11] Welcome Christy and you can see the timer on the screen on the screen. I do. Thank you. Go ahead. Hi, my name is Christy

[1:24:20] Dragots. My family lives at 6150 130th Avenue, Northeast, which is right against the Southern

[1:24:27] boundary of the south reservoir water tower site. I'm writing to ask for your help in finding a better

[1:24:34] outcome for a serious problem with the current project design. Our home is separated from the reservoir

[1:24:40] by a grove of mature, restaurant, red seeders. For generations this grove has screened our home

[1:24:46] from the tank and its barbed wire security fence. It has also sheltered wildlife, including my own

[1:24:53] children, climbing, and swinging in their branches.

[1:24:55] As currently designed, the project would remove all of the trees between...

[1:25:00] In our house in the water tower structure. It would also relocate the barbed wire fence right up to the property boundary, which is a mere 13 feet from our bedroom window.

[1:25:12] If the fence were moved on top of the boundary, it would leave us no ability to plant anything to screen our property from a barbed wire fence.

[1:25:21] And all of that aside, I actually want to talk about the trees that are slated for removal.

[1:25:28] The city's arborist report did not assess the western red cedar grove that sits between my house and the reservoir.

[1:25:36] Though this grove is on city's property, it can currently only be accessed from our property.

[1:25:42] And it's clear from the absence of sufficient analysis in the city's report that this grove was mostly ignored when the team reviewed the proposed water tower designs.

[1:25:49] We hired our own consulting arborist, which documented nine high retention value trees in the grove.

[1:25:57] Six of them are landmark trees, which are trees measuring larger than 26 inches in trunk diameter at breast height.

[1:26:04] The ones I'm talking about are quite larger than that.

[1:26:07] The diameter is as large as my arms spread out. These trees are gigantic.

[1:26:14] The three of the trees that are designated landmark trees are missing entirely from the city's inventory.

[1:26:22] So if our city staff have acknowledged the current report is deficient, but no commitment has been made to correct the design or mitigate the outcome.

[1:26:31] And as things stand, the city is relying on an erroneous report and we believe violating its own tree ordinance, which is chapter 95, if it proceeds.

[1:26:39] to be clear. We support the city maintaining its water infrastructure. What we're

[1:26:45] asking for is a design that preserves the grove and protects the buffer between

[1:26:49] our home and the facility. And I don't need to tell you I know that there's no

[1:26:54] replacing healthy 100 plus year old trees. Forest Health Specialists have noted

[1:27:00] significant Western Red Seater dieback in the Pacific Northwest since 2017 due

[1:27:05] climate change and hotter drier summers, which we're experiencing right now.

[1:27:09] As our arborist report lays out, young western red cedars.

[1:27:13] The kind the city keeps assuring us will be replanted, have very low survival rates.

[1:27:19] We also know that new trees simply planted next to each other does not constitute a

[1:27:22] grove nor mimic the benefits of one.

[1:27:25] Older western red cedars need to be redeemed because the new ones are dying.

[1:27:29] Christy, I apologize your time is up.

[1:27:32] That's okay.

[1:27:32] Thank you.

[1:27:33] Thank you for your passion on trees.

[1:27:35] And I know that Julie Underwood are public works director plans to come walk the site with you.

[1:27:41] So thank you. Yeah, I wouldn't invite anyone that wants to come out any time. Thank you so much.

[1:27:47] Jerry not.

[1:27:51] I'm Jerry not representing the Marinor condominiums next to Marina Park on Kirkland Avenue.

[1:27:57] I initially wanted to express our concerns about the excess noise created by loud boat music and large groups of people sitting on the dock late at night after 10 o'clock.

[1:28:07] The same three or four bolts tie up at the entrance end of the dock, which is directly below the western units of the mariner.

[1:28:15] Come on, baby.

[1:28:17] The police enforce the standard residential noise rules in Kirkland, but you have to call the non-emergency number to register a complaint with the Kirkland police.

[1:28:25] We call this number many times during the summer, and the police usually respond within 30 minutes to shut down the loud music and parties on the dock.

[1:28:32] The same bolts will return the next day, and the noisy parties will start it up again.

[1:28:38] We would suggest a regular 10pm walkthrough by police to shut down the loud music and

[1:28:42] disperse the crowds at the park side of the dock.

[1:28:46] The park rangers walk through the dock to the three times to check a day to check that

[1:28:51] if the bolts are paying their mortgage fees for that day.

[1:28:54] They leave by 6 or 7 at night after they tag checks and give tickets where needed.

[1:29:02] No one with the authorities around to maintain or enforce the dock rules that clearly

[1:29:08] state where you can more your boat, where you pay, no excessive noise allowed, no drinking

[1:29:13] on the dock, and no rafting alongside other boats on the south side of the dock.

[1:29:18] These rules have been regulated, these rules have not been regulated in force since the

[1:29:24] Harbor Master position was eliminated during COVID, and there's no one on the dock with

[1:29:30] authority to end any rule-breaking activities.

[1:29:33] A few alterations between mariner tenets and mild bold operators, and their guests have already

[1:29:37] occurred this summer, which have involved fist fights, verbal threats, and police involvement

[1:29:43] regarding the sputes.

[1:29:54] Tonight, I would like to express the mariners, homeowners, request of their country.

[1:30:00] Concerns regarding the excess noise be considered when planning the new dock construction for next year.

[1:30:06] This would include a clear understanding of the rules and method of enforcement for the upcoming years.

[1:30:11] We are tax-paying curtain residents who do not want the new dock to become a playground for loud music and parting crowds.

[1:30:20] Examples of this activity would be one either Bay where they had to have to enforce new rules

[1:30:25] at the nearby home owners requested to end this type of offensive behavior.

[1:30:32] And Andrew's Bay in the South Lake Washington where they are initially new rules to control

[1:30:36] the noisy crowds during the summer.

[1:30:39] The dock mortgage should be for borders looking to visit Kirkland, tour the shops, enjoy

[1:30:43] the restaurants, and be able to stay on their boat and not be assaulted with loud music

[1:30:47] and the notches and obnoxious behavior. Thank you.

[1:30:52] Thank you, Jerry. Alicia.

[1:30:56] Alicia Ramirez will be followed by Aaron Belmore and Brady Northstrom.

[1:31:00] Thank you. Good evening, Council.

[1:31:03] Thank you for letting me speak tonight. First off, I want to thank you for passing

[1:31:07] resolution 5, 7, 2, 9 last year.

[1:31:10] Really, it's a preparing the civilian community for

[1:31:12] ICE activity. And for the progress towards the goals of the

[1:31:15] solution that were shared during the last meeting. However, despite this project progress,

[1:31:20] time is not on our side. During the last several weeks, there have been an alarming uptake

[1:31:25] in ice abductions of community members in Saurline, Seattle, Renton, Burian, the quillarevin,

[1:31:31] Linwood, and Everett just to name a few. Yesterday and Lake Forest Park, a community member was

[1:31:37] violently pulled out their vehicle and taken by ice and broad daylight in the middle of the

[1:31:45] all over the region almost every day.

[1:31:48] I urge you to move quickly to implement the rest

[1:31:50] of resolution 5, 7, 2, 9, and to provide more resources

[1:31:54] to residents regarding immigration rights

[1:31:57] and assistance for impact community members

[1:31:59] who have lost the breadwinner, breadwinner, or family member

[1:32:03] to ICE.

[1:32:04] Thank you.

[1:32:06] Thank you.

[1:32:08] Aaron.

[1:32:15] Here today, not to talk anybody.

[1:32:16] Just trying to get some resolution.

[1:32:18] Everything's based on my opinion, simply

[1:32:20] because City of Kirkman will not answer any questions

[1:32:23] and or give any help.

[1:32:25] Just kind of roll through stuff quick.

[1:32:27] We'll have three minutes.

[1:32:28] This is the original construction of one particular deck.

[1:32:31] You can see some support that was done

[1:32:33] with constant concrete center blocks.

[1:32:35] No engineering done, Jeff let us know

[1:32:37] that engineering at City of Kirkman is required.

[1:32:39] You also let us know that permits required.

[1:32:41] I reported it, City of Kirkman did nothing.

[1:32:43] This is what happens when nothing's done.

[1:32:48] Read on again, second time, no permits.

[1:32:50] city city is not done anything. Then Adam from planning comes out. I didn't see any construction

[1:32:56] any of it in construction. Well, they're plywood. They're still the center of blocks. I mean,

[1:33:01] I don't know if that's got its leading our planning. We're in big trouble, by the way. It was told

[1:33:07] that not contact the fire department for that. And I've been on it that our civil servants are using

[1:33:13] those decks. I don't know if their families or friends know that they're in danger, possibly every day.

[1:33:18] Here's one catch basin that was replaced tied into a large catch basin that goes onto our under a fire lane right here

[1:33:25] Possible sink holes. We have water mains that were replaced possible sink holes firefighters, police cruisers, other citizens

[1:33:33] Mayor may not know about what it can be possibly done. Here's a packet that was given you were at the meeting may first

[1:33:39] Why you guys refuse to answer questions is beyond me?

[1:33:43] This is what you're elected officials. You're here to answer questions. You hear the do stuff for the people

[1:33:47] here's David's promise in an email that I'm going to get answers by May 13th still

[1:33:51] knows it. No answers right there, boom. Constant delays. He said he had a meeting

[1:33:58] with experts. Experts were going to be able to get me the answers after the May 13th meeting.

[1:34:02] No answers. After my meeting, after our council meeting, the other day I said that I was not able

[1:34:07] to contact council and or fire based on David's emails. Here's his retaliation email that

[1:34:14] States. Oh, you can contact them. I never said that. And all Aaron refuses to meet in person.

[1:34:19] But Aaron doesn't have more emails on that. And then here we have in David's emails right here,

[1:34:26] where he says, don't contact, don't contact fire or counsel. Um, so blame game. We're not going to

[1:34:33] enter into the blame game with David. Are my attorneys said that David keeps doing it. Adam's keeps

[1:34:38] doing it. David keeps a David takes snippets of emails and tries to change the outcome of it by by by by

[1:34:43] what are you stating? You know, Mayor, you're really good at public speaking. You're

[1:34:47] follow through really, really awful. You know, you say Kirkland's all inclusive. You

[1:34:52] say all this stuff, but there's no action. So I emailed the City Council. I hope all

[1:34:56] you guys reply. I don't want to have another possible violation for

[1:35:15] Thank you.

[1:35:24] All right. Next we have Brady Norstrom. And Brady's joining us virtually. All right.

[1:35:37] radio you there?

[1:35:46] It might take just one moment. Okay.

[1:35:51] Hey there folks, I believe

[1:35:53] you can hear me now, so I'll go for it. Hi, my name is Brady Northstrom, and I am the

[1:35:59] associate director of government relations and policy at the Housing Development

[1:36:02] Consortium. I'm also here to represent the voices of the East Side Affordable

[1:36:07] Housing Coalition, which consists of about 30 organizations that build,

[1:36:11] operate and advocate for affordable housing on the east side, including in Kirkland.

[1:36:17] I first wanted to thank staff for their hard work and early engagement around the housing

[1:36:21] on faith owned land code amendment that's on the agenda today.

[1:36:27] We support the initial proposal from staff and the proactive engagement that was done with

[1:36:31] the affordable housing community, including our coalition members.

[1:36:35] This policy is a win-win for faith communities and the city of Kirkland, faith organizations

[1:36:42] can use their land to prove their financial standing, while contributing to mission-aligned

[1:36:47] community goals. It's also a good chance for the city to expand affordable housing. However,

[1:36:54] this policy is only worthwhile if it can be used by these faith communities. So we just wanted

[1:37:00] to take staff for setting a solid foundation for this success.

[1:37:05] Some of the things without going into all the details,

[1:37:09] but flexible and clear design and development standards,

[1:37:12] increase capacity and exchange for affordability

[1:37:14] with the chance to get the deeper levels through extra bonuses,

[1:37:18] and then the buy right approval and administrative review

[1:37:22] for departure requests.

[1:37:24] Something that is pretty common in development

[1:37:26] is that almost every project requires a departure.

[1:37:29] So we wanted to take staff for including administration departures for these minor deviations.

[1:37:35] We would also ask for more substantial code deviation requests to have a pathway as well.

[1:37:43] So faith communities are not development experts.

[1:37:46] And so we support these additional parts of the code that's being recommended.

[1:37:50] One of the things to go beyond the code rather including expedited permitting review,

[1:37:55] pretty submittal conferences and staff support. Future work will also be needed to educate these

[1:38:01] faith communities about what this tool is, how they can use it and what circumstances. It

[1:38:07] ultimately takes knowledge, money, and time for a faith community to even consider development

[1:38:14] and then go through a discernment process. So we look forward to this next stage as well. So thank

[1:38:21] you for your time this evening and thank you for moving forward this important policy.

[1:38:25] Thank you, Brady.

[1:38:29] All right.

[1:38:29] I have a city clerk.

[1:38:30] Next, we have Alex Zimmerman, Lian,

[1:38:33] Institute, and Lilith Winkler's short.

[1:38:37] The first two on-site in the last virtual.

[1:38:41] All right. Alex.

[1:38:43] Yeah, thank you.

[1:38:44] Now, my name is Alex Zimmerman.

[1:38:45] I'm President of St. Dapan, America.

[1:38:47] I want to speak about low-income problems.

[1:38:51] So, it months ago,

[1:38:53] what involved in country housing authority.

[1:38:55] Eight months ago, I give my request a few questions to depot your mayor, Mr. Black, because

[1:39:04] he commissioned her of King Country Housing Authority. So, situation very simple, right now, last

[1:39:11] year I come three times to meeting King Country Housing Authority of certain meetings they give

[1:39:16] me a response for ever. So, all rest of my life I cannot go. So, Mr. Black, this is the

[1:39:24] What is mean why? Because I have little bit different opinion. Maybe very different opinion.

[1:39:30] Because in country, how is a notoriety of this commissioner, Mr. Black,

[1:39:34] deputy mayor, is a pure crook and bandita in killer, this a very serious problem.

[1:39:40] They more dangerous than Hitler, Nazi Gestapo, fascist, you know what is mean?

[1:39:47] We have a constitution, law, for 250 years.

[1:39:53] Hitler don't have this, in freedom of speech, Hitler don't have this.

[1:39:58] If we have...

[1:40:00] Execute your order, you're ago, from Trump, you know what is mean, can country housing authority post to be blown out into American citizens, because I'm come for this three meeting, what is they have, and investigate into guys you spend $100 million for not legal immigrant.

[1:40:17] And people like me senior citizens disabled, low income, you know what is mean, don't have chance, go to can country housing authority, you pay Tory percentage from income, like my income, for example.

[1:40:29] I cannot afford to live. It's fine apartment, ever.

[1:40:37] Well, better, you know, at least.

[1:40:40] For 1,000 bucks a month.

[1:40:42] So this guy very interesting because you know about this.

[1:40:45] I speak about this and all kinds of know about this and no one else.

[1:40:50] But this exactly what is you doing, because I told you more than

[1:40:53] the original, I guess, that was the first.

[1:40:56] This guy who spoke before me to talk about this exactly.

[1:40:59] say because you democrat, you make from King country and from Kirkland, you know what is

[1:41:06] mean?

[1:41:06] Two and a half millionths left and Kirkland has this hundred millionths.

[1:41:11] Very quiet.

[1:41:12] Nobody is talking about this, you know what is mean, so you more danger is in Hitler,

[1:41:17] not so good stuff.

[1:41:18] Fascists.

[1:41:19] Hitler is talking about German, for every German, you kill every American citizen.

[1:41:24] is totally opposite. You are real bandit, you are real killer. When you stop in doing this,

[1:41:31] while all in considers an American, don't have right.

[1:41:35] We have a Trump, we have an American revolution, stand up, slap, and hit the cow.

[1:41:39] We have executive order from President.

[1:41:43] Idiot.

[1:41:44] No, fine, dude.

[1:41:49] All right, next we have Leigh Ann.

[1:41:57] Did he clerk?

[1:42:01] Mayer Curtis, we have a guest here that's announcing a very special scholarship and they're requesting that that guest be heard from first and that person is

[1:42:12] Lilith and she is online. Can we accommodate that request please?

[1:42:17] Absolutely.

[1:42:18] Stand by.

[1:42:34] Good evening, city council members and Mayor Curtis. My name is Lilith Winkler Shore. I served on the

[1:42:45] the eighth annual Matthew Dahl Kirkland Youth Council Memorial Scholarship Award.

[1:42:51] Matt served on Kirkland Youth Council from 2009 to 2012. He passed away in February of

[1:42:56] 2018. Matt was proud of his service to his community and loved being a part of the council.

[1:43:03] In his spirit and memory, his parents, Linda and Bob establishes annual scholarship to benefit

[1:43:08] a Kirkland Youth Council high school senior. I'm here representing the scholarship review committee

[1:43:13] which includes myself, and Allison Blair, and Kenny Drabble, who are there in chamber today.

[1:43:19] The three of us have served on KYC together alongside our dear friend, Matt.

[1:43:23] Especially exciting tonight, I'm here to introduce land institutes to the council and to the

[1:43:29] community. As the 2006 recipient of the Matthew Doll Cartland Youth Council Memorial Scholarship Award,

[1:43:35] land is here with us tonight and will make some remarks after this announcement.

[1:43:39] Lann graduated from Winita High School this year, she will be attending the University of Washington.

[1:43:45] Lann is to be commended for her extensive service and leadership to Kirkland on the youth council beginning in 2024.

[1:43:52] We are incredibly touched by her responses to the essays and we would love to share one quote which we really think gives the heart and soul of what Kirkland youth council is about and particularly about what Lann services about.

[1:44:04] She wrote, the most valuable skill I've taken away from KYC is the ability to build bridges

[1:44:09] between people and create spaces where others feel genuinely seen, heard, and valued.

[1:44:15] I realized how much belonging shapes the way people contribute, collaborate, and grow.

[1:44:20] When I became co-chair, I began thinking about leadership, not as directing people, but

[1:44:25] as intentionally creating connection.

[1:44:28] Congratulations, Lian.

[1:44:30] Kirkland Youth Council continues to provide an important formative opportunity for local youth.

[1:44:35] We want to recognize ready Schubiger.

[1:44:36] For the wonderful guidance, you continue to provide as the program coordinator for the Kirkland Youth Council.

[1:44:42] And thank you for the opportunity to make this scholarship announcement.

[1:44:45] And now I believe they end with like to use her public comment to say a few words.

[1:44:49] Thank you all so much and congratulations again.

[1:44:51] Thank you.

[1:45:00] Good evening, Mayor Curtis, members of the City Council and everyone here tonight. First, I would really like to sincerely thank the DELF family and the scholarship committee for this incredible honor. I feel so genuinely honored.

[1:45:18] It really means so much to receive a scholarship that celebrates Matthew Dahl's commitment to serving our community.

[1:45:26] And I also want to thank the City of Kirkland for continuing to invest in young people through programs like the Kirkland Youth Council.

[1:45:35] In the excerpt that was shared of my scholarship as I talked about building bridges between people and creating spaces where others feel seen.

[1:45:46] heard and valued. That became truly my biggest takeaway from KYC, but it also changed the way

[1:45:54] that I think about leadership. When I first joined KYC, I thought I was joining a group that

[1:46:02] planned events and volunteered in the community while that is still true. I never expected it to

[1:46:09] the kind of person that I wanted to become. It taught me that meaningful leadership isn't

[1:46:17] about having the loudest voice in the room. It's about making sure that people feel comfortable

[1:46:22] using theirs. And some of the moments I'm most proud of, uh, where it when I was the one speaking,

[1:46:29] but when I saw someone who had once, uh, been quiet, began sharing their ideas because they finally

[1:46:37] felt like they belonged. As someone who has moved between countries, cultures, and communities

[1:46:44] many times, I know how meaningful that feeling of belonging can be. That's why creating spaces

[1:46:52] where people feel welcomed, included, and valued is something I care so deeply about, and it's

[1:46:57] something, and it's a lesson I'll carry with me long after my time on KYC.

[1:47:04] Receiving a scholarship in Matthew Dahl's name is especially meaningful, because it reminds me that the bridges we build and the impacts we make can continue long after we're gone.

[1:47:17] Every act of kindness, every opportunity we create for someone else, and every person we encourage has the potential to shape the community in ways we may never fully see.

[1:47:26] and I hope to carry that listen with me a long after my time on KYC is over.

[1:47:34] So thank you again to the Dahl family, this college of committee and the city of Krakhan for

[1:47:38] this incredible honor. It is something that I will always be grateful for and I will carry with me

[1:47:43] whatever life takes me next. Thank you. Thank you, and congratulations. I was going to say we

[1:47:50] with clap, but you can't hear us. So thank you so much. All right, next we have Aaron.

[1:47:57] Aaron Hamilton followed by Alicia Wees and Sean Hornbrook. Thank you.

[1:48:06] Hello again. It's wonderful seeing all of your virtual faces. It's been a hot minute, but I always

[1:48:13] like to make an effort to recognize people that go above and beyond, especially when it comes

[1:48:18] to my community. Even though I'm a little bit late, Redmond keeps me busy, but I would

[1:48:26] like to recognize Chief St. Jean and the Kirkland Police Department for doing just that

[1:48:31] and inviting me to present my transgender community interaction and engagement for public

[1:48:37] safety training course. It's a work in progress. Back in June, it's not something that

[1:48:45] I needed to do or had to do, but after my quick and dirty pitch and a conversation, he was

[1:48:53] on board.

[1:48:54] He wanted to do it, signed up, let's go.

[1:48:58] That truly means a lot.

[1:48:59] It was a great training session, the officers in attendance, passed with flying colors,

[1:49:05] a plus-schooled stars, they asked tremendous questions, and it gives me hope to see what

[1:49:13] enforcement, taking these opportunities to learn about my community and what they can do

[1:49:21] to help. I don't know if any of you remember, but the last time I was over there, giving the

[1:49:30] speech on Transvisibility Day, I spoke a lot about Knowledge's Power and this is where it kind

[1:49:38] of starts. This is a training program that I've been working on with public safety to help bridge

[1:49:42] that gap and rebuild these bridges between law enforcement and my community and we're starting

[1:49:50] and I'm actually starting to see progress, especially with interactions from law enforcement

[1:49:58] with the community.

[1:50:00] So, it's giving me hope that what I'm doing is good. I hope, and that we can continue to rebuild that trust.

[1:50:12] I like to thank Mike very much, because, you know, with our conversations, you've always been, I just want to, I just want to do what I need to do to make you all happy.

[1:50:24] And feel safe and important, and that really means a lot, so I just wanted to recognize those efforts and appreciate what the Kirkland PD is doing and hopefully we can take you all can take that to

[1:50:39] We're all coming in September, so hopefully you're a little bit more prepared for dealing with the community from afar or however they want to be doing that, so thank you very much

[1:50:52] Thank you, Erin. If we sincerely appreciate you showing your appreciation, so thank you very much.

[1:51:01] Alicia's next, correct?

[1:51:04] Correct. She is online, so we're waiting for her to go through the transition here.

[1:51:18] Good evening, Mayor Curtis. The members of the council. My name is Alicia Chiruris.

[1:51:22] And I'm here today on behalf of Habitat for Humanity.

[1:51:25] Seattle King and Kinitask County's to speak in the support of the ordinance expanding affordable housing opportunities on faith owned property.

[1:51:33] Habitat submission is simple. Everybody knows a decent affordable place to call home.

[1:51:39] We work toward that mission to permanently affordable home ownership and partnerships that turn underused land into real housing opportunity.

[1:51:47] This ordinance speaks directly to that work.

[1:51:51] Faith opportunities across the east side,

[1:51:53] often hold land that is incredibly valuable and underused.

[1:51:57] These parcels represent one of the most promising

[1:51:59] and most overlooked opportunities to build affordable homes

[1:52:02] in places that already have community groups,

[1:52:05] transit access and neighbors who want to see them thrive.

[1:52:09] By allowing streamlined permitting and reasonable density

[1:52:12] and high flexibility for residential development on faith owned land,

[1:52:16] This ordinance removes real barriers, the kinds that often, the kind that often stall affordable projects for years, or kill them before they start.

[1:52:26] It gives faith organizations a genuine path to put their land toward long-term community benefit, and it gives nonprofit developers like Habitat, a viable partner to build with.

[1:52:36] We know this model works, and it's already helping families move from renting to owning in communities across our region, and we believe it can work in hurt going to.

[1:52:45] Habitat is committed to deepening our presence on the east side. We want to work directly

[1:52:50] with Perkland's faith communities, city staff, and this council to identify sites where

[1:52:57] this ordinance can turn into real, permanently affordable homes for local families. We see

[1:53:02] this legislation as an invitation and we intend to answer it. We urge you to pass this ordinance

[1:53:07] and we look forward to building what comes next together. Thank you. Thank you, Alicia.

[1:53:13] But

[1:53:19] Sean Hornbrook virtually, after Sean, we have two additional guests, Ken McKenzie, on

[1:53:28] site and Joe Conzler virtually.

[1:53:30] Thank you.

[1:53:52] Sean, do you hear us?

[1:54:08] I've bought an out.

[1:54:09] Can you hear me?

[1:54:10] Okay.

[1:54:10] We can.

[1:54:11] Go ahead.

[1:54:12] Great.

[1:54:12] Thank you so much.

[1:54:14] Good evening.

[1:54:16] Ms. Mayer and to council, I'll be really brief here.

[1:54:20] I only need my only comment. It has to do with the

[1:54:26] Arita agreement and I wanted to just I'm sure the numbers of the council

[1:54:31] and Madam Mayor familiar with what's what the agreement is about

[1:54:36] One it's affordable housing which is great and I think we can all get behind that

[1:54:41] But my concern with this new agreement is that in 2019

[1:54:47] Arita benefited from the

[1:54:52] the MFT pilot program. They already got an attack spin at received attack spin

[1:54:58] a fit for this property.

[1:55:01] So, what are we going to get? It was another tax break plus the no interest loan as members of the

[1:55:08] Kirkland community. I've lived here for homeowner for 23 years now. Great place. That's your

[1:55:15] refill. I just wanted to know what we're going to get for benefit because we're going to be

[1:55:20] taking, given them the tax break, that has to still get paid to the money and fee that it has to be it has to be it has to have to come from somewhere.

[1:55:40] So, what's the benefit going to be, because that's also money that's not going to go to other places to different programs for a foreign policy.

[1:55:47] So, when I looked at this agreement, I noted that we're not kidding, we're not kidding in the new units that are affordable.

[1:55:56] Also, the particular property is inherently inexpensive and well below the 60% median threshold of partner rents rental.

[1:56:14] So we're looking at the benefit because we're paying more and they already had a benefit.

[1:56:18] So they're back again for a second benefit.

[1:56:20] So what are we going to get no more new units?

[1:56:24] So maybe a guarantee that it's going to stay low.

[1:56:28] Well, there's nothing that's been presented that I can see that is going to cause these micro apartments micro studios to increase as far as the size and the footprint.

[1:56:40] we're not getting any more units that's not going to change of us which to new buyer they've got

[1:56:45] the same footprint. So if they want to refurbish it or whatever they're going to have to

[1:56:50] expand it in more than a minimum money to make this a different rental value property. So

[1:56:57] I'm asking an urging a no vote because I don't see it going to fit or new for housing with this

[1:57:02] particular agreement and I think you all for your time this evening. Thank you Sean.

[1:57:09] Yes, thank you. I'm sorry. I thought you were done. Thank you so much.

[1:57:19] Thank you.

[1:57:22] So I'm here to talk about the tool library and the RFP response.

[1:57:30] So it's submitted by the Eastside Tool Collective, which has no form right now.

[1:57:37] And they say they're going to operate under physical sponsorship of the South King tool library.

[1:57:42] So I went digging into the IRS database and found this alking tool library, they haven't submitted their tax return for two years.

[1:57:53] So they're right on the verge of losing their tax exempt status and yet the city is anticipating that we would do business with them as a tax exempt organization.

[1:58:03] The RFP response does not include any description of what fiscal sponsorship means.

[1:58:09] Fiscal sponsorship is extremely broad and very complex.

[1:58:14] Sometimes the fiscal sponsor acts on behalf of the organization and sometimes they act

[1:58:19] alongside.

[1:58:20] We don't know, and yet we're going to be asked as a city to make out a check for $100,000

[1:58:26] to presumably South King Tool Library and we have no idea what the relationship between them and the

[1:58:36] the East Side Tool Collective is.

[1:58:41] So if we don't give the money to the Tool Library, the South King Tool Library,

[1:58:46] then somebody's got to pay taxes on it and that's not in the budget.

[1:58:51] So we need to know what legal entity the city's going to be working with.

[1:58:54] Otherwise, the RFP is kind of non-responsive. We just don't know.

[1:59:04] So why is this RFP response so empty and critical financial areas? Why isn't anybody giving it a once over?

[1:59:16] Is the RFP just a formality?

[1:59:21] Oh, well, we're all friends and it's only a hundred thousand dollars. So we really don't have to be very careful about it because we'll sort all this out.

[1:59:29] Well, I don't think so.

[1:59:31] I think $100,000 is a lot of money.

[1:59:34] And I think that before we process this RFP,

[1:59:37] before we have any kind of agreement,

[1:59:40] we have to kind of get out of this one hand,

[1:59:42] washing the other relationship,

[1:59:44] and instead create an arms length relationship

[1:59:46] between the city and our contractor,

[1:59:50] so that we get our money's worth,

[1:59:53] and we know who we're working with,

[1:59:55] and what we're going to get for what we stand.

[1:59:59] Thank you.

[2:00:00] Thank you. All right, Joe Conzler.

[2:00:12] Can everyone hear me?

[2:00:14] Thanks. Hopefully this thing works. New kind of new technology, new, new, new form of zoom.

[2:00:22] So why don't we get through this this quick as I can?

[2:00:24] With two minutes, fifty seconds.

[2:00:27] Really would encourage city of Kirkland to, well, I've asked you to do this before.

[2:00:31] I'll ask you to do it again considering you were marks of a certain balance.

[2:00:34] And then if you felt like you could speak up and say that was wrong and historically untrue

[2:00:39] among other things, that you need to really talk to your friends and readmen, that you need to talk to your friends and

[2:00:45] develop you about getting some counter rules because you're spending a night away from your families here.

[2:00:51] You don't deserve to be compared to mass murdering genocidal monsters.

[2:00:55] I'm not even going to use the word Zimmerman News.

[2:00:57] I know better.

[2:00:59] And I find those kind of equalifications unfair to you and your friends and family.

[2:01:05] I find them unfair to the staff and the community to ask the sit for this.

[2:01:10] This is not why I fought for public comments so hard during and certainly after the pandemic.

[2:01:16] This is not okay the way you're being treated.

[2:01:20] And I think it's incumbent upon you, stand up for each other.

[2:01:23] I pushed boundaries here. Redmond did. It looks like Zimmerman's intimidation going there.

[2:01:28] Mercer Island did. Zimmerman doesn't go there anymore. Seattle really has.

[2:01:34] Zimmerman doesn't go over there anymore. Can I see a pattern? I think I've made my

[2:01:38] point. It's kind of running a bit late when we show how well you say about their

[2:01:41] Thanks all you do.

[2:01:46] Thank you.

[2:01:47] All right, so the clerk does that end our public comments?

[2:01:51] Yes, it does.

[2:01:53] All right, thank you.

[2:01:55] We are now moving on to the consent calendar.

[2:01:59] Before we have the motion, I'd like to ask the deputy mayor to present the audit of counts.

[2:02:06] Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor.

[2:02:07] We are now moved, I'm sorry.

[2:02:10] I always read from the wrong section there.

[2:02:12] Thank you. We had payroll in the amount of 10 million, 432,835 dollars in 2.6 cents,

[2:02:19] and bills in amount of 12,948,410 dollars, and 90.4 cents.

[2:02:26] Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar?

[2:02:30] That was a move.

[2:02:32] Oh, wow. I think that was Councillor Perum, second by Councillor Perum,

[2:02:37] Deputy Mayor, is that right?

[2:02:40] Councillor Perum, were you the motion maker?

[2:02:42] Okay, all right, it's been moved by Councilor Pram 2nd by Deputy Mayor Black to move for this consent calendar is there any discussion.

[2:02:53] All those of the favor, but they say aye.

[2:02:57] Any opposed?

[2:02:59] Motion carries seven zero.

[2:03:02] Thank you.

[2:03:04] All right, we are now moving on to our regular business agenda.

[2:03:08] Our first item of business is on Alternative Delivery of the Peter Kirkpool Project, City Manager,

[2:03:20] you're muted.

[2:03:27] I was brilliant opening, too, and I've just stepped all over it.

[2:03:31] Thank you, Madam Rick.

[2:03:32] So, this is your second presentation on the Alternative Delivery of the Peter Kirkpool Project.

[2:03:36] As you know, it gave us permission to go to the state to see if they would approve the project.

[2:03:41] They did.

[2:03:42] going to hear about that and then it requires under our code visit a council to give staff permission

[2:03:47] to proceed with this as an alternative delivery method. So we're going to have a council

[2:03:51] patient tonight and we are linking for a motion to approve us to move forward here to

[2:03:56] keeping that presentation that's our senior project into your attic Davis. Our city is consultants

[2:04:01] at Turner and Townsend here in our Julie Underwinner Director of Public Works.

[2:04:10] Thank you, City Manager.

[2:04:18] Good evening, Madam Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Black and City Council.

[2:04:21] Thank you for this opportunity to provide an update on the Petergurt pool project.

[2:04:27] We can move to the next slide.

[2:04:33] As the city manager summarized, in June, Council received an overview of the progressive design build

[2:04:39] and supported staff's recommendation to apply to the State's Project Review Committee PRC

[2:04:46] for authorization to use this delivery method.

[2:04:49] Tonight we'll briefly recap the Petergurt pool project

[2:04:52] and why staff continue to recommend progressive design build.

[2:04:56] Then we also summarize the PRC's decision.

[2:04:59] Explain how this...

[2:05:00] The delivery method protects public value, walks through the plan schedule and procurement process, and conclude with recommended council actions for tonight and in the future for this project.

[2:05:12] It sounds like a lot, but it's only 10 slides and we're already 2 down.

[2:05:17] So. All right. Project summary, the Peter Kirkpool project is primarily a renovation project.

[2:05:26] The existing facility has reached a point where investment is needed to address aging building systems.

[2:05:32] The pool shell, the and deck mechanical and electrical systems, accessibility improvements and renovations to the bathhouse.

[2:05:40] With this, the project provides an opportunity to improve the community's experience by replacing the existing waiting pool with a more functional activity.

[2:05:47] people and expanding the Vath House to include family and all-gender changing rooms.

[2:05:54] Her previous council decisions, the scope will not include relocating the pool entrance to

[2:05:58] Kirkland Avenue and exploration of the pool enclosure.

[2:06:06] As shown on this slide, you can, there you go, thanks.

[2:06:10] The project is supported through a combination of impact fees, wheat wine, Kirkland parks,

[2:06:15] and King County Park's levies at the grant, potential debt funding, that financing and

[2:06:21] virtual identified funding package of approximately 11.7 million. The complexity of delivering

[2:06:26] this work within an existing operating aquatic facility and coordinating all of these interconnected

[2:06:31] systems led the staff to recommend progressive design build. Progressive design build is

[2:06:37] well suited for projects that involve technical complexity. I'm known existing conditions and

[2:06:43] challenging schedules, those are exactly the characteristics of our Petercork pool project.

[2:06:50] The project includes specialized aquatic mechanical systems, integrating and integrating new

[2:06:55] systems with existing infrastructure creates uncertainties that are best resolved when the

[2:07:00] contractor can join the team early rather than after the design is complete. At the same time,

[2:07:07] the project must balance immediate infrastructure needs while maintaining seasonal operations.

[2:07:11] Ultimately, progressive design build allows the owner, designer, contractor, and contractor

[2:07:18] to collaborate early to refine scope, improve constructability, manage risk, and develop

[2:07:25] realistic cost information before construction is contracted.

[2:07:29] Those advantages are not available through a traditional design build approach.

[2:07:44] As we summarize earlier, following Council's direction, staff prepared and submitted the

[2:07:49] application to the PRC on June 30th. The application was accepted without any request for

[2:07:56] clarification or additional information and staff presented the project to the committee on July

[2:08:02] 24th. The city's presentation team included public works director Julie Underwood,

[2:08:08] Deputy Director of Parks John Lloyd, Parks Planning and Development Manager Mariah Gill,

[2:08:13] and myself. We were supported by Turner and Townsend Hearies serving as our owner advisor and

[2:08:17] of a law group serving as legal counsel.

[2:08:21] After our presentation, questions and discussion, the committee unanimously determined that

[2:08:27] the project satisfies the statutory requirements of RCW-3910 and approved cities request

[2:08:33] to use progressive design build.

[2:08:35] The committee provided positive feedback about the city's preparedness to administer a progressive

[2:08:40] design build project.

[2:08:42] They commended the training completed by staff, our use of an experience owner advisor and

[2:08:47] Council and our efforts to build relationships with peer agencies experienced in progressive

[2:08:52] design-built and aquatic facilities. Overall, a committee described the city as well prepared,

[2:08:59] said this was a good use of public money, and commented that we had picked to the right project

[2:09:04] for progressive design-built. And Stacey, we'll take the next slide.

[2:09:12] So, progressive design build protects the value of public dollars in a couple of ways.

[2:09:22] So, best value selection, this gives us the opportunity to select a team that is most quality

[2:09:27] or not best value qualifications based best value selection.

[2:09:31] So, it gives us the opportunity to select a team that is most qualified to deliver the project,

[2:09:36] both technically and from a process perspective, and that also includes specialty subcontractors and subconsolent, so that's especially applicable to this project with the pool systems, those are very special in nature, and we'll take the right team to deliver the project well.

[2:09:56] It's also based on transparent costs.

[2:10:00] So we'll start working with a team early on to develop exactly what the scope is of the project and what the costs are of the project.

[2:10:08] And it's developed in what's called an open book nature and that's contractual.

[2:10:14] So everything that the contractor team is working on early on in the process is shared with the owner team, transparently.

[2:10:22] So the sub numbers that they're getting from potential partners, they're back up to all of their information, all of the details are there.

[2:10:31] So we as a team can evaluate it and understand if that's good value to the project and we can also use third-party estimators to review that and help understand that as well.

[2:10:41] and then market competition.

[2:10:44] So the design billers selected based on qualifications,

[2:10:48] the subs can be selected on qualifications

[2:10:53] or through competitive subcontractor bidding.

[2:10:55] So we get to have some flexibility in how they're brought on,

[2:10:58] but there is, there there will be some competitive

[2:11:03] big packages and so we know that we're getting the best value there.

[2:11:07] And this is also the delivering method that gives us the best opportunities

[2:11:10] you incorporate along WBE businesses and that's by being able to create the right packages and make

[2:11:18] sure that we have them and also that the contracting is open so we're able to select them in this

[2:11:23] process.

[2:11:27] Moving to my next slide. So this is a big and overarching timeline of the process

[2:11:33] project and what it's intending to show here today is contract milestones and when we'll come back to

[2:11:41] you. So, the blocks are milestones that represent either the first one,

[2:11:48] procurement,

[2:11:50] and contract phases. So, we've signed one contract in progress of

[2:11:56] design build at the very beginning and is for an initial phase of service. And then

[2:12:01] there are amendments that go with that. So, the next time we would come back to

[2:12:11] would be around December. So as soon as we get done with procurement,

[2:12:13] and I'll talk a little bit more about that process on the next slide.

[2:12:17] And that would be for the to approve award of the contract for the initial phase

[2:12:21] of services, which is called validation.

[2:12:23] And we had to spate that to be two to three months.

[2:12:27] And then we would come back again,

[2:12:30] heard approval of the next contract phase, which will likely include the

[2:12:35] early work package that we've talked about, being able to do some of the

[2:12:38] things that need to be done on the pool prior to opening for next season, along with the balance

[2:12:43] of design for the project.

[2:12:46] And then toward the end of design, we come back with what's called the GMP amendment, and that

[2:12:51] is the amendment that enables construction.

[2:13:00] If we're a successful here tonight and you're compelled by our requests to use progressive

[2:13:05] design build, the next step would be to move into a procurement of the project.

[2:13:09] And so on a progressive design build project, what that means is it's a two step, two step

[2:13:14] Qualifications base selection.

[2:13:18] First up being issuing requests for qualifications

[2:13:21] in response to that, we would receive statements

[2:13:23] of qualifications from proposed design built teams.

[2:13:26] Anyone who's interested can submit statement of qualifications.

[2:13:30] Selection committee reviews those qualifications

[2:13:33] to establish a short list.

[2:13:35] The short list then receives the RFP for the project,

[2:13:40] request for proposals, and that phase the team

[2:13:43] developing a management plan where they're telling the three teams who are shortlisted typically

[2:13:49] three, a management plan that talks about how they would approach delivering the project

[2:13:54] for the city. And so during that period, step five there, we would hold interactive meetings.

[2:14:01] And these are unique to progressive design build. Sort of similar to an interview. They're just

[2:14:06] set up a little bit different, and that's what makes them unique and progressive design build.

[2:14:10] And we receive those management plans after those interactive meetings, evaluation committee,

[2:14:17] then evaluates the second step management plans, scores all together, and then you have

[2:14:24] a parent high scoring proposal that you'd go into contract negotiations with.

[2:14:30] And once we've established contract terms, that would be when we'd come back for that initial

[2:14:36] contract approval.

[2:14:45] Because, excuse me, because the city has not yet established a standard process for council oversight of progressive design build projects.

[2:14:53] Staff is proposing a series of decision points that we believe will provide meaningful council oversight.

[2:15:00] Throughout the project, beginning to night with authorization to procure a progressive design billed team.

[2:15:07] After tonight, the next recommended action would be the approval of the design bills contract following the selection of the progressive design builder, which is the process Stacy just outlined in the last slide.

[2:15:19] This is currently anticipated in December of this year or in January.

[2:15:23] At that meeting, we would summarize the procurement process present evaluation results and request authorization to execute the contract.

[2:15:32] After that, staff anticipates completing the validation phase, which confirms that the project scope budget and schedule remained aligned before moving into full design.

[2:15:41] staff would then return to Council, which weren't participating in March, with confirmation of that alignment and a request to proceed with full design development and preliminary design concepts for the replacement activity pool.

[2:15:58] We anticipate bringing to you at that time.

[2:16:01] And then authorization to proceed with any recommended early work packages which would be work before we open in the summer season for 27.

[2:16:10] 7.

[2:16:13] Finally, before major construction begins, Council would be asked to approve the negotiated

[2:16:18] guaranteed maximum price to MP for the full project. At that time, we'll present the

[2:16:24] results of any independent cost validation and confirm that the proposed price is fair and

[2:16:29] reasonable before requesting authorization to proceed with construction. As we've discussed,

[2:16:34] these contract amendments are a normal and expected of progressive design build as the project

[2:16:40] advances from design ultimately to construction, the contract is intentionally amended to authorize

[2:16:46] each new phase of work. These plant milestones in the delivery process should not be interpreted

[2:16:51] as change orders.

[2:16:55] So, and then next slide.

[2:17:00] So today's recommendation for this evening staff

[2:17:02] recommends that council authorized staff to proceed with procurement of a progressive design

[2:17:07] team for the Peter Kirkpool project and direct staff to return to Council for approval of the contract.

[2:17:15] Approval tonight's motion allows the staff to begin the competitive procurement process

[2:17:19] and we will return at each major milestone that we've just outlined.

[2:17:24] And that concludes my presentation. Thank you for your time and consideration and we'd be happy

[2:17:28] to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you, Anika and Stacey.

[2:17:34] Council on any questions comments?

[2:17:46] Deputy Mayor.

[2:17:51] Here.

[2:17:51] There you go.

[2:17:52] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[2:17:54] If there were no questions, I was going to get us started with a motion.

[2:17:58] That sounds fine.

[2:17:59] But it looks like Councillor Falco and does have questions for staff.

[2:18:03] Councillor Falco ahead.

[2:18:06] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[2:18:08] I just wanted to mention.

[2:18:09] Thank you for.

[2:18:11] I don't remember who mentioned, but mentioned the.

[2:18:15] the kudos that we got on the establishing and network of peer agencies and I just wanted to

[2:18:19] call and thank Ryan Buckup the Lake Washington School District in particular for the work on that

[2:18:24] because that's something that I know we've learned a lot from their expertise and we really

[2:18:30] don't know our partnership with the school district. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor

[2:18:35] back to you. Well thank you. So I'll make the motion I move to authorize and direct the city manager

[2:18:43] or does it need to proceed with the progressive design build procurement process for the

[2:18:47] Peter Kirkpool project and return to Council for approval of the contract with the selected

[2:18:52] progressive design builder. Second. When it's been moved by Deputy Mayor Black second by

[2:18:59] Councillor Fairfell Cone to move forward with the progressive design build any further discussion.

[2:19:09] All right, well I just want to thank everybody for the good work and I'm excited to start this

[2:19:15] project. So all those in favor and the motion on the table please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries seven zero.

[2:19:30] If we are moving on to our next item, which is the draft to a library implementation plan, city manager.

[2:19:38] Okay, thank you, Madam Mayor, so the goal tonight is to present you with the draft response

[2:19:45] to the RFP we had, which the staff deems as being a draft implementation plan for the

[2:19:50] tool library, looking for council direction on whether you'd like us to proceed with discussions

[2:19:55] with the proposal or if there's any other information that you have that you had eaten

[2:19:59] Again.

[2:19:59] So...

[2:20:04] Thank you, City Manager. Good evening, Madam Mayor, Deputy Mayor and members of the council. Happy to be here tonight to provide an update on the draft implementation plan.

[2:20:14] I have nine slides beginning with a brief overview of the project background. We'll then go over a few key pieces of this submitted proposal.

[2:20:24] And we'll conclude with a handful of policy questions that are also outlined in your memorandum.

[2:20:30] And while my presentation is less than 10 slides, there's quite a bit of info.

[2:20:34] So please feel free to raise your virtual hand or your real hand.

[2:20:38] I can see all of you.

[2:20:39] So I will pause to answer any questions that come up prior to the final policy question slide.

[2:20:47] Okay, beginning with a little background.

[2:20:49] Council had expressed interest in exploring a community operated tool library in years past and

[2:20:55] included objectives in both the comprehensive plan and sustainability strategic plan related

[2:21:00] to circular economies, access to hand and electric tools, and reuse of building materials.

[2:21:07] Staff met with the operators of the Seattle and shoreline tool libraries to better understand

[2:21:11] what it takes to launch and sustain a successful tool library and based on those conversations,

[2:21:16] Excuse me, conversations, staff estimated approximately $100,000

[2:21:20] were needed for startup, which counseled and appropriated in the 25-26

[2:21:25] budget with a condition that an implementation plan

[2:21:28] be approved before any funds were released.

[2:21:31] So with that, in March, staff hosted an information sharing

[2:21:35] interest gathering event featuring Seattle

[2:21:38] economies executive director to introduce a concept and discuss

[2:21:42] what it takes to operate a successful tool library.

[2:21:45] And recognizing that volunteers are essential to a successful library staff invited representatives from community organizations, volunteer groups, educational institutions, environmental organizations, business organizations, a total of 123 individuals were invited and 19 people attended.

[2:22:03] So when May staff came to council with a draft scope of work and incorporated council's direction into it and issued the RFP shortly after we received one proposal as a city manager mentioned from the Eastside tool collective and while the RFP was open staff took the opportunity to gather additional community and put at the recycled right event or 70% of respondents indicated they would be somewhat or very likely to use a tool library.

[2:22:29] But, a big caveat, you know, we recognize this isn't a statistically representative survey,

[2:22:34] but it does provide another indicator that there is community interest, respondents also identified location,

[2:22:40] and the variety of tools as the two most important considerations.

[2:22:46] So before discussing the proposal itself, I want to demonstrate how staff has incorporated the direction

[2:22:52] Council provided on my fifth into the scope of work that was included in the RFP.

[2:22:56] The starting at the top first was liability insurance staff worked closely with the city attorney's office and the Washington

[2:23:04] Fitties Insurance Authority, which is the city's insurance authority to ensure the insurance requirements included in the RFP appropriately protect the city.

[2:23:14] Second, a preference for non-city owned location staff revised the evaluation criteria to give preference to proposals recommending a non-city owned location.

[2:23:24] While the proposal we received outlines both a city owned and non city owned option, that preference was reflected in the solicitation.

[2:23:34] Third is limited city involvement.

[2:23:36] The draft scope of work first brought to Council had a greater level of ongoing staff involvement and staff revised that.

[2:23:42] It's a narrow city staff involvement to initial volunteer recruitment and marketing on city social media was ongoing responsibility for operations remaining with the operator.

[2:23:51] Fourth was limiting the city's financial commitment, staff is not proposing any funding beyond

[2:23:56] the 100,000 already appropriated by Council and any future spending would require separate

[2:24:02] council action.

[2:24:04] And finally, Council directed staff to develop an implementation plan before releasing the

[2:24:08] 100,000 dollars.

[2:24:09] And that's the purpose of tonight's discussion.

[2:24:11] If Council agrees this proposal provides a sufficient framework, staff would use it as the

[2:24:16] basis for negotiating a final agreement, which would return to Council for approval before

[2:24:20] any funds are released.

[2:24:23] The with Council's direction, we incorporated that feedback into the scope of work, issued the RFP,

[2:24:28] and reached out to all 123 individuals who had been invited to that earlier information

[2:24:33] sharing and interest gathering event to let them know.

[2:24:38] Okay.

[2:24:38] I want to pause here.

[2:24:39] Are there any questions before I jump into the proposal that was received?

[2:24:46] All right.

[2:24:47] Council, any questions on the process?

[2:24:53] Andrea, they're going.

[2:24:54] Thank you.

[2:24:55] All right.

[2:24:56] So, as you mentioned, the city received one proposal from the East Side Tool Collect.

[2:25:00] The staff believes it is responsive and meets the requirements of the Council approve scope of work.

[2:25:07] ETC, eSight Tool Collective, is a coalition of Kirkland residents to intend to form a Washington nonprofit.

[2:25:12] And until that nonprofit is formed, it would operate under the fiscal sponsorship of the South King County Tool Library.

[2:25:18] This proposal maintains that the city would not own or operate the Tool Library and states that the city's role would be limited to providing one-time startup funding,

[2:25:26] assisting with identifying location, supporting initial volunteer recruitment, and helping promote the program.

[2:25:33] Responsibility for implementation, operation, staffing, programming, and long-term financial sustainability would remain with the operator.

[2:25:43] Okay, the proposal represents two possible facility options, characterized as tracking and track B.

[2:25:49] Track A would utilize a portion of the fire logistics building and track B is a containerized model with the location still to be determined.

[2:25:57] And at this point, staff has not completed due diligence on either option as draft implementation

[2:26:03] plan was requested by Council before deciding whether or not to proceed.

[2:26:07] The staff is recommending that if Council likes to continue forward into negotiations that

[2:26:11] both tracks remain under consideration, because additional due diligence is needed before we can

[2:26:16] recommend one over the other.

[2:26:23] A proposal includes many, many of the operational details outlined in the RFP, including a membership

[2:26:29] model borrowing policies and an online reservation and inventory system.

[2:26:40] And as previously mentioned, staff worked with WCA and the city attorney's office to ensure

[2:26:44] the insurance requirements were appropriate, including naming the city as an additional

[2:26:48] insured and providing proof of insurance within 10 days of contract execution.

[2:26:53] The proposal also includes borrow agreements, liability waivers, safety training for higher risk

[2:26:58] equipment and routine inspection and maintenance procedures.

[2:27:01] The

[2:27:05] city's financial commitment remains limited to the original $100,000 appropriation.

[2:27:10] Any additional funding would require future council approval, long-term sustainability

[2:27:15] would be the operators responsibility through memberships, grants, donations, workshops,

[2:27:20] and other revenue sources that they deem appropriate.

[2:27:27] That is the extent of the background and update to council on the draft implementation plan.

[2:27:32] Tonight we're looking for council's direction on these policy questions.

[2:27:36] Madam Mayor, I'd like to turn it to you for discussion, beginning with the first bullet.

[2:27:44] Thank you, Andrea.

[2:27:45] So Council, the first bullet is, does the proposal will provide enough information as a draft implementation plan to start negotiating agreement?

[2:27:54] And if not, what specific information do you need?

[2:28:11] Council Minister Arnold.

[2:28:14] Thank you, Mayor.

[2:28:16] I just wanted to comment, I don't have any information that I need here.

[2:28:21] really did appreciate the amount of research in detail in the East Side Tool Collective Proposal including the work that they had done to learn from and coordinate with existing tool libraries.

[2:28:34] The fact that they're matching a lot of this will allow for economies of scale and both for how they coordinate a Kirkland tool library with these others or perhaps expand throughout the East Side.

[2:28:50] So I was impressed and I believe that this draft implementation plan provides a level of detail.

[2:28:59] I was looking forward. Thank you.

[2:29:01] All right. Thank you.

[2:29:03] Councillor Pascale, I had two next. Did you lower your hand?

[2:29:09] Yes. That's a yes. Councillor interjecting.

[2:29:12] Yeah. I just want to say also just thank you to the team that initiated this initiative.

[2:29:18] I think, and for working so hard in trying to get a tool library into our community.

[2:29:25] I think the ETC proposed actually had a lot of really good information and details.

[2:29:32] And so I honestly don't think I need any more information.

[2:29:36] I think the ETC proposal is sufficient to begin negotiations.

[2:29:42] And I think negotiations at this stage will really provide and refine a lot of the details.

[2:29:48] I identify risks and really ensure that the city interests are will be protected, including,

[2:29:55] because I just want to comment on this, the prior comment that was made about this.

[2:30:04] I think that those things will be evaluated. But yeah, I think at this point, just getting the negotiations started is the appropriate next step.

[2:30:18] All right. Thank you. Councillor Pascill.

[2:30:25] Thank you, Mayor. Are we voting on anything tonight

[2:30:30] then or are we just offering comments and direction? If Council wanted to decide between

[2:30:36] track A or track B, we would request that that is done through motion. But others in that were

[2:30:42] not requesting a vote. Okay. Well, sorry. Sorry. I do think you would want a motion authorizing

[2:30:50] staff to proceed with negotiations,

[2:30:54] whether or not you're choosing the options or not.

[2:30:58] Sorry, City Manager, you're easy to handle. I'll try to do that next time.

[2:31:04] So, Councillor Pascale, we will be deciding whether to move forward with negotiations.

[2:31:10] Yeah, so I'll just say my comments for the discussion on that. You know, once we have a motion there.

[2:31:16] Okay. All right. City manager go ahead.

[2:31:20] Yeah, I just I guess it's just want to follow up with that to say that and the intent is to bring a final deal back for council review.

[2:31:26] So permission to proceed today is not still saying yes to the final.

[2:31:32] Yeah, thank you for that clarification.

[2:31:35] And any more comments on information needed for the draft implementation plan. Councilor Feltcome.

[2:31:43] Thank you, Madam Mayor. I was just raising my hand because I was ready to move on to the next question.

[2:31:47] figure. It looks like everybody else is, so go ahead. Great, thank you. Well, first, I agree

[2:31:54] with my council colleagues comments. Thank you to staff that have been working on this, to

[2:32:00] community members who have expressed just so much interest in this project, and also to the

[2:32:07] East Side tool collective. I know it took a lot of work, and I also agree in response to the first

[2:32:11] question that there was a lot of really detailed information you can tell they did their homework,

[2:32:15] And obviously we'll make sure as a city that we do our due diligence to make sure every T is crossed and I dotted to make sure that this is a successful facility.

[2:32:25] You know, reading the memo, it was really clear to me that between track A and B, track A seems to be the clear choice to proceed with because it's

[2:32:37] It results in a better facility, a better quality facility for the community, and it's less initial set up cost, right?

[2:32:45] And so to me that seems a clear option. And so I'm ready to make a motion whenever you're ready,

[2:32:52] met a mayor, but also happy to wait if you want more discussion before motion's on the table.

[2:33:03] Yeah just discussion on this particular item. I really appreciate the description in the

[2:33:12] implementation plan of the advantages of using the five station. This is a facility right now currently

[2:33:19] that's simply being used for storage and I support examining whether it could be used on a temporary

[2:33:30] basis for the tool library.

[2:33:35] But want more staff input on the impacts of that and information

[2:33:42] on how long that temporary could be given the city's medium and long-term plans for this particular

[2:33:51] building. So, you know, I'd like to see the value in keeping both tracks in consideration,

[2:33:58] but unless staff comes up with more additional information that says there is

[2:34:11] better use or an immediate need for Fire Station 27. I really like the idea of using that

[2:34:19] on a temporary basis in the next couple years. Thank you.

[2:34:25] Thank you. Deputy Mayor, before I call on you, I'm going to let City Manager respond.

[2:34:29] Good evening.

[2:34:32] So the only I want to add is part of the reason that staff, particularly me, is to

[2:34:38] and then you're recommending keeping both tracks going as,

[2:34:41] as Onrona mentioned, we haven't done a ton of due diligence.

[2:34:43] There is capacity in Station 27,

[2:34:46] and there is some exciting opportunities to call it okay.

[2:34:49] But we haven't explored, for example,

[2:34:51] and I'll just pick up two examples that may not be the case.

[2:34:55] If the city had a condition that the East Side took

[2:34:58] collective, that was tourist.

[2:35:00] We might want to make sure we have the opportunity to look at it in other options. So, for example, they said, we need a minimum five-year commitment for the station, which they have said.

[2:35:10] And we said, sorry, we can only give you a two-year commitment. We just want us to ability to say, if this isn't the right place or something new developed, I mean, to give you 30-day status to get out and they were to say, that's not sufficient notice.

[2:35:22] We haven't had a chance to really sit down and explore all those issues yet, and so it is highly likely

[2:35:27] or we should have driven on session 27, but there's certainly some possibilities I should envision

[2:35:31] where there are expectations for the same site and our expectations may not quite align and we might want to

[2:35:37] have now that we've been exploring others at the same time.

[2:35:39] So that's the only reason staff is proposed to have the two tracks.

[2:35:48] Captain Emear.

[2:35:52] Well, thank Mayor.

[2:35:54] I'm not going to add anything to what see manager just said, but I do want to plus one.

[2:36:00] council member Arnold that I think track me might be the right direction to go, but before I make that final decision, I definitely want as much information I possibly can from staff.

[2:36:14] So, and it sounds like city managers prepared to provide us as part of next steps and negotiation.

[2:36:20] There is one more bullet point, which is, is there anything else to Council will want to see in the agreement.

[2:36:27] It's not so much what I want to see in the agreement, but, you know, I did want to, I assume that as part of any,

[2:36:37] just proceeding to the next step and further negotiations, you know, staff is going to be looking at proof of incorporation,

[2:36:45] group of structure and ownership and 501C3 status, insurance, certificate of insurance,

[2:36:56] naming Kirkland as additional.

[2:36:58] Sure, all of those things are I assume, and I guess this is the question for staff,

[2:37:04] I assume, are part of this next step, part of these discussions, this negotiation, and

[2:37:09] before there's a final agreement, all of these boxes will be, will be checked.

[2:37:14] Is that fair?

[2:37:15] that is absolutely correct, Deputy Mayor.

[2:37:19] Great.

[2:37:20] I don't have anything else to add.

[2:37:22] Thank you.

[2:37:24] Thank you.

[2:37:25] I'm going to go back to Council Member Felco.

[2:37:28] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[2:37:31] I have a question for the City Manager

[2:37:32] just about next steps.

[2:37:35] So obviously I think we're hearing

[2:37:36] the strong preferences for track A

[2:37:39] and track B kind of as a last resort

[2:37:41] if nothing else can work out.

[2:37:42] So my question is, um, what are the plan next steps?

[2:37:47] If we have, if we approve adopted emotion tonight to ask staff to go back with both options

[2:37:52] still on the table, are you then coming back to check in to say this is more information on

[2:37:56] the two options, and which ones you want to pick, and then we make another motion to say bring

[2:38:02] us back, final, and a final agreement with one of those because I assume the final agreement

[2:38:08] We'll take some work after we give you directional, which option, right, and so how much more work does that create?

[2:38:16] Because it was initially my understanding that our motion tonight was going to be to direct you to negotiate in order to bring us back

[2:38:24] final, a final agreement, but it sounds like that may not be the case, might be another check-in.

[2:38:32] Well, it took me so my intent would be to spend the time to figure out a proposal and partnership with ETC and bring that back for your approval.

[2:38:42] So, here in the council's preference, we start with sitting down together at the fire station, logistics center.

[2:38:48] What are you hoping to do? How are you hoping to do it for how long? How does all this work and the city staff assessing?

[2:38:55] Not just their proposal, but what are our needs? So I could just give an example.

[2:38:58] if if for these ages and half the fire station there's a big event how do we ensure that

[2:39:04] not for the public goes into the fire station side of things right so do we need

[2:39:09] initial investments like dates or things like that so there's just a lot of details

[2:39:14] that need to be worked out in the course of that discussion it's possible to run into some

[2:39:19] things that we can't work out together I doubt it but it's it's possible and only if they said

[2:39:23] And this isn't enough.

[2:39:24] It can't work out for us.

[2:39:26] And we conclude ourselves that they've asked for, we just can't give.

[2:39:30] Would we probably start looking at the other option, but we probably have a couple ideas

[2:39:33] of mine as we go.

[2:39:34] But the intent would be to say, in partnership with ETC, would come to a one option.

[2:39:39] That's agreed to for Council review it.

[2:39:42] So.

[2:39:42] I'm sorry.

[2:39:43] I guess my follow question related to that is

[2:39:50] at what point is it accounts over to staff

[2:39:53] decision to pivot to option B if we give you authority to go to vote, right?

[2:39:56] because I can imagine there could be a situation where...

[2:40:00] You know, you may think that it's not feasible to move forward with track A, but council may want to say, well, we do want to concede on that thing and we do want to make it happen.

[2:40:08] I guess that's my question, is how will we navigate that? Is it that if we move forward with track A, you don't need another track end point?

[2:40:18] But if you think that you need to go with track B, then you come back to council for authorization for track B, I just feel like it's a big step to say, you know,

[2:40:29] do whichever one you want, right?

[2:40:30] And then I would hate for you to come back

[2:40:32] with track B and I say, well, actually, you know,

[2:40:36] we want you to push harder, we're,

[2:40:37] we're, okay.

[2:40:39] Uh, I mean, thank you, Gelsarbe, good.

[2:40:41] I, I hear you.

[2:40:42] So no, the goal,

[2:40:46] the goal is not for staff to decide.

[2:40:48] The goal is we've been given direction

[2:40:50] and that the preference has been expressed

[2:40:51] in the go see if we could work so far.

[2:40:53] I guess what I would say is,

[2:40:55] if I felt like I had a place where there was

[2:40:57] several phenol flaws or something to counsel me

[2:40:59] where I've, before there was the pivot,

[2:41:01] I would come back and say, hey, here are the two things that you've reached.

[2:41:05] I wanted my time.

[2:41:06] I've been a little bit of doing dealing just about what the alternatives might be, you know,

[2:41:09] it could be here or it could be here, so that if you have that information and you are

[2:41:13] getting to save information about the fatal flaw, you know, at least know what the alternative

[2:41:16] might be.

[2:41:18] But no, the goal isn't that we would just say, hey, tomorrow high, Citibandra have decided

[2:41:23] to track the, and that's what we're going to talk about, right?

[2:41:26] But as I said, because we're trying to really respect the council's direction that you

[2:41:31] have not made a decision go ahead and you haven't made a decision to use the fire station

[2:41:35] logistics center, we just haven't done all the due diligence we need to make sure it works.

[2:41:42] And in partnership with the Central Collective, so we just need some time to work through that.

[2:41:46] But I think we'd come back, if we said, here's two hurdles.

[2:41:49] Do you want us to jump them or not?

[2:41:51] And here's the pros of cons of it.

[2:41:53] You know, we would definitely do that for a gave you a final decision.

[2:41:58] We will be yours, no matter what, because you'll get the final agreement for your people.

[2:42:06] Thank you.

[2:42:08] Are you done?

[2:42:09] The city manager, so would it help you to follow up on Councillor Falkham?

[2:42:12] Would it help you if we were clear on what our preference is?

[2:42:18] Okay.

[2:42:19] Thank you.

[2:42:20] Councillor Falkham.

[2:42:21] Okay.

[2:42:22] And I think I can answer that question correctly now.

[2:42:25] So I do support keeping both options on the table,

[2:42:30] but definitely prefer track A.

[2:42:32] I think it's just a cleaner, cleaner look,

[2:42:34] easier access points, and I think overall it just

[2:42:38] seems more straightforward.

[2:42:40] So I definitely would prefer track A, but definitely

[2:42:44] open to both depending on where the negotiations

[2:42:47] land.

[2:42:48] And then the last question of just what

[2:42:50] the final agreement, just things that we would want

[2:42:54] in the agreement.

[2:42:55] I would say just queer performance expectations,

[2:43:00] a payment schedule also based on milestones.

[2:43:03] So I don't think the intent is that we would be sending a $100,000 check.

[2:43:09] It would be based off of certain milestones over a period of time.

[2:43:14] And then just financial responsibilities and then defined exit

[2:43:19] or modification for provisions, if the program for some reason,

[2:43:24] does not achieve like that. It comes that that we want.

[2:43:32] Thank you. Councilor Pascal, we are going to

[2:43:35] to an initiation. So did you have some things you wanted to share?

[2:43:42] Sure. I mean, I have a

[2:43:46] roll comments on. Wait a minute. Waiting for the motion. Okay. Councilor Premier,

[2:43:53] how do you handle still that? Okay. Councilor Matimchins, did you have something you want to say?

[2:43:58] Is somebody making a motion?

[2:44:02] I'll go back to Councilmember Felcon for the motion.

[2:44:06] Thank you, Madam Mayor, and bear with me.

[2:44:08] I'm trying to modify language on the fly to wait.

[2:44:11] Before we get to a motion, I had a quick comment,

[2:44:17] responding to Councilmember Prims comments.

[2:44:20] Go ahead, Councilmember.

[2:44:21] Okay.

[2:44:23] Council Member, Prime Minister asked about whether the city's contribution is delivered as a lump sum or some form of progress payments.

[2:44:34] And that's something I would like some more information about versus given direction for one direction or not.

[2:44:44] We've had some previous experience in seedings and nonprofits like the Kirkland Community Foundation and more recently,

[2:44:54] East Trail partners, where Kirkland and other East Trail members made.

[2:45:00] So we have to start that organization. Both organizations have been successfully launched and are now self-sufficient and provide more value than the initial investment as we had hoped.

[2:45:14] And so I think we have a successful model. I'll just curious, how have handled that model in the past and whether it's just been okay. Here's your initial seed money and your reporting obligations.

[2:45:28] Go ahead, see you, Major.

[2:45:31] Yeah, it really depends on each case.

[2:45:34] In every case there has to be an agreement.

[2:45:37] Right, illegal agreement that shows the public benefit

[2:45:39] to cities receiving for the money that's provided.

[2:45:43] And so cases like you've mentioned, for example,

[2:45:47] with the creative foundation, the agreement had to pay it

[2:45:50] out over a three-year period and an expectation

[2:45:53] that other fundraising occurred.

[2:45:55] Another example is we've given things directly

[2:45:57] to like the East Trail.

[2:45:59] It really depends on what we sit down and negotiate.

[2:46:03] So I think the staff's initial intent was not just to say,

[2:46:07] here is a front, but to have an agreement

[2:46:10] that set out milestones reporting,

[2:46:12] but we also haven't sketched that out yet.

[2:46:14] So council feedback on that would be very helpful

[2:46:17] if there's things you prefer, things you don't prefer.

[2:46:20] But typically we would just give it all up front

[2:46:22] in one lump sum.

[2:46:25] Without a specific set of outcomes

[2:46:30] Thank you, City Manager. I think that addresses my objections and would support whatever comes

[2:46:38] forward through negotiations in the agreement with what you see as fit for protecting the city.

[2:46:45] Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Council Member Falcon. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[2:46:53] I'm going to authorize staff to proceed with negotiations based on the tool library

[2:46:58] implementation plan and to return to Council with either a proposed contract for consideration

[2:47:04] of track A or a check-in with Council to consider proceeding with track B if track A seems

[2:47:14] infusible.

[2:47:15] Second.

[2:47:18] Thank you and good job pulling that together.

[2:47:22] It's the measure of greed.

[2:47:24] It's been moved by Councillor Feltcone, I'm not going to repeat that second by Councillor

[2:47:29] and reprim accounts for your past goal?

[2:47:38] Yeah, I have some thoughts on the discussion that we've had so far,

[2:47:43] and I want to speak to this motion.

[2:47:45] But first, I just wanted to thank staff

[2:47:48] for all the work you put into this.

[2:47:50] And I want to start by also emphasizing that.

[2:47:53] I do think a tool library does seem like a good idea.

[2:47:57] But the concerns I want to talk about regarding this concept

[2:48:00] really are how the city's role in it.

[2:48:03] And so the first thing is, I honestly don't,

[2:48:06] wasn't convinced that it was a financially sustainable proposal.

[2:48:10] We only received one proposal and it's financial plan

[2:48:14] relies heavily on a variety of unsubstantiated assumptions.

[2:48:18] I don't see evidence that outside funding has been secured.

[2:48:22] And before investing taxpayer dollars,

[2:48:24] I really do think we need greater confidence in this organization

[2:48:28] that this organization can succeed and has secured financial backing

[2:48:32] and support already from other community organizations.

[2:48:36] And I see this because it's my understanding that the short line to the library was funded

[2:48:41] by the Washington Department of Ecology, King County Solid Ways, and the cities of

[2:48:45] Shoreline and Lake Forest Park for entities.

[2:48:49] Here we have one city alone offering $100,000 with no other committed financial backing.

[2:48:55] And so I think to limit our risk, we really should require additional financial backing

[2:48:59] for partner organization, so our money is matched against other money.

[2:49:04] Second, I still have a lot of concerns about the city's long-term commitment.

[2:49:09] I know that there's language in there about not needing more money, but that RFP intentionally

[2:49:16] favored proposals that did not rely upon city property, get the preferred option and

[2:49:22] our discussion here so far, still focuses on the fire logistics building.

[2:49:26] I think that this is going to create additional public subsidy that's not reflected on going costs.

[2:49:33] It's going to raise questions about city space needs, liability, maintenance and other ongoing resources.

[2:49:40] And then finally, one subject that hasn't been talked about that I've heard and that I feel is I really have concerns about whether this process has been above reproach.

[2:49:51] when public funds are involved, decisions really have to be fair, but they also must be perceived as fair.

[2:50:00] The former council member participated in a bunch of decisions that funded this program, including a vote, to approve tax fair dollars in last December, and is today the primary contact on the only proposal we received.

[2:50:14] I think that puts us the entire council and staff in a difficult position. These relationships require an even higher level of transparency and scrutiny, I believe.

[2:50:24] It also raises a question whether we need to be looking at our code of ethics and whether

[2:50:29] that should be updated to designated waiting period after someone leaves office before they

[2:50:34] can lobby councilor staff on behalf of a client organization.

[2:50:39] I believe this situation does raise some ethical concerns with the public and it makes me

[2:50:44] as a council member very uncomfortable.

[2:50:46] But I know I'm in the minority on this that others majority is going to agree on any of what

[2:50:53] said, but I would request the following one that we require additional committed financial backing

[2:51:02] to show that this is a real proposal. I'm not in support of track A, but if that was

[2:51:10] for or before that was for it, I'd like to understand and do a full review of our space

[2:51:25] I don't, I don't understand, it sounds like the site tool collective is not a legal entity and

[2:51:31] is going to be sponsored by the South came tool library.

[2:51:34] So is that a legal arrangement, is that going to work for us?

[2:51:38] And is that other entity in good standing with the IRS, or is there other issues there?

[2:51:43] I think we need to look into that and make sure.

[2:51:46] And then finally, at some point, not now, but later, we do need to look into our ethics

[2:51:52] about situations of departed council members. We have a strong ethics code about existing and

[2:51:58] sitting council members, but we also need to think about one council member's leave office.

[2:52:04] Many other organizations have that actually at our cities and counties.

[2:52:09] So those are the things that are on my mind right now with this proposal. Thank you.

[2:52:15] Thank you.

[2:52:18] Anyone else?

[2:52:25] Definitely.

[2:52:27] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[2:52:30] I want to speak up on just two things.

[2:52:33] One, I realized I missedpoke earlier.

[2:52:36] I think my comments were clear.

[2:52:39] I met Track A and I met that my comments were,

[2:52:44] you know, I do want to make sure that as we evaluate Track A is perhaps the primary track that we do get as much information as we possibly can from staff about what that will mean.

[2:52:58] I don't think a full review of our space needs is realistic.

[2:53:06] That would delay implementation for a very long time to do a full strategic plan on all

[2:53:12] the city space needs, but I think we're, I think, staff is hearing that we all want

[2:53:17] to make sure we understand what the impacts are of track A and use of station 27 on at

[2:53:26] start near term space allocation. My last comment is I'll look to city manager city attorney,

[2:53:38] but I fully expect that any negotiated agreement we're going to have reps and warranties,

[2:53:43] we're going to have financial covenants. We're going to have all the sort of standard

[2:53:49] clauses and protective clauses that are going to ensure that the organization is incorporated

[2:53:55] that it has the financial backing, his represented that it will have, so I look to, I look

[2:54:04] to staff to do that diligently and proficiently in the next stage, and I'll be curious to see

[2:54:10] what that looks like when it comes back, but I think you've heard that we want those protections,

[2:54:16] but I also know that that's the kind of thing that staff would be doing as a matter of its professional

[2:54:24] proficiency. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Arnold. Thank you, Mayor.

[2:54:35] First

[2:54:37] want to respond to one of the points that Councilor Pascill brought up. The whole process

[2:54:43] of starting a new 501C3 is fairly common. I was involved in this with another organization

[2:54:51] where there is an existing 501c3 that provides the fiscal sponsorship.

[2:54:57] And what that allows is for...

[2:55:00] Tax deductible contributions to go to the new organization, as it gets set up with its own approved 501C3 status.

[2:55:12] It is in the East Side Tool Collective's interest in ensuring that their fiscal sponsor is in good standing,

[2:55:22] because that allows them to do fundraising that's tax deductible.

[2:55:27] So I'm confident that whatever questions that came up during public comment at our meeting

[2:55:33] tonight can be addressed.

[2:55:35] Secondly, to wrap up, I did conversations with Council last week at O.O.

[2:55:44] Denny Park.

[2:55:46] And while the proposal from east side to a library includes some people that have been

[2:55:53] involved in community and former council member suites in that have been passionate about this

[2:56:02] and wanting to put this together. I also had three people come and want to talk in support

[2:56:08] of the tool library with me during conversations with council that were the people that that

[2:56:15] programs target that these were people that we hadn't seen before that people that I had just

[2:56:23] met for the first time that we're excited about the opportunity.

[2:56:27] And so I think there is support for this

[2:56:31] and I'm excited to move forward.

[2:56:32] Thank you.

[2:56:35] Thank you.

[2:56:36] Councillor and Tunches.

[2:56:37] Thank you.

[2:56:40] Um, you know, evaluating this proposal,

[2:56:42] I looked at three factors.

[2:56:45] One was community support.

[2:56:47] The second was financial sustainability

[2:56:49] and third was the process.

[2:56:53] I was told months ago that neighborhood organizations and the Kirkland Association of Neighborhoods

[2:57:00] were going to be supportive of this and offer letters of support.

[2:57:06] I haven't seen that materialized.

[2:57:10] On May 5th, I also received an email from the chair of the Kirkland Community Foundation.

[2:57:17] That email was in his official capacity and represented that in his official capacity that there was support for the tool library.

[2:57:28] The subject of that may fit the email was statement in support of tool library and Kirkland.

[2:57:35] That led me to believe three months ago that the Kirkland Community Foundation was deeply involved in this, that they supported it,

[2:57:41] and that there would be community support and likely financial support coming from the community

[2:57:46] foundation.

[2:57:49] Yesterday I clarified this with the Executive Director of the Kirkland Community

[2:57:52] Foundation and she clarified that the Kirkland Community Foundation has no formal position on the

[2:58:00] tool library. They have pledged zero dollars and they have contributed the zero dollars to this

[2:58:06] library.

[2:58:09] I also looked at the financial sustainability of this model. And I've noted that

[2:58:15] they have not yet raised any money, they have not yet sold any memberships, and they do not

[2:58:20] yet have any money in the bank, as far as I know. Their business plan includes $42,000 out of

[2:58:27] our $100,000, which would potentially be spent on the salary of an executive director of a

[2:58:34] library.

[2:58:37] I believe that when they, we started this, this was generally going to be a community

[2:58:43] driven by volunteers and not that we were needing to spend almost half of the money contributed

[2:58:52] on the salary of an employee.

[2:58:58] I don't think $100,000 will be the end of this. I think we will get

[2:59:03] a lifetime subscription of supporting this tool library because I haven't seen any evidence

[2:59:09] that they have financial support.

[2:59:13] I also looked at the process by which we followed.

[2:59:18] We have one RFP response

[2:59:21] and no others.

[2:59:25] Council member Pasco's concerns about the ethical implications of this

[2:59:30] and the perception that the community will have are directly on point

[2:59:36] and right on target.

[2:59:40] I have serious concerns about moving forward with this. I think that the

[2:59:45] idea of a tool library is a good one and I appreciate staff to work on this. But this is not

[2:59:51] currently investable. It's not currently ready for an infusion of capital. I support either

[2:59:57] terminating.

[3:00:01] This project, or I support moving forward with additional work to get additional RFP, it's proposals.

[3:00:13] We should be able to select from three, five, or more RFP proposals from a broad selection of organizations that are qualified to do this.

[3:00:25] The appearance of one RFP proposal does not, in my opinion, look proper.

[3:00:34] I'd like to see more RFP proposals if we're serious about this, and I will be voting now on this motion.

[3:00:41] And the tool library, and as a concept, is one, which I think is worth pursuing, but with one proposal, I think the best option right now is to move forward with soliciting other proposals from other organizations so that we have several qualified organizations to evaluate.

[3:01:10] Thank you.

[3:01:13] Thank you, Governor.

[3:01:18] Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to speak up one more time

[3:01:22] as for the motion and address some of the comments from my colleagues. I appreciate this conversation.

[3:01:30] You know, I do want to note that if you are planning to form a 501c3 corporation is not going to become a

[3:01:38] surprise that you are not going to raise money until you have your 501c3 status and those contributions

[3:01:43] are indeed tax deductible. I'm not overly concerned about funding a position within a position

[3:01:55] within a project like this. We did that with the community foundation. We supported the executive

[3:02:03] director, salary. So we've done this kind of support in the past with organizations including

[3:02:09] earmarked to support individual staff. And we don't always have the benefit of multiple RFPs

[3:02:17] with East Trail with the community foundation. They were the organizations that

[3:02:24] had stepped forward to deliver on the goals and objectives that were going to deliver community

[3:02:29] benefits and that was in the absence of any RFP. Sometimes you put out an RFP and you just

[3:02:34] do in fact, I get the one response and then when that happens you evaluate that response

[3:02:40] on its merits, which I think we're doing in this case, including directing the staff in many

[3:02:46] ways to make sure that they are doing their, they're taking the diligent approach to these negotiations.

[3:02:53] So I appreciate that and then I'm trying to think that there's any other points that I wanted to make, but I think that that covers it.

[3:03:06] Obviously I will be supporting the motion to proceed with the next step.

[3:03:11] Thank you. Councilor Prim.

[3:03:13] Yeah.

[3:03:13] She's had a very quick question for city manager or.

[3:03:17] So in the agreement that we have, and I just want to address this whole financial

[3:03:25] sustainability issue that Councilmember Pascal and Timchism have brought to light, is there

[3:03:47] a arrangement within the agreement itself, so that we are only paying out funds when we know

[3:03:57] or have some confidence that the entity will be financially viable or that we're getting

[3:04:03] external support or that they are getting external support.

[3:04:11] by the city of turn into. So, the turners, yes.

[3:04:18] I would say, I guess two things, two things that

[3:04:20] one is at least the way the council appropriated the money and the conversation was that the

[3:04:24] intent of this money was to be startup money, right? So, it's not year three money, once they're

[3:04:30] going. However, having said that, I think the intent of the staff is to say, you know, what is your

[3:04:35] plan? How is the fundraising going and set milestones of reporting?

[3:04:42] And so I think it is our intent

[3:04:43] to have an agreement that is helping insurers financially viable and still doing our due diligence

[3:04:49] on that.

[3:04:50] But I do think there's clearly an intent, at least, of the council that this is helping

[3:04:55] in that, right?

[3:04:56] And so it's a key starting point, whether that's for staff or whether it's-

[3:05:00] First, start a concert, who purchases and so forth. It's to help them go off the ground, but I think we would be looking very carefully at their next steps, particularly being stopped.

[3:05:08] Council feedback, but also our own due diligence is now that, you know, we got to go ahead, which two days they hadn't been given, you know, what is your fundraising plan and how successful it's being. We have a few months to figure that out while we need to go change the agreement.

[3:05:22] So it'd be my intent to help report on that when we come back to you and say, the last three months since he last saw, this here's what's happened.

[3:05:29] and here's how we feel good about it don't.

[3:05:32] Okay, thank you.

[3:05:33] We'll see you there.

[3:05:35] Okay, anyone else?

[3:05:39] I'm gonna take a shot at this.

[3:05:42] I will be supporting the motion as Councilor Arnold was clear.

[3:05:48] There is a lot of public enthusiasm for this

[3:05:51] and we have been talking about it for years

[3:05:53] and I think it'll serve the community well.

[3:05:55] I am in support of I have a preference

[3:05:58] for Fire Station 27.

[3:06:02] I agree with Debbie Mayor that we do not want to slow down this project while we do a strategic plan for long-term use of our public buildings, but I do feel like we need a plan.

[3:06:16] We have a number of buildings that we are bringing online and I would like to see how all that space is going to be used over the years and that's including the buildings that we're exploring for public works.

[3:06:29] And I want, I need, I feel, I need to respond to the criticism of community leaders that have served our community for decades.

[3:06:40] The, the allegation that there's an ethics violation, this money is not going into anyone's pockets.

[3:06:47] These are people who have bent over backwards to serve our community and many, many capacities.

[3:06:57] And I am grateful to them for championing this project, for taking their own personal time to put it together,

[3:07:06] to rally the community, to get feedback from the community.

[3:07:10] I think they've done a good job and I don't think it's fair to criticize them for it and make any sort of allegations.

[3:07:18] Oh, you don't get the last word on this. If you want to retort, you don't get it.

[3:07:22] Men were too good to get this. I don't want to get this.

[3:07:25] And as fair to retort.

[3:07:27] I'm going to remember Tim Tim.

[3:07:30] I have waited and throughout the work last.

[3:07:34] Council member Tim Cheson.

[3:07:37] So, I have finished my remarks, and if Councilor Timch is an I.C. Councilmember Prim, would like to raise her hand. Thank you, Councilmember Prim.

[3:07:51] Councilmember Prim, did you have your hand up? All right. Okay. The question is on the motion made by Councilmember Falcone.

[3:07:59] Second by Councilmember Prim. Councilmember Falcone, will you do us the favor of repeating your motion?

[3:08:10] Would you like to repeat it?

[3:08:15] Councillor Falkan, you're muted.

[3:08:20] Thank you.

[3:08:21] Thank you.

[3:08:22] Yes.

[3:08:22] City of China, that would be wonderful.

[3:08:24] Thank you.

[3:08:24] I'll repeat that for you.

[3:08:26] I made a motion to authorize staff to proceed with negotiations based on the tool library

[3:08:31] implementation plan, and to return to Council either with a proposed contract for consideration

[3:08:36] that uses track A or a check in with Council on track B if track A proves invisible.

[3:08:43] All right.

[3:08:45] Thank you City Attorney. All those of the favour please say aye.

[3:08:52] All those opposed?

[3:08:55] No. No.

[3:08:59] Motion carries 5-2.

[3:09:02] Thank you everyone. It is now 9-17.

[3:09:05] So we're going to take a break and we will be back at 9-30.

[3:22:09] Sorry about that, because I can get log back in. So, all right. So, so this is our check in on affordable housing, on faith, on land,

[3:22:20] but it is her council direction tonight before we go back to the planning commission. I've heard a walk it's your draft code proposal is.

[3:22:28] Sounds like our Deputy Director of Planning and Building.

[3:22:31] Thank you, City Manager, and good evening Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Council members. We're here tonight to give you our second briefing to you on the Affordable House.

[3:22:39] on faith-owned the land project. This is a task on the adopted 2026 to 2028 planning work program

[3:22:46] and its intention is to implement state legislation that the city is required to comply with.

[3:22:52] I have ten slides of information for you tonight. Before I jump in, I wanted to note that

[3:22:57] our lead senior planner on this project is Scott Guter. Scott's not able to be here tonight,

[3:23:02] so I will do my best to represent the good work that he has done on this project.

[3:23:07] We last talked to you about this project back in May and at that time we asked you for

[3:23:13] some scoping direction at that time Council told us to base any density bonuses given to

[3:23:20] faith owned land that's providing affordable housing to base those bonuses on underlying

[3:23:25] zone standards, where those faith based properties are located, you asked us to provide a

[3:23:31] right, permission for those bonuses, plan commission, iterated on the Council direction and

[3:23:38] emphasized that the codeman, which should add flexibility, but to keep the increases fairly modest,

[3:23:46] particularly in low density zone areas.

[3:23:51] Since we talked to you, staff has been out doing quite

[3:23:54] a bit of outreach primarily with faith-based organizations and also with consortiums and organizations

[3:24:01] that represent multiple stakeholders whether it be faith-based organizations or affordable housing

[3:24:07] developers. We've also been coordinating very closely with Arch on this project to help

[3:24:12] understand some of the market and feasibility context that goes into providing

[3:24:17] developments that include a high percentage of affordable housing units that are income restricted.

[3:24:26] From that outreach, we really heard a few things and you heard them already tonight in your

[3:24:32] of what comment period, we really heard from faith-based organizations

[3:24:35] that they would appreciate very straightforward process,

[3:24:39] both them and affordable housing developers appreciate flexibility.

[3:24:42] That's really key given that affordable housing,

[3:24:46] especially when provided as a higher percentage

[3:24:48] of a total development is difficult to make feasible

[3:24:51] in this market and always.

[3:24:54] So flexibility was really key for a lot of them.

[3:24:57] From the faith-based organizations specifically,

[3:24:59] Leave it.

[3:25:00] We did iterate what you heard earlier tonight that they aren't affordable housing developers in and of themselves. They really don't hold that expertise inherently.

[3:25:09] And so also noted that there will be a need for some support beyond code amendments programmatically.

[3:25:18] And with that feedback, we really took that to cart and tried to incorporate it into our code amendments presented to tonight.

[3:25:25] And I'll talk through how we did that in the codemannments in just a moment here.

[3:25:31] Before I jump into a summary of the codemannments that were included in your packet,

[3:25:37] I did want to note just go over briefly a map of the existing faith owned properties in Kirkland.

[3:25:44] So there are 37 organizations we found that operate in Kirkland today.

[3:25:49] those 37 organizations own 64 total parcels for a total of 160 acres in the city. Many

[3:25:58] of those parcels are quite large and you can probably think of them. So 19 of them are

[3:26:04] more than two acres and a lot of those faith-based organizations that you see actually own

[3:26:10] several underlying parcels that comprise one subject property that they may be operating at.

[3:26:15] A little over half of those parcels exist today in low density residential zones, just a couple of them are in medium or high density residential zones.

[3:26:26] And then remaining approximately 40% are in zones that already allow a little bit denser development, either office commercial institutional or transit oriented development zones.

[3:26:37] And then several of the zones, this kind of similar and all of Kirkland, but several of the properties do contain critical areas that would need to be factored into future development.

[3:26:51] So with that, I want to quickly review what's in your packet, just give you a summary of the draft code amendments.

[3:26:58] The draft code amendments would add a new section to our affordable housing chapter in the Kirkland zoning code and they would be based on what the state told us we had to do.

[3:27:08] So the state requires us to provide some type of capacity bonus for properties or developments that are providing either 50% of their total units at 80% AMI or 20% of their units at 50% AMI.

[3:27:23] And that's more than we require as part of our, any of our affordable housing requirements today.

[3:27:28] So this would be beyond what we require in our current code in the state requires us to provide some density bonuses for development that's doing that.

[3:27:37] So as it's drafted, it would only be applicable on parcels that are owned by a faith-based organization.

[3:27:43] And to put it simply, what we did was we looked at the existing underlying zones, and we provided a modest density increase on based on underlying zoning.

[3:27:55] So we basically took a low density zone and said, what's the average height allowed in a low density zone and what would kind of an incremental step up to the next density zone.

[3:28:05] be and that's how we looked at what their height bonus would be. And the same we looked at the

[3:28:10] medium density zone, what's the average height and medium density zones for residential

[3:28:14] development and gave them an incremental step up to a high density zone. So what's what that relates

[3:28:21] to a result in is that in low density zones we have a few varying heights across the city in those

[3:28:28] low density zones. We've talked about that a little bit with you before, but on average a lot of them

[3:28:33] have a 30-foot maximum building height for residential development today. Under this bonus, they would

[3:28:40] get up to 35 feet. If they were providing that state-required minimum amount of affordable housing,

[3:28:48] and then in medium density, they would go from 35 to 40. So a modest height increase.

[3:28:54] Lot coverage was another standard that we heard could help if projects kind of become feasible

[3:29:01] If we were flexible with that and for that, one of the things that we focused on was making sure that if an organization wanting to

[3:29:09] can tend to operate that faith-based facility that the standards were flexible enough that they can continue to operate their

[3:29:17] place of worship and also provide some affordable housing on sites. So we factor that into looking at

[3:29:23] coverage and based the bonuses for a lot coverage on the lot coverage allowed to that

[3:29:29] faith-based facility.

[3:29:34] Some of the other standards that we would propose to give these types

[3:29:40] of developments are exempting them all from design review. I think it's important to note that

[3:29:45] low-density zones don't require design review today so when we look at the sites across the city

[3:29:51] It's not exempting many sites that wouldn't already be inherently exempt from design review,

[3:29:56] but these types of developments wouldn't be.

[3:29:59] Also.

[3:30:00] We're removing where it exists, any maximum density, so a limit of units per acre, and floor area ratio standards.

[3:30:08] I know Council's got a lot of feedback from a lot of housing developers that are floor area ratio standards can be quite restrictive, so removing that for these types of developments.

[3:30:17] I already talked a little bit about flexible lock coverage. We also propose in the draft code being more flexible about required yards or setbacks.

[3:30:26] And then also allowing for the planning and building director to approve my or deviations from the code.

[3:30:34] So we have heard from the affordable housing development community that projects often need to vary just a little bit from zoning standards.

[3:30:42] It's hard to write zoning standards that cover every situation.

[3:30:45] And so in the spirit of trying to provide a streamlined path for these projects to happen.

[3:30:52] We did add into the code an allowance for the planning and building director to administratively approve some minor deviations if one is needed to make a project work.

[3:31:06] So what I've gone over so far is kind of like the base bonus that we would give these types of developments that are providing a high amount of affordable housing units.

[3:31:15] And the next two slides are sort of add-ins.

[3:31:19] That staff is proposing.

[3:31:21] And the first is an additional height bonus.

[3:31:24] And so in the draft code that you've seen,

[3:31:26] we've offered an additional height bonus.

[3:31:29] If a development chooses to provide more

[3:31:32] than that standard that we covered.

[3:31:34] So more than 20% of their units at 50%

[3:31:38] any of my or more than 50% of their units at 80% any of my.

[3:31:42] If they did that, they would be able to get some additional height, so up to a maximum of 50 feet and low density zones and up to a maximum of 60 feet and medium density zones, and then up to a 25 foot bonus and other zones.

[3:31:58] I note that these extra heights do come with additional setback requirements written into the code so the higher they got above that kind of base bonus the more those buildings would have to be stepped back a little to mitigate impacts to adjacent properties.

[3:32:12] And in terms of how this would work, we are still drafting this into our final proposal,

[3:32:20] but what staff is thinking is that what we would do is require a set percentage of additional units that would have to be provided for a development to be eligible for this additional height bonus.

[3:32:34] The other option that staff is proposing in the code is providing an exchange ratio that would allow development to give us different AMI levels.

[3:32:44] in their project, whether they choose to do a variety or a range of units within one project

[3:32:51] or provide all of them at 40% AMI instead of 50% AMI, we wanted to provide an exchange ratio

[3:32:57] to give them more flexibility to make a project work or meet needs or preferences of the

[3:33:03] face-based organization that they're working with. This should be a familiar concept to council.

[3:33:08] You have adopted exchange ratios for several other affordable housing requirements across

[3:33:12] the city including in the station area and through the Juanita cars more recently and so we're

[3:33:19] proposing that that same concept be applied for this affordable housing on faith-based property

[3:33:26] type of development.

[3:33:31] And lastly, in addition to the code, staff has also been

[3:33:34] concentrating what other support services beyond the code amendments could be helpful to faith-based

[3:33:39] organizations undertaking this type of development. Our ideas for that that don't need to be

[3:33:45] that we could programatically implement are offering free

[3:33:49] pre-submittal conferences and perhaps expedited permit review.

[3:33:53] And then, as I mentioned, we've been coordinating very closely with

[3:33:56] arch and they have a lot of support available to these

[3:34:00] faith-based organizations in terms of supporting due diligence,

[3:34:03] helping with feasibility studies, and also kind of connecting

[3:34:05] people with networks that might help them realize

[3:34:09] goals if they want to do something like this.

[3:34:12] With that, with the feedback we get tonight, we will finalize those draft code amendments.

[3:34:18] We're currently scheduled to take them to planning mission for a public hearing on August

[3:34:23] 27th, and tonight would love some feedback from Council on any of the bonus development standards

[3:34:29] and also any specific guidance on the concepts of the additional height bonus or the proposed exchange ratios.

[3:34:35] And with that, I will hand it back to you, Madam here.

[3:34:39] Thank you.

[3:34:40] I'll see you did a great job.

[3:34:42] So.

[3:34:42] All right.

[3:34:43] If you have any questions, comments, response to the questions.

[3:34:52] Councilor Wright Arnold.

[3:34:55] Thank you, Mayor.

[3:34:56] And thank you, Allie, for the presentation.

[3:34:59] You're always...

[3:35:00] So good at presenting some very complex topics very easily. I want to make sure I understand some things I was confused at when I first read the memo.

[3:35:13] When you're talking about the exchange ratios, that's separate from an independent from the additional height bonus for a different affordability.

[3:35:23] That's just something that you're allowing to change the mix of affordable housing within the development.

[3:35:33] And with those offered niligational height, is that how accurate?

[3:35:38] Thank you, Virginia, to clarify, Council Member Arnold.

[3:35:42] As it's written in the code that was attached to your packet, those exchange ratios were written in as an option,

[3:35:48] only for the additional units that would be required for the additional height bonus.

[3:35:55] Since we published your packet, staff is evolving that idea to potentially apply to all

[3:36:01] of the affordable units required.

[3:36:03] So that's what we would propose is making those exchange ratios available across the board

[3:36:07] and would appreciate Council feedback on that.

[3:36:09] Yeah, but I support that.

[3:36:12] On the additional height bonus, that's an area where I didn't fully understand, have you

[3:36:17] set, a standard of what you do to qualify for the additional tight bonus, or is that you ask

[3:36:24] you feedback on the concept and the upper limits?

[3:36:29] Thank you for the question.

[3:36:30] We are looking for feedback on the concept.

[3:36:33] We've been working in one of the points we're still coordinating on with arch is calibrating

[3:36:37] with that requirement.

[3:36:39] Our current thought is that we could do something like an additional 5% of affordable units,

[3:36:44] might make it eligible for that additional height bonus.

[3:36:47] If there's any upper limits that council members

[3:36:49] felt strongly about, take care in that.

[3:36:52] OK, great.

[3:36:53] So to appreciate the answers to offer my feedback overall,

[3:37:00] I really appreciate the model of zone equivalences

[3:37:04] versus coming up with some new standards and specifying.

[3:37:08] This is much simpler to understand.

[3:37:11] I appreciate that.

[3:37:12] I appreciate the focus on development by right

[3:37:14] in the administrative approvals. I support what you're suggesting on allowing for the exchange

[3:37:21] ratios through as part of the affordable housing and I support and not necessarily just as part

[3:37:32] of a height bonus and I support the upper limits of the height bonuses that you're suggesting

[3:37:40] and look forward to further discussion from the planning commission on what are the right

[3:37:47] and arch on what are the right requirements to qualify for that. Thank you.

[3:37:54] Thank you. Councillor Timchism. Thank you and thank you, Allison.

[3:38:02] Where are the process are we on this? This was designed to comply with the state law, but does this

[3:38:10] back to the planning commission now? Yes, so our next step would be to finalize the draft

[3:38:16] code amendments and then take it to planning commission for a public hand. Okay, thank you.

[3:38:24] I do agree with and support most of this. I think it is logical because

[3:38:33] this would take into consideration the underlying zoning of the surrounding

[3:38:40] name or hood or the surrounding location, right?

[3:38:44] Yes.

[3:38:45] Thank you.

[3:38:48] Thank you.

[3:38:49] Anybody else?

[3:38:53] Oh.

[3:38:54] Tell us where I felt come.

[3:38:55] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[3:38:57] Nothing really new to add.

[3:38:58] I just wanted to share that I support staff's recommendation.

[3:39:04] And including the exchange ratios applying to all of the affordable housing requirements.

[3:39:10] And I really appreciate not only its simplicity, but its responsiveness to the stakeholder engagement.

[3:39:17] So, thank you for that, and I'm looking forward to hopefully adopting this in the near future.

[3:39:24] Thank you.

[3:39:24] Councillor Prim.

[3:39:26] Hi, I just wanted to say that I agree with the overall plan here,

[3:39:31] and don't have really anything to add, which is, which is rare.

[3:39:35] Thank you.

[3:39:37] Thank you.

[3:39:38] Thank you.

[3:39:42] Um, say, I think this is really well done.

[3:39:46] I think that we've worked really hard to simplify the process as much as possible both in the zoning and

[3:39:53] being able to hand hold and support the faith-based properties.

[3:39:57] This is very thoughtful.

[3:40:00] Yeah, it's great. So take it to public hearing. Oh, I did have one question. I appreciate that you brought on the faith-based property owners in to get their feedback. Did we, did that include this code? Did they look at this code? Recognizing that it's not usually, they don't read code usually, but did they have a chance to provide feedback on the code?

[3:40:25] I don't believe that we've been any faith-based organization seen back directly on the code.

[3:40:31] What we've heard a lot of is that they don't do this when they're not super familiar.

[3:40:35] But we feel like we've gotten really constructive feedback from affordable housing developers that would be likely partners.

[3:40:43] Okay, and when we, but let's do invite them to participate in the public hearing.

[3:40:50] So, thank you.

[3:40:51] Deputy Mayor. I think you met a mayor. Kind of related to that, Allison.

[3:41:01] Making sure

[3:41:01] that we're, I was going to ask the same question that Councilmember Arnold asked about the sort

[3:41:07] of the mathematical bridge between the additional affordable housing units pursuant to the

[3:41:18] So it sounds like we're going to be refining that and when we do, I think it would make

[3:41:24] sense if we haven't already to get feedback from the development community that does

[3:41:29] affordable housing development and make sure that what we're thinking about makes sense.

[3:41:34] So if we're not doing that, let's suggest we do if you're already doing it great, obviously

[3:41:41] we've got some work to do to figure out that mathematical bridge and I just want to make

[3:41:44] it makes sense and that, you know, 15 additional feet makes sense and 20 additional feet makes

[3:41:51] sense. Because sometimes we come up with those numbers, at least we as elected officials

[3:41:55] do probably not use planning professionals. And once a developer gets a hold of those numbers,

[3:42:01] they're like, mmm, that doesn't really do that much for us, so I want to make sure we

[3:42:05] think that through. Yes, and Scott and his team do have a very direct line of communication on this

[3:42:11] project with the Housing Development Consortium,

[3:42:13] who represents several affordable housing developers.

[3:42:16] So I think they've been great at providing feedback

[3:42:18] and giving us good checks as we go along.

[3:42:21] Great, thank you.

[3:42:23] Thank you, anyone else?

[3:42:25] All right, Allison, do you feel like you have what you need

[3:42:27] from us?

[3:42:28] I believe we have what we need.

[3:42:29] Thank you for the feedback.

[3:42:31] Great, thank you so much.

[3:42:33] All right, we are going to move on to briefing

[3:42:37] a potential affordable housing agreement related to the ROTA apartment city manager.

[3:42:45] Okay, thank you very much.

[3:42:47] This is a potential project to create some affordable housing in Brooklyn.

[3:42:52] As we go on for several years, if we finally have to place that we want to check out

[3:42:56] with the council to see if you want us to continue to a final agreement.

[3:43:01] So, yeah, at a minus sign, our Director of Product Eubility is going to give the presentation.

[3:43:04] We also have the owner of the project, ROTA apartments,

[3:43:08] for our panelists here, as well as Angela Rosman,

[3:43:10] up there to answer questions about the project

[3:43:13] and the agreement as well.

[3:43:15] So with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Roycey.

[3:43:18] All right, good evening.

[3:43:20] Thanks, City Manager, good evening, Mayor.

[3:43:22] Good evening, Deputy Mayor and Council.

[3:43:26] Mr. City Manager mentioned yet, joined by several folks,

[3:43:29] Don Nelson, our Planning Manager, Kevin Hansen,

[3:43:32] or Senior Assistant City Attorney, who helped out with this analysis

[3:43:36] And then Connor Hansen, the managing principal at SRM development, Angela Rosman, who's the director of sustainable development at natural and build environments, and then of course, Tom Robert Pantley, who's the CEO of natural and build environments.

[3:43:50] And yeah, again, we're not looking for a decision tonight, just feedback on whether you want staff to continue working on this agreement.

[3:43:56] And if you have any follow-up questions. And yeah, again, just six slides tonight.

[3:44:02] Hopefully you can see an aerial photo here.

[3:44:07] This is really just to provide some context.

[3:44:10] And, you know, this is, I should mention this is a really extraordinary project that's been instrumental in being part of our affordable housing strategy in Kirkland.

[3:44:19] So I just want to point that out.

[3:44:21] RTA is a 290 unit apartment building as you all know.

[3:44:24] It's right in the heart of downtown.

[3:44:26] I'd also note that it's right next to the 111 unit Plaza Project and in response to an earlier

[3:44:32] public comment, the Plaza Project was the project that was the subject of an MFT agreement

[3:44:38] that was city negotiated, not the RIT project that we're talking about tonight.

[3:44:44] So again, right in the middle of downtown, right across from Kirkland Urban, hugely walkable,

[3:44:48] two grocery stores within a couple of minute walk. I think you know all those characteristics

[3:44:53] of the setting of the 290 units at RITA 228 units or Ecoflats, meaning that

[3:45:00] They have shared kitchens, although most have their own bathrooms. And this proposed deal that we're talking about tonight would encompass the affordability restrictions at 60% of the area median income, or AMI, on 218 of the ECO flat units, or 75% of the total units. And just to provide an illustration of what 60% AMI means in our community, it's about $60,000 per year for a household of one. So we're talking about, you know, pretty critical.

[3:45:30] I'm pleased in our communities, so we're talking about postal employees

[3:45:34] executive assistance, preschool teachers, entry-level transit workers

[3:45:38] that need to have housing that's affordable at 60% am I.

[3:45:44] So this is the slide you've seen this on on a 50 or 60 times over the last couple of years

[3:45:48] and shows our housing needs through 244, 13,200 units across all income levels.

[3:45:55] Now just point out a couple of things.

[3:45:57] First, as you all know, the greatest need based on this chart is in the 50% and under range and that's about

[3:46:05] 10,440 units or about 80% of our need.

[3:46:10] The need in the 51 to 80% range is still as much smaller, but it's still very significant.

[3:46:15] It's about 1,022 units or 8% of our overall need.

[3:46:21] And the 51% to 80% range is the bracket of income needed that would be addressed by this proposed deal.

[3:46:28] So again, a really important part of our affordable housing strategy.

[3:46:34] So just as a reminder, here are the key elements of the proposal.

[3:46:38] Again, 218 of the eco flats at RTA, including all the units with shared bathrooms, would be set aside at 60% AMI.

[3:46:47] Tent turnover has been an interest of Council on previous agreements.

[3:46:53] So right now, according to the owner, a majority of the units are rented by tenants whose incomes are over 60% AMI.

[3:47:01] And under the terms of the deal, these tenants could stay at RIT, but maybe relocated to not income restricted units in the building.

[3:47:10] Regarding income growth, if a tenant makes more than 60% if a tenant who makes no more than 60% AMI moves,

[3:47:17] to a unit, and then their income increases up to 80%

[3:47:21] AMI, the units would still be considered affordable.

[3:47:26] Regarding the eligibility for the tax exemption,

[3:47:29] the property owner gets the tax break for at least 20 to 40 years,

[3:47:33] as long as 75% of the units are rented to households,

[3:47:37] making no more than 60% AMI with that limited income growth provision

[3:47:42] that I just talked about, as I previously mentioned,

[3:47:48] they were the eligible for the tax exemption.

[3:47:51] Regarding the loan, to be eligible for the tax break,

[3:47:54] besides meeting the affordability requirements,

[3:47:58] the project has to receive financial public financial assistance

[3:48:02] under the state law, and that's where the city comes in.

[3:48:06] So the proposal is to give the owner a $500,000

[3:48:08] dollars and no interest loan for up to 40 years. And then the monitoring plan would have

[3:48:15] built-in procedures for ensuring the affordability provisions of the agreement are met,

[3:48:20] and those would also likely be monitored by our colleagues at Arche. And then the last thing I

[3:48:25] want to mention about the key elements of the proposal is that the project would be owned and operated

[3:48:30] by a nonprofit that nonprofit is still to be determined. The current owner has a list of organizations

[3:48:37] they will potentially negotiate with if the deal moves forward.

[3:48:44] This slide, we put together in response to questions about the sort of implications of the tax break.

[3:48:52] So, I just want to mention two things about the slide.

[3:48:54] First is that the owner, the current owner of the project estimates the value of the tax break at about $502,000 per year.

[3:49:05] And then there have been lots of questions about the impact to city homeowners of the tax break.

[3:49:10] So using our internal tool, our finance department staff estimated that the city property taxes

[3:49:16] that would be shifted to the owner of a median value home in Kirkland as a result of the tax break.

[3:49:23] If it were to be approved would be about $1.25 a year and that's again for a median value home in Kirkland.

[3:49:29] I would also note that that figure does not include shifted taxes and other taxing districts.

[3:49:34] We're really just talking about the shifted taxes for city property tax.

[3:49:42] And then this is the last slide.

[3:49:44] These are the issues for council consideration that we flagged in the staff member.

[3:49:48] I'll go through them relatively fast, but you're welcome to ask questions about them.

[3:49:54] First is regarding income limits.

[3:49:56] So, the project without the RK project with...

[3:50:00] Without any covenant in place, just, you know, market rate rents already has a very high degree of affordability, with 89% of the eco-flatch renting for less than 60% AMI. I'd also note the affordability under this deal would be a key to region wide rents for studio units, which in many cases have complete kitchens and unit bathrooms, and so in some ways may be superior to these units.

[3:50:25] So a key question is whether it is likely for rents to increase or decrease in these units over time and

[3:50:32] then whether affordability level should be linked to something less than studio units. Again, these are just questions that we're posing.

[3:50:39] Unit types, the agreement includes only eco flats and not one to three bedroom units.

[3:50:45] And we note that one to three bedroom units, which are present in RTA, particularly the two and three bedroom units may be the most desirable units

[3:50:54] and the ones that are most likely to undergo a future rent

[3:50:57] escalation, although there might be a lot of value

[3:50:59] in preserving the ego flats as well at affordable levels.

[3:51:03] So the question is, should any of the more household

[3:51:05] size units be included in the mix under the agreement?

[3:51:09] Rent increases is another issue that we flagged.

[3:51:13] So you probably know that these units

[3:51:16] would not be subject to the recently past state authorized

[3:51:18] rank control law.

[3:51:20] And so they would fluctuate according to changes in area media and income, right there linked to AMI, similar to other arch managed units in the city.

[3:51:31] So what happens is that if median income rises at a faster rate than individuals income that individuals living unit becomes less affordable.

[3:51:40] And again, so we're talking about this issue in terms of individual experience versus aggregate experience.

[3:51:45] And so the question is, should there be a cap on running

[3:51:48] increases to reflect, you know,

[3:51:50] potential escalation of median income in the region?

[3:51:53] And then lastly, the loan and the terms of the agreement.

[3:51:57] So we're talking again about a $500,000 loan as 0% interest.

[3:52:02] And for a term of up to 40 years,

[3:52:04] and I see that council member, Tinshazen,

[3:52:05] has his hand up as well.

[3:52:08] Yeah, it's very, Tinshazen.

[3:52:09] Thank you, Adam.

[3:52:12] So, my question is on the terms of the loan, I understand the value of this project and I'm generally supportive.

[3:52:20] The loan terms are 0% interest. My question for staff is, why is it this loan at 6% interest or the prevailing rate or whatever a normal loan would be at from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or the federal government?

[3:52:39] And I would note that 20 years of interest or 40 years of interest at 6%, would be maybe 350,000 over 20 years, or if the loan is over 40 years, you know, 800,000 or more.

[3:52:57] And why are we for going that interest at some sort of a reasonable rate?

[3:53:06] I could do an additional response to that. So that was one of the reasons we have the question.

[3:53:11] I think the intent of the staff in the starting point was if we're trying to facilitate affordable housing,

[3:53:17] we're trying to remove as many barriers as possible. So any cost that we'd be in the potting,

[3:53:22] we would start off saying we shouldn't be doing that.

[3:53:25] But when the project was first thought of,

[3:53:28] what years ago, the attempt was that the amount of money was going to be a contribution not

[3:53:32] long, so even that's better than I think the original idea which was, this would just be part

[3:53:37] of our contribution to the stack of funding. So that's the primary reason we were just thinking

[3:53:43] wanted to keep the impact as low as possible, but there's certainly no reason we couldn't have

[3:53:48] a discussion on the property, I don't know about whether there should be an interest on the long.

[3:53:55] Okay, I mean, I understand the reason to support this,

[3:54:02] but I understand not having a high,

[3:54:05] or exorbitantly high interest rate, but zero seems concerning, and I would ask that different options

[3:54:17] be brought back at the prevailing rate or that that'd be investigated. Thank you.

[3:54:24] Thank you. Great. Thanks. I don't have that much. Sorry.

[3:54:31] No, I was going to tell you to go ahead. So you're good. Okay. I was going to mention, I don't have

[3:54:36] that much more to add. So yeah, we already sort of got into the terms of the loan. The term is

[3:54:43] 40 years also is the only other thing that we flag and again the owner indicates that

[3:54:49] all the terms of the agreement are necessary to secure financing for the project.

[3:54:53] We would note that typical inclusionary zoning units and Kirkland's Market Rape Buildings are...

[3:55:00] Usually affordable for the life of the project. So when you're thinking about the term of the loan and the term of the affordability might think about that as well.

[3:55:08] And with that, I think that exhaust the issues for council consideration. We're happy to take more questions. And again, we're just looking for feedback on undertaking additional work on this agreement. And then, and you follow up questions that we can research further.

[3:55:24] Okay, thank you.

[3:55:26] No, no, no, no, no, no.

[3:55:30] Oh, okay.

[3:55:33] All right, council repassible.

[3:55:38] Thank you.

[3:55:39] A couple of questions.

[3:55:43] So this, so I mean, you've been getting this development confused with the other one next

[3:55:48] store.

[3:55:49] So the other one had multi-panel intact exemption, and this one didn't.

[3:55:53] Is that what you're seeing?

[3:55:55] Correct.

[3:55:57] And then on, I guess what I heard from the presentation was that the eco flats, you know, many of them currently read less than 60% AMI, it's just that there's no income restrictions on renting to folks that meet that today, right?

[3:56:25] Yeah, that's right. I think 89% rent for less than 60% am I and again, they rent those low levels just by nature of the fact that they're very compact

[3:56:34] And we're designed for affordability at market rates

[3:56:39] What I guess what like market information do we have that that would say that

[3:56:44] The that the current rents would exceed 60% am I you know in a future is it just kind of just mark back at that envelope

[3:56:53] So, calculations or estimates, or is there more there to kind of substantiate that?

[3:57:00] Yeah, that's something that we could look at further.

[3:57:02] I don't think we have a lot of hard data on that at this point.

[3:57:05] It's hard to predict what happens with rents in the future.

[3:57:09] Oftentimes, as buildings age, the rents get cheaper.

[3:57:13] But sometimes, especially when there's a constraint housing supply or a lot of economic growth,

[3:57:18] the opposite can happen.

[3:57:20] So, I don't think we have perfect hard data on that.

[3:57:23] if you, right now, that's something we could look into further.

[3:57:27] I'd be interested in just a little bit more focus on that.

[3:57:32] I'd like to be assured that at least we gave it a good due diligence.

[3:57:41] Thank you.

[3:57:43] Thank you.

[3:57:44] Andrew?

[3:57:47] Yeah, I was just, I was, I think, well, definitely.

[3:57:50] I see what we can figure out on that.

[3:57:52] I think I'm certainly going to talk with the developers

[3:57:54] as well and others to get some insight.

[3:57:57] I think, and proposing those to you,

[3:57:58] I was also looking at the other side of the client,

[3:58:00] which is how likely are more people to become low income?

[3:58:05] And that's, I think, one of the challenges that we're seeing.

[3:58:08] We had our discussion of the utility rate earlier, right?

[3:58:10] That there's also, is the need increasing

[3:58:13] for dedicated affordable housing.

[3:58:15] So I think those are the two factors you want to weigh,

[3:58:18] what is what it's like to have with rents

[3:58:20] to us, what's likely to happen with it?

[3:58:29] Yeah, that's a lot of work.

[3:58:31] Thank you.

[3:58:33] To catch members of our past close question,

[3:58:36] I am wondering, it's not just the rent of this.

[3:58:42] It's the risk of losing these affordable units.

[3:58:45] And I see that we have Robert Panley

[3:58:49] and Angela Rosmanov, sustainable Kirkland here.

[3:58:52] I'm wondering if they are able to share

[3:58:55] Um, like from what they have had is what's what's the interest in any alternatives that they have had for this property that, um, to compare to compared to this, to the eco flats.

[3:59:09] If they're prepared to describe it, if not, um, that is one, too.

[3:59:26] Thank Robert has his hand raised mayor.

[3:59:33] I think she is.

[3:59:40] If you want to take over for a second.

[3:59:44] Sure.

[3:59:45] So Mr. Bailey?

[3:59:47] Thank you very much council.

[3:59:50] And I would like to give some response to the comments already

[3:59:55] because we all want affordability.

[3:59:57] and we want the best before

[4:00:00] What a ability that we can occur, and what started this whole process was we went to sell the property, and we got multiple offers at which and it has continued over the last couple years, where people want to do value add to this property, and their job to do value add is to push rents up, and personally it's scared me to death, because that's not been our mission.

[4:00:30] And when we first built this, the president of the of the bank that gave us the construction

[4:00:36] financing, he said, you know, be a lot better if you just build all the luxuries economically

[4:00:44] and because they did a lot of this and I said, I know that, but that's not our mission.

[4:00:50] So our goal here is to maintain the mission and what happened is when we built RTA, the

[4:00:59] families, eyes were up here, and all of our rents were below.

[4:01:03] And what's happened has, we've broken through, we've done the start of a crossover.

[4:01:10] And the crossover means that the rents are increasing the cost pressures are unbelievable

[4:01:17] from insurance to real estate taxes to wages, and the rents have pushed, began to push over

[4:01:26] the AMI 60% and then so that's what motivated this. I figured out that I'm not getting any younger

[4:01:37] and my doctor says I'm biologically ten years younger than my chronological age and I still check

[4:01:43] them still getting older and so we're moving to make a sale and we believe the best thing that we

[4:01:52] can do for our city is to put on a covenant.

[4:01:55] That said, we have underlying loans

[4:01:59] that we have to get approval for.

[4:02:01] So anything we agree to has to achieve

[4:02:05] phantom A's approval, or will be in loan default.

[4:02:09] And it's very, we've got a lot of homework,

[4:02:11] and we think we're ahead in the right direction,

[4:02:14] but it is an ongoing challenge.

[4:02:17] I've never seen the financial markets so challenging

[4:02:21] in my career as we are right now and I based on the federal level I'm not confident it's

[4:02:27] not going to continue. So I think we're in for a long road here. The goal though is why do we

[4:02:35] also think that rents will increase? Well since 2020 from 2022 in the city of Kirkland

[4:02:45] Incums increased to 117%.

[4:02:48] Rents have increased to 165%.

[4:02:52] And the hardest hit our lowest incomes.

[4:02:56] So I would hope that we would really do something special

[4:03:01] to protect our lower incomes.

[4:03:03] The other thing that the covenant does to be clear,

[4:03:06] and I think it was briefly mentioned

[4:03:08] by Council Member Pascal.

[4:03:11] but right now and I think applying director also said it right now slightly over half of our units are

[4:03:20] rented by people over 60%. What this transition will do is get everybody in the 50% to be able

[4:03:29] to rent instead of some of our folks make a hundred and hundred and twenty thousand. They like the units

[4:03:35] to, you know, that they're very convenient and cost-effective and we have a capacity problem.

[4:03:42] We ended up 97% full as of at the end of July, which means that only difference really

[4:03:50] is our ability to turn units because we have so many units from our perspective were overfold.

[4:03:56] So it does solve a real big problem and it really will support our local businesses which means

[4:04:04] that the restaurant owners, the reception at the medical center,

[4:04:11] the postal service for people that Adam talked about.

[4:04:15] These are real people, and the more we can keep our local employees

[4:04:20] living downtown, they're not parking on the street now,

[4:04:25] and they're part of our community, and we believe it's,

[4:04:30] and I know the council does too, it's really the best answer.

[4:04:34] So hopefully I answered some of those questions for you, but we are very concerned with the crossover effect,

[4:04:41] meaning that the rencer already started over versus what we had when we first got approval in 2013.

[4:04:51] Another thing is Seattle in 2013 was the 27th most expensive market in the nation-large city area.

[4:04:59] with

[4:05:00] We are now number six. So that's another example of where rents are just pushing through over the, over the line. Thank you very much.

[4:05:09] Okay, thank you for that answer to my question.

[4:05:13] The, just over all my comments and answers to the staff questions first.

[4:05:21] I really appreciate the work of Mr. Patley and Sustainable Kirkland.

[4:05:25] artes innovative and award-winning approach provided to eco-flats that are affordable to

[4:05:31] renters at 60% AMI without subsidy. I was on the planning commission when this concept first

[4:05:38] moved forward and the original zoning made this possible with parking flexibility. Moving forward,

[4:05:45] there is the risk of these rents going up or even reconfiguring units to market rate housing.

[4:05:53] The city and sustainable Kirkland has worked over several years to try to prevent this.

[4:06:00] There were proposals that came before previous councils.

[4:06:03] Some of the public comment that we've gotten in the email we've gotten had asked about using Amazon

[4:06:09] and Microsoft Housing Fund instead of public public funding.

[4:06:14] That was part of something Council looked like a year ago.

[4:06:17] and even with, it felt through because those fund priorities were other housing types, but even

[4:06:24] when they were looking at this, some public participation was required. Given our growth targets,

[4:06:32] if these units converted to market rate, we would still have to make up for the loss for affordable units.

[4:06:40] And for our $500,000 investment, we're preserving 211 units at 60% AMI for 20 to 40 years.

[4:06:53] That's about $2,293 per unit, to Councilmember Tim Chesons' point.

[4:07:01] On interest, I would support this even if it was a grant.

[4:07:04] So I support this as your interest long because we're getting some clear public benefit.

[4:07:11] To some of the issues for council consideration, my priority is scale.

[4:07:16] So I support the focus on eco flats versus other types of units.

[4:07:23] On rent increases, we note in the presentation and the packet that because these are affordable units,

[4:07:31] the tenant protections in House Bill 1270 don't apply,

[4:07:40] but in rent is linked to AMI.

[4:07:43] What we've seen rent spikes when AMI has spiked.

[4:07:47] So if this wasn't something that was a showstopper for federal project financing,

[4:07:52] I'd like to see staff explore the protections that are in House Bill 1270,

[4:07:59] perhaps something along the lines of limiting increases to increase an AMI, or the

[4:08:09] hospital 2017 requirements, whatever's lower, that would be my suggestion, but would

[4:08:15] like to explore something like that. Beyond that, and totally supportive of moving forward

[4:08:23] with this and appreciate the developers and team moving this forward.

[4:08:30] Thank you.

[4:08:35] Thank you.

[4:08:36] Councillor or Pasco?

[4:08:39] Yeah, I just had a couple of questions after listening to Robert as the thanks for coming

[4:08:44] tonight.

[4:08:46] Robert and Angela appreciate it.

[4:08:49] A question.

[4:08:51] You know, one of the bullets up here is the unit types.

[4:08:53] Number one to three bedroom units.

[4:08:56] are arch included. Could you talk a little bit more about that and what, what, how would

[4:09:06] the deal need to change to include those?

[4:09:19] Did I do that right?

[4:09:21] Yes, go ahead.

[4:09:22] There you go. Okay. I want to make sure I'm supposed to speak. Okay. I would love to include

[4:09:30] one to three bedroom units. If we did this at this point, I can tell you that the

[4:09:38] underwriters for our loan would just turn it down flat because we've already asked the question

[4:09:42] what can we do? It would require a reduction of the loan amounts and this many units to make that work

[4:09:51] Amazon for 97 units put up 22 million in Kirkland a year ago or so. You're probably looking at the

[4:09:59] the same ratio.

[4:10:00] So, you know, approximately, it would take about $14 million from Amazon to make that work. That's an approximate.

[4:10:11] Or the city, obviously the city could say, that's fine. We want to do it.

[4:10:16] There might be an opportunity when we get this in place. If there's any way we can get there in any form, people here know me.

[4:10:26] I will do everything I can to make it happen.

[4:10:30] Even if we can find three or four or seven units,

[4:10:34] we'll fall all over ourselves to make it happen.

[4:10:39] Okay, thank you.

[4:10:43] So, who's next?

[4:10:46] Deputy Mayor.

[4:10:49] Thank you, Mayor.

[4:10:53] Yeah, thank you for this conversation.

[4:10:55] Thank you, sustainable Kirkland, Mr. Pantley.

[4:10:58] Thank you for the work you've done in our community to help us

[4:11:02] the greater mix of housing types that we need. Some of which like the Eagle Flats can be naturally occurring

[4:11:12] affordable housing as we've seen. So, really to appreciate your work.

[4:11:19] I do have a couple of things.

[4:11:23] I want to sort of highlight for staff. I support us moving forward this. I appreciate

[4:11:33] I appreciate the value of this project or this idea, the idea of preserving units of naturally

[4:11:42] current affordable housing, having them now be applicants be sort of means tested in that they

[4:11:50] will have to meet the low income requirements,

[4:11:54] the cost of this $500,000 versus the cost of

[4:12:00] constructing new units or renovating new units.

[4:12:04] We know that constructing new units is one unit.

[4:12:07] This is roughly $600,000 in our current market,

[4:12:11] and we're getting the 218 preserved units for less than that.

[4:12:18] I appreciate all that.

[4:12:21] At the same time, I know I have a cognizant of my responsibility

[4:12:25] to current technical taxpayers and the opportunity to cost associated with spending this money on

[4:12:31] this project and not others. So I do want to provide my feedback to staff. There are a couple

[4:12:39] of their really sort of three areas. I really do want us to explore in the negotiations.

[4:12:47] I would like us to sort of stress test. I appreciate Mr. Pantley's response to the idea

[4:12:55] of some of the one, two, and three-bedroom units,

[4:12:58] if it's possible if they could be part of the mix

[4:13:02] of affordable units.

[4:13:04] I'd like to explore that a little bit further.

[4:13:08] Maybe there's a little bit of mixing and matching

[4:13:11] that can be done to get just a few family-sized units

[4:13:18] included if maybe some number of equal of the 218

[4:13:23] equal flats are not included.

[4:13:24] I don't know, but I'd like to explore that idea further.

[4:13:30] I would also like to explore as a little bit further the length of the affordability commitment.

[4:13:38] So when we're having further conversations, as we proceed with this proposal,

[4:13:44] you know, typically affordable projects in Kirkland, it's for the life of the project, the affordability.

[4:13:53] I understand that's not part of the current proposal, I'd like to explore that just further

[4:13:58] to find out if there's anything that's workable for a longer term commitment there.

[4:14:06] And then the last topic or the last sort of element that I'd like to the staff explore,

[4:14:11] and these are just sort of the top three, but there is a real annual tax benefit to the property

[4:14:19] owner from the tax benefit, it does seem to me that there might be the way to have the city

[4:14:31] and ultimately the taxpayers paid back on a slightly quicker schedule.

[4:14:36] So I would like to explore the payment terms a little bit.

[4:14:41] I'm not as concerned about the interest rate on the loan, I'm okay with the idea of a

[4:14:48] of a no interest loan, but maybe there's a repayment schedule given the tax benefits that

[4:14:55] are annual, that a percentage of those tax benefits could come back.

[4:15:00] To the city and repay the loan a little bit faster than just a final balloon payment of $500,000 at the end of 20 years.

[4:15:08] I'd like to explore that little further.

[4:15:11] And the lieu of interest rates, you know, there would be, if there was a repayment schedule, then there would be financial charges, if payments were late, to sort of just incentivize timely payment.

[4:15:21] So that would be one way to sort of capture, recapture some of the value, the time value.

[4:15:25] It payments aren't made timely. I'm not expecting that they won't be but you always have to account for that, so

[4:15:34] Unless staff has any questions about my ideas there

[4:15:39] I will I'll hand it the I'll hand it back. Okay. I see it thumb raised from City Manager. So thank you. Thank you

[4:15:48] Councilman Phil Cohen council reprim. We haven't heard from you yet

[4:15:52] Councilman. Well, there you go. Councilman Philcomb

[4:15:55] Thank you, Madam Mayor. I was intently listening to the conversation so that I would have

[4:16:00] things to respond to and to see if, you know, as we've been to share my thoughts on the

[4:16:05] great ideas from coming from my fellow council members. Well first, thank you, Mr. Pantley,

[4:16:11] Ms. Rosman and all the partners involved in it for bringing this to us. You know, we heard from

[4:16:17] the community loud and clear during the comprehensive plan process that they want us to prioritize

[4:16:23] preserving affordable housing. And to me, this is just a no-brainer. It's a great

[4:16:28] opportunity that you're presenting to us to be able to preserve hundreds of units

[4:16:33] of affordable housing in our city. And in such a prime location in downtown Kirkland,

[4:16:40] a lot of the work coming out of 1220, you know, in the comprehensive plan was really not just

[4:16:47] about the number of affordable units that we talk about, but also the quality of life

[4:16:51] of any amenities in close proximity to the affordable housing that we work on here in the

[4:16:58] public city of Kirkland. And so that's a big factor here, too. This is a prime location

[4:17:04] for affordable housing that folks have access to the library to transit to, you know, restaurants

[4:17:10] and parks. So thank you for that. I do have some thoughts on some of the proposed policy

[4:17:21] considerations, but first I have a question on one of them to Mr. Pantley or Mr. Rosman about the idea of exploring an additional length of the commitment on affordable housing.

[4:17:36] Can you speak to the feasibility of that, the potential impact on the underwriting or other considerations? I just want to hear your thoughts on that before I share my thoughts.

[4:17:48] So, um, I would love to extend, um, and what we will do is we will go back to our

[4:17:57] Fannie Mae representative and tell them what we want to do, but I would love to, my

[4:18:04] thought is the, like tack, um, standard is 55 years in the state of Washington.

[4:18:11] So, it seems like they've done enough financing, so that is going to be our request.

[4:18:16] can we extend without a penalty of the underwriting and it gets, and I think it should work,

[4:18:24] but we started with this process when we started with our first time around,

[4:18:30] and we've talked to a lot of nonprofits and even the non-profits, national firms,

[4:18:37] and billions of dollars in real estate, I'm shocked at how sensitive they are to these kinds of

[4:18:46] able to finance out the term of the second buyer. It isn't about just getting it done now.

[4:18:55] It's what happens. Excuse me, like a light tech term is 15 years and by the time we're all

[4:19:00] done, it's 17 or 18 years. What does this next buyer look for? But you have my absolute commitment,

[4:19:08] we'll collaborate with the city staff and we're very hard to make that happen. I would

[4:19:14] No one would be happier than I am to see that extended.

[4:19:19] Great, thank you. That's really helpful.

[4:19:21] I mean, my lens on this is that I have like two goals here.

[4:19:24] One, I want to make sure we get the largest community benefit that would actually be helpful to community members.

[4:19:32] Most in need and two that we don't kill the deal by any changes that we want to see, right?

[4:19:38] I want to make sure this goes through and that we don't over-squeeze to try to get so much out of it

[4:19:43] that's some potential partners walk away from the table, right?

[4:19:46] So those are kind of my two check marks

[4:19:50] that I want to make sure any of these proposed guidance

[4:19:54] that we give to staff to negotiate with you in the team

[4:19:59] that we check both.

[4:20:00] So, I am supportive of Councilmember Arnold's idea of mirroring the cap on rent increases into Houseville, 1217. I think that's a great idea and I would like to see that for obvious reasons, because as long as that doesn't kill the deal, I think that was certainly provided better community benefit.

[4:20:20] So I do support that. I also support asking for an additional length of commitment on affordability if that's something, again, that's not going to kill the deal. So if it sounds like you're comfortable at least with the ask, if it's not going to, you know, offend enough for folks to walk away or at least decrease their trust in the negotiations.

[4:20:40] that I would support that, but I trust the judgment of staff and you mistakenly having that conversation around what's appropriate there.

[4:20:52] For those same reasons, I don't support messing with either like adding interest on the loan or having earlier payments on the loan.

[4:21:01] Just like Councilman Ernl said, I was all in on this and thought it was a huge, you know, return

[4:21:07] on investment for a relatively, the grand scheme of things, relatively small, smaller investment

[4:21:12] compared to the value of the project and the value of the return of just having it be a grant.

[4:21:17] Right? So even being alone is fine with me. I don't support any interest or any earlier payment on that,

[4:21:22] and I would even be fine in going back to a grant if that was necessary to get some of the other

[4:21:26] terms that we want. As I don't know if that's even something that would be attractive as an

[4:21:30] negotiating token, but that is something that I would be happy to support if it could get us

[4:21:36] some of the other things that we're looking for. For the same reason, because of your response

[4:21:42] to the two or three bedroom, I don't support going back to the table on the larger units.

[4:21:47] Given that we've already done that, I want to make sure that they know that they've already been

[4:21:51] on that, right? I'm trusting that we've already asked that. And then that's not feasible.

[4:22:02] I just want to make sure I responded to all of them. So I think there's some great ideas

[4:22:05] discussing. Those are the ones I do and don't support. And again, I think this is a no-brainer.

[4:22:10] And this is exactly what the community is asking for for us to preserve these types of units.

[4:22:16] So thank you again for bringing forth the opportunity.

[4:22:20] Thank you.

[4:22:21] Councilor Crem.

[4:22:23] All right.

[4:22:25] So first I just want to recognize and really thank you all and everyone involved in bringing

[4:22:29] this proposal forward to us.

[4:22:31] I genuinely respect the goal of preserving affordability and I appreciate the effort to find really

[4:22:37] creative ways to keep these units accessible to lower income residents.

[4:22:41] I've seen the units myself, and was thoroughly impressed by the creativity of the design of the units,

[4:22:50] and completely understand why you have such a low vacancy rate right now across the board.

[4:22:56] So I thank you for also for thinking of potentially implementing a covenant to keep these units affordable for the long run.

[4:23:04] I haven't said that. I still do have some questions as to whether this agreement is necessary, given the characteristics of this particular property, so I want to understand that a little bit more. I would I would like to get some more information on exactly what the risk is that a future owner would come in and suddenly convert these units into high priced market rate apartments.

[4:23:33] I think like if the ultimate goal is to keep the rents low so that individuals that are below the 60%

[4:23:43] AMI are able to afford it, I just want to understand if a new owner comes in, what is the real likelihood

[4:23:50] and what are we basing that likelihood on to say that the rents will dramatically increase?

[4:23:57] So maybe some more information on that would be really helpful.

[4:24:02] I am overall supportive of this idea,

[4:24:05] but I do think that information plus maybe potential other options in terms of the loan term.

[4:24:14] And in terms of interest rate, I don't think I favor that too much,

[4:24:20] but I do think maybe the term duration and the various options there would be helpful.

[4:24:27] information.

[4:24:31] Thank you. Anyone else?

[4:24:36] All right. I am also

[4:24:37] want to thank you both for bringing this and we've been good

[4:24:41] partners with the city. One of a couple things I'm hearing from

[4:24:46] the council members. I do support looking at an earlier payment option

[4:24:52] if it can happen and again any payment that we get we can reinvest in

[4:24:59] other project.

[4:25:00] And I did appreciate our deputy mayor's idea of swapping some larger units for some eco-flex, because we do know that we have a need for larger units within the city.

[4:25:15] So I would like to explore those two. My comment or my question is really to the city manager in that we haven't talked about where this 500,000 is going to come from.

[4:25:27] And so, how would we fund the 500,000 and is there an opportunity cost to that so can you address that, please?

[4:25:37] Yeah.

[4:25:38] The goodness is this one has already been sent aside and an affordable housing account for middle-state

[4:25:45] exercise tax.

[4:25:46] So this is a couple of years ago and the previous budget carried it forward.

[4:25:50] So it's already there.

[4:25:51] It was originally set aside when the legislature gave cities the ability to use real

[4:25:57] cynicized tax for affordable housing, they originally did it with a sunset provision

[4:26:01] and Kirkknows one of the few cities that actually tried to use it for affordable housing,

[4:26:04] so that was one of the impetus of us sitting in a society.

[4:26:08] And we also wanted to demonstrate to the legislature that we would use it.

[4:26:12] Thanks to Kirkknows advocacy and other cities, we actually were able to get that cap removed,

[4:26:17] so it never did something so now any city can use real cynicized tax for affordable housing.

[4:26:21] going forward. That's a good news. But why is already have it? It's fully budgeted and it's already there.

[4:26:28] So. And how much is in that account? Right now, just the 500,000.

[4:26:33] That's the 500,000. And again, I'm looking at an opportunity cost. You know, there's going to be

[4:26:40] another project in six months a year or five years. So how quickly will that account replenish?

[4:26:46] Yeah, that's a good budget conversation with the Council of the Shirt.

[4:26:50] Shirt version of that is that up and tell the real estate exercise taxes allowed to be used for affordable housing.

[4:26:58] We all of our contributions are essentially through arch and the arch trust fund and that project returning to the city when they are funded by arch.

[4:27:07] Real estate exercise tax currently has to be spent within the city limits.

[4:27:11] So one of the challenges of saying where would I spend it next if I had on a is.

[4:27:16] Kirk would have long doesn't get sort of the 10 to 1 back that arch does when it goes

[4:27:20] to the current state.

[4:27:21] It gets all the other funding.

[4:27:22] So we would have to have a project where that kind of money would make a difference for

[4:27:26] a Kirk on project.

[4:27:28] And right now, there's a couple ideas out there that we can look at, but we don't have anything

[4:27:32] on that horizon.

[4:27:33] So our intent was really, as opportunities arose, we kept you with proposals for using

[4:27:37] else an exercise tax to make them happen.

[4:27:39] So the whole village could be a concept that we could talk about, there's other places

[4:27:42] to that we could like that. But at the moment, there's nothing where something like

[4:27:48] a space that difference that it would share, where if we used it now, we could make

[4:27:51] it do happen. There's something currently on the table where if we used it, we'd

[4:27:55] know what it would happen.

[4:27:57] Okay. Thank you. It's like a burden of hand.

[4:28:00] So, okay. All right. That was all for me. So, do you feel like you have what you need to take

[4:28:09] the next steps?

[4:28:10] Yes, thanks for all the feedback.

[4:28:13] Okay.

[4:28:14] All right.

[4:28:14] Thank you, Robert.

[4:28:15] Angela, for staying late with us.

[4:28:19] We'll see you soon.

[4:28:20] Thank you very much.

[4:28:21] We deeply appreciate it.

[4:28:25] Right.

[4:28:26] We are moving on to nine E, which is

[4:28:30] briefing on the total, like, southern industrial sub-area

[4:28:33] visioning city manager.

[4:28:35] I'm guessing out of staying.

[4:28:39] Yeah, so this is an item where we're going to probably appreciate

[4:28:42] I was already providing information, not looking for decision

[4:28:45] by the council today, just information exchange and feedback.

[4:28:49] Go ahead, turn it back to Adam Weinstein, what do you feel like turning?

[4:28:53] Actually, Martha Rubar, I'm just going to take this one,

[4:28:54] and I'll see you in your planner.

[4:28:58] Thank you.

[4:28:59] Thank you, City Manager.

[4:29:02] Just one moment here.

[4:29:19] Yeah,

[4:29:29] apologies for that.

[4:29:30] It's technical difficulties.

[4:29:31] Can you see my screen okay? We can, okay, thank you. Good evening Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Council members.

[4:29:41] I'll be presenting tonight on the Totem Lakes Southern Industrial Sub area, Phase 1.

[4:29:46] I have 10 slides to cover and there is no formal direction requested from Council tonight on this project.

[4:29:58] So,

[4:30:00] Brief background on the area for those who aren't familiar. This area is located in the southwest corner of the totem like urban growth center. It is made up of warehouses built between the 1960s and 1980s primarily for manufacturing and light industrial uses within proximity to what used to be the railway, but as now the cross-curcant corridor, which you can see in this map running north south in green.

[4:30:30] And over time, the area transition to be a mix of office, construction of retail, wholesale

[4:30:36] distribution, automotive uses, indoor recreation, and other service uses.

[4:30:44] And there are a couple of residential developments within the area today, including an apartment

[4:30:49] complex and two town home developments.

[4:30:54] And Forbes Creek runs through the area, but it is mostly hidden behind parking lots and

[4:31:01] warehouse buildings today.

[4:31:07] So this project began back in 2022 with a community initiated amendment request that the

[4:31:14] city received to resume several parcels on the western side of the sub area, which we call

[4:31:21] the Parmac sites to allow for high density residential mixed uses.

[4:31:27] And in 2023 through the review of the request, Council decided to expand the Parmac

[4:31:33] car study area to include the full southern industrial sub-area neighborhood.

[4:31:40] And then in 2024, as part of the Compland Policy Process Policy TL33.1 was adopted to create

[4:31:50] sub-area plan for this area to consider a new mixed-used walkable and sustainable

[4:31:55] neighborhood. And then that brings us to where we are today,

[4:31:59] what I'm presenting on tonight, which is Phase I of developing that sub-area plan.

[4:32:06] So, the city received a grant to partner with a team from Denmark,

[4:32:10] Blocksub on Phase I, and Phase I has been focused on understanding existing

[4:32:16] conditions of the area, initial stakeholder engagement, and visioning for the area.

[4:32:24] And then next year in 2027, phase two will commence, which will be the full separate

[4:32:30] planning process and include an evaluation of market conditions for the existing uses and

[4:32:38] explore opportunities to expand housing allowances.

[4:32:41] So,

[4:32:47] as I mentioned, we have partnered with Blocks Hub for this initial visioning phase for this other industrial sub-area.

[4:32:54] Blocks Hub is a Nordic Hub for a sustainable urbanization, basin Copenhagen, and we've partnered with them previously.

[4:33:01] There are work focuses on facilitating cross-sector collaboration with cities around the world to address shared urban challenges.

[4:33:09] And for this project, they assembled a team of landscape architects and architect specializing in adaptive reuse and a community engagement specialist.

[4:33:21] And this work was made possible through a grant from the Scan Design Foundation.

[4:33:30] So a major piece of this phase in our work with Blox Hub was community outreach.

[4:33:35] The blocks have team visited Kirkland twice and hosted workshops with the community to understand

[4:33:43] their perspective and collaborate on a shared vision for how the area could improve and evolve

[4:33:50] in the future.

[4:33:53] We visited the area several times to knock on doors and ask employees and business owners about

[4:34:00] what they feel is working well in the area, what could be improved and then also invite them

[4:34:05] to the workshops.

[4:34:09] We also spoke with housing developers in the area and community members

[4:34:12] who frequent the area. And what we heard generally is a general satisfaction with the current mix

[4:34:21] of commercial and residential uses a lot of businesses seem to pretty happy with the way that things

[4:34:27] where in the area, they really value the areas

[4:34:32] affordable and flexible commercial spaces.

[4:34:35] There was some desire for more food options

[4:34:37] in the area for people that grab lunch at,

[4:34:43] and also a strong support for improving access

[4:34:47] to the CKC, kind of opening up the CKC

[4:34:50] to the area to reduce traffic congestion

[4:34:53] and let her connect the area with the rest of the city.

[4:34:57] um

[4:35:00] We also heard a lot about how businesses and community members are often unaware of each other, a lot of the businesses are kind of tucked away and not visited often.

[4:35:21] So, through the outreach and workshops, the team collected over 100 ideas for how the area could evolve or be improved, and then we took those 100 ideas and applied these five criteria to them.

[4:35:36] So connected, experimental, rooted, nature-based, and collaborative,

[4:35:42] and reduced them down to nine design concepts.

[4:35:49] And each of these concepts were fleshed out with the community and with city staff to identify starting points, key actions, how the concept could be scaled, how it could be enabled through regulations.

[4:36:04] and the points of attention for potential hurdles,

[4:36:09] and then lastly, who should be involved with implementation.

[4:36:12] So this diagram here shows all nine of the concepts

[4:36:16] and attachment three in the staff memo,

[4:36:20] includes a lot more detail.

[4:36:21] The blocks have team wrote up a great report,

[4:36:25] detailing each of the nine concepts,

[4:36:28] and kind of all of the key points for them.

[4:36:32] But I am going to touch on two of them, so you get an idea of what they are.

[4:36:39] The first is way finding and murals concept, so the concept is to create an identifying

[4:36:47] logo or icon or color and create way finding signage for the sub-area, which would help create

[4:36:54] an identity for the area and connect the CKC users and surrounding neighborhoods within

[4:36:59] this area, and then murals would also activate the large blank facades, so there's these large

[4:37:07] warehouses that kind of line the CKC and adding some art there would kind of open up and

[4:37:16] add visual interest to those large walls and invite people into the area. The key actions for

[4:37:24] concept were to send out an open call for art and branding proposals, apply the art to

[4:37:32] existing infrastructures such as pavement, utility boxes or these walls, and develop a

[4:37:38] wall-mural concept, maybe focused on the intersection of nature and industry that is

[4:37:44] present in this area.

[4:37:45] The regulatory enablers could be allowing signs, so a sign permit process to allow

[4:37:56] a sandwich board signs or directional signs on the CKC or elsewhere in the area.

[4:38:03] The second concept is the warehouse concept.

[4:38:06] This was created because most of these buildings within this area are column-been structures,

[4:38:12] which are structurally flexible and able to accommodate many different uses.

[4:38:21] And so this creates an opportunity to build upon the existing structures,

[4:38:25] either by converting them to different uses or adding on to them,

[4:38:30] which would preserve the buildings and businesses in the area while accommodating new uses such as housing.

[4:38:37] key actions for this is to develop a transformation and development guide to show what's

[4:38:44] possible for these buildings and gives a clear pathway for development and maybe start

[4:38:48] with a pilot as a live demonstration for the community.

[4:38:54] Regulatory of Navelers may be offer a height bonus for these projects and pre-approved permit

[4:39:00] pathways to expedite them and then potential hurdles, points of attention, is mitigation could

[4:39:08] be needed for mixing of residential and industrial uses and transformation could potentially

[4:39:14] increase property value and displace businesses.

[4:39:22] So looking at the comprehensive plan policy for this area, our phase one work has begun

[4:39:27] looking at many of the objectives of the policy and the components that will be included

[4:39:34] in the Siberia plan analysis, so I've copied the policy here in italics and then the pieces

[4:39:41] of the policy that phase 1 has begun to make progress on. I won't walk through each of them,

[4:39:47] but happy to answer any questions about them.

[4:39:55] So the key takeaways from this work are that

[4:40:00] There's a lot of life in this area today. There's many small and large businesses in this area. When we were walking around and talking with them, it was clear that they really enjoy having their business located in this area and rely on the large flexible and affordable spaces that exist.

[4:40:18] Some examples of the businesses that exist here are a custom closet store, a cookie company,

[4:40:26] a catering company, a brewery, tennis center, a lighting store, a tortilla company,

[4:40:32] auto repair shops, card dealership, a door company, drywall company, hardware store, and many

[4:40:39] others.

[4:40:40] And, yeah, it was fun to talk with everyone.

[4:40:47] Existing relationships between businesses and residents

[4:40:49] and this rounding area are pretty limited.

[4:40:52] We heard a lot of businesses saying that they didn't know that each other existed.

[4:40:59] There are two prominent buckets of businesses in the area.

[4:41:03] There's indoor recreation businesses and construction businesses.

[4:41:08] And based on what we heard, it sounds like within those buckets, they have a symbiotic relationship with each other.

[4:41:16] But the businesses outside of those buckets are pretty siloed and hidden away.

[4:41:22] We learned that the area would benefit from a stronger identity and name that reflects its character.

[4:41:29] So some characteristics that could be incorporated are the industry and nature, intersection,

[4:41:36] theme, production, construction, and experimentation, and the play and recreation theme.

[4:41:45] It also became very clear that the CKC is the area's living spine. It provides green space,

[4:41:51] gathering space, and creates an opportunity to connect businesses, customers,

[4:41:56] the nearby open spaces and also the regional destinations.

[4:42:04] And lastly, there are many low-hanging fruit opportunities

[4:42:07] that exist that could be implemented in this area

[4:42:11] and improve it while simultaneously advancing the city's policy goals

[4:42:16] such as the way of finding and mural's concept along with others.

[4:42:23] And that brings us to my last slide, which are the next steps for this project.

[4:42:29] We will share the final design report with the stakeholders of the area once it's finalized.

[4:42:37] And then phase two of this project will begin in 2027, which will include analysis of commercial and light industrial lands,

[4:42:45] and then further exploration of expanding housing allowances.

[4:42:48] The design concepts and visioning work and outreach that we've done in phase one can be incorporated into the sub-area plan under phase two.

[4:43:00] And I also wanted to say before passing it back to the mayor, just a huge thank you to the Blockshead team and the experts that they involved in this project.

[4:43:10] they've brought really creative ideas for our community outreach and

[4:43:14] solutions to these kind of bigger complex questions and lots of

[4:43:20] inspiration for sustainability and urban design and community building

[4:43:24] methods. So it's been fun to work with them and a huge thank you to

[4:43:28] that team for their collaboration. I'll pass it back to you Madam Mayor.

[4:43:33] Thank you, Martha, and I also echo your thanks to Blocks Hub.

[4:43:38] I really enjoyed participating in the first stakeholder group.

[4:43:41] It was really great.

[4:43:43] And I'm very hungry, and you start talking about cookies and tortillas and stuff.

[4:43:50] All right.

[4:43:51] Councillor Passebel.

[4:43:54] Yeah, thank you for all the effort on this, Martha.

[4:44:00] Yeah, I mean, it's fun to see, great to see that kind of a policy, the complex policy

[4:44:06] comes to life, so to speak, kind of moving that policy forward to implementation.

[4:44:13] And like the mayor got, and the deputy mayor got to participate in the workshop with

[4:44:17] blocks of and the other community members that participated and it was, I participated in

[4:44:24] work shops and, you know, things like that over the years and it was something different

[4:44:29] and unique and well, well done. So impressed by the team as well. I just wanted to just offer my

[4:44:40] support for the continued kind of phase two efforts. I think this is going in the right direction

[4:44:47] and I just support that. I wanted to just ask a question, though, of staff. We did receive an email from the planning.

[4:45:00] Commission chair, recommending to forego some of this work and development of the sub-area plan this week.

[4:45:10] I was wondering if from staff's perspective, is any of the work that we've done to date back that recommendation out?

[4:45:19] I don't

[4:45:25] know if I can.

[4:45:27] It's your question.

[4:45:28] It would be learned something that would allow us to pass it as a

[4:45:31] question.

[4:45:32] Well, I'm just wondering if, did we learn something through that

[4:45:35] where staffs now recommending us to do what the planning

[4:45:38] commission chairs suggesting which is just not

[4:45:41] to do the sub-variant plan?

[4:45:46] Adam, go ahead.

[4:45:48] Yeah, thanks.

[4:45:51] We're still in the early stages, I think.

[4:45:53] I mean, I think one of the challenges of this area is

[4:45:55] Martha pointed out is that there's this amazing

[4:45:58] fabric of small businesses here, right?

[4:46:00] And there's not a lot of industrial land in the city.

[4:46:03] So I think one of the things that we still haven't completely understood is the role

[4:46:09] of these industrial zones in the city, and the fact there aren't many of them, and they're

[4:46:16] relatively fragile, right?

[4:46:18] And so I think there is what we learned is that there are opportunities for housing here,

[4:46:22] but exactly where that goes and how much of it I think is still something that is to be determined.

[4:46:27] And I think, you know, when we get through the budget process and start talking more about

[4:46:33] phase two, there might be an option to look at alternatives to a sub-area plan.

[4:46:38] But I think that there's still probably a little more exploration that we want to do to figure

[4:46:42] out, you know, how housing fits into this area.

[4:46:44] Again, I think our takeaway is that it is a really unique place and the businesses there

[4:46:49] at Martha said really do value the flexibility and low costs of the spaces.

[4:46:57] Yeah, I guess it was always my impression that the sub-variant plan would consider how and if the area transitions over time, right,

[4:47:08] that it might not stay intact, even with some of these changes that over time, it could change over the housing and more density and things like that and what what infrastructure would be necessary to support that.

[4:47:24] You know, so what I'm hoping that that finding effort would, you know, evaluate, so I was just, I guess I was just a little surprise to read in that email that it made sound like we've already made a decision and that we just target residential to small portions of the subbury and I don't know that I just, I don't feel like the council's made that decision yet or the subbury plan has really made that determination or not subbury plan.

[4:47:54] but that phase one efforts have made that determination.

[4:47:58] So I'm just wondering if you agree with that or not.

[4:48:04] Again, I think we'd look for a council direction on that issue,

[4:48:06] but again, I think there's probably a little more work

[4:48:08] that can be done that we can bring back to council

[4:48:10] where you can help us, you know, you can guide us

[4:48:12] in that next step, and we can bring back options

[4:48:16] the next time we talk about the next phase

[4:48:18] of the project as well.

[4:48:24] But you don't feel like you've received direction

[4:48:25] from us on that, yeah, correct, okay.

[4:48:29] Thank you. Thank you. Councillor O'Pran.

[4:48:34] Yeah, I just had a question on kind of the timeline for these studies, so for this phase two was study.

[4:48:43] Like, what is the approximate amount of time it will take from start to finish and then let's just start that.

[4:48:57] I can jump in again. I'm a list of Martha or Ali and one two, but we haven't, yes, sure. We have a program for a year on the planning work program.

[4:49:06] Again, that's a gross estimate, I would say.

[4:49:09] As you know, as you know, from our experience with the stationary plan, right, we took a lot longer than a year to do a big stationary plan with all of its attendant technical studies.

[4:49:18] So I think the sort of a scale of change in the sub-area, most particularly how much housing we end up accommodating in the station and the sub-area and how much infrastructure is needed to support that.

[4:49:32] I think will be a determinant of how long the process takes,

[4:49:35] but again, right now we schedule the year for it.

[4:49:38] And is there a way to like speed that up by any chance

[4:49:42] or like, you know, I guess one of the main factors

[4:49:45] and determinants, so you said one of the main factors

[4:49:48] is how many potential areas you'd have to evaluate

[4:49:53] for housing that could increase the overall timing.

[4:49:56] Is there anything else that could increase the time

[4:49:59] or decrease the time?

[4:50:00] To be able to finish this, please two.

[4:50:04] Yeah, there's thanks Councillor Prim. There's probably a lot of variables, right?

[4:50:07] I think a big one, right, that, you know, elongated the timeline for the stationary plan was all

[4:50:14] the technical studies that we did to support that work, which were really useful studies,

[4:50:18] right? We did infrastructure studies, traffic studies. We did a really big, comprehensive,

[4:50:22] environmental impact statement for that project. We developed other things to go along with the plan.

[4:50:27] So I think what we would typically do is come to you relatively early on in the process, come

[4:50:33] to council and present you with a couple of alternatives for gross scenarios in the zone,

[4:50:38] and then you could give us guidance on that, and then we could identify a scope of technical

[4:50:44] work that would go along with that.

[4:50:47] So maybe that's a non-answer to your question, but I think we would present you with options

[4:50:52] some of which could lead to a shorter process, some of which would resolve a no longer process.

[4:50:58] Thank you.

[4:50:59] Thank you.

[4:51:00] Anyone else?

[4:51:12] Deputy Mayor?

[4:51:15] Thanks, Mayor.

[4:51:16] I just wanted to make sure I gave my guidance to Council R to staff that I do like the idea.

[4:51:23] I like the direction we're going.

[4:51:24] I want to proceed with the phase two.

[4:51:27] I do recall why I supported this from the very get go in the connection with the approval of the complaint.

[4:51:34] I did want us to try to take a thoughtful approach to this area, look at it district-wide through

[4:51:42] district-wide planning, and see if there was a way to protect the existing light and

[4:51:47] industrial foster some really creative commercial uses while encouraging sort of innovative

[4:51:55] housing in this area. So that's the direction I feel like we're going. I think it's worth the

[4:52:01] investment of thoughtfulness and its approach.

[4:52:09] And I'm cognizant of the fact that right now with the macroeconomic environment, what we're

[4:52:15] hearing from developers and their interest in new projects, or at least the kind of new

[4:52:22] projects we want to see here.

[4:52:23] I don't know that if we just expedited approval of housing, that we would get anything like

[4:52:31] that we get any projects or that we get anything like the kind of projects that we want to see in

[4:52:35] this area. So that's why I want to take this thoughtful project, appreciate the thoughtfulness

[4:52:40] that's gone into this and I'm willing to invest in my vote. It's not a vote. I know my direction

[4:52:45] is that we continue down this sort of deliberate thoughtful approach to this whole district. I really

[4:52:53] want to see, this could be a great legacy for this council.

[4:52:59] So, thank you.

[4:53:01] Thank you, Councilor Arnold.

[4:53:05] Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Martha and planning team

[4:53:10] on this, I came into this where reading the Blocks Hub report

[4:53:16] was the first I've seen of this, and it's

[4:53:21] was impressed at the scale of their vision

[4:53:23] and how to talk about large transformation in this area.

[4:53:27] There's some intriguing ideas there.

[4:53:30] That's said, I'm not ready for wholesale complete change

[4:53:35] across the entire Southern industrial sub-area.

[4:53:39] My feedback would be to look for options

[4:53:42] for a narrow scope for phase two.

[4:53:46] It's going to be important to preserve the light and industrial,

[4:53:50] especially between one 12th and one 16th and then as was mentioned the presentation.

[4:53:57] As we look to say, how do we maintain or for those affordable flexible commercial spaces?

[4:54:05] Can they coexist or are we looking at some different geographical areas that may be appropriate for converting to housing?

[4:54:18] And as we look at the feedback from Aaron Jacobson and Gina Medea, which I will note that E-mail

[4:54:32] was then offering feedback as individuals, not as the Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair.

[4:54:40] I do like the idea of evaluating and recommending areas within this industrial summer that

[4:54:47] maybe appropriate to move first on and that might be an option for scoping future phases depending on the narrowed area or scope.

[4:55:00] It may make the sub-area plan easier. And it may make the need for a market study, which is also requirement, no longer needed. So, want to look at those particular options.

[4:55:13] And then finally, I understand one of the stakeholder groups actually had an inventory of businesses in the area.

[4:55:22] I think that'd be some important information to share.

[4:55:27] I know several of the examples that we're mentioned.

[4:55:30] I am aware of there are others that I may not have just from my own walking the corridor

[4:55:37] and being in the neighborhood and would like to look at this in a detailed and comprehensive

[4:55:43] event.

[4:55:44] Thank you.

[4:55:45] Thank you.

[4:55:47] Anyone else?

[4:55:53] Okay.

[4:55:53] first. Oh, Deputy Mayor.

[4:55:58] Deputy Mayor, are you raising your hand? I did. Yeah. And I apologize for interrupting

[4:56:04] you. You certainly still feel welcome to make your remarks. I was just going to highlight that

[4:56:09] as I listened to us, I think this is one of those examples where we may not be giving staff as

[4:56:16] clear direction as we need to. And so I do think one question I have for staff is whether they've

[4:56:23] what they really need from us. I feel like there's a we're a little bit all over the

[4:56:28] not all over the map but we're a little bit we've covered some territory on the map

[4:56:32] in our feedback.

[4:56:37] City manager I see your hand. Well so quick I think yes in a sense that

[4:56:46] we're going to come back with options about how the 27 studies go and options that the

[4:56:56] but there's no change in what the Hop-Up language says yet and there's no change in the idea that we need to come back at

[4:57:04] 27 to look at the sub-area. But I think some ideas on things in the scope that we could bring you as

[4:57:09] options for the full council get discussing debate and decided upon in 27 through the planning

[4:57:14] or program. That's how I interpret it. Great. As long as staff is getting what they need,

[4:57:21] I, that's great, thank you.

[4:57:25] Councilman, our phone, come on.

[4:57:26] Thank you, Madam Mayor, I wasn't going to speak,

[4:57:29] but the ends of your hair raises a good point,

[4:57:30] so I just wanted to share one of my thoughts

[4:57:33] that may be helpful for staff in the direction

[4:57:35] is that I support Councilman Arnold's thoughts

[4:57:39] on seeing if there's ways to break this into smaller parts

[4:57:42] to be more efficient in doing the work.

[4:57:45] So, a plus one to that please.

[4:57:49] Thank you, anyone else?

[4:57:51] Go in once. Going twice. All right. Martha, good job. I really appreciated the thoughtfulness

[4:58:03] that we're behind this. I really appreciated the work that everyone put in to reach

[4:58:08] an out to the existing businesses and getting their input. I think that's super important

[4:58:13] and it's not something we usually do. And what's really clear about this is this is a very unique

[4:58:19] area. This is unlike anything else that we have within the city, both in where it resides

[4:58:28] within the Total Lake Regional Center and the kinds of businesses it's in. So I am

[4:58:36] not interested in cutting this up in little pieces. I think it's really important that

[4:58:43] we do this strategically and thoughtfully and look at it holistically. I think that the

[4:58:49] policy that was in the comprehensive plan was well done, and so I support staying with the

[4:58:56] policy and doing the work to design this area that will become very special. So thank you

[4:59:04] for that. Anyone else? All right. Thank you, Martha. Thank you, Adam. Thank you, Alison. You may

[4:59:12] go home and go to bed. Hopefully you'll have very far to go. Okay, council. It is 1107 and we have

[4:59:22] council policies and procedures and we also have three LRMs. So my suggestion is that we delay

[4:59:30] 9F council policy procedures to a later meeting and go ahead and go into reports and the LRMs.

[4:59:39] any objections to that thumbs up. Thank you, Councilor Arnold, Councilmember Tim Chisen.

[4:59:49] I don't object, but I have some policies and procedure amendments that I'll

[4:59:55] be bringing at the next meeting, so I do want to address the issue at some point.

[5:00:00] Thank you. All right. So, do I have a thumbs up for everybody? Okay. We will postpone 9F and we will decide a figure out when it could be on the council calendar again. So, we are going to move into council reports and I will start with deputy mayor and let's keep them short folks.

[5:00:23] Okay. Just quick note that the mayor and I got to visit the South County Recycling

[5:00:30] and Transportation in Algonna. Last Friday, I want to thank the staff of the city and

[5:00:37] of the county for that tour. It's the latest, most advanced version of a recycling and

[5:00:46] for station that the county's built. So that was really informative. I wanted to highlight that

[5:00:53] next Wednesday, I'm going to be attending a convening by Challenge Seattle and Greater Seattle

[5:01:01] Partners to discuss sort of economic development priorities with our mayors. The mayor was invited.

[5:01:10] She's unable to attend. So I just want my colleagues to know I'm going to be attending that in the mayors

[5:01:16] Instead, really enjoyed national light out last night.

[5:01:21] Thank you to all of the first responders and the community who both organized the block

[5:01:29] parties and again, of course, the first responders that took us out and particularly KPD who drove

[5:01:37] us around. And then I do have, there is a joint LRM on shared

[5:01:44] e-mobility that Councilmember Paskell Councilmember Arnold and I are going to present.

[5:01:50] I'm going to leave that to Councilmember Paskell or Arnold to present during their Council

[5:01:58] reports.

[5:01:58] That's it.

[5:02:00] LRMs happened during city manager reports, not Council reports.

[5:02:04] Sorry.

[5:02:05] I'll leave it to them to bring it up during city manager reports.

[5:02:08] Thank you.

[5:02:08] Councilmember Paskell.

[5:02:11] I don't have anything to report that can't be reported to be email.

[5:02:16] Thank you.

[5:02:17] Thank you.

[5:02:19] Yes.

[5:02:19] Since it's late, I'm only going to mention one thing.

[5:02:22] And that is.

[5:02:23] Thank you.

[5:02:24] Everyone who's come out to watch the amazing young athletes at this week's Junior League

[5:02:28] Softball World Series.

[5:02:29] And ever as part, it's been so fun.

[5:02:32] I know I've been out there every day.

[5:02:34] I know I saw Deputy City Manager Lopez out there.

[5:02:37] know that Councillor Arhol has been out there, so if you haven't been out there, definitely

[5:02:41] check it out, it's so much fun, there's a lot of great energy and the games run through

[5:02:47] Saturday morning.

[5:02:48] Thank you.

[5:02:49] Thank you.

[5:02:49] Councillor Pribb.

[5:02:52] Yeah, nothing to report.

[5:02:53] I'll be sending.

[5:02:55] Thank you.

[5:02:55] Councillor Mayor Arld.

[5:02:57] No report.

[5:02:58] Councillor Mayor Regens, isn't.

[5:02:59] I report.

[5:03:00] Thank you.

[5:03:02] My report I will send, but I do want to take a moment to thank City staff and everyone that

[5:03:07] We're behind the scenes to make sure that this meeting went smoothly, really, really appreciate it.

[5:03:13] So thank you, everyone.

[5:03:14] City Manager, I'm handing it over to you.

[5:03:18] But you have one short update, and then I'll call for the calendar and LRM.

[5:03:22] Question, the short update.

[5:03:25] I think you may all know we are now part of a municipal city jail caucus that came out of our legislative actions.

[5:03:32] And that cost us, we found ourselves in the realm of being the community, and in a Campbell.

[5:03:38] I don't know what affairs banjo is building that.

[5:03:40] We had a meeting with Roger Goodman to discuss the idea as a group of,

[5:03:44] the city's meant certain standards for the jail operations could they get,

[5:03:48] sort of a safe harbor from lawsuits,

[5:03:52] especially if there's injuries or death in the jail.

[5:03:55] So, my jails are facing basically extinction if you have one bad event,

[5:03:58] you could lose blades of dollars in settlement.

[5:04:00] So, I just want to let you know that since the legislative record hasn't been able to be part of this yet,

[5:04:05] we, my author, I have a good men and his suggests most being with Senator Mocketingra, who's a chair of the Senate committee.

[5:04:10] We did that yesterday and several of the mayors from the cities were there as well as us.

[5:04:15] It's a really great meeting.

[5:04:17] She told us that she would be willing to potentially sponsor a benefit met her parameters,

[5:04:21] which she laid out.

[5:04:23] But, um, on all of your behalf, some behalf of our corrections department,

[5:04:26] others, we're making some progress on this issue.

[5:04:29] I just want to know about it because it's kind of happening outside of our normal legislative

[5:04:33] work process, but we had a really good meeting with the senator.

[5:04:37] Much more to come.

[5:04:41] All right.

[5:04:41] So next we're the calendar and I know we have a couple of legislative request memos.

[5:04:46] So the city attorney's office has been kind enough to put them out of slides for us all.

[5:04:50] So we did them kind of in the end and we'll receive them.

[5:04:53] So I guess I'll just look to the council to see who wants to make the motion.

[5:04:56] I have the order that they're showing.

[5:04:57] So.

[5:04:59] Yes, we're a Pasco.

[5:05:03] Thank you, Madam Mayor. So just a little bit of quick background for those that might be watching.

[5:05:12] I think several of us were approached some time ago by representatives of line.

[5:05:20] and indicating that they have there in our joining cities,

[5:05:25] in agencies surrounding Kirkland,

[5:05:27] a baffle wouldn't build red men and now we're just starting a program in Bellevue.

[5:05:33] And, you know, saying that now Kirkland is kind of in a donut hole, right?

[5:05:38] And so they'd like to start conversations with us about introducing

[5:05:42] micro mobility options here to our city and then they followed that up with a letter to the council.

[5:05:48] I believe yesterday or the day before with their interest.

[5:05:52] And so, based upon that letter,

[5:05:55] that official letter from line

[5:05:58] feel like it's prudent talking with W Ameri Black

[5:06:03] and Council Member Arnold feel like it's prudent

[5:06:05] to offer LRM so that we can look at this option.

[5:06:12] This isn't approval of it,

[5:06:13] it's just look and explore options

[5:06:15] of how we might consider micro-evolubility program in Kirkland, and we know that E-bikesake

[5:06:22] D has been a big conversation in the community, not just in Kirkland, but across the region

[5:06:28] in state, and that has to be, you know, continued to be part of any option and evaluation

[5:06:35] that we look at.

[5:06:38] So with that, I'll make a motion and we can have any discussion.

[5:06:41] Motion for the Council to approve a legislative request memo asking the city manager to explore options for allowing the shared micro mobility program, including eSputters, eBliders, and eBike, such as the one operated by Lyme within the city with corresponding attention to writer and community safety.

[5:06:59] So I can't.

[5:07:03] I don't know who that was. I'm going to give it to Black just because he was loudest.

[5:07:08] Motion's been made by Councilmember Paskel second by Deputy Mayor Black.

[5:07:13] any discussion?

[5:07:20] All those of you ever please say aye?

[5:07:23] All right.

[5:07:24] Any opposed?

[5:07:26] Motion carries seven zero.

[5:07:28] Thank you, gentlemen.

[5:07:31] All right, next.

[5:07:35] Okay.

[5:07:37] I want to give some background on this.

[5:07:40] So I'm proposing this LRM to explore helmet requirements for high-speed micro mobility devices, such as e-bikes,

[5:07:48] because our responsibility is really to protect public safety, especially for our children and teens.

[5:07:57] E-bikes are, as everyone knows, E-bikes are becoming very common in our community.

[5:08:02] And the data is speaking quite loudly amid 2020's six national analysis by Trovita,

[5:08:11] which is a very legitimate data data set governed by the U.S. major U.S. health systems

[5:08:17] across the country found that emergency room visits for e-bike and e-scooter injuries among

[5:08:23] children and adolescents increased by 671 percent between January of 2023 and May of 2026.

[5:08:33] And many times it really is the lack of helmets that causes these injuries.

[5:08:37] As an example from June 2025 to June 2026, a major hospital in Texas treated

[5:08:45] 127 pediatric patients out of which 99 of them and this was for them being on injuries caused by bicycles or e-bikes or e-scooters 78% of them were not wearing helmets.

[5:09:00] So I understand you know helmets definitely cannot prevent every injury.

[5:09:05] But I do think that that's the simplest and most effective way for us to reduce the risk of potential head injuries.

[5:09:12] Therefore, I don't think that this is not like a request to get approval for this, but really to explore options on whether or not this is something we could do in the city of Kirkland.

[5:09:25] So, I move that we approve a legislative request memo asking staff to provide options for requiring the use of bite helmets when operating a micro mobility device, like bicycles, E by C scooters, etc., in Kirkland.

[5:09:41] I heard council member Tim Chison on the second. So it's been moved by councilman Pram

[5:09:49] second by council member Tim Chison to move forward. The helmet LRM, is there any discussion?

[5:09:57] Help, er, drop it to me.

[5:10:00] Just one quick comment. I really appreciate Council Member Prem bringing this forward.

[5:10:08] And it is a topic that was discussed by me and Council Member Arnold and Council Member Pascal and connection with the shared

[5:10:17] the microambility as well. Just know that we were thinking about this topic too and one of the reasons we

[5:10:24] worded that error in the way we disc, we were hoping that that might, that that error in my

[5:10:32] come back with some suggestions for how we might look at helmets too but this is the more this is the

[5:10:37] clear and more direct way to do it and I think it makes a ton of sense and I'm going to support it.

[5:10:43] Thank you. Councillor Timchissen?

[5:10:47] I'll support that. I support this LRM. I think one of the interesting legal questions

[5:10:51] that will emerge is if a civil infarction, a non-criminal civil infarction is issued,

[5:10:56] whether that civil infarction is issued to the writer or the parents. Thank you.

[5:11:02] Thank you. Councillor Hurtell.

[5:11:07] Just a quick comment. Generally on LRMs, we've been pretty open to these

[5:11:15] because it's just starting the conversation. But for helmets and while there should be no argument

[5:11:22] about riding a helmet, wearing a helmet when you're riding a bicycle bike, e-scooter, etc., the question

[5:11:29] on requiring this and enforcing it.

[5:11:34] And all this gets very complicated, very fast.

[5:11:36] And I am conscious of staff capacity, even in looking

[5:11:42] at this for an L-R-M.

[5:11:45] And so I think it's an important issue.

[5:11:49] I'm not sure it's one that I'm supportive

[5:11:51] of moving on immediately.

[5:11:54] And so in the interest of prioritization,

[5:11:56] I'm going to be voting against this.

[5:11:58] but please, everybody out there, parents out there,

[5:12:02] make sure that you're riding helmets.

[5:12:04] I'm just not sure about city accident at this point.

[5:12:07] Thank you.

[5:12:08] Thank you.

[5:12:09] Anyone else?

[5:12:11] All right, the questions I'm motioned to move

[5:12:13] for the helmet LRM made by Casper Prim,

[5:12:17] second by Casper Prim, chimchism.

[5:12:18] All those of you who are pleased to say aye.

[5:12:21] All right, all those opposed?

[5:12:24] No.

[5:12:25] Well, she carries six one.

[5:12:29] All right.

[5:12:29] Holmes point over Lake.

[5:12:31] Kelsmerfield, come with.

[5:12:33] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[5:12:34] And this is a since Councilor of Pascals

[5:12:36] presented the other LRM, I hope he doesn't mind if I

[5:12:39] present this one just to share the workload.

[5:12:43] Is the joint proposed LRM by Councilor of Pascals and I?

[5:12:46] I won't go into much detail about it because I think

[5:12:48] we're all fairly familiar with these issues.

[5:12:52] Those two issues are in here.

[5:12:54] You probably all read the language, but just for those watching

[5:12:57] at home, what they both relate to the homes point overlay, which is a part of the neighborhood

[5:13:03] in the Finhill neighborhood, right? It's a portion of the Finhill neighborhood for those

[5:13:08] who may not be familiar. And the two, there are stricter rules within the homes point overlay

[5:13:15] about property usage and development. And so these are to address some of the issues that we've

[5:13:21] hearing repeatedly from community members that live in the homes point neighborhood of Finn Hill.

[5:13:28] The first is, I've brought this up several times over the past few years since we've adopted

[5:13:34] the Arno Tree Code, and that is allowing some more flexibility for tree removal for homeowners

[5:13:40] in the homes point neighborhood. There are folks who I've heard from who are incurring a lot of

[5:13:51] trees that are, you know, damaging their home or having, you know, other issues with the trees

[5:13:57] are healthy and so they're currently not allowed to remove them in the homes point overlay.

[5:14:01] They do not have the ability to remove either two or four trees like property owners do

[5:14:07] in the rest of the city. So I'd like for us to look at options for more flexibility there.

[5:14:12] Or we'd like to look at that. And the second is related to lot coverage and lots

[5:14:17] I think we're all at least, you know, somewhat familiar with the

[5:14:22] homesquite overlay being more restrictive in this and essentially the larger the

[5:14:26] lot that you have, the higher, or the the the last lot coverage

[5:14:32] are allowed, right, on larger properties. So for properties that already have an

[5:14:36] existing home that may be a large home, even if they have a very large

[5:14:39] property, are not allowed to split that lot in order to facilitate

[5:14:42] are more desperately needed housing development in our community. And this target

[5:14:48] specifically flexibility in those cases in the homes point or really area for

[5:14:53] missing middle housing because we know that that's what we need more than, you know,

[5:14:58] to make make mansions that we see everywhere.

[5:15:00] So, it's very targeted specifically at looking at ways that we could be more flexible with allowing missing mental housing and lots flooding in order to allow that to happen in the homes point overlay.

[5:15:13] So, I will make the motion. We move to approve an LRM to explore options for two potential code amendments related to the homes point overlay.

[5:15:22] The first would involve expanding the ability to remove trees in the homes point overlay outside of development scenarios.

[5:15:30] For instance, increasing the ability to remove trees to better align with the lounges in the rest of the city,

[5:15:36] where a property owner can generally remove two to four trees per year depending on the size of the property.

[5:15:42] The second code amendment would involve loosening one or more development standards in the homes point overlay to facilitate the development of middle housing.

[5:15:51] The options that are explored should consider whether these amendments can be integrated into

[5:15:56] the projects that are currently on the 2026-2028 planning work program.

[5:16:02] Sorry.

[5:16:04] Thank you.

[5:16:05] It's been moved by Councillor Fell.

[5:16:06] Come on.

[5:16:07] Second by Councillor Paskill.

[5:16:08] New forward.

[5:16:09] The heart and point overlay LRM.

[5:16:12] Councillor Paskill.

[5:16:15] Thank you.

[5:16:16] Councillor Fell.

[5:16:16] I'm going to get a great job of explaining that.

[5:16:19] The only couple things I just want to add and emphasize is that these things are

[5:16:24] are issues that we've heard from the community members, these aren't just wild ideas that both

[5:16:30] of us came up with, but these are things, conversations that have been having over the years,

[5:16:35] I'm sure you've heard to from other community members about this. And then second,

[5:16:39] we were very specific with staff that we wanted these to be very targeted and really wanted, and

[5:16:47] that's what that lesson is there, is to try to find a way to see if if we're targeted,

[5:16:53] It can maybe add it to an existing work program item rather than creating a whole another set of work for the

[5:17:00] PIN department because we know that they're stretched in, that there's a lot of different priorities when we wanted to basically just kind of append on to an existing process.

[5:17:10] And so that's our hope that staff will look at that and see what would be their appropriate way of considering these amendments.

[5:17:18] Thank you.

[5:17:19] Thank you.

[5:17:20] Anyone else?

[5:17:22] I do appreciate that you recognize the potential impact to the planning work program.

[5:17:27] I thought that was a nice ad to the LRM, so thank you for that.

[5:17:32] Any further discussion?

[5:17:35] All those of favor please say aye.

[5:17:38] Aye.

[5:17:39] Any opposed?

[5:17:41] Motion carries 70.

[5:17:44] All right, well done, everyone.

[5:17:46] City Manager, anything else from you,

[5:17:52] you're muted.

[5:17:53] I feel very, yeah, it's wasn't.

[5:17:55] I will reschedule the council policies or procedure discussion.

[5:17:58] Are there any other calendar changes from the council before we finish?

[5:18:06] See, now I just want to add my thanks to the IT staff and the clerks office team

[5:18:11] and everyone who made this virtual meeting go so well and a huge thanks to the council members

[5:18:15] for your flexibility and your patience as we get it and you guys will have a great job.

[5:18:20] So thank you. Thank you everyone. Enjoy your recess and we are adjourned.

City Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript