[0:00] All right, welcome to the uh 2026 city
[0:03] council retreat. Uh welcome everyone.
[0:05] Would you all please rise for the pledge
[0:07] of allegiance?
[0:10] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[0:12] United States of America and to the
[0:15] republic for which it stands, one nation
[0:18] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[0:21] justice for all.
[0:25] » Okay. Uh well, thank you everybody for
[0:27] being here. It's great to see. And uh
[0:29] first of all, let's give a big round of
[0:30] applause for our folks here at Dumis Bay
[0:32] for a great breakfast.
[0:37] Any day that starts with bacon is a good
[0:38] day. So, uh thank you very much. Uh I
[0:41] just want to say very much I want to say
[0:43] thank you to our uh uh newly minted uh
[0:45] council president uh for u and all the
[0:47] council members for your help in making
[0:50] sure that we got a uh a great agenda. Um
[0:53] these are a great opportunity for us to
[0:55] come together as a community to um and
[0:57] as a council um and city government to
[0:59] come together vision for the future um
[1:02] uh near-term and short term. So uh we've
[1:04] got a number of items on the agenda.
[1:06] We'll probably try to stay on schedule
[1:08] um and um um move forward. So um let's
[1:13] see here. the first thing and also I
[1:16] want to say a very special thank you to
[1:17] our staff um who have uh put together a
[1:20] uh uh you know good presentations and
[1:23] spent some time on this and uh I also do
[1:26] do want to say that I think it's really
[1:27] important that people feel um uh that
[1:30] they can you know just throw things out
[1:32] there and um you know sometimes when
[1:34] we're in a council meeting it may not be
[1:36] the you may not feel like the or be the
[1:38] right time to do that but this is
[1:40] exactly the time to do that. Um, that
[1:42] being said, council president, do you
[1:43] want to say a few words before we get
[1:44] started?
[1:47] » No, I I just want to uh echo uh your
[1:50] your words uh mayor uh to the staff. I
[1:52] know this has taken a lot of time,
[1:54] effort, energy uh throughout this whole
[1:56] week, maybe even more. Uh so, thank you
[1:58] for for being here. Um and to my
[2:00] colleagues, thank you for putting the uh
[2:02] work in and the effort in uh for your
[2:04] consultation in putting all these uh
[2:07] items together. So, thank you.
[2:09] » All right. And a very special thank you
[2:11] to our IT department. Um the screens the
[2:14] Oh, and if just like at the city council
[2:17] meetings, all you have to do is push the
[2:18] button and uh the the audio here is
[2:21] absolutely fantastic. The screens look
[2:23] great. Uh but if anybody has any issue
[2:26] hearing, if anybody has an issue
[2:27] hearing, just raise your hand, let us
[2:29] know. Um or if you can't see something
[2:30] or something's not clear. Um okay, with
[2:33] that, let's go ahead and get started. Um
[2:36] uh item three on the agenda is council
[2:38] rules and procedures. Council member
[2:40] Honda, we've got uh three items um A, B,
[2:43] and C. Inperson attend attendance
[2:45] expectations. Item B, council member
[2:48] remarks, time limits um and proclamation
[2:51] proclamations, scheduling and limits.
[2:53] Council Rhonda,
[2:57] » Thank you. So, um, when
[3:01] Jack and Linda and I, uh, were talking
[3:04] about what we wanted to have at the
[3:08] meeting and then, uh, later with Martin,
[3:10] these things came up and in-person
[3:13] attendance was something that was, um,
[3:15] brought up about it being more here than
[3:20] on Zoom. Uh we've talked about this at
[3:22] every retreat since COVID
[3:25] and um Zoom is awesome and I'm glad that
[3:28] we have it. Uh
[3:31] but if possible it's it's always best to
[3:34] be in person at a council meeting and uh
[3:36] we understand if you can't but um
[3:42] it's always best and uh Linda, did you
[3:44] want to add to that?
[3:46] Well, um, we've had issues in the past
[3:49] where we've
[3:51] we've actually had a former council
[3:53] member in a boat.
[3:57] That didn't work out for a while um on
[4:00] Zoom. And so really um CO everybody was
[4:03] on Zoom during CO, but during no no CO
[4:07] is no longer in effect. We we really
[4:09] need to um be present so that people can
[4:12] understand that we're hearing what they
[4:14] have to say.
[4:16] uh and that we we're really taking part
[4:18] in what's going on. So when it's
[4:21] possible for um the committees and the
[4:25] uh council meetings um it should be on
[4:28] time in person uh and that would be our
[4:32] expectation. Now we do have a rule that
[4:34] if you miss three if you can't make it
[4:37] and you need to be excused that's fine.
[4:39] just
[4:42] » Excused absences. Our rules of procedure
[4:45] say you can be removed. So at this point
[4:48] everybody has been doing very well with
[4:50] being in person and on time. So just
[4:52] thank you all for that.
[4:53] » Yeah, I think actually Ryan is it state
[4:55] law that three unexcused absences um
[4:59] makes the position Go ahead.
[5:01] » That's correct.
[5:03] vacation to see what is what is a
[5:06] unexpected
[5:10] pretty [clears throat]
[5:12] liberal. We've been pretty liberal in in
[5:15] calling everything an excused absence,
[5:18] but it is state law.
[5:20] » Yeah. So, you know, we life happens. So,
[5:23] if somebody's like if you've, you know,
[5:25] got a family emergency, an illness, you
[5:27] know, you've got something going on,
[5:29] just let the council president know, me
[5:30] know, a a colleague know. um either from
[5:33] phone, email, just get word to us about
[5:36] what's going on and and we'll make sure
[5:38] that we get it on the record about why
[5:40] you're there and we'll excuse the
[5:41] absence. Um because we want to do that.
[5:44] Council member Walsh, you want to say
[5:45] something?
[5:45] » Uh
[5:47] first off, uh next week I'm going to
[5:49] have a hopefully excused absence.
[5:51] » Yeah.
[5:52] » So that I'm not joining you from a
[5:54] » Yeah. [laughter]
[5:56] But also I think that with inerson
[5:58] attendance I think that the expectation
[5:59] is is that we should be staying there on
[6:02] the dis you know and and and stepping
[6:04] off the diet. I mean obviously at times
[6:07] it's expedient that we leave for a
[6:09] moment but we should make a practice of
[6:11] staying there on the dis. Oh
[6:15] » You didn't emphasize enough pushing the
[6:18] push button.
[6:19] » Exactly. That's right Thomas.
[6:20] » The easy button. Well, we we should uh
[6:23] you know the the standard thing which
[6:24] should we should remain on the dis
[6:26] unless there's an extenduating reason
[6:29] that not to not just to go leave to to
[6:32] talk to somebody.
[6:33] » Yeah. Um you know we've all been there
[6:36] actually we've had some of our meetings
[6:37] as you guys know are they get really
[6:40] long. So if if you need to leave the dis
[6:43] for, you know, for personal reasons, uh
[6:45] just maybe just say, I need a, you know,
[6:47] can we break for five minutes? Um and
[6:49] and we'll do that because I think
[6:51] sometimes we get to we used to have this
[6:52] thing where if we got to like 8:30,
[6:54] which is 2 hours in, that'd be a good
[6:56] time to, you know, say, "Hey, let's
[6:58] let's take a break." Council Oh, um
[7:01] council member Safodosa.
[7:02] » Yeah. Just for point of clarity, are we
[7:04] talking about regular council I mean
[7:06] council meetings or are we talking about
[7:07] committee meetings as well?
[7:10] » Well, is regular for for the three
[7:12] excused
[7:16] » For the three excused absences.
[7:18] » No, I'm talking about Zoom versus in
[7:20] person because like I do attend
[7:22] committee meetings that I don't belong
[7:23] to on Zoom sometimes. So, how does that
[7:26] how does that count? I said if you're
[7:28] assigned to a committee.
[7:30] » Yeah. If if you're on the committee, I
[7:32] think that
[7:33] » The expectation is you should be there.
[7:34] If you're not assigned to the committee,
[7:36] if you're not on the committee, then
[7:38] then your consume seems fine if you're
[7:40] not on the committee,
[7:41] » Unless you're traveling and
[7:43] » Yeah,
[7:44] » And so okay. Um, Thomas, can you tell us
[7:48] um uh we're obviously recording this and
[7:50] thank you to David for um uh recording
[7:53] this for later um airing on channel 21.
[7:57] Um, is this also being um can you tell
[8:00] us a little bit about how this is going
[8:02] to be um uh put out?
[8:04] » Yeah, it'll be on YouTube like our
[8:06] normal um
[8:10] council meetings are and then also um on
[8:13] channel 21. So, and currently right now
[8:15] per the agenda it's on uh Zoom. So, if
[8:18] anybody is at home or you know anybody
[8:20] um they can they can tune in right now
[8:22] via Zoom which we do have one one person
[8:25] I believe already streaming it. Yep. And
[8:27] then is the whole thing going to go on
[8:30] YouTube or are we gonna when is it going
[8:33] to be like the same version that's going
[8:35] to be on 21?
[8:36] » Yeah, we we do this is going to end up
[8:39] being like a six plus hour meeting
[8:40] uncut. Um people aren't usually going to
[8:43] watch through that. I think Dave goes
[8:45] through and edits a little bit um of
[8:47] kind of the some of the lols, the dead
[8:49] spots um out of it and then we post but
[8:54] yeah, we we post also a highlight video
[8:55] as well. um to kind of keep the the
[8:58] important topics. But either way, Dave
[9:01] works with Ben and we'll get that taken
[9:03] care of.
[9:03] » Great. Council Honda um actually,
[9:07] Council President, were you about to say
[9:08] something?
[9:09] » So, um
[9:11] » Oh, no. You turned it off.
[9:12] » There you go. Is [laughter] it you're
[9:14] trying to say something? No. Anyways, uh
[9:16] no, we're good. We're good. It's a
[9:19] retreat. Uh it's a icebreaker. Um it was
[9:22] planned. Okay. Um so I you know from
[9:27] from my observations um and if my memory
[9:30] serves me right and and I'm looking to
[9:32] my colleagues to correct me uh but there
[9:35] there was two council members that were
[9:36] gone fre former council members that
[9:38] were frequently gone uh and that's of
[9:40] course is okay um uh but they were often
[9:43] on Zoom and whatnot. Um I think my
[9:47] question to the council is what is the
[9:49] desired outcome? What do we want to see?
[9:51] Uh, I certainly have my input, but
[9:53] what's the the the result that we want
[9:55] to see? I mean, I know right here in our
[9:58] council rules, uh, obviously, um, on
[10:02] page 12, um, you know, it has everything
[10:05] that we've talked about, but do we add a
[10:07] section of E, uh, and make it really
[10:10] specific? I mean, Zoom is only going to
[10:12] continue to be a tool for permanently
[10:14] for in our society. So, do we want to
[10:17] move into some sort of a
[10:20] aspect where we add something to our
[10:21] council rules um or not? What what is
[10:23] the take of the council?
[10:31] » Oh, I thought you wanted to talk.
[10:35] So, um the we talked about that's a good
[10:37] question uh council president and we did
[10:39] talk about that in the past and um there
[10:42] are uh there's uh state uh law over
[10:47] oversees what we do and I think that
[10:49] they allow Zoom meetings. So, you know,
[10:52] we're we're just talking about for our
[10:54] city. But there is one thing I'd like to
[10:56] bring up if you don't mind, mayor. uh
[10:58] which is um we've talked about this in
[11:00] the past and and and I'm I'm seeing this
[11:02] happen more especially with your race uh
[11:05] and please u Ryan if I'm saying anything
[11:08] you just shut me down um we you we have
[11:12] an ordinance that says if you're going
[11:14] to want to be on the city council for
[11:17] example we that says that you need to
[11:19] have been a resident of Federalway a
[11:22] year in advance before you sign up. So,
[11:25] if if um I don't remember anymore if
[11:29] it's in May that you have to apply or
[11:32] put in your u uh application that you
[11:36] have to have been a resident for a year.
[11:38] I believe that's what the ordinance
[11:39] says. But, um we we've had people who
[11:43] have said that they lived in the city of
[11:44] Federay um and don't um whether it's for
[11:48] our positions or not. I just think that
[11:50] people need to understand that, you
[11:52] know, you really should be living in the
[11:54] community you represent.
[11:57] My opinion, but there there that is.
[12:00] » Yep. All right. Cir.
[12:04] » Oh, it's on. Uh so anyway, Zoom is is
[12:09] useful, but it shouldn't be uh every
[12:12] meeting or uh and I believe we actually
[12:15] did at one point have in our council
[12:16] rules three three people can be on Zoom
[12:19] at a time um which means that the
[12:22] majority of council does have to show up
[12:24] and be there in person as for committee.
[12:27] » I think that's still the rule.
[12:28] » Yeah.
[12:29] » Yeah. So, um, anyway, it was just to
[12:31] remind people that, uh, being present is
[12:35] better if at all possible.
[12:38] » Okay.
[12:39] » Sometimes people think when they're on
[12:42] Zoom, they're in a hotel or somewhere,
[12:44] they don't have really good um, internet
[12:48] uh, capability, Wi-Fi, and um, it's hard
[12:51] to hear. It just causes problems,
[12:54] especially when you're on a boat in
[12:56] Florida, right?
[12:57] » [laughter]
[12:57] » We we've had that.
[12:59] » Never done that.
[13:01] » So, okay.
[13:02] » So, am I sensing that the council
[13:04] doesn't want anything changed really? I
[13:05] mean, right now, uh I guess in on page
[13:09] um 14, I just want to be specific in
[13:12] case uh staff need to do anything, but
[13:15] um I mean I do see
[13:19] uh
[13:21] uh intent item C intent. Attendance from
[13:24] a remote location is intended to be an
[13:26] alternative alternative and relatively
[13:29] infrequent use method for participation
[13:32] at meetings by members of the council.
[13:34] Is that I mean is that fine? Is am I
[13:37] sensing that?
[13:39] » Okay. Yeah. Sorry.
[13:41] » So the the language says infrequent.
[13:45] » So how do we define that?
[13:48] » So yeah, maybe going more specific.
[13:51] » Yeah. in that
[13:53] » Because I think right now we have a good
[13:55] council but you know it hasn't always
[13:58] been that way and there has been some
[14:02] uh questionable you know ex absences
[14:05] » And uh I think we need to determine how
[14:09] we're going to define infrequent.
[14:16] Um, yeah, I I if I may, mayor, um, yeah,
[14:20] I would actually agree with that. I do
[14:22] think it's it's been an issue before and
[14:25] it's been consistent at that time. And,
[14:28] uh, you know, obviously I I things
[14:31] happen, life happens, but I I would
[14:33] agree with Council Member Hamilton that
[14:34] I think we should really define this um,
[14:37] as what does infrequent mean and modify
[14:40] it maybe language item C um, potentially
[14:43] or somewhere else.
[14:47] All right. Anybody else on that?
[14:51] » All right. We can take a look at it. Go
[14:52] ahead, council member.
[14:53] » Yeah. I I think that infrequent is
[14:56] difficult to
[14:58] difficult to define.
[15:00] » Well, and maybe but I I don't know. I
[15:03] don't know of sticking a number in
[15:06] there. I don't know what number we would
[15:08] stick in.
[15:09] » Well, yeah. I mean,
[15:10] » There's different situations. If
[15:11] somebody has a medical condition, I
[15:13] mean, you know, if somebody has some
[15:15] medical condition, they're confined to a
[15:17] home or a hospital or something like
[15:18] that, it could be entirely different
[15:20] than than simply um
[15:24] um being elsewhere around the world for
[15:27] whatever reason that may be.
[15:28] » Yeah. And I see that as, you know,
[15:30] you'll get that excused. You know, I
[15:32] don't see that to be an issue. But if
[15:34] it's consistent and it's happening
[15:36] consistently, I think to uh Council
[15:38] Hamilton's point, I do think there's
[15:40] room for us to become more specific in
[15:42] there. And if it doesn't work, we take
[15:44] it back to a special meeting. We modify
[15:45] our council rules and address that. But
[15:48] I think it's been an issue. I think it
[15:51] we need to I' I've been hearing about
[15:52] it. I think there needs to be more
[15:54] clarity potentially.
[15:57] » Okay. All right. Well, we'll take a look
[15:58] at that. will um it will
[16:01] » Yes
[16:02] » This is also a committee um Brian just
[16:04] brought it to my attention Eltac um I
[16:06] want to make sure that um Elac is maybe
[16:09] um exempt from any committee rules
[16:12] because they're all outside entities and
[16:15] not um city and zoom is the preferred
[16:19] method of meeting. So just wanted to
[16:21] make sure that if we come up with any
[16:23] kind of rules for committees that has a
[16:27] a separate
[16:31] I think my intent would be just city
[16:33] council meetings.
[16:34] » Yeah.
[16:34] » I think that would be special meetings,
[16:35] city council meetings. I that's my
[16:37] perception. Um but I'm looking to my
[16:39] colleagues on that.
[16:40] » Um but that when I look at this and
[16:42] think about it, I'm really looking at
[16:44] the lens of city council special
[16:45] meetings.
[16:47] I also think with regard to we're
[16:50] talking about general intent, I don't
[16:52] think that that section of the of the
[16:54] the rules are um essentially um I mean
[16:59] they're more guidance um in regard to
[17:01] what the intent is as opposed to if you
[17:04] hit this number then we're going to I
[17:06] think it just and it's one of those
[17:08] things where a US Supreme Court justice
[17:10] said when describing something it's like
[17:12] you know it when you see it. Um, so, you
[17:15] know, I think it it provides some
[17:17] flexibility for the body again to to say
[17:20] I think we're we're starting to reach a
[17:21] a point of um inconsistency with the
[17:24] intent of the rules. So, I mean, you
[17:27] know, when I when I in my prior job
[17:29] prior career, as soon as we would make a
[17:31] guideline about something that we're
[17:32] going to do this, if that, then the next
[17:35] thing that happened, the next thing that
[17:36] came in the door was something that fit
[17:38] right between it. So, I don't know. It's
[17:40] just sometimes a little flexibility.
[17:43] Yeah, that's exactly what I was going to
[17:44] say is sometimes, you know, in the law
[17:46] we can define infrequent, not with a
[17:49] number necessarily, but with what our
[17:51] intent is. Our intent is, you know, to
[17:53] have presence and uh anyway. Yeah,
[17:57] totally. So, maybe we need to add a
[17:59] section where we have the intent of what
[18:00] we're doing.
[18:01] » Yeah, I I think that that's that I I
[18:04] would concur with that. I mean, again,
[18:05] it's interesting because we've had this
[18:07] rule in place and I think I've heard
[18:10] mumblings about it, but there was no
[18:13] accountability with it. And certainly,
[18:15] we want to be respectful to our
[18:16] colleagues. Everybody has their life,
[18:18] you know, and whatnot. But I think
[18:21] digging a little bit more deeper and
[18:23] adding a section there to uh tar
[18:26] Hamilton's point um I think addresses
[18:29] that a little bit, but it still allows
[18:30] that little bit of flexibility and and
[18:33] reasonable accommodations.
[18:35] » Okay, great. Um anybody else on this
[18:38] issue,
[18:40] » Coun? Well, I think it's just
[18:41] interesting because some of those words
[18:43] and you're right in certain respect some
[18:45] of those words are very um hard to get a
[18:48] handle on. For example, if you're going
[18:51] to be uh running for the legislature
[18:55] um the the state law says that you
[18:57] should file live in the district when
[19:01] you file for the state not congress
[19:04] state uh and then live there at the
[19:06] preponderance of the time. something you
[19:08] go okay what is prepundonderance of the
[19:11] time and then if they're not living
[19:12] there how do you approve that so it's
[19:14] kind of a real big thing to get your
[19:16] handle on so good luck
[19:17] » Yeah exactly
[19:18] » On
[19:21] » All right thank you uh council Honda
[19:23] with regard to the next item council
[19:24] member remark time limits
[19:27] » So um as some of you know I I watch a
[19:29] lot of council meetings um around the
[19:31] country and
[19:34] there are many councils who limit it um
[19:39] how long a council member can speak
[19:41] initially like uh most of most of the
[19:44] time it's five minutes
[19:46] and then it goes to the uh whoever's
[19:49] running the meeting then says you know
[19:51] it's time for someone else to speak and
[19:53] then everyone speaks and then you start
[19:55] speaking again it's just so that
[19:58] uh someone doesn't take over the
[20:01] conversation or you know and and gets a
[20:04] chance to to um say what they're
[20:06] thinking and then we go back again and
[20:08] people talk again. Um, often times it's
[20:13] the city clerk who does the timing.
[20:15] » Uh, so that the person running the
[20:17] meeting doesn't have to pay attention to
[20:19] that.
[20:20] » So,
[20:21] » Are there any nearby cities that do
[20:22] that?
[20:23] » Uh, yeah, especially up north.
[20:27] » Like like Seattle.
[20:29] » Uh, Seattle, I don't watch Seattle
[20:31] council meetings anymore because they
[20:33] just
[20:33] » Didn't interest me. But um
[20:36] » Yeah,
[20:37] » Uh especi some of the smaller cities
[20:42] seem to do it um around here more
[20:44] frequently. On the east coast, it's not
[20:48] at all uncommon.
[20:51] » It's just to keep the conversation
[20:52] flowing among all council members so
[20:54] that all council members have a chance
[20:55] to to speak
[20:57] » And that it isn't um the conversation
[20:59] isn't just one person.
[21:02] Hey, council. I I certainly you guys
[21:05] have probably seen when usually when
[21:06] they have paper things. Uh what about if
[21:09] we you know if somebody has something to
[21:10] say that they put up their their uh
[21:13] because I I can't see anybody's light.
[21:15] Um so if you uh if anybody wants to
[21:17] speak on on a particular issue, let's
[21:19] put your uh name tags up and then I know
[21:22] uh generally I can kind of tell who's
[21:24] who's in order. Uh council coach.
[21:27] » Well, I was just going to say um uh
[21:31] What I've noticed in in so that we don't
[21:34] run so late, it's not with council
[21:36] members remarks as much as some of the
[21:39] larger cities when they have a hot topic
[21:41] and they have a lot of people in the
[21:42] room and they're all really saying the
[21:44] same thing. Um they'll limit it rather
[21:46] than three minutes to two minutes. I
[21:48] don't know if we have anything in our
[21:50] rules that allow us to change that time
[21:53] limit, but
[21:54] » That public comment.
[21:55] » Yeah. Because our pe our our staff needs
[21:58] to go home,
[21:59] » Right? You know, I think that there have
[22:00] been times in the past in which we had,
[22:03] you know, the absolutely a jam-packed um
[22:07] council chambers. Let's ask legal
[22:08] counsel about changing this is about
[22:12] public comment and say we've got, you
[22:14] know, a a jam-packed room and then we've
[22:16] got an overflow room and and many people
[22:18] want to talk. We've had situations like
[22:20] that. Um does the body have the ability
[22:23] to reduce that? Some some bodies do that
[22:26] to reduce it down?
[22:28] » Yes. Um, if we were to put that in
[22:30] council rules, we could define it any
[22:32] way we want. So, we're we're required to
[22:34] take public comment now under state law,
[22:36] but it doesn't say what that means. So,
[22:38] as long as there's an opportunity for
[22:40] some some people, not necessarily
[22:42] everybody that wants to speak. Um, in
[22:44] the past, we've thought about capping
[22:46] the period. Like, you could do it
[22:48] multiple ways. You could reduce the per
[22:50] person limit or you could put a limit on
[22:52] everybody and say we're only taking 45
[22:54] minutes of public comment and then we're
[22:56] done. First come, first serve.
[22:58] » It's up to council though.
[22:59] » We've never done that.
[23:01] » Not to my knowledge.
[23:02] » Um what I guess and you know that Oh,
[23:06] council Honda.
[23:09] » Thank you. So
[23:11] there was a me meeting that we tried to
[23:14] do. Well, you tried to do it and um Gene
[23:17] Burbage was council or deputy mayor
[23:19] then. It was a warehouser meeting,
[23:21] » Right,
[23:22] » That um Kelly and Deanie and I called.
[23:24] It was a special meeting and we had what
[23:27] 300 people there.
[23:28] » Yeah.
[23:28] » And yeah, we were there for maybe four
[23:31] hours listening to people. But when
[23:33] someone when the public comes to speak
[23:36] to us and they're they practice what
[23:37] they've said and they know that they
[23:40] have three minutes um I would not
[23:43] support cutting it down because
[23:46] they hire us and they fire us and what
[23:49] they have to say if if they leave their
[23:51] home and they come to city hall to to
[23:54] speak to us and they know that they have
[23:56] three minutes coming in then they get
[23:58] three minutes and um just because it's
[24:01] going to make our meeting a little bit
[24:02] longer. It's too bad.
[24:04] » Yeah.
[24:04] » Um we could control that by a council
[24:07] not rambling on and on. You know, it's
[24:09] there's ways to control that, but
[24:11] » Yeah,
[24:12] » But I think that the public has uh an
[24:14] expectation of three minutes and uh I
[24:18] know when we voted on that at that
[24:20] meeting, it it lost because council
[24:22] members said no, they're here they
[24:24] » For three minutes. So, I would always
[24:27] vote against that.
[24:28] » Yeah. Okay. Council President Moore.
[24:30] » Yeah. I I would uh be willing to make a
[24:32] bet that I'm just a wild guess that the
[24:34] council probably would not support uh
[24:36] shortening the public comments, but I'm
[24:38] just I I feel kind of confident on that,
[24:41] but who knows? Uh so, I'm looking
[24:42] forward to hearing what my colleagues
[24:44] have to say, but I I know speaking for
[24:46] myself, I
[24:48] uh I would definitely not support
[24:50] shortening the public comment time. I
[24:52] think three minutes is adequate. I think
[24:53] it's best practices all over the
[24:56] country, quite frankly. Um, and you
[25:00] ready for this, Council Member Honda? I
[25:02] agree with you. Uh, I know it's a it's a
[25:06] heartbreaker. Um, uh, but
[25:08] » Heather, did you get that?
[25:09] » Yeah. Was that noted? Thank you. Thank
[25:11] you, Mayor. Um, so, um, but I think it's
[25:15] a sacred time that the public, this is,
[25:18] uh, a very important opportunity for the
[25:20] public to come and really
[25:24] share their thoughts of any item. Uh,
[25:27] and I don't want to do anything to uh,
[25:30] cut that time at all. Uh, I think it's
[25:33] really important time um, period. And
[25:35] quite frankly, if there's a lot of them,
[25:38] it it's they're all important comments.
[25:41] Um, and and if we're going to be here
[25:43] for a while, we were hired to do a job.
[25:45] We have to uh, uh, be a partner to the
[25:48] mayor and and helping govern the city.
[25:51] Uh, and so, uh, I would I would
[25:53] personally shy away from shortening the
[25:55] minutes, uh, to public comments.
[25:57] » All right. Thank you. Let's go right in
[25:59] order and then we'll go over here. So,
[26:00] Council Member Hamilton.
[26:04] » Yes.
[26:06] » So, um, the the public comment uh, time
[26:11] limit, you know, idea.
[26:14] I I can see it being helpful when you
[26:17] know if we had a problem, but I think
[26:19] we're maybe talking about a solution in
[26:21] search of a problem right now because we
[26:23] don't have that problem right now. Um I
[26:26] know that you know you had mentioned the
[26:27] warehouser thing. Um, but I'm not sure
[26:30] if that's a common situation that we
[26:33] experience, but uh, you know, sometimes,
[26:36] uh, I've seen it at King County Council
[26:38] meetings where public will come in and
[26:41] they basically filibuster the the whole
[26:43] meeting and, um, in those situations,
[26:46] King County will say, the chair will
[26:48] say, uh, we're going to limit public
[26:50] comment to 60 seconds because there'll
[26:53] be a group of, you know, 200 people in
[26:55] the room. Um but uh for now I think
[26:59] we're okay and I don't think we need to
[27:01] do that. Um but I I do see on the agenda
[27:04] that we're talking about council member
[27:05] remarks time limits. So uh maybe we
[27:09] could also talk about that
[27:12] » Versus the public
[27:12] » Same topic. Exactly.
[27:14] » What stage you mean? [laughter]
[27:17] » Council member Cess.
[27:20] » Yeah that's uh exactly my sentiments. I
[27:24] uh do support uh what council member
[27:27] Honda and council member Hamilton have
[27:30] already expressed. Um I think three
[27:34] minutes is adequate for a public comment
[27:37] period. But back to what council member
[27:40] Hamilton just reiterated, this is about
[27:44] time limits for council member remarks.
[27:47] Yeah. So I think it should reflect uh
[27:51] our remarks should be limited as well to
[27:54] three minutes. Uh we should not have a
[27:58] uh an opportunity to
[28:01] fill a bust on any topic. Let's let's
[28:05] stay on point. Let's be efficient and
[28:08] address the issue.
[28:10] » All right. Thank you, Council Member
[28:11] Sidasan.
[28:15] » Yeah. Um I agree with what everybody
[28:18] said. Um one of the reasons being um
[28:21] that we need to respect people's time so
[28:24] they come there and we can't say oh we
[28:26] only have 45 minutes. Sorry the rest of
[28:28] you can't speak. Um so I think that
[28:30] that'll be great. But if we're going to
[28:32] honor the three minute then I would also
[28:34] like to encourage you mayor to be
[28:36] consistent as to when you add time
[28:39] versus when you don't. uh because
[28:41] sometimes we do cut people off and other
[28:44] times we're lenient. So um just making
[28:49] clear or being clear about how you
[28:52] navigate that would be great. And then
[28:55] let's also honor the five minute because
[28:57] we didn't talk about that when you're
[28:58] speaking for a group. So
[29:01] » Oh yeah, that's right.
[29:02] » We didn't bring that. So
[29:03] » Great. Thank you.
[29:04] » Okay. Hey. Uh, counc.
[29:06] » Okay. Uh,
[29:09] first on the on the public comment, just
[29:11] an idea is, uh, if, uh, is have it in
[29:15] the rules where after on if there is
[29:18] some topic that's bringing a lot of
[29:19] people in after three people have spoken
[29:22] on one side or the other other of an
[29:24] issue, you know, let it be known in
[29:26] advance that that if more than three
[29:28] people speak, that it'll be limited to
[29:30] two minutes after that on any particular
[29:32] issue. ju just an idea, you know, to to
[29:34] toss out there. I'm not advocating it
[29:36] yay or nay, but just an idea of
[29:38] something that could may be able to
[29:40] help. Um, as far as as council member uh
[29:43] time limits, I think that one of the
[29:46] things that's critical is that sometimes
[29:48] when you're speaking, you don't realize
[29:51] how much time you're taking. And if
[29:54] there was some way that we could have a
[29:56] a clock that the the council members saw
[30:00] showing, you know, so so that you can
[30:02] say, "Hold on, I've been talking for
[30:04] seven minutes now. It's, you know, it's
[30:06] maybe time I shut up." Uh, you know, and
[30:09] and be have it more self-p policing
[30:11] rather than a arbitrary limit, but have
[30:14] it so that we are able to be aware of of
[30:18] and and the other council members are
[30:20] aware. So if somebody's uh doing it, you
[30:22] can kind of give them a dirty look, you
[30:23] know, and say, "Hey, it's, you know,
[30:24] time to, you know."
[30:26] » Well, I is this uh you know, I've run
[30:30] these meetings all the time. I I I can't
[30:31] think of any time in which we've had a
[30:33] council member go on and on and on to
[30:35] the point where like seven minutes. 7
[30:37] minutes is a long time or five minutes
[30:39] is a long time. Council Council
[30:41] President Moore.
[30:42] » Well, I was thinking about doing the
[30:43] filibuster at the next council meeting.
[30:45] Um
[30:47] um [clears throat] no, I I mean um I
[30:50] think we've had pretty good meetings. I
[30:52] think they've been pretty efficient. Uh
[30:54] but but I do have to say that I'm
[30:56] intrigued with council member um u
[30:59] Walsh's um suggestion because I know
[31:01] we're going to be upgrading the council
[31:03] dis or council uh chambers. Uh and I
[31:07] maybe having like a little timer I think
[31:09] doesn't hurt. It's just a proactive like
[31:12] hey um um you're you're speaking for a
[31:15] little too long like I am right now. Uh
[31:17] but um I think um uh to to council
[31:21] members Hondes because I I know that
[31:22] we've talked about this when we were
[31:24] working on uh this agenda item and I
[31:27] mean I thought it was kind of reasonable
[31:28] like okay um give everybody certain time
[31:32] to speak and if there's more for us to
[31:33] say we can always come back you know and
[31:37] you can say something and I I felt like
[31:39] that was kind of reasonable. I think we
[31:40] see that in um uh congressional
[31:43] hearings. Uh they usually are allotted
[31:46] certain amount of times. I know you
[31:47] watch a lot of that stuff. They're
[31:48] allotted a certain amount of times and
[31:50] then I'm sure they can come back and
[31:53] have more time. And I thought, okay,
[31:55] maybe that's reasonable. Uh but um
[31:58] » Yeah, it's an interesting topic. But
[32:00] what's interesting is you when we have,
[32:02] you know, when when I'm moderating the
[32:04] debate among the council, we'll have
[32:06] council members speak three or more
[32:09] times on a particular issue as we're on
[32:11] the agenda. So, it's like, is it would
[32:13] it be a time limit for each time they're
[32:16] called upon or total or I mean I it
[32:18] could end up stifling debate. Council
[32:20] member Honda. Oh, Council Member Man.
[32:25] Um, well, to answer that question, I I
[32:28] do think that that would stifle debate
[32:29] if we're only allowed to speak once
[32:31] because as we're speaking, you know, and
[32:33] bringing up stuff, then it brings to
[32:35] mind other issues that we might have or
[32:38] other arguments that we might have and
[32:39] we are engaging in debate when we're up
[32:41] there.
[32:42] » So, it does have to be kind of a back
[32:43] and forth uh conversation. But, I do
[32:46] like the idea going back to the self-p
[32:48] policing. I really like that idea
[32:50] because I think that makes us self-aware
[32:52] of how much time we're taking. And uh
[32:55] nobody likes somebody who just wants to
[32:57] hear themselves all the time talk. So
[33:00] being aware of that would be a good idea
[33:02] to maybe have a timer in the back every
[33:04] time someone talks. Sort of like the
[33:05] public commerce. They have a timer in
[33:07] front of them so that they know. Um, I
[33:09] do, you know, I have watched and been in
[33:12] a lot of council meetings and I do think
[33:14] we have had some council members who
[33:16] have, you know, enjoyed hearing
[33:17] themselves talk and so, you know, having
[33:20] the timer I would be supportive of.
[33:23] » Council Honda,
[33:26] » Uh, thank you.
[33:28] So, it wouldn't limit
[33:32] a council member from getting their idea
[33:34] or their opinion out. It would just
[33:37] allow you have five minutes, someone
[33:40] else gets to talk. So, and then you know
[33:43] all the six other council members can
[33:45] talk then it can go back to you and it
[33:47] it it's not going to limit debate. It's
[33:50] just going to make sure that everyone
[33:51] has an opportunity to say something. Um
[33:56] that that's it. And at uh there is a
[33:59] local council in King County that allows
[34:02] um
[34:04] it's either two people can speak on a
[34:07] topic or three and after that no one can
[34:11] speak on the topic even if the room is
[34:13] packed with people wanting to speak on
[34:15] it. And I always feel bad when they're
[34:16] calling the names of people. Oh, can't
[34:18] speak. People have already said I don't
[34:21] like that. Um, just because I I think it
[34:24] um, you know, if it was a topic that we
[34:28] had a lot of interest in in the
[34:30] community, what time are people going to
[34:32] get there to sign up? Or would they sign
[34:33] up online and that would be considered,
[34:37] you know, they're they're the first two
[34:39] or three. So, um, uh, I know that that
[34:43] some, you know, at least I know one
[34:45] council that does that locally and, um,
[34:48] so it's not something that is unheard
[34:51] of. I just don't wouldn't support it.
[34:53] But I do like that, you know,
[34:57] I I do like maybe if we have clocks in
[35:00] front of us and we can um make sure that
[35:03] we're not, you know, we're being
[35:05] courteous and efficient because that's
[35:07] the that's the whole thing is trying to
[35:08] get through meetings and this is a
[35:11] budget year that we're going to have
[35:12] long meetings this year and we're going
[35:14] to have a lot of meetings this year. Uh
[35:16] for the new council meeting members,
[35:19] budget season is extra meetings and um
[35:25] the most efficient
[35:27] way we can run a meeting and get our
[35:29] points across is the best. So that's
[35:32] what this was about.
[35:35] » Okay. All right. Anybody anyone else on
[35:37] this uh on this issue? Okay. We'll take
[35:40] a look at it. Um um let us know if
[35:42] you've got a a suggestion. Uh, one of
[35:45] the one of the points to consider on
[35:46] this one that just popped into my head
[35:48] was if you say you've got three minutes
[35:51] for a council member, they may fill that
[35:53] three minutes and then come back another
[35:55] time and fill another three minutes and
[35:58] you know it's like if you if you give
[36:00] somebody three minutes, people will
[36:02] generally use their time um as opposed
[36:06] to just letting them speak. Anyway, just
[36:07] considerations um uh council president.
[36:12] So, it sounds like from from my
[36:13] colleagues, I'm hearing consensus on
[36:15] adding a like a little timer at each
[36:18] place. Is that what I'm kind of hearing?
[36:20] » Okay.
[36:22] » Well,
[36:22] » Just general consensus, you know. I
[36:23] mean,
[36:24] » Maybe we could have something in the
[36:25] back of the room that's a timer so we
[36:27] don't I mean, I'm thinking of cost.
[36:29] » Okay.
[36:30] » But, you know, if you want to have a
[36:31] timer, it's fine.
[36:32] » Thomas, when do we get the new uh
[36:34] equipment in the council chambers?
[36:44] It's uh it's going to be a little bit of
[36:45] a process. So, we I took this to council
[36:49] last year for a bid. We had a design
[36:51] done. Um but because of the nature of
[36:54] the the cost, the total cost of the and
[36:57] the and the um
[37:00] um just the breadth of of the of the
[37:03] project, it needs to be uh it's a public
[37:05] works project, so it's a full-on it
[37:07] needs to go out for bid and everything.
[37:08] So, um, in order to do that, the design
[37:12] didn't include bid documents or bid
[37:14] level documents. So, the specs and
[37:15] everything that needs to hit the street.
[37:17] So, that been working with Ryan and EJ.
[37:20] Um, needs to go out for RFQ. So, we need
[37:22] to hire a design firm to develop the
[37:24] document package so we can actually put
[37:26] that out to bid. Um, so that's something
[37:29] we wanted to get started. So, if we can
[37:32] meet the August deadline, that would be
[37:33] awesome because we have a little bit of
[37:35] gap there with a counselled a cancelled
[37:38] uh council meeting. So, that way maybe
[37:40] there that timeline can can be made. Um
[37:43] otherwise, it probably be end of the
[37:44] year, December. So, but regardless, it
[37:47] will be this year probably on the later
[37:49] latter half.
[37:50] » The technology piece of this, what do
[37:51] you think about keeping like starting a
[37:54] timer for
[37:55] » That's what I was looking for. Um so
[37:57] part of the design it was spec a um
[37:59] conferencing system. So like what the
[38:04] um
[38:06] larger uh I'm forgetting the name I'm
[38:09] sorry not not not I wasn't prepared to
[38:12] discuss this today but like um large
[38:15] like G40 summits that kind of stuff
[38:18] utilize this same system that they had
[38:20] speced. It's a discussion system and it
[38:22] did built in with kind of request to
[38:24] talk. So like um the discussion leads.
[38:27] So the mayor for example would have on
[38:29] on the screen a um a tally of who's
[38:31] pushed their button to request in that
[38:33] particular order. He can he can choose
[38:35] to you know go in that order or not. Um
[38:38] and then I believe there's also a timer
[38:40] function there. I was trying to look up
[38:41] the specs since you guys were talking
[38:43] about this. Um but I think it is totally
[38:45] it's doable. Definitely doable and we
[38:47] can include this in the in the um in the
[38:50] design spec. Yep. Council member
[38:52] Coochar, you're a former legislator and
[38:54] were at the legislature for four years.
[38:56] Were there time limits on your comments?
[38:57] » Yes. Yeah, you you do. You have it right
[39:00] in front of you.
[39:01] » How how long
[39:04] » How long could people talk?
[39:05] » Heck darn it. Gosh, I don't know. Some
[39:08] of them talk forever. Uh uh but you're
[39:11] supposed to have a time limit. It's it's
[39:13] been 10 years. I can't remember. But I
[39:14] do remember seeing red lights.
[39:16] » Yeah,
[39:17] » I'm sorry.
[39:18] » There's a time limit on that.
[39:20] » That's right. the chair will tell
[39:24] you,
[39:27] » Right? And you can't have you cannot
[39:30] speak from notes. You have to speak
[39:33] extemporaneously,
[39:35] » So in other words, you can't read
[39:37] something like the Constitution of the
[39:39] United States. You have to speak from
[39:41] your heart.
[39:44] » Councilor Hunty, any other thoughts on
[39:45] the issue?
[39:47] » Okay. What do you think would be a
[39:49] reasonable time as far as council um
[39:52] council comments?
[39:53] » Uh five minutes.
[39:54] » Five minutes. Okay.
[39:56] » Yeah. If you can't get your point across
[39:57] in five minutes, um then it's time to
[40:00] listen to other people and see what they
[40:02] uh are speaking about, what they think,
[40:04] and then
[40:06] » You know, it's not so that you can't
[40:08] continue to speak. It's just to allow
[40:11] other people to speak.
[40:12] » Now, here's a question. would it be if I
[40:14] you know I my son got into really into
[40:16] chess and I had never and I had been
[40:19] playing chess for years. I had never
[40:21] really played on a clock and um once you
[40:24] start playing you don't realize how fast
[40:26] time goes. So here's the question. If
[40:29] five minutes is the rule, um would you
[40:32] know when we start a debate or when when
[40:35] we're start talking about an issue,
[40:37] would you get five minutes in the
[40:38] aggregate? Um you know, say that your
[40:41] first comment's a minute then do you
[40:44] have four minutes left on this or it
[40:45] would be every time you want to say
[40:47] something, you restart the clock?
[40:48] » I would think it would be every time.
[40:51] » Okay. Because, you know, as a as a
[40:53] council member,
[40:56] we you know, we're
[41:00] I know I do a lot of research before I
[41:03] go to a meeting.
[41:04] » Yeah.
[41:04] » And um it's always interesting to see
[41:07] what other council members are saying
[41:09] and that might bring more questions. I
[41:11] mean, I do ask a lot of questions, but I
[41:14] don't try to um
[41:17] you know, go on and on and on. Uh so it
[41:21] it would it would not stop council
[41:23] members from speaking. It would just
[41:25] allow the whole disas to speak and then
[41:27] go back and then if I mean and then if
[41:31] um a council member wants to speak a
[41:34] second time which is fine and no one
[41:36] else wants to speak a third a second
[41:38] time and they want to speak for a third
[41:40] time
[41:42] that's not an issue. It's just allowing
[41:44] everyone to have the u ability to speak.
[41:48] » Okay. Maybe that do are we do I sense
[41:50] consensus that um maybe I guess
[41:54] quantifying the amount of time first and
[41:57] council member Hund what do you think
[41:58] quantifying at least knowing or council
[42:02] members knowing how long they're talking
[42:04] initially and then maybe we can kind of
[42:06] go from there
[42:07] » Maybe we can get
[42:11] get some clocks on the dis you know we
[42:13] don't need one for every person maybe
[42:14] every other person and see how long
[42:17] people We're talking.
[42:18] » Yeah.
[42:20] » Yeah.
[42:20] » I think that's quite reasonable.
[42:22] Actually had a a question, a fun
[42:23] question uh to council Honda. Now, if if
[42:27] I'm given five minutes and I'll look to
[42:30] Council Member Hamilton to give me her
[42:31] five minutes, then I can speak for 10
[42:33] minutes. Is that allowable?
[42:35] » If the body wants that, but I don't know
[42:38] that the body would want that because
[42:41] » A lot of little details in this, but I
[42:43] just had to say that for fun. Um,
[42:45] » So this is our retreat and usually we go
[42:47] by first names at retreat. Is that Are
[42:49] we gonna
[42:49] » You know what? I thought the same thing.
[42:50] And so I started I started by I started
[42:53] down that road. Are we first names okay
[42:54] everybody?
[42:56] » Yes.
[42:56] » Yeah. Yeah. All right. Very good. Thank
[42:58] you.
[42:59] » Thanks, Susan. Um, okay.
[43:03] Okay. Uh,
[43:04] » Yes. Jack,
[43:05] » I I I was just going to go back to I
[43:07] think that self awareness, you know, if
[43:09] we have a time of self awareness, not a
[43:11] time kind of like what you were saying,
[43:13] people try to fill up that time, but
[43:15] it's just awareness. And also as far as
[43:17] awareness goes, what you're about to do
[43:25] limited about 45 minutes right now.
[43:31] » Okay. Hi, Linda. Well, I was
[43:34] » I was just going to say that it's really
[43:36] hard. This is nothing to be put in
[43:38] writing, but it's really hard when
[43:40] you're trying to argue a point and you
[43:43] see you're losing, it's hard to stop
[43:45] talking. We just have to remind
[43:48] ourselves, ah, move on. Thank you.
[43:51] » All right. Thank you. All right.
[43:52] Proclamation, scheduling, and limits.
[43:53] Council Honda Susan, sorry.
[43:56] » Thank you. Uh, so proclamations. In the
[43:59] last few years, we've had a number of
[44:01] discussions about too many
[44:02] proclamations, too few, whatever. You
[44:04] know, who's getting a proclamation, how
[44:06] they're getting it. And I don't want to
[44:09] um stop doing proclamations, but I do
[44:12] realize that when we have sometimes
[44:14] we've had five proclamations at a
[44:16] meeting, it takes a while. And a
[44:18] proclamation should be a special thing
[44:20] for the group or the person getting it,
[44:22] right? Where they feel very special
[44:24] because it is a special event for them.
[44:27] Um, I've watched a few council meetings,
[44:30] uh, where they actually do a special
[44:32] meeting ahead of time where they do the
[44:35] proclamations and it makes it
[44:38] a better event for the folks getting the
[44:41] proclamation because not only do they
[44:44] have they're not in a rush to, you know,
[44:46] how we always say, "Oh, would you like a
[44:48] minute or two to speak?" You know, for
[44:50] the person getting it, sometimes there's
[44:52] a group up there and they all want to
[44:53] speak. it just, you know, if we have the
[44:56] ability to um have maybe, you know, if
[44:59] we're doing proclamations at a meeting,
[45:02] maybe 20 minutes, you know, start at
[45:04] 5:30 if we have that ability. I know we
[45:07] I know our special meetings are
[45:08] sometimes planned out for very, you
[45:10] know, important things that we act, you
[45:12] know, we have to spend a lot of time on,
[45:13] but um make proclamations
[45:18] special and and and allow people to to
[45:22] feel like this is their time and you
[45:25] know, then they can speak, they can get
[45:27] photos taken and dur then during the
[45:30] meeting it's it makes the meeting more
[45:31] efficient time-wise. So that was that
[45:34] that was where that came from.
[45:36] » All right.
[45:38] Okay. Lindon,
[45:40] » I think one of the things we've had a
[45:43] discussion about in the past is who gets
[45:45] a proclamation. For example, you know,
[45:48] every month there's, you know, a month
[45:50] for something. Uh and and we we'll get
[45:53] an email that says, you know, we'd like
[45:56] to be recognized. So, how do we who's
[45:59] going to select who gets the
[46:00] proclamations or not? That's all
[46:03] » Jack.
[46:04] » Yeah, with that I I think we have more
[46:07] proclamations.
[46:09] Last week I had what was the first
[46:11] proclamation I suggested in the four
[46:12] years I've been on the council, but I
[46:14] think
[46:17] » Yeah. Okay. All right. I I I think we
[46:19] need to to work on limiting them some.
[46:21] But there there definitely should be
[46:23] proclamations though. Um perhaps I mean
[46:27] most of the time if we have a
[46:28] proclamation I get and Amy's there, hey,
[46:29] you have something for you to sign. And
[46:30] I'm, oh, interesting proclamation. I
[46:33] think that that maybe have it so that uh
[46:36] in order for there to be a council
[46:38] proclamation, three council members need
[46:40] to say, hey, let's let's do this
[46:42] proclamation rather than it just being
[46:44] whatever
[46:46] uh you know, anybody saying, "Hey, let's
[46:48] do a proclamation." Have have a little
[46:52] bigger number proposing it.
[46:55] » Okay. Or maybe two.
[46:58] Um just like at council any uh Susan
[47:02] » Um so do you want to keep them during
[47:04] the regular body of the regular meeting
[47:06] or do them ahead of time?
[47:07] » I I I kind of like your idea of doing it
[47:09] ahead of time myself,
[47:14] » But I'm I'm don't have strong feelings
[47:16] one way or another on it.
[47:19] Lenny.
[47:22] » Yeah, I don't have strong feelings
[47:23] either, but usually when they get
[47:26] proclamations, I it's nice to have a
[47:28] crowd there. So, if you do it during
[47:30] special um meetings, then
[47:35] that won't be there, but I do understand
[47:37] where you're coming from also. Um so,
[47:40] it's just my point.
[47:42] » Martin,
[47:45] » Thank you. Um you know, this one I kind
[47:47] of went back and forth on. I I
[47:49] definitely uh understand the sentiment
[47:51] of this or the intent of this. Um but I
[47:56] I think I kind of leaned towards regular
[47:57] council meetings. Um I'd be open to
[47:59] giving it a try, you know, at a special
[48:01] meeting to see how it goes. Uh but I
[48:04] mean the the city council, our regular
[48:05] meetings, they are our main meeting. Um
[48:09] and that's a time that I want to uh see
[48:13] us celebrate um people uh communities
[48:16] actions. Um and you know I mean the
[48:20] study sessions are or special meetings
[48:21] are mainly study sessions. Um
[48:25] there
[48:27] yeah I mean I think regular meetings I
[48:29] think is where we can have that
[48:31] celebrations of of that. So that's where
[48:33] I would kind of tend to lean towards but
[48:35] um I I'd be open to giving it a try and
[48:39] see what it looks like during a special
[48:41] meeting.
[48:42] » Okay. Well we um uh we are five minutes
[48:44] out now over that issue. Maybe we can,
[48:46] you know, ponder this, discuss it. Um,
[48:48] if there are a couple council members
[48:49] that'd like to, you know, get this on an
[48:51] agenda. Um, we can pursue that. Why
[48:53] don't we, uh, transition, if it's okay
[48:55] with everybody, we transition item four,
[48:57] transportation, infrastructure, funding,
[48:59] and downtown growth. Uh we've got uh
[49:01] council member, excuse me, we've got
[49:03] Melissa uh that will uh uh sort of be
[49:06] the the lead for council on on these
[49:09] discussions, but let's uh um actually as
[49:12] we get EJ up here who's going to do item
[49:15] A first and then we've got Keith with uh
[49:18] development mitigation. Um so the first
[49:21] item is downtown multimmodal
[49:23] transportation future capacity city
[49:25] center access. Then we've got
[49:27] development mitigation impact with Keith
[49:28] Nivven, community development director.
[49:30] Then Keith again for TC3 public market
[49:33] and per parking garage. And then Brian
[49:35] for farmers market festivals and
[49:37] reimagining Gateway Shopping Center. So
[49:40] um Melissa, any thoughts? You guys see
[49:43] you're sort of the lead on this?
[49:46] » Do you want me to discuss first and then
[49:49] we can watch the presentations or
[49:51] » Uh what do you think? Um I I think I
[49:54] should uh discuss first and then we get
[49:57] the information and then we can discuss
[49:59] as a body.
[50:00] » Okay. Go ahead.
[50:01] » Okay. So since we're running behind,
[50:03] I'll try to get through this quickly. Um
[50:06] » We're only a couple minutes. There's no
[50:07] big hurry.
[50:08] » Okay. Um I brought this uh to the
[50:11] retreat because I think uh today I just
[50:15] want to think about alignment with our
[50:18] uh downtown core. I know that's
[50:20] something that we're all uh very
[50:21] interested in making sure that that's
[50:23] successful. And so uh the goal for
[50:26] [clears throat] today for me is just to
[50:27] define what our downtown core success
[50:30] looks like. Uh you know what kind of
[50:32] downtown are we building? And so uh a
[50:36] couple of the mandates that we have to
[50:38] consider and acknowledge is uh the
[50:42] growth management act. So we are
[50:45] required to plan for the population and
[50:47] the growth there and then also the
[50:50] transitoriented development
[50:53] uh which is the TOD
[50:55] uh with the light rail. And so we are
[50:57] expected to accommodate for increased
[50:59] housing in that area. And I know that we
[51:02] just had a uh announcement made publicly
[51:06] that uh lot one and lot two uh will be
[51:10] uh awarded to or was awarded to MSC to
[51:14] build a lot of housing. And so the
[51:15] community is talking a lot about that.
[51:17] Um
[51:19] and uh so I think our responsibility
[51:23] with those mandates is just to maintain
[51:26] a strong tax base and then also just to
[51:28] make sure we're supporting our local
[51:30] businesses. uh in uh conjunction with
[51:33] the housing that we're required to have.
[51:36] And so uh today I just want to talk
[51:39] about you know our downtown vision and
[51:40] and uh having a mixeduse downtown core
[51:45] uh housing, retail, dining. One thing
[51:47] that Federal Way is known for that uh I
[51:50] talked to a lot of people about is our
[51:52] restaurants. We're kind of known as as
[51:55] as an ethnic uh restaurant uh community
[51:58] and people travel here to visit our
[52:01] restaurants. So, uh maybe we could talk
[52:03] about that a little more. Maybe like a
[52:05] restaurant week idea. Um and then let's
[52:09] see. Let's see. Uh I I want to
[52:11] acknowledge some of the some of the
[52:13] successes that we've already had. We're
[52:15] not starting from zero with our downtown
[52:17] core. We have our performing arts
[52:19] center. We have our Town Square Park. uh
[52:22] we have the stairs connecting the pack
[52:24] to the park. So we have kind of the
[52:26] basic building blocks. It's just you
[52:28] know we need to build on that momentum
[52:31] that's already been started and thank
[52:33] you mayor for having a huge role in
[52:35] that. Uh so today staff is going to give
[52:38] four presentations.
[52:40] Uh speaking about you know council
[52:42] members talking too long. I feel like
[52:44] I'm talking too long right now, but uh I
[52:46] just want to, you know, think about the
[52:48] vision that we have for a downtown core,
[52:51] you know, as we're listening to these
[52:52] presentations. And then also what's
[52:55] interesting uh to to think about is uh
[52:58] there is um a house bill,
[53:01] it's 6026 that we discussed at city
[53:05] action days with our legislators and uh
[53:09] as a city I I believe we're opposed to
[53:11] it. Can I say that? Okay. We're opposed
[53:13] to what what is that
[53:14] » The the bill that um would eliminate
[53:19] city's requirement to have first floor
[53:22] retail.
[53:22] » Right.
[53:23] » So to me that that's a concern uh that
[53:27] we need to think about because I I I
[53:29] believe we want to maintain the ability
[53:31] to require first floor retail to make
[53:34] sure that our downtown core is uh
[53:37] successful. So, with that, I believe
[53:40] I've set it up and we can move on with
[53:44] the presentations.
[53:46] » Should we have EJ go and then and then
[53:48] we'll kind of go from there, you guys?
[53:49] Okay. All right. EJ.
[53:51] » So, good morning, council president,
[53:53] mayor, members of council. Um, to
[53:55] Melissa's point, I was asked to do kind
[53:56] of a short presentation to tee this up
[53:58] for council conversation. So,
[54:01] with that, um, first thing I do is
[54:05] figure out how to use this clicker to
[54:06] make it actually go forward.
[54:10] Thomas knows
[54:11] » I'm pushing buttons. It's not doing
[54:13] anything.
[54:22] » Um so what is multi multimodal
[54:26] transportation? So at a core level it's
[54:28] a strategy to accommodate and balance
[54:30] motorized, non-motorized and public
[54:32] transportation. And really what we're
[54:34] trying to do is create a system that
[54:36] everybody can use across all of the
[54:38] different modes that people are using
[54:40] every day and that it treats everyone
[54:43] equally that you know you can move no
[54:45] matter what mode of transit you're using
[54:50] then. So why do we want this? So there's
[54:53] two reasons. One, you know, no one likes
[54:55] sitting in traffic. That's kind of one
[54:57] very obvious reason. But the the big
[55:00] reason is we're trying to create
[55:01] reliable and predictable travel times
[55:03] for all system users. So that looks like
[55:06] everyone who's a you know single
[55:07] occupancy vehicle or SOV trying to get
[55:10] to their job. It also looks like someone
[55:12] on a bus and making sure the buses are
[55:14] running on time. It plays into
[55:17] microtransit. It also plays into people
[55:19] that are walking or or riding their uh
[55:22] bike. So, we're trying to create this
[55:24] layered approach that treats everyone um
[55:28] as a primary user and allows everyone to
[55:31] get both where they're trying to go and
[55:32] to in in a reasonable amount of time.
[55:35] Where this gets complicated is in in
[55:38] core concept, this looks like multiple
[55:40] layers. So, you know, at a very basic
[55:42] transportation planning perspective, you
[55:45] would think about this as I I live in my
[55:47] neighborhood. Now, your neighborhood may
[55:48] be an apartment building. It may be, you
[55:50] know, single family housing, but you
[55:52] walk out of your house and you get to a
[55:56] larger road. That larger road may have a
[55:58] bus stop on it. It may be a use for your
[56:01] car that goes out to the next larger
[56:03] road, which might be the highway. It
[56:04] might be the transit center. Um, and
[56:06] then from there, you're going into more
[56:08] of a long distance travel to go to the
[56:10] airport, to go to Seattle, to go
[56:12] wherever you want to go from there. But
[56:14] you you have that stepped approach.
[56:17] It's a super easy concept. When you
[56:19] start overlaying it across the entire
[56:21] city and you look at where housing is,
[56:23] where jobs are, all of a sudden where
[56:25] where I need to walk out of my home,
[56:29] you're in an arterial location trying to
[56:32] get that long distance travel. So that's
[56:34] the that's the challenge with multimodal
[56:36] transportation at at a macro level.
[56:39] So dumb
[56:42] within I died a bunch of times within uh
[56:45] federal way we have a number of
[56:47] different ways that we use it. So we
[56:49] have cars both single occupancy and and
[56:51] high occupancy or HOV. Uh we have
[56:54] trucks. So trucks are typically business
[56:57] delivery and freight. So we have them
[56:58] both moving through the city along PAC
[57:00] highway. We also have them intending to
[57:02] go to businesses whether it's a
[57:03] restaurant delivery or something else.
[57:05] Transit. So we have
[57:09] basically four different operating
[57:10] systems within the city. So King County
[57:12] Metro is the largest. Pierce Transit's
[57:14] the second. Sound Transit, which runs
[57:16] both buses and the light rail. And then
[57:18] the last one, I labeled it as
[57:20] Metrotransit Connect, but we can
[57:22] consider this microtransit. So this is
[57:25] everything from like the Hide Shuttle
[57:26] that's operated by Metro um to dial a
[57:30] ride that's operated by a combination of
[57:32] Metro and Sound Transit. Um things like
[57:35] Uber or Lyft would also fall into that
[57:37] category. We have light rail which is
[57:39] independent of our transportation system
[57:41] but you know and new but it's it's being
[57:45] used and then we have peds and bikes.
[57:48] So we also have three different types of
[57:51] capacities within the city. We have road
[57:53] capacity, user access capacity and
[57:55] service capacity. So within the
[57:58] conversation and the confines of
[57:59] multimodal
[58:01] networks, we have to figure out which
[58:04] capacities we're we want to talk about.
[58:06] We have the ability as a city to control
[58:08] two of the three of these. Um we don't
[58:10] operate for King County Metro. We are
[58:13] not Sound Transit. So we within the
[58:15] service capacity side of it, we don't as
[58:18] a city necessarily have the authority to
[58:20] tell Metro they have to add bus routes
[58:22] or that they need to run buses more
[58:23] frequently. We can certainly request
[58:25] that. Um, but they're their own
[58:27] government agency and you know the we
[58:29] want five minute headways for the bus
[58:31] versus eight minute headways that's
[58:32] that's really their call not ours. Where
[58:35] we do have influence is that those first
[58:37] two road capacity and user access
[58:40] capacity. So road capacity um looks like
[58:43] a number of different things. Looks like
[58:46] in the traditional sense how many lanes
[58:48] are on the road to move vehicles but it
[58:50] also looks at that network. And if we
[58:52] think of the network like a tree, we
[58:54] think that, you know, we start backwards
[58:57] from the tree. We start at the top of
[58:59] the tree and we're, you know, coming out
[59:00] of our house, we're kind of those the
[59:02] leaves or needles and then you're moving
[59:04] into the small branches. Small branches
[59:06] grow into the bigger branches. The
[59:07] bigger branches grow into the trunk.
[59:09] That's what road capacity looks like,
[59:10] too. So, within that tree, we can go in
[59:13] and selectively target what roads we
[59:15] want to increase or decrease capacity to
[59:17] influence the system. Um, and we we may
[59:20] want to do both depending on what we're
[59:22] specifically talking about to allow for
[59:26] more walkable downtown but also to
[59:28] increase traffic somewhere else. User
[59:31] access capacity. So this um in a very
[59:35] traditional thing sense this is things
[59:37] like bus stops. This is things like
[59:39] where are safe crossings of streets?
[59:41] Where where do people park? Um so
[59:43] whether that's on street or private
[59:45] parking. Um, so that is another area
[59:47] that is within the city's jurisdiction
[59:49] and control. And then service capacity,
[59:51] like I mentioned, that's the one that's
[59:52] outside of our control.
[59:55] So within, so that's kind of the macro
[59:58] level tea up conversation. So we're all
[1:00:02] uh speaking with the same language.
[1:00:05] We've been working on the city center
[1:00:06] access project for um a long time.
[1:00:10] You'll see the timeline on the next
[1:00:11] slide. Um, but at a at a core level,
[1:00:14] what the city center access project is
[1:00:17] is working to address those two
[1:00:19] capacities that we just talked about
[1:00:21] that the city does have influence over.
[1:00:24] So, city center access recognizes that
[1:00:26] both the road and user access capacities
[1:00:28] are limited in the downtown. And what
[1:00:30] the project does is try to figure out
[1:00:33] how in the future the city can serve the
[1:00:36] entire community. Um, you know, I some
[1:00:40] of the outreach that we've done when we
[1:00:42] go and we talk about city center access,
[1:00:44] the public connotation is that this is
[1:00:47] purely about how do we get people in and
[1:00:49] out of the downtown core. And that is
[1:00:51] absolutely a key element of it, but
[1:00:53] that's only half the project. So, the
[1:00:55] other half of the project is we know
[1:00:57] that depending on which set of data
[1:00:59] you're looking at, between 70 and 80% of
[1:01:01] the trips that come off of I5 and 320th
[1:01:04] are not trying to get to the downtown
[1:01:05] core. nor in the 2040 2050
[1:01:08] traffic projections are they trying to
[1:01:10] that's not going to change. There are
[1:01:12] people that are trying to get to their
[1:01:13] home on the west side of downtown. There
[1:01:16] people that are trying to get across
[1:01:17] military to go east towards Auburn to
[1:01:20] where their h homes are. That's not
[1:01:22] going to change. We're not eliminating
[1:01:24] housing on the west side of the
[1:01:25] downtown. So the other half of the city
[1:01:28] center access project is not just the
[1:01:30] people that are trying to get to the
[1:01:31] downtown. It's the people that are using
[1:01:33] the highway and using our arterials
[1:01:35] getting them through the downtown
[1:01:37] efficiently to get where they're trying
[1:01:38] to go.
[1:01:40] So the other major goal of city center
[1:01:44] access and where the our tie to the
[1:01:46] federal government is on this project is
[1:01:49] we are seeing on 320th ramp system um
[1:01:54] mainline backups. And what that means is
[1:01:56] it means at peak rush hour traffic is
[1:01:59] literally stopped on I-5 with people
[1:02:01] waiting to get onto the especially the
[1:02:03] southbound I5 ramp to get on to 320th.
[1:02:06] There's a lot of safety problems with
[1:02:07] that. Um you know that's it's a state
[1:02:10] highway. It's a federal highway. Um it's
[1:02:13] not sustainable for traffic on I5 and
[1:02:15] frankly it's where people all of a
[1:02:17] sudden don't want to get off at 320th.
[1:02:19] So, you know, if they're if we're talk
[1:02:21] if we're back to talking about how do we
[1:02:22] get people into the downtown and they
[1:02:24] can't get off the highway to get there,
[1:02:25] they're going to keep driving. So,
[1:02:28] that's kind of the last piece of this is
[1:02:30] is creating a safe network.
[1:02:33] So, that's a lot for one project to
[1:02:35] tackle. Um so, at a at a very high
[1:02:39] level, um the city center access is a
[1:02:41] phased um right now we're showing it as
[1:02:43] nine phases project to spread out trips
[1:02:46] to a larger geographic area. Um, again,
[1:02:50] that larger geographic area, I guess I I
[1:02:52] glossed over the second bullet on that,
[1:02:54] is it's not realistic to keep adding
[1:02:56] lanes to 320th. Um, you know, there's
[1:02:59] there's a max number that we can we can
[1:03:03] add where it begins to turn into
[1:03:04] diminishing returns. Um, just adding
[1:03:07] more lanes doesn't keep adding capacity.
[1:03:09] So, we we need to spread the traffic
[1:03:11] out. Um, and this is both people trying
[1:03:13] to get into the downtown as well as
[1:03:15] through the downtown. And that's where
[1:03:17] this project comes in.
[1:03:20] So the background of this project. So we
[1:03:23] started this project in about as a city
[1:03:25] in about 2000. 2006 was the first city
[1:03:28] center access study and it basically
[1:03:31] looked at three sets of options for how
[1:03:34] do we get traffic off of 320th? Um and
[1:03:38] the two that kind of rose to the top
[1:03:40] were either 312th or 324th. There was a
[1:03:42] third option that fell off. um and
[1:03:46] somehow spread out traffic that's
[1:03:48] getting to 320th. In 2009, the city
[1:03:51] council deferred action and the project
[1:03:53] was shelved. 2017, we were um instructed
[1:03:56] to re reinitiate this project and bring
[1:03:59] it back. Um so we we redid a lot of the
[1:04:02] work that was outdated at that point,
[1:04:03] updated traffic numbers, redid traffic
[1:04:05] counts, um reached out to the community
[1:04:08] again. You know, there was a lot of
[1:04:09] change in both business ownership as
[1:04:10] well as just people in the city. So we
[1:04:13] we used the original data but we kind of
[1:04:15] started over. Um again the same two
[1:04:18] options 312 and 324th kind of rose to
[1:04:20] the top. We went through a whole bunch
[1:04:23] of analysis in 2019. The city council
[1:04:25] selected the preferred alternative which
[1:04:27] was the 324th additional access and
[1:04:30] there I think the next slide has a map
[1:04:32] on it. Um go ahead.
[1:04:36] So at a high level this is what the
[1:04:38] project looks like. Um so you're seeing
[1:04:40] it broken into a couple of phases. Each
[1:04:42] one of these phases also has subphases.
[1:04:45] What you're seeing the red dots are the
[1:04:47] existing what we call gore points u
[1:04:50] which is the exit to the highway on I5
[1:04:53] today. We're not changing any of them.
[1:04:55] So, we're not there's not going to be a
[1:04:57] new exit ramp location from I5, but what
[1:05:00] you're going to have is a braided
[1:05:01] interchange, which if you're familiar,
[1:05:04] the closest local example is on a 405,
[1:05:08] 4th, and 8th Avenue in Belleview. So, it
[1:05:11] is one exit that when you get on the
[1:05:13] exit splits between two roads. So,
[1:05:15] you'll have a choice to take either
[1:05:16] 320th or 324th. So, ramp over 320th,
[1:05:21] keep going, and then get on to 324th.
[1:05:24] The
[1:05:27] project also has, you know, all four
[1:05:29] legs have configurations,
[1:05:31] but we can't just dump people on 32 24th
[1:05:34] as it sits today and expect capacity to
[1:05:36] magically increase from there. So, the
[1:05:39] project keeps going into the city center
[1:05:41] and expands capacity on 324th. Um, a
[1:05:45] future phase connects it going eastbound
[1:05:47] both on 320th and on 324th to Warehouser
[1:05:51] and down towards Military. And then
[1:05:54] there's additional local improvements
[1:05:55] that are shown at intersections and
[1:05:58] traffic. And the and the goal like we
[1:06:00] started with is really to get to that
[1:06:01] balanced approach that we're addressing
[1:06:03] all needs. So we've been working with
[1:06:05] King County Metro and Pierce Transit
[1:06:06] specifically. We've been working with
[1:06:07] Sound Transit for a very long time on
[1:06:10] what does this do to the bus routes. And
[1:06:13] one of the things it does is it allows
[1:06:14] increased efficiencies and it allows
[1:06:17] decreased headways because you have more
[1:06:18] choices.
[1:06:20] So this also does address mainline
[1:06:22] backups on I5 which is the federal
[1:06:25] connection again and um it increases
[1:06:29] both locally and regionally access to
[1:06:31] the transportation network and that
[1:06:33] means a range of things that means buses
[1:06:35] it means transit it means microtransit
[1:06:37] and also means single occupancy
[1:06:38] vehicles.
[1:06:43] So the first phase that you're going to
[1:06:44] see constructed starting in 2027 is
[1:06:48] related to Sound Transit's early work.
[1:06:51] So there's a cascade of dominoes that
[1:06:53] happens here. Um but to get the light
[1:06:57] rail in the light rail which is the red
[1:06:59] line on your screen in front of you and
[1:07:01] the extension for their next project to
[1:07:03] the operations facility, their
[1:07:06] operations facility needs to go through
[1:07:08] where the existing BPA tower is today.
[1:07:11] The BPA tower and the train can't
[1:07:13] obviously be in the same space. To
[1:07:15] relocate the BPA tower, the BPA tower is
[1:07:18] those black boxes. Those are the stars.
[1:07:20] Those are the new towers. The new tower
[1:07:23] needs to be located where 324th is
[1:07:26] today. This is further confined by
[1:07:29] what's not shown on the plan to the west
[1:07:30] of the new tower that's in 324th is
[1:07:33] there's two 60-inch water lines that
[1:07:35] serve all of Tacoma. It's the primary
[1:07:37] water that goes into Tacoma for the
[1:07:39] entire city.
[1:07:41] On the east side of the project is the
[1:07:43] Olympic pipeline that supplies all of
[1:07:46] the jet fuel to SeaTac airport.
[1:07:49] None of the none of the three of those,
[1:07:52] the two water pipelines or the Olympic
[1:07:54] pipeline can readily be moved. Um that's
[1:07:56] a that's a huge undertaking to literally
[1:07:58] turn off the water to to Tacoma.
[1:08:01] So um obviously if you're going to put a
[1:08:04] tower in the the train can't go where
[1:08:06] the tower is, the tower can't go where
[1:08:08] the road is. So the road needs to move.
[1:08:11] So what you're going to see starting in
[1:08:13] 2027 is phase one of the city center
[1:08:16] access project that's being constructed
[1:08:18] jointly by BPA Sound Transit in the city
[1:08:21] to first relocate the towers. So 324th
[1:08:24] will be shut down for about a year and a
[1:08:26] half. Um relocate the towers, take down
[1:08:29] the existing towers, then build the
[1:08:31] roundabout that's on the screen in front
[1:08:33] of you. and some of the improvements
[1:08:36] going both towards the um traffic signal
[1:08:39] by target as well as 324th going to the
[1:08:41] west. Once that's done, then Sound
[1:08:44] Transit can start building their light
[1:08:45] rail. So, this is this is effectively
[1:08:48] the first phase of that project. Um and
[1:08:51] then phase two will be the city's
[1:08:54] project, which we're working on rightway
[1:08:57] acquisition for right now, is 324 going
[1:09:00] west towards Pack Highway. Um that's the
[1:09:03] project specifically when we talk about
[1:09:05] the legislature ask and the legislative
[1:09:08] agenda that's very specifically what
[1:09:10] we're talking about is the construction
[1:09:11] funding for that 324 flag.
[1:09:15] So the current tasks is we have received
[1:09:18] uh NEPA which is the national
[1:09:20] environmental policy act from the
[1:09:21] federal highways. We've also received
[1:09:23] our our um what's called JR or
[1:09:25] interchange justification report which
[1:09:27] is through um federal highway
[1:09:30] administration. So all of that was
[1:09:32] approved this fall which is the first
[1:09:34] big milestone. Basically that is
[1:09:36] concurrence from the feds as well as the
[1:09:38] state as well as the city that we have a
[1:09:40] viable project and that we've gone
[1:09:42] through the planning phases sufficiently
[1:09:45] to prove that the project works and it's
[1:09:47] an advisable project. So that work is
[1:09:50] done. Um the state environmental policy
[1:09:53] act is it's a follow-on task to the
[1:09:55] national environmental policy act um but
[1:09:58] relies on a lot of that data that was
[1:10:00] already done and approved. So that is
[1:10:02] currently in process.
[1:10:04] The hydraulic project approval. So
[1:10:06] there's some existing culverts under I5
[1:10:08] that are non-compliant with state um
[1:10:11] regulations as far as fist patches that
[1:10:13] this project is triggering upgrading um
[1:10:16] as well as a culvert through the
[1:10:17] existing park and ride. So, the HPA we
[1:10:21] are working through with the Army Corps
[1:10:23] right now. That's another federal permit
[1:10:24] that this project needs. Um, and that we
[1:10:27] have preliminary concurrence on, but
[1:10:29] we're we're working through the final
[1:10:30] steps on that, too.
[1:10:32] And then the BPA trail, which is the
[1:10:35] last piece of this. So outside of the
[1:10:37] city center access is technically a
[1:10:39] standalone project, but we um within the
[1:10:42] comp plan within the transportation plan
[1:10:44] where the BPA trail ends kind of near
[1:10:47] Celebration Park today. It is intended
[1:10:50] to continue along 324th, cross over the
[1:10:52] new ramp at 324th, go out to warehouser,
[1:10:56] kind of hang a left, go northbound, go
[1:10:58] up near the existing fire department,
[1:11:01] and then continue along the BPA trail
[1:11:03] and connect into the regional trail
[1:11:04] network. So eventually you'll be able to
[1:11:06] walk on the BPA trail from where it ends
[1:11:08] today all the way to Auburn and keep
[1:11:10] going on it. And the long range King
[1:11:12] County plan is you'll actually be able
[1:11:13] to connect through the BPA trail system
[1:11:15] that goes [clears throat] up through
[1:11:16] Reton, Cascade, Fairwood, Newcastle, and
[1:11:19] you'll it'll be an actual regional trail
[1:11:20] you can keep going on. Um so we are in
[1:11:24] design and writeway acquisition for that
[1:11:26] first piece that goes all the way down
[1:11:28] through um 324th to uh I5.
[1:11:36] So timelines um I've kind of talked
[1:11:38] through this as we were um going through
[1:11:40] the presentation but we are in the 24 to
[1:11:43] 27 section working on rightway
[1:11:45] acquisition early work which is the
[1:11:47] Sound Transit um BPA city center um
[1:11:51] roundabout is scheduled for 2728 phase
[1:11:54] one construction which is the original
[1:11:57] name but that's the 324th to pack
[1:11:59] highway section um is intended currently
[1:12:03] as soon as 2028 to start construction.
[1:12:07] Next slide. And this is just a little
[1:12:08] bit more detail on that environmental
[1:12:10] permitting. Um that is what I talked
[1:12:13] through, but the NEPA seifca
[1:12:21] is under on the top part of that.
[1:12:24] And with that, I will turn it over to
[1:12:26] the mayor and council for conversation.
[1:12:28] » Um councelor Hamilton, any followup uh
[1:12:31] comments, questions? Yeah, I had just a
[1:12:33] couple of comments and questions. Uh, so
[1:12:36] the reason why I brought this up is
[1:12:37] because, uh, like you said, when our
[1:12:42] freeway is backed up at 320th, people
[1:12:44] aren't going to want to stop and come to
[1:12:47] Federal Way. And our Chamber of Commerce
[1:12:50] says this all the time that
[1:12:52] transportation, a good transportation
[1:12:54] system, is the wheels of commerce. So,
[1:12:57] if we don't have good transportation,
[1:12:59] it's going to affect our our commerce,
[1:13:02] our our economy. Um,
[1:13:06] so you said that phase two is the city's
[1:13:08] projects and that's where our
[1:13:10] legislative agenda comes in. Um, I'm
[1:13:13] curious, it doesn't look like we've
[1:13:16] gotten recent um public works assistant
[1:13:21] account investments.
[1:13:23] Can you talk about that?
[1:13:25] Yeah. So, the public works investment
[1:13:27] account is a is a loan program. Um, and
[1:13:29] you're right, we have not tapped into
[1:13:31] that. Um, we
[1:13:34] this project there's phases of it that
[1:13:36] might qualify for it. Um, typically
[1:13:38] that's used more for like fish culver um
[1:13:41] building sidewalks um slightly smaller
[1:13:44] projects. Um, but you're you're right,
[1:13:46] that's not a funding source we've looked
[1:13:48] at recently, namely because it's a loan,
[1:13:50] not a grant. Um, so we typically target
[1:13:53] grant funding opportunities. Um, it 100%
[1:13:56] is available to us if that's the the way
[1:13:58] we want to go. Um, but it is a a
[1:14:01] lowinterest loan. Um, when we've looked
[1:14:03] at it before, uh, we have
[1:14:08] sufficient reserves that an interfund
[1:14:10] loan is a cheaper option for us um, as
[1:14:13] far as repayment. Um but an inter fund
[1:14:15] loan typically has to be paid back in
[1:14:17] three years and the public works
[1:14:18] assistance fund is typically either five
[1:14:20] or 10 depending on the project. So
[1:14:22] there's absolutely advantages. Um but
[1:14:24] that's that is a vi very viable funding
[1:14:26] source.
[1:14:28] » Okay. Thank you. And then um I guess the
[1:14:30] good news is that uh Governor Ferguson
[1:14:32] has put a lot of money towards
[1:14:34] transportation in particular with
[1:14:36] bridges, fairies and culverts. Y
[1:14:39] » So maybe we can get some of that.
[1:14:42] Susan,
[1:14:44] » Thank you.
[1:14:47] So,
[1:14:48] talking about 320th and how 320 20th
[1:14:51] functions uh with the new uh transit
[1:14:56] station, Metro has the two bus stops on
[1:14:58] 320th and I've talked with Metro about
[1:15:01] that several times. I've also watched at
[1:15:04] least two accidents happen on um the one
[1:15:08] on the side of the commons and I think
[1:15:11] it's people just rushing across trying
[1:15:13] to get to the train and not going to
[1:15:14] this to the crosswalk. Um
[1:15:19] the metro folks have told me they're
[1:15:21] going to monitor it, but that um and if
[1:15:23] it becomes dangerous, you know, might
[1:15:25] try to move those bus stops. Does the
[1:15:27] city have a position on that? Because it
[1:15:29] it backs up traffic. When the the buses
[1:15:32] come, they come frequently because it's
[1:15:33] the red uh or the A-ine.
[1:15:35] » It's a line. Yeah.
[1:15:36] » And um
[1:15:38] » And then it's the uh the one that's
[1:15:41] going up to um Auburn and Green River.
[1:15:45] » Correct.
[1:15:45] » And uh standing on the corner there this
[1:15:48] summer and fall. I I mean I think it's
[1:15:51] dangerous. I think those bus stops are
[1:15:53] dangerous.
[1:15:56] » Yeah, there's there's a lot to unpack in
[1:15:57] that. Um,
[1:15:59] I am not aware of any accidents related
[1:16:01] to the bus stops. Not saying they're not
[1:16:03] there, just they were not brought to my
[1:16:05] attention. We can certainly look into
[1:16:06] that. Um, we as a city did ask that
[1:16:09] those bus stops be in the transit
[1:16:11] center. Um, and Metro
[1:16:15] did not want that because of the headway
[1:16:16] times and the amount of time it would
[1:16:18] take to circulate through the transit
[1:16:19] center and come back out versus keeping
[1:16:21] them on street. So, what you heard from
[1:16:25] Metro is pretty much what they told us
[1:16:27] is they they can put them on 3 or on
[1:16:33] what's that 23rd right there. Um, they
[1:16:35] can put them there. Like that's
[1:16:36] permissible. You know, we don't
[1:16:38] necessarily have a way to tell them you
[1:16:39] can't have a bus stop there and that
[1:16:41] they wanted that was their preferred
[1:16:43] location and if it continued to be a
[1:16:45] problem, they would circle circle back
[1:16:47] with us and re-evaluate that. Um, but we
[1:16:50] we did ask to your point that they be in
[1:16:51] the transit center was our initial
[1:16:53] request and
[1:16:55] they're not there.
[1:16:56] » Well, I think we should be monitoring
[1:16:58] that. I I think it's a safety issue.
[1:17:00] » Sure.
[1:17:00] » Um, people don't maybe people don't
[1:17:03] understand the train comes and goes
[1:17:05] quite frequently, but if they see it
[1:17:06] coming and they're getting off the bus
[1:17:08] there, they're rush I've seen it happen.
[1:17:12] » So,
[1:17:12] » Yeah, I I completely believe you. I just
[1:17:14] I don't have accident reports that were
[1:17:17] shown to me related to it, but I yes,
[1:17:20] you're you're 100% right. You're raising
[1:17:21] all the same concerns we raised with
[1:17:22] Metro.
[1:17:23] » And then my second question, these
[1:17:25] slides aren't numbered, but it's it's a
[1:17:27] slide that says city center access BPA
[1:17:29] Sound Transit City Coordination, and it
[1:17:31] shows
[1:17:33] um the the black wiggly line that goes
[1:17:36] that's our project.
[1:17:41] is that
[1:17:44] » It's a next to the last slide.
[1:17:46] » I got to phone a friend to help me
[1:17:47] change the slides here.
[1:17:55] » That one. So the the black line that um
[1:17:59] is our project is that in the current
[1:18:02] park and roid
[1:18:04] » The squiggly line is the culvert
[1:18:06] replacement. So that is that is the
[1:18:08] existing culvert that's doesn't meet
[1:18:10] fist patch. requirements that needs to
[1:18:12] be upgraded as part of this project.
[1:18:14] » So, the the um
[1:18:14] » And yes, it is in the existing parking
[1:18:16] ramp,
[1:18:16] » But it's it's not going to take parking
[1:18:18] away.
[1:18:19] » It is going to take parking away.
[1:18:21] » Um because I've been told that this is
[1:18:26] the backup parking for uh light rail.
[1:18:28] And
[1:18:30] so, how many spots will it take away?
[1:18:32] » Um it's not fully designed yet, so I
[1:18:34] don't have a hard answer for that. It we
[1:18:37] have been talking So, this park and ride
[1:18:39] is actually owned by
[1:18:39] » Washtop. Um it is in two of these
[1:18:42] sections that are currently closed that
[1:18:44] have not operated since about 2016. Um
[1:18:47] washd is amendable to open channeling
[1:18:50] this and removing all of the parking and
[1:18:52] but that is a ongoing conversation that
[1:18:55] frankly is probably two or three years
[1:18:57] away.
[1:18:59] Well, as we have more and more people
[1:19:00] using light rail and transit, which is
[1:19:02] the goal, um,
[1:19:07] it's very likely we're going to need
[1:19:08] that parking
[1:19:10] » Potentially. Like I said, this is a a
[1:19:12] conversation that hasn't really occurred
[1:19:14] yet. Um, so the covert has to be
[1:19:16] replaced under state law as part of this
[1:19:18] project. So, what that looks like,
[1:19:20] whether that remains underground or is
[1:19:23] uh daylighted, which is the state's
[1:19:24] preference, is something we'll need to
[1:19:26] work through. That's part of the HBA
[1:19:28] process that we're we're not that far
[1:19:30] down the project yet to have
[1:19:31] » Okay.
[1:19:32] » To have the answers you're looking for.
[1:19:33] » Okay. Thank you.
[1:19:35] » Okay. Any other questions for EJ?
[1:19:38] » Yeah. Martin, would you like to turn my
[1:19:40] mic off?
[1:19:41] » Okay. All right. Uh, thank you, Mayor.
[1:19:44] Um uh I I uh first of all I appreciate
[1:19:47] Council Member Hamilton bringing this
[1:19:49] forth as a conversation because I think
[1:19:52] it's it's a dynamic and huge uh weight
[1:19:56] uh on our downtown and it's a
[1:19:59] conversation that we need to constantly
[1:20:00] have quite frankly. Uh so thank you
[1:20:02] council member. Um that being said um I
[1:20:06] caught some key words here that caught
[1:20:08] my attention. um and that's um 324th and
[1:20:12] correct me if I'm wrong uh it would be
[1:20:16] uh shut off for a period of time during
[1:20:19] construction which makes sense. Um and
[1:20:21] did I hear you say 2027?
[1:20:24] » Yes, that's when BPA is telling us that
[1:20:27] they're going to build.
[1:20:28] » Okay. And so obviously I mean I'm
[1:20:30] stating the obvious. There's going to be
[1:20:32] plenty of public notice on that and it's
[1:20:36] an obvious statement. I mean really.
[1:20:38] » Yes. And we've so we've been working
[1:20:39] with Belmore for years at this point.
[1:20:42] The Commons Mall is also very heavily
[1:20:45] involved in this. Um and we've you know
[1:20:48] if you go to the the website that's on
[1:20:50] the screen and any of the outreach
[1:20:52] events that is one of the first topics
[1:20:54] we bring up. Um 324th is a little bit
[1:20:58] unique that um compared to every other
[1:21:02] almost every other road in the city in
[1:21:04] that we actually have an easement from
[1:21:06] BPA for 324th from Pack Highway going
[1:21:09] eastbound to the park and ride. It's not
[1:21:12] actually right away.
[1:21:13] » So it's it's BPA's property that we have
[1:21:16] an easement for the road on. So in
[1:21:19] short,
[1:21:20] we don't necessarily have authority to
[1:21:22] tell them they have to keep it open
[1:21:23] because it's their property. So um it's
[1:21:27] a it's an interesting dynamic that
[1:21:29] section of road um because there's
[1:21:30] multiple jurisdictions that have
[1:21:32] authority on it
[1:21:34] » And you obviously Belmore like you just
[1:21:36] stated is going to be heavily impacted
[1:21:38] » Correct
[1:21:39] » Quite a bit. I know there's been ongoing
[1:21:42] discussions and there's agreements that
[1:21:44] they've been aware of and but
[1:21:47] » So their access will be
[1:21:50] » Um
[1:21:52] impacted the there's no property takes
[1:21:54] as a result of this project so the
[1:21:56] property takes are from Sound Transit.
[1:21:58] » Yes. Um,
[1:21:59] » Yes.
[1:21:59] » But the
[1:22:00] » But yes, their access will be
[1:22:02] » Yeah. And the lens I was saying that
[1:22:04] through was the big picture.
[1:22:06] » Uh that they're they're going to be
[1:22:07] heavily impacted by this uh with the big
[1:22:11] picture and of course that's on my mind
[1:22:12] because we're talking about people uh
[1:22:14] that are going to be impacted. So, uh, I
[1:22:17] think and the other clarification I I
[1:22:18] wanted was, um, uh, Council Member
[1:22:21] Hamilton, you mentioned that Governor
[1:22:22] Ferguson's is putting in a lot more
[1:22:24] funding for bridges and constructions
[1:22:26] and whatnot. Um, and that that and maybe
[1:22:30] EJ too, but that would be new uh that
[1:22:33] would be existing bridges. Uh, would
[1:22:36] that be right or is that just existing
[1:22:38] and new
[1:22:39] » Maintenance and preservation?
[1:22:40] » Maintenance
[1:22:41] » Is what he's focused on. But he did
[1:22:43] mention that the transportation budget
[1:22:45] is healthy. It's the operating budget
[1:22:47] that has the deficit.
[1:22:48] » I just wonder if it's going to cover
[1:22:50] Yeah, I I appreciate that. Um because
[1:22:52] I'm wondering if that's going to cover
[1:22:54] new projects, new constructions. Now,
[1:22:57] actually, you'd be actually one of the
[1:22:59] things that we found at AWC when we were
[1:23:01] there for city action days
[1:23:03] » When we heard from the governor is that
[1:23:05] there are nearly I think there was 281
[1:23:07] almost three nearly 300 bridges that are
[1:23:11] in dire need of repair throughout the
[1:23:14] state um that fall below objective
[1:23:17] standards of of safety. And so that's
[1:23:21] that's the the key factor. That's a huge
[1:23:24] deal in regard to infrastructure
[1:23:26] improvements. So,
[1:23:27] » And that and that's what I um
[1:23:30] I I asked that with my my perspective
[1:23:34] was was to rebuild uh and make sure that
[1:23:37] all of our bridges are safe because of
[1:23:39] what was just stated. I wasn't sure if
[1:23:41] that covered new projects that that we
[1:23:44] have that we just heard about here or
[1:23:45] not, but it's still worth a a revisit,
[1:23:48] relook uh strategize uh with everybody
[1:23:51] to see if there's a little nugget in
[1:23:53] that budget that we can get. So, I'm not
[1:23:56] saying we shut the door, but I just want
[1:23:57] to kind of get get clarity on on that.
[1:23:59] So,
[1:24:02] all right. Um All right. Any other
[1:24:04] questions for EJ? Hey, council. I've got
[1:24:06] an idea. Would you mind? Um, we've been
[1:24:08] going for about an hour and 20 minutes,
[1:24:11] 25 minutes now. Uh, would it be okay if
[1:24:14] we uh broke for I was going to say five,
[1:24:16] but I think seven's more realistic. Uh,
[1:24:19] everybody okay with breaking for seven
[1:24:21] minutes?
[1:24:23] » Very good. Awesome. So, we're Martin and
[1:24:25] I. All right. So,
[1:24:28] all right. We're in recess for exactly
[1:24:30] seven minutes. I'm starting a timer. So,
[1:24:33] um,
[1:24:35] » My timer is slower than yours.
[1:24:37] » Good grief.
[1:24:37] » Let's use mine.
[1:24:39] » Okay, timer started.
[1:24:44] » Okay, everybody. Uh, let's go ahead and
[1:24:45] get started. We've got Keith Non here
[1:24:47] for development mitigation impact. Um,
[1:24:50] Keith.
[1:24:53] » Uh, good morning everybody. Um, so this
[1:24:56] is my most abstract presentation today,
[1:24:58] so um, bear with me. we'll bump through
[1:25:00] it and we're getting it over first. So,
[1:25:02] I'm I'm happy about all of that. Um, so
[1:25:05] we're going to talk about development um
[1:25:07] broadly and I think we'll then be able
[1:25:09] to focus in I think on what Melissa was
[1:25:12] looking for, which is to talk about
[1:25:14] downtown a little bit. So, there's a an
[1:25:17] equation that developers go through and
[1:25:19] it it really deals with land costs and
[1:25:22] permitting and then there's city costs
[1:25:24] and construction and what they're
[1:25:27] looking for is really um the best
[1:25:30] opportunity um to find a project and put
[1:25:33] it together. And that's that's generally
[1:25:35] true for most developers. Um locally, we
[1:25:38] know there's some exceptions. So, for
[1:25:40] example, Belleview has Keer Freeman who
[1:25:43] um the Freeman Development Company has
[1:25:46] been part of Belleview and responsible
[1:25:49] for a lot of downtown Belleview's
[1:25:51] development over the last 20 years. And
[1:25:53] Isizakiqua has the Rally family which is
[1:25:55] a kind of an equivalent at a smaller
[1:25:58] scale. Um we do not have any family
[1:26:02] business developers that I'm aware of in
[1:26:04] Federal Way. Um and that's that's a
[1:26:06] missing piece. And so what we need to do
[1:26:08] is we need to attract people uh to our
[1:26:11] community to develop here.
[1:26:14] So what I wanted to do was look at kind
[1:26:17] of applesto apples comparison on land
[1:26:19] costs. What we know is that we have a
[1:26:21] piece of property in Federal Way right
[1:26:24] now that's listed for $8 million. Uh if
[1:26:26] you don't know that's the Black Angus.
[1:26:28] Um so if you have $8 million and want to
[1:26:30] buy a restaurant, a steakhouse, um Black
[1:26:32] Angus is for sale. Um, what I wanted to
[1:26:36] do was look at some other cities and
[1:26:38] these are all active listings. So these
[1:26:40] are this is what eight generally $8
[1:26:42] million can get you. It can get you
[1:26:44] about a quarter of an acre in Seattle
[1:26:46] downtown. Um 2729 Second Avenue is
[1:26:49] currently for sale for $8 million. Uh
[1:26:52] 418 Central Avenue in Kent um is for
[1:26:57] sale right now for $7.5 million. It's a
[1:27:00] retail center. And then Lynwood is I and
[1:27:02] I pick Lynwood because Lynwood is in a
[1:27:05] way weirdly kind of a Federal Way
[1:27:08] doppelganger on the north end. They have
[1:27:10] a light rail station. Merlone Guyire has
[1:27:12] a big mall there. There's like you could
[1:27:14] just kind of draw down all the parallels
[1:27:16] between Federal Way and Lynwood. And so
[1:27:18] what you can see here is on a price per
[1:27:20] acre for existing property with with
[1:27:23] something on it, you know, and I'm going
[1:27:25] to exclude Seattle because it's it's its
[1:27:28] own thing. um you know somewhere between
[1:27:31] you know four and $5 million is a good
[1:27:34] price tag to keep in mind if uh if
[1:27:36] somebody was looking to buy a piece of
[1:27:38] property to redevelop for federal way.
[1:27:42] All right, construction costs. So
[1:27:44] construction costs are really talking
[1:27:46] about materials and labor. Um and for
[1:27:48] our region um it's it's equivalent um no
[1:27:53] matter what city you're working in. Um,
[1:27:55] I included the construction cost index
[1:27:58] below just so you all see that um, as
[1:28:01] with everything else in life, uh,
[1:28:03] construction costs have continued to go
[1:28:05] up uh, year after year over time and
[1:28:08] that will continue into the future. I
[1:28:11] have no doubt.
[1:28:13] Um, next is permitting. Um, so
[1:28:16] developers are seeking an optimization
[1:28:18] between flexibility and predictability.
[1:28:21] Right? You talk to developers and and
[1:28:24] hard line is hard for them. They always
[1:28:26] like to well what about this what about
[1:28:27] that but it can't be so discretionary
[1:28:31] that they don't know that they can get
[1:28:32] their project built. Um so I used AI to
[1:28:36] tell me what is permitting like in
[1:28:38] federal way. So what AI says is federal
[1:28:42] waste development permitting is seen as
[1:28:44] complex and sometimes challenging by
[1:28:46] businesses facing issues with code
[1:28:48] compliance, lengthy processes and high
[1:28:51] fees like for land disturbance. Uh
[1:28:54] though the city aims for growth and has
[1:28:56] streamlined some areas like ADUs, it's a
[1:28:59] mix of trying to balance strict codes
[1:29:01] with development needs requiring
[1:29:03] thorough preparation for applications.
[1:29:06] And I read that and I I I first I
[1:29:08] thought, well, this isn't glowing. But
[1:29:09] then I thought, you know what, this is
[1:29:10] actually pretty accurate. Um, so I
[1:29:12] wanted to share it with you because I
[1:29:13] actually think this is fairly true. And
[1:29:15] if you knew nothing about our permitting
[1:29:18] process, you know, there's word of
[1:29:20] mouth, but everybody checks AI at this
[1:29:23] point and asks their questions to Google
[1:29:24] and see what they get. So this is this
[1:29:27] is as good a marketing as we have. And
[1:29:29] if we want to work on this, which I
[1:29:31] think we should, um, it'd be nice to get
[1:29:34] it uh to raise it up a bit. All right,
[1:29:37] critical areas. So the next thing that
[1:29:39] affects development is critical areas.
[1:29:41] So this is our GIS layer. You guys
[1:29:43] probably don't look at this much. Um I
[1:29:45] don't look at this much, but what I
[1:29:47] wanted to show you here is the downtown
[1:29:49] is outlined in blue. You know, uh the
[1:29:52] the Commons Mall is the big boot at the
[1:29:55] bottom. Um and it stretches all the way
[1:29:57] up to Hillside Plaza um at the north
[1:30:00] end. Uh but what you can see here is
[1:30:03] there are no critical areas in our
[1:30:05] downtown. And that's good news for
[1:30:06] development. It means I don't have to
[1:30:08] worry about wetlands. I don't have to
[1:30:09] worry about streams. There's kind of a
[1:30:10] little stream tail that comes out of the
[1:30:13] commons at the south end. Um, and but
[1:30:16] other than that, it's pretty much free
[1:30:18] of critical areas. And so that makes it
[1:30:20] easier for developers to develop. They
[1:30:21] don't have to worry about not being able
[1:30:24] to develop on every square foot of the
[1:30:26] property that they purchase.
[1:30:29] All right. So then city costs. Um, and
[1:30:32] this is kind of the last piece. Um so
[1:30:34] impact fees is the table that I gave you
[1:30:37] on the left and I I didn't do an
[1:30:39] exhaustive comparison but I I compared
[1:30:42] Federal Way with Auburn Tuck Willow
[1:30:43] Redmond is Aquan Shoreline. Um and what
[1:30:46] I can tell you is our impact fees are
[1:30:50] you know kind of in line or lower than
[1:30:53] many of the other cities in King County.
[1:30:56] Um and so as a developer um you know
[1:30:59] back to that development equation at the
[1:31:02] very beginning is okay this isn't going
[1:31:04] to turn me away from Federal Way um per
[1:31:07] se. This is this is something I would
[1:31:09] have expected. The other thing that
[1:31:12] comes with development that that falls
[1:31:14] in the bucket of city costs is they have
[1:31:16] to do storm water improvements and they
[1:31:18] have to do potential street
[1:31:20] improvements. And so for storm water,
[1:31:23] it's dealing with both quantity, so
[1:31:26] that's detention, making sure that the
[1:31:28] water running off the property after
[1:31:30] it's developed is no greater than what's
[1:31:32] running off before, and quality. You
[1:31:35] can't um put contaminants that's going
[1:31:38] to discharge into the the uh public
[1:31:41] storm water system, which ultimately
[1:31:42] eventually gets into the natural storm
[1:31:45] water system, which is our creeks and
[1:31:46] rivers, and ultimately Puget Sound. And
[1:31:49] then streets, you know, the biggest
[1:31:51] issue with streets is if there's missing
[1:31:53] parts of streets. Now, for example, you
[1:31:56] know, there's not like let's say there's
[1:31:57] not a sidewalk in front of the property.
[1:31:59] Now, you know, a developer would be
[1:32:01] expected to put that sidewalk in. If the
[1:32:04] city plans for that street where that
[1:32:06] property is has an additional lane, they
[1:32:09] would have to dedicate property and
[1:32:11] ultimately build that lane of traffic
[1:32:13] and then the sidewalk and the street
[1:32:14] trees and everything else that goes with
[1:32:16] it. So that that cost varies. Both of
[1:32:20] those costs on storm water and streets
[1:32:22] um vary on a parcel by parcel um basis.
[1:32:26] And um I will definitely phone a friend
[1:32:28] if you guys have questions about that.
[1:32:30] So for all of that being said, one of
[1:32:34] the questions that I've heard multiple
[1:32:35] times is, you know, we've have we we had
[1:32:37] a light rail station open on December
[1:32:41] 6th. Um, and there has been a striking
[1:32:46] lack of development happen in our
[1:32:48] downtown that had anticipated that piece
[1:32:50] of public infrastructure and that piece
[1:32:53] of transportation capacity. And the
[1:32:56] question is why? And one of the things
[1:32:59] that um developers, real estate
[1:33:02] developers, land developers are known
[1:33:04] for as being conservative. And what I
[1:33:07] mean by that is nobody wants to be the
[1:33:09] first one out there to see if ultimately
[1:33:11] I build a mid-rise building and I have
[1:33:15] to charge a certain amount of rent
[1:33:17] whether it's for apartments or for
[1:33:19] office whether I can actually get that.
[1:33:22] And when you look at what's been built
[1:33:24] in federal way um over the past um let's
[1:33:27] say 10 years um a lot of it's senior
[1:33:30] housing um a lot of it's affordable
[1:33:32] housing and so if I'm a market builder
[1:33:35] um and I know I need to get say $2500
[1:33:39] for um onebedroom or two-bedroom
[1:33:42] apartment I don't know if I can get that
[1:33:44] because there is no market comparable
[1:33:47] and so we're asking somebody to go first
[1:33:49] and that is one of the reasons and we'll
[1:33:51] get into TC3 and and the trend
[1:33:53] development agreement in the next
[1:33:55] presentation. But that's one of the
[1:33:56] reasons we worked with a developer to
[1:33:59] try and get something to happen because
[1:34:02] we think that once somebody proves the
[1:34:05] market and that there's there that our
[1:34:07] our community can support that level of
[1:34:10] rent um others will come. But until that
[1:34:15] happens, we're kind of stuck on square
[1:34:17] one to some extent. And with that, I'm
[1:34:19] going to stop talking.
[1:34:21] Okay. Um Susan and then Lydia.
[1:34:25] » Thank [clears throat] you. So
[1:34:28] when um with the light rail here and and
[1:34:32] functioning
[1:34:34] has the value of TC3 that uh gonna have
[1:34:38] is that worth more money now? And um for
[1:34:42] Black Angus 8 million see I don't know
[1:34:44] anything about buying a property like
[1:34:47] Black Angus but 8 million sounds like a
[1:34:50] lot of money. Is did that is that the
[1:34:53] reason 8 million because of light rail
[1:34:55] being so close to it?
[1:34:57] » If I had to um if I had to guess I would
[1:35:00] guess that um $8 million reflects the um
[1:35:04] proximity to transit. So yes, I assume
[1:35:07] it affected in a positive way the value
[1:35:10] of that property um before it was
[1:35:12] listed. Um in terms of is TC3
[1:35:17] worth more than it was say two years
[1:35:20] ago? Absolutely. It's probably worth
[1:35:23] more. Um but what we did and we'll talk
[1:35:26] about that
[1:35:27] » Next. Um but yes.
[1:35:29] » So for the Black Angus site, what else
[1:35:32] could go there besides a restaurant? Um,
[1:35:35] so it's it's owned uh city center
[1:35:40] core I think either core or frame. I
[1:35:42] think it's core. Um, so it it the the
[1:35:45] full mix of urban land uses could go
[1:35:48] there. So retail, office, uh, multif
[1:35:51] family, um, mixed use, um,
[1:35:54] entertainment, um, churches,
[1:35:57] » You do you do all sorts of stuff.
[1:35:59] » How long has it been on the market?
[1:36:01] » Uh, Meredith, do you know? September.
[1:36:04] » September.
[1:36:05] » Okay. All right. Thanks.
[1:36:08] » Okay. And Lydia.
[1:36:12] » Yeah. Um with the impact fees.
[1:36:14] » Yes.
[1:36:15] » Why is ours arranged for park impact fee
[1:36:18] and Yeah.
[1:36:20] » Uh it so the it used to be $2,200. Um
[1:36:25] that was easy and we we said let's just
[1:36:28] make it one price whether it's a big
[1:36:30] house or a small house. Um and
[1:36:33] ultimately the state legislature said
[1:36:35] you can't do that. Uh you need to uh
[1:36:38] make it um a product of kind of the
[1:36:43] square footage of the residents with an
[1:36:46] understanding that bigger houses have
[1:36:47] more people and more impact on parks. So
[1:36:50] those cities that still show it as being
[1:36:54] singular and not a range, um I'm
[1:36:56] guessing they haven't changed their
[1:36:57] impact fee schedule yet.
[1:37:00] » And Okay. Thank you. And with the school
[1:37:02] impact fee um
[1:37:04] » It's at zero now.
[1:37:05] » Yeah.
[1:37:06] » Is that because there's not that many
[1:37:08] multifamily housing built or is the
[1:37:10] school not adding schools or building?
[1:37:13] » Um there were a few things that
[1:37:15] happened. Um last time uh that the
[1:37:19] school impact fees were assessed by the
[1:37:22] city council. So ultimately for those
[1:37:25] that are new that may not know this, um
[1:37:27] we collect impact fees on behalf of the
[1:37:30] school district and then we we wheel
[1:37:32] them through and what the school
[1:37:36] district typically does is prepare a
[1:37:39] capital facilities plan. So they project
[1:37:41] out the number of kids. They then make
[1:37:45] um some assumptions about what kind of
[1:37:46] capital projects they would need and
[1:37:48] then back their way into what would be a
[1:37:51] development impact that could be
[1:37:53] assessed to developers for our downtown.
[1:37:56] Um and and the last conversation that
[1:37:59] happened related to school impact fees.
[1:38:02] Um one most of those units that we
[1:38:06] believe will happen in our downtown will
[1:38:08] be studios onebedrooms with some twos.
[1:38:11] Um so school generation should be small.
[1:38:14] Um the other thing that we're doing is
[1:38:17] the pendulum has swung back the other
[1:38:19] direction. Um school impact fees for
[1:38:22] federal way uh for multif family used to
[1:38:25] be $22,000 a unit which is why nobody
[1:38:28] built market rate housing in federal way
[1:38:31] for a long time. Um and that was known
[1:38:35] across the region. Um I knew about it
[1:38:37] when I was working in isqua. So um it is
[1:38:40] now zero. Um, as you can see, a number
[1:38:42] of other cities are at zero. Um, and so
[1:38:46] what I would say is that's a temporary
[1:38:49] situation. At some point, we will
[1:38:51] probably, um, in conversations with the
[1:38:54] school district, uh, move that number
[1:38:56] up, but for right now, it's at zero.
[1:39:01] » Okay. Thank you, Melissa.
[1:39:03] » Uh, thank you, Keith, for that
[1:39:05] presentation and thank you for working
[1:39:06] with me on that. [laughter]
[1:39:08] » Absolutely. Keith was like, "What do
[1:39:10] what what do you want?" Um, so I do have
[1:39:13] one question and that is uh do we have
[1:39:16] stricter or additional SEIPO
[1:39:19] requirements than what the state
[1:39:21] minimums are?
[1:39:24] » Um,
[1:39:26] no, not not stricter. Um, I think um,
[1:39:34] yes, I'm going to say no.
[1:39:36] » Thank you.
[1:39:38] All right. Um, should we uh go on to the
[1:39:40] next presentation and we'll have more
[1:39:42] Oh, I'm sorry, Linda.
[1:39:44] » I had thought that [clears throat]
[1:39:47] Thank you, Keith. I had thought that um
[1:39:49] at when we first with uh implemented the
[1:39:54] no impact fees for the downtown uh no
[1:39:58] school impact fees that that was going
[1:39:59] to be a 10-year. Is that
[1:40:02] » I believe it is in code as tenure. Yes,
[1:40:05] ma'am. But is it 10 year from when the
[1:40:07] project starts or 10 year from when we
[1:40:09] created the ordinance?
[1:40:10] » 10 year from the ordinance creation. So
[1:40:12] it's
[1:40:13] » Just about done.
[1:40:14] » Um I think we're in year like three or
[1:40:16] four. So we're not halfway there yet.
[1:40:19] That that's I've only been here since
[1:40:21] 21. So
[1:40:22] » And it happened during my watch.
[1:40:24] » Double check that because I remember it
[1:40:25] as being much longer because I remember
[1:40:28] the fire department talking about it.
[1:40:30] » So um just double check. I could be
[1:40:33] wrong. Um, but I'm I'm this may be
[1:40:37] bleeding into the next um presentation
[1:40:39] that you're making, but [clears throat]
[1:40:42] for uh for the four different lots next
[1:40:46] to the transit garage.
[1:40:48] » Yes.
[1:40:48] » You've got one and two already purchased
[1:40:50] by Malta Service Center. So, three and
[1:40:53] four. Are those up for Are they being
[1:40:55] looked at right now? Are they I'm
[1:40:56] marketing those right now or where are
[1:40:58] they?
[1:40:58] » Next presentation.
[1:41:00] » Oh, [laughter]
[1:41:01] all right. Well, that That's okay. Okay.
[1:41:04] You know, I was sitting just
[1:41:06] [clears throat] as a a side. I sat at
[1:41:09] McDonald's a couple days ago in the
[1:41:11] parking lot watching on purpose so I
[1:41:13] could watch light rail. Um I I got on
[1:41:16] light rail previously to go into Seattle
[1:41:18] and back to see how it would work.
[1:41:20] » Um but you know, I can see where people
[1:41:23] park in the garage and take light rail
[1:41:25] to go to work wherever they're going and
[1:41:27] to come back. But why on earth would
[1:41:30] mean, you know, when they get back to
[1:41:32] Federal Way, there's nothing there. And
[1:41:35] you have to walk to something. Yeah.
[1:41:37] » Would be a long walk just to get coffee.
[1:41:40] » We're um Yes. And and one of the things
[1:41:45] when we um uh when we we hired Hartland
[1:41:50] um in 23 to look at our code. And you
[1:41:54] know, part of it was, are there barriers
[1:41:56] in our code to keep developers from
[1:41:59] coming to Federal Way? And one of the
[1:42:02] things that they commented on was that
[1:42:04] the requirement in code for so much
[1:42:07] ground floor retail just isn't going to
[1:42:09] work right now because there's not
[1:42:11] enough people um and there's not enough
[1:42:12] stuff. There's no reason to be walking
[1:42:14] kind of in our downtown. And so we
[1:42:17] dialed it way back. But the idea is once
[1:42:20] we get some of these underdeveloped lots
[1:42:24] built um and the population density
[1:42:27] changes um that will help our businesses
[1:42:30] as well. But there there will then be I
[1:42:33] think places you can walk to and would
[1:42:34] want to walk to in our downtown.
[1:42:36] » Okay. So, but right now should we be um
[1:42:39] negotiating with sound transit on lot
[1:42:42] four for example because that's where we
[1:42:44] wanted to
[1:42:44] » Next presentation.
[1:42:48] » [laughter]
[1:42:50] » Okay. Thank you, Jack.
[1:42:51] » All right.
[1:42:52] » Yeah. Uh
[1:42:54] » Yeah, Keith, you mentioned that u with
[1:42:57] market rates h housing, you know,
[1:42:59] there's uh you know, that's there's no
[1:43:01] comps at all.
[1:43:03] » Um just going through um down to
[1:43:06] Palopidian through uh Edgewood, there's
[1:43:10] a lot of new apartments there. Are those
[1:43:11] market rate or are they low income?
[1:43:14] » I don't have an answer for you on that.
[1:43:16] I can find out but I don't
[1:43:17] » Because I mean that's basically you know
[1:43:20] you know Edgewood let's just call it a
[1:43:21] suburb a better way you know and
[1:43:24] [laughter]
[1:43:26] you know let let's find out on that
[1:43:28] because there's a tremendous amount of
[1:43:30] of new seemingly quite nice apartments
[1:43:33] in Edgewood.
[1:43:33] » Okay.
[1:43:34] » And if they're market rate they may that
[1:43:35] may be a comp that we can uh we can
[1:43:39] show.
[1:43:42] » Good question and there's been a lot of
[1:43:44] it. Um, Martin,
[1:43:45] » I was going to say, if my memory serves
[1:43:48] me correct, uh, Edgewood has been really
[1:43:51] really focused on housing. Um, and I
[1:43:54] know that that
[1:43:56] um I know there's various perspectives
[1:43:58] from from those residents having talked
[1:43:59] to them before um uh because it just
[1:44:02] happened so fast um and whatnot. So, um,
[1:44:07] can you, um, boy, Keith, thank you for
[1:44:11] thank you for all that you've been doing
[1:44:12] for for these sets of, uh,
[1:44:15] presentations. I know you're doing a
[1:44:17] lot. Uh, and and of course our the rest
[1:44:20] of our staff, they're doing a lot as
[1:44:21] well. Um did you if you can just kind of
[1:44:24] go back and repeat something you said
[1:44:26] something that kind of caught my
[1:44:26] attention which is um something about uh
[1:44:31] mixeduse development
[1:44:33] stores first level uh first floor
[1:44:36] ground. Can you just repeat that and
[1:44:39] kind of expand on that a little bit?
[1:44:40] » Sure. So um so what we expect in our
[1:44:43] downtown is what what most people call
[1:44:47] mixed use. And what that means is
[1:44:49] generally um and so I'm gonna I'm gonna
[1:44:53] try not to get into the weeds because
[1:44:54] the mayor will throw something at me,
[1:44:55] but there's basically um three types of
[1:44:59] construction and they each have a
[1:45:01] different cost per square foot to build.
[1:45:04] Um the cheapest is all construction and
[1:45:07] so people talk about three-story woody
[1:45:09] walkup apartments as the cheapest kind
[1:45:11] of uh construction to build. um you can
[1:45:14] build up to five floors of wood and you
[1:45:19] can't go taller than that because what
[1:45:21] happens is the wood starts to kind of
[1:45:23] shrink over time and the siding all
[1:45:25] falls off. So basically there's a
[1:45:28] there's a there's a cap and that hits
[1:45:30] our second type of construction which is
[1:45:32] called five over one 5 over2 and what
[1:45:35] that is is a developer will build one
[1:45:37] floor of a concrete podium or two floors
[1:45:40] potentially and then put the five
[1:45:41] stories of stick on top of it. um that
[1:45:45] price per construction square footage is
[1:45:48] higher than the all wood. And then the
[1:45:51] most expensive is steel. And so if you
[1:45:54] go beyond that kind of five over two, if
[1:45:57] you want to do a 10-story building or a
[1:45:58] 15story building, it is going to be all
[1:46:00] steel construction and that is the most
[1:46:02] expensive. All right. So what happens is
[1:46:05] when developer chooses how much because
[1:46:07] right now our zoning in our downtown has
[1:46:09] no maximum building height. Build as
[1:46:11] tall as you want. um what is limiting
[1:46:14] them is um is how much they think they
[1:46:18] can rent space for whether it's whether
[1:46:21] it's housing or office, right? And so
[1:46:24] I'm not going to build the most
[1:46:25] expensive type of building if I can't
[1:46:28] get those rents to pay me back for that
[1:46:31] construction cost. And that's the comps
[1:46:33] that we're missing. And that's the
[1:46:35] that's the missing piece for us right
[1:46:37] now is to get some of those market
[1:46:39] comps. The most complicated building
[1:46:42] that's been recently constructed in
[1:46:44] Federal Way is um at First and 348. Um
[1:46:49] the True Vet apartment project and they
[1:46:52] cheated. So there's there's an expensive
[1:46:55] building on the corner. Um they built a
[1:46:58] 50 over1 at the corner, but the rest of
[1:47:00] the project back behind it is threetory
[1:47:02] Woody walkups. So they they normalize
[1:47:05] their per square foot cost over the
[1:47:07] entire project, which would allow them
[1:47:10] to then get lower rents and pay for that
[1:47:13] more expensive building at the corner.
[1:47:15] » So So it's it's getting us closer. We
[1:47:18] keep inching closer to getting a inc,
[1:47:21] but we still don't have one. But um yes,
[1:47:25] we'll talk about that a little bit more
[1:47:26] in the next presentation.
[1:47:27] » Okay. And my last question really is,
[1:47:29] can you go I believe there's something
[1:47:31] more to this if if my memory serves me
[1:47:34] right in terms of one of the
[1:47:35] conversations I've had, but um why is it
[1:47:38] that we are at zero
[1:47:41] uh dollars with the no school with the
[1:47:43] school impact fee?
[1:47:45] » Why?
[1:47:45] » Why?
[1:47:46] » Um because for two reasons. One is um
[1:47:51] our expectation that most of the housing
[1:47:53] in our downtown will be smaller and not
[1:47:56] generate as many kids. And then the
[1:47:58] second is uh the school district right
[1:48:00] now is in a situation where they don't
[1:48:04] need additional capital resources that
[1:48:06] they could then charge developers to
[1:48:08] help pay for.
[1:48:09] » Got it.
[1:48:10] » So it's it's a it's a two-sided coin.
[1:48:12] » Got it.
[1:48:13] » It had been for about 10 years at about
[1:48:15] $22,000 per unit.
[1:48:17] » Okay. So, it's favorable for the
[1:48:18] developers, quite frankly.
[1:48:20] » Absolutely. I mean, if I'm if I'm trying
[1:48:23] to figure out between Auburn and Federal
[1:48:25] Way and I've got to pay an $8,000 per
[1:48:28] unit cost in Auburn, um I'm going to
[1:48:32] think twice about Federal Way because I
[1:48:34] can make up that $8,000 in a lot of
[1:48:37] different ways.
[1:48:38] » And you said that expires in 10 years.
[1:48:40] » I I'm going to check in the city code.
[1:48:42] » Exactly. [laughter] 10 10 years from
[1:48:45] three years ago.
[1:48:45] » Yeah. But we could we
[1:48:47] » Can extend it. I mean, that's one of
[1:48:48] those things where the the the so the
[1:48:51] way that the statute reads in terms of
[1:48:53] school impact fees and that's the state
[1:48:55] statute is the school district tells us
[1:48:58] what they want us to levy to developers
[1:49:00] and then the the council ultimately gets
[1:49:02] to decide either I'm going to do what
[1:49:05] the school has asked I'm going to do or
[1:49:07] I could do something different and it's
[1:49:09] you guys have the I have the policy
[1:49:11] direction to do that.
[1:49:12] » So this is kind of an ignorant question
[1:49:13] for me. So if you collected school
[1:49:16] impact fees,
[1:49:17] » Yes,
[1:49:18] » That comes to the city, correct?
[1:49:20] » We we wheel it through. So we collect
[1:49:23] it. We're the collectes. Um but then we
[1:49:26] basically give it straight to the
[1:49:27] district,
[1:49:28] » To the school district.
[1:49:29] » Yeah. There's no city. We don't get to
[1:49:30] we we do charge a small administrative
[1:49:33] fee to cover staff time to collect those
[1:49:36] fees.
[1:49:37] » Interesting. Okay. Thank you.
[1:49:39] » Yes.
[1:49:39] » All right. Let's go to the next. Oh, I'm
[1:49:41] sorry, Jack.
[1:49:42] » Oh.
[1:49:44] Okay, let's do the next presentation.
[1:49:47] » Do I just keep going forward, Thomas?
[1:49:50] » And this is TC3, public market and
[1:49:52] public uh parking garage.
[1:49:54] » Okay. Um
[1:49:57] so, um and these are three very distinct
[1:50:00] things, but I'll kind of tether them
[1:50:02] together as best I can. So, for those of
[1:50:04] you who don't know why we call it TC3,
[1:50:06] um there were initially town center one,
[1:50:09] two, three, and four. Uh, and this
[1:50:12] lovely historic graphic I found on the
[1:50:14] web, so I thought I'd show it to you all
[1:50:17] because I love it. Um, TC1 was the pack.
[1:50:20] Um, that's where the one is on your map.
[1:50:22] Uh, TC2 was Townscore Park. TC3 is the
[1:50:26] old Target building, and we'll talk
[1:50:28] about that in a second. And then TC4
[1:50:31] um was originally supposed to be a TOD
[1:50:34] project, transit oriented development,
[1:50:36] but ultimately um we sold it to Sound
[1:50:39] Transit to build the additional parking
[1:50:43] um in the parking garage. So it is now
[1:50:46] basically a scabbed on additional
[1:50:49] parking um capacity for um for Sound
[1:50:52] Transit. Um and we can talk about that
[1:50:55] further if you guys are interested. Um
[1:50:58] so TC3 um so this is the um plan um for
[1:51:04] TC3. Um you can see the pack is in the
[1:51:06] lower left and basically there's four
[1:51:10] building sites with about an acre of a
[1:51:14] civic plaza in between. Um the idea is
[1:51:18] that there could be up to 1,600
[1:51:21] um housing units uh which could include
[1:51:26] apartments, town houses, condominiums,
[1:51:28] retail up to 50,000 square feet, office
[1:51:31] up to 175,000 square feet, entertainment
[1:51:34] up to 170,000 square feet, lodging. Um
[1:51:37] because at the time we were doing this,
[1:51:40] um our economic development director at
[1:51:42] the time was interested in another
[1:51:43] hotel. So, this could be a hotel. Um,
[1:51:46] and that's why the northwest corner
[1:51:48] shows up as blue. Um, the development
[1:51:53] agreement was executed in 24. Um, and we
[1:51:57] are still waiting for the developer. Uh,
[1:52:00] Meredith and I had a conversation with
[1:52:03] them. Oh, Brian was on the line as well.
[1:52:04] Sorry, Brian. Um, we had a conversation
[1:52:07] with them this week to see where they're
[1:52:10] at. Um, they basically are are are kind
[1:52:14] of turning over every stone looking for
[1:52:17] investors. Um and you know what they've
[1:52:20] said is basically um funding for market
[1:52:23] rate multif family right now is really
[1:52:26] hard to find and so finding investors
[1:52:28] they've looked east coast they've looked
[1:52:30] in Canada um they still think that this
[1:52:33] project is really great and um but until
[1:52:38] they actually have investors um they're
[1:52:41] not going to start. Um, part of this
[1:52:44] obviously includes them buying the
[1:52:46] property from us. Um, and all that
[1:52:48] triggers, you know, their first phase
[1:52:50] triggers us working on the design of the
[1:52:52] plaza and and the revenue for purchasing
[1:52:56] the land also goes to pay for the plaza.
[1:52:58] So, all of that is wrapped into the
[1:53:00] development agreement. Um, they need to
[1:53:03] apply for a building permit by January 1
[1:53:07] of 27. I have to keep remembering what
[1:53:10] year we're in. um and or they're
[1:53:13] technically in default. And so um we
[1:53:17] will see how this year unfolds. Um and
[1:53:20] my guess is we might be having a
[1:53:22] conversation about that sometime later
[1:53:24] this year.
[1:53:28] Um next is public market. And uh as
[1:53:31] we've been talking about a public market
[1:53:33] for years, I don't think there's any
[1:53:36] debate about whether or not we think a
[1:53:38] public market would be um great for
[1:53:40] Federal Way in terms of bringing in a
[1:53:43] different type of retail experience. Um
[1:53:46] I think what I want to focus on today as
[1:53:49] it relates to the public market is
[1:53:50] place. Um and that is where will the
[1:53:53] market be located and how will it be
[1:53:55] funded? There's been a lot of
[1:53:57] conversations over the past few years
[1:53:59] about that. Um, and that leads us right
[1:54:03] now to
[1:54:05] um, parcel four of Sound Transit. So,
[1:54:10] parcels one and two for those of you who
[1:54:12] don't know um that was mentioned
[1:54:14] earlier. So, that is shelter resources
[1:54:16] and MSSE that are the preferred
[1:54:19] builders. I had a meeting with them this
[1:54:22] week as well. Um, and they are hoping to
[1:54:24] get permits in this year, which
[1:54:26] surprised the heck out of me. Um,
[1:54:28] because usually it takes a while to get
[1:54:30] a funding stack put together, but
[1:54:32] apparently they think they can get that
[1:54:34] done this year. So, um, so we could see
[1:54:38] permits for P1, P2 this year, which
[1:54:41] might be mean they're under construction
[1:54:43] next year, which is fast. Um, parcel
[1:54:47] three um, is the one with the
[1:54:49] contamination from the gas station. So,
[1:54:52] it is its own thing. And because it's so
[1:54:56] small and and having seen the um uh the
[1:55:01] site plan for parcels one, parcel two,
[1:55:03] really it's a building over the entire
[1:55:05] parcel. Um and so there's really not a
[1:55:08] lot of kind of options for how you lay
[1:55:11] that out or ultimately what it is. um
[1:55:14] it'll end up being, you know, probably a
[1:55:16] five over one uh type of a mixeduse
[1:55:19] building over the entire property. And
[1:55:21] that leaves us with parcel 4. And for
[1:55:24] those of you who were here a year ago,
[1:55:26] um there was a conversation about parcel
[1:55:29] 4 and how Sound Transit will ultimately
[1:55:34] plan for that property.
[1:55:37] And at the time, um, there was a
[1:55:40] conversation about maybe the city
[1:55:42] putting some money into the process to
[1:55:45] help us get from the living room into
[1:55:48] the kitchen in terms of actually
[1:55:51] affecting the outcome of the RFP, uh,
[1:55:55] the request for proposals for parcel 4.
[1:55:57] Um, I also met with Sound Transit this
[1:56:00] week. It was a busy week. Um, and you
[1:56:03] know, I think what they are willing to
[1:56:07] do, um, and there's a question for the
[1:56:09] council where there's still support for
[1:56:11] putting we had identified $75,000 and
[1:56:14] and I'm not sure that that that is a
[1:56:18] good use of city funds, but we can talk
[1:56:20] about that into um us having an active
[1:56:24] role in designing parcel for. What I
[1:56:26] what I asked of Sound Transit was could
[1:56:31] you as part of your RFP process
[1:56:35] ask for the consultants that you're
[1:56:38] working with put together an
[1:56:41] understanding that the ground floor of
[1:56:43] that P4 mixeduse building is a
[1:56:48] flexible indooroutdoor space that could
[1:56:50] be used for something like a public
[1:56:52] market. And because we need to get off
[1:56:56] High Center and I felt like I feel like
[1:56:57] we've been on High Center for a long
[1:56:59] time. And if that space were to be
[1:57:02] condominiumized and sold to the city,
[1:57:05] how much would that be? Because I think
[1:57:07] we need to know a number. I need to know
[1:57:09] a number. So that is I think where at
[1:57:13] least we're pointed um right now. If you
[1:57:16] all think that's a good idea, then I can
[1:57:18] give a green light to Sound Transit and
[1:57:20] we can kind of start to move forward in
[1:57:23] putting together the framework a little
[1:57:25] bit more in detail. But the idea would
[1:57:27] be then most likely the building is at
[1:57:30] the kind of the upper twothirds of that
[1:57:33] shape. Um, with the ground floor, they
[1:57:36] would have maybe big garage doors or
[1:57:38] something that open up out onto a plaza
[1:57:41] at the south end of parcel 4. And I
[1:57:43] think that's the way that parcel really
[1:57:45] wants to work because then you'll have
[1:57:46] this big public plaza right next to the
[1:57:48] train station and that'll allow for um
[1:57:52] kind of gatherings and other things in
[1:57:54] addition to uh the public market space.
[1:58:01] All right. And the last thing I'm
[1:58:02] talking about is parking for the pack.
[1:58:04] Um so uh the code requires 370 parking
[1:58:09] spaces for the pack. Um, and right now,
[1:58:13] and I apologize this is small. Right
[1:58:15] now, we have 164 parking spaces adjacent
[1:58:20] to the pack. Um, there's another 96 over
[1:58:24] farther east on the north end of TC3.
[1:58:27] Um, we have an agreement with Walmart
[1:58:30] for 93 spaces on that lot that's
[1:58:33] actually owned by Walmart. Um, and then
[1:58:36] there's 30 down at Town Square Park. Um,
[1:58:40] the problem with all of this is, um,
[1:58:44] that when Trent develops TC3, and that
[1:58:47] goes back to that slide I showed you
[1:58:49] guys earlier, um, those parking spaces,
[1:58:53] the 164 and the 96 go away, um, with
[1:58:58] Walmart selling um,
[1:59:02] their property,
[1:59:04] um, that, um,
[1:59:08] those 93.
[1:59:10] We have to talk about that with law. In
[1:59:13] terms of the agreement we have with
[1:59:15] Walmart, it's a little bit um uh sketchy
[1:59:19] for me in terms of me understanding
[1:59:22] whether that agreement survives the land
[1:59:24] sales. So, long and short of it is um we
[1:59:29] have a parking problem for the pack at
[1:59:31] some point. We kind of do now. I mean,
[1:59:33] at State of the City, I'm probably
[1:59:35] parking at Hillside Plaza. Um there will
[1:59:38] not be enough parking spaces when when
[1:59:40] that venue is full. Um which it will be
[1:59:42] for state of the city. Um uh you park an
[1:59:46] offsite and frankly nobody's parking at
[1:59:48] Town Square Park and walking to the
[1:59:50] pack. I mean as much as I'd like to say,
[1:59:52] oh that's great. This is this is a
[1:59:54] planning exercise. Okay, this is how we
[1:59:55] meet code. But the reality is is is
[1:59:58] nobody's parking there and walking up
[2:00:00] the steps to the pack.
[2:00:03] So,
[2:00:06] » Um, so let's talk about
[2:00:08] » What we can do. And, um, what I want to,
[2:00:12] so I've been I've been an advocate for a
[2:00:15] long time about buying the Korean
[2:00:17] Palace. And the Korean Palace, if I had
[2:00:19] a laser pointer, does it have a laser on
[2:00:21] it?
[2:00:22] » Okay, I'm not gonna try it. Probably
[2:00:24] blind Melissa. Um, [laughter]
[2:00:27] so it's the it's the um it's the
[2:00:30] building immediately west of the pack um
[2:00:33] at the northwest corner of 316th in PBR.
[2:00:36] Look at that. Um so I've and and because
[2:00:40] there's a a great topographic
[2:00:43] relationship like if you built a parking
[2:00:45] garage there you could put a bridge over
[2:00:47] PBR and it would land right at the plaza
[2:00:49] of the pack. It would be absolutely
[2:00:52] fantastic. But when you look at the cost
[2:00:54] of a parking garage,
[2:00:57] um, and so going back to our price per
[2:00:59] acre in Federal Way of retail downtown
[2:01:02] space, you know, we're going to pay
[2:01:04] probably $5 million to buy the Korean
[2:01:06] Palace and the lot to the north of it.
[2:01:08] It's actually two parcels and it's about
[2:01:10] an acre, so it's about a $5 million
[2:01:13] purchase, let's say, give or take. Um,
[2:01:15] and then building parking in a garage
[2:01:19] configuration,
[2:01:20] give or take, is going to be around
[2:01:22] $45,000 a stall. So, that's about an $18
[2:01:26] million venture. Um, Meredith and I have
[2:01:29] been kicking around um
[2:01:33] numbers. It hasn't been listed yet. So,
[2:01:36] Walmart is probably somewhere around $20
[2:01:38] million.
[2:01:39] So, what I would tell you is Walmart
[2:01:44] would solve the parking problem for the
[2:01:46] pack. If we bought Walmart,
[2:01:49] um it could also potentially provide a
[2:01:52] location for a public market as an
[2:01:54] interim use until we're ready to turn
[2:01:57] that building into the new city hall.
[2:01:59] Sorry, mayor. Um at some point, so
[2:02:03] that's 140,000 square foot building. Um,
[2:02:06] we're in 85,000 square ft now. Um, at
[2:02:10] some point when we outgrow city hall,
[2:02:12] and I think Andy would say we've already
[2:02:14] outgrown it for PD, um, this is this is
[2:02:19] a this is in the right location for our
[2:02:21] community. You can get to city hall if
[2:02:23] it's here because you don't need a car.
[2:02:26] Um, tr it's transit friendly. Um, so but
[2:02:31] so anyway, so I'm sitting here saying
[2:02:34] you probably have a $20 million
[2:02:37] uh cost in your horizon and uh Walmart's
[2:02:41] that asset is going to be available for
[2:02:44] a short period of time and then it's
[2:02:47] going to be gone uh and then it will go
[2:02:49] away. Uh right now somebody's thinking
[2:02:51] about doing something with the home and
[2:02:52] home. So all that although that seems
[2:02:54] like a potential future asset, I think
[2:02:56] somebody's trying to rework that
[2:02:57] building right now.
[2:02:59] Uh, so that that building south of
[2:03:01] Walmart, um, it's right now it's got the
[2:03:03] Mongolian Grill on the south side and
[2:03:05] there's like a dentist office in it and
[2:03:07] the rest of it's empty.
[2:03:09] » And I'm stopping talking right now
[2:03:11] because I probably said way too much.
[2:03:14] » Okay. Um, Susan
[2:03:16] » In intriguing. I hadn't thought of
[2:03:18] Walmart in that way, but that's actually
[2:03:22] one of my questions I wrote down was how
[2:03:23] much is Walmart? So, um,
[2:03:26] » We're guessing around 20. So TC3, thank
[2:03:29] you for putting it on the agenda, I had
[2:03:31] asked that it'd be on the agenda.
[2:03:34] Um, when we did the committee for uh
[2:03:38] looking at downtown at that area, Tret
[2:03:41] was my favorite and I still have their
[2:03:45] stuff on my desk. I I I like what they
[2:03:48] had offered and um and I still want them
[2:03:51] to develop it, but I think we need to be
[2:03:54] prepared with a new appraisal um to move
[2:03:58] forward if they can't come up with um
[2:04:00] what they need to come up with. We're
[2:04:03] going to have to go out for another
[2:04:04] interf loan to pay the 4.8 million that
[2:04:07] we owe on it. Um,
[2:04:11] it it's it's a bad position to be in,
[2:04:15] but I I don't want to wait. I I think we
[2:04:17] need to be ready to move on in January
[2:04:21] » With the new appraisal and ready to get
[2:04:23] it back out on the market if we have to.
[2:04:26] » And and I appreciate that. And and I
[2:04:29] know that we had hoped that by now they
[2:04:31] would already have uh shovels in dirt
[2:04:34] and be working on their first phase. and
[2:04:39] um you know between
[2:04:41] tariffs and like there's been a lot of
[2:04:44] things going on since we executed this
[2:04:46] development agreement but you know if if
[2:04:49] you remember um you know there's a lot
[2:04:53] in this plan that we really liked you
[2:04:57] know um there's uh for those of you who
[2:05:00] didn't get to touch this there's also on
[2:05:03] the 23rd Avenue side which is the back
[2:05:05] side of the buildings over on the right
[2:05:07] there's is for sale basically um
[2:05:11] condominiums or town houses that are
[2:05:13] going to have front porches to activate
[2:05:15] 23rd Avenue. And so even though this is
[2:05:18] multif family, there's a single family
[2:05:21] component to it, which I think the
[2:05:22] council really loved. Um but I hear you
[2:05:26] and I know that that'll be a hard
[2:05:28] conversation and we will probably need
[2:05:30] to have it sometime around June or July.
[2:05:33] » Well, I hope they're successful.
[2:05:35] » Yeah. But we as a city, we can't wait.
[2:05:39] We have to be ready to go if if they're
[2:05:42] not going to be able to to do what they
[2:05:44] said.
[2:05:46] » So, thank you.
[2:05:47] » Would you remind everybody what the
[2:05:48] provisions of the contract are again?
[2:05:50] When when would they essentially
[2:05:51] » They need to submit so so what so the
[2:05:54] the um the Cinderella moment is January
[2:05:57] 1st of 27. They need to submit their
[2:06:00] first building permit and pay us $10
[2:06:02] million for the property. And if that
[2:06:04] doesn't happen,
[2:06:05] » Then they're technically in default of
[2:06:08] the provisions of the development
[2:06:10] agreement.
[2:06:10] » And that's when we would have the
[2:06:11] essentially the clawback provision or
[2:06:13] the the ability to
[2:06:14] » We could terminate it at that point.
[2:06:15] » Okay.
[2:06:16] » But not before.
[2:06:17] » Not before.
[2:06:18] » Right.
[2:06:19] » So for them to be submitting a building
[2:06:22] permit in less than 12 months, how long
[2:06:25] does it take to get that ready to
[2:06:26] submit? Are they already behind? Uh,
[2:06:30] arguably they might be already um late
[2:06:34] to the game.
[2:06:37] » Okay.
[2:06:38] » Okay. Uh, Jack and then Linda. Oh, and
[2:06:40] then sorry. Sorry, Jack. Less and then
[2:06:42] Linda.
[2:06:44] » Uh, I guess my first uh comment is as I
[2:06:48] I highly suspect if we would have given
[2:06:49] to anybody other than Kent one, they'd
[2:06:52] probably be in the identical situation
[2:06:55] as well is is my suspicion. And so I I
[2:06:58] think that with with with Kent or Trent,
[2:07:01] excuse me, it's a Kent Trent line, uh
[2:07:04] that
[2:07:05] uh basically we'll have the option of of
[2:07:09] uh taking it back, starting over again,
[2:07:12] or extending something with them,
[2:07:14] perhaps extending for an additional fee
[2:07:16] or something something along that line.
[2:07:19] the there I think there could absolutely
[2:07:21] be a conversation about uh I don't want
[2:07:24] to say a penalty but you know there's
[2:07:26] carrying costs for us to carry that loan
[2:07:29] longer so you know would it be
[2:07:32] reasonable for us to ask them to
[2:07:34] compensate us for that maybe um that's
[2:07:37] something we could explore I think to
[2:07:38] your point if they can't find the money
[2:07:41] unless you find a self-funded
[2:07:44] multifamily developer um who will want
[2:07:47] to do something completely different
[2:07:48] than this um we'll be back. We we will
[2:07:52] just have changed partners that can
[2:07:54] execute. So I'm not sure that puts us in
[2:07:56] in a better place, but that's a
[2:07:57] conversation we'll need to have.
[2:07:59] » Yeah. And then also going back to our
[2:08:01] previous discussion on on uh on the the
[2:08:04] TOD the the uh some transit property on
[2:08:08] on lots one and two the MSC and and uh
[2:08:13] is
[2:08:14] » Shelter resources
[2:08:15] » And shelter resources
[2:08:17] » Is uh is that going to be 100%
[2:08:22] uh residential multif family or is there
[2:08:24] a possib possibility of some first floor
[2:08:27] uh retail on that? There is first floor
[2:08:30] um retail on that. Um we talked about
[2:08:34] that a little bit. Um so so uh MSC and
[2:08:40] uh shelter resources also partnered for
[2:08:42] Roondo Heights. Um so the food bank um
[2:08:46] is a partnership that they had. um they
[2:08:50] um you know the ground floor right now
[2:08:52] what the code says is there needs to be
[2:08:56] ground floor entertainment or retail at
[2:08:59] basically at street intersections. So if
[2:09:01] you look at basically the corners um and
[2:09:04] then a certain portion of that ground
[2:09:06] floor. So they have um they want to talk
[2:09:10] about that further. They're developing
[2:09:11] their plans now but there will be some
[2:09:13] activation at the ground floor of
[2:09:16] non-residential units
[2:09:18] » And Has there been any discussion of
[2:09:21] what type of uh of um
[2:09:25] for for the residents that they would
[2:09:27] rent to any uh percentage of particular
[2:09:31] percentage of
[2:09:38] » So shelter resources similar to Roondo
[2:09:40] Heights they do their projects are at
[2:09:43] 50%.
[2:09:46] » All right. Thank you.
[2:09:47] » All right.
[2:09:48] Keith
[2:09:49] » Le.
[2:09:51] » Yeah.
[2:09:53] » Yeah. Keith, thank you uh so much for
[2:09:56] your presentation.
[2:09:58] » Um you had mentioned that MSC uh had an
[2:10:03] extremely successful
[2:10:05] uh pathway to get permitted for their uh
[2:10:09] development site. uh what's your best
[2:10:13] analysis on how that happened and can we
[2:10:16] replicate that for other projects to
[2:10:20] move them forward?
[2:10:21] » So they picked um
[2:10:25] um maybe one of the reasons why they
[2:10:26] were successful in their plan for
[2:10:29] parcels one and two with Sound Transit
[2:10:31] is they picked the same architect we use
[2:10:33] for TC3. So, first off, we hired an
[2:10:36] architectural firm to do the plan for
[2:10:38] the city for the RFP. Um, then Trent
[2:10:43] hired that same firm. So, their plans
[2:10:45] looked a lot like our plans and uh they
[2:10:48] evolved it a little bit, made it a
[2:10:49] little bit their own and better. And
[2:10:51] then, um, MSSE and Shelter Resources
[2:10:54] chose to use the same architect. So they
[2:10:56] were very familiar with the area, very
[2:10:58] familiar with the city's code and and
[2:11:01] how to kind So they got they got a leg
[2:11:03] up because they had familiarity and
[2:11:05] that's one of the things I didn't really
[2:11:07] talk about. We don't have a family
[2:11:09] developer in federal way that can just
[2:11:12] run through the cycle over and over
[2:11:13] again. But getting repeat builders that
[2:11:16] know the system, know how to work it.
[2:11:18] That is a a way to get a leg up um is
[2:11:23] just having familiarity and that people
[2:11:25] contact. Um I think um I like to run my
[2:11:29] department that way anyway. Um but a lot
[2:11:32] of developers don't take advantage of
[2:11:34] that kind of opportunity to spend time
[2:11:37] and really get that familiarity with
[2:11:39] city staff. So but that's something I
[2:11:42] hope we work on. uh moving forward.
[2:11:44] We'll see.
[2:11:46] » Okay, Linda.
[2:11:49] » Thank you very much. Keith, would you
[2:11:51] repeat what we still owe on the
[2:11:52] property?
[2:11:53] » Uh there's about uh Steve would have an
[2:11:55] exact figure. I think it's about 4.8.
[2:11:57] » Steve,
[2:11:59] what we owe TC3 down center three?
[2:12:02] » No, no, I mean on uh
[2:12:06] » Sorry,
[2:12:07] » The property by the pack.
[2:12:09] » Yeah,
[2:12:10] » We're calling that
[2:12:12] » 4.8. It's what we owe and we bonded
[2:12:14] that.
[2:12:17] » It's an inter fun. I think we're we're
[2:12:19] needing the I call a friend here at this
[2:12:21] point.
[2:12:21] » It was it was funded by an inter fund.
[2:12:24] » Yeah.
[2:12:24] » We originally bonded it and in 2022 we
[2:12:27] converted it to an inter fund loan.
[2:12:29] » Yeah. So at some point are we going to
[2:12:31] have to then go out for bonds on it if
[2:12:33] we can't sell it?
[2:12:34] » That issue is coming to FedR on Tuesday
[2:12:36] night. We have an option to extend the
[2:12:38] interfund loan or contemplate external
[2:12:40] financing.
[2:12:41] » Okay. Um, why is it that MSC is able to
[2:12:44] find funding but we can't?
[2:12:48] » So, the money the money there's there's
[2:12:51] um there's there's a lot of money. I
[2:12:54] don't say a lot. There's a there's a lot
[2:12:56] there's a lot of money out there for um
[2:12:58] affordable housing and it's Amazon, it's
[2:13:01] Microsoft, it's the Balmer Foundation,
[2:13:03] it's the Gates Foundation. There's a lot
[2:13:05] of money to build affordable housing and
[2:13:06] so it's easier to get the funding stack
[2:13:09] put together for an affordable housing
[2:13:11] project than it is to get the funding
[2:13:13] stack put together for a market rate
[2:13:15] housing project.
[2:13:16] » Do we did they put earnest money down on
[2:13:18] the property?
[2:13:19] » No.
[2:13:20] » So there's no earnest money?
[2:13:22] » No.
[2:13:23] » Okay. You know, when we were this whole
[2:13:26] area in 2008, we had an a a development
[2:13:31] plan and same thing happened. They
[2:13:34] couldn't get the funding. We went into a
[2:13:36] recession and we couldn't move forward.
[2:13:38] It was actually 2006 and 2008 we went
[2:13:41] into a recession. I don't know if you
[2:13:43] remember that it was going to go up,
[2:13:45] some of them are going to go up 10
[2:13:46] stories. There were four buildings.
[2:13:48] » Yeah, I would say nobody was ever really
[2:13:50] going to build that. That was on Town
[2:13:52] Square Park that as you
[2:13:54] » It was a developer dream.
[2:13:55] » Well, that No, that's that's what I'm
[2:13:57] talking about. I'm talking about the
[2:13:58] area by the pack. I'm not talking about
[2:14:01] » So, you're you're telling me the only
[2:14:02] money we can get for that downtown is is
[2:14:05] grants like MSC got.
[2:14:08] » Uh, so I So, there's a couple things
[2:14:11] going on. So, for affordable housing,
[2:14:14] there's there's a stack of money
[2:14:17] available for that. for market rate
[2:14:19] housing, there's still money. It's it's
[2:14:22] private investors and you know what
[2:14:25] needs to happen is there needs to be a
[2:14:30] couple different things going on. One of
[2:14:31] the things and we're getting into a lot
[2:14:33] of details right now. This area is
[2:14:36] identified as an opportunity zone. Um
[2:14:39] the existing opp and and the existing
[2:14:42] opportunity zone legislation sunsets at
[2:14:46] the end of this calendar year as part of
[2:14:48] the big beautiful bill. President Trump
[2:14:52] put into place into the permanent tax
[2:14:55] code opportunity zone 2.0. So there's a
[2:14:58] second version. So, if I'm an investor
[2:15:01] and this is designated an opportunity
[2:15:04] zone, then I can get basically taxexempt
[2:15:09] investments in this area. Um, that helps
[2:15:13] Trent find private investors
[2:15:16] significantly. So, Meredith and I are
[2:15:19] already kind of um kind of uh making
[2:15:23] sure we don't drop that ball because
[2:15:25] that's really important. But um just
[2:15:28] finding the investment money is always a
[2:15:30] challenge.
[2:15:30] » So that's could just one more and I'm
[2:15:32] done. So So what do I do? I mean back in
[2:15:37] 2008 we had four buildings surrounding a
[2:15:40] a courtyard effect and that went down.
[2:15:43] » Yes.
[2:15:44] » Because they couldn't get in u investing
[2:15:48] uh money. So um this one same thing same
[2:15:51] thing's happening again. So why don't we
[2:15:53] just change focus and we we have no
[2:15:56] retail. There's no place to
[2:15:59] » Nobody nobody's building retail.
[2:16:01] » Nobody's building
[2:16:02] » Nobody's building office.
[2:16:04] » No housing is the best chance we have
[2:16:07] for development in the near future.
[2:16:10] » Yeah.
[2:16:12] If there was demand for retail, the
[2:16:14] account will be different than what we
[2:16:16] » Yes. Exactly.
[2:16:18] » Um when does that um that new provision
[2:16:22] from the from the big bill when does
[2:16:24] that go into effect?
[2:16:25] » Uh I believe is Merida still here? I
[2:16:27] believe 27, right? Yeah. So TW so
[2:16:31] basically opportunity zone 1.0 sunsets
[2:16:34] at the end of this calendar year.
[2:16:35] Opportunity zone 2.0 starts immediately.
[2:16:38] So, so what Trent's hoping for and what
[2:16:41] we're still trying to navigate is how do
[2:16:44] we get the application in for Federal
[2:16:46] Ways Opportunity Zone to be considered
[2:16:48] 2.0 because it's a beauty contest. Now,
[2:16:51] the good news is we have light rail and
[2:16:54] basically that census track um has a
[2:16:56] significant number of people in the
[2:16:58] poverty level um because they're all
[2:17:00] seniors on fixed incomes. Um and so we
[2:17:03] we have great qualification stats um for
[2:17:06] us to make 2.0. now, but there's still a
[2:17:09] process to go through and we need to
[2:17:10] make sure we don't miss that train, so
[2:17:12] to speak.
[2:17:12] » Okay. Um, as you have before I call on
[2:17:15] Susan, um, as you know that we're we're
[2:17:17] getting a little bit we're we're uh this
[2:17:21] is this item is getting digging into
[2:17:23] other items, but because it's so
[2:17:25] critical, I just want to let you know
[2:17:27] I'm being intentional about the fact
[2:17:28] that we've we were supposed to end all
[2:17:30] four of these at 10:15, but I think that
[2:17:33] this is such an important discussion.
[2:17:35] And is there an agreement that we just
[2:17:37] keep keep going talking about this
[2:17:39] because this is of paramount importance?
[2:17:41] Uh Susan, Lydia, and then Melissa.
[2:17:44] » Lydia should go first.
[2:17:45] » Lydia, thank you.
[2:17:47] » Actually, I changed my question. So, but
[2:17:49] thank you. Um with opportunity zone,
[2:17:53] we have to reapply for so soon we need
[2:17:57] to do that number one. And then can we
[2:17:59] identify a different location if
[2:18:01] necessary or or can we add to
[2:18:05] » Um uh I Yes. Um, so, so what I know, and
[2:18:12] Meredith, I don't know if you want to
[2:18:13] come and grab a microphone. Um, what I
[2:18:15] know is that we do need to apply to the
[2:18:18] state. So, it's through the Department
[2:18:19] of Commerce. Uh, Washington State can
[2:18:22] only have so many opportunity zones. Um,
[2:18:25] whether or not, uh, we can change the
[2:18:28] boundaries, um, I think it's I think
[2:18:30] it's tied to the census track, but, um,
[2:18:33] I'm going to look to you if you want to
[2:18:34] add.
[2:18:35] » Sure. Um, so it is tied to the census
[2:18:37] track. However, the way that um
[2:18:39] opportunity zones 2.0 have been
[2:18:41] arranged, it is easier to do a corridor.
[2:18:45] So, there is the opportunity that you
[2:18:47] could apply for multiple census tracks
[2:18:49] that create a corridor. Um it is still
[2:18:52] each census track would still be one
[2:18:53] opportunity zone. So, that would need to
[2:18:55] be the the balance of you know, do we
[2:18:58] feel it would be competitive enough? I
[2:19:00] would say that the four census tracks in
[2:19:02] that area right there are all likely to
[2:19:05] qualify. So that is an opportunity that
[2:19:08] we could discuss as we you know as the
[2:19:11] department of commerce releases how
[2:19:12] they're going to take in applications
[2:19:14] for it.
[2:19:15] » So we we did call so we've been um we've
[2:19:19] been brainstorming and we did call
[2:19:20] commerce to ask those questions like hey
[2:19:22] how do we get in the in the queue? Um we
[2:19:26] got a voicemail left a message. Um we're
[2:19:29] still waiting to have a conversation. So
[2:19:31] we are we are working it as best we can.
[2:19:34] So, there's a chance we could lose what
[2:19:35] we already have also, right?
[2:19:37] » That is a possibility. I think we think
[2:19:39] we're sitting pretty good as long as
[2:19:41] we're not sleeping um at our desks,
[2:19:44] which I don't think we are. So, um we're
[2:19:46] going to keep our fingers crossed and
[2:19:47] we'll keep the council um informed as we
[2:19:50] move this along. It will be this year.
[2:19:53] » Susan,
[2:19:55] » Thank you. So the Walmart property and
[2:19:58] potential there, how fast do we need to
[2:20:02] have a more in-depth discussion on that
[2:20:05] and uh see if it's even possible?
[2:20:09] » So the good news is I think um they
[2:20:12] haven't put a for sale sign out there
[2:20:14] yet. I think Meredith talked to their
[2:20:16] real estate person. They're like, "Wait,
[2:20:17] there's not a for sale sign out there?"
[2:20:19] » Um I I just need to interrupt for a
[2:20:21] second. Great. We have not discussed
[2:20:24] finances about that. We have had I've
[2:20:28] » Well, that's what I'm asking.
[2:20:28] » Zero discussion about purchasing the
[2:20:30] Walmart.
[2:20:31] » That's what I'm asking because,
[2:20:34] » You know, it it's an opportunity and
[2:20:38] » I just want to know how we move forward
[2:20:40] with the discussion and instead of just
[2:20:43] saying it here and then no further
[2:20:45] discussion on it.
[2:20:46] » Yeah. I I my I I my my recommendation
[2:20:48] right now is that's a $20 million per
[2:20:50] the community center cost $20 million
[2:20:52] and we're still paying for it 18 years
[2:20:54] later. So I I I don't think that's
[2:20:57] advisable, frankly. Um that's a
[2:21:00] tremendous amount of money when we're
[2:21:02] talking about all kinds of other
[2:21:03] infrastructure
[2:21:05] and a park possible parking garage. So,
[2:21:07] I I don't in realistically I don't think
[2:21:09] a $20 million purchase uh for 75,000 to
[2:21:13] 100,000 square ft of single family,
[2:21:16] excuse me, single floor uh prior retail
[2:21:18] is a is a wise choice.
[2:21:21] » We need to find uh we've got some
[2:21:23] issues. One of them is parking.
[2:21:25] » Yeah.
[2:21:26] » And if we're looking at a parking garage
[2:21:27] that equals that amount of money, um it
[2:21:29] is something certainly worth
[2:21:32] » Trying to figure out how we're going to
[2:21:33] solve the parking and any other issues.
[2:21:35] » Right. what was on the agenda was
[2:21:36] parking, not purchase at Walmart.
[2:21:38] » Right. And I'm not Yeah. I just want to
[2:21:39] know how we're moving ahead. That's all.
[2:21:41] » Right. So, I mean, you know, I I what
[2:21:44] we're we're talking about and what's on
[2:21:46] the agenda is to talk about how we're
[2:21:48] going to do a parking garage to
[2:21:49] facilitate parking,
[2:21:51] » Right?
[2:21:51] » Not the purchase of Walmart.
[2:21:54] » But that but what was brought up was
[2:21:56] that the parking would be the
[2:21:57] opportunity there at this point.
[2:21:59] » A parcel of it just north of where that
[2:22:01] restaurant is and maybe some other
[2:22:04] things. But there's you've got that
[2:22:06] where the prior restaurant is. That's a
[2:22:08] $5 million purchase. That section that
[2:22:10] we have the contract for right now. Um
[2:22:13] but you know that that's a fraction of
[2:22:16] the cost of what it would cost to to buy
[2:22:19] the former Walmart.
[2:22:21] » We're talking about parking availability
[2:22:23] and space versus building.
[2:22:26] » And Keith talked about what it would
[2:22:27] cost to build a parking garage, which
[2:22:29] would be
[2:22:31] » As much as purchasing the Walmart and
[2:22:33] the property there. So that's why I'm
[2:22:34] trying to see how we move it forward
[2:22:36] with further discussion and see if it
[2:22:38] was I mean we have to address the
[2:22:40] parking
[2:22:40] » Correct
[2:22:41] » That that is what
[2:22:42] » This would address too right
[2:22:44] » But purchasing the Walmart would be 20
[2:22:46] million then you tear it down which is
[2:22:48] another million maybe or threequarters
[2:22:50] of a million and then another 20 million
[2:22:53] on top of that to build parking. So it's
[2:22:54] a
[2:22:55] » Well it's planning for the future,
[2:22:57] » Right?
[2:22:57] » It's not doing it tomorrow. It's pl it's
[2:22:59] having the availability to plan for the
[2:23:02] future.
[2:23:03] » Right.
[2:23:03] » Well, my my only point is is that we I
[2:23:06] we want to stay what was put on the
[2:23:07] agenda was discussion of parking.
[2:23:09] Purchasing the Walmart doesn't pursue
[2:23:12] that agenda
[2:23:14] » Except that he talked about the parking
[2:23:16] at the Walmart at Right. Yeah.
[2:23:19] » Walmart owns that property that we've
[2:23:21] been negotiating with which is just
[2:23:23] north of the restaurant. I I I
[2:23:25] understand that.
[2:23:25] » Okay. I just want to make sure we don't
[2:23:26] get way way way over.
[2:23:28] » I just want to know how we how the
[2:23:30] discussion doesn't stop here and it
[2:23:31] continues as a discussion.
[2:23:33] » Okay.
[2:23:34] » Maybe it's a conversation we can have in
[2:23:35] the future under executive session or
[2:23:38] something, right?
[2:23:39] » About that when when when you're ready
[2:23:41] for that. Yeah.
[2:23:42] » Uh because obviously there's some
[2:23:43] counselors that are wanting to have that
[2:23:45] conversation and
[2:23:46] » I I think
[2:23:46] » Conversation about what? Well, uh, what
[2:23:49] council Honda is bringing up, you know,
[2:23:50] and I think I think it's it's worth of a
[2:23:53] discussion as we're looking towards the
[2:23:54] future development of our downtown.
[2:23:56] » Well, clearly in general,
[2:23:57] » The discussion is where are we going to
[2:23:59] acquire property for parking,
[2:24:00] » Right?
[2:24:01] » Not the old Walmart building for $20
[2:24:04] million.
[2:24:08] » May I?
[2:24:09] » Yeah.
[2:24:09] » Okay. So, you know, if if if I
[2:24:12] understand it correctly, we're looking
[2:24:14] we're talking about ideas of where do we
[2:24:17] put parking? And I think the way I
[2:24:20] perceive it is, hey, just information
[2:24:22] that Walmart, did you know could be up
[2:24:24] for sale? And gez, that could I'm just
[2:24:28] throwing out ideas that could be an
[2:24:29] option. That's the way I perceive it.
[2:24:31] And I I think what I'm hearing is that
[2:24:34] we need to put all ideas on the table of
[2:24:36] where can we put additional parking
[2:24:38] because we're going to need that. Uh I
[2:24:40] don't the way I perceive it is the way I
[2:24:43] perceive that is we're not talking about
[2:24:46] hey let's buy Walmart and let's make it
[2:24:49] into a city hall. I'm not hearing that.
[2:24:51] I'm hearing that as let's put everything
[2:24:54] on the table which is the point of a
[2:24:55] retreat and let's discuss it you know
[2:24:58] and then if we need further details or
[2:25:00] further dissection of something maybe we
[2:25:03] take it up at a later special meeting
[2:25:06] » Right
[2:25:07] » Perhaps
[2:25:07] » At where where did the suggested ideas
[2:25:09] for the parking the the actual parking
[2:25:12] garage that would service the the pack
[2:25:14] » So the parking garage and and the Korean
[2:25:17] palace is the is the best choice in my
[2:25:19] mind for where we would build a parking
[2:25:21] garage. The idea of the Walmart came up
[2:25:24] is you could accommodate those 300
[2:25:27] parking spaces in that current surface
[2:25:29] parking lot south of Walmart and not
[2:25:31] ever build a garage. Um, it's a
[2:25:34] different it's a different outcome. It's
[2:25:36] not as convenient to the pack.
[2:25:37] Obviously, it's farther away. Um, but it
[2:25:40] would save us from having to build an
[2:25:42] expensive parking garage at the corner
[2:25:44] of PBR and and 316. So, so it's it is an
[2:25:48] alternative. Um, and yes, we end up with
[2:25:50] a giant building um as a as an extra.
[2:25:55] And what happens to that building,
[2:25:57] whether it gets demolished, whether we
[2:26:00] bank it for a while, um, obviously we
[2:26:02] know that the target became a problem
[2:26:04] just sitting there for a long time
[2:26:05] empty. Um, so that that doesn't come
[2:26:08] without a bunch of strings and a bunch
[2:26:10] of baggage. Um, but that surf that giant
[2:26:14] surface parking lot south of Walmart is
[2:26:16] more than enough that we need for the
[2:26:18] pack, which is why it was just put out
[2:26:22] today.
[2:26:23] » Right. Right. Melissa,
[2:26:28] » Uh, yeah, just a couple quick thoughts.
[2:26:29] So, in our comp plan, it says we need
[2:26:32] 11,200
[2:26:33] plus housing units in the next 20 years,
[2:26:36] right? Uh but my concern is that if we
[2:26:39] don't have a variety of housing, then
[2:26:42] we're going to be we're going to be up a
[2:26:43] creek because we're going to have a lot
[2:26:45] of people needing a lot of services
[2:26:47] without the revenue source to meet those
[2:26:49] services. Um so I'm a little bit
[2:26:51] concerned to hear that the only people
[2:26:54] who are biting are people who are
[2:26:55] wanting to build the, you know, the more
[2:26:57] subsidized type housing, but um this is
[2:27:00] exactly what we need to be working on
[2:27:02] because this is going to affect our
[2:27:03] entire city. Um, as far as the parking
[2:27:07] garage goes, I hear the idea about the
[2:27:10] city hall parking public market. You
[2:27:13] said somebody has to go first. You
[2:27:15] mentioned that. I did.
[2:27:16] » What if we go first? Is that is would
[2:27:20] that help?
[2:27:20] » Sometimes. Yeah. No, sometimes cities
[2:27:22] are the ones who go first, but that
[2:27:24] takes a lot of money.
[2:27:25] » Okay. Yeah, I get that. Yeah.
[2:27:27] » Um, as far as the parking garage, uh,
[2:27:30] have we thought about it being a paid
[2:27:32] parking garage to generate revenue?
[2:27:35] » Um, you know, that's, uh, so, so there's
[2:27:38] the capital costs, right? And, and yes,
[2:27:40] you could you could make it a paid
[2:27:42] parking garage to help, um, uh, pay back
[2:27:47] that capital cost upfront. Um, but we
[2:27:50] have not talked about that. Um,
[2:27:54] no.
[2:27:56] » I just think it would be a good idea to
[2:27:57] talk about. I mean, Seattle has a bunch
[2:27:59] of paid parking garages and we can
[2:28:01] generate revenue from it. Something to
[2:28:03] think about.
[2:28:05] » Okay. Uh, we, uh, thank you very much.
[2:28:07] Um, we need to move to our next item,
[2:28:08] which is farmers market festivals
[2:28:10] reimagining Gateway Shopping Center.
[2:28:12] Brian
[2:28:17] Morning,
[2:28:25] mayor, members of council. Uh, so this
[2:28:27] is the everything else on the agenda,
[2:28:29] and we didn't know where to put it. So,
[2:28:30] I'm going to be talking about this
[2:28:31] really quick. And
[2:28:36] here we go. It's just two quick slides.
[2:28:39] So, farmers market and festivals. We'll
[2:28:41] do that first. And again, uh, if there's
[2:28:43] anything more you want to talk about,
[2:28:44] just let me know. But can you go to the
[2:28:47] next slide, Thomas?
[2:28:49] » Oh, is it working now? Okay.
[2:28:57] Okay. So, the farmers market, as many of
[2:28:59] you have been told, uh is going to be
[2:29:01] moving from its uh location behind the
[2:29:04] mall. It's going to be moving to 316th
[2:29:06] in between uh PVR and 21st. That's just
[2:29:09] north of Town Square Park that you see
[2:29:11] there. Uh the council did approve the
[2:29:13] mobile vehicular barriers at the last
[2:29:14] council meeting to um help uh basically
[2:29:18] secure that area for uh pedestrian space
[2:29:22] uh during the market so that there's no
[2:29:24] u vehicle pedestrian conflicts. Uh thank
[2:29:27] you for that by the way. Uh so that will
[2:29:29] start this summer
[2:29:31] um or spring, excuse me. And then um
[2:29:36] we are uh just for the council's
[2:29:38] information, we're going to have some
[2:29:39] new um registration software so that the
[2:29:42] uh vendors will be able to register for
[2:29:44] their space ahead of you know months
[2:29:45] ahead of time, be able to pay for the
[2:29:47] space. The fee structure is going to be
[2:29:48] different. It's going to be less of a
[2:29:49] commission based and more just of a uh a
[2:29:52] space rental uh for the market. It'll
[2:29:55] make things a lot easier on their end as
[2:29:57] well as on our end. Uh so that should be
[2:29:59] a big improvement uh for uh both the
[2:30:02] city and for the vendors and we're
[2:30:04] looking forward to that moving forward.
[2:30:06] uh the festivals. We're not again we're
[2:30:09] this was on the agenda so we're not sure
[2:30:10] what uh the council wants to talk about
[2:30:12] but um we had a meeting just a couple
[2:30:15] days ago about the the festivals that
[2:30:18] that take place in Town Square Park
[2:30:20] typic a lot of them on Saturdays the
[2:30:23] same day as what the farmers market will
[2:30:24] be this summer and um we believe this as
[2:30:30] a um we're looking forward to it uh to
[2:30:33] the perhaps synergy that could be uh
[2:30:36] created by having both the farmers park
[2:30:38] and some festivals on the same day. Uh
[2:30:40] we're going to have to utilize the the
[2:30:42] uh parking lot that Keith talked about
[2:30:44] earlier that we currently have a uh
[2:30:46] lease on with Walmart. Um and that
[2:30:50] should car carry with the next property
[2:30:52] owner as well, assuming they're willing
[2:30:53] to um negotiate that into the future. Uh
[2:30:57] but this will be a big part of the
[2:30:59] advertising for the farmers market uh
[2:31:01] this next coming season that parking uh
[2:31:05] will need to be will need to utilize
[2:31:07] that uh that that parking lot across
[2:31:10] from the pack south of Walmart and we'll
[2:31:13] redirect uh vendors and you know after
[2:31:16] they've set up we'll redirect vendors to
[2:31:18] that location as well as customers that
[2:31:20] park there as well. Uh we want to avoid
[2:31:23] the parking that sometimes
[2:31:26] uh takes place in the uh retail center
[2:31:29] south of Town Square Park. There's uh
[2:31:31] some conflicts that happen there with
[2:31:33] the uh the retail spaces there wanting
[2:31:36] the parking to be free. And so we're
[2:31:38] doing our best to make sure that those
[2:31:39] spaces remain free so that their
[2:31:41] businesses can can benefit from uh
[2:31:44] customers coming in and out easier and
[2:31:46] not have a conflict with festivals in
[2:31:48] the park or the farmers market on 316th.
[2:31:50] Uh so those are that's the farmers
[2:31:52] market and the festival. Um as far as
[2:31:54] the gateway
[2:31:58] um what's it called?
[2:32:01] Shopping re re-imagining. Oh, I think it
[2:32:04] was boutique is what was originally on
[2:32:06] the agenda. Uh we we didn't know what to
[2:32:08] prepare for that. So that hopefully
[2:32:10] that's something that the council can
[2:32:11] help us out with. Um it's not in the
[2:32:14] comprehensive plan uh to reimagine the
[2:32:16] gateway center that and for council
[2:32:18] members that are new. We for planning
[2:32:20] purposes, we have a document that
[2:32:22] provides the 20-year planning horizon
[2:32:25] for the city and that's how we uh
[2:32:27] program our our work uh to accomplish
[2:32:30] the goals that the council sets forth in
[2:32:32] the comprehensive plan for the next 20
[2:32:33] years. Um reimagining this area is not
[2:32:37] one of them, but certainly we could talk
[2:32:39] about it. So
[2:32:40] » Yeah, and so I'll tee it up for for
[2:32:43] Council Member Honda if that's okay. And
[2:32:45] that's Oh, excuse me, for Susan. Um, and
[2:32:48] that's um, that's a really unique space
[2:32:52] uh, where all the architecture matches
[2:32:54] up and whatnot. And I think there there
[2:32:57] was a desire to talk about, you know,
[2:32:59] creating a new vision uh, for that space
[2:33:01] because it's it's rather unique in my
[2:33:04] opinion. So, it was something that uh,
[2:33:06] Council Honda brought it up when we were
[2:33:08] working on setting up the agenda. U, I
[2:33:10] thought it was a really good,
[2:33:11] interesting, intriguing uh, discussion.
[2:33:13] Um, and I believe that's what I said in
[2:33:15] our meetings as well. Um but um Council
[2:33:18] Member Honda, can I I'll just give it
[2:33:20] off to hand it off to you.
[2:33:22] » Thank you. Uh first of all, thank you
[2:33:24] for talking about parking down where
[2:33:25] Pack Island Grill is. I know whenever
[2:33:28] there's an event, um they reach out to
[2:33:31] me because their parking is impacted. So
[2:33:33] we
[2:33:35] we really need to be working and making
[2:33:37] sure that people are not parking there
[2:33:39] if they're not supporting those
[2:33:40] businesses there. So thanks for bringing
[2:33:43] that up. Um, so Gateway Center, uh,
[2:33:48] you know, when you travel and you're
[2:33:50] staying in a hotel and you love to go to
[2:33:52] the little boutiques and restaurants
[2:33:54] around the hotel where they might be a
[2:33:57] little bit more expensive, but it's for
[2:33:58] tourism.
[2:34:00] I've always thought of Gateway Center as
[2:34:02] that way because we've got our hotels
[2:34:04] there. It's right off the freeway and um
[2:34:10] I've always thought that was its purpose
[2:34:12] and I would I I know it's not something
[2:34:15] we've talked about as a city and we
[2:34:16] don't even it's not our property but it
[2:34:19] would be great to as we plan for the
[2:34:22] future of downtown Federal Way try to uh
[2:34:26] see if we can get that
[2:34:29] as a tourism center. So, you know, with
[2:34:32] the with the cute little boutiques in
[2:34:34] the restaurants, we have Marlene's
[2:34:35] there, which is a great store.
[2:34:36] Hopefully, it doesn't close down and go
[2:34:38] away. But, you know, that's something
[2:34:40] like that. Something like um
[2:34:43] » Huh.
[2:34:44] » Coffee shops.
[2:34:44] » Yeah. Coffee shops. you know, things
[2:34:46] where people can gather uh not just in
[2:34:49] the summertime, but all all winter when
[2:34:51] we have big swim events and we have
[2:34:53] people staying at the hotels and they
[2:34:55] could easily go out and walk and spend
[2:34:57] money, eat, shop, have a good time and
[2:35:00] I've always just envisioned that as as
[2:35:02] as that area. So, that's why I asked to
[2:35:06] bring it up. That's all just planning
[2:35:08] for the future.
[2:35:10] » All right. Council. Oh. Uh, uh, Linda,
[2:35:13] » Would you pass these? So, when we were,
[2:35:16] um, Council Member Dovy previously
[2:35:20] talked about, uh, portable ice skating
[2:35:23] rink and so when we were in Olympia, um,
[2:35:26] Jack with this fabulous
[2:35:29] » Camera skills, took this picture
[2:35:32] » Of uh, Ollie on ice. Linda, this is a
[2:35:36] portable um ice skating rink and it's
[2:35:39] run by a it looks like a professional
[2:35:42] that that uh it's two months out of the
[2:35:45] year and they have a a a ch if I had I
[2:35:48] ran out of ink and it's all color so I
[2:35:50] ran out of ink but uh you uh
[2:35:55] right where the farmers market is so
[2:35:57] there would be something there in the
[2:35:58] winter
[2:36:00] » Uh especially around the Christmas time.
[2:36:01] So they they run their uh portable ice
[2:36:04] rink from November through the end of
[2:36:06] January. And um they have um corporate
[2:36:10] sponsors, quite a few corporate
[2:36:12] sponsors, PSC being one of them. And uh
[2:36:16] uh so I just thought it would be
[2:36:17] something that less with the parks
[2:36:20] committee could look into possibly for
[2:36:23] um an idea for in conjunction with the
[2:36:26] farmers market. So just to move it
[2:36:28] forward and ice skating made a portable
[2:36:30] that the city would have very little
[2:36:32] very little uh as far as I'm not sure
[2:36:35] how much uh we'd have to put in as far
[2:36:38] as um in u money.
[2:36:41] » Okay.
[2:36:42] » So just an idea.
[2:36:43] » All right. Thank you, Jack.
[2:36:44] » Right. Uh
[2:36:46] couple questions.
[2:36:48] » Uh one I I I think that the we should
[2:36:51] definitely look into the idea of the ice
[2:36:53] skating rink. you know, probably uh for
[2:36:55] now anyway up where where on PC3 where
[2:36:58] the lands ladder and because nothing's
[2:37:01] going to happen on part of that
[2:37:03] hopefully it happened sooner rather than
[2:37:04] later but even the sooner is would be a
[2:37:08] couple or three years away I think for
[2:37:10] at least a portion of it. Uh question on
[2:37:13] the uh uh where the farmers market
[2:37:15] preends to be there on on 314. Uh how
[2:37:18] many stalls uh will be available?
[2:37:23] » Uh vendor stalls.
[2:37:24] » Vendor stalls. So there the capac if we
[2:37:26] were just to line up the entire street
[2:37:28] and and have them just right in a row on
[2:37:31] both the north and south sides of the
[2:37:33] street we'd get about and we if they're
[2:37:36] 10 x 10 and we allow you know I think
[2:37:38] it's like two feet in between uh we'd
[2:37:41] get about 67 u but we we're also talking
[2:37:44] about ways to um
[2:37:48] if we can use this and this is getting
[2:37:50] into the future because um we haven't
[2:37:53] done the total survey of the ground, but
[2:37:55] if we moved them up onto the sidewalks,
[2:37:57] um that might free a center lane. Um but
[2:38:00] for now, we just look at the capacity
[2:38:02] and it's about 67, which I think uh
[2:38:05] allows us a few years to grow.
[2:38:06] » Okay, great. Fantastic. Uh as far as
[2:38:10] festivals go, you know, I think the idea
[2:38:12] of having the farmers market there and
[2:38:14] then festivals in the uh uh there in in
[2:38:17] town uh uh Square Park. I mean, it's
[2:38:21] going to help each other rather than
[2:38:23] detract from each other. And uh one
[2:38:27] thing that I I think may be well is is
[2:38:30] talk to the Lions about having their
[2:38:34] their Lions car show in Smart Mall
[2:38:37] parking lot up either, you know,
[2:38:39] somewhere in this area here. And so once
[2:38:42] again, it would be uh would complement
[2:38:45] it as well rather than than taking
[2:38:48] people to another area. um with the with
[2:38:51] the festival, something that I've been
[2:38:52] advocating that I would love to see the
[2:38:54] especially uh
[2:38:57] you know with we're one of the most
[2:38:58] international communities in the nation
[2:39:01] and I think that our our uh better way
[2:39:03] community festival should be the brand
[2:39:05] of the better international community
[2:39:07] festival and really emphasize that
[2:39:10] community that international aspect of
[2:39:13] better way and work on uh having more uh
[2:39:17] you know Susan mentioned that that Uh I
[2:39:20] think it was Susan that mentioned that
[2:39:21] already there's somebody mentioned that
[2:39:24] that we have a diversity of restaurants,
[2:39:26] small restaurants. Uh when I had my
[2:39:28] shop, people would come in and say,
[2:39:30] "Hey, I'm from Seattle, you know, came
[2:39:32] down here. This is the Federal Way is
[2:39:33] the place for Korean barbecue and now
[2:39:35] we're going out for ice cream
[2:39:36] afterwards, but I mean it it's already
[2:39:38] known for Korean barbecue." Some other
[2:39:39] things we need to to work on that. And
[2:39:42] uh along with that, the idea of trying
[2:39:45] to develop gateway center more is great.
[2:39:48] Uh question is is the gateway center is
[2:39:50] that a single ownership there or there
[2:39:52] multiple owners in Gateway Center? Who's
[2:39:54] the who's the land owners there?
[2:39:57] » Uh there are there are multiple
[2:39:58] » Multiple. Okay.
[2:40:00] » All right. But anyway, uh I don't know
[2:40:02] what we can do to incentivize
[2:40:05] development there, but but you know
[2:40:08] for Meredith to give us some ideas on
[2:40:10] what can be incentivized there, but
[2:40:12] thank you.
[2:40:13] » Thank you, Susan.
[2:40:14] » Uh thanks. So, when we talk about having
[2:40:17] uh events on the road by between the
[2:40:21] pack and the park, is there any way we
[2:40:23] could have perhaps some stairs leading
[2:40:27] from maybe where the playground area is
[2:40:30] up into the uh the road? Because right
[2:40:32] now, you're going to have to walk from
[2:40:35] the parking lot around or go out to the
[2:40:38] gate uh where the uh gazebo is and walk
[2:40:41] up and it's going to be inconvenient.
[2:40:44] So, is there a way we can make it more
[2:40:45] convenient?
[2:40:46] » We Yes. Um, the short answer is yes.
[2:40:48] Although may probably not right away.
[2:40:50] That's something that we talked about
[2:40:51] for as the as the market grows and we we
[2:40:54] get capital to make that connection. I
[2:40:56] think what you're talking about is from
[2:40:57] the street down to the park mid mid
[2:40:59] block basically. Um and we did uh
[2:41:02] discuss that need and um recognize that
[2:41:05] as you know to to your point it's kind
[2:41:08] of inconvenient to walk all the way
[2:41:09] around because then it's they're not
[2:41:11] really connected uh you know the
[2:41:13] distance you'd have to walk a block away
[2:41:16] to get to the park that's right across
[2:41:17] the street. So we did recognize that
[2:41:20] need.
[2:41:20] » Yeah. Around the corner by the Yeah. So,
[2:41:22] so someone who has mobility issues,
[2:41:25] let's say they find parking at the park
[2:41:28] and then they want to go to an event
[2:41:31] that's in the street, it's going to be a
[2:41:33] a long walk for them. So, the more
[2:41:38] accessible we can make it, the better
[2:41:41] as soon as we could.
[2:41:43] » So, thank you.
[2:41:44] » Okay, Melissa.
[2:41:46] Uh yeah, I would I want to go back to an
[2:41:49] idea I threw out early in the
[2:41:51] conversation since we're talking about
[2:41:53] festivals is uh our restaurants and I'm
[2:41:56] not sure if it's a
[2:41:59] development, you know, conversation, but
[2:42:01] certainly an economic opportunity
[2:42:02] conversation and that is uh doing
[2:42:05] something like an international
[2:42:07] restaurant week where people can come
[2:42:11] and maybe like each day try a different
[2:42:13] kind of ethnic food because I think that
[2:42:15] that is really one of our strengths is
[2:42:18] that uh you know we are such an
[2:42:20] international city and to give that some
[2:42:23] extra visibility
[2:42:25] I think uh could help uh give our city
[2:42:28] some ex you know an economic boost there
[2:42:30] and uh typically when the restaurants do
[2:42:32] this they pick a week where uh you know
[2:42:36] it's it's a a slower week out of the
[2:42:38] year for restaurants and then that kind
[2:42:40] of boosts their you know visitors or
[2:42:43] customers. So, it's just an idea I want
[2:42:45] to throw out doing something like an
[2:42:47] international restaurant week,
[2:42:49] international restaurant circuit type
[2:42:50] type thing where we can lay it out like
[2:42:52] hey if you want to try you know this
[2:42:54] kind of cuisine one day and then the
[2:42:56] next day there's another kind of
[2:42:57] cuisine. So
[2:43:00] » And then Linda
[2:43:03] » Yeah uh first of all thank you very much
[2:43:05] for your presentation. So the farmers
[2:43:09] market seems to be a very popular event,
[2:43:13] seasonal event every year. I've been
[2:43:16] there many times. Um and also I heard um
[2:43:20] the presentation earlier about the
[2:43:22] public market. Everyone seems to be in
[2:43:26] agreement that that is also great idea
[2:43:28] but not yet in existence. Um
[2:43:33] assuming that will be online someday. Uh
[2:43:36] I am personally advocating for that. Um
[2:43:41] but if that reaches fruition, are you
[2:43:45] saying that we are going to have both uh
[2:43:48] a permanent public market and a seasonal
[2:43:53] farmers market or will the seasonal
[2:43:55] farmers market discontinue
[2:43:59] in lie of a permanent public market? the
[2:44:02] so the idea at this point is not to uh
[2:44:06] cannibalize one for the other. Um
[2:44:08] they're both projects that we want to
[2:44:10] see move forward. Um and at this point
[2:44:13] they they have separate purposes. They
[2:44:15] they certainly uh could work off each
[2:44:17] other and perhaps in the far distant
[2:44:20] future they're more uh consolidated into
[2:44:24] a closer proximity to each other. Um but
[2:44:26] right now we're we're planning on the
[2:44:28] farmers market for this. The mayor's
[2:44:30] vision is to have it downtown for this
[2:44:33] very discussion we're having right now
[2:44:34] and to put it in that rideway which took
[2:44:37] uh a lot of planning on our public cork
[2:44:39] staff. Our park staff has done a lot to
[2:44:42] make sure that this is all possible with
[2:44:44] everything going on and this sort of uh
[2:44:47] chaos is is good chaos and we want it to
[2:44:50] build off each other. Uh which falls in
[2:44:52] line with with uh you know the vision
[2:44:54] that the mayor and council have had for
[2:44:55] downtown. Um but the short answer your
[2:44:58] question is we're we're moving forward
[2:44:59] with the farmers market and the public
[2:45:02] market um as as two very good uh
[2:45:06] concepts that we want to see succeed.
[2:45:08] » Absolutely. I would also advocate since
[2:45:11] others have mentioned uh parking the
[2:45:14] issue of parking it is a big concern uh
[2:45:17] I'd like to speak up and advocate for
[2:45:19] more handicap parking. Um let's plan
[2:45:23] that. Uh let's plan for the future. Um,
[2:45:26] I've got uh people in my family, my
[2:45:28] immediate family, who are disabled and
[2:45:31] we've had to park when no spaces uh have
[2:45:35] been available. We've had to park and
[2:45:38] walk and and that's pretty arduous. So,
[2:45:41] uh the other thing is um others have
[2:45:44] mentioned, but most recently Melissa, uh
[2:45:48] Federal Way is an excellent destination
[2:45:51] for food and restaurants. Uh I like to
[2:45:54] eat. Um, and I like to try different
[2:45:58] foods and different cultures and that I
[2:46:02] think contributes to our quality of
[2:46:04] life. So, if it's going to attract
[2:46:08] people, I'm all for it. So, thank you.
[2:46:11] » All right. And thank you, Les. I think
[2:46:12] you're absolutely right. We need to be
[2:46:14] very mindful and we, you know, we've
[2:46:16] about handicap parking. That's something
[2:46:17] that we just need to keep our really
[2:46:19] make a real priority as we plan. Uh,
[2:46:23] Lindon. Oh,
[2:46:24] » Thank you, Mayor and Martin. I just want
[2:46:26] to make sure, are you going to assign
[2:46:27] any of these ideas to committees or to
[2:46:30] staff or how are you going to bring them
[2:46:32] forward?
[2:46:32] » Well, what we're going to do is uh you
[2:46:34] know, Brian will make sure through the
[2:46:36] through Heather uh that we um summarize
[2:46:40] uh the contents of the uh of the
[2:46:42] retreat. I was going to say that at the
[2:46:44] at the end that we're going to have a a
[2:46:46] summary. we'll bring it back before the
[2:46:47] council to make sure we're on the same
[2:46:49] page and then we'll um get consensus
[2:46:51] from the council of direction. C
[2:46:53] » Can I add to that?
[2:46:54] » Yeah,
[2:46:55] » It's something that that will come up to
[2:46:56] agenda setting as well and so we'll I'll
[2:46:58] work closely with the mayor and I'll
[2:47:00] work closely with our colleagues to
[2:47:02] disperse those items out in conjunction
[2:47:04] with the mayor's office. But instead of
[2:47:06] just minutes, we will have a summary of
[2:47:08] of each. Yeah, we'll have a summary of
[2:47:10] each of of each item that we've talked
[2:47:13] about and about where there appears to
[2:47:15] be consensus. Watch that carefully to
[2:47:17] make sure that um you know that that we
[2:47:20] are in agreement or you're in agreement
[2:47:22] for how um uh you know how the
[2:47:25] conversation went or if there appeared
[2:47:27] to be consensus about these items and
[2:47:29] then we'll bring it back up and then
[2:47:31] agenda setting won't be.
[2:47:32] » Thank you. I'm going to take this to the
[2:47:34] public in case anybody wants to look at
[2:47:36] it, especially like public market,
[2:47:38] farmers market focus.
[2:47:39] » Very good.
[2:47:40] » Okay. Thank you. Uh Brian, anything else
[2:47:43] on this issue? Any questions? Okay. Um
[2:47:46] All right. Now, let's uh item five, uh
[2:47:49] city grants, uh vetting and oversight
[2:47:51] process. Council member Walsh.
[2:47:54] And then actually Keith, why don't we uh
[2:47:56] Yeah, Keith, come back up.
[2:48:03] Yeah, with uh with this I mean there's
[2:48:07] been a lot of uh of talk in recent uh
[2:48:10] [clears throat] times both uh both on
[2:48:12] the national level and also with uh in
[2:48:15] in King County uh with uh um the the
[2:48:21] county council did a an audit and found
[2:48:24] that some things were not going where
[2:48:27] they were where they thought they were
[2:48:29] point and and I think that we just need
[2:48:31] to make sure that we have a mechanism
[2:48:34] that when we are doing grants or or
[2:48:37] working with different uh nonprofits
[2:48:40] that we have a better knowledge of them
[2:48:44] understanding uh to my knowledge I don't
[2:48:47] think there's been any to the best of my
[2:48:49] knowledge there's been no no fraud or
[2:48:51] anything in federal way with with any of
[2:48:53] the the things that we put out but we
[2:48:55] want to make sure that there's not and
[2:48:57] also give the public the assurance that
[2:49:00] that uh that we are vetting uh the
[2:49:05] recipients of uh of different uh of
[2:49:08] different grants and things. Uh I think
[2:49:10] that the human services commission does
[2:49:12] a a great job of reviewing grant
[2:49:15] applications.
[2:49:16] However, with the review of grant
[2:49:19] applications, they're they're generally
[2:49:20] reviewing the application and not
[2:49:23] necessarily reviewing the uh doing due
[2:49:27] diligence on the the organization
[2:49:30] itself. And I think that we need to make
[2:49:33] sure that there is due diligence done on
[2:49:35] the organization. Um, you know, a few
[2:49:38] weeks ago there was a a question about
[2:49:40] one of the organizations that that uh we
[2:49:43] gave uh we're going to give funding to,
[2:49:47] and I hadn't heard of them beforehand. A
[2:49:49] number of the council members hadn't
[2:49:51] heard of the organization beforehand. I
[2:49:53] went over and visited, sat down with the
[2:49:55] with the CEO of the organization, walked
[2:49:58] away thinking, "Hey, it's it's a good
[2:50:01] place for uh for us to put our our
[2:50:03] efforts." But we should know that in
[2:50:06] advance, not having to it to come to
[2:50:10] council and then the council saying,
[2:50:12] "Hey, I I never heard of this this
[2:50:14] place." Making sure that there's due
[2:50:16] diligence and and what what can we do to
[2:50:18] to help assure ourselves and the public
[2:50:22] that there is due diligence being done.
[2:50:24] » Keith,
[2:50:25] » Okay, um I'm back. Um, so we're going to
[2:50:29] pull back the curtain a little bit on
[2:50:31] our granny process so you guys can
[2:50:33] understand a little bit better what
[2:50:34] staff are doing. And there's always room
[2:50:37] for improvement. And so if there's ideas
[2:50:39] that you guys have that that we're not
[2:50:41] doing or things we could do differently,
[2:50:43] we absolutely can um can pivot and
[2:50:46] include those. So first off, um let's
[2:50:49] let's understand that the money that the
[2:50:51] city grants out to nonprofits comes from
[2:50:55] two sources. I'm going to say two even
[2:50:56] though there's three things on the
[2:50:58] slide. Uh so there's human service
[2:51:00] grants which comes out of the budgeting
[2:51:02] process. So you guys create a human
[2:51:04] services uh budget line item and we then
[2:51:08] allocate that out through a singular
[2:51:10] process and that's a two-year um because
[2:51:14] we do budgets every two years. Uh
[2:51:16] generally speaking, what we do is once
[2:51:18] during the two-year process, but for two
[2:51:21] years, uh give grant allocations out.
[2:51:25] The second is community development
[2:51:27] block grants, and those come from
[2:51:29] housing and urban development. So those
[2:51:31] are federal dollars that wheel through
[2:51:34] the city. Um and so there's a little bit
[2:51:37] some nuances between those two grant
[2:51:40] types um based on where the money comes
[2:51:43] from, but I'm going to talk about it
[2:51:45] holistically. um for simplicity sake.
[2:51:48] And then the third one, and the reason
[2:51:49] why I have other on there, is every now
[2:51:51] and then there is some other money we
[2:51:53] find um that we then allocate out as
[2:51:56] grants. And so, for example, you guys
[2:51:58] just uh approved um uh human service
[2:52:02] recommendation for food insecurity. And
[2:52:05] that money came from King County. It was
[2:52:08] ARPA money to help with kind of
[2:52:10] post-pandemic um recovery. and we just
[2:52:14] hadn't spent it up until this point. And
[2:52:16] there we go. So that kind of came in
[2:52:18] under the other bucket. Um but we made
[2:52:21] the process mirror the other processes
[2:52:23] that that we go through. So I apologize
[2:52:26] these are little words. Um this is and I
[2:52:29] can send you guys um this digitally so
[2:52:32] you can see it um and read all the
[2:52:34] words. This is this was um a way to try
[2:52:39] and describe the process to the human
[2:52:41] services commission. So each color of
[2:52:43] box uh represents a different entity. Um
[2:52:48] city staff is blue. Um purple is uh the
[2:52:52] commission. Red is the city council. Um
[2:52:55] and uh uh kind of the the navy blue is
[2:53:00] the applicants. So, so really what
[2:53:03] happens is we start off at the very
[2:53:05] beginning and we do a notice of grant
[2:53:09] funds available and that starts the
[2:53:12] process rolling and um kind of it turns
[2:53:16] the corner and gets to that first blue
[2:53:19] box in the middle on the second row.
[2:53:21] What that says is screening a grant
[2:53:23] application. So what happens there is we
[2:53:26] make sure that they um are responsive to
[2:53:30] the grant criteria. Um sometimes we put
[2:53:33] for example
[2:53:35] a floor on how much we want to allocate
[2:53:38] for a grant. Um because once you get
[2:53:41] below that it's just a lot of
[2:53:42] administrative paperwork. So sometimes
[2:53:44] we create a floor. Um so at that step
[2:53:47] we're basically making sure that we got
[2:53:49] complete applications. the applicants
[2:53:51] are responsive to um the criteria that
[2:53:56] was established. And then the third
[2:53:58] thing is and and as as Jack mentioned
[2:54:01] just recently, you know, with every now
[2:54:04] and then and the hope is this happens
[2:54:06] more often is that we get applications
[2:54:08] from organizations that we're not
[2:54:10] familiar with. And what happened with
[2:54:11] the food insecurities was we got an
[2:54:13] application from nested communities. And
[2:54:17] even though they're in federal way and
[2:54:18] actually within a stone throw of city
[2:54:20] hall, we didn't know anything about
[2:54:21] them. Um, and so prior to council member
[2:54:24] Walsh spending a good he spent over an
[2:54:27] hour with them, I think. Uh, my city my
[2:54:29] staff Angeline and Ila went there and
[2:54:32] also visited them and checked out their
[2:54:34] facilities and their programs. Um and so
[2:54:38] part of part of that unknown and we're
[2:54:41] hoping we get more applications from
[2:54:44] other um diverse communities in our or
[2:54:48] diverse nonprofit serving those
[2:54:50] communities in our city. Um there's
[2:54:53] going to be a lot that we've never
[2:54:54] worked with before. And I think that
[2:54:56] question of how much how much staff time
[2:54:59] do we need to spend so that there's some
[2:55:01] level of um comfort that the council has
[2:55:05] and the community has that those
[2:55:06] nonprofits are actually doing. So that
[2:55:09] kind of happens um and can talk about
[2:55:12] whether we're doing enough or not enough
[2:55:14] there at that second box. And then when
[2:55:16] we get down to the end um where we're
[2:55:19] actually administering the contracts to
[2:55:21] these folks after you guys have said
[2:55:23] yes, let's give money to these
[2:55:25] organizations. There's actually um a
[2:55:28] process for what we do at that point. So
[2:55:32] how we send out the notice and this is
[2:55:34] part of a conversation of trying to be
[2:55:36] more inclusive um with people who may or
[2:55:40] may not have familiarity with the city.
[2:55:43] So the first thing in the upper left
[2:55:44] says constant contact list. So in
[2:55:47] community development, we create a list
[2:55:49] of nonprofits that we work with that
[2:55:52] have called or emailed us and said,
[2:55:54] "Hey, put me on the list for your next
[2:55:56] granting opportunity." And so we always
[2:55:59] send out um notice to those agencies
[2:56:02] that are on our contact constant contact
[2:56:04] list. We also put a notice in the
[2:56:07] newspaper. Um, and I apologize it says
[2:56:10] flag policy on the Federalway mirror
[2:56:11] there, but it took a recent one.
[2:56:14] [laughter]
[2:56:15] So, so we put it in the newspaper. Um,
[2:56:18] we also, um, asked the mayor to put it
[2:56:21] in the citywide news. Um, and then
[2:56:23] finally, there's an opportunity on
[2:56:25] community services, which is one of my
[2:56:27] department web pages, um, that gives
[2:56:29] people grant um, opportunities there. So
[2:56:32] we're always trying to expand this list
[2:56:35] and to get it to more um groups within
[2:56:38] our city. Um but this is what we do now.
[2:56:41] So screening applications as I mentioned
[2:56:43] we go through eligibility completeness
[2:56:46] and then sometimes we do site visits and
[2:56:48] a lot of that depends on whether we feel
[2:56:50] like we need more background from a a
[2:56:52] particular organization. Um and then
[2:56:55] monitoring the contracts. So we monitor
[2:56:58] the expenditures and performance and
[2:57:00] provide technical assistance. Some of
[2:57:02] the nonprofits we work with are not very
[2:57:04] sophisticated and we help them get
[2:57:06] through their contract obligations.
[2:57:08] Let's do it now.
[2:57:10] » Action that we have at that point is we
[2:57:12] could terminate the contract if we find
[2:57:14] that a particular nonprofit is not
[2:57:18] complying with the terms of the grant.
[2:57:21] Um the second bullet point staff require
[2:57:23] invoices demonstrate compiance with the
[2:57:26] contract terms and the grantee has
[2:57:29] provided proof of payment. So in other
[2:57:32] words just because they say they spent
[2:57:34] you know $5,000 on item X doesn't mean
[2:57:39] that we believe that they spent $5,000
[2:57:41] on item X. They also have to show us a
[2:57:43] proof of payment that they spent that
[2:57:45] $5,000 on item X. So we try and go
[2:57:48] through a vetting process with the
[2:57:50] invoices and then the invoices are
[2:57:52] reviewed by multiple staff. So typically
[2:57:54] they come in to Leila, they then go to
[2:57:56] Angelina and then finally they're signed
[2:57:58] up by me and then um program performance
[2:58:02] and outcomes are reported to the human
[2:58:04] services commission. So all of that then
[2:58:06] you know uh we then give um
[2:58:10] opportunities for the human services
[2:58:12] commission to do site visits as well.
[2:58:15] So, if they want to go visit some of
[2:58:17] these nonprofits and talk about how
[2:58:19] they're utilizing the grant, um there's
[2:58:21] opportunities to do that. And then I say
[2:58:23] and at the end of this, uh the human
[2:58:26] services commission has also expressed
[2:58:28] um concerns over the process. Um and
[2:58:32] they created a process and procedure
[2:58:34] subcommittee that includes Gordon Bach,
[2:58:36] Nathan Orc, and Harold Booker. and um we
[2:58:40] had our first meeting and they got
[2:58:42] everything that you just heard in the
[2:58:44] last five minutes. I don't know how on
[2:58:45] the clock seems longer than five
[2:58:47] minutes. Um but we're going to continue
[2:58:50] working with them and as they see
[2:58:52] opportunities for us to improve the
[2:58:54] process. I think that we're trying to
[2:58:56] work this issue with the commission as
[2:58:58] well to again um I think elevate the
[2:59:01] level of comfort that the community has
[2:59:04] that we are actually overseeing these in
[2:59:06] a prudent way.
[2:59:11] Okay,
[2:59:12] » I guess I'm I guess I'm in the So, a
[2:59:16] couple Thank you very much. That that's
[2:59:17] a great and uh great summary there.
[2:59:21] Fantastic. Um one other you mentioned
[2:59:25] site visits. I think it'd be be
[2:59:27] fantastic if sometimes with the site
[2:59:29] visits if either the staff or um or the
[2:59:35] uh commissions are doing site visits. Uh
[2:59:38] let council know see if any of us would
[2:59:40] like to accompany on the site visit. You
[2:59:42] know, most of the time I think the
[2:59:44] answer will probably know we're busy
[2:59:45] folks, but from time to time it'd be
[2:59:47] great at least to be be aware of that.
[2:59:49] » The site visits are fascinating. So,
[2:59:51] we'll definitely let you guys know and
[2:59:53] if any of you are interested, we'll just
[2:59:55] hang on. And then, uh just lastly, uh
[2:59:59] having served on the human services
[3:00:00] commission uh for several years, uh
[3:00:04] sometimes the the scoring of the
[3:00:06] applications
[3:00:07] can be a uh you know, in education, they
[3:00:10] they talk about uh uh teachers teaching
[3:00:14] to the test, you know, rather than
[3:00:16] really teaching what needs to be taught.
[3:00:18] I mean, hey, but what do I need to do to
[3:00:20] pass the test? And I think that
[3:00:21] sometimes with the the grant
[3:00:23] applications, and I'm not sure what the
[3:00:25] solution is to that, but I think that
[3:00:27] there's a a a problem, and I have no
[3:00:30] idea what the solution is, but so often
[3:00:32] I think with the scoring, it comes to
[3:00:35] how well they know how to write the
[3:00:38] grant applications and and and you
[3:00:40] address some of that up here with uh
[3:00:43] providing technical assistance.
[3:00:45] » So, and and and I I get that as well. I
[3:00:48] don't know if there's a silver silver
[3:00:50] bullet for that. What we've done though
[3:00:52] is in this last cycle is we made
[3:00:56] presentations mandatory. So yes, you can
[3:01:00] fill out an application and and maybe
[3:01:02] you hire somebody who knows how to fill
[3:01:03] them out. Great. Or maybe conversely,
[3:01:06] you're not a very um uh evolved
[3:01:10] nonprofit and your your application's
[3:01:12] not very good. um the presentations that
[3:01:15] they give where the commission can ask
[3:01:17] them questions is another opportunity to
[3:01:20] get another lens on each um nonprofit.
[3:01:24] So um
[3:01:25] » Excellent. Yes. All right. Thank you.
[3:01:27] Thank you very much.
[3:01:31] » Thank you Keith for that. That was
[3:01:33] actually really helpful to me to
[3:01:35] understand the process of how we do this
[3:01:37] because there is a there is a concern in
[3:01:40] the in the nation quite frankly and um
[3:01:44] you know whether or not there's fraud or
[3:01:47] or you know misuse it it doesn't matter
[3:01:50] the perception is there and so uh I
[3:01:53] think taxpayers and the public they
[3:01:54] expect their government to use taxpayer
[3:01:56] money wisely and make sure there's no
[3:01:58] misuse put guard rails in place uh due
[3:02:01] diligence
[3:02:02] uh you know it's it's not an attack,
[3:02:04] it's how we provide trust. And so that's
[3:02:07] something that we need to definitely do.
[3:02:10] Um and you know, as an elected
[3:02:14] representative of the people, the weight
[3:02:16] on me is heavier than staff or a
[3:02:20] commission member because if if I
[3:02:22] approve something and and then something
[3:02:24] goes wrong with that or there's fraud or
[3:02:27] whatever,
[3:02:28] » I'm gonna be the one getting the emails.
[3:02:30] And so, uh, I I will say that, you know,
[3:02:34] if I don't feel comfortable with
[3:02:36] something or if I haven't heard of, you
[3:02:38] know, a group, at the end of the day,
[3:02:40] I'm I'm likely to vote present rather
[3:02:43] than, you know, a or nay or yay because
[3:02:46] because I just don't have the
[3:02:47] information. So, um,
[3:02:51] I have a couple questions. Um,
[3:02:55] you said that sometimes you do visits.
[3:02:57] Why would you not always do visits? So
[3:03:00] like for example um we routinely give um
[3:03:05] grants to MSC and to Fusion. We know who
[3:03:08] they are. We know what they do. Like a
[3:03:11] site visit's not going to provide us any
[3:03:12] information that we don't already have.
[3:03:14] » Okay. So so it's more of a um when you
[3:03:17] say sometimes that's because you already
[3:03:18] have established relationships. Okay,
[3:03:20] that totally makes sense. Um and then
[3:03:22] also I would ask especially for the the
[3:03:25] brand new applications that people we
[3:03:28] haven't heard um how many applicants
[3:03:32] that are invited would you say just like
[3:03:34] ballpark number how many actually show
[3:03:36] up and you know take advantage of that
[3:03:39] invite to present
[3:03:41] » Um oh wow that's a great question and
[3:03:44] and I'm doing this from memory um and
[3:03:47] the last time we had the presentations
[3:03:49] were like August of last year that's
[3:03:51] been in a while, but I'm going to guess
[3:03:53] we had probably
[3:03:55] somewhere between 20 and 30
[3:03:57] presentations uh that were done in the
[3:03:59] council chambers to the human services
[3:04:00] commission. Um it was a lot, but that
[3:04:03] gave them an opportunity to ask some
[3:04:04] specific questions of each of them.
[3:04:06] » Okay. Yeah. I would just, you know, just
[3:04:10] I would encourage brand new applicants
[3:04:12] that we don't have relationships with to
[3:04:14] to build those relationships because
[3:04:16] like I said, me personally, I will
[3:04:19] expect that in order to vote, you know,
[3:04:22] one way or the other.
[3:04:24] » Thank you,
[3:04:25] » Martin. And then Susan.
[3:04:28] » Um yeah, [clears throat] you know, um
[3:04:30] Keith, thank you so much uh for this
[3:04:32] details. Um actually um I like that
[3:04:37] Melissa uh that we should always be uh
[3:04:40] seeking out new partnerships with new
[3:04:43] not new but other nonprofits uh that are
[3:04:46] part of the solution um that you know
[3:04:48] the human services are tasked with and
[3:04:50] what our vision is in terms of solving
[3:04:53] our crisis you know of food insecurities
[3:04:56] or homelessness or whatnot or housing or
[3:04:59] anything relating to human services. Um,
[3:05:02] you know, I I appreciate Council Member
[3:05:03] uh Walsh uh I know this is another topic
[3:05:06] that you and I discussed and putting and
[3:05:08] preparing to put this agenda forward. Uh
[3:05:11] and and I value it. I I think this is a
[3:05:13] really good uh point. Uh obviously
[3:05:16] there's a lot going on in in the United
[3:05:18] States and uh and I think that um
[3:05:22] reminds us that we need to be really due
[3:05:25] diligent uh and being good stewards of
[3:05:28] the public money, my money, everybody's
[3:05:30] money. Um and so I think it's it's
[3:05:32] really imperative that that stays at the
[3:05:35] forefront. And you know obviously you
[3:05:37] know um
[3:05:40] we just you know I think the only thing
[3:05:42] I just want to be extremely cautious and
[3:05:45] uh vig absolutely vigilant about is that
[3:05:47] we're doing that all across the board
[3:05:50] with everybody. Uh and I think sometimes
[3:05:52] the tendency is with whatever is
[3:05:54] happening in the United States that gets
[3:05:56] hyper uh um
[3:06:00] active uh with whatever uh item that may
[3:06:03] be and and that you know obviously I
[3:06:06] worry that that may drive things here um
[3:06:09] inevitably and and sometimes it's hard
[3:06:11] to stay away from that but but um I just
[3:06:13] you know when we're focused here in
[3:06:15] federal uh I want to make sure that
[3:06:17] we're just being really sensitive to
[3:06:19] making sure that uh we are being uh
[3:06:22] diligent uh about dividing everything.
[3:06:25] Uh cuz at the end of the day, I I get
[3:06:26] it. I mean, we're all elected to um do
[3:06:30] the job to to really uh be sensitive
[3:06:32] with the public's money. Um but also, I
[3:06:35] want to make sure that we're being fair,
[3:06:37] that we're also being that we're
[3:06:39] inviting new partnerships. uh because
[3:06:42] you know the saying in my mind has been
[3:06:45] there the answers lie within the
[3:06:47] community and there's a lot of awesome
[3:06:49] talent within our community here that
[3:06:51] are part of the uh solution. Uh so uh
[3:06:55] that's the only thing I kind of wanted
[3:06:56] to add to this u conversation of of the
[3:06:58] vetting and and oversight and and I do
[3:07:01] think that I wonder you know the scoring
[3:07:03] system of the human services. I don't
[3:07:05] know if it's changed since or if since
[3:07:07] I've been gone on my on my sobatical,
[3:07:10] but um you know, I wonder if that needs
[3:07:13] to be reooked, revamped, and simplified.
[3:07:16] I don't know, just a thought that kind
[3:07:18] of comes to my mind when uh Council
[3:07:20] Member Walsh was sharing his thoughts on
[3:07:21] that. So, thank you,
[3:07:23] » Susan.
[3:07:24] » Uh thank you. So many years ago, I ran
[3:07:28] the PTSA clothing bank and we applied
[3:07:31] for money from the city, but we were
[3:07:34] always required to give a presentation.
[3:07:36] So that is no longer required.
[3:07:38] » It went away and now it's back.
[3:07:40] » Okay.
[3:07:41] » So um it is um it got reinstated
[3:07:46] last year. Um but prior to that they
[3:07:50] were asking for presentations. there was
[3:07:52] a a certain perspective right or wrong
[3:07:55] that um they should be
[3:07:59] uh evaluated based on their applications
[3:08:02] alone and I don't necessarily support
[3:08:05] that perspective which is why we moved
[3:08:07] in a different direction. So the the
[3:08:10] presentations are back and I think the
[3:08:12] commission uh appreciates the
[3:08:14] presentations
[3:08:16] » Which is good because that it was a way
[3:08:18] that for new people on the commission
[3:08:20] they would learn what we did and why we
[3:08:23] deserve the money.
[3:08:25] » So um you know it was a hassle at times
[3:08:28] but you know it was what it was. So I'm
[3:08:31] I'm glad that they're back. I didn't
[3:08:32] know that they had gone away.
[3:08:34] » Great Lydia.
[3:08:38] » Yeah. Thank you. Um so with the um
[3:08:42] scoring and the the different criterias
[3:08:45] and the different pots of money um and I
[3:08:48] know there's a lot of money that that
[3:08:49] goes into capital projects or whatever
[3:08:52] you want to call it. Um I don't know
[3:08:53] what that criteria really is called, but
[3:08:56] I'm wondering um as we're also looking
[3:08:59] at future to see what the current
[3:09:01] pressing need is and then maybe
[3:09:04] reallocate those funds to to meet those
[3:09:06] needs because we've been funding MSSE
[3:09:09] and and like Fusion
[3:09:11] for how many years? How many thousands
[3:09:14] of you know hundreds of thousands of
[3:09:16] dollars
[3:09:17] which I think could be used? There's
[3:09:19] there's a need and there's a time for
[3:09:20] that. But then I think there's also
[3:09:22] where you should evolve and and shift
[3:09:24] with the need of the community. Um just
[3:09:27] like we got the new funds for the uh
[3:09:29] food and security. It could be a time
[3:09:31] when we have to kind of navigate and
[3:09:34] move those around. So that would be my
[3:09:36] recommendation.
[3:09:37] » Absolutely.
[3:09:39] » Can you please use your mic? Oh,
[3:09:41] » Sorry.
[3:09:43] » Thought it was on. Um absolutely. I
[3:09:46] think, you know, so the way that the
[3:09:48] scoring works right now is based on the
[3:09:50] priorities that have been set up um by
[3:09:53] the council um a long time ago and and I
[3:09:57] think and and one of the suggestions
[3:09:58] that was made uh by a recent past
[3:10:01] council member is well maybe maybe we
[3:10:03] should take the CDBG monies and use it
[3:10:05] for land acquisition for housing or for
[3:10:08] helping a nonprofit housing builder. Um
[3:10:11] which is not what we're doing now. We're
[3:10:13] doing it for home repair. Um, but that's
[3:10:15] a policy conversation of the council and
[3:10:18] if uh if the parks, wreck, human
[3:10:21] services uh public safety committee
[3:10:23] wants to have a conversation about um
[3:10:26] reassessing priorities. Um that is
[3:10:29] absolutely something that could be done.
[3:10:32] » Um okay. Uh with that, let's actually
[3:10:34] before we get to our uh city attorney,
[3:10:37] um uh council president, you want to or
[3:10:39] sorry, Martin, you want to talk about
[3:10:41] this generally before we get started?
[3:10:42] Actually, if it's okay with you, mayor,
[3:10:44] um I'd like Ryan to kind of just run
[3:10:46] down what the policy is and then I'll
[3:10:48] just chime in and then I think council
[3:10:49] will have a discussion if that's okay.
[3:10:51] » Very good. Absolutely. Ryan.
[3:10:53] » Okay. Uh good morning everybody. I have
[3:10:56] three slides and um we're starting off
[3:10:58] with everyone's favorite thing which is
[3:11:00] a a case um which kind of um outlines
[3:11:03] the rules that we're playing under here.
[3:11:05] So the case comes out of Boston. Um they
[3:11:08] kind of stumbled into flying flags. They
[3:11:10] didn't have a written policy. Um, it was
[3:11:13] kind of a a thing I think that evolved
[3:11:15] over time. And so, um, they didn't have
[3:11:18] any real government input. They were
[3:11:20] basically letting whoever asked fly a
[3:11:22] flag. Um, at some point someone flying a
[3:11:25] Christian wanted to fly a Christian flag
[3:11:27] as how it's described in the case. I'm
[3:11:28] not sure exactly what that was, but um,
[3:11:31] the powers of be in Boston decided that
[3:11:34] that might be a problem. um they had
[3:11:36] concerns with the establishment clause
[3:11:37] of the US Constitution which in
[3:11:39] retrospect is probably not a valid
[3:11:41] concern that they had. Um religious
[3:11:43] groups can can be u represented in the
[3:11:47] community just like anyone else. Um but
[3:11:49] that wasn't the issue the Supreme Court
[3:11:50] had. The issue the Supreme Court had was
[3:11:52] when they were denied um basically
[3:11:55] um
[3:11:57] they did not believe that this was
[3:11:58] governmental speech. So free speech um
[3:12:02] is the right of all of us under the
[3:12:04] first amendment anytime there's a a
[3:12:06] public forum and we need to treat all
[3:12:08] viewpoints equally as the government in
[3:12:10] that uh in that regard. However um there
[3:12:14] are times where the government is going
[3:12:16] to speak its viewpoint and in those case
[3:12:18] the government can control speech. The
[3:12:20] the government control can control the
[3:12:22] message because it's not a public forum.
[3:12:25] it's actually the government's
[3:12:26] representatives representatives or the
[3:12:28] government's officials um expressing the
[3:12:30] government's position on a topic. So um
[3:12:33] the takeaway of this case was basically
[3:12:36] if we are going to discriminate if we
[3:12:38] are going to and that's not meant a
[3:12:40] pjorative way discriminate meaning allow
[3:12:43] some flags to fly and not others the
[3:12:46] final decision needs to be made by the
[3:12:48] government or in pursuit or the city
[3:12:51] officials can do it in pursuit of a
[3:12:53] policy that is described by uh the
[3:12:56] elected officials. What we cannot do is
[3:12:58] leave this decision up to the public
[3:13:00] because if the public is going to decide
[3:13:02] what flags fly, then all flags will fly.
[3:13:05] There there is no way to discriminate
[3:13:07] between them. And that sounds pretty
[3:13:09] innocuous until you start to actually
[3:13:11] try to apply that policy. Um having a
[3:13:14] discussion on whether or not to fly the
[3:13:16] Palestinian flag or the Israel flag um
[3:13:19] would probably
[3:13:21] never come to a fruitful end. we would
[3:13:24] probably just talk about it forever and
[3:13:26] be frustrated and walk away. But um
[3:13:28] that's just one example. There are lots
[3:13:30] of times where people honestly trying to
[3:13:32] make a point uh will be contentious and
[3:13:35] and that is part of free speech. Um to
[3:13:37] avoid that often is the goal of of the
[3:13:41] bureaucrats and and the people that run
[3:13:43] the city. And so uh we wanted a a
[3:13:45] policy. So moving on to pass the the
[3:13:49] current policy is um was recently
[3:13:51] adopted and it is very simple. It is we
[3:13:55] don't fly any flags but governmental
[3:13:57] flags. So um the US flag, the Washington
[3:14:00] state flag and those two are required by
[3:14:02] state law. Federal the federal way city
[3:14:04] flag was also included because it's
[3:14:06] always been flown. We've got a third
[3:14:07] flag pole and we have a flag. So um
[3:14:10] council decided that it should fly. And
[3:14:12] then statute also um asks us to fly the
[3:14:15] PM MIA flag at certain times of the
[3:14:18] year. So that's the the current
[3:14:20] practice. Then we started thinking about
[3:14:22] what it means to fly no flags and we
[3:14:24] realized we had other flags in the city
[3:14:25] that we still wanted to fly. So it
[3:14:27] wasn't an absolute rule. We carved out
[3:14:29] an exception for the Veterans Memorial
[3:14:32] um as well as all of the flags uh in
[3:14:34] front of the the pool there on um what's
[3:14:37] the name of that street?
[3:14:39] » Campus Drive. Uh so we carved out two
[3:14:42] exceptions. So it's still even now not
[3:14:43] an absolute rule. But um that's the
[3:14:45] policy. The previous policy is
[3:14:48] interesting in that it was kind of it
[3:14:49] was us trying to follow the Boston case.
[3:14:52] Um but I don't think we could reach
[3:14:55] consensus at the council level on how to
[3:14:57] make the decision. And at some point
[3:14:58] council basically decided to defer the
[3:15:01] ultimate decision to the mayor. And so
[3:15:03] this was not a policy that was in a
[3:15:06] resolution by a council. It was a
[3:15:08] mayoral polic. Um, it clearly stated at
[3:15:11] the top that it was a limited forum,
[3:15:13] meaning that this is not a public forum.
[3:15:15] The flags were meant to to represent
[3:15:17] government speech. Um, and that if
[3:15:20] people wanted to fly a flag, they could
[3:15:21] apply to the mayor's office. And the
[3:15:23] only time we would fly a flag is if it
[3:15:25] was accompanied by basically the mayor
[3:15:28] deciding to um to express that through a
[3:15:31] mayoral proclamation.
[3:15:33] So what that did was allowed us to um
[3:15:37] choose who whose flag to fly and whose
[3:15:39] flag not to fly. And when I say we, the
[3:15:41] mayor was making that choice. So that
[3:15:44] was the past policy and it was meant to
[3:15:46] conform with the case law but still
[3:15:49] allow us some discretion um to fly some
[3:15:52] flags and not others. So that is it. I'm
[3:15:55] happy to answer any questions, but I
[3:15:56] think we're more interested in what you
[3:15:58] have to say about this.
[3:15:59] » Okay.
[3:16:01] All right. Uh Martin Thank you. Um,
[3:16:05] thank you, Ryan. Uh, I'm sure, uh, this
[3:16:07] is the best part of your job talking
[3:16:09] about issues like this. Uh, as as with
[3:16:12] all issues, I should say. Um, so can you
[3:16:15] actually I have a question before I have
[3:16:16] a statement if that's okay. Uh, how how
[3:16:19] is this new policy brought up? Can you
[3:16:21] walk me through the process?
[3:16:23] » Uh, a council member did not like the
[3:16:26] the other policy and made a motion and
[3:16:29] it passed.
[3:16:30] » So, it did not go to committees.
[3:16:31] » It did not. It was directly was
[3:16:33] implemented by a council member and
[3:16:35] voted on at a regular council meeting.
[3:16:37] » Certainly, I hear what you're saying,
[3:16:38] but it did not go through commissions.
[3:16:40] » And it just brought on by a council
[3:16:42] member and brought on to the correct
[3:16:44] » And and that's part of our rules that
[3:16:45] that you know, two council members can
[3:16:47] bring anything up to and walked on to
[3:16:49] the agenda.
[3:16:50] » Yes.
[3:16:50] » And I It was not walked on, right? It
[3:16:52] was established.
[3:16:53] » I'm sorry. It wasn't walked on. It was
[3:16:55] It went through agenda setting. Two
[3:16:56] council members supported it. Yep.
[3:16:58] » And pursuant to council rules, it was
[3:17:00] put on the agenda. Okay. Well, Mr.
[3:17:02] Mayor, I'm just going to begin with a a
[3:17:04] written statement. Um, and in there, I I
[3:17:08] think it has
[3:17:09] what I would like to see. Uh, but
[3:17:12] certainly I'm I'm intrigued with what uh
[3:17:14] my my colleagues think. Um, and I'll
[3:17:18] start by saying that I wanted to bring
[3:17:19] forward this issue of our ceremonial
[3:17:21] flag policy and discuss it here
[3:17:23] obviously at the council retreat because
[3:17:25] this is exactly the setting where we
[3:17:28] should be working through community
[3:17:29] impacting decisions thoughtfully and of
[3:17:31] course constructively. Um, and I also
[3:17:35] want to acknowledge that um, the way
[3:17:38] this issue was introduced, as I just
[3:17:40] indicated through some of my questions
[3:17:43] and advanced previously did not really
[3:17:45] feel open, or transparent. Uh, and it
[3:17:48] moved faster than it should have for
[3:17:51] something that affects uh, how members
[3:17:54] of our community feel seen, valued, and
[3:17:57] represented. whether or not uh that was
[3:18:01] the intent, the outcome was a process
[3:18:03] that felt rushed and that is uh not the
[3:18:07] standard we should hold ourselves to.
[3:18:09] And I'm speaking from the perspective
[3:18:11] that I was a a citizen, a resident at
[3:18:14] the time, a non-elected official. So
[3:18:17] ceremonial flags like the pride flag
[3:18:19] during pride month or the juneenth flag
[3:18:21] in June and other flags tied to
[3:18:23] recognized heritage and uh community
[3:18:26] observance are one way our city reflects
[3:18:29] the people who live here.
[3:18:33] These recognitions do not replace our
[3:18:36] permanent government flags. Uh they
[3:18:39] complement them by acknowledging the
[3:18:40] diversity of our community. That's why
[3:18:43] my request, it's what I'm thinking is
[3:18:46] going through my mind is pretty darn
[3:18:47] straightforward. Uh we should reinstate
[3:18:50] I would like to see us reinstate the
[3:18:52] ceremonial flag policy while the
[3:18:54] diversity commission conducts a full
[3:18:56] review and brings forward
[3:18:57] recommendations uh for an updated policy
[3:19:01] uh include the appropriate process and
[3:19:03] locations for ceremonial flag raisings.
[3:19:06] referring this to the diversity
[3:19:07] commission will allow for a deeper
[3:19:09] discussion, community input, and a more
[3:19:12] transparent process. Then once the
[3:19:14] commission returns uh with
[3:19:16] recommendations, the council can then
[3:19:18] have a focused and informed conversation
[3:19:21] and taking action uh with clarity. And I
[3:19:24] think that's really important. We've
[3:19:25] heard good ideas from my colleagues here
[3:19:28] from former council member Jack Dovy to
[3:19:30] uh I believe others on this dis saying
[3:19:32] that a flag pavilion uh would be a great
[3:19:35] thing. You know, uh I know that I would
[3:19:38] like us to entertain the idea of
[3:19:39] reaching out to Sound Transit, seeing if
[3:19:41] if they can look at a piece of uh a
[3:19:44] piece of property that can be uh given
[3:19:46] to celebrate the what makes our
[3:19:49] community so darn special, the diversity
[3:19:51] of it all. Uh, and so, uh, there's good
[3:19:54] ideas that have I've already heard and
[3:19:58] I'd like us to revisit, relook at this
[3:20:00] and have a meaningful outcome that's not
[3:20:02] rushed, that's not, uh, uh, that goes
[3:20:06] through a proper vetted process. Um, and
[3:20:09] so that's where my thoughts are and and
[3:20:11] I I'm definitely curious what my
[3:20:13] colleagues think, but I really hope that
[3:20:15] there's a consensus on sending it back
[3:20:17] to the diversity commission, let them
[3:20:19] work on it and potentially reinstate the
[3:20:22] policy u until, uh, they come up with a
[3:20:24] recommendation. Um, so, uh, thank you so
[3:20:28] much to my colleagues.
[3:20:29] » Okay. Uh, Lydia
[3:20:32] and then less than Melissa.
[3:20:34] » Yeah, thank you Martin and thank you for
[3:20:36] bringing this up. Um,
[3:20:39] I think it's so important that we
[3:20:40] revisit. Um, and I do like the flag
[3:20:43] pavilion idea. I like and I'm just
[3:20:46] supporting because I the public did say
[3:20:48] we want to discuss this. We want it to
[3:20:50] be brought up brought back to the
[3:20:52] community and they wanted community
[3:20:53] input. So I think starting with the
[3:20:55] diversity commission and hopefully it
[3:20:58] would be well advertised for other
[3:20:59] people to also give input um for their
[3:21:02] recommendation and that going to the
[3:21:04] parks recreation human services
[3:21:05] committee before it goes to council I
[3:21:07] think would be a great idea. But I do
[3:21:09] like the flag pavilion um idea. And what
[3:21:12] I'm envisioning as we're talking about
[3:21:13] it is have all the different flags from
[3:21:15] different countries, but then have a
[3:21:18] couple of flags that are um empty so
[3:21:22] that you could do whatever other flags
[3:21:24] that the
[3:21:26] um council votes on. Um and so having
[3:21:30] those there and then maybe city hall
[3:21:31] just be free of um any controversial or
[3:21:35] different issues that come up because of
[3:21:38] flags being reason and having it a city
[3:21:42] hall usually doesn't even matter because
[3:21:45] not too many people come to city hall
[3:21:46] unless they have a business to be there.
[3:21:49] So, I think that's why I really support
[3:21:50] a flag um pavilion and hopefully around
[3:21:55] the new um TC3 or you know, so downtown
[3:22:00] core somewhere.
[3:22:02] » Thank you.
[3:22:03] » All right, Les,
[3:22:09] » I'll keep it really short and simple. I
[3:22:13] do support the concept of a flag
[3:22:17] pavilion. I think it would be um
[3:22:21] a great way to honor many different
[3:22:24] cultures, many different people. Um
[3:22:28] uh and I say this with
[3:22:32] all of the sincerity in the world. I
[3:22:35] believe that uh flags are important for
[3:22:37] people to look up to. Uh they symbolize
[3:22:41] a lot of different values and
[3:22:43] principles. Um, if that were to come
[3:22:46] into fruition, uh, then obviously we're
[3:22:50] going to have to talk about how to fund
[3:22:53] it and, uh, that's another story. But,
[3:22:57] um, legally, I could see why we are in
[3:23:01] this position. Uh, someone,
[3:23:04] uh, had expressed, uh,
[3:23:10] negativity about our former policy. I
[3:23:13] don't agree with that uh viewpoint. Um I
[3:23:17] believe the diversity commission uh is
[3:23:20] should be charged with reexploring this
[3:23:23] idea uh looking at it from all angles.
[3:23:27] Um what comes to mind though is a worry
[3:23:30] I have about uh organizations that I
[3:23:34] don't necessarily
[3:23:36] agree with and they may be like what
[3:23:40] happened in Oklahoma a satanic group had
[3:23:44] the right to express their opinion
[3:23:47] through u their form of a a Bible or
[3:23:51] some
[3:23:53] controversial thing. I'm sure you're
[3:23:55] aware of that. But
[3:23:57] if we go back to the former policy, then
[3:24:01] that's something that we're going to
[3:24:02] have to contend with because all people
[3:24:06] uh will uh have a voice, I guess, even
[3:24:10] them.
[3:24:13] » Yeah. So, just to be clear, the whole
[3:24:14] the whole entire point of the previous
[3:24:16] policy was to avoid that scenario. So we
[3:24:19] do not have to let the Satanist fly
[3:24:21] their flag because the government
[3:24:23] decides what flags to fly. If we defer
[3:24:25] to the community and let citizens decide
[3:24:27] which flags to fly, all flags must fly.
[3:24:30] » So that's where the distinction is. So
[3:24:32] it's fine to send it back to the
[3:24:33] diversity commission and get their
[3:24:34] opinion on things. But at the end of the
[3:24:36] day, this group or if you want to
[3:24:38] delegate it to the mayor must decide
[3:24:41] what flags to fly
[3:24:42] » On each one. Thank you for that
[3:24:44] clarification.
[3:24:45] » Yeah. And actually, thanks. Well, that
[3:24:46] thank you for that question, Les,
[3:24:47] because I think that really, you know,
[3:24:49] made it very clear and you know, and
[3:24:51] there were times in which I received I'm
[3:24:53] sorry, I'm going to call on Martin
[3:24:54] second,
[3:24:54] » But oh, sorry, Melissa next. Um, there
[3:24:57] were several times in which I received
[3:24:59] some controversial requests. I just had
[3:25:01] to say, I'm sorry, I can't do that. Um,
[3:25:03] because it normally, like we said in our
[3:25:06] policy, it was always accompanied by
[3:25:08] either a mayoral or a council
[3:25:11] proclamation. and that that it's like if
[3:25:13] we're going to put it on the flag pole,
[3:25:15] it has to be something that we're all,
[3:25:16] you know, or most of us are in favor of.
[3:25:18] So, um All right. Thank you. Um Melissa,
[3:25:24] » Yes. Can you go back to the slide of
[3:25:26] what the previous policy was?
[3:25:29] » That's it. That's it right there.
[3:25:31] » Okay.
[3:25:32] I thought when we were having this
[3:25:34] discussion in the past that there was
[3:25:37] something about a unifying
[3:25:41] language.
[3:25:43] Am I mistaken?
[3:25:44] » No, you're not. So this policy is
[3:25:46] slightly different than what was
[3:25:48] presented to council. Um so that
[3:25:51] language I believe was in the
[3:25:52] resolution, the draft resolution that
[3:25:54] was presented to council that did not
[3:25:56] pass.
[3:25:56] » Okay.
[3:25:57] » So this was the policy that was adopted
[3:25:59] by the mayor.
[3:26:00] » Okay. Um, is it in here?
[3:26:02] » Yeah, I think once they once they
[3:26:04] » Section Oh, yeah. Right here.
[3:26:05] » It's at the very end.
[3:26:07] » You're right. So, it was
[3:26:10] non-controversial and unifying themes.
[3:26:12] So, that was kind of up to the mayor to
[3:26:13] decide when to apply that.
[3:26:14] » So, it was up to the mayor to decide
[3:26:16] what was controversial and what was
[3:26:18] unifying.
[3:26:19] » Correct. And I believe that was part of
[3:26:20] the criticism that
[3:26:22] » Yeah.
[3:26:22] » I think so, too. So I'll just say you
[3:26:25] know my thoughts uh since we're
[3:26:26] discussing you know there I think there
[3:26:29] is a valid argument about viewpoint
[3:26:32] discrimination and
[3:26:34] government speech and there's a a real
[3:26:39] uh concern about one person deciding
[3:26:43] what is unifying for the entire
[3:26:46] community and what is uh not unifying.
[3:26:50] um
[3:26:52] because that's hard to determine that
[3:26:55] what unifies this entire community of
[3:26:57] 100,000 people. Um
[3:27:01] so I'll say that I've also heard from
[3:27:04] residents that the flag poles at city
[3:27:07] hall are not visible.
[3:27:10] I've heard that complaint before that
[3:27:12] it's not a place where people come
[3:27:14] often. It's not a place where people
[3:27:15] drive by or they see. So, I do think
[3:27:18] that we can do better and have our flags
[3:27:23] uh in a place that's more visible. I
[3:27:27] think that we can get to that to that
[3:27:31] that mean by actually uh enlisting some
[3:27:34] of our nonprofits to maybe help with
[3:27:36] this like with the the flag park. I I
[3:27:39] think a good solution would be to have
[3:27:42] uh one of our nonprofits maybe do
[3:27:44] something like this and just keep the
[3:27:46] government out of it. Um
[3:27:49] I've talked to the public market folks.
[3:27:51] They seem open to the idea and that
[3:27:53] would be an ideal location that is
[3:27:55] visible where people would see these
[3:27:57] flags. Um and then you know just lastly
[3:28:01] you know I heard uh you say Martin that
[3:28:04] the process felt rushed.
[3:28:07] um the you know how it was walked onto
[3:28:10] the agenda. Um, if that process felt
[3:28:14] rushed for that agenda item, then I
[3:28:17] think we need to look at our council
[3:28:19] roles because it's not just that item
[3:28:22] that's going to be, you know, possibly
[3:28:24] rushed, but all all the items, you know,
[3:28:26] if that's our rules that we can do that,
[3:28:28] then the opportunity for every agenda
[3:28:32] item could be not agenda item, but you
[3:28:34] know, everything could be rushed and we
[3:28:36] might need to look at that and change
[3:28:38] that. ju just for if I may mayor just
[3:28:41] for clarification my understanding is
[3:28:43] that it was not walked off uh it was
[3:28:45] actually in agenda setting and it was
[3:28:48] added to the agenda in a proper capacity
[3:28:50] so I just wanted to make that little
[3:28:51] correction that's all
[3:28:52] » Okay so it wasn't rushed you're not
[3:28:53] saying it was rushed
[3:28:54] » Uh I mean it just it came out of nowhere
[3:28:57] it seemed like from the public
[3:28:58] perspective and it seemed like a lot of
[3:29:02] individuals I mean we've all talked to
[3:29:04] people but it seemed like a lot of
[3:29:05] people were not aware of it and just
[3:29:06] kind of came out of nowhere and and
[3:29:09] there was no proper time to communicate,
[3:29:12] you know. So,
[3:29:13] » Yeah. So, if that was a a if if that
[3:29:16] happened because of council rules that
[3:29:18] are currently in place, then I think we
[3:29:20] need to look at that because that same
[3:29:22] scenario could be duplicated in all
[3:29:25] kinds of things that are brought up. You
[3:29:26] see what I'm saying?
[3:29:28] » Yeah. In fact, actually what the
[3:29:30] distinction between being walked on and
[3:29:33] set an agenda setting. I think what was
[3:29:35] missing was it going through either a
[3:29:38] either or both of a commission and a
[3:29:40] council uh council committee. Um but our
[3:29:44] council rule still would have allowed it
[3:29:46] to be walked on. They it could have been
[3:29:48] it could have been walked on.
[3:29:50] » Um so
[3:29:51] » So then anything anything could be
[3:29:52] walked on.
[3:29:53] » Yes. Can I just clarify one thing?
[3:29:55] Anything can be walked on as long as a
[3:29:57] majority of council supports it.
[3:29:59] » So using rules to constrain a majority
[3:30:02] of council is usually a bad idea.
[3:30:05] » Um really the issue is what's what is
[3:30:08] the thought of cons you know what is the
[3:30:09] cons consensus of most of you I think is
[3:30:12] is and in this case it was to change the
[3:30:14] policy.
[3:30:16] » Okay.
[3:30:17] » Okay. Uh Linda
[3:30:20] and then Lydia and then Lydia again.
[3:30:22] » Sure. Well the the Oh, sorry, Jack.
[3:30:24] » We The policy really wasn't for flags in
[3:30:27] general. The policy was flags at city
[3:30:30] hall. That's really what And talking
[3:30:33] about being rushed. My gosh, we talked
[3:30:34] about this over and over and over.
[3:30:39] You know, whose flags somebody was upset
[3:30:42] this didn't it shouldn't be more than
[3:30:44] one day. It should be a week. HD, you
[3:30:47] know, there were different issues
[3:30:49] involved and we couldn't send it to the
[3:30:51] public to be reviewed because it had to
[3:30:54] be done on government property by
[3:30:56] government. You just said that the
[3:30:59] public couldn't make the the the
[3:31:02] decision for the flags. So, you know,
[3:31:05] that being what we talked about, we
[3:31:08] never talked about a flag pavilion. I
[3:31:11] think that that's a discussion we can
[3:31:13] have. And I think even when we were
[3:31:15] talking about the flags at city hall, we
[3:31:18] did bring up I think council member
[3:31:19] Dobby brought up the the flag pavilion
[3:31:21] idea. And then one other question I have
[3:31:24] really is if there is a flag pavilion,
[3:31:27] does it need to be on a property that
[3:31:29] the city owns or can it be on is it on
[3:31:31] private property? And what's the
[3:31:33] distinction there? And I really don't
[3:31:36] think that we can get this into the if
[3:31:38] it's if it's on private property they
[3:31:41] can do whatever they want but if it's on
[3:31:43] government property then that's
[3:31:45] something again we have to talk about.
[3:31:47] Is that correct?
[3:31:50] » Yeah. Absolutely. So the policy is about
[3:31:53] what the government's going to do
[3:31:55] » Related to flags. So if some nonprofit
[3:31:57] wants to fly flags they can absolutely
[3:31:59] do that.
[3:32:00] » And we want to be inclusive of everyone
[3:32:02] in our community. And there were so many
[3:32:05] people who were getting upset about one
[3:32:07] way or the other. And so finally it was
[3:32:10] just like my gosh, let's just put an end
[3:32:13] to this. And then we didn't have time to
[3:32:15] talk about anything else. That's really
[3:32:16] the history in my opinion of what was
[3:32:19] going on.
[3:32:19] » And I think it was Susan during the
[3:32:21] debate um when this came up that
[3:32:24] suggested another location. I think that
[3:32:26] would the record would support that. Is
[3:32:28] that right, Susan?
[3:32:30] » Um I suggested a fleet pavilion.
[3:32:32] » Yeah. Yeah, I remember
[3:32:34] » And council member Dovy
[3:32:36] » Like that idea too.
[3:32:37] » Okay, thank you. Well, let's go um Jack
[3:32:40] and then Lydia again.
[3:32:41] » Okay. Uh with me, I I think that the you
[3:32:44] know I agree that the idea of a flag
[3:32:46] pavilion operated by a nonprofit so that
[3:32:48] it keeps it out of the the hands of the
[3:32:51] the government and and they can handle
[3:32:53] it. I I think that would be the ideal.
[3:32:56] But whether there's a nonprofit that
[3:32:58] wants to do it and whether there's a
[3:32:59] place for P
[3:33:01] flag pavilion, you know, that's I I
[3:33:04] don't know. I I do think that uh what
[3:33:08] with the past policy in in section 4, I
[3:33:12] think that that was where the the rub
[3:33:14] was only those flags that represent
[3:33:16] non-controversially and unifying things
[3:33:18] or organizations will be considered for
[3:33:19] display. And I think that that was where
[3:33:21] the where the the proponents of the
[3:33:25] change was right there is what uh what
[3:33:28] is truly unifying and other than the
[3:33:32] American flag, the state flag and and
[3:33:35] the city flag. I mean those I mean hey
[3:33:37] the American flag hopefully that's
[3:33:38] unifying for all of us and and I think
[3:33:41] that that was the the question is what
[3:33:42] is truly unifying? Um, you know, if we
[3:33:46] do ask the the um
[3:33:50] uh the diversity commission to discuss
[3:33:53] this, take it up with community, I think
[3:33:54] that we should leave the policy as is
[3:33:57] until at the end of that discussion uh
[3:34:00] or that review by the human services or
[3:34:02] by the the U diversity commission and
[3:34:06] their recommendation to us.
[3:34:08] » All right. Thank you. Uh, Lydia.
[3:34:11] » Yeah, I think we keep talking about um
[3:34:13] unifying versus divisive. Um, but I
[3:34:16] think some things, for example, um Junth
[3:34:19] flag or the pride flag, it may not be um
[3:34:23] unifying because some people are not
[3:34:26] going to agree with those. However,
[3:34:29] I also want to add u being inclusive and
[3:34:33] um embracing either a culture uh again,
[3:34:38] you know, historical perspectives. And
[3:34:40] so I want to make sure that we add
[3:34:42] those. Um I know it could be semantic
[3:34:45] but still I think it also gives it a
[3:34:48] little um weight if you're looking at um
[3:34:51] embracing or being inclusive even though
[3:34:55] you know and then if we're saying oh
[3:34:57] this is divisive everything's going to
[3:34:58] be divisive. And so I just want to make
[3:35:00] sure that we use the um
[3:35:04] something appropriate that makes it
[3:35:05] inclusive also.
[3:35:08] » Okay. Thank you Susan.
[3:35:11] Uh, thank you. Uh, first of all, not
[3:35:13] everything that goes on a city council
[3:35:16] agenda goes through a commission or a
[3:35:18] committee. Um, I got a list of the last
[3:35:21] two years and it's I was surprised by
[3:35:23] how many things didn't go through a
[3:35:25] commission or a committee. So, that's
[3:35:26] not um not required and doesn't happen
[3:35:30] all the time. [clears throat]
[3:35:32] And um secondly, I think that the three
[3:35:35] flag poles in front of city hall should
[3:35:37] be for government. Uh, City Hall is
[3:35:41] located in a location where some people
[3:35:44] who have lived here for years don't even
[3:35:46] know where City Hall is. And
[3:35:51] to fly a flag to um to promote something
[3:35:55] else. It's just not the location where
[3:35:58] people are going to see it. So, it needs
[3:36:01] to be in another location where it's
[3:36:02] going to be more visible and that the
[3:36:05] community can can see it.
[3:36:07] Now, I had a quick actually uh go ahead.
[3:36:10] Go ahead, Martin.
[3:36:12] » Yeah, that's just what I wanted to say.
[3:36:14] I just I think that we need to leave
[3:36:15] those three flag pulls for government.
[3:36:17] » Let me ask a quick question. There's
[3:36:19] been a lot of discussion about
[3:36:20] pavilions. Is this Would this pavilion
[3:36:22] be city-owned or privately owned?
[3:36:25] » Go ahead. I mean, I I think really I
[3:36:29] don't know, maybe we're getting ahead of
[3:36:30] ourselves with that, but I want to give
[3:36:31] it to the diversity commission and I
[3:36:33] want to see what recommendations they
[3:36:34] come up with. And then, you know, my
[3:36:36] response to your question would be is
[3:36:38] then the council can kind of deliberate
[3:36:40] with that information um in place, you
[3:36:43] know, whether it go through the
[3:36:44] committee um and then council can, you
[3:36:47] know, bottom line is once it hits the
[3:36:49] sorry, bear with me for a second. once
[3:36:51] it hits the committee council committee
[3:36:54] after the commission and then the full
[3:36:56] body uh that's where we can debate those
[3:36:59] details in conjunction with working with
[3:37:01] you on that. Um but you know I mean I I
[3:37:05] definitely would support the idea of the
[3:37:07] diversity commission um
[3:37:10] you know uh dissecting through it and
[3:37:13] coming up with a recommendation. Look, I
[3:37:15] mean, I think um a representative from
[3:37:19] the law department um you know, I don't
[3:37:22] know who staffs the diversity commission
[3:37:24] in terms of legal uh but that we can put
[3:37:27] some frameworks and and have them come
[3:37:29] up with a um
[3:37:32] a policy that celebrates people and all
[3:37:35] of us, you know. And I I mean, here's
[3:37:38] the thing is I definitely hear the
[3:37:41] argument of let's make sure the the
[3:37:43] government stays out of it. That's a
[3:37:44] very standard response and I was I fine
[3:37:48] with that. I I hear people saying that
[3:37:50] and I'm fine with it. But but the
[3:37:52] question that it's going through my mind
[3:37:54] and is what's wrong with government
[3:37:56] saying we recognize and we see you?
[3:37:59] What's wrong with the government saying
[3:38:01] we celebrate all of you guys in our
[3:38:04] community? I mean, that's what cuts the
[3:38:06] suicidal rates down. That's what brings
[3:38:08] makes people feel like they're in a
[3:38:11] place where they belong. And when
[3:38:13] someone can look up and say, "Wow, okay,
[3:38:16] this city is truly being representative
[3:38:17] of who I am," that allows that person to
[3:38:21] thrive. That allows that person to
[3:38:23] volunteer, to continue to shop, and just
[3:38:26] thrive in its entirety uh in federal
[3:38:30] way. And that's I mean again I I I hear
[3:38:33] what some of the responses are and I'm
[3:38:35] again it is what it is. I I I respect it
[3:38:38] from the perspective of
[3:38:41] I respect you individually, you know,
[3:38:43] but I just I have to be honest with
[3:38:46] myself and say what's wrong with
[3:38:48] government sending that that message
[3:38:49] saying we we respect and we value and we
[3:38:53] see you uh and you're loved. Um you
[3:38:56] know, it's just what's kind of going
[3:38:58] through my mind. I wanted to say thank
[3:38:59] you.
[3:38:59] » All right. Thank you. We're gonna have a
[3:39:01] couple more discussion. We got Melissa
[3:39:02] and then Susan and then I'm going to ask
[3:39:04] about whether there's consensus. Yes.
[3:39:06] » Can I just I'm not trying to object or
[3:39:08] or throw or ranching saying something
[3:39:11] about the diversity commission. I just
[3:39:12] wanted to point out historically we do
[3:39:15] not use commissions to develop policy
[3:39:16] for the city. We could use them to vet
[3:39:18] policy. So um their opinion is helpful.
[3:39:22] Um but what matters is this group's
[3:39:26] opinion.
[3:39:26] » Yeah.
[3:39:27] » And so it it
[3:39:30] My only concern is we're setting up a
[3:39:32] situation where they get carp launch and
[3:39:35] then they're going to come up with
[3:39:37] whatever they come up with. And you
[3:39:38] probably aren't going to agree with it.
[3:39:40] » It very well.
[3:39:40] » Or you'll be legally constrained to not
[3:39:42] » Correct. I may not agree with their with
[3:39:44] their outcome, but at least they're
[3:39:45] talking about it once the commission and
[3:39:47] » It's more a matter of timing. So usually
[3:39:50] it would we we would come up with a
[3:39:52] policy that we think fits the bill and
[3:39:54] then see what they think about it. But
[3:39:56] that's just how we've done in the past.
[3:39:58] I mean, if I was to think really fast, I
[3:40:00] would like to see what would the
[3:40:02] commission like and then how can we work
[3:40:04] with that, you know, also meeting our
[3:40:06] needs, right, from legality perspective,
[3:40:09] but meeting their needs to discuss it
[3:40:10] because they've obviously come to the
[3:40:12] city council meetings and said, "Put
[3:40:15] this through our commission. We want to
[3:40:16] talk about it. Let's let's advise I
[3:40:18] mean, their job is to advise the city
[3:40:20] council u or bring recommendations." And
[3:40:22] what legal counsel is saying is that we
[3:40:24] have we've never traditionally done that
[3:40:26] in that we normally develop a a proposed
[3:40:30] policy and run it by to to see what
[3:40:32] their opinion is as opposed to the other
[3:40:34] way around letting them set policy and
[3:40:36] we confirm that. So
[3:40:38] » So maybe to committee and and develop
[3:40:40] something and then
[3:40:41] » Well that we're going to when we get
[3:40:43] done with the discussion I'll we'll try
[3:40:44] to work through about where consensus is
[3:40:46] at. Melissa and then Susan.
[3:40:49] Uh I hear I hear what you're saying
[3:40:51] Martin and I as well want to uh make
[3:40:55] this an inclusive welcoming uh community
[3:40:58] and you had asked the question what's
[3:41:00] the problem with the government uh you
[3:41:03] know recognizing these groups. Um well
[3:41:06] the problem is is that the government is
[3:41:08] not celebrating everybody and they are
[3:41:10] not recognizing everybody and mayor who
[3:41:14] have you denied a flag. There have been
[3:41:17] groups that have requested flags,
[3:41:18] correct? And who was denied?
[3:41:20] » Well, the ones that immediately come to
[3:41:22] mind are both sides of there was a
[3:41:25] request to fly the Israeli flag and I
[3:41:27] think that there was a a request to fly
[3:41:31] um uh the Palestinian flag. Um I think
[3:41:35] there was that that immediately comes to
[3:41:38] mind, those two.
[3:41:38] » Yeah. So I wonder how those people feel.
[3:41:41] Do they feel included when their
[3:41:43] government denied them a flag? If it
[3:41:45] takes a flag to feel welcome and
[3:41:47] included, then we have already
[3:41:51] made people feel unwelcome and not
[3:41:53] included.
[3:41:53] » The only national flags that we the
[3:41:55] Irish flag we do, we've we've
[3:41:57] traditionally done at um you know, St.
[3:42:00] Patrick's Day um and uh with the
[3:42:03] Patricks and the whole celebration in
[3:42:04] front of city hall and but that's more
[3:42:07] you know, sort of more cultural. And
[3:42:08] then we have flown the Ukrainian flag in
[3:42:11] support of their efforts because they've
[3:42:14] been invaded and uh we had supported
[3:42:17] supported we had a a sister city
[3:42:19] relationship with the with the city of
[3:42:21] Ukraine that we developed. Correct.
[3:42:22] Those are the only two national flags
[3:42:24] and so I I did not think it'd be
[3:42:26] advisable for our community to to weigh
[3:42:29] in on something as controversial as
[3:42:31] Middle East.
[3:42:32] » Well, and and correct. And um
[3:42:36] you know I I also support our Ukrainian
[3:42:39] brothers and sisters and you know like I
[3:42:41] said I'm Slavic myself uh have that that
[3:42:44] heritage but they are also in a war and
[3:42:47] we have Ukrainians in this community and
[3:42:49] we have Russians in this community. And
[3:42:51] so what are we stating as a government
[3:42:54] when we fly one flag? We're making now a
[3:42:56] statement on a foreign war. And you
[3:43:00] know, I just I just
[3:43:02] I think if if we're gonna say that we
[3:43:05] need flags representing communities to
[3:43:09] feel welcome and included, then we are
[3:43:12] going to need hundreds of flag poles
[3:43:14] because we are such a diverse community
[3:43:18] that we're going to need to represent,
[3:43:20] you know, everyone equally. Otherwise,
[3:43:22] we are discriminating. in my point of
[3:43:25] view.
[3:43:25] » Well, if you create a pavilion, you're
[3:43:26] going to have to figure out who's going
[3:43:28] to fly the flags in the pavilion and who
[3:43:30] says no to those. Susan,
[3:43:34] » So um as you know, Jim, I am a I love my
[3:43:38] flags along camp. They're not my flags,
[3:43:40] but this is flags. And I've looked into
[3:43:43] the cost of flag poles the last many
[3:43:45] many years and they're expensive because
[3:43:47] you're going to want a flag pole that
[3:43:49] probably has a light on it so you don't
[3:43:51] have to have maintain the lights on the
[3:43:53] ground or wherever.
[3:43:55] Um so my idea would be that council have
[3:43:59] an ad has an ad hoc committee to discuss
[3:44:02] this. Three council members who are
[3:44:04] interested in discussing it.
[3:44:07] um come up with the proposal, talk to
[3:44:09] the rest of the council, maybe send it
[3:44:11] off to the diversity commission to get
[3:44:13] their opinion on it and see where it
[3:44:16] goes from there. But um I would support
[3:44:20] I think that a flag pavilion with um off
[3:44:24] of government property would be the best
[3:44:27] idea. Then who
[3:44:28] » Just think just think of this?
[3:44:30] » Yeah.
[3:44:31] » Gateway center as you come into the city
[3:44:34] of Federal Way, which is considered one
[3:44:36] of the mo most diverse cities in the
[3:44:38] country.
[3:44:39] » Flags.
[3:44:41] » Wouldn't that be cool?
[3:44:43] » Not our property, but you know, just
[3:44:45] » If it's not our property, then who
[3:44:47] decides? And then what happens if they
[3:44:49] put something that really offensive
[3:44:51] questions? Well, what happens if
[3:44:52] somebody puts something really offensive
[3:44:54] on that pavilion that we have no control
[3:44:56] over at that point?
[3:44:57] » But do we want control over I'm I'm
[3:45:00] hearing we don't want control over.
[3:45:02] » So
[3:45:02] » So that I mean it's it would be
[3:45:04] something that maybe the ad hoc
[3:45:05] committee could go back and forth about
[3:45:07] and discuss.
[3:45:08] » Yeah. And I'm I'm not I don't know about
[3:45:10] an ad hoc committee. I just have to
[3:45:12] process that a little bit more. But but
[3:45:14] I think a committee needs to look into
[3:45:16] this. Uh and I think that's right. I
[3:45:19] mean, I would think parks would be one.
[3:45:21] Um, and the same idea, council, excuse
[3:45:24] me, Susan. Um, it would be the same idea
[3:45:26] where the committee can review it. Um,
[3:45:28] come up with a recommendation. Um, and
[3:45:31] the council can dis discuss it and then
[3:45:33] give it to the diversity commission to
[3:45:35] to review it. Uh, with some parameters,
[3:45:38] with some I don't know what to call it,
[3:45:40] uh, guard rails maybe, you know. But um
[3:45:43] um I I think you know to to to respond
[3:45:46] to Melissa respectfully um you know it's
[3:45:51] not just about flags. You're right. It
[3:45:53] is about our actions. It is about our
[3:45:56] policies. It is about uh our entire
[3:45:59] community what we're doing to ensure
[3:46:00] that we are building a community that's
[3:46:02] welcoming to all. Uh so you're right
[3:46:05] it's not just flags. Um and um uh that
[3:46:09] would be my only response that that I
[3:46:11] would have as a conversationwise. Uh but
[3:46:14] I I would support the idea of let's take
[3:46:16] it to it to a committee um you know um
[3:46:20] review the policy come up with a
[3:46:21] recommendation and then council can
[3:46:23] discuss it and then we can give it to
[3:46:24] the diversity commission for uh their
[3:46:27] input.
[3:46:28] » Were you gonna say something?
[3:46:30] » Okay. U Melissa.
[3:46:32] » So just a question for legal then. We
[3:46:34] mentioned that our um
[3:46:37] our uh commissions are not policy
[3:46:39] makers. So if we do what's being
[3:46:42] suggested are we setting precedent for
[3:46:44] now every commission making policy.
[3:46:46] » I think it's important to not call it
[3:46:49] policym or review was the word I was
[3:46:52] queued into. I don't believe that's what
[3:46:55] Mr. Moore meant. I think it's we were
[3:46:57] valuing their input. They're absolutely
[3:46:58] supposed to give us input. That's their
[3:47:00] their role. But but and I say us, it's
[3:47:02] not us. It's you guys. So council just
[3:47:05] needs to be aware that especially on
[3:47:07] this issue, this is not something you
[3:47:08] can delegate to the citizens. You got to
[3:47:11] make a call.
[3:47:12] » Yeah. I just want to make sure that you
[3:47:14] know if that if that is a direction that
[3:47:16] the council wants to go in.
[3:47:17] » My personal opinion is if we start
[3:47:18] letting commissions start policym we
[3:47:22] will have a lot of policy driven stuff
[3:47:24] from them.
[3:47:25] » Yeah. So that was my suggestion was if
[3:47:28] if if you know if the council goes in
[3:47:30] this direction, we need to make sure
[3:47:31] that our commissions are not in a
[3:47:33] position to create policy but rather
[3:47:35] advisory.
[3:47:38] » Yeah.
[3:47:40] Yeah. I I mean I think we can take in
[3:47:43] steps here, you know. Um, but I think
[3:47:46] nonetheless at this moment, because I I
[3:47:49] hear what you're saying, Melissa, and I
[3:47:50] hear what our attorney is saying, but I
[3:47:52] think that maybe this step is is let's
[3:47:55] take it to the to the committee, parks
[3:47:57] and recreation, human services
[3:47:58] committee, uh, for further review, um,
[3:48:01] and to work on uh, and then, um, the
[3:48:04] council can take it up and then, um,
[3:48:07] maybe we can get input uh, from from the
[3:48:10] diversity commission. It's what they
[3:48:11] want and I want to honor those voices.
[3:48:15] Uh, and just because it's
[3:48:18] just because we've never done it before
[3:48:19] and and hearing that there could be a
[3:48:21] precedence, but I mean it's it's okay
[3:48:24] for us to get input. It's okay for us to
[3:48:27] get input, you know, and and I I mean
[3:48:31] I mean I see I see Linda with her thing
[3:48:34] up, but I I think it's easy to look at
[3:48:37] our history and what we've done. Um and
[3:48:39] and I I value our history, but you know,
[3:48:43] our number of commissioners who have
[3:48:44] come forth and saying, "Let's let's talk
[3:48:46] about this and let's come up with a
[3:48:48] recommendation."
[3:48:49] » Thank you, Linda.
[3:48:50] » Oh, thank you very much. Mayor, you've t
[3:48:52] Jim, you've talked about us coming to a
[3:48:54] consensus today. I'm wondering if we
[3:48:57] could go around the room and say, it
[3:48:59] sounds like we either want to send it to
[3:49:01] um the parks committee or an ad hoc
[3:49:03] committee. I wonder if go around the
[3:49:04] room just to say which one and move
[3:49:06] forward because we we can't keep
[3:49:08] » Right. I I was just about to go there.
[3:49:10] Ryan, does that does that it's fine. And
[3:49:13] one of the things I want to know, one of
[3:49:14] the things I've heard, the consensus I'm
[3:49:17] hearing is that there's not really that
[3:49:21] city hall itself, the the flag polls,
[3:49:24] I've heard this repeatedly, are not
[3:49:26] really in sight. Am I So consider this.
[3:49:30] Is is the city hall not the place where
[3:49:32] this should be decided? Curious about
[3:49:34] whether there whe whether there is
[3:49:37] consensus on the diversity commissioning
[3:49:40] hearing this first or later after a
[3:49:43] policy is is is sort of devised. So why
[3:49:47] don't we start with um uh Lind. Let's
[3:49:50] just go a clockwise. Linda.
[3:49:52] » Um well uh okay my opinion would be I
[3:49:55] like Susan's idea of ad hoc. I like uh
[3:49:59] the diversity. It's kind of like the the
[3:50:02] tail wagon the dog. We really have to
[3:50:04] have input from the diversity, but after
[3:50:07] we've discussed it and then get their
[3:50:09] input. And so I would prefer that you
[3:50:14] » Uh
[3:50:15] yeah with me I I I think that a
[3:50:19] I think that the idea of a pavilion uh
[3:50:23] of some type is good. Uh, I [snorts]
[3:50:28] recognize your concern, Jim, on on if it
[3:50:30] was operated by somebody outside the
[3:50:32] city, it could be anything. I think
[3:50:35] there's some legitimate concerns there.
[3:50:37] However,
[3:50:40] that there's going to be controversy no
[3:50:41] matter what. I mean, this is a policy
[3:50:44] whether it's the the the government
[3:50:46] handling it or a nonprofit handling it
[3:50:48] or whoever else handling it, there's
[3:50:49] going to be be be controversy. Uh I I
[3:50:53] don't think that the the city hall is
[3:50:55] the place to to fly it. And um and and
[3:51:01] also I you know in the past sometimes
[3:51:03] we've had flags at their flags on all
[3:51:05] the flag poles on 320. I don't think
[3:51:07] that that's appropriate.
[3:51:10] So, uh, but anyway,
[3:51:13] » Which committee or
[3:51:15] » Uh I it seems to me an ad hoc committee
[3:51:17] would be more considerate what what uh
[3:51:19] Brian and everybody said in ad hoc
[3:51:21] committee would be more appropriate.
[3:51:23] » Well, Brian didn't mention about ad hoc
[3:51:25] fees.
[3:51:26] » Okay. Well, he he he mentioned not that
[3:51:28] the uh diversity commission not
[3:51:31] » Yeah.
[3:51:32] » Not starting.
[3:51:33] » Susan suggested the ad hoc.
[3:51:35] » Yeah. If there's going to be some type
[3:51:36] of thing, it'd be more appropriate an ad
[3:51:38] hoc committee rather than the emergency
[3:51:41] commission.
[3:51:42] » Okay. Uh Libby,
[3:51:44] » I think I'll go with the ad hoc
[3:51:45] committee looking at it, but making sure
[3:51:48] that there's public input
[3:51:51] » So people feel heard.
[3:51:54] Susan
[3:51:55] » Um an ad hoc committee uh an and Martin
[3:51:58] the reason why is it has an ad hoc
[3:52:01] committee will have more time to just
[3:52:03] discuss this instead of having it at the
[3:52:05] parks committee meeting
[3:52:07] » So um
[3:52:10] that's why and it doesn't have to be
[3:52:11] very many meetings of an ad hoc
[3:52:13] committee it could be one or two but it
[3:52:15] would be an in-depth discussion with a
[3:52:17] lot of ideas flowing back and forth and
[3:52:19] I just think it would be the best way to
[3:52:22] start it.
[3:52:23] » Um, I also uh just want to remind
[3:52:26] everyone that we're not going to make
[3:52:28] everyone happy. We can never make
[3:52:30] everyone happy, but we have to do what's
[3:52:32] best for the city and uh and and the
[3:52:35] people who live here and work here. And
[3:52:37] so,
[3:52:41] um, but anyway, I say ad hoc committee,
[3:52:43] then it goes to the parks committee,
[3:52:45] then it goes to the diversity
[3:52:47] commission, then it goes back to maybe
[3:52:49] parks, and then to council. It's going
[3:52:51] to be a long process, but it it has to
[3:52:53] be because it has to be a well
[3:52:54] thoughtout process.
[3:52:56] » Okay. Thank you, Les.
[3:53:01] » I think it should go directly to parks
[3:53:05] and uh after that kick it down to the
[3:53:09] diversity commission to see what their
[3:53:11] thoughts are and then back to parks and
[3:53:14] then on to the agenda.
[3:53:16] » Thank you, Melissa.
[3:53:18] » Uh I just need some clarity. Who would
[3:53:20] be on the ad hoc committee?
[3:53:21] » Well, so everyone.
[3:53:24] » What do you mean everyone?
[3:53:25] » What do you mean everyone?
[3:53:27] » Any council member that wants to come, I
[3:53:28] think.
[3:53:28] » Oh. Oh, so council members though.
[3:53:30] » Any council member.
[3:53:31] » Okay. Well,
[3:53:32] » It's an ad hoc committee of council.
[3:53:34] » Okay. In the can I just in the past when
[3:53:36] we've had ad hoc committees we have
[3:53:38] assigned we've asked people who want to
[3:53:40] be on it because it's three council
[3:53:42] members and then um
[3:53:45] » Well does it have to be a we're not
[3:53:47] having a we're not talking about the
[3:53:49] same thing.
[3:53:50] » That's why I'm asking the question.
[3:53:51] » Absolutely. I'd like I mean my
[3:53:54] understanding and forgive if I'm wrong
[3:53:56] correct me but my understanding is that
[3:53:58] as council president I can choose who
[3:54:00] can be on I can solicit who wants to be
[3:54:01] on it but then choose the three three
[3:54:04] people are going to be on it and then
[3:54:06] what not. Isn't that right?
[3:54:08] » Well, it depends on whether it's it's
[3:54:10] whatever the majority of council tells
[3:54:12] you they want that happen.
[3:54:14] » Well, no, I'm talking about choosing
[3:54:17] who's going to be on this.
[3:54:18] » There's two different There's two
[3:54:19] different pathways to go. The one is is
[3:54:21] exactly what you're talking about, which
[3:54:23] is the council president decides that,
[3:54:26] you know, a nonquorum
[3:54:28] um you know, majority or you you uh you
[3:54:32] can go with a you can have a quorum of
[3:54:34] city council members or a m as many
[3:54:37] people that want and even if it's a
[3:54:38] quorum, those meetings would have to be
[3:54:40] publicly noticed and have to be in
[3:54:42] public.
[3:54:42] » Correct. And just to be clear, the first
[3:54:45] one where you would assign people,
[3:54:47] that's after council has set it up.
[3:54:49] » Yes. So, if that's what council wants to
[3:54:51] do is set it up and have you appoint
[3:54:53] delegates and community members, that's
[3:54:56] not an ad hoc committee of council.
[3:54:57] That's just it's a we're using the same
[3:54:59] term to describe something else, but
[3:55:02] it's another type of ad hoc committee.
[3:55:03] Does that make sense?
[3:55:06] » For clarity and then I'll give it back
[3:55:08] to the mayor.
[3:55:08] » It's more of a work group. Is that a
[3:55:11] better way to phrase it?
[3:55:12] » Working me committee. Yeah. Um um and
[3:55:15] just for clarity and then I'll I'll kick
[3:55:17] it back to the mayor and then I think
[3:55:18] Melissa's not done with her question or
[3:55:20] or time but u I mean obviously there's a
[3:55:23] consensus that's forming already so
[3:55:26] that's done um and so obviously
[3:55:28] » They have to vote
[3:55:31] » No we can't do it this morning
[3:55:33] » About creating a working group not I
[3:55:36] think an ad hoc group denotes that there
[3:55:38] would be a three nonquorum
[3:55:41] group decided by
[3:55:44] » Let's use two different terms because
[3:55:45] we're getting confused. So ad hoc
[3:55:47] committee is a subcommittee of council
[3:55:49] and it's only council members.
[3:55:51] » Yeah.
[3:55:51] » A work group is whatever you want it to
[3:55:53] be.
[3:55:54] » Right. And that would be decided by
[3:55:55] council. Let's have Melissa finish your
[3:55:57] comment and then over to Linda.
[3:55:59] » Okay. I would be supportive then of a
[3:56:02] work group that is decided by the entire
[3:56:04] council. Um
[3:56:07] and you know I even hesitate to say that
[3:56:09] to be honest.
[3:56:12] So, that's kind of where I'm at right
[3:56:14] now.
[3:56:15] » Okay, Linda.
[3:56:17] » Well, I think to be fair to all of us, I
[3:56:19] think that we should all have input into
[3:56:21] who would have the desire to be on the
[3:56:23] committee and then honor that and then
[3:56:26] whoever wants to be just I mean, do you
[3:56:30] would you select that, mayor? Would who
[3:56:31] would
[3:56:32] » No, I think we're talking about
[3:56:34] » What I I would what I would sug
[3:56:38] I I I got an idea, but I uh Martin.
[3:56:40] Sure. I I also have an idea too with a
[3:56:42] lot of respect, you know, because
[3:56:44] » No, I wouldn't be selecting.
[3:56:45] » My my thought process was all right,
[3:56:47] let's let's see what the consensus is.
[3:56:49] And right now, the consensus seems to be
[3:56:51] ad hoc is is what I'm at least four
[3:56:54] people have said that. And I want
[3:56:55] » Working group.
[3:56:56] » Well, no, I've heard the word ad hoc.
[3:56:58] » We haven't each
[3:56:59] » But you said correct, but you said ad
[3:57:01] hoc. You said ad hoc. You said ad hoc.
[3:57:04] » I would like to clarify that to change
[3:57:05] it to a working group.
[3:57:06] » Okay. So, now we're changing. Okay.
[3:57:08] » That that was the whole point. Yeah. So
[3:57:11] two terms work group means
[3:57:13] » Not council members they can be a part
[3:57:15] of it but whatever way you want to set
[3:57:17] up that group you can do whatever you
[3:57:19] want ad hoc means only council members
[3:57:22] » And a sub it's basically just it's like
[3:57:25] fedra it's another committee of council
[3:57:27] » But a nonquorum
[3:57:29] or
[3:57:29] » We could do it it would be a quorum it
[3:57:31] would be just a public meeting okay
[3:57:32] public meeting so not three members of
[3:57:35] the council um actually were you done
[3:57:38] selissa
[3:57:39] » Hi that
[3:57:41] » Uh yes I'm finished except that I think
[3:57:44] now that we've clarified the question I
[3:57:47] because we weren't all thinking the same
[3:57:48] thing uh we were interpreting this
[3:57:51] differently so we might need to go
[3:57:52] around again and say what everybody
[3:57:54] thinks now
[3:57:55] » Maybe that's a good idea Susan
[3:57:57] » So I was what when I said ad hoc
[3:58:00] committee I was thinking three council
[3:58:01] members uh like we did when we were
[3:58:04] first talking about um uh it was Kelly
[3:58:08] » M commission we also Did that with you?
[3:58:10] » We did it with the youth commission. We
[3:58:11] did it with the senior commission and we
[3:58:13] did it with um you know when we were
[3:58:15] trying to figure out how to get people
[3:58:17] to see federal way more. I can't think
[3:58:20] of what uh Kelly was on it. Branding.
[3:58:22] Yeah. Were you on it?
[3:58:23] » Yeah. Well, there's three of And that
[3:58:26] was what I was thinking.
[3:58:27] » Yeah. And that's honestly that's what I
[3:58:29] was thinking uh because I had remembered
[3:58:30] that being my my previous practice. I
[3:58:33] mean, obviously I want to do what's what
[3:58:36] the content what the majority of council
[3:58:39] members are saying because I know we
[3:58:40] can't take votes here. Um, but
[3:58:43] personally, I would tend to agree with
[3:58:45] what uh Susan has mentioned because that
[3:58:47] that's what I'm used to doing. That's
[3:58:49] what I've was envisioning before, which
[3:58:51] is let's just do an ad hoc. Let's let's
[3:58:53] bring three or four people together. I'm
[3:58:56] just this is in response to Susan's
[3:58:57] thing. Um,
[3:58:58] » Well, if it's four, they all the
[3:59:00] » Three. Okay. So three three uh and then
[3:59:03] um go through the process. Um so that
[3:59:05] would be
[3:59:06] » Brian wants to say something. Brian,
[3:59:08] » This is just an effort to to kind of
[3:59:09] corral this and that is um that the
[3:59:12] council committees are set up to conduct
[3:59:15] business and this is a business item.
[3:59:17] The your committee is already set up and
[3:59:19] that's the parks committee. Yeah. So to
[3:59:22] council member Ces's point, you can and
[3:59:24] there I know their agenda is full, but
[3:59:26] this is exactly what the parks committee
[3:59:27] is set up to do
[3:59:28] » And all the council
[3:59:30] » And all the council members attend
[3:59:31] anyway and you have a a select group
[3:59:33] that actually votes and so the structure
[3:59:35] is already set in place. So Brian, my
[3:59:38] answer would be is is to what council
[3:59:40] member Sassum has said, which is let's
[3:59:42] and I think I indicated too one earlier
[3:59:44] in my comments, which is let's put it
[3:59:46] into parks and then we'll kick it to
[3:59:49] diversity and then parks again and then
[3:59:51] city council.
[3:59:52] » Linda,
[3:59:52] » Excuse me. Excuse me.
[3:59:56] » I don't want this council to be directed
[3:59:59] one way or the other. I think that
[4:00:01] anyone who has an interest should be
[4:00:04] involved in this committee. It's not
[4:00:06] just like a a normal topic. It's a
[4:00:09] bigger topic than that. And it's very
[4:00:10] important to many people in our
[4:00:12] community. And I think that we should
[4:00:14] have some kind of a formal group of
[4:00:16] people who are interested, not just
[4:00:18] three, because that can limit what
[4:00:20] happens that we can have a meeting and
[4:00:24] take input from the community, make some
[4:00:27] suggestions, send it back to diversity
[4:00:30] or send it to um parks and then to
[4:00:32] diversity. that I think that everyone
[4:00:34] should have the opportunity to have a a
[4:00:37] chance to vote on what should happen
[4:00:39] here and I think that um the mayor is
[4:00:43] the one that should appoint this
[4:00:44] committee because I think that that
[4:00:45] would be properly your job.
[4:00:48] » Okay. Thank you. Uh Lydia,
[4:00:50] » Could this just be a study session then?
[4:00:53] So everyone
[4:00:54] » Could in this you can vote. You could
[4:00:56] vote to decide what to do. It's more
[4:00:58] than just a study session or some kind
[4:01:01] of a formal session. But, you know, if
[4:01:04] you just have a study session, it it
[4:01:05] really doesn't it doesn't give you any
[4:01:08] teeth.
[4:01:09] » Can you uh uh uh I'm going to call on
[4:01:12] you Jack in just a sec. Ryan, are is a
[4:01:15] vote allowed in a special meeting?
[4:01:16] » Yes.
[4:01:17] » Okay. Uh Jack,
[4:01:19] » I would hold on just for a second.
[4:01:22] Lydia, were you done?
[4:01:22] » Yeah. No, the reason I'm saying is just
[4:01:24] to support what you said is that instead
[4:01:27] of three, let's all be involved in stuff
[4:01:29] and I feel like that's the only time.
[4:01:31] » Yeah, I feel like Okay, so that's why I
[4:01:34] suggested study session.
[4:01:36] Jack,
[4:01:37] » I would simply say that that considering
[4:01:39] our time constraints right now and we're
[4:01:40] still balancing this bouncing this all
[4:01:43] over is in one of our next special uh
[4:01:48] city council meetings, why don't we
[4:01:51] resume this subject, figure out exactly
[4:01:54] how we want to to discuss it for the
[4:01:56] future and so that right now we can
[4:02:00] continue on with our agenda today and
[4:02:02] and just take up where this discussion
[4:02:05] is where we're leaving off now, take it
[4:02:08] up in a future special meeting and we
[4:02:10] can figure out what kind of system we
[4:02:12] want to deise in order to work it out.
[4:02:16] » Part of you so part of uh where there's
[4:02:20] a quorum of council members, the
[4:02:22] statute, the RCW said that the mayor
[4:02:25] presumptively leads a discussion. Let me
[4:02:28] ask you this, council, and I want to
[4:02:30] listen. I'm going to throw this out
[4:02:31] there. Um, would it be more helpful for
[4:02:34] the council to meet in a study session
[4:02:37] or, you know, in a in a in a non uh
[4:02:41] there's a quorum that I I I but I could
[4:02:43] selectively remove myself from that.
[4:02:45] Would the council like to run this
[4:02:47] themselves or have it be part of a study
[4:02:50] session that I would run? That's I want
[4:02:52] to kind of get the the feeling of this.
[4:02:54] Do you want to do this on your own and
[4:02:56] without without me there or do you want
[4:02:58] to be having a study session? So I I
[4:03:00] hear study session from both of you
[4:03:03] » Or
[4:03:04] » Yeah, I I say a special council meeting
[4:03:06] and we can figure it out from there.
[4:03:09] » Well, and maybe
[4:03:13] I'm fine either way
[4:03:14] » Because essentially what we're doing at
[4:03:15] King County has what they call committee
[4:03:17] of the whole. They call it a cow. Um and
[4:03:20] they're just by short and they have
[4:03:22] essentially these committee meetings but
[4:03:25] they're essentially it's the committee
[4:03:27] but the whole body is
[4:03:29] » Yeah. Yeah. Aubry. Exactly. And I and so
[4:03:32] they have what they call committee of
[4:03:33] the whole. Um and I would respect that
[4:03:36] if you guys wanted to meet as a
[4:03:38] committee of the whole. I it wouldn't be
[4:03:40] necessarily a special meeting. It'd be
[4:03:42] something where I would I would let you
[4:03:44] guys kind of you know kind of run it.
[4:03:45] Susan, what do you what do you
[4:03:47] » Um I I could see that, you know, that
[4:03:51] that might be productive. I don't know
[4:03:52] that it would be productive. Um
[4:03:56] I think there's a lot of things that
[4:03:59] need to be weeded out of
[4:04:02] this discussion because before we go in
[4:04:05] in front of the public I I mean I I
[4:04:07] think three
[4:04:11] I would say so for the committee of the
[4:04:12] whole generally there's not public
[4:04:14] comment and that would be I don't know
[4:04:17] how we would do that. Um I'm not against
[4:04:20] doing that. I just don't know how
[4:04:22] productive it would be.
[4:04:24] » So, but let's give it a try. Um, we need
[4:04:27] to come up with a solution. And if the
[4:04:30] solution is that we continue to talk and
[4:04:33] talk and talk about it, that's a
[4:04:34] solution. I I just don't I don't see a
[4:04:37] solution right now.
[4:04:38] » Do you with those committee meetings, do
[4:04:40] they do they have public input or is it
[4:04:42] just
[4:04:43] » I was just about to ask Ryan whether
[4:04:44] that's
[4:04:45] » We're really getting wrapped up around
[4:04:46] the names of things. So, do we want to
[4:04:48] meet as a group with or without the
[4:04:50] mayor? I think that's the question.
[4:04:52] » Yeah, that's a that's a question.
[4:04:53] » We can call whatever we want after.
[4:04:54] » Okay. So, let's go around the So, let's
[4:04:55] let's try to get consensus before we
[4:04:57] break for lunch you guys about whether
[4:05:00] we do a non-majority quorum uh you know
[4:05:03] a non uh you know like a what has
[4:05:06] traditionally always been an ad hoc
[4:05:08] group of a non- majority. Yeah.
[4:05:09] » And to your question, I'm sorry I didn't
[4:05:11] actually answer the question. The public
[4:05:13] can be there for all any of these
[4:05:15] things.
[4:05:15] » What about public comment? Just public
[4:05:17] comment.
[4:05:17] » Whatever we want. If you want public
[4:05:18] comment, ask for public comment. Yeah.
[4:05:20] Okay. So, um let's let's weigh in on
[4:05:23] because it sounds like we're the the
[4:05:25] council is going to have whether it's at
[4:05:27] comm council committee that I guess here
[4:05:29] are the sort of the general options.
[4:05:31] Okay. When we first start talking about
[4:05:33] this um a nonquorum, so three members of
[4:05:37] the council meet to sort of hash out
[4:05:39] some of these issues. That's one that's
[4:05:41] that's one possible option. The other
[4:05:43] option is committee the public the parks
[4:05:46] as Brian set forth and as as Lesa said
[4:05:49] um we just send it to the parks
[4:05:50] committee and we see where we go from
[4:05:52] there but ultimately three members of
[4:05:54] the council get the vote there um or a
[4:05:58] um a study session or committee of the
[4:06:01] whole um with or without me a normal
[4:06:03] study session I'm there um but with the
[4:06:06] council you know is that helpful is that
[4:06:08] not helpful you want me there I'm good
[4:06:11] either way I I'm I'm willing to be
[4:06:13] either way, but I I want to make sure
[4:06:14] I'm respecting your voice and your
[4:06:16] process. Why? And we've been going this
[4:06:18] way. Why don't we go back the other way
[4:06:20] and and council president, we'll we'll
[4:06:22] end with you.
[4:06:23] » Um let let's Melissa thoughts.
[4:06:25] » So the question is with or without the
[4:06:27] mayor. Is that the way?
[4:06:28] » Yeah. Or and also uh committ
[4:06:31] » All of us or three.
[4:06:32] » Yeah. Three members. Three members or
[4:06:35] council committee or council of the
[4:06:36] whole. And if it's council of the whole
[4:06:39] with or without me Melissa
[4:06:41] » Meet as a group with the mayor.
[4:06:44] » Okay. Less
[4:06:47] » Committee uh followed closely by meet as
[4:06:51] a group with the mayor.
[4:06:54] » Okay.
[4:06:55] » So I'll be different. I let's go ahead
[4:06:56] and meet as a group without the mayor. I
[4:06:58] think that um it's a discussion council
[4:07:01] needs to have. It'll be a council policy
[4:07:04] and mayor doesn't make policy. Okay.
[4:07:06] Sorry.
[4:07:07] » Oh, no. The mayor doesn't make
[4:07:08] » I follow policy. Um, that's right.
[4:07:11] That's right. It's the executive. But
[4:07:12] thank you, Lydia.
[4:07:13] » I say committee of the whole with the
[4:07:16] mayor, though, because your input is
[4:07:17] just so valuable.
[4:07:18] » Well, thank you. Um, but I understand
[4:07:20] exactly what Susan's saying. I get it. I
[4:07:22] get it. Um, this is all about just
[4:07:24] coming to good resolutions, you guys.
[4:07:26] Uh, Jack,
[4:07:27] » Uh, committee the whole whether it's
[4:07:29] with with or without the mayor, I'm
[4:07:31] finding a way.
[4:07:32] » Okay. All right.
[4:07:33] » Committee the whole with the mayor and
[4:07:35] I'm fine with whether
[4:07:36] public is there or not? I think they
[4:07:38] should
[4:07:40] be there.
[4:07:42] But
[4:07:43] » Very good, Martin.
[4:07:46] » Um
[4:07:48] I [clears throat]
[4:07:49] uh I mean my job as council president is
[4:07:50] to go where the consensus is. Yeah.
[4:07:52] » And it seems like the consensus is uh
[4:07:55] having a meeting with the mayor uh
[4:07:57] present and that's that's what I will
[4:07:58] support as council president.
[4:08:00] » Okay, you guys. I I think we got it. I
[4:08:02] think we've got what we'll do is we'll
[4:08:03] call it. Do we call
[4:08:05] » Sorry. Yeah. Uh I I do think and this is
[4:08:07] expected I think so but I want to put on
[4:08:09] record that it is absolutely important
[4:08:11] for us to get public input y
[4:08:13] » Um and I still hope that it'll go
[4:08:14] through the committee and I still hope
[4:08:16] that it'll go through the commission
[4:08:17] » That I think that we are all in
[4:08:18] agreement we make sure what the council
[4:08:21] what council president Moore just said
[4:08:23] what what Martin just said are we all in
[4:08:25] agreement that this will go through a
[4:08:28] committee and that in one form at one
[4:08:30] point or another it will get discussed
[4:08:32] by the diversity commission absolutely
[4:08:34] » Are we all in agreement with That
[4:08:36] » Is there any concern?
[4:08:38] » May.
[4:08:39] » Okay. All right. Um I think we got it.
[4:08:42] Now would we call this this committee of
[4:08:44] the whole just a study session
[4:08:47] » Or a special meeting?
[4:08:48] » What's your preference?
[4:08:50] [laughter]
[4:08:51] » Just a study session.
[4:08:53] » But in terms
[4:08:56] of terminology.
[4:08:57] » Yeah.
[4:08:57] » Okay. I don't what the problem with a
[4:09:00] study session right before a council
[4:09:01] meeting is we're um time
[4:09:05] » And um
[4:09:07] so unless we all come with our thoughts
[4:09:10] together and we can have a constructive
[4:09:12] con conversation
[4:09:15] u you know maybe we need to have it on a
[4:09:18] day other than a normal Tuesday or if we
[4:09:23] do it on a normal Tuesday before council
[4:09:25] meeting uh be prepared to start at 5 and
[4:09:29] know that we have till 6:15 at the
[4:09:32] latest.
[4:09:32] » Yeah.
[4:09:33] » And just be prepared with your thoughts
[4:09:35] and what you you know what it is you
[4:09:38] want to say and and how you want to say
[4:09:39] it.
[4:09:39] » And if we try five and we don't have
[4:09:41] enough time,
[4:09:44] » We can always go for another day. Uh
[4:09:46] Lydia,
[4:09:47] » So this is a question. If it's a study
[4:09:49] session, staff has to do a presentation
[4:09:52] like you would have to
[4:09:53] » Uh I don't think we need I think the
[4:09:56] only presentation would be what we just
[4:09:57] got.
[4:09:58] » Okay. So
[4:09:59] » Is all we need really is just we need a
[4:10:01] rubric for the legal requirements and
[4:10:03] then after that it's kind of whatever
[4:10:05] you want.
[4:10:05] » All right. Just wanted to know how we
[4:10:08] » So yes, I would start with something
[4:10:10] very similar to this. Maybe a little
[4:10:11] more concise and be done. And is council
[4:10:16] okay if we start a little bit earlier
[4:10:18] before 5?
[4:10:19] » Well, I I do have a hesitation on that
[4:10:21] because there are people that work in
[4:10:23] the community, do they want to
[4:10:24] participate in this? So, I would advise
[4:10:27] um 5:30 5:45 and and and like the mayor
[4:10:30] said, like the mayor said, and I I do
[4:10:32] agree with him on this, but that's if if
[4:10:34] we need to have the conversation again,
[4:10:36] we we'll we'll have it again, but I want
[4:10:38] to make sure that people are able to
[4:10:39] attend um after work.
[4:10:43] five o'clock.
[4:10:44] » A lot of our special meetings start at
[4:10:46] five. Um and
[4:10:48] » Okay.
[4:10:49] » You know, it is what it is. It's five
[4:10:50] o'clock. I mean, most of them last year
[4:10:52] started at five. So,
[4:10:53] » Okay.
[4:10:54] » Yes.
[4:10:54] » Less I know you're coming from Seattle
[4:10:56] from Udub. Is that if we do it at five?
[4:10:58] Are you
[4:10:59] » On Mondays or Tuesdays?
[4:11:01] » Oh,
[4:11:04] so Tuesdays like a council meeting that
[4:11:06] would not be good for you or it would
[4:11:07] be.
[4:11:07] » It would be.
[4:11:07] » It would be. Okay. Good. I just want to
[4:11:09] make sure. Oh. Um, I was thinking in in
[4:11:12] terms of what Lydia was saying, uh, not
[4:11:14] that we need a presentation, but I need
[4:11:16] staff to maybe check policies for other
[4:11:20] cities that they have. That would be
[4:11:22] very helpful.
[4:11:22] » That would be okay. You guys, great
[4:11:25] discussion. We, you know, I once again I
[4:11:27] thought be best laid plans, right? I
[4:11:30] said 30 minutes. We're almost at an
[4:11:31] hour. This was a this is uh a government
[4:11:35] at work. But you know you guys it's it's
[4:11:37] the people's it's the people's business
[4:11:38] at work and great discussion. Really
[4:11:41] good. Thank you so much. Hey you guys,
[4:11:43] are we good for uh should we reconvene
[4:11:45] at uh 1.
[4:11:48] » Okay, let's reconvene at 1 uh for lunch.
[4:11:50] We are in recess for lunch. Great job
[4:11:52] everybody.
[4:11:54] Good job.
[4:11:55] » Okay, I will uh call the meeting back to
[4:11:58] order.
[4:12:00] Uh let's go ahead and get started on uh
[4:12:02] immigration and custom enforcement
[4:12:04] community concerns. Um and uh uh should
[4:12:08] I have uh uh should I have the chief go
[4:12:10] first? Y.
[4:12:11] » All right. Uh chief, let's just walk
[4:12:13] through um uh your uh uh your
[4:12:16] presentation regarding the keep
[4:12:17] Washington working act um compliance and
[4:12:21] then I think our our council president I
[4:12:23] think Martin has something to say. Go
[4:12:24] ahead.
[4:12:25] » Okay. Uh keep good afternoon everyone.
[4:12:28] Uh, keep Washington working act is a
[4:12:31] state law uh making uh the state of
[4:12:33] Washington a sanctuary state uh which
[4:12:37] means that uh state agencies, county and
[4:12:41] municip municipalities are restricted on
[4:12:45] cooperating uh coordinating with federal
[4:12:48] government and with uh immigration
[4:12:51] enforcement.
[4:12:55] Um, keep Washington working act uh was
[4:12:58] enacted uh in 2019 about five and a half
[4:13:02] years ago. Um, as I stated, it limits u
[4:13:07] the role of state and local agencies
[4:13:10] uh from enforcing federal uh civil
[4:13:13] immigration laws.
[4:13:15] Um,
[4:13:20] one of the things we can't do in our uh
[4:13:23] daily practice is we can't inquire. We
[4:13:26] can't inquire about people's immigration
[4:13:28] status is part of this act.
[4:13:35] Uh, restriction on cooperation with f
[4:13:38] federal authority. Now, this is probably
[4:13:40] the biggest issue which is the detainer
[4:13:42] issue. Now for us, we are not we don't
[4:13:45] have a jail. So it's not the issue. What
[4:13:48] the federal agency uh is asking and the
[4:13:51] main thing that they're asking is that
[4:13:52] when someone is is arrested,
[4:13:55] incarcerated that if they have a
[4:13:57] detainer
[4:13:59] um that they would honor that. As a
[4:14:02] sanctuary state, we do not honor federal
[4:14:05] detainers. So if somebody's in custody,
[4:14:08] the court decisions um whether they have
[4:14:11] a detainer or not, when the matter is
[4:14:13] addressed, they're just released from
[4:14:15] custody. So now before this law went law
[4:14:18] went into effect five and a half years
[4:14:20] ago, majority of the jails in the state
[4:14:22] of Washington did um uh honor detainers.
[4:14:27] So what KWWA did is one of the big
[4:14:30] things that it did is we no longer honor
[4:14:33] detainers period as a state by state
[4:14:35] law. So that's the biggest thing that's
[4:14:36] really happened. Um,
[4:14:40] one of the things we can't do is state
[4:14:42] law also preempts anything that
[4:14:44] municipalities in terms of immigration
[4:14:46] enforcement. So state law preempts any
[4:14:49] of that. We can't be creating our own uh
[4:14:52] immigration laws or enforcing
[4:14:54] immigration laws. We can't do that. It's
[4:14:55] it's it's at the state level. This issue
[4:14:58] really needs to be dealt with at the
[4:15:00] state level and at the federal level. I
[4:15:02] know we get emails about asking policy
[4:15:05] group to do something here, but bottom
[4:15:07] line is we would be just one city. We're
[4:15:09] like one city out of 38 in King County,
[4:15:12] more than 260, you know, cities
[4:15:14] statewide. Having each city having its
[4:15:18] rules, it would be very confusing for,
[4:15:20] you know, government, residents, what
[4:15:22] have you. So bottom line is state law
[4:15:25] preempts anything that cities might do.
[4:15:31] we can't share any information with the
[4:15:34] federal government. Um bottom line and
[4:15:37] there's also policy adoption
[4:15:39] requirements you know for schools,
[4:15:41] healthc care facilities, courouses. I
[4:15:44] don't know all the details but uh KWWA
[4:15:47] is pretty comprehensive and bottom line
[4:15:49] is you can't be asking people's
[4:15:51] immigration status whether they go to
[4:15:53] public school or health facilities is
[4:15:56] mainly the the law there. I added this u
[4:15:59] bottom line is the Federal Way Police
[4:16:01] Department. Now, we don't own a jail. We
[4:16:03] were part of ownership several years
[4:16:05] ago, but we don't have a jail. So,
[4:16:07] really there isn't anything that uh we
[4:16:10] didn't do immigration enforcement before
[4:16:13] the um the sanctuary law went into
[4:16:16] place. Uh we just simply didn't do it.
[4:16:18] We don't really have uh the information
[4:16:21] or resources prioritizing what we do in
[4:16:24] terms of policing. So, immigration
[4:16:26] enforcement was not something that we
[4:16:28] really did even before the uh the new
[4:16:30] laws. Um, and then again, back to the
[4:16:34] detainer thing is the main thing that
[4:16:37] was a significant change because no
[4:16:39] municipalities were really doing
[4:16:40] immigration enforcement even before the
[4:16:42] new law, but it was the the jails that's
[4:16:44] where the issue was. So, we fully comply
[4:16:48] here in Federal Way. We fully comply
[4:16:50] with the the uh keep Washington working
[4:16:52] act state law.
[4:16:56] And then uh at the last council meeting
[4:16:58] uh council president Moore asked uh for
[4:17:00] me to talk about flock. Um that's been
[4:17:03] kind of a hot issue. So I wanted to kind
[4:17:06] of explain far as what we've been doing
[4:17:08] here in Federal Way. We've been really
[4:17:10] strategic. We've been u about in terms
[4:17:14] of technology and innovation. So, this
[4:17:18] isn't something that we've done uh
[4:17:20] overnight, but really we really ratched
[4:17:22] it up last 12 years or so in terms of
[4:17:25] using technology to make our community
[4:17:27] safer. Bottom line, eliminating any of
[4:17:30] these technology or flock is no doubt is
[4:17:33] going to make our community less safe.
[4:17:36] Um, one of the things that we really
[4:17:38] invested quite a bit is our safe city
[4:17:40] program. Uh, today, uh, we have more
[4:17:43] than 260 cameras. We have uh safe city
[4:17:47] cameras at just about every intersection
[4:17:50] and the number one um how we use that
[4:17:53] technology is really traffic accidents.
[4:17:55] We get traffic accidents where we have
[4:17:57] failed the yield rightway. It's amazing
[4:17:59] how both drivers, you know, had the
[4:18:01] green light, had the rideway. I'll tell
[4:18:03] you what, over and over our safe city
[4:18:05] cameras, you know, there's video
[4:18:07] evidence of who had the rightway. So,
[4:18:09] it's been a great tool to for officers
[4:18:12] when they're investigating traffic
[4:18:13] accidents. I think we're down to maybe a
[4:18:16] little over a dozen intersections that
[4:18:17] don't have cameras, but pretty much in
[4:18:19] Federal Way because of our really our
[4:18:21] investment,
[4:18:23] we have safe city cameras just about
[4:18:25] every uh intersection and key locations
[4:18:28] throughout our city. Of the 20 260
[4:18:31] cameras, we have nine uh license plate
[4:18:34] reader capability cameras within our
[4:18:36] safe city program about nine locations
[4:18:39] with total of 26 approaches. We have 26
[4:18:42] cameras uh recording over time. Now
[4:18:45] before I forget, I want to thank
[4:18:46] director Fetchner and it because over
[4:18:48] the years they play a critical role uh
[4:18:51] installing all these cameras. So um
[4:18:54] they've been a a great partner for that.
[4:18:56] Far as Flock camera, currently we have
[4:18:59] one location um with four cameras at an
[4:19:02] intersection on the west end of our
[4:19:04] city. And then a few years ago with ARPA
[4:19:08] money, we invested in uh mobile
[4:19:09] surveillance trailers uh MSTS
[4:19:12] and we have those uh and they've been
[4:19:14] really popular with our business
[4:19:16] community. Not as much lately because
[4:19:19] because of our crime reduction, we're
[4:19:21] not seeing as much rampid vehicle prow
[4:19:23] and other crime. So they haven't been as
[4:19:25] popular, but we have them at uh you know
[4:19:28] key business locations uh throughout the
[4:19:30] city and they've been really really
[4:19:32] popular.
[4:19:33] We have four patrol vehicles that are
[4:19:35] equipped with uh ALPR technology and
[4:19:38] we've had those for you know 10 plus
[4:19:40] years and they've been a a tremendous
[4:19:42] tool uh mainly for really recovering
[4:19:45] stolen vehicles. So when we have a
[4:19:46] stolen vehicle officers are driving
[4:19:49] through apartment complexes, parking
[4:19:51] lots and it's reading hundreds hundreds
[4:19:53] and thousands of license plate in a
[4:19:55] given ship. So we're able to find
[4:19:57] unoccupied stolen vehicles at times
[4:19:59] occupied stolen vehicles. So, they've
[4:20:01] been a tremendous tool uh for that. And
[4:20:04] then recently, council approved our
[4:20:06] drone as a first responder program and
[4:20:08] that's going to be a a new technology.
[4:20:11] It's going to be a tremendous asset for
[4:20:12] officer safety, finding missing persons.
[4:20:15] It has thermal heat imaging. So, if we
[4:20:18] have somebody hiding in the woods or
[4:20:20] lost in the woods, we'll be able to
[4:20:22] quickly find uh people or assist
[4:20:24] officers. We'll have air. Bottom line is
[4:20:26] we'll have air support because many of
[4:20:28] our calls were asking if King County
[4:20:30] Guardian is up in the air to assist us.
[4:20:32] We're going to be able to deploy drones
[4:20:35] from the station or from the performing
[4:20:37] arts center. It will instantly have air
[4:20:39] support and we'll be able to cover most
[4:20:41] of our city. We'll have designated
[4:20:43] officers who are trained to be drone
[4:20:45] pilots and they'll come to work and
[4:20:47] their job is to be ready to deploy the
[4:20:50] drone on any given moment, any type of
[4:20:52] call that we might have.
[4:20:54] Uh, federal APD does not authorize or
[4:20:57] permit access of flock camera uh, data
[4:21:00] to immigration and custom enforcement.
[4:21:02] Um,
[4:21:04] bottom line is um, we have two
[4:21:08] individuals in the police department,
[4:21:10] Deputy Chief Jones and uh, Record
[4:21:13] Supervisor Am Amanda Huard. They're the
[4:21:16] only two people that can authorize an
[4:21:19] outside entity from coming into
[4:21:21] accessing our uh data. So anytime
[4:21:24] somebody wants to access our data, they
[4:21:26] have to ask for permission whether it's
[4:21:28] Seattle PD, whether it's Tacoma PD. So
[4:21:31] bottom line is we have to authorize them
[4:21:33] to into our flock camera system. So we
[4:21:37] also turned off our out ofstate national
[4:21:40] lookout feature. So nobody from outside
[4:21:43] the state can even come into our system
[4:21:45] or even request. We turn that feature
[4:21:47] off. We're going to share with instate
[4:21:49] with police agencies only that we
[4:21:51] authorize. So it's not any officer who
[4:21:54] can access the system and authorize some
[4:21:56] jurisdiction to come in and then we
[4:21:58] perform uh monthly audits. Um I get a
[4:22:01] report just to show uh which agencies
[4:22:03] are on our flock system and the fact
[4:22:05] that no unauthorized entry inadvertently
[4:22:08] might have been made. There's talk about
[4:22:10] backdoor entry and I've been told
[4:22:12] technology-wise that cannot happen. It's
[4:22:14] only when we authorize can another
[4:22:16] agency come in. And I'll just give you
[4:22:18] some success stories. Uh the other day
[4:22:21] we had a double homicide
[4:22:24] and the suspect fled the house. And how
[4:22:28] we were able to really zero down on
[4:22:30] where he was is our safe city camera. We
[4:22:33] saw him with our safe city camera get
[4:22:36] getting onto a metro transit bus. So all
[4:22:39] of a sudden our focus now was, you know,
[4:22:42] getting the communication out to the bus
[4:22:44] drivers, Metrotransit police. We were
[4:22:46] looking for him that way. That was like
[4:22:47] our lead. Without that, we have no idea
[4:22:50] which way he went, where to look for
[4:22:52] him. Ultimately, we were able to, you
[4:22:54] know, capture him within, you know,
[4:22:56] several hours. But it gave us focus and
[4:22:58] direction. So any one of these
[4:23:00] technologies um in itself is not going
[4:23:03] to itself, you know, make our community
[4:23:05] safer, but it's a totality of it. and
[4:23:08] the technology becomes available. So,
[4:23:09] Safe City camera has been a tremendous
[4:23:12] help over the years. And I'll tell you,
[4:23:14] we had a infant abduction
[4:23:17] uh in 2024 where two suspects posing as
[4:23:21] delivery people, physically went into a
[4:23:24] resident, took the baby from her arms,
[4:23:28] assaulted her, took the baby, and fled
[4:23:31] in a vehicle. And in our investigation,
[4:23:34] we had a description of a van. So once
[4:23:37] we entered that vehicle information into
[4:23:39] the flock system, we got a hit uh out of
[4:23:43] Tquala. With that hit, we were able to
[4:23:46] get the license plate. Once we had that
[4:23:48] license plate, we put it out far and
[4:23:50] wide. And by chance, a very proactive
[4:23:54] state trooper at Moses Lake, Eastern
[4:23:57] Washington, spotted the van, stopped the
[4:24:00] van, and arrested the subjects. We were
[4:24:03] able to get the baby back. So this is
[4:24:05] just one example of how this flock
[4:24:08] technology helped us get this baby back
[4:24:10] because without flock technology at that
[4:24:12] given moment they would have probably
[4:24:15] gotten away and they were heading to
[4:24:16] Florida to raise the baby as their own.
[4:24:18] So bottom line is that's one success
[4:24:21] story in 2024
[4:24:24] um infant kidnapping case. We've solved
[4:24:26] the homicide case in 2024. Same thing
[4:24:29] having vehicle information data. We were
[4:24:31] able to get a license plate um from
[4:24:34] Flock and the great thing about Flock is
[4:24:36] it is we only have one location where we
[4:24:38] have Flock right now but we could tap
[4:24:41] into the other jurisdictions regionally.
[4:24:45] So again, we got a hit from another
[4:24:47] flock from another city and that helped
[4:24:49] us solve. Uh in 25 we had a robbery case
[4:24:52] series of robbery case flock to help us
[4:24:54] solve that numerous cases of uh finding
[4:24:58] loved ones who are missing. They'll get
[4:25:00] in a vehicle and they leave the
[4:25:02] residents suffering from dementia. Flock
[4:25:06] is a great tool to find people otherwise
[4:25:09] we don't know which way they went. So
[4:25:11] hit and run cases and uh stolen
[4:25:14] vehicles. We've had tremendous success
[4:25:16] and how it really works in the field is
[4:25:18] with flock
[4:25:20] um there's nobody monitoring it. It's
[4:25:22] really transitory information. It just
[4:25:24] gets recorded. It's no different than
[4:25:25] somebody standing on the side of the
[4:25:27] side of the road with a cell phone
[4:25:28] recording vehicles going by. It's really
[4:25:31] there's nobody monitoring it. We really
[4:25:33] go back when some a crime occurs is when
[4:25:36] we go back into the system whether it's
[4:25:38] safe city LPR technology or flock
[4:25:40] technology. we go back and try to uh get
[4:25:43] some information to give us a lead. But
[4:25:46] in the field, when a flock gets a hit on
[4:25:48] a stolen vehicle, missing person,
[4:25:49] officers in the field immediately get uh
[4:25:52] alerted that we had a hit at our flock
[4:25:55] location. And we have a neighborhood,
[4:25:59] West Ridge neighborhood that has flock
[4:26:01] camera system. We have some businesses
[4:26:03] that have flock camera system. When we
[4:26:05] get a hit, the field officers get
[4:26:07] notification. Sometimes we can work on
[4:26:10] it, sometimes we can't. If the officers
[4:26:11] are busy, they'll get a hit, but we
[4:26:14] don't have time to work on a stolen
[4:26:15] vehicle. But sometimes if they're
[4:26:17] available, they get a hit, we're looking
[4:26:19] for vehicles, and then once we get the
[4:26:20] vehicle, we're setting up spike strips
[4:26:22] and so forth to catch the auto thief.
[4:26:24] So, hope that gives you an overview. I
[4:26:27] can't tell you that we didn't invest
[4:26:29] this into this technology overnight, but
[4:26:31] over time we've been very strategic
[4:26:33] about it and we realize that safe city
[4:26:36] camera has been a great system, but we
[4:26:39] get bigger bang for our money with the
[4:26:40] flock system because we can tie into the
[4:26:43] other cities, the other infrastructure
[4:26:45] that exists. So hopefully that gives you
[4:26:47] a good oversight. Uh far as immigration
[4:26:50] enforcement, we're not doing any of it.
[4:26:51] We didn't do it before the sanctuary law
[4:26:53] went to place. It's really what the
[4:26:56] federal government is asking is when
[4:26:57] somebody's in custody, please let us
[4:26:59] come get them. But the sanctuary law
[4:27:02] prevents that communication from
[4:27:04] occurring at the jails with federal
[4:27:06] government. And we don't have a jail. So
[4:27:08] there's nothing controversial about what
[4:27:11] we do in federal. We did never done
[4:27:13] immigration enforcement. We're not doing
[4:27:14] it now. Just don't have the capacity to
[4:27:16] do that. And that's not our specialty
[4:27:18] and our expertise.
[4:27:20] » All right, Martin.
[4:27:22] » Uh, thank you so much, uh, Mayor. um or
[4:27:25] Jim [clears throat]
[4:27:26] or Heyou, I think is what you wanted to
[4:27:28] be called before if I remember
[4:27:30] correctly. Um Chief, thank you for your
[4:27:32] presentation and
[4:27:33] » And I think um the work that you and
[4:27:35] your officers do is impeccable. I mean
[4:27:38] uh that homic double homicide is what we
[4:27:40] call it that happened yesterday. Um uh I
[4:27:44] mean that almost hit home. Uh my cousin
[4:27:47] grew up with with uh the individual um
[4:27:49] and was next door to him. So, uh, it
[4:27:52] definitely puts a different perspective
[4:27:53] on that and to be able to say that you
[4:27:56] were able to utilize technology to, uh,
[4:27:58] get that. I think that's our job is to
[4:28:00] keep our community safe. That's what
[4:28:01] people want. Um, and I think, you know,
[4:28:04] there's a negative perception a federal
[4:28:06] way. um you know um that we've got to
[4:28:10] continuously work on changing and we've
[4:28:11] got to continue to invest in our
[4:28:14] officers, continue to invest on our
[4:28:16] tools uh to asssure that you guys are
[4:28:20] able to do your job uh safely and
[4:28:23] successfully. Um there are a couple
[4:28:26] questions and I I do have a statement um
[4:28:29] uh to make. Um, one, um, um, there is a
[4:28:34] few items, um, um, a few bills. I was
[4:28:38] hoping you would kind of cover them. Um,
[4:28:40] but there's Senate Bill 6002.
[4:28:43] Um, and it it's regulating license plate
[4:28:46] cameras. Um, don't want to put you on
[4:28:48] the spot, Chief, but, um, I wasn't sure
[4:28:50] if you're aware of that. Uh but um it is
[4:28:54] you know what it says here if I can read
[4:28:56] it is it establishes reasonable
[4:28:58] regulations on automatic license plates
[4:29:00] reader cameras such as flock safety
[4:29:02] systems to prevent their use by
[4:29:04] immigration enforcements and provide
[4:29:06] true community safety for all
[4:29:09] Washingtonians. So um maybe if you can
[4:29:12] just look into that um and and get back
[4:29:15] to us. I mean
[4:29:16] » No I can or unless
[4:29:18] » You're aware of it. Yeah. What I can
[4:29:19] tell you now is there's not going to be
[4:29:20] a single law enforcement agency in the
[4:29:22] state of Washington that's sharing flop
[4:29:23] camera data with immigration
[4:29:26] enforcement. I think what happened with
[4:29:28] an agency or two is that
[4:29:30] » Um somebody invited them in.
[4:29:32] » Yeah.
[4:29:32] » Um so when that issue came up clearly I
[4:29:36] mean we wanted to make sure that didn't
[4:29:38] happen in federal way. We did an audit.
[4:29:40] » We looked at it and then safeguards were
[4:29:42] put in place. So something
[4:29:44] [clears throat] unexpectedly occurred
[4:29:46] with a couple other agencies since then.
[4:29:48] I have no doubt every police chief
[4:29:50] sheriff is ensuring that we don't share
[4:29:53] data that data with immigration custom
[4:29:55] enforcement. Otherwise we would be
[4:29:57] violating keep Washington working act.
[4:29:59] So the new law it doesn't eliminate
[4:30:01] flock. Uh the new law is currently as
[4:30:05] written they want to restrict the data
[4:30:08] being uh kept for 72 hours versus
[4:30:11] currently it's 30 days. 72 hours uh on
[4:30:15] that issue alone 72 hours uh may not
[4:30:18] serve us best
[4:30:20] uh because sometimes it takes days or
[4:30:23] maybe even a week to identify vehicle
[4:30:25] description in a case. So once the data
[4:30:28] is gone it's gone. So how flock works is
[4:30:30] after 30 days that data is not kept.
[4:30:32] It's gone. It's gone forever.
[4:30:34] » So maybe there's a sweet spot that
[4:30:37] lawmakers will come up with. 72 hours
[4:30:39] seems a little short, but they want to
[4:30:41] make sure that data is not kept for a
[4:30:43] really long time. So that's one issue.
[4:30:46] Two is um the type of crimes. U the
[4:30:50] current bill is felony only. So if we
[4:30:52] have flop camera system and we have a
[4:30:55] hit and run that's a mis typically
[4:30:57] they're misdemeanors somebody hit a car
[4:30:59] and they don't want to be responsible
[4:31:00] for that and they just flee. Um what's
[4:31:03] great about flock is once we get that
[4:31:04] license plate I mean you know we're at
[4:31:06] their house and then quite often what
[4:31:08] happens is we know the vehicles involved
[4:31:10] because there's a damage but then we
[4:31:12] don't know who was driving it typically
[4:31:13] but we have witnesses that can say it
[4:31:15] was a male female. It helps us solve
[4:31:17] misdemeanor crimes but this new ball new
[4:31:20] law with eliminate our ability to
[4:31:22] investigate misdemeanor crimes only
[4:31:25] felony crimes.
[4:31:26] » Uh what's the other there's one other
[4:31:28] provision. So even the stall state
[4:31:31] lawmakers they're not saying we're going
[4:31:32] to eliminate flock. They want to put a
[4:31:34] little more restriction.
[4:31:36] » And one of the reasons why flock got
[4:31:38] really popular was when the state
[4:31:40] lawmakers made
[4:31:42] » Um
[4:31:44] no pursuit law. when they enacted the
[4:31:46] new pursuit law, they asked police to
[4:31:48] say, "Hey, why don't you use technology
[4:31:49] and other methods to um catch auto
[4:31:53] thieves?" So, there was a big shift in
[4:31:55] law enforcement say, "Okay, and um
[4:31:58] clearly we apply for grant funding,
[4:31:59] state funding for flock and other
[4:32:02] technologies because that was the push."
[4:32:04] So, this new issue has come up with
[4:32:07] immigration. So, that then it comes to
[4:32:08] question, do we want to eliminate flock?
[4:32:11] But ultimately, it was kind of the push
[4:32:12] from the state street law, why don't you
[4:32:15] use technology? So, um, I hope that
[4:32:18] answers your question. So, they're not
[4:32:19] looking to eliminate flock at this
[4:32:21] point. There's no bill to eliminate it.
[4:32:23] Restrict the data.
[4:32:24] » And when I asked that question, it
[4:32:25] wasn't with the intent or lens of, uh,
[4:32:28] eliminating flock cameras. No, I was
[4:32:30] more like looking at the data, how long
[4:32:32] they would keep it. Uh, and you've
[4:32:34] actually answered that question because
[4:32:35] it seems like we keep it for 30 days.
[4:32:37] Uh, and then it's deleted
[4:32:40] » Automatically gets.
[4:32:41] » Okay. Now, here's another question I've
[4:32:43] been getting. um that I wanted to form
[4:32:45] give to you and then I have a statement
[4:32:46] and I know my colleagues want to speak
[4:32:47] to this. Uh um but um can can third
[4:32:51] parties that have the that are
[4:32:53] partnering up with the flock cameras uh
[4:32:56] can they access the information?
[4:32:59] » No. Only the data uh the way the flock
[4:33:03] sets up is we have federal a data that's
[4:33:05] collected from our cameras kept with us.
[4:33:07] We're the only ones that can authorize
[4:33:09] release of that data. So third party
[4:33:12] wanting access to federal aid data, they
[4:33:14] won't get that. I also want to tell you
[4:33:16] that even if they got the data, there's
[4:33:18] a lot of some misinformation. You're not
[4:33:20] going to get anything about who owns the
[4:33:22] car or any any any information. You're
[4:33:24] only really going to get the license
[4:33:25] plate.
[4:33:26] » So I was remember I was mentioning you
[4:33:28] can stand on your side. You're you're
[4:33:29] going to capture the same data the flock
[4:33:31] does. Only law enforcement can access
[4:33:34] criminal justice information. So once we
[4:33:36] get a plate, we run the plate. But but
[4:33:37] but but if if enforcement immigration,
[4:33:41] you know, I'm not I'm not saying they're
[4:33:43] going to do this because we don't allow
[4:33:44] them to do this, it sounds like, but if
[4:33:46] they were going to come in and try to
[4:33:48] get the information and you only give
[4:33:49] them the license plate, they can get a
[4:33:51] lot of information out of that license
[4:33:52] plate number.
[4:33:53] » Well, they can do a warrant.
[4:33:54] » Yeah,
[4:33:55] » It would be it would be through public
[4:33:56] if it's public, it's going to be public
[4:33:58] disclosure request. That's one of the
[4:34:00] new things in this new bill in state law
[4:34:02] is they're talking about eliminating the
[4:34:04] ability for people to do a public
[4:34:06] disclosure request on flock data.
[4:34:08] » Yeah.
[4:34:09] » So, so yeah, people can do a PDR and get
[4:34:11] the data. But what I'm telling you is
[4:34:13] that you really can't there's nothing in
[4:34:16] flock that says this person is an
[4:34:18] unauthorized, you know, resident or is
[4:34:21] there's nothing about that. Even police,
[4:34:24] we won't know in terms of immigration.
[4:34:26] There's no information about that. Even
[4:34:28] if you run the plate and you get
[4:34:29] departmental licensing, vehicle
[4:34:31] information has nothing about
[4:34:32] immigration status of anyone. So we but
[4:34:36] residents who ask for that info third
[4:34:38] party, they can't get it. We've been
[4:34:40] assured by flock, they don't sell their
[4:34:42] data, they don't release their data.
[4:34:44] It's up to each agency how they want to
[4:34:47] do that data.
[4:34:48] » Yeah. Um gosh, I have more questions,
[4:34:50] but I'm gonna hold off. I'm gonna go
[4:34:52] into my statement if that's okay. Um,
[4:34:54] and then I'm going to hand hand it off
[4:34:56] back to you if that's okay, mayor. Um, I
[4:34:58] mean, Chief, obviously, thank you for
[4:35:00] your presentation. Um, uh, I know that
[4:35:02] you've been responding to a lot of
[4:35:03] emails. Uh, I know that we've all been
[4:35:05] responding to a lot of emails. We've
[4:35:06] been getting, uh, concerns on both ends.
[4:35:09] Um um but uh I I do uh I obviously
[4:35:14] wanted to have this conversation at the
[4:35:15] city council uh retreat here uh
[4:35:18] regarding uh this topic uh because uh
[4:35:21] quite frankly what's happening across um
[4:35:23] this country is creating real fear um uh
[4:35:26] here at home and our community deserves
[4:35:28] to know that their local government is
[4:35:31] not ignoring it. Uh now obviously um we
[4:35:35] do not control uh federal immigration
[4:35:37] enforcement and in many ways we're not
[4:35:40] really able to do anything directly um
[4:35:43] at all. Uh and yes, of course it's it's
[4:35:45] easy to to say that we can't do
[4:35:48] anything. Um I mean obviously legally we
[4:35:50] can't do anything. Um um but uh keeping
[4:35:54] uh moving forward with as if
[4:35:56] everything's okay is just uh it's
[4:35:58] concerning to me that that's um and
[4:36:01] that's in my per personal opinion it's
[4:36:03] it's just not leadership. Uh and I for
[4:36:06] me leadership means focusing on what we
[4:36:08] can do, how we show up, how we
[4:36:11] communicate, how we protect trust, and
[4:36:13] how we support the people uh who are
[4:36:16] being impacted. Because when families in
[4:36:18] our communities are afraid to go to
[4:36:20] work, take their kids to school, or seek
[4:36:23] help when they need it, it this becomes
[4:36:25] a community safety issue. It becomes a
[4:36:27] question of whether people feel like
[4:36:30] they belong in uh the city they call
[4:36:33] home. And in Fedway, that matters deeply
[4:36:35] because we are one of the most diverse
[4:36:38] cities in our state. Our community is
[4:36:40] made up of people from all walks of
[4:36:42] life, culture, faith, traditions,
[4:36:44] languages, and backgrounds. that
[4:36:46] diversity is not something we uh
[4:36:49] tolerate. It's it's one of our greatest
[4:36:52] greatest strengths and it's part of what
[4:36:55] makes Fedaway home. And I want to share
[4:36:58] why this is so personal to me. As some
[4:37:00] of you guys already know, uh I am a
[4:37:02] naturalized citizen and I was adopted
[4:37:04] from Bulgaria. Uh I came to this country
[4:37:07] from another place and I know what it
[4:37:10] means to build a life in a home while
[4:37:12] navigating uncertainty. uh that
[4:37:14] experience just honestly doesn't leave
[4:37:15] you. So when our neighbors and
[4:37:18] immigrants, refugees, mixed status
[4:37:20] families, longtime residents are feeling
[4:37:22] fear and uncertainty, I don't view that
[4:37:25] as politics. I view it as people. I view
[4:37:28] it as our community. And I believe it
[4:37:30] demands a response. And I want to be
[4:37:32] honest, when the people we serve are
[4:37:35] living with fear, silence from
[4:37:37] leadership is not neutral. Silence
[4:37:40] communicates something. it it can
[4:37:43] communicate that their concerns don't
[4:37:45] matter, that we're willing to look away
[4:37:48] when things get uncomfortable. It's just
[4:37:50] not okay because even if we cannot
[4:37:52] dictate federal enforcement actions, we
[4:37:55] still have a responsibility to lead
[4:37:57] locally and respond uh to the impact
[4:37:59] here at home. And I also want to say
[4:38:02] this plainly. How does one claim to be a
[4:38:04] person of faith and be okay with all
[4:38:07] with uh what we've all been seeing in
[4:38:09] the news? How ICE has been operating and
[4:38:11] the fear uh it is uh creating in
[4:38:14] communities across the country. Many of
[4:38:16] us were taught that our values are
[4:38:18] measured by how we treat the most
[4:38:20] vulnerable among us. To love our
[4:38:22] neighbors, welcome the stranger and
[4:38:25] stand by the by for human dignity. Those
[4:38:28] values matter right now. So, what does
[4:38:30] this come down to? Uh, excuse me. So,
[4:38:33] what uh this comes down to is simple.
[4:38:36] What kind of community do we want to be?
[4:38:38] That's why I want this section of our of
[4:38:40] our council retreat to be grounded in
[4:38:42] action and real steps. Let's look at
[4:38:45] let's look at passing a resolution that
[4:38:46] affirms Federal Way's values and our
[4:38:49] commitment to dignity and safety. Let's
[4:38:51] look at becoming a welcoming city
[4:38:54] certified community. Let's educate
[4:38:56] residents on their rights and connect
[4:38:57] them to resources. And let's send a
[4:39:00] clear message that transparency in
[4:39:02] federal a uh people have a right to know
[4:39:05] who is acting in our city and we should
[4:39:07] expect visible identification and
[4:39:09] accountability for any public facing
[4:39:11] enforcements actions. At the end of the
[4:39:14] day, our job is not to look away. Our
[4:39:16] job is to lead, to be honest about what
[4:39:18] our community is experiencing, to stand
[4:39:21] firm in our values, and to make sure
[4:39:23] every resident knows they belong here
[4:39:26] and they have a city that is willing to
[4:39:28] show up for them. That is why I ask for
[4:39:30] this conversation to take place. Uh, and
[4:39:32] I look forward to the work ahead of us.
[4:39:34] And look, I want to be very clear. Uh,
[4:39:36] supporting our police officers, that is
[4:39:38] my top top priority. Uh, that's why I
[4:39:41] voted for some of these measures that
[4:39:43] you see. um uh because I believe that is
[4:39:46] absolutely important that our officers
[4:39:48] have the tools necessary to do their
[4:39:50] jobs. With that, I'll give it back to
[4:39:52] you, mayor. Thank you.
[4:39:53] » All right. And I want to make clear that
[4:39:55] city government, my my administration
[4:39:57] and our city government is not looking
[4:39:59] away. We have responded to
[4:40:02] [clears throat] every email or contact
[4:40:05] that we've received. We have responded
[4:40:07] to and we've included the council on
[4:40:09] those responses. So, I want to make sure
[4:40:11] that we have explained exactly what the
[4:40:13] chief has explained. And so, no one's
[4:40:16] looking away, but we're not going to
[4:40:17] pretend or uh grandstand or pretend uh
[4:40:20] that we have a say in this. These are
[4:40:22] federal matters. State law dictates this
[4:40:25] and we've we've explained that. Um
[4:40:27] Lydia,
[4:40:31] » Thank you, Chief, for um explaining
[4:40:33] this. And I appreciate the fact that you
[4:40:35] said um there's only two people who have
[4:40:37] access to the to this and that's very
[4:40:40] comforting because that was one of the
[4:40:42] things I was very uncomfortable with um
[4:40:45] and wasn't sure if you you know um could
[4:40:49] stop anyone from accessing. So that's
[4:40:52] very helpful and I appreciate that
[4:40:54] explanation. And so when I asked about
[4:40:56] it last week, that was my premise going,
[4:40:58] not not knowing how that data was going
[4:41:01] to be utilized by who um and who has
[4:41:04] access to it because the fear is real.
[4:41:07] Um again, I I've seen it with people.
[4:41:10] Schools have been locked on lockdown
[4:41:13] um just in the last week. And so um not
[4:41:17] in federal way, but it's here in
[4:41:19] Washington state. So,
[4:41:21] it's unnerving to see that um
[4:41:27] ICE is around and and and
[4:41:30] fear. Yeah, the fear is real. All that.
[4:41:33] So, thank you. Um that's very helpful
[4:41:35] and um um and and I want Federal Way to
[4:41:38] be safe and everything you said makes a
[4:41:41] lot of sense and I appreciate that. One
[4:41:43] question I have for you is it says one
[4:41:45] location with four total approaches and
[4:41:47] then the other one was nine with 26.
[4:41:49] What does that what what's approaches?
[4:41:52] » So one location meaning we have flock
[4:41:55] camera at one intersection.
[4:41:56] » Okay.
[4:41:57] » And then the the intersection we would
[4:41:59] have four cameras all as vehicles are
[4:42:01] going away. So we'd have one pointing
[4:42:04] west, one pointing south, one pointing.
[4:42:07] So we would cover vehicles traveling
[4:42:09] through that intersection whichever
[4:42:10] direction they may go. We have four
[4:42:13] cameras there at one location.
[4:42:15] » So when you have nine and 26
[4:42:18] » Yeah. nine APR safe city locations,
[4:42:22] right?
[4:42:23] » But when some places you might have
[4:42:25] three cameras, some place you might have
[4:42:26] two. When you add all the license plate
[4:42:29] reading uh capability cameras, we have
[4:42:32] total of 26. That's our own city system
[4:42:35] of LPR. And I'll give you one example
[4:42:37] with the L our LPR 26 and 356. There was
[4:42:41] a road rage incident on Marine View
[4:42:43] Drive in Tacoma where somebody was shot,
[4:42:46] the Tacoma jurisdiction, and they fled
[4:42:49] going through our intersection. And when
[4:42:51] that incident occurred, we instantly
[4:42:53] went to our LPR technology and provided
[4:42:56] Tacoma, you know, with a license plate
[4:42:58] and they within, you know, days they
[4:43:02] made an arrest on that road rage
[4:43:04] shooting where somebody was shot. So
[4:43:06] that's like the benefit of going back
[4:43:08] being able to say, "Hey, Tacoma, here's
[4:43:10] the vehicle you're looking for. So, but
[4:43:14] uh bottom line is that's what that
[4:43:15] means. We have nine locations overall
[4:43:17] throughout the city. We have 26 uh
[4:43:19] cameras that can read license plates.
[4:43:21] » Um would those feed into do those feed
[4:43:24] into um
[4:43:27] the um
[4:43:28] » Block?
[4:43:28] » No, the camera um
[4:43:30] » No, the uh traffic
[4:43:33] » City
[4:43:33] » Traffic cameras.
[4:43:34] » Yeah,
[4:43:35] » They're separate. So, we have like 260
[4:43:38] safe city cameras,
[4:43:39] » Right? of those 26 of those cameras are
[4:43:43] license plate reading cameras.
[4:43:45] » But they don't they're not the ones that
[4:43:47] go to municipal court and you get a
[4:43:48] ticket, right?
[4:43:49] » No, those that's that's another
[4:43:52] technology that we use. That's red light
[4:43:54] photo enforcement. So those are a little
[4:43:56] bit different.
[4:43:56] » So they don't talk to each other
[4:43:59] [clears throat] two system. Red light we
[4:44:01] use a vendor for doing that. So it's a
[4:44:03] complete separate system
[4:44:04] » And red light photo system by law cannot
[4:44:06] be used in criminal investigations. So
[4:44:08] that's that's the red light criminal or
[4:44:11] red light enforcement is limited just to
[4:44:13] that purpose.
[4:44:15] So
[4:44:18] » Yeah, exactly. Um all right. Uh oh,
[4:44:22] Susan,
[4:44:24] » Thank you. Um Chief, you said
[4:44:28] that
[4:44:30] uh tap into flock cameras to get info
[4:44:33] and it seemed like you were talking
[4:44:35] about other police departments. Yes, we
[4:44:37] can do a statewide search.
[4:44:40] » Um, what info are they can they get from
[4:44:43] the camera?
[4:44:44] » The license plate.
[4:44:45] » Okay,
[4:44:46] » We'll get we can get a video of the
[4:44:47] vehicle in the license plate. Once we
[4:44:50] have that, well, we might get multiple
[4:44:52] hits on a vehicle. We'll put in a
[4:44:54] descript description on the vehicle.
[4:44:56] Sticker in the back window. It looks
[4:44:58] like a Honda, you know, that type of
[4:45:00] thing. Then we might get a we might get
[4:45:02] [laughter]
[4:45:03] » We might get a long list of vehicles and
[4:45:05] then okay you know then okay start
[4:45:07] looking at then we got to run the plates
[4:45:09] or who owns it. So we might get multiple
[4:45:11] vehicles but it gives us a lead and like
[4:45:14] I said quite often they're used for
[4:45:16] misdemeanor like hit and run cases
[4:45:18] » But law enforcement's the only one who
[4:45:20] can tap into that to get that
[4:45:21] information.
[4:45:22] » That's we're the only ones who can run
[4:45:24] plays have access to a lot of info. for
[4:45:26] example, our record management system
[4:45:28] inhouse stay record. I mean, we could
[4:45:31] research a lot on an individual. But if
[4:45:34] we're worried about privacy security, I
[4:45:36] mean, we really rely on it, the firewall
[4:45:38] because if somebody can get into the
[4:45:40] city system, get into the police system,
[4:45:42] I mean, they can know everything about
[4:45:44] you.
[4:45:44] » Yeah.
[4:45:45] » And so that's I I don't know how to do
[4:45:47] it. I trust it and that's what they do.
[4:45:50] » I just I it was I just wanted to ask
[4:45:52] about that statement because um
[4:45:56] That's all. Thank you. And and thank you
[4:45:58] for your your work on uh the very sad
[4:46:01] situation uh the other day with the
[4:46:03] homicides and uh I was in Celebration
[4:46:06] Park when the bus was pulled over.
[4:46:08] » I was like two cars behind it and that
[4:46:11] was a very frightening uh situation for
[4:46:14] everybody. So
[4:46:14] » That was the bus he got onto, but he got
[4:46:16] off before he got to the community
[4:46:18] center. But we were hoping that he would
[4:46:20] he would have been on the bus to get him
[4:46:22] right there, but took us a little bit
[4:46:23] longer, but he got off the bus and so we
[4:46:26] knew he was in town.
[4:46:27] » Oh, thank you.
[4:46:30] » All right, Wes.
[4:46:33] » Chief, I want to take this opportunity
[4:46:35] to thank you for your service. Uh you
[4:46:37] and your officers are doing a
[4:46:39] commendable job out there in the
[4:46:41] community. Um, just to add to a uh
[4:46:46] bullet point you have up there about
[4:46:48] success stories. Um, a personal friend
[4:46:52] of mine uh uncle I may have told you
[4:46:55] this already. Um, his uncle was uh
[4:46:59] assaulted in Town Square Park with a
[4:47:02] hatchet.
[4:47:03] » He subsequently died from his injuries.
[4:47:06] Um, if it weren't for the Safe City
[4:47:10] camera system.
[4:47:11] » Yes. he would not have been or the
[4:47:14] culprit would not have been apprehended.
[4:47:17] Um so I am uh totally in favor of that
[4:47:21] type of surveillance. Uh I have uh deep
[4:47:24] concerns with the flock camera system.
[4:47:28] Uh I I know that AI is integrated uh or
[4:47:33] powering for lack of better words uh
[4:47:35] that system. I know that AI has its uh
[4:47:39] fallacies.
[4:47:40] uh it can be penetrated, it can be
[4:47:43] hacked, it could be manipulated, it can
[4:47:46] be mistaken in terms of identities. So I
[4:47:50] would like if we uh continue to use the
[4:47:55] system assurance that uh the technology
[4:48:00] is intact and and um improved. Um maybe
[4:48:04] you can bake that into the future any
[4:48:06] future contracts. Um uh as far as
[4:48:10] training uh officers uh should uh be
[4:48:15] aware of our constitutional rights. Uh
[4:48:18] recently
[4:48:20] um it was reported by the Washington
[4:48:22] Post that um now it appears that ICE
[4:48:27] agents do not require judicial warrants
[4:48:31] uh to enter uh private homes. And that
[4:48:34] is really concerning uh how that would
[4:48:37] relate to our local police forces. They
[4:48:40] should be aware of our rights uh so that
[4:48:43] they're not assisting ICE agents in in
[4:48:47] violating our rights. So, um whatever
[4:48:51] training is currently in the curriculum
[4:48:54] regarding ICE or assisting ICE or um I I
[4:48:59] would like um for that training to be
[4:49:02] evaluated um periodically to make sure
[4:49:05] that our police officers are fully aware
[4:49:08] of what uh those rights are. Um but
[4:49:13] other than that uh I share um council
[4:49:17] president's uh concerns uh how it is
[4:49:21] scaring their activities are scaring a
[4:49:24] lot of people. It's very unsettling but
[4:49:27] um I applaud again going back to what I
[4:49:31] originally said or have said about um
[4:49:34] our fine officers. Keep us safe. That's
[4:49:38] what our community is uh crying for,
[4:49:41] crying out for essentially.
[4:49:43] » Um I have had supporters
[4:49:47] um
[4:49:48] who
[4:49:50] have had their uh their sons attacked uh
[4:49:54] just random and uh they had no
[4:49:58] surveillance, they had no cameras and
[4:50:00] there was no no one around to save them.
[4:50:03] So,
[4:50:05] but uh other than that um I look forward
[4:50:08] to uh dialoguing with you one-on-one and
[4:50:11] uh continuing
[4:50:14] um I guess the efforts to keep us all
[4:50:18] safe.
[4:50:20] » Thank you.
[4:50:21] » Thank you, Melissa.
[4:50:23] » Uh yeah, thank you. Um so, Martin, you
[4:50:27] mentioned that you wanted to pass a
[4:50:29] resolution. What would the resolution
[4:50:31] be?
[4:50:37] right when I have a chip in my mouth.
[4:50:39] Um, you know, I I know that that's a
[4:50:41] good question because I I've been
[4:50:43] reflecting on this and you know, I think
[4:50:45] the purpose of this is for us to have
[4:50:48] real conversations um at a retreat um
[4:50:51] and I wanted to kind of gauge where the
[4:50:53] council would be um on this. But, you
[4:50:55] know, [snorts] I know that we several
[4:50:57] years ago, if I'm not mistaken, we
[4:50:58] passed a welcoming city.
[4:51:00] » We did. Um, so maybe just, you know,
[4:51:03] reaffirming that and updating that, you
[4:51:05] know, and looking at that and and seeing
[4:51:07] what the council's comfortable with, you
[4:51:08] know. Um, I mean, I I think, you know,
[4:51:13] if I may, Melissa, I mean, the mayor is
[4:51:15] right. The mayor's been really
[4:51:16] responsive. His staff has been really
[4:51:18] responsive to the community. No doubt.
[4:51:21] But I think my personal vision is I want
[4:51:26] city hall to say something because this
[4:51:28] is huge and it's coming to Federal Way.
[4:51:31] It's been around us and it's probably in
[4:51:33] Federal Way. And um and I just want us
[4:51:38] to acknowledge and tell people like we
[4:51:39] see you, we love this community and we
[4:51:42] value this community. And I think I I
[4:51:44] wanted to find a what's the medium uh
[4:51:47] where we can kind of come together and
[4:51:50] as a council on behalf of the people and
[4:51:52] say look let's reaffirm our values as a
[4:51:55] city was really my intent uh with that
[4:51:59] potential
[4:52:01] uh perspective idea. [clears throat]
[4:52:05] » Uh thank you for that. The reason why
[4:52:07] I'm asking is because
[4:52:09] um I think it's good to say that we're a
[4:52:11] welcoming city, but I would have
[4:52:13] concerns about saying that we're a
[4:52:15] sanctuary city uh for a couple reasons.
[4:52:18] For one, we're already a sanctuary
[4:52:20] state. So, um that preempts anything we
[4:52:24] would do on the local level. But two, um
[4:52:28] you know, if we were going to try to
[4:52:31] enact some sort of, you know, ordinance,
[4:52:34] it would require two things. It would
[4:52:35] require jurisdiction and the ability to
[4:52:38] levy consequences, neither of which we
[4:52:40] can do. And so it would just to me be um
[4:52:44] sort of misleading to the public if we
[4:52:48] say that we're doing this, but we have
[4:52:50] no legal authority to do really
[4:52:52] anything. It's more of a a performative
[4:52:54] policy in my mind. And that's where I
[4:52:57] would have concerns only because of how
[4:53:00] it's going to mislead the public. And
[4:53:02] plus, you know, we have to consider the
[4:53:04] supremacy clause, which I think is very
[4:53:07] uh pertinent to this conversation we're
[4:53:09] having.
[4:53:10] » If I may, um I I I mean, I respect what
[4:53:14] you're saying and and um you know, I
[4:53:16] never obviously talked about ordinances
[4:53:18] or legal because I we we don't have
[4:53:21] legal jurisdiction. We can't do anything
[4:53:23] with laws. Um you know, um but sometimes
[4:53:27] leadership is about saying, "I see you.
[4:53:30] I recognize you." there's a lot of hurt
[4:53:32] in our community or there's going to be
[4:53:34] or hey we're seeing this coming and
[4:53:37] we're going to be proactive and
[4:53:38] sometimes leadership is about
[4:53:40] acknowledging and saying it um not just
[4:53:44] saying staying silent and that's just my
[4:53:46] personal perspective you know I know we
[4:53:47] all have different leadership
[4:53:49] perspectives and views but from mine
[4:53:52] sometimes you just need to reach out and
[4:53:54] let people know like yeah I see it and
[4:53:57] you know what here's something we can do
[4:54:00] you know show our hearts to the
[4:54:01] community and that has nothing to do
[4:54:03] with misleading the community. That has
[4:54:05] something to do with the fact that we
[4:54:07] are community that we've all said on
[4:54:09] this the dis at the city hall or here
[4:54:11] that we are a diverse community and I go
[4:54:16] ahead.
[4:54:16] » Oh, sorry. Uh and um when we're silent
[4:54:20] on it then it are we living up to that?
[4:54:23] I don't know. Just a thought.
[4:54:26] » Oh, thank you. Um, so Chief, thank you
[4:54:30] for all of your hard work. Really
[4:54:32] appreciate you and all of the officers
[4:54:34] for what you do to us. I know it's
[4:54:36] difficult for times and back when the
[4:54:39] cars were being stolen on a regular
[4:54:41] basis because of the legislation for
[4:54:43] Olympia. Um, there was a lot of concern
[4:54:46] about, you know, your have one car and
[4:54:49] you walk out and your car is gone and
[4:54:53] Oh, thank you.
[4:54:55] And so if your car is gone and you walk
[4:54:57] out and it's the only way you have to
[4:54:59] get to work and you can't replace the
[4:55:00] car, you're and you're a family um and I
[4:55:04] know many single women who are heads of
[4:55:06] families, it's difficult for them to
[4:55:08] figure out how to get to work and take
[4:55:10] care of the family. So um I was I didn't
[4:55:15] when we asked the legislators
[4:55:17] » Linda people can't hear. Can you pull
[4:55:18] that closer to you? When we asked the
[4:55:20] legislators a year ago, a year and a
[4:55:22] half ago, for 100 250,000 for cameras, I
[4:55:27] I I guess I was shocked when they they
[4:55:29] didn't want to do that. I wish they
[4:55:31] would have come back to talk to us about
[4:55:34] their concerns about the flot cameras
[4:55:36] and the fact that they were worried
[4:55:38] about uh information being passed off to
[4:55:41] other agencies. And so um I I do hope
[4:55:45] that they look into that a little bit
[4:55:46] more for us in the future. Um, but um,
[4:55:49] one other thing I want to say real quick
[4:55:51] is that, you know, Martin, I've noticed
[4:55:53] that you read statements a lot and and
[4:55:55] if you feel the need to do that, I don't
[4:55:57] have a problem with it. It just, um, you
[4:56:00] know, in the legislature, as I said
[4:56:02] previously, we weren't allowed to read a
[4:56:04] statement. You had to speak from your
[4:56:06] own words. And so sometimes you write
[4:56:08] the statement and then you'd paraphrase
[4:56:10] it and then speak that way. It would
[4:56:12] mean more to me um, if you would just
[4:56:14] simply say what you think. But anyway,
[4:56:16] thank you.
[4:56:18] All right. Um, I'm curious either both
[4:56:21] from the chief and from legal counsel,
[4:56:23] are we aware of ICE committing
[4:56:25] warrantless entries into home um into
[4:56:29] homes in Washington state in violation
[4:56:31] of the federal constitution and the
[4:56:33] state constitution?
[4:56:36] » I've heard that coverage. What I can add
[4:56:39] mayor is that to this day we have not
[4:56:42] had a single
[4:56:44] operation.
[4:56:44] » Is your microphone on?
[4:56:46] » Just turn I turned it off.
[4:56:48] » Um what I can tell you is that um I saw
[4:56:52] that in the news coverage, but what I
[4:56:55] can tell you from firsthand experience
[4:56:56] for Federal Way, we have not had a a
[4:56:59] single ICE operation uh that occurred in
[4:57:02] our city. when we had uh complaints
[4:57:06] about an ICE operation uh in one
[4:57:08] incident it was Tacoma undercover uh
[4:57:11] trying to arrest a violent felon. So,
[4:57:14] but they did contact us for deconlict
[4:57:17] and to make notifications. So, I
[4:57:20] remember that a policy inquiry from a
[4:57:23] policy person about hey is this an ICE
[4:57:24] operation and it wasn't. And couple
[4:57:26] other times when we had again policy
[4:57:30] group asking did we have an ICE
[4:57:32] operation? it's really been our special
[4:57:33] investigations unit. So to this date I
[4:57:36] am not aware of a single operation and
[4:57:39] frankly uh I don't think um immigration
[4:57:42] custom enforcement just has the capacity
[4:57:45] to go to every community. So one of the
[4:57:48] ask they is their ask is can we just do
[4:57:52] the handoff you know at the jail but
[4:57:54] again our state law prevents that. So
[4:57:57] that's one thing that that's where the
[4:57:59] major rub uh really is. Um so I would
[4:58:04] tell you far as the warrant that is at
[4:58:07] the federal level and what their
[4:58:09] department of justice authorizes what
[4:58:11] have you. I mean that's complete at the
[4:58:13] federal level. But I'll tell you this if
[4:58:14] we get a call of someone saying hey
[4:58:17] there's something going on. We don't
[4:58:18] know if they're police or not. We're
[4:58:19] going to respond because we are
[4:58:20] responsible for the safety of Federal
[4:58:22] Way. We're going to respond. We're going
[4:58:24] to make contact, verify who they are.
[4:58:27] But the bottom line is I'm also not
[4:58:29] going to tell my officers to interfere,
[4:58:31] obstruct, and violate some US code
[4:58:35] because we we're the ones that's going
[4:58:37] to be subject to potential prosecution.
[4:58:39] And maybe even city government if we
[4:58:41] have policies that says we are going to
[4:58:44] step forward, we're going to interfere.
[4:58:46] We're not going to put I don't recommend
[4:58:48] putting our city in that position.
[4:58:49] Certainly not going to have my officers
[4:58:51] do that. Federal government has their
[4:58:53] job. They have their own rules, federal
[4:58:55] laws, Congress authorizes funding, all
[4:58:58] that. But what I can tell you is we
[4:59:00] fully comply with the state law and we
[4:59:02] are not going to interfere with the US
[4:59:04] code either.
[4:59:05] » Right? And when federal law enforcement
[4:59:07] appears in our community oftenimes,
[4:59:09] don't they give you a heads up? Hey,
[4:59:10] we're going to serve a search warrant
[4:59:11] for like uh you know, internet, you
[4:59:13] know, crime, internet crimes against
[4:59:15] children or you know, those kinds of
[4:59:17] kinds of search warrants that are served
[4:59:19] by federal authorities.
[4:59:20] » Absolutely. We don't want we want to
[4:59:22] deconlict. We do not want some situation
[4:59:24] where uh we have friendly fire and both
[4:59:27] sides can't afford to lose. That would
[4:59:29] be a terrible uh situation. Um I'm
[4:59:33] confident just the other day FBI came
[4:59:35] into our city. Uh we assisted them on a
[4:59:38] search warrant. So that happens on a
[4:59:40] regular basis. That's normal protocol.
[4:59:42] I'm not 100% certain that uh ICE will
[4:59:46] call us every single time if they did
[4:59:48] come into our city or other city just
[4:59:50] because the strain relationship that
[4:59:52] exists at the state level. But local
[4:59:54] level, we just haven't had a single
[4:59:56] incident. I think they are really
[4:59:58] strapped capacity wise as well.
[5:00:01] » Okay. Any other uh Oh, sorry. Jaclyn
[5:00:05] Melissa.
[5:00:07] » Yeah, just a quick question. I think you
[5:00:09] may have just answered it just now. Uh
[5:00:11] suppose immigration were looking for a a
[5:00:14] violent felon, not just somebody that
[5:00:16] that violated immigration laws, but a
[5:00:19] violent felon and they came seeking
[5:00:23] assistance with the violent felon,
[5:00:25] » Then we would help them or not or or
[5:00:27] what what how does the keep Washington
[5:00:30] working act uh interplay with with a
[5:00:33] violent felon?
[5:00:34] » We can't coordinate or assist with
[5:00:36] immigration enforcement. But let's say
[5:00:38] immigration custom enforcement was in
[5:00:40] our city and something went sideways.
[5:00:43] Again, our job is to make sure our
[5:00:45] community is safe. So, we are going to
[5:00:47] respond. We're not going to allow people
[5:00:49] to burn down a building. We're not going
[5:00:50] to have people get assaulted, innocent
[5:00:52] citizens get assaulted. Our job is to
[5:00:54] protect our residents. So, they could be
[5:00:57] there. We may respond, but our job is to
[5:00:59] make sure that there isn't crime that's
[5:01:01] going to occur. We're not going to
[5:01:02] tolerate it. So, I would tell you we're
[5:01:04] not there to do immigration enforcement,
[5:01:06] but we're going to be there to keep our
[5:01:08] community safe. Period.
[5:01:09] » All right. Thank you,
[5:01:11] » Melissa.
[5:01:13] » Uh, yes. Thank you, Chief, for um
[5:01:17] explaining that fine line between not
[5:01:20] cooperating and obstructing because we
[5:01:22] have had community members um you know,
[5:01:26] emailing us asking for our law
[5:01:28] enforcement to arrest federal law
[5:01:31] enforcement and we're just not going to
[5:01:34] do that. We we don't have the authority
[5:01:35] to that and you guys would go to jail,
[5:01:37] federal jail for doing that.
[5:01:39] » I won't do well in jail. I can
[5:01:41] » Yeah, I know. I know. So I so I just
[5:01:43] want to you know say there's a fine line
[5:01:45] between not cooperating and and
[5:01:46] obstructing
[5:01:48] justice. Um and I you know I also want
[5:01:51] since we're on this you know
[5:01:52] conversation I I want to acknowledge
[5:01:53] that the fear in our community is real
[5:01:56] particularly with you know community
[5:01:58] members that you know did not come
[5:02:01] through established legal pathways. So I
[5:02:04] recognize that that the fear is real. I
[5:02:06] don't dismiss that. Um, at the same
[5:02:08] time, I don't I don't
[5:02:11] I'm hesitant that that we would be
[5:02:13] considering
[5:02:15] creating policy based on fear. I'm not
[5:02:17] sure if that's a good governance. Um, I
[5:02:22] think we also need to think about crime
[5:02:24] victims
[5:02:26] and their families and considering
[5:02:29] because we've got so many emails whether
[5:02:31] or not eliminating our tools is going to
[5:02:35] help our community or if it's going to
[5:02:36] harm our community. And I uh see that
[5:02:41] this has this technology has helped with
[5:02:45] solving crimes. It's helped bring
[5:02:47] justice uh for victims and uh you know
[5:02:52] our city is not sharing flot camera data
[5:02:56] with uh immigration officials and
[5:03:00] frankly that's not the role of local law
[5:03:02] law enforcement. We don't have the time
[5:03:04] to do that. That's why we have federal
[5:03:06] law enforcement officers to do that. Um,
[5:03:10] also, you know, I just want to say if if
[5:03:13] there's a policy, you know, decision to
[5:03:15] remove flot cameras, it's not going to
[5:03:17] stop federal law enforcement. They're
[5:03:19] still going to carry out their duties
[5:03:21] whether we have it in at or not. But
[5:03:23] what it is going to do is it's going to
[5:03:25] limit our local law enforcement's
[5:03:26] ability to solve crimes. And some of the
[5:03:30] crimes that I've read about that I know
[5:03:33] about was uh one was out of Tequila,
[5:03:38] you know, and it was a victim of a
[5:03:40] drive-by shooting and the perpetrator
[5:03:42] was captured due to a flot camera alert.
[5:03:46] Another one was out of King County
[5:03:48] Sheriff's Office and that one was a
[5:03:50] victim of a felony domestic violence
[5:03:55] no contact order violation. That person
[5:03:59] feared for their life and then relief
[5:04:02] came when a flock camera hit allowed
[5:04:05] local law enforcement to catch that
[5:04:07] person and uh to take her abuser into
[5:04:10] custody. And the other one chief you
[5:04:13] mentioned was the child that was
[5:04:15] kidnapped that was out of her own
[5:04:17] jurisdiction. uh that child was taken by
[5:04:19] force, kidnapped
[5:04:22] um and then that child was returned to
[5:04:25] their parents due to a flot camera. So,
[5:04:30] you know, I uh
[5:04:32] as an elected official
[5:04:35] when crimes like these are committed and
[5:04:37] families ask me,
[5:04:40] you know, have you done everything you
[5:04:41] can to help? I
[5:04:44] I want to be able to say that we have
[5:04:46] used every lawful tool at our disposal
[5:04:49] to help bring justice. And uh
[5:04:54] I I don't I don't want to say that we
[5:04:55] have voluntarily disarmed ourselves due
[5:04:58] to hypothetical fear. I I don't believe
[5:05:01] that that's happening. And you know, I'm
[5:05:03] just going to kind of close with this is
[5:05:06] that, you know, our US Constitution
[5:05:07] starts with a preamble and part of that
[5:05:10] preamble is to establish justice. And so
[5:05:13] I think it's very important to think
[5:05:14] about the victims of crime, the the
[5:05:16] crimes that have been solved using this
[5:05:18] technology. Um I I think that uh you
[5:05:23] know, we've set up good infrastructure
[5:05:25] to help bring justice and to help our
[5:05:28] police do their jobs in our community.
[5:05:31] » All right, Martin. Thank you.
[5:05:34] » Oh, okay. Uh, thank you, mayor. Um, and
[5:05:37] and council member, excuse me, Melissa,
[5:05:40] thank you for your comments. Um, you
[5:05:41] know, I I was really proud that the
[5:05:43] council voted uh 70 uh for the drones,
[5:05:46] uh, first responders. That spoke
[5:05:48] volumes, chief. Uh, 70. Uh, and it's
[5:05:51] because of what you said, because of the
[5:05:53] fact that we all believe that our law
[5:05:55] enforcement officers, the Federal Way
[5:05:57] Police Department officers, uh, need the
[5:06:00] tools to keep our community safe locally
[5:06:02] here. Um, and, um, look, I've said to
[5:06:05] to, uh, uh, constituents that, um, I
[5:06:10] will support the flock cameras. Um, and
[5:06:13] I've been pretty clear about that and
[5:06:14] and I think it's really important that
[5:06:16] that we're absolutely doing everything
[5:06:18] we can to uphold to the oath that we
[5:06:21] took. Um, and so I agree with you on
[5:06:23] that. Um, and I think um
[5:06:28] I mean
[5:06:31] I think
[5:06:34] it's I mean really for me um uh I'm just
[5:06:38] grateful that we've had this
[5:06:39] conversation that we're having it
[5:06:41] because I I I'm willing to make a bet
[5:06:43] that when I was not on the council um
[5:06:46] and maybe over a year or a year ago
[5:06:50] um we weren't having these conversations
[5:06:52] and sometimes
[5:06:53] You know, I'm I'm chief. I'm glad to
[5:06:54] hear that the ISIS is not here in
[5:06:55] Fedaway. That That's good. Um but it's
[5:06:58] all around us. It is all around us. And
[5:07:01] I'm of the opinion, and I'm only myself,
[5:07:04] that it will be coming here and fed
[5:07:06] away. It will be uh whether or not
[5:07:08] they're strapped or not, they just got a
[5:07:10] nice little beautiful big budget uh that
[5:07:12] was just voted approved. Uh and so I
[5:07:14] think it's coming. And I think part of
[5:07:17] my job, and I'll only speak for myself,
[5:07:19] is we got to be able to foresee things.
[5:07:21] And um and honestly, I mean, Melissa,
[5:07:24] I'm really grateful to what you said
[5:07:26] seriously and I'm honest. I'm being
[5:07:28] honest that of you recognizing
[5:07:31] all walks of life and are and all
[5:07:33] individuals here in Federal Way because
[5:07:34] I think that's where it starts and you
[5:07:36] know during difficulties when people are
[5:07:39] traumatized and they are they are
[5:07:41] traumatized right here in Fedway. Let's
[5:07:43] not shy away from that. That doesn't
[5:07:44] mean we should ignore it. We should at
[5:07:46] least acknowledge it. And that's what I
[5:07:49] wanted to do here with this council
[5:07:51] retreat with this item, you know, u and
[5:07:54] and again I want to reiterate, no one's
[5:07:55] asking to pass policies. We cannot pass
[5:07:58] policies, you know. All I'm asking for
[5:08:01] is maybe we reignite that welcoming city
[5:08:06] resolution statement, you know, and
[5:08:08] there's nothing wrong with us telling
[5:08:10] the community, we see you, we honor you,
[5:08:11] and we care about you, you know, and and
[5:08:14] so uh I appreciate uh my colleagues for
[5:08:17] at least having this conversation and
[5:08:19] and chief, again,
[5:08:22] uh we I uh sincerely appreciate the work
[5:08:25] that you're doing and and the work that
[5:08:27] the men and women are doing to keep our
[5:08:29] uh community safe and and as I can only
[5:08:32] speak for myself as long as I'm on the
[5:08:33] city council, you've got my full
[5:08:34] commitment to to keep doing that, to
[5:08:36] keep supporting our law enforcement
[5:08:37] officers because that's our job. Uh and
[5:08:39] they need that. They need to know that
[5:08:41] they have a council that's backing them.
[5:08:42] Um but I think there's a difference of
[5:08:45] supporting law enforcement and
[5:08:46] supporting um you know, federal
[5:08:50] immigration action. And that's what I'm
[5:08:52] going to be watching out for carefully
[5:08:54] uh to speak up for my brothers and
[5:08:55] sisters that are immigrants and that
[5:08:58] have come here from a different country.
[5:08:59] Thank you.
[5:09:01] » Uh Jack, do you have something?
[5:09:03] » No.
[5:09:11] » Yeah.
[5:09:14] » Okay. All right. Let's move on to the
[5:09:16] next item. Item nine, uh housing use of
[5:09:19] church property. Keith Nan
[5:09:23] and I think uh our uh uh former
[5:09:26] colleague uh Jack Dobby is here as well
[5:09:28] as he was very involved in the uh uh the
[5:09:32] starting of this policy and I asked him
[5:09:34] to be here and help out as well with
[5:09:36] this presentation. Um so Jack if you
[5:09:39] want to approach as well and maybe we
[5:09:41] could pull up another chair uh just
[5:09:42] because I think you were integately
[5:09:44] involved in the um formulation of this
[5:09:46] policy and and we can go from there.
[5:09:50] Mayor.
[5:09:51] » Yeah.
[5:09:51] » Um, you know, looking at our agenda, I'm
[5:09:53] thinking that maybe we need to pull
[5:09:55] maybe number 11 off at this point and we
[5:09:58] can talk about that at the parks
[5:10:00] committee.
[5:10:01] » Okay. And my understanding is um as far
[5:10:04] as a budget briefing, um, doesn't Steve
[5:10:06] Broom give a monthly report um at, uh,
[5:10:09] FedE? Um, yeah, I I had just asked for
[5:10:12] that so that he could talk to the new
[5:10:15] members as to what to expect this year
[5:10:17] for building the budget and how that's
[5:10:19] done.
[5:10:19] » Okay, let's let you have maybe a brief
[5:10:21] conversation about that. Okay. Instead
[5:10:22] of like a full-on this is what's going
[5:10:24] on with the status of the budget that
[5:10:27] that what to expect.
[5:10:28] » Yeah, if I may.
[5:10:30] » Yeah. I I I think the conversation that
[5:10:33] council member Honda and I also had um
[5:10:35] was you know talking about potential
[5:10:38] forecasts at least starting to to talk
[5:10:40] about that and so that way uh we're just
[5:10:43] a part of the process along the way.
[5:10:44] » Right.
[5:10:46] » Okay. So it was anticipated this this
[5:10:48] would be a a one-hour discussion but
[5:10:51] let's see if we can sort of get get
[5:10:53] right to the nub of the issue with the
[5:10:55] uh with the use of church property
[5:10:56] housing issue. Keith.
[5:10:58] » Okay. Um hopefully the cookie is still
[5:11:00] working. Good afternoon everybody.
[5:11:03] Um so I'm going to show these uh some of
[5:11:07] these slides that you guys have seen as
[5:11:09] part of the city's comprehensive plan.
[5:11:10] And and the reason for that um is uh
[5:11:14] twofold. One on the the graphic on the
[5:11:16] left. What that's showing is um the that
[5:11:21] the orange is twoerson household. Um and
[5:11:25] that's our biggest group. So when you
[5:11:27] look at the demographics in Federal Way
[5:11:30] and how many people are living in each
[5:11:32] home, the biggest slice we have is
[5:11:36] twoerson households. And when you add it
[5:11:38] with the oneerson household, which is
[5:11:40] the blue on the left, that's over 50% of
[5:11:43] our households are either one or two
[5:11:45] person households. So that's that's
[5:11:47] changing. We're aging as a city like a
[5:11:50] lot of of them are and uh we have a lot
[5:11:53] of one and two person households. So
[5:11:55] that affects what kind of housing we
[5:11:57] should be thinking about coming our way
[5:11:58] down the pike. Um the graphic on the
[5:12:01] right um what that is also from our
[5:12:04] comprehensive plan housing chapter. What
[5:12:06] that's showing is of that 11,260
[5:12:09] housing units that we need to plan for
[5:12:10] over the next 20 years, we need housing
[5:12:13] at every income level, right? Um so each
[5:12:15] one of those bars is a different income
[5:12:17] level. there's a certain number of uh
[5:12:20] housing units that need to be
[5:12:21] accommodated in each one and that's the
[5:12:24] forecast we've gotten um down from OFM
[5:12:27] and King County. So my point is smaller
[5:12:30] households and uh we need a lot of them
[5:12:33] at every income bracket.
[5:12:36] So here we're going to pause and do an
[5:12:38] kind of a affordability thing. Um all of
[5:12:42] us did this at one point when we were
[5:12:44] thinking about buying our first house.
[5:12:46] uh how much can we afford? And what I
[5:12:49] ran the numbers on was for a house at
[5:12:52] $350,000.
[5:12:54] And I'll explain that um in a sec, but
[5:12:57] basically given the current mortgage
[5:12:59] rate rate at about 6.1%,
[5:13:03] you know, that's going to come out to be
[5:13:04] $2522
[5:13:05] a month. All right? So if you times that
[5:13:08] by 12, um that's 30,264.
[5:13:12] and to not be housing cost burdened. And
[5:13:16] that's a terminology you used when you
[5:13:19] are spending more than 30% of your
[5:13:20] income on housing. And we have a ton of
[5:13:22] people in the United States that are
[5:13:24] over that are either housing cost
[5:13:27] burdened or severely housing cost
[5:13:29] burden, which is spending 50% of your
[5:13:32] income on housing. but to be basically
[5:13:34] in what's considered the good range. Um,
[5:13:38] if you were only spending 30% of your
[5:13:40] income on housing and you were paying
[5:13:42] $2,500 a month, you'd be making about
[5:13:45] $100,000 a year. All right. So, now we
[5:13:50] go to this table, which we love. So,
[5:13:52] this is the uh median income for um
[5:13:55] Seattle Belleview metropolitan area,
[5:13:57] which includes Federal Way. Um, so that
[5:14:00] $100,000 as you look at it, a twoerson
[5:14:02] household, and remember I said a lot of
[5:14:05] our housing is twoerson households. Um,
[5:14:09] to be at $106,000,
[5:14:11] you'd be at 85% AMI. So when we throw
[5:14:15] out these terms like 80% AMI, uh 70%
[5:14:19] AMI, that correlates to this table for
[5:14:22] ownership and it can show you basically
[5:14:26] how much you can qualify for um and and
[5:14:30] afford comfortably. Now obviously if
[5:14:32] you're spending more than 30% of your
[5:14:34] income on housing, um it's a different
[5:14:36] story, but this is assuming that 30%. So
[5:14:40] what problem are we trying to solve with
[5:14:41] this? Um so the city's housing action
[5:14:44] plan identified that housing production
[5:14:46] in federal way [clears throat] was not
[5:14:47] robust. Actually it was kind of anemic
[5:14:50] and one of the things that we are trying
[5:14:53] to do is see if there are things there
[5:14:57] there are rocks that still need to be
[5:14:58] overturned. Are there things that could
[5:15:00] be done to improve uh the construction
[5:15:03] of housing um in the city um moving
[5:15:07] forward?
[5:15:08] So,
[5:15:10] one question that we asked ourselves
[5:15:12] was, is there property in the city
[5:15:15] that's just sitting there? Um, maybe
[5:15:17] underutilized. Um, and that led us to
[5:15:21] looking at churches and we looked at a
[5:15:24] lot of church I personally looked at a
[5:15:26] lot of churches [clears throat] in
[5:15:27] federal and these 12 churches likely
[5:15:32] have surplus land that they're sitting
[5:15:34] on um that could be used. These are a
[5:15:37] lot of if and and when words that could
[5:15:40] be used for housing at some point in
[5:15:42] time.
[5:15:44] So where we are and then I'm going to
[5:15:45] turn over to Jack. Where we are is we've
[5:15:48] initiated development agreement process
[5:15:49] with Wayside. Um Wayside approached the
[5:15:51] city and said, you know, we have
[5:15:54] financial issues. We have extra land. Um
[5:15:58] we would be open to
[5:16:01] trying to work through a development
[5:16:02] agreement. So that process has started
[5:16:04] with Wayside. They came to the council
[5:16:06] and asked the council, would you support
[5:16:08] a development agreement for Wayside? And
[5:16:10] y'all said, "Sure, let's open up the
[5:16:13] process and see where that goes." So,
[5:16:14] that one's in process. We have had Jack
[5:16:17] and I have had conversations with Good
[5:16:19] Shepard. Um, they have yet to really
[5:16:22] come in the door yet, but we've at least
[5:16:24] had conversations with them.
[5:16:28] » Uh, thank you. Um, thank you all for
[5:16:30] letting me take a few minutes to maybe
[5:16:32] expand on what's been done for the last
[5:16:35] year and maybe some visions for going
[5:16:37] forward. Is this you can hear me okay
[5:16:39] with this?
[5:16:39] » Yeah.
[5:16:40] » Okay. So, you know, I've heard in this
[5:16:43] meeting so far tonight, um, we're a city
[5:16:45] where people belong and we need to be
[5:16:48] and my I'm going to add to that we need
[5:16:50] to afford at affordable housing so
[5:16:54] people aren't shackled to rent so they
[5:16:56] can actually stay here.
[5:16:59] And two, and housing, I've been doing a
[5:17:01] lot of research all last year since off
[5:17:05] the time of the council working with
[5:17:06] Keith. I think we need to think our our
[5:17:09] mentality has to shift from a retail
[5:17:11] housing market to a wholesale market.
[5:17:15] And I think [clears throat] my
[5:17:17] background is manufacturing.
[5:17:20] So, we need to think like a manufacturer
[5:17:23] instead of a consumer. And we've all
[5:17:26] bought houses. We've all been in that
[5:17:28] process. And what my research shows when
[5:17:31] you look at those 12 churches,
[5:17:34] there's about 600
[5:17:36] houses that could be built in a perfect
[5:17:39] world if everybody said yes, I want to
[5:17:41] do affordable housing based on the new
[5:17:44] state laws for zoning, which this
[5:17:47] council passed to adopt in the city of
[5:17:49] Federal Way, and based on the ability to
[5:17:52] be denser and to be more clustered of
[5:17:56] the houses. And then when you look at
[5:17:58] federal way just in general, there's a
[5:18:02] lot of land where there are sewers that
[5:18:05] can actually be added housing where you
[5:18:08] can get the density from one house to
[5:18:10] maybe five. Something we've been working
[5:18:13] on as a council, but we haven't acted
[5:18:14] on. So what I've been doing in the last
[5:18:18] month, two months actually, is kind of
[5:18:20] working with builders. Well, the process
[5:18:23] I've been working through is
[5:18:26] working on infill and I've talked so far
[5:18:29] to the process. I've been working with
[5:18:32] four different builders.
[5:18:34] I've talked to one union. I've talked to
[5:18:37] two architects,
[5:18:39] uh, two nonprofits,
[5:18:41] five churches,
[5:18:43] um, one independent property owner, two
[5:18:47] utilities,
[5:18:48] two funding sources,
[5:18:51] two civil engineers, three real estate
[5:18:53] organizations,
[5:18:56] um, in order to figure out the process
[5:18:58] and what has to be done to be
[5:19:00] affordable.
[5:19:01] My vision of affordable is somewhere
[5:19:03] between 300 and 350,000. I've always
[5:19:06] said 300,000,
[5:19:08] but based on a few things and based on
[5:19:11] the tables that Keith has put together,
[5:19:13] I've expanded it up to 350,000.
[5:19:17] The reason for that is for affordable
[5:19:19] housing,
[5:19:21] you have to build it so people who can
[5:19:24] afford it, and you saw the numbers, but
[5:19:26] you also have to make it so it's not a
[5:19:28] windfall. So, somebody gets the lottery
[5:19:30] and gets to buy one of these houses and
[5:19:32] then turns around and sells it a year
[5:19:34] later in pocketes pockets a few hundred
[5:19:36] thousand. Well, the affordable housing
[5:19:40] process that Keith knows very much about
[5:19:42] and we kind of talked about in the
[5:19:43] council, these houses have to stay
[5:19:45] affordable for up to 50 years if the
[5:19:48] council does concessions.
[5:19:51] And um the things that I think we need
[5:19:55] to do or I would ask this council to
[5:19:58] think about. So we get stable,
[5:20:00] affordable for purchase housing, not
[5:20:03] rentals. So we're shackling people to
[5:20:05] the rent, but we're building it so they
[5:20:08] can buy it, build generational wealth,
[5:20:10] and be in the neighborhood.
[5:20:13] Is we got to stick to the zoning laws,
[5:20:15] which we've been put together here in
[5:20:17] the city of Federal Way. This council,
[5:20:18] many of you on it voted for 70 vote.
[5:20:22] We got to keep the school fees at zero.
[5:20:25] you can't upgrade them because that was
[5:20:27] a biggest detriment for why Federal Way
[5:20:30] missed out the building boom of the
[5:20:33] late, you know, the COVID time and
[5:20:35] before that.
[5:20:38] There has to be some traffic mitigation.
[5:20:40] These are going to be infills. So, we
[5:20:43] can't have policies that you got to add
[5:20:45] more sidewalks than are already there.
[5:20:48] You have to have egress egress on the
[5:20:50] roads. It may have to be a little bit
[5:20:52] different so you can keep the cost out
[5:20:54] so you can get to 300 and 350
[5:20:57] and you need to think as a council
[5:21:00] permitting fees. We already have my the
[5:21:03] city has the staff doing the permitting.
[5:21:06] They do this every day. You heard back
[5:21:09] on one of the presentations on AI. I
[5:21:11] think Keith talked about it and I've
[5:21:13] gone on AI and talked about uh
[5:21:15] permitting fees and how it does it is
[5:21:17] very confusing.
[5:21:19] I believe that the council needs to have
[5:21:20] the process that permitting fees for
[5:21:23] affordable housing be modified so it's
[5:21:27] not a burden so you can keep the cost
[5:21:29] down. The builders I've talked to can
[5:21:32] all build these houses way under 300 and
[5:21:35] way under 350 stick built threebedroom
[5:21:39] two bath. Some will be a,000 square feet
[5:21:43] some will be 1,200 some could be as much
[5:21:46] as 1,400 side by side.
[5:21:49] all things that people that are older
[5:21:52] may want to buy and move down. So, it
[5:21:54] frees the upper part of the market to
[5:21:56] for people to buy. Also, for young c
[5:21:58] couples that are in the lower 100,000,
[5:22:02] I've been using the number 50 to 70,000
[5:22:04] to buy in. And one of the big stories
[5:22:07] that keeps me wanting to do this, I met
[5:22:09] a guy who's a banker
[5:22:12] at a farmers market.
[5:22:15] I asked him how he liked living here. He
[5:22:17] says he loves it, but he can't afford a
[5:22:19] house. This is somebody who's got a
[5:22:20] great job at a nice bank, one child, his
[5:22:24] wife, they were all at the booth at the
[5:22:26] farmers market, and he can't qualify for
[5:22:29] any starting house in Federal Way.
[5:22:32] Because a starting house to buy is 5 to
[5:22:35] 560. There's one I know of for 440 that
[5:22:38] nobody here would even want to go into.
[5:22:41] So, we have a crisis. We're not going to
[5:22:44] have a crisis for rentals. We got stuff
[5:22:47] going on all over the place, but we have
[5:22:49] a crisis to keep the young couples and
[5:22:52] the old people in our city to stay here
[5:22:54] and live, buy and trade. And that's why
[5:22:56] I've been taking this as kind of a
[5:22:58] citizen to do and working with peace. So
[5:23:00] that's my presentation on the facts. And
[5:23:03] I just would ask that land use committee
[5:23:06] and the council whole think about
[5:23:08] traffic mitigation and permitting so
[5:23:12] that we can get some of these going. And
[5:23:14] they're and these things are not asking
[5:23:16] for the council to put money up for
[5:23:18] land. I have investors and and the
[5:23:21] churches that are willing to
[5:23:25] work together to get it to happen so
[5:23:27] they get their money through the
[5:23:29] process, not all upfront. So anyway,
[5:23:32] that's my uh two cents. Okay, Jack.
[5:23:37] » Yeah, I'm I'm excited about this
[5:23:39] process. I've been had the opportunity
[5:23:41] to be working with Jack and Keith on
[5:23:42] this um the last while and I I thank
[5:23:45] Jack for for being the the brainchild uh
[5:23:48] behind this. Uh just in in my own
[5:23:51] situation, you know, I I have a a
[5:23:53] daughter that she and her husband, you
[5:23:56] know, all my kids were were raised here
[5:23:58] in Federal Way. My youngest daughter,
[5:24:00] she and her husband had to buy a house
[5:24:01] clear out in Port Orchard because that
[5:24:03] was as close as what they could afford
[5:24:05] one. Uh another daughter, she and her
[5:24:08] husband bought a 100y old house in
[5:24:11] downtown Pew Allen because that's all
[5:24:13] that they could afford and now they're
[5:24:14] they're renovating it. I would rather
[5:24:16] much rather you know from entirely
[5:24:18] selfish reason I'd rather have my
[5:24:20] grandchildren here closer and I think
[5:24:22] that a lot of us here uh would like that
[5:24:25] also and uh with with with my own home
[5:24:28] right now I could not afford to buy it
[5:24:31] new. I've been in it for 39 years and uh
[5:24:35] and it's unaffordable. We need to make
[5:24:37] it so that young couples and and older
[5:24:41] folks that are want to downsize can
[5:24:43] actually build or come and stay and live
[5:24:47] here in Federal Way in their own homes.
[5:24:49] Uh my own family history is it is real
[5:24:53] estate that builds wealth. It's real
[5:24:56] estate that makes it so that you can
[5:24:57] eventually retire and and we want and
[5:25:01] that the great American dream is is home
[5:25:03] ownership. And we need to help that. As
[5:25:06] as Jack said, we have a a lot of rentals
[5:25:09] in in the community. Uh and and there's
[5:25:12] certainly a place for that. Absolutely a
[5:25:14] place for that. But we want as many
[5:25:15] people as possible to be able to own
[5:25:17] their home and have something that can
[5:25:19] do it. And as I see it, that the city
[5:25:21] can be a catalyst, a facilitator to do
[5:25:24] that. So, not having to put in a lot of
[5:25:26] of city money, but being willing to to
[5:25:31] um uh
[5:25:34] you know, make special uh situations as
[5:25:37] far as as as fees go for that
[5:25:42] uh affordable home ownership. And so,
[5:25:46] anyway, I'm I'm I'm excited about this
[5:25:48] and and uh you know, I think we have a
[5:25:51] tremendous amount to gain. you know,
[5:25:53] whether this whole concept I I'm I'm not
[5:25:56] absolutely confident. I think it's going
[5:25:57] to work. Not absolutely confident, but
[5:26:00] we have a whole lot to gain and really
[5:26:02] nothing to lose.
[5:26:04] » All right, London.
[5:26:06] » Well, um I have a three things to say.
[5:26:09] First of um your 300, 350, does that
[5:26:13] include the property value?
[5:26:14] » Uh the the building and the property,
[5:26:16] the land.
[5:26:17] » Okay. Yeah, this is all in
[5:26:20] » All in
[5:26:20] » With the turnkey house. And and a house
[5:26:23] to build like this, just to put in
[5:26:24] perspective,
[5:26:26] » Is 120 to 160 days from a day a permit
[5:26:29] is issued.
[5:26:31] » And you know, several builders that will
[5:26:33] do this stick build.
[5:26:34] » Well, nobody's signed on the line
[5:26:36] because there's nothing to sign yet. But
[5:26:38] I have two companies that are very like
[5:26:41] when can we start? Um, and this is all
[5:26:44] companies that build that have track
[5:26:47] records that are more fill in. It's not
[5:26:49] a these pieces of property aren't big
[5:26:51] enough for a big builder to come in and
[5:26:53] mobilize and be able to make it work.
[5:26:56] » So, if everybody agrees to consensus is
[5:26:59] to move forward, what would be the next
[5:27:00] step? That'd be a key. Well, my next
[5:27:03] step, I'm just a citizen, but I would
[5:27:05] continue doing what I'm doing and I try
[5:27:07] to bring all the dots together so the
[5:27:10] builders and the property owners are all
[5:27:13] put together and there's some legal
[5:27:15] contracts to move ahead and come into
[5:27:17] the city and say, "Okay,
[5:27:21] uh what can the city do on permitting
[5:27:23] and things like that?" I mean, this to
[5:27:25] me is the kind of the check off day. If
[5:27:27] you all go away and say, "No, we're not
[5:27:29] going to do it." I don't want to waste
[5:27:31] my time um to be honest with you.
[5:27:34] » My question is that with the permitting
[5:27:36] fees and so is that something we have to
[5:27:38] change in a in a do we just direct that
[5:27:41] to be done as comp.
[5:27:43] » Good luck Keith. So since we chose to do
[5:27:46] this via development agreement for
[5:27:48] Wayside and Wayside's the canary in the
[5:27:50] coal mine right they're first. So, um,
[5:27:53] right now, uh, my understanding is this
[5:27:55] Sunday, um, they are going to vote as a
[5:27:58] congregation on which portion of their
[5:28:02] property they'd be willing to sell. So,
[5:28:04] that's moving forward. Once that
[5:28:06] happens, then we get the builder and the
[5:28:09] church and us in a room and uh we talk
[5:28:14] about uh a development agreement and
[5:28:16] what that includes which could include
[5:28:20] uh the provision for either reduced or
[5:28:23] or waved permitting fees or something
[5:28:25] like that. So it would be in the
[5:28:27] development agreement which would then
[5:28:28] come to council. Okay?
[5:28:29] » And you guys would get a chance to weigh
[5:28:31] in on whether you support that or not.
[5:28:33] So we don't have to do a separate
[5:28:34] action. It would be embedded in the DA.
[5:28:36] » So now I'm going to tell you a little
[5:28:38] quick story.
[5:28:39] » My son, newly married as a church mouse,
[5:28:43] going to live here, uh found a repo
[5:28:46] house on the park. And um the house the
[5:28:50] repo possessed he he's a consultant, so
[5:28:53] he knew how to bid. And so the house was
[5:28:56] um the the bid minimum bid price was
[5:29:00] 125,000.
[5:29:02] So that all had to be written uh bids.
[5:29:05] So he submitted his written bid and he
[5:29:07] got it. And the way he got it was
[5:29:10] 125,000 and one penny. And the cash
[5:29:14] offer which was 125,000 was very angry
[5:29:18] but 30 years ago 125,000 and one penny
[5:29:22] for a house that is now worth 650.
[5:29:26] » Great. Thank you Lydia.
[5:29:31] Thank you. Thanks for the presentation
[5:29:33] and thank you for continuing to work on
[5:29:35] this. Um I know this is very important
[5:29:37] in our community. I work for the housing
[5:29:39] authority. So some something I'm very um
[5:29:42] I believe in and I think it's very
[5:29:44] important because the focus like you
[5:29:46] said is on rental affordable rental and
[5:29:48] not home ownership. Um except for
[5:29:51] Habitat. Um, and I was going to ask you
[5:29:53] about them and see if you've even talked
[5:29:55] to them and see um if there's a room for
[5:29:58] partnership with them. Um,
[5:30:01] » I will I will answer that real quick.
[5:30:03] Um, they could be part of the process.
[5:30:06] Excuse me. They could be part of the
[5:30:08] process, but it's all timing. Their
[5:30:11] plate is pretty full on everything
[5:30:13] they're trying to do. So building
[5:30:16] affordable housing is all about time and
[5:30:20] money and you might save a little bit on
[5:30:23] a nonprofit but you may not get it out
[5:30:25] the door in a year.
[5:30:27] » So I'm it they could be part of the mix.
[5:30:30] » Okay. Thank you. And um I do understand
[5:30:34] the importance of home ownership because
[5:30:36] again even the housing authority I work
[5:30:38] for is doing a home ownership program.
[5:30:40] And so I I think you and I talked a
[5:30:42] little bit about this to see how that
[5:30:44] partnership could happen where they have
[5:30:47] already ready people who can move in um
[5:30:49] from from rental because a lot of the
[5:30:52] people I talked to at my job. I mean
[5:30:55] that's their wildest dream is like if I
[5:30:58] could ever own my own home and and it's
[5:31:02] I bought my house eight years ago and I
[5:31:04] know what they mean and my house is
[5:31:06] already I like you said I wouldn't be
[5:31:08] able to afford it today. Right. And so,
[5:31:11] um, with that and not worrying about
[5:31:13] your rent increasing and not having, um,
[5:31:16] the funds to come up with that
[5:31:18] difference and a lot of people lose
[5:31:19] their housing because their rent goes
[5:31:21] up. And so, I really appreciate, um,
[5:31:25] what we're doing here. Um, I do have a
[5:31:28] question for you, Keith, but before
[5:31:30] that, um, I also like this idea because
[5:31:33] I don't know if there's any other cities
[5:31:34] doing this right now. So, we're ahead of
[5:31:37] the game here and I I really appreciate
[5:31:39] it and I appreciate the churches who are
[5:31:41] willing to um part uh participate and
[5:31:45] partner. Um
[5:31:47] so, if we do the waiver
[5:31:52] would this be something we need to
[5:31:54] standardize for other partnerships like
[5:31:57] this for affordable home ownership?
[5:32:00] Um so
[5:32:03] you guys um amended the development
[5:32:05] agreement code recently and apologies
[5:32:08] for not remembering how recent recently
[5:32:11] is but um one of the one of the things
[5:32:13] the the amendment included affordable
[5:32:16] housing under the public benefit
[5:32:18] section. So it's now clear that that's
[5:32:20] one of the public benefits that we would
[5:32:22] see in a development agreement. Um, I
[5:32:25] don't think in in terms of I
[5:32:29] if if this lives in a development
[5:32:32] agreement, um, I think it's it can be
[5:32:35] looked at as a one-off. I think though
[5:32:38] if you guys support it in a development
[5:32:41] agreement and we did another development
[5:32:43] agreement, I think as staff we would
[5:32:45] say, well, the council supported once,
[5:32:48] they might support it again, so it might
[5:32:50] pre-populate that way. But would this
[5:32:53] need to happen outside only if you guys
[5:32:56] passed um you would need to pass either
[5:33:00] I would say ordinance um that would wave
[5:33:03] or reduce impact fees for affordable
[5:33:05] housing citywide. So you'd have to do
[5:33:07] that via a separate instrument if you
[5:33:09] wanted it to apply everywhere for
[5:33:11] affordable.
[5:33:12] » I would definitely support that if it's
[5:33:13] for affordable housing. So making the
[5:33:15] distinction
[5:33:17] um would be great. So,
[5:33:20] um I think oh and then um adding a
[5:33:24] component to the home ownership part
[5:33:25] would be the financial literacy at some
[5:33:28] um making sure that not just buying it
[5:33:30] but maintaining and making sure that you
[5:33:32] could stay there is very critical uh for
[5:33:34] the success especially for a lot of
[5:33:36] people who are going to be first-time
[5:33:37] home buyers. Um it's exciting to already
[5:33:40] buy the house but then not keeping it
[5:33:42] would be very challenging. So, making
[5:33:45] sure that that's part of the
[5:33:48] um
[5:33:50] agreement maybe, I don't know, but
[5:33:52] making that part of it would be
[5:33:54] incredible. Thank you.
[5:33:55] » And if I could just comment on that, um
[5:33:59] this would be a program. This is the
[5:34:00] type of program that's open to all
[5:34:02] anyone that can buy a house. It's so
[5:34:07] we'll have more, this city will have
[5:34:09] more people wanting to own a house, I
[5:34:11] think, than renting hopefully. And just
[5:34:13] so you know, there's I think I heard 35
[5:34:15] people have signed up for the financial
[5:34:17] literacy classes starts this coming
[5:34:19] Thursday for Bill. So we could you could
[5:34:22] make that part of the program.
[5:34:28] Okay. So we've got uh Melissa, then
[5:34:30] Martin, then Susan, then Les, uh and
[5:34:34] then Linda. So Melissa,
[5:34:37] » Well actually a lot of my questions were
[5:34:39] answered. So thank you for asking them
[5:34:41] uh everyone before me. But um I I will
[5:34:45] just uh mention that you know some
[5:34:47] people might be asking why are we
[5:34:50] building uh single family starter homes
[5:34:53] when you know we have an affordability
[5:34:55] crisis. I think it's important to
[5:34:57] understand that the reason why is
[5:34:59] because we do need that variety of
[5:35:01] housing like I mentioned before because
[5:35:03] what that's going to do is it's going to
[5:35:05] move people out of the rentals and get
[5:35:09] them, you know, free up those rentals
[5:35:12] for other people. Right now,
[5:35:13] [clears throat] the housing, everybody's
[5:35:15] just kind of bottlenecked and staying
[5:35:16] put and it's driving costs up. So,
[5:35:19] that's just one of the reasons why we
[5:35:21] need a variety of homes. Um, also I
[5:35:25] think you know I did not realize we had
[5:35:27] so many churches with so much land
[5:35:29] available.
[5:35:31] I think a lot of them would be willing
[5:35:33] to you know offload some of that land
[5:35:36] especially if they know that it's going
[5:35:37] to help with uh you know the housing
[5:35:40] issue in federal. So I would say cast
[5:35:42] that vision and and let's make deals. Um
[5:35:46] also I have my own little personal story
[5:35:48] with developing housing. So I my husband
[5:35:51] and I were looking at a property in
[5:35:52] Milton and it was just a single family
[5:35:54] property. We wanted to build a speck
[5:35:56] house. We went to the city figure out
[5:35:58] what all the, you know, permit fees and
[5:36:01] due diligence and all that. And the city
[5:36:02] came back and told us, "Well, you need
[5:36:04] to pay $75,000 for a sidewalk." And we
[5:36:07] said, "For one house?" And they said,
[5:36:09] "Yeah." Oh, and it's not going to fit on
[5:36:12] this road, so you're really just putting
[5:36:13] that 75,000 into a a pot so we can build
[5:36:16] a sidewalk somewhere else that we need
[5:36:17] in the city.
[5:36:19] So the bottom I mean my point is the
[5:36:22] project didn't pencil at that point
[5:36:24] because it was just money going out that
[5:36:27] we weren't getting anything in return
[5:36:28] for. So I do think we need to do
[5:36:31] everything we can as a city to make sure
[5:36:33] we're not in a situation like that where
[5:36:35] builders aren't going to be making a
[5:36:36] profit because builders are not building
[5:36:38] out of the goodness of their heart. They
[5:36:40] are building to make a profit and in
[5:36:42] turn you know the outcome is people get
[5:36:45] housing. That's all.
[5:36:47] » Mark. Uh, thank you, Mayor. Um, Jack,
[5:36:50] thank you for your efforts on this. Um,
[5:36:52] I'm confident that this will continue to
[5:36:54] be on the land use and transportation
[5:36:55] committee. Uh, so I know that Jack will
[5:36:57] be interested in that, I suspect. Uh,
[5:37:00] okay. He's nodding his head. Yes. Uh,
[5:37:02] so, um, um,
[5:37:07] so, um, Oh, I can't read my notes. Uh,
[5:37:11] so you talked about you have some
[5:37:12] builders that are interested. Um, who
[5:37:16] are they? Well,
[5:37:19] they're well-known builders. I'm not
[5:37:21] going to disclose their names because
[5:37:22] I'm not going to get out of front of the
[5:37:25] sled.
[5:37:26] » I mean, it does nobody any good to say
[5:37:28] builder X and builder Y are willing to
[5:37:30] do this if we don't have a program, but
[5:37:33] they're reputable builders once built
[5:37:35] over 6,000 homes. Um, and you know, I've
[5:37:40] talked to a lot of them, so I really
[5:37:42] don't feel comfortable in saying who,
[5:37:45] » But know that they're reputable
[5:37:46] companies.
[5:37:47] » Got it. Um, and so, um, um, I think for
[5:37:51] me, um, and Keith, you talked, you
[5:37:53] briefly kind of went over the process,
[5:37:55] what that could look like. Um, and I
[5:37:58] think in the, uh,
[5:38:00] I'm hoping to see something in the
[5:38:02] development agreements. Uh, but let me
[5:38:05] just pause for a second. This is an
[5:38:06] exciting project. Obviously what
[5:38:08] » An exciting project.
[5:38:10] » I think it's very exciting for our
[5:38:11] community.
[5:38:12] » Good. Absolutely. And we want people to
[5:38:14] be able to afford homes. I mean that's
[5:38:16] uh that's you're on a path towards
[5:38:18] prosperity quite frank quite frankly. Uh
[5:38:22] and so um that being said, it's a really
[5:38:26] innovative tool that we're doing you uh
[5:38:29] innovative project. Uh thinking out to
[5:38:31] the box is what I like about this. Uh,
[5:38:33] and I I would urge you, Jack, to think
[5:38:36] of what other partnerships can we create
[5:38:38] in thinking outside the box. And so that
[5:38:40] means I mean Fedway High School, we have
[5:38:42] apprentices there. You know, as I've
[5:38:44] told Jack Walsh, uh, we're only using
[5:38:47] first names, so my apologies, but uh,
[5:38:49] you know, as I've indicate, as I've
[5:38:51] talked to Jack Walsh about this, um, I
[5:38:53] really would like to see um, apprentices
[5:38:56] on this um, some sort of partnership
[5:38:58] with labor uh, in this.
[5:39:00] » I have talked to labor already.
[5:39:02] » Okay.
[5:39:05] So, I'd like to know more about that,
[5:39:07] but it sounds like u
[5:39:10] excuse me, Martin, I've tried to check
[5:39:12] off every box that could come from
[5:39:15] anybody, uh, labor, builders, the
[5:39:18] engineers, everybody that you need to go
[5:39:20] through a process if you're going to
[5:39:22] develop land. And many of them have come
[5:39:25] back and said they like this process.
[5:39:27] Some are doing it for free, some are
[5:39:30] doing it for discount. Um, so, you know,
[5:39:33] sorry for interrupting you, but
[5:39:35] » I have already talked to one of the
[5:39:37] largest labor unions um to see if
[5:39:40] they'll buy in. We've been talking back
[5:39:42] and forth a couple times. Don't have any
[5:39:44] commitments, but they're very
[5:39:46] interested.
[5:39:47] » Great. Uh, and that's an important box
[5:39:49] for me. So, uh, thank you for that and
[5:39:51] and, uh, thank you for acknowledging
[5:39:52] that. So, with that, I will, um, I mean,
[5:39:55] I support it. So, thank you,
[5:39:58] » Les.
[5:40:01] Yeah, my colleagues are asking some
[5:40:03] great questions. I appreciate all of
[5:40:05] them. I don't have uh too many. Um but I
[5:40:11] I am curious about the possibility to
[5:40:14] develop the 600 units as duplexes.
[5:40:20] That would double
[5:40:21] » As what?
[5:40:22] » Duplexes.
[5:40:23] » Yeah. Yeah. If I could answer that.
[5:40:25] Every piece of property on a church or
[5:40:28] that's an infill has a different
[5:40:30] perspective of size and how much can go
[5:40:33] there and what density might make worth.
[5:40:36] One piece that I've been talking to a
[5:40:38] group about right now is potentially two
[5:40:42] duplexes and
[5:40:45] three single family because the max they
[5:40:47] can get on there is seven.
[5:40:50] Again, it all depends on the density,
[5:40:53] the look of the land, the orientation to
[5:40:55] the road, what the infrastructure is
[5:40:58] going to look like. And I've tried to
[5:41:00] avoid talking to people about where you
[5:41:02] got to cut a lot of roads and do a lot
[5:41:05] of infrastructure like that so we can
[5:41:07] keep the cost down when we start to do
[5:41:09] the first one. And again, all these
[5:41:12] churches that you've heard about and
[5:41:14] infills, unless one's done right first,
[5:41:17] nobody wants to be second. And it's hard
[5:41:19] to find somebody who wants to be first.
[5:41:21] Wayside, which is voting tomorrow at
[5:41:24] their congregation of 34 people to see
[5:41:26] if they want to be in the game
[5:41:28] officially, they got to decide, do we do
[5:41:31] 3/4 of an acre, do we do 1.2, do we do
[5:41:34] 2.1?
[5:41:36] So, this is a project. You got to get
[5:41:38] the first one to start and then once it
[5:41:42] approves and people actually buy the
[5:41:43] houses, which at 300 to 350 I don't
[5:41:46] believe is going to be a problem. Um,
[5:41:48] then you can start to get how you do the
[5:41:51] 600. Um, like the first one I ever
[5:41:54] thought about on doing this sold out
[5:41:57] long time ago and they're going to I
[5:41:59] think they're going to get 23 houses on
[5:42:00] it where they could have done what was
[5:42:02] it 82. So, it's all about um get the
[5:42:07] first one done first.
[5:42:09] » Okay.
[5:42:10] » But duplexes are a great idea. Might be
[5:42:12] forplexes on some of them the way that
[5:42:13] the zoning is in our city. I think
[5:42:16] that's great. Uh and then um
[5:42:20] would it be safe to assume that each
[5:42:23] transaction is unique? And
[5:42:26] » Yeah, there is no cookie cutter on this
[5:42:28] because every lot is is it 7500? Is it
[5:42:33] half an acre? Is it three quarters? Is
[5:42:36] it uh two lots that you can cut down to
[5:42:39] five each? Is what how much
[5:42:42] mobilization? Everyone's going to be
[5:42:46] same process
[5:42:48] just a different outcome based on what
[5:42:50] can be done there.
[5:42:52] » Okay. And uh since they are on church
[5:42:56] land or or private land I guess
[5:42:58] » I right now we're focusing on church
[5:43:01] land
[5:43:02] » Church land
[5:43:02] » Which will become the properties will
[5:43:04] come on the tax roles a little
[5:43:06] differently so it brings more revenue to
[5:43:07] the city the fire department the school
[5:43:09] district um there could be I have one
[5:43:13] I'm talking to nothing to report but
[5:43:16] it's private property that has enough
[5:43:18] room to put three on they just don't
[5:43:21] know how to do
[5:43:22] Do you know if there are or if there
[5:43:25] would be any like covenant restrictions?
[5:43:29] Like you got to be a certain
[5:43:30] » Denomination. There's tremendous
[5:43:32] covenant restrictions. You wouldn't go
[5:43:34] to Marine Hills because there's five
[5:43:36] different covenants that would ban you
[5:43:38] from doing anything. You probably run in
[5:43:40] the same thing in Twin Lakes. Um there's
[5:43:43] all sorts of different covenants. The
[5:43:45] Ridge would be another place. So there's
[5:43:47] a lot of places you could not do this
[5:43:49] and you whatever the council does is not
[5:43:52] going to override those covenants, but
[5:43:54] there's enough space and land and sewer
[5:43:57] because that's another key in this city
[5:44:00] to make this happen.
[5:44:01] » And and if I can also add less, I think
[5:44:05] so I I took your question a little
[5:44:07] differently. Um there have been
[5:44:10] conversations with Wayside about
[5:44:12] covenants for that property. So, for
[5:44:14] example, there will be an HOA for the
[5:44:17] residential portion and they will be
[5:44:19] part of the HOA. And so, writing that
[5:44:22] into the development agreement is part
[5:44:25] of some of these questions that we're
[5:44:27] navigating through um as we kind of
[5:44:30] figure this out.
[5:44:32] » Excellent. Thank you.
[5:44:35] » All right, Susan.
[5:44:39] » Thank you. So housing is a huge topic in
[5:44:43] the state and and everywhere you can
[5:44:45] think of. Uh we need more houses and we
[5:44:48] need um more people housed. So I've been
[5:44:52] watching a lot of videos on housing and
[5:44:55] what uh different unique ways to make
[5:44:58] more housing. And I watched a video
[5:45:01] yesterday.
[5:45:02] It was a real estate developer in
[5:45:04] Snomish County.
[5:45:07] and um he said the way to make money
[5:45:09] nowadays is to build the DADUs
[5:45:13] uh which is what his company is do doing
[5:45:15] up there in Snomish County
[5:45:18] but his costs were a bit different than
[5:45:21] what you're talking about. So,
[5:45:24] um, so he says he he's building 1,000
[5:45:28] square ft homes, two beds, one bath, and
[5:45:31] he went through all of the different
[5:45:33] costs to build in Stomage County, which
[5:45:36] is, he says, cheaper than King County.
[5:45:38] And um, without the land, not putting
[5:45:42] the land in, the cheapest he can build
[5:45:45] for is 340. That's the cheapest without
[5:45:49] putting the land in. I think he's
[5:45:51] incorrect, but that's based on my
[5:45:53] research.
[5:45:53] » He seems very successful.
[5:45:54] » Based on my research.
[5:45:55] » So then there is another uh video I
[5:45:58] watched recently and it was a family in
[5:46:01] Vancouver, Washington, and uh they took
[5:46:05] their single family lot and they want
[5:46:07] their children weren't going to be able
[5:46:09] to buy homes and so they took their
[5:46:12] large family home that the kids had
[5:46:14] grown up in and they made four homes on
[5:46:16] it. And uh so there's lots of different
[5:46:19] ways you can build bring housing into an
[5:46:22] area. You just have to think out of the
[5:46:24] box and people all over the the world
[5:46:26] are thinking out of the box on how to
[5:46:28] build more housing. Uh I have some
[5:46:32] concerns with with with this project and
[5:46:35] some of my concerns are I don't want any
[5:46:38] corners cut.
[5:46:39] » Any what?
[5:46:40] » Any corners cut. I mean, if we we have
[5:46:45] reasons we have the way that roads have
[5:46:48] to be built and sidewalks have to be in
[5:46:50] a housing development. Um,
[5:46:54] they shouldn't be cut for for any kind
[5:46:58] of housing. They should be standard
[5:46:59] throughout the city. Um,
[5:47:03] changing permit fees for
[5:47:06] some housing in Federal Way and not all
[5:47:08] housing in Federal Way concerns me.
[5:47:11] Because I think we need to be
[5:47:15] we need to encourage all types of
[5:47:18] housing in federal way from uh
[5:47:23] houses for you know in this price range
[5:47:26] to over a million. We know that we need
[5:47:28] housing in all of our the the ranges of
[5:47:32] housing and um
[5:47:37] so I I don't know that um changing
[5:47:39] permit fees for just this type of
[5:47:42] housing would be fair. I don't know that
[5:47:45] it would encourage other builders to
[5:47:46] come to Federal Way to build other kind
[5:47:48] of housing here. And um I think we
[5:47:52] should do our best to keep the cost down
[5:47:54] for building for all house house
[5:47:56] builders so that we can get all levels
[5:47:59] of housing built in federal way.
[5:48:02] Um
[5:48:04] reducing or waving permit fees. I'm
[5:48:08] we would have to be fair and equal to
[5:48:10] everyone in my opinion. and um
[5:48:18] home ownership. I'm I don't know how we
[5:48:20] could It sounds like you're saying that
[5:48:23] these house homes
[5:48:26] people could not
[5:48:29] buy them than to rent them out.
[5:48:31] » That's that's correct. So that would
[5:48:33] have to be in the covenant. Then is how
[5:48:36] can how could we say that you I mean
[5:48:38] let's say let's say Bruce and I buy one
[5:48:41] of these houses for one of our kids and
[5:48:45] then they grow out of it because you
[5:48:48] know the the family grows then we can't
[5:48:50] keep it to rent it. Is that how can you
[5:48:53] how can we say that as a city?
[5:48:55] » Um we can't. Um, so it needs to be um,
[5:48:58] so what would happen if this if this
[5:49:01] truly falls into one of our affordable
[5:49:03] housing units in the city, then we would
[5:49:06] require a covenant. Um, and the covenant
[5:49:09] um, we've been working this through with
[5:49:10] Dr. Horton on the valley site and um,
[5:49:14] Homestead Community Trust is going to
[5:49:16] manage that covenant for the next 50
[5:49:18] years um, on those affordable units. So
[5:49:21] what happens is they keep in contact
[5:49:23] with the property owner and if that home
[5:49:26] were to be sold or rented to someone
[5:49:29] else, the income restrictions would
[5:49:31] remain and they would monitor for
[5:49:35] compliance on that. And in theory, if
[5:49:38] you as the owner didn't comply with
[5:49:40] those requirements, you'd be out of
[5:49:42] compliance with the covenant and you'd
[5:49:45] get sued and probably lose. Sorry, I
[5:49:47] don't know that part. So, so there's so
[5:49:50] there's a tool. So, we have a tool to
[5:49:52] manage that. Is it foolproof? Probably
[5:49:55] not. Um, but will it keep a majority of
[5:49:58] those units affordable for the next 50
[5:50:00] years? It should,
[5:50:01] » But they could be rental units.
[5:50:03] » Yeah, I don't think we can um legislate
[5:50:07] uh the ownership of the home and whether
[5:50:09] it's rented or owner occupied. That
[5:50:11] that's a lot harder. Um, and Ryan's
[5:50:14] shaking his head and I don't know of a
[5:50:16] way to do that either. So I think the
[5:50:17] answer is we couldn't preclude it being
[5:50:20] rented by the owner. That there's life
[5:50:22] is too complicated for that frankly.
[5:50:24] Okay. Initially
[5:50:27] » Well
[5:50:28] » Well
[5:50:29] » It's it's it's it's
[5:50:32] not a rental unit per se. It's going to
[5:50:35] be sold on the marketplace and whether
[5:50:36] that initial buyer chooses to live there
[5:50:39] or rent it at an affordable price um
[5:50:42] that we can't control. that that's what
[5:50:45] I I'm trying to understand from what
[5:50:48] Jack is saying. And then my um
[5:50:52] you know, I certainly want to get more
[5:50:53] housing here. I certainly want uh
[5:50:56] seniors to downsize if they I'm looking
[5:50:59] for a house to downsize in Federal Way
[5:51:01] is impossible. It it truly is. Um
[5:51:06] you know, I want uh anyone who wants to
[5:51:09] own a home, I I want that to be possible
[5:51:11] for them.
[5:51:14] We're also going to need more parks
[5:51:15] because if we put
[5:51:18] these houses close together with very
[5:51:20] tiny yards is what I'm envisioning. We
[5:51:23] need more parks. And looking at Wayside,
[5:51:27] there aren't any parks over there. We've
[5:51:29] got Lakota across the street which has
[5:51:31] we've been on has since um my adopted
[5:51:35] daughter Katie was in sixth grade. We've
[5:51:37] been talking about working on that park.
[5:51:39] She's 23 now and we haven't, you know,
[5:51:42] we've fixed the drainage and things like
[5:51:43] that, but that we haven't made it into a
[5:51:46] better park. And um so we're going to
[5:51:49] have to look in our city budget and dig
[5:51:52] deep to make more parks for people. We
[5:51:54] put this many, you know, we need more
[5:51:56] people in Federal Way. Definitely, we're
[5:51:58] going to have more people in Federal
[5:51:59] Way, but we need to look at our park
[5:52:02] budget and figure out how we can make
[5:52:04] more parks in Federal Way for the people
[5:52:06] that we're bringing in, especially if
[5:52:08] we're going to be encouraging houses
[5:52:11] with um very tiny um
[5:52:16] yards. Children need a place to run.
[5:52:19] Dogs need a place to play in. And um if
[5:52:23] we build the houses, let's build the
[5:52:25] parks alongside with it. Let's make sure
[5:52:26] that we're planning for that and that
[5:52:28] it's not an afterthought that after
[5:52:31] they're built and the families are
[5:52:33] wandering around Federal Way like where
[5:52:35] are the kids going to play because
[5:52:36] there's not a park next door. There's
[5:52:38] not a park within you know where we can
[5:52:41] just send the kids off to play. We need
[5:52:42] to plan for that too.
[5:52:44] » Thank you.
[5:52:45] » Linda, do you have something?
[5:52:46] » Okay. Um Lydia.
[5:52:51] » Yeah. Um I think Susan's questions
[5:52:54] raised
[5:52:55] um concern a concern for me. One is I
[5:52:59] was under the assumption that this was
[5:53:01] for first-time home buyers.
[5:53:04] » No. So
[5:53:07] um
[5:53:09] we can't we that so that's one. It's not
[5:53:13] something that we can regulate. I'm not
[5:53:15] we don't have there is no resources on
[5:53:18] city staff to check people's like
[5:53:21] financial records to see if they've ever
[5:53:23] owned a home before.
[5:53:24] » If a home builder wants to make that
[5:53:27] commitment, we can represent it in the
[5:53:30] development agreement, but it is likely
[5:53:32] not something we would enforce
[5:53:34] [clears throat] because we're not part
[5:53:36] of that private property transaction,
[5:53:39] right? And we don't want to be, frankly.
[5:53:41] » No. And I don't expect us to be. But
[5:53:44] when we're talking about affordable
[5:53:46] housing, if I'm buying a second home,
[5:53:49] I don't know that that kind of raises a
[5:53:51] question for me. That's a because again,
[5:53:54] first time doesn't necessarily mean
[5:53:55] you've never bought a home before. It's
[5:53:57] I think it's a three-year gap before you
[5:53:59] could buy again. But I think that does
[5:54:01] raise a question if I'm buying it to
[5:54:03] rent and I'm getting such a good deal.
[5:54:06] Um,
[5:54:07] » But you have to rent it not at market.
[5:54:09] you have to rent it at 80% AMI. So, so
[5:54:14] it's like buying an afford an affordable
[5:54:17] apartment to that you could rent and
[5:54:19] that may not be as exciting as if I
[5:54:22] could rent it at whatever the market
[5:54:24] will pay. You know what I'm saying?
[5:54:25] » So, me as a renter, why would I again
[5:54:28] it's a hypothetical question. I there's
[5:54:32] already affordable housing that we're
[5:54:33] building here in Federal Way and we have
[5:54:35] plenty of them. So,
[5:54:38] I'm struggling with that.
[5:54:39] » Okay.
[5:54:40] » So,
[5:54:40] » If I may to the council, um I know that
[5:54:43] it is 2:45.
[5:54:46] Um and those are those are good points
[5:54:48] to bring up. I I think we should into
[5:54:51] land use discuss it further. Um um I
[5:54:56] mean I
[5:54:56] » Yep.
[5:54:57] » Yeah.
[5:54:57] » Yeah. Well, let's Yeah, we've got the
[5:55:00] land use chair here and you're in
[5:55:01] agreement with that to have discussion
[5:55:03] and continue the discussion. Um, oh
[5:55:06] that's right, Jack. Sorry. Okay. Um, so,
[5:55:09] um, we've got talking about, uh, Thank
[5:55:12] you very much, Jack. Appreciate it.
[5:55:13] » Thank you.
[5:55:14] » Okay. So, we'll continue the discussion
[5:55:16] in land use. Um, with regard to
[5:55:18] annexations, um, I think that's a much
[5:55:20] longer conversation. We are at a quarter
[5:55:22] to three right now. We had originally
[5:55:24] said that we were going to be done at
[5:55:26] three. Um, so I my suggestion is to move
[5:55:31] annexations to a study session where we
[5:55:34] could talk about um the city um uh you
[5:55:37] know my administration proposal about
[5:55:39] moving forward with annexations east of
[5:55:42] the freeway. I I don't think we would be
[5:55:43] doing it. We're almost 7 hours into the
[5:55:46] retreat at this point and I think we'd
[5:55:48] be giving short shrimp to something
[5:55:50] that's very important. So any uh any
[5:55:52] objection to putting this on for a study
[5:55:54] session down the road for a discussion?
[5:55:57] All right. Also, Wild Waves property is
[5:56:00] property that does not belong to us. Um
[5:56:02] there are covenants. Um I believe you've
[5:56:05] got um you had Keith, you had done a
[5:56:07] presentation.
[5:56:08] » I do have a presentation.
[5:56:09] » Okay. What I would suggest if it's if
[5:56:11] it's okay, is that this is this is
[5:56:13] privately owned property. We know what
[5:56:16] everybody knows what the situation is
[5:56:17] with regard to the the um the
[5:56:20] warehouser, excuse me, that WildWaves is
[5:56:24] closing down after this next year. Um I
[5:56:27] would suggest sending that presentation
[5:56:29] to council and um and you know providing
[5:56:32] that information and if there's any
[5:56:34] questions any I don't I don't see the
[5:56:36] necessity for having a conversation
[5:56:38] about wild waves at this time. Go ahead.
[5:56:40] Um the only reason I see a necessity is
[5:56:43] that uh we did the development
[5:56:45] agreement.
[5:56:46] » We did
[5:56:47] » And I understand that there are some
[5:56:49] talks about you know what's going to
[5:56:51] happen. If you could just maybe give 10
[5:56:53] minutes of what what he currently knows.
[5:56:56] I think it would be good to bring in the
[5:56:58] new council members, even myself, into
[5:57:00] this because stuff happened stuff
[5:57:02] happened um last year, I believe, or
[5:57:05] whenever that vote occurred. And I think
[5:57:07] um I mean I I did request for this item
[5:57:09] to be added.
[5:57:10] » Okay. So I but I also, you know, we're
[5:57:12] seven hours in. So my question is
[5:57:14] » Request the presentation and we hold any
[5:57:18] questions for another time.
[5:57:19] » Yeah.
[5:57:20] » Well, I there's no use in having a
[5:57:23] presentation if you don't get to answer
[5:57:24] any questions. So, we've got Wild Waves.
[5:57:27] What's left now is Wild Waves property
[5:57:29] and budget briefing.
[5:57:31] » Okay. So, do you guys want to go past
[5:57:33] 3:00? Is that what I'm hearing?
[5:57:36] » I'm I'm okay with it. What about
[5:57:37] » Does anybody have any I want to be
[5:57:39] sensitive to your plans? And we also
[5:57:41] have staff here that's been here since
[5:57:43] 7:30 or 8:00.
[5:57:48] » Well, I How many How many slides do you
[5:57:52] have on wild waves?
[5:57:55] One, two, three, four.
[5:57:58] » Why don't you hit Just go ahead.
[5:57:59] » Yeah, I I could be done been done by
[5:58:01] now. [laughter]
[5:58:03] » Okay.
[5:58:05] » All right. Wild Waves. Uh, the roughly
[5:58:07] 66 acres site was originally opened in
[5:58:10] 1977 and was later entitled through a
[5:58:12] concominant agreement on March 3rd, 98.
[5:58:16] The agreement was amended for the fourth
[5:58:18] time um at the end of 2023.
[5:58:22] Um, the amendment basically changed
[5:58:25] warehousing, which used to be an
[5:58:27] accessory use only, which is why it's
[5:58:30] crossed out, and is now a permitted use.
[5:58:33] Um,
[5:58:35] this is the uh preapp we had with uh the
[5:58:39] landowner. So, this is a million square
[5:58:41] foot um warehouse building. North is to
[5:58:44] the left.
[5:58:46] And just to give you a sense of size and
[5:58:49] scale, these are the two um these two
[5:58:52] warehouses are what have been built on
[5:58:55] the warehouser property. The
[5:58:56] headquarters sits right there to the
[5:58:58] left. So these two buildings um think
[5:59:02] about four of them is the size of that
[5:59:04] warehouse that's being proposed uh for
[5:59:07] wild waves. Oops, too many. So that's
[5:59:10] the size of four of those IRG
[5:59:13] warehouses. I'm done. Look at that. So
[5:59:16] go back to the allowable uses please.
[5:59:18] » Yes sir.
[5:59:20] » Okay. Um council any questions?
[5:59:23] » So so what Keith what is the full
[5:59:26] allowable use? I can't
[5:59:29] » I mean one of them the new one obviously
[5:59:31] is warehouses now
[5:59:33] » Right now what's allowed is basically um
[5:59:38] what's allowed in the office park zone
[5:59:41] and that's a list of I can send you that
[5:59:43] list if you'd like council president.
[5:59:45] Yeah. um regional commercial recreation,
[5:59:48] which is the theme park, um hotel,
[5:59:52] um and restaurants,
[5:59:55] uh retail establishments,
[5:59:58] a caretaker residence, and now the
[6:00:01] warehousing.
[6:00:03] That's the allowed uses for that
[6:00:05] property.
[6:00:05] » And how did the warehousing thing come
[6:00:07] to be? What happened? Because I wasn't
[6:00:09] there. Uh it was a request from the
[6:00:11] property owner to change it from a an
[6:00:15] accessory use which means it needs to be
[6:00:19] subordinate to one of the other allowed
[6:00:21] uses to allow it to be a primary use. So
[6:00:24] they asked for that.
[6:00:26] » Was there I assume there was a
[6:00:27] presentation on this.
[6:00:28] » Oh yeah.
[6:00:29] » Was there I'd like to get that
[6:00:30] presentation. Uh but my question is was
[6:00:33] there a why
[6:00:34] » Why was it requested? Why did the owner
[6:00:37] request to have it
[6:00:39] » Yeah. What he said was he he we wanted
[6:00:40] to make sure that um once if if Wildways
[6:00:44] ever went away and I should would note
[6:00:46] that postcoid their attendance
[6:00:49] essentially have and they were losing $2
[6:00:51] million a year um the owner of the
[6:00:54] property Jeff Stock said what he did not
[6:00:56] want to do is have a situation in which
[6:00:59] he wouldn't wasn't able to utilize the
[6:01:01] property would just sit empty and so
[6:01:04] that's he wanted allowable uses and was
[6:01:06] concerned that there certainly wasn't
[6:01:08] going be another amusement park. Um, and
[6:01:11] so what else would be allowed? And so
[6:01:14] there was a gone through committee and
[6:01:16] it went through council.
[6:01:18] » Okay, good. I just wanted to my goal is
[6:01:21] just to understand better what that
[6:01:23] situation. I mean, no doubt that when
[6:01:25] Wilder said they were for sale or
[6:01:27] they're ending their thing, that was a
[6:01:30] that's a huge concern. It's it's going
[6:01:32] to be a huge void. I mean, that's that's
[6:01:34] part of our identity really. And I know
[6:01:37] that our hands are tied. can't do much.
[6:01:39] Uh but I just felt like it it should
[6:01:41] have been added to the retreat agenda.
[6:01:46] » Okay. Yes.
[6:01:48] » Um thanks. Um is there any way we can
[6:01:51] limit the amount of truck traffic there?
[6:01:54] Because that's a huge building. There's
[6:01:55] homes all around there. Super busy road.
[6:01:58] And um
[6:02:01] I you know I just feel for the folks who
[6:02:03] live around there.
[6:02:04] » EJ's approaching.
[6:02:10] I'm sure they're a little bit shocked.
[6:02:12] » Um, in short, no. So, if it if it meets
[6:02:15] the land use classifications and it's
[6:02:17] permissible under land use, then no, we
[6:02:20] can certainly make them mitigate
[6:02:21] whatever impacts they have as part of
[6:02:22] the permitting process.
[6:02:23] » You can make them what?
[6:02:24] » Mitigate whatever impacts they may have
[6:02:26] as part of the permitting process. So,
[6:02:28] development needs to pay for
[6:02:29] development. So, if they're creating an
[6:02:30] impact on the transportation network,
[6:02:32] they need to offset it to to match that.
[6:02:36] Um but no, there's no way to say you can
[6:02:38] only have 10 trucks per day or something
[6:02:40] to that effect.
[6:02:41] » And he's committed to doing this and not
[6:02:43] doing anything else there.
[6:02:45] » Um that is my understanding.
[6:02:47] » All right. Thank you.
[6:02:48] » Um and I would also note that he did
[6:02:50] just recently meet with the neighbors.
[6:02:53] So he's in con he's been in constant
[6:02:55] communication over the years. Um and
[6:02:57] just regularly. He flew into town just
[6:02:59] recently to meet with them.
[6:03:01] » Um and and was not met with opposition
[6:03:03] to what I'm as to what I'm told. All
[6:03:05] right, Lydia.
[6:03:06] » Yeah. Um, mine's going to be brief. I
[6:03:09] wild were really something that drew
[6:03:12] people to Federal Way. So, losing it is
[6:03:15] really sad. So, I'm just wondering or
[6:03:17] hopeful that maybe there's another
[6:03:19] amusement park person interested. So, if
[6:03:22] that was the case, would he consider it
[6:03:24] or is he
[6:03:26] » Well, the the person that was I'm sorry
[6:03:28] to interrupt. Sorry. Kieran Burke was
[6:03:30] the individual that was he had previous
[6:03:33] he he's the individual at the corporate
[6:03:36] level that was that's running the the
[6:03:39] company that um is an offshoot of um of
[6:03:43] which Wildwood is an offshoot of and he
[6:03:46] had actually um been previously been
[6:03:48] with Six Flags and the property had gone
[6:03:51] Six Flags somewhere else back to Six
[6:03:53] Flags um and there did not I mean I
[6:03:56] think they have fully explored the to my
[6:03:58] understanding in conversations with Mr.
[6:04:00] Stock um that they've really explored
[6:04:03] the market and you know based on the um
[6:04:07] uh the postcoid decline which was again
[6:04:12] $2 million in losses they used to I saw
[6:04:14] a graphic that went from 700,000 visits
[6:04:17] per year down to you know bel then it
[6:04:21] went down to like 400 or 300,000. So the
[6:04:25] the attendance had essentially hald. Um
[6:04:28] and so um Kieran Burke did not see a
[6:04:32] pathway forward uh moving forward. And
[6:04:35] there really aren't a whole lot of um
[6:04:37] water parks uh in the region, especially
[6:04:40] this far north.
[6:04:43] » Yeah, it would be. It would be. And I
[6:04:45] think that you know I think that this
[6:04:46] had been there was a lot of effort to
[6:04:49] try to do so.
[6:04:51] Um yeah, Martin. So, um, was there
[6:04:55] really people that did not oppose? The
[6:04:56] neighbors would not oppose where
[6:04:58] » Well, I can't speak for them. What I
[6:04:59] would say is Jessto has told me that he
[6:05:02] came into town, met with them. I I've
[6:05:05] received no emails or communications
[6:05:07] from neighbors um about this, but I
[6:05:10] could say that he I can't say what
[6:05:12] happened in those meetings other than
[6:05:14] forward what he has said to me.
[6:05:16] » And there, you know, even if he met with
[6:05:18] a you know, a group of neighbors,
[6:05:20] there's a lot of folks over there.
[6:05:21] » Yeah.
[6:05:23] So, I can't say that there's unonyimity.
[6:05:25] I can't I can't say that. I I can say
[6:05:27] that he has uh during the course that he
[6:05:29] has owned this property and started
[6:05:31] this. He's been very communicative with
[6:05:34] the neighbors. Um and had, to my
[6:05:36] understanding, a good relationship with
[6:05:37] them, those communications have been
[6:05:40] ongoing and most recent um as like
[6:05:43] several weeks ago. Yeah.
[6:05:45] » Um
[6:05:46] » Where he came into town and met with
[6:05:47] them.
[6:05:47] » Yeah,
[6:05:48] » That's what I know.
[6:05:48] » I I appreciate that. I I just feel like,
[6:05:51] you know, we all have experience here
[6:05:53] and I just feel like from past
[6:05:54] experience, I think once this issue
[6:05:57] comes forth and the permitting starts
[6:05:59] becoming real, I I'm willing
[6:06:01] [clears throat] to put money on the fact
[6:06:02] that neighbors will be showing up and
[6:06:04] they will will be displeased and they're
[6:06:07] not going to like the impacts and
[6:06:08] they're not going to be excited about
[6:06:09] the warehouses. That's just my
[6:06:11] perception, my truth.
[6:06:12] » Well,
[6:06:13] » Thank you.
[6:06:13] » They somebody private owns this
[6:06:16] property.
[6:06:16] » True. and there's private property
[6:06:18] rights and this went through a very
[6:06:20] legal public process
[6:06:21] » To have this amended. So that's that's
[6:06:24] America. Um okay, any other questions
[6:06:27] for Keith?
[6:06:29] » Okay, now um Ste Thank you, Keith.
[6:06:31] Steve, you want to come up and give a
[6:06:33] kind of a progn
[6:06:42] let's hit this.
[6:06:46] run through your slides. Let's go.
[6:06:55] » Oh, okay.
[6:06:58] » Okay. So, would you do me a f would you
[6:07:00] do everybody here a favor? Um,
[6:07:03] can you number one,
[6:07:07] Steve,
[6:07:08] » Can you email this presentation
[6:07:11] separately to each of the council
[6:07:13] members so they've got it, they can
[6:07:15] review it?
[6:07:22] » Okay.
[6:07:23] » Could you repeat what you just said?
[6:07:25] » Sure. It's a fivem minute presentation.
[6:07:26] I can tack it on to my monthly financial
[6:07:28] report on Tuesday at FedRack.
[6:07:30] » Well, you know what? If it's just do it
[6:07:32] my I'm I'm in the meeting. Just if it's
[6:07:34] a five-minute presentation, do it,
[6:07:36] » Please.
[6:07:37] » Well, then I'll back up four slides.
[6:07:38] » Okay.
[6:07:41] » Uh because I was planning on taking five
[6:07:43] minutes. I am not going to do any sugar
[6:07:44] coating. I've got six slides to go over
[6:07:47] » And then we're going to when when you
[6:07:48] get done with the slides, we're want to
[6:07:49] talk about what your analysis is about
[6:07:51] this coming budget year.
[6:07:52] » Absolutely. We have a budget of $200
[6:07:54] million per year. And yes, the general
[6:07:56] fund can do anything that cities can
[6:07:58] legally do. But a budget means that we
[6:08:01] can't do everything. Uh a budget is
[6:08:03] exactly the tool that we help us to
[6:08:05] figure out what we can afford. Uh the
[6:08:08] basic foundation of our s of our city is
[6:08:10] police, parks, streets, planning, code
[6:08:12] enforcement, municipal courts. So uh
[6:08:15] during difficult financial times and we
[6:08:17] know that uh our revenues have been
[6:08:19] difficult the last year. Uh we have to
[6:08:21] be thinking necessities versus uh
[6:08:23] luxuries. And I would point out that
[6:08:26] there are five things that have just
[6:08:27] ganged up on us historically.
[6:08:30] Inflation has increased the costs of all
[6:08:32] of our services. Uh I would say that we
[6:08:35] are about a million dollars behind on
[6:08:37] both replacing vehicles and on replacing
[6:08:39] signalized uh uh uh intersections, our
[6:08:42] traffic signals.
[6:08:44] uh every department in the whole city
[6:08:45] always comes to me and I have on my
[6:08:47] weight list uh staffing needs that they
[6:08:50] ask for in order to deliver the services
[6:08:52] that we're currently asked for.
[6:08:55] Uh and we have seen facility surprises.
[6:08:58] We've seen them at the community center,
[6:09:00] but we could just as easily see them
[6:09:01] right here at Dumis Bay or the pack or
[6:09:04] city hall.
[6:09:06] Uh so uh our ability to be able to
[6:09:09] respond to facility surprises is is one
[6:09:12] of our budget concerns because when we
[6:09:14] do budgeting, we have to look not only
[6:09:15] at our current operations but our our
[6:09:18] ability to take care of our capital
[6:09:19] expenses.
[6:09:21] When we talk to people that we serve, I
[6:09:23] want to make sure that we remind them uh
[6:09:25] of these three things. First, the
[6:09:27] national inflation has been 3% or less
[6:09:29] for 19 months, but the that 9% inflation
[6:09:33] back in 22 put all of our costs on a new
[6:09:36] trajectory and that impacts all the cost
[6:09:38] of our services including our staffing.
[6:09:40] Second, sales tax within the city limit
[6:09:42] is up 2% which should be good news
[6:09:45] except that on inflation alone, you
[6:09:47] would expect that our sales tax would be
[6:09:49] up 3%. So that means our volume has been
[6:09:51] down just a little. and real estate
[6:09:54] excise tax. The graph on the left shows
[6:09:56] that uh our uh our real estate excise
[6:09:59] tax revenue has been down three years
[6:10:01] running now.
[6:10:02] » Steve, can you explain what that means
[6:10:03] in real terms in regard to capital
[6:10:04] projects for our newer council members?
[6:10:06] » I sure can. Uh we budget $5 million a
[6:10:09] year on REIT and we have been getting
[6:10:11] about three that uh this is a 1% uh
[6:10:16] sales tax that we get on uh every real
[6:10:19] estate transaction whether it's
[6:10:20] residential or commercial. And so the
[6:10:23] underlying property values in in federal
[6:10:26] way have been uh solid. So it's the pace
[6:10:29] of the real estate transactions. We
[6:10:31] think that's tied to mortgage rates
[6:10:32] also. And what that means for us is when
[6:10:35] revenue doesn't come in, why then we
[6:10:37] have to adjust our expenses. And what
[6:10:39] have we done? Uh EJ has been forced to
[6:10:41] delay the timing of a lot of our streets
[6:10:43] projects that are that are funded by
[6:10:45] that.
[6:10:47] Uh the these are the biggest revenues. I
[6:10:50] think I show this slide pretty much at
[6:10:52] every uh Fed Rack meeting. I think this
[6:10:53] is the most recent one that I did show.
[6:10:56] Uh this shows our most material revenues
[6:11:00] compared to budget in the first column
[6:11:02] and compared to prior year. So we missed
[6:11:05] our budget. Uh but we have seen an
[6:11:08] increase over prior year. The variance
[6:11:10] from prior year is positive but we
[6:11:12] budgeted more optimistically than I
[6:11:15] think we realized and we authorized
[6:11:18] budget spending on that. So again, when
[6:11:20] revenue doesn't come in, what do we have
[6:11:22] to do? We have to scale back on our on
[6:11:23] our expenses. Now, real estate excise
[6:11:26] tax is is restricted. That's why I show
[6:11:28] it as a separate category down there.
[6:11:31] So, uh, we have no choice to make a
[6:11:33] correction on our spending. Uh, and
[6:11:35] while it's a positive sign that our
[6:11:36] total revenue went up, moving forward,
[6:11:38] we have to be realistic and and make
[6:11:40] sure that that we adjust our expenses
[6:11:42] when we need to. Uh, Brian Davis and I
[6:11:45] will be uh meeting as soon as we get our
[6:11:47] December
[6:11:49] uh sales tax which comes in to us from
[6:11:51] the state on a two-month lag. We don't
[6:11:53] yet know what the December that holiday
[6:11:56] spending was. And we have also asked all
[6:11:58] of our departments
[6:12:00] to give us input on what are the
[6:12:02] obligatory uh expense increases that we
[6:12:05] have no choice but to absorb. That would
[6:12:07] be things like insurance premiums or uh
[6:12:10] IT licensing fees, that kind of thing
[6:12:12] that we have no choice. Uh
[6:12:17] so uh when the finance director comes
[6:12:20] and says that we have no extra money, I
[6:12:22] I I really want to make sure that I give
[6:12:24] you a good explanation to get to uh
[6:12:27] discretionary uh revenue for a city. We
[6:12:31] have to get first past our debt
[6:12:33] obligations. We have to take care of our
[6:12:35] existing infrastructure obligations. I
[6:12:38] wish that we took care of 120th of our
[6:12:41] 20-year uh uh assets and 1/5if of our
[6:12:44] five-year assets if we just spent to to
[6:12:47] replace them every year. But our budget
[6:12:48] means that that's not always possible.
[6:12:51] Uh also, police and parks and street
[6:12:54] staff are expected to continue to do
[6:12:56] every year what they have been doing. Uh
[6:12:59] delivering the same level of services.
[6:13:01] Remember police, our service is our
[6:13:03] people. It's our it it's our officers.
[6:13:07] So that means that paying staff is is
[6:13:09] one of our obligations and we've got
[6:13:12] deferred capital because for example
[6:13:14] real estate excise tax has been down and
[6:13:16] we've been deferring some replacing PD
[6:13:19] and public works vehicles and so most
[6:13:21] funds are restricted out of our 200
[6:13:23] million really only about $80 million is
[6:13:26] general fund. So every penny is spoken
[6:13:30] for and then some. But two or three
[6:13:32] years ago, we really did have sales tax
[6:13:35] come in better than budgeted. So it it
[6:13:37] does happen that we are able to
[6:13:39] greenlight some things that aren't in
[6:13:41] the budget. Now when that happens, we we
[6:13:43] have a a structure for how to how to
[6:13:45] prepare for that. Uh we have a wait list
[6:13:48] and it's not a wish list, it's a waiting
[6:13:50] list because when you have people coming
[6:13:52] and asking for you to do things, the
[6:13:54] answer isn't necessarily no, it's not
[6:13:57] yet.
[6:13:58] Uh so I take the wait list seriously. If
[6:14:01] we get a million dollars, we had better
[6:14:02] make sure that we use it on the top
[6:14:04] priority. And you as a governing body
[6:14:05] want to make sure that you do the most
[6:14:07] important thing, the most urgent thing.
[6:14:10] Uh and so by having the widest uh number
[6:14:12] of things to consider, that's how you
[6:14:15] make your best decisions.
[6:14:17] The window for budget requests is open
[6:14:19] continuously. It never closes. And uh
[6:14:23] the box on the right, that blue box
[6:14:25] there, kind of summarizes what is really
[6:14:27] a seven-page spreadsheet. Over the past
[6:14:30] few years, I've collected budget
[6:14:31] requests and those are the most
[6:14:32] important things uh that uh I would
[6:14:36] anticipate would be uh demands on our
[6:14:39] scarce resources.
[6:14:42] And so before any of us make promises to
[6:14:44] people uh requesting things, we have to
[6:14:46] make sure that we, you know, consult
[6:14:47] with the mayor, city council. Sometimes
[6:14:49] you want to check in with HR or or or
[6:14:52] city attorney
[6:14:54] uh and finance. If you come to me, uh I
[6:14:57] I never say yes to anything without
[6:14:59] checking the weight list because there
[6:15:01] are existing obligations.
[6:15:03] So again, everybody's budget request
[6:15:05] matters. We don't lose it. Uh the only
[6:15:07] but the only way to really prioritize
[6:15:09] and get it on the list is to is is to
[6:15:12] send it to me. So this is a budget year
[6:15:15] 2728 bianium. Uh right now you all are
[6:15:20] talking about the possibilities and in
[6:15:22] January we start tracking revenue around
[6:15:25] June we will freeze where whatever
[6:15:28] payroll has for existing staff existing
[6:15:30] salaries we about that time is when we
[6:15:33] start getting our benefit increases in
[6:15:35] July we start asking uh uh all the
[6:15:38] directors to look at their budgets now
[6:15:41] they don't get any new money because
[6:15:43] there is no extra money but we ask them
[6:15:45] to tell us what existing
[6:15:48] you know, obligations that we really
[6:15:50] have to deal with and how we how we have
[6:15:51] to juggle within our existing budget.
[6:15:54] And then in September, uh, we have to
[6:15:57] have staff, uh, and the city
[6:15:59] administrator and the mayor come up with
[6:16:00] a a balanced mayor's budget. There's no
[6:16:03] such thing as a budget that we bring
[6:16:04] that isn't balanced. That's when we
[6:16:06] start up public study sessions and you,
[6:16:09] as a governing body, will end up
[6:16:11] adopting the mayor's budget with
[6:16:13] whatever modifications you make. Uh we
[6:16:16] usually try to get that uh adopted in
[6:16:18] November so that we're in business
[6:16:20] December uh 31st.
[6:16:23] That's everything I have.
[6:16:25] » Questions for uh Oh, there is Lydia.
[6:16:28] » Yeah. Quick question. Is was the um
[6:16:32] um obligations
[6:16:34] were those um priority order? Okay.
[6:16:37] Thank you.
[6:16:37] » I wouldn't presume to make your
[6:16:39] priorities. That's your job. [laughter]
[6:16:42] » Well said. Um
[6:16:45] um you guys make policy. Council, any
[6:16:47] other questions?
[6:16:49] » Yeah, Linda, speak that in March
[6:16:54] commission for the
[6:16:57] » Okay,
[6:16:58] » Go ahead. Add to my list. And and is
[6:17:00] that is that a weight list item or is
[6:17:02] that an obligation? [laughter]
[6:17:05] » That's not of our choosing or concern.
[6:17:08] We have an an independent salary
[6:17:10] commission for a reason.
[6:17:12] Um, we'll say as far as to say that's
[6:17:14] all I have to say about that. Um, all
[6:17:16] right. Anything else you guys? Any other
[6:17:17] questions? Okay. We have reached uh the
[6:17:20] conclusion of the uh
[6:17:23] the rich hearing. First, I just want to
[6:17:24] say council, thank you. Thank you so
[6:17:26] much. Thank you. So, we at the very
[6:17:28] productive, positive conversation, very
[6:17:31] respectful. Um, I'm really just a really
[6:17:33] I'm I'm really proud uh to work with you
[6:17:36] and and belong to this group with you.
[6:17:38] Um, and thanks to staff for your time
[6:17:40] and for your presentations. Thanks for
[6:17:42] giving up your Saturday and also so very
[6:17:45] much for quick thinking and uh, uh,
[6:17:47] Thomas uh, great job it thank you so
[6:17:50] much everybody. Thank you so much for
[6:17:52] great work. Uh, thank you to the public
[6:17:54] who came and today we work for you and
[6:17:56] we appreciate your presence and a big
[6:17:58] thanks to Dumispay staff uh, for hosting
[6:18:01] us and for let's give them a big round
[6:18:02] of applause.
[6:18:05] Okay, Martin. All right. On behalf on
[6:18:09] behalf of the city council, um I I just
[6:18:11] want to say thank you to my colleagues
[6:18:12] for uh working with me uh and bringing
[6:18:15] up uh things that you want to see
[6:18:16] covered at this council retreat. I look
[6:18:18] forward to a more uh further dialogue in
[6:18:21] in our respective committees. And I will
[6:18:24] also echo what the mayor is saying. I I
[6:18:26] think one thing I really value about
[6:18:27] this council is that yeah, sure, we have
[6:18:29] some disagreements, but we're incredibly
[6:18:30] respectful of it. Uh, and what I like
[6:18:33] about it is that if you listen really
[6:18:34] hard, there's little nuggets where we
[6:18:36] can kind of work together, and I really
[6:18:38] value that tremendously. So, with that,
[6:18:40] please, uh, feel free to go outside,
[6:18:42] enjoy this. This is one of my favorite
[6:18:44] spots in Fedaway, Dumis Bay, with a rich
[6:18:46] uh, set of history. And with that, thank
[6:18:48] you so much, Mayor.
[6:18:49] » The meeting is adjourned.