[0:02] Okay, welcome everyone. I want to call

[0:04] the June 1st city council meeting to

[0:05] order. There are no excused absences.

[0:08] Everybody is here and I want to start by

[0:10] asking everyone to join if the for the

[0:12] pledge of

[0:13] » Allegiance

[0:18] to the flag.

[0:34] The next item of business is special

[0:36] business ID 2014 Belleview Colleg's 60th

[0:40] anniversary anniversary proclamation. I

[0:42] want to invite uh Dr. David May, the

[0:44] president of Belby College to the left

[0:46] turn.

[0:55] Oh, we're going over there.

[1:06] Okay. Whereas Belleview College was

[1:08] founded in 1966 and over the past 60

[1:11] years has become one of Washington's

[1:13] leading institutions of higher

[1:15] education, serving more than 600,000

[1:17] students across the region. I will add

[1:19] that includes all six of my children.

[1:21] Whereas Belby College has provided

[1:23] accessible and affordable educational

[1:24] opportunities that have benefited

[1:26] countless students, families, and

[1:27] workforce professionals in Isqua

[1:29] community and throughout the east side.

[1:31] And whereas Belby College supports

[1:32] students success through academic,

[1:34] professional, and workforce training

[1:36] programs that strengthen the regional

[1:38] economy and create opportunities for

[1:39] future generations. And whereas Belby

[1:41] College contributes significantly to the

[1:44] East King County economy with the

[1:45] regional study, estimating the college

[1:47] annually infuses more than $185 million

[1:51] through its institutional operations and

[1:52] the economic impact of its graduates.

[1:55] And whereas Belby College partners with

[1:56] hundreds of local businesses and

[1:58] employers across the region that provide

[2:00] students with work-based learning,

[2:01] internships, and industry aligned

[2:03] training programs, helping thousands of

[2:05] learners each year develop the skills

[2:06] employees seek high demand fields. And

[2:09] whereas Belby College provides lifelong

[2:11] learning opportunities for learners of

[2:12] all ages across the east side region,

[2:15] including Isiziqua and surrounding

[2:16] communities. Now therefore, I, Mark

[2:18] Mullet, mayor of the city of Isqua, to

[2:20] hereby proclaim June 1st, 2026 to

[2:22] celebrate 60 years of Belleview College

[2:25] and the city of Isiqua, and ask the

[2:26] community to join me in recognizing and

[2:29] expressing their appreciation for the

[2:30] role Belleby College has served in our

[2:32] community. In witness, whereof, I hereby

[2:34] set my hand and seal the city of Isqua

[2:36] on this first day of June, 2026.

[2:40] [applause]

[2:42] Let's do the photo and then I'll give

[2:43] you the thing. Want to do the photo

[2:45] first while you're after? We'll do the

[2:47] photo and then uh

[2:48] » Do the photo.

[2:51] » Oh, we have two photos. I like it.

[2:53] » You You came with your own photo crew.

[3:06] » It's all yours.

[3:14] » Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Um,

[3:16] President Mart, uh, members of the

[3:18] council, thank you for the invitation.

[3:21] Thank you very much for supporting the

[3:22] proclamation, and thank you for just a

[3:24] couple minutes of your very, very

[3:26] valuable time this evening. This is a

[3:28] relationship that extends even more than

[3:30] 60 years. The business and civic

[3:33] community in Isiqua was part of the push

[3:36] to create Belleview College in the 1963

[3:39] and 1965 legislative session. Without

[3:42] the support of this community, Belleview

[3:44] College simply wouldn't exist. And as

[3:46] Mayor Mullet suggested, it has been more

[3:49] than 18,000 students in Isiqua and the

[3:52] surrounding area in the last 5 years.

[3:54] And so we really are educating this

[3:57] community to live, to work, to play, and

[4:02] to give back to this community. It's

[4:04] education, but it's also partnership

[4:06] with Costco to provide highquality,

[4:10] lowcost child care for their employees,

[4:13] for our students, and also for citizens

[4:15] here in Isiqua and beyond. And so the

[4:18] partnership extends and has extended

[4:21] far into the past for 60 more and more

[4:24] years. And I'm very, very excited to see

[4:27] where the next 60 years of partnership

[4:29] between Belleview College and the city

[4:31] of Isiqua can take us. Thank you very

[4:33] much.

[4:34] » [applause]

[4:49] » The next item of business is ID2031s

[4:53] LGBTQIA+

[4:54] pride month proclamation. I want to

[4:56] invite Jason Rey from East Side Pride

[4:58] Pacific Northwest to the lectern.

[5:02] Oh yes, come on up. The more the

[5:04] marrier.

[5:07] Whereas June is recognized as Pride

[5:09] Month commemorating the 1969 Stonewall

[5:12] uprising and honoring the ongoing

[5:13] struggle for 2SL GBTQIA plus rights. And

[5:17] whereas Pride Month celebrates the two

[5:19] spirit lesbian, gay, bisexual,

[5:21] transgender, queer, questioning,

[5:22] interex, and asexual plus community who

[5:25] are our family, friends, neighbors, and

[5:26] co-workers and who meaningfully

[5:28] contribute to our community in

[5:29] innumerable ways. Whereas the city of

[5:31] Isqua is committed to being an inclusive

[5:33] and welcoming community where all

[5:35] residents and visitors regardless of

[5:37] sexual orientation, gender identity, or

[5:39] gender expression, feel safe, affirmed,

[5:42] and empowered to live authentically. And

[5:45] whereas the city stands in opposition to

[5:47] discrimination and actions that seek to

[5:49] erase or marginalize queer and trans

[5:51] individuals, remains committed to

[5:53] fostering belonging through inclusive

[5:55] policies, public engagement, education,

[5:58] and partnerships year round. Whereas the

[6:00] city honors the resilience, creativity,

[6:02] contributions, and leadership of

[6:03] 2SLGBTQIA plus individuals and affirms

[6:06] its role as a sanctuary of dignity,

[6:08] equity, and belonging for 2LGBTQI

[6:11] plus community, their families, and

[6:13] their allies to demonstrate its

[6:14] commitment to these same core values for

[6:17] all residents and [clears throat]

[6:18] visitors. Now, therefore, I, Mark

[6:19] Mullet, mayor of the city of Isqua, do

[6:21] hereby proclaim the month of June to be

[6:23] 2slgpqia

[6:25] plus pride month in the city of Isiqua.

[6:27] And I invite the Isqua community to come

[6:29] together to recognize the contributions

[6:31] and achievements of the 2slgq IIA plus

[6:34] community in witness whereof I hereby

[6:35] set my hand and seal to the city of

[6:37] Isqua on this first day of June 2026.

[6:41] [applause]

[6:46] We'll do the photo and then you

[6:48] [applause]

[7:05] Thank you, mayor, and thank you, city

[7:07] council.

[7:08] As you've mentioned, uh Jason Rey, who

[7:11] is the East Side Pride Pacific Northwest

[7:14] is leaison, and my name is Cheryl Smith,

[7:17] and I'm a leadership member of East Side

[7:19] Pride Pacific Northwest. Also, most

[7:22] importantly, I'm here as a proud parent

[7:26] of a transgender daughter.

[7:29] This is the first time saying these

[7:31] words in public.

[7:35] Why? Because Isaacqua's created a space

[7:37] where my child can visit and know

[7:40] they're welcome, safe, and respected.

[7:43] And I feel safe here, too, as an ally.

[7:46] Is it proclamation flags, public art,

[7:50] and window decals send a message to your

[7:53] LGBTQIA

[7:55] to us plus residents, allies, and

[7:58] visitors that all are very welcome.

[8:00] These are important gestures of

[8:02] inclusion. Inclusion means continuing to

[8:05] show up just not in Pride Month, but all

[8:08] year long. It means supporting policies

[8:10] that protect queer and trans people like

[8:13] Juniper Blessing.

[8:15] It's about partnering with pride

[8:17] organizations like East Side Pride

[8:18] Pacific Northwest. It's about

[8:20] celebrating the lives that we all live

[8:22] on a daily basis.

[8:24] Thank you to the city of Isaac for what

[8:27] you're doing and that you continue to do

[8:29] for the Pride communities, our families,

[8:31] and our allies. I'm grateful to be

[8:34] accepting this proclamation with Jason

[8:36] on behalf of East Side Pride Pacific

[8:37] Northwest. Thank you. [applause]

[8:44] » [applause]

[8:50] » The next item of business is ID 2038,

[8:53] recognition of facilities maintenance

[8:54] supervisor G Harvey. And I think we're

[8:56] going to have Autumn come on up to do

[8:59] the honors.

[9:01] Yes, Gar, you have to come up as well.

[9:08] Hi, I'm Autumn Monahan, the

[9:09] administrative services director, and

[9:11] I've had the pleasure of working with G

[9:12] for many years. He has served the

[9:14] community of Isiqua for 14 years,

[9:17] leading our facilities team. Um, he is

[9:20] taking on his next great adventure in

[9:22] Eastern Washington. We will be very sad

[9:24] to see him go, but I'm also very excited

[9:26] that you're taking this next chapter in

[9:28] your life.

[9:29] G is an exceptional leader for our

[9:31] facilities team who oversee a wide

[9:34] variety of facilities in Isiqua. That's

[9:36] not just office space, leased spaces,

[9:39] but also really complex facilities like

[9:41] a pool or a jail. Um, and it's it's been

[9:45] a fun ride.

[9:48] Um, he's always been ready to go for

[9:51] projects large and small. large projects

[9:54] like how do we take years and years of

[9:56] stuff out of city hall northwest before

[9:57] selling it to small projects like

[10:00] answering my call two weeks ago when a

[10:02] squirrel caused a power outage in this

[10:04] building ahead of a council committee

[10:05] meeting. Uh he has always answered the

[10:08] call and um been there to support us

[10:10] whatever we need. We were just doing

[10:12] some due diligence on a property we're

[10:14] purchasing for city hall and G was uh

[10:17] just scouring every inch of that

[10:19] building and reported back that he

[10:21] thinks he knows that building now better

[10:22] than his own home.

[10:25] And I would say that's fair to say all

[10:27] of the buildings you know extremely well

[10:30] and your historical knowledge of those

[10:32] properties has been so helpful over the

[10:34] years.

[10:36] I'm so grateful for your leadership. I'm

[10:38] so grateful for your creativity and your

[10:41] problem solving. I've really, really

[10:43] enjoyed working with you and it's thanks

[10:45] to

[10:47] your years of service that thousands of

[10:49] people have enjoyed our public

[10:51] facilities over the years and that

[10:53] you've enabled all of us as staff to

[10:55] serve the community as well. And that's

[10:57] a remarkable legacy. So, thank you so

[10:59] much and good luck on your next chapter.

[11:01] » Thank you.

[11:02] » Thanks, G. [applause]

[11:09] You get a plaque. You get a plaque.

[11:11] [laughter]

[11:15] » Genie's passing.

[11:22] » Hey, I think it's yours. I wasn't I

[11:25] wasn't really prepared for that, but

[11:27] that's okay. Um, I just really want to

[11:30] uh thank the city for the opportunity um

[11:34] to be part of the team. It's uh it's

[11:37] been an honor. It's been a pleasure to

[11:38] serve the city. Um the staff and you

[11:42] know all the uh citizens and and my

[11:44] team. I couldn't have couldn't have done

[11:46] it without my team. My uh my team is an

[11:48] important piece. It was a very hard

[11:50] decision to make. Um but in the end, my

[11:52] wife's the one that kind of pushed me

[11:54] through the decision. So again, just

[11:56] thanks for the opportunity. Um, and I

[11:59] will miss everything and uh, everything

[12:02] I've learned here, I'm going to take

[12:03] with me. So there's a an equestrian farm

[12:06] that's going to have a little piece of

[12:07] visiqua in it just from what I've

[12:08] learned.

[12:10] » Where's [clears throat] the first place

[12:11] you're traveling to? [applause]

[12:13] [cheering]

[12:15] » Ellensburg is not your normal first

[12:17] destination for someone to go to when

[12:18] they retire.

[12:31] Okay, the next item of business is

[12:33] audience comments. Uh comments made in

[12:36] person or they can be made virtually.

[12:37] Although I'm trying to figure out how

[12:39] our virtual thing is working, but I

[12:41] think it's okay. Uh those of you signed

[12:43] up will be called on first. If you're on

[12:45] the phone, you can press star three. And

[12:48] if you did not sign up, do not panic. We

[12:50] will give you a chance to share comments

[12:53] towards the end. And with that, Madame

[12:56] Clerk, are there folks signed up for

[12:58] audience comments?

[12:59] » Yes, Mayor.

[13:00] » Right.

[13:04] First up, I have uh Robert Row.

[13:09] I believe I see you online. Mr. Row, I

[13:12] will uh promote you to a panelist and

[13:15] from there you should be able to unmute

[13:17] yourself.

[13:25] Okay, Mr. Row, I have promoted you to a

[13:27] panelist. You should be able to unmute

[13:28] and if you would like to share your uh

[13:30] video as well, you should be able to do

[13:32] that.

[13:34] » I see it.

[13:40] » All right. Is everything Can you guys

[13:42] hear me?

[13:43] » We can.

[13:46] » Okay. Um, first I would like to begin by

[13:50] saying to the east side and Washington

[13:53] State, happy Pride Month. That is very

[13:56] important to me having a sister who's

[14:00] um lesbian and married with two

[14:03] children. So, that was awesome to hear

[14:06] the city council announce that.

[14:09] Um,

[14:10] it's nice to see you guys again,

[14:12] especially the mayor.

[14:15] Uh, I wish I was here to comment about

[14:18] how awesome it is here to live in Isqua

[14:21] Highlands

[14:23] and the convenience what you guys have

[14:26] done for the Sound Transit bus stops,

[14:29] the beautiful views.

[14:31] But I have to say again, man, that the

[14:34] noise

[14:35] pollution here is

[14:39] is insane. Um, I'm I know the comments

[14:43] that I'm reading are a little bit

[14:45] different. I'm just paraphrasing from

[14:47] what I wrote down, but I just like to

[14:49] know that

[14:51] what has been done

[14:54] to combat the noise from these delivery

[14:56] companies that come at 11:30 at night

[15:02] um to 12:30 in the morning delivering.

[15:06] You know, I live here in Discovery West

[15:08] Apartments

[15:10] and I have talked a lot about this and I

[15:14] have sent many complaints. One

[15:17] officer who I have talked to, I don't

[15:20] know if it's a real person or not, but

[15:22] it was a officer

[15:24] Matthew F.

[15:27] Um, he had a very hard time

[15:32] finding out why QCD delivery is

[15:35] delivering to Swedish Hospital at 11:30

[15:39] at night when one of the biggest food

[15:41] deliveries, US food, delivers at the

[15:44] proper time around 11 and 10 a.m. So, I

[15:48] I know the mayor is probably getting

[15:50] tired of this, but I am getting tired of

[15:52] this, too, you know, because I'm tired

[15:54] of the lip service that I'm hearing from

[15:56] his office saying, "Oh, we'll get back

[15:59] to you." And they never do,

[16:02] you know. So, I'm I'm requesting the

[16:06] city council to implement and enforce

[16:11] IMC

[16:13] N or 9.22 22

[16:16] to levy fines of $100 for every offense.

[16:23] You know, Mayor, I'm asking you

[16:25] directly, Mr. Mayor Mullet,

[16:29] would you like it if I parked a semi

[16:33] in your neighborhood at 11:30 at night?

[16:37] Sir, it is unacceptable.

[16:40] I have sent a YouTube link for you guys

[16:43] to watch and I am more than a hundred

[16:47] yards away from that hospital what is

[16:50] necessary

[16:53] but my whole apartment vibrates so I

[16:57] thought it was just me. Next time I'm

[17:00] bringing residence

[17:03] something must be done.

[17:08] Thank you for your time.

[17:10] Thank you very much,

[17:13] Clerk Mueller.

[17:19] Thank you. Next on our list is uh Fire

[17:23] Chief Will AO.

[17:31] Well, good evening, honorable mayor and

[17:34] members of the city council.

[17:36] [clears throat] Sorry. Uh my name is

[17:38] Will Aaho and I proudly serve as your

[17:40] fire chief for East Side Fire and Rescue

[17:42] and thank you for the opportunity to

[17:44] speak tonight. As the city begins its

[17:46] discussion about the future of fire

[17:49] service, I wanted to provide some

[17:50] context for the conversations currently

[17:53] taking place at East Side Fire and

[17:55] Rescue Board. For 27 years, the East

[17:58] Side Fire and Rescue has been built on

[18:01] partnerships. The original agencies came

[18:04] together to because they believed that a

[18:06] shared fire service model could provide

[18:09] highquality emergency services more

[18:12] efficiently and more effectively than

[18:14] each agency operating independently.

[18:17] That partnership has served our

[18:19] communities well. Today, Epher protects

[18:22] nearly 229,000 community members across

[18:25] 277 square miles from 16 fire stations.

[18:30] We're governed by a board of directors

[18:32] with representation from each

[18:34] participating agency along with advisory

[18:37] members from our contract agencies. At

[18:40] the same time, Epher's structure is

[18:42] unique. We do not have independent

[18:45] taxing authority. Instead, our budget is

[18:48] funded through contributions from our

[18:51] partner and contract agencies. That

[18:53] means each agency must determine how

[18:55] best to fund its share of regional fire

[18:59] and emergency services. As costs

[19:01] continue to increase, that model creates

[19:04] challenges not only for the individual

[19:06] agencies, but also for Epher's abilities

[19:09] to plan for stable and sustainable uh

[19:12] service delivery.

[19:14] Because of that, the epher board began

[19:16] an education process earlier this year

[19:18] to better understand the available

[19:20] governance and funding options. Those

[19:23] options included continuing under the

[19:25] current interlocal agreement, evaluating

[19:28] annexation and or merging into a fire

[19:30] district and considering a regional fire

[19:33] authority model. At the June Epher board

[19:36] meeting, the board will be asked whether

[19:38] there is a direction Epher should focus

[19:40] on uh for further education and

[19:43] discussion. That does not replace the

[19:46] authority of city council, the fire

[19:48] districts or any individual agencies.

[19:51] The final decision rests with each

[19:54] jurisdiction and depending on the option

[19:56] potentially the voters.

[19:58] The purpose of Epher's work is to make

[20:00] sure each community has clear un uh

[20:04] clear information, understanding of the

[20:06] available options and has a voice in

[20:09] shaping the future of the fire service.

[20:11] I appreciate that Isiziqua is taking an

[20:15] active interest in evaluating its future

[20:17] fire service needs. My request is that

[20:20] the city remain engaged in the epher

[20:22] process as well so that Isiziqua's voice

[20:26] continues to be part of the regional

[20:28] conversation.

[20:30] East Side Fire and Rescue has

[20:31] demonstrated for nearly three decades

[20:34] that collaboration can protect

[20:35] communities well as we look to the

[20:38] future. The goal is to ensure the same

[20:40] level of service remains sustainable,

[20:43] predictable, and accountable to the

[20:46] communities we so honory serve.

[20:50] I am available for any questions um

[20:53] today. And thank you so much for your

[20:55] time.

[20:55] » Thank you very much, Chief. Are you able

[20:57] to stay till later in Okay, excellent.

[20:59] That's awesome. Thank you very much.

[21:02] Uh Clerk Mueller.

[21:05] » Yes. Next, we have Sarah Ryder.

[21:18] Hello, Sarah Ryder, resident of Talis.

[21:22] Um, a few things I'm going to talk to

[21:23] you about today. First thing is my own

[21:26] thing and then I'm going to represent

[21:27] the group that you've seen that we've

[21:28] brought today. The first thing I wanted

[21:30] to say is that I'm 100% on board with

[21:32] the tasers for our um police department.

[21:36] uh to me is very important to give them

[21:38] the best tools that they can use for

[21:40] deescalation and their own safety. So I

[21:43] wanted to say that on behalf of myself

[21:45] on behalf of the group um we have

[21:47] started a petition. I'm not going to

[21:49] read the whole thing. The first part

[21:51] you've already addressed with your

[21:52] resolution and we thank you for that. We

[21:54] thank you that you've heard us. We read

[21:56] through the resolution. We think it's

[21:57] awesome. But the second part is we're

[21:59] still going to push for that city

[22:00] ordinance. I know that it's on the books

[22:02] for July, but we want to be very clear

[22:05] that we still want that. So, we do have

[22:06] a petition with uh around 200 signatures

[22:10] from different people around Isiqu. I'm

[22:12] not sure if I present this to you or not

[22:14] or how that works.

[22:15] » You can bring it forward, [laughter]

[22:16] city clerk.

[22:17] » I'll read I'll read it first and then

[22:20] » I just didn't know how the handing of

[22:21] stuff goes. I want to don't know the

[22:24] decorum, if you will. Um but any further

[22:27] consideration of ALPR technology in

[22:29] Isiqua must be narrow in scope. An

[22:32] application is possible. Pursue only if

[22:34] truly required. Citizens rights and

[22:37] concerns must be protected as strictly

[22:38] as they can be. Examples of protections

[22:42] that should be implemented include the

[22:43] following. Data and imagery collected by

[22:46] ALPRs owned by the city of Isiqua and

[22:49] its departments must be stored in secure

[22:51] closed loop systems owned by Isiqua city

[22:54] government. must be shown to be

[22:56] architecturally inaccessible to outside

[22:59] entities. Must include only license

[23:01] plates and emphatically must not include

[23:03] faces or identifying fe physical

[23:05] features of drivers or passengers of

[23:07] vehicles. Must not be transmitted to

[23:10] servers or entities outside of Isiqua.

[23:12] Must not be stored if it does not

[23:14] generate an alarm related to a wanted or

[23:16] missing person, stolen vehicle, active

[23:18] warrant, or serious criminal offense.

[23:21] and any privatelyowned ALPRs in the city

[23:23] of Isiqua must be positioned such that

[23:26] they do not collect data or imagery from

[23:28] public streets, from public property or

[23:31] avenues of travel that the owner of the

[23:32] ALPR does not own themselves. So, Isiqua

[23:36] City government has distinguished itself

[23:39] in the past few weeks by enacting

[23:41] important initial measures. We thank you

[23:43] for that so much. We know that you've

[23:44] heard us. So we appreciate you

[23:47] responding to our deep concerns that are

[23:48] held by Isiqua's residents and visitors.

[23:51] And it is now our opportunity to

[23:54] distinguish ourselves further by

[23:56] cementing in a law full and forceful

[24:00] protections for those same people. We

[24:03] ask is city government not to waste this

[24:05] chance. And now I can present our our

[24:08] list of people if that's cool.

[24:10] » Excellent. Thank you.

[24:17] Thank you very much.

[24:20] » There's no one further signed up to

[24:21] speak tonight, mayor.

[24:22] » All right. Is there anybody else in the

[24:24] audience?

[24:26] Going once. Going twice. Okay. With

[24:29] that, audience comments are closed. The

[24:32] next item of business is the consent

[24:34] calendar. I do not have any remarks on

[24:36] the consent calendar. Are there any

[24:38] committee chairs or chair design who

[24:39] would like to report on any of the

[24:40] consent calendar items?

[24:43] Not seeing anything.

[24:46] Uh I think our city clerk has minor

[24:48] updates to announce prior to approval.

[24:52] » Thank you, mayor. Per the current

[24:53] council rules, two corrections were made

[24:55] to the draft minutes for the May

[24:56] [clears throat] 11th, 2026 committee of

[24:58] the whole meeting, which is consent

[25:00] calendar item C on tonight's agenda.

[25:03] Both corrections were on page two under

[25:04] agenda item B regarding the IPD

[25:07] Congressional Community Appropriations

[25:09] Grant. These corrections were

[25:10] distributed earlier today to the city

[25:12] council for review. With approval of the

[25:14] consent calendar, you will be approving

[25:16] this revised version of the May 11th

[25:18] meeting minutes. Additionally, there was

[25:20] a typo located on AB9183

[25:24] for the 2025 water main replacement

[25:26] project WT015.

[25:28] In the financial information section,

[25:31] 44,548,000

[25:33] is cited to have been transferred.

[25:35] However, this should have been $44,548

[25:39] as cited in the table just below on the

[25:41] same page.

[25:43] » Right. I mean, what's a couple zeros

[25:45] amongst friends? Uh, okay. The consent

[25:48] to calendar was distributed to council

[25:49] in advance if authorized the items on

[25:51] the consent calendar will be considered

[25:52] together and approved by one motion.

[25:54] Have the payables and payroll been

[25:56] reviewed?

[25:58] » They have. They have.

[26:00] » All right. I know. I think we need two

[26:01] of those. Uh, does any council member

[26:03] want to remove any items from the

[26:04] consent calendar considered under

[26:06] regular business?

[26:08] » Okay, not seeing any. Is there a motion?

[26:10] Uh, council president Martz.

[26:11] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move

[26:13] [clears throat] to adopt the consent

[26:14] calendar with the distributed amendments

[26:16] and scrivener changes.

[26:18] » Second.

[26:19] » All right, it's been moved and seconded.

[26:22] All those in favor? The motion is to

[26:24] approve the consent calendar as

[26:25] presented has been moved and seconded.

[26:26] All those in favor say I.

[26:28] » I.

[26:31] All those opposed? Nay. And that passes

[26:33] unanimously. The next item of business

[26:35] is public hearing [snorts] AB 91135

[26:39] 2027 2032 six-year transportation

[26:41] improvement plan.

[26:43] We are going to open the public hearing.

[26:45] I'm going to invite transportation

[26:46] engineering manager John Mortonson to

[26:48] present this item.

[26:54] » Thank you very much, Mayor Mullet. Good

[26:56] evening, council members. I'm John

[26:57] Mortonson, transportation engineering

[26:59] manager. Give me a minute. I'll load up

[27:01] my presentation and talk to you about

[27:04] the transportation improvement program.

[27:36] Tonight's topic is the 2027 to 2032

[27:40] transportation improvement program.

[27:48] The purpose of tonight's item is to

[27:50] review the updates to the 2027 to 2032

[27:54] transportation improvement program and

[27:56] to hold a public hearing as required by

[27:58] state law.

[28:03] The direction that the administration is

[28:05] seeking from the council tonight are

[28:08] with regards to the major themes and

[28:10] changes to the transportation

[28:12] improvement program. Specifically, the

[28:14] emphasis on smaller scale projects,

[28:17] prioritization of performing maintenance

[28:20] projects over new construction, and the

[28:23] more extensive use of debt, specifically

[28:26] funded by the transportation benefit

[28:28] district sales tax. revenue that will

[28:31] sunset in the future.

[28:35] But before I go into those, I want to

[28:36] give a little bit of a background. The

[28:39] kind of the hierarchy of how this all

[28:41] fits together is the city has the

[28:43] comprehensive plan that has the vision,

[28:45] goals, and policies that then feed into

[28:48] the functional plans like the climate

[28:50] and action plan and the mobility action

[28:54] plan. And out of those plans, it they

[28:58] feed into the transportation improvement

[29:00] program.

[29:03] A little bit more of a background. The

[29:05] city is required to adopt a six-year

[29:09] transportation improvement program every

[29:11] year according to RCW35.77.010.

[29:16] And the way the city of Esquad does this

[29:18] is in odd years like last year, it's the

[29:23] transportation improvement program is

[29:25] part of the larger capital improvement

[29:29] plan. And this is a time when the city

[29:32] can make larger scale changes. Um

[29:36] because the city council has the

[29:37] opportunity to weigh the different

[29:40] projects, whether it's transportation

[29:42] project, a facilities project, a park

[29:44] project. um and many more.

[29:48] And then in even years like this year,

[29:50] it's done as a standalone process

[29:53] and for the most part is a limited

[29:55] update.

[29:57] The projects that are in the

[29:58] transportation improvement program are

[30:00] used to

[30:02] establish

[30:03] impact fees as well as bicycle and

[30:05] pedestrian mitigation fees. and

[30:09] the projects that are in the six-year

[30:11] transportation improvement program. Some

[30:14] of them are projects that are to help

[30:16] prepare the city for growth that will be

[30:18] coming with the regional growth center

[30:20] as well as other projects though are in

[30:23] response to community needs.

[30:29] And inside the six-year transportation

[30:31] improvement program, there's a project

[30:33] summary that explains what the project

[30:35] is, the estimated costs, the potential

[30:38] funding sources, and when the project

[30:40] may occur. And I do want to emphasize

[30:42] that the transportation improvement

[30:44] program, it is a planning document. It

[30:47] is not the budget that here later on

[30:50] this year the council will be

[30:52] deliberating the two-year bianium budget

[30:55] and that is the actual budget that puts

[30:57] into motion

[30:59] what projects will and will not be done

[31:01] in the next two years.

[31:04] So why are projects included in the

[31:07] six-year tip? Sometimes they establish

[31:10] uh they satisfy the goals in the

[31:12] mobility action plan or the

[31:14] transportation element of the

[31:15] comprehensive plan. Sometimes they come

[31:17] out of other plans or studies like the

[31:19] transit study and I'll talk about a

[31:20] project that came out of the transit

[31:22] study. Some of the projects are a result

[31:25] of feedback that the administration

[31:27] receives from the community whether it's

[31:29] through cclick fix or just talking to

[31:31] residents out in the community.

[31:35] They also meet the goals of the

[31:36] administration, specifically

[31:39] the prioritization of maintenance,

[31:41] implementing small-cale projects that

[31:43] are have an immediate benefit to the

[31:46] community and including relieving

[31:48] congestion for vehicles. And the update

[31:52] also includes um revisions based on

[31:56] revenue projections to match current

[31:58] forecasts.

[32:02] Inside the this year's packet was um an

[32:06] update from last year's capital

[32:08] improvement plan and how the projects

[32:12] were prioritized with last year's CIP

[32:14] process which involved legal mandate or

[32:18] addressing life and safety concerns like

[32:21] the black nugget retaining wall

[32:24] community priority. That's a big part of

[32:27] why we do a lot of these projects like

[32:28] the Northwest Mammish Road non-motorized

[32:31] project. Community livability and

[32:34] quality of life, climate resiliency or

[32:38] environmental benefit, the ability for

[32:41] the administration to deliver the

[32:42] project, replacement or capital

[32:45] maintenance of existing infrastructure

[32:47] like the pavement management program.

[32:50] And a longstanding commitment

[32:55] As part of this tip process, we spent

[32:57] the administration spent a lot of time

[33:00] working on balancing revenue with

[33:03] expenditures. And there's a number of

[33:04] pressures that were on under for these

[33:08] projects. One of them was a delay in

[33:11] implementing the school zone safety

[33:13] camera deployment, which reduced revenue

[33:15] in the school zone safety fund.

[33:20] This update also proposes

[33:23] being more aggressive with implementing

[33:25] debt from the transportation benefit

[33:27] district to implement projects so that

[33:29] way the community can receive the

[33:31] benefits sooner rather than later as

[33:33] project costs continue to rise.

[33:37] On the expenditure side, there's demands

[33:40] for real estate excise tax in last

[33:43] year's CIP that surpass the revenue that

[33:48] is coming in. And so as part of this,

[33:51] the administration had to make some

[33:52] adjustments to align the actual revenues

[33:56] that are coming in with the and

[34:00] expenditures. And then there's a lot of

[34:02] regional and national global economic

[34:05] factors creating uncertainty. Oil costs

[34:09] and diesel fuel costs are a big impact

[34:12] on the cost of implementing these

[34:14] projects.

[34:19] So now I'm going to go over the update

[34:21] in the proposed 2027 to 2032

[34:24] transportation improvement program.

[34:29] The themes of this update were an

[34:32] emphasis on smaller scale projects that

[34:34] could be implemented so the community

[34:36] could receive the benefit rather than

[34:38] waiting year after year while a project

[34:41] slugs through design.

[34:44] Prioritizing maintenance over building

[34:46] new and the more extensive use of debt

[34:49] specifically

[34:51] funded by the transportation benefit

[34:52] district sales tax that is set to

[34:55] sunset.

[34:57] Some of the specific project changes are

[35:00] for project TR 12, the front street and

[35:05] sunset left turn improvements that was

[35:07] added to the six-year

[35:10] program. And then the Gilman Bridge

[35:14] rehabilitation project. This was one

[35:16] that has been in the budget and council

[35:19] has approved it, but just the timing of

[35:22] when we do the tip and when we get the

[35:24] funding for the project, it wasn't in

[35:26] it. So, it's not a new project. It's

[35:29] just added as a technicality. Some of

[35:32] the projects that moved up are the

[35:35] signalization project at Front Street

[35:37] and Dogwood, as well as the pavement um

[35:43] repair job at the location of 190th

[35:46] Place and 191st Avenue Southeast. This

[35:50] is a location up the road from the

[35:52] Cougar Mountain Zoo where the pavement's

[35:55] in really poor condition. And the reason

[35:58] why this project was moved up is

[36:01] There's going to be a new storm water

[36:04] requirement beginning in July of 2027

[36:08] that would make this project prohibitly

[36:10] expensive. And so the goal is to permit

[36:14] this project before the change. That way

[36:16] it is a an affordable project.

[36:19] And a couple projects were moved out

[36:21] into the future. The central Equiqua

[36:23] multimodal I90 crossing was moved out.

[36:26] We the administration recently completed

[36:29] a planning study that identified a

[36:31] preferred location for the crossing, but

[36:34] there are some council concerns about

[36:36] the project and the overall costs and

[36:38] how it would look along Gilman

[36:40] Boulevard. And so that project's been

[36:43] moved to the future years rather than

[36:46] advancing it in the next six years. And

[36:48] then TR84, the transit signal priority

[36:51] pilot project. And this project was not

[36:54] moved because transit signal priority

[36:58] isn't a priority. It still is a priority

[37:00] for the administration. However, a pilot

[37:03] project was not the best avenue to go

[37:06] about doing that when reading King

[37:08] County Metro's guidelines for transit

[37:11] signal priority projects that it's

[37:14] better to do that along. So the let me

[37:16] back up. The pilot project would have

[37:19] implemented transit signal priority at

[37:22] one location, but the guidelines talk

[37:24] about how it's much better to do it

[37:26] along a corridor. And there's a certain

[37:29] bus frequency that the city of Esqua

[37:31] does not have that is the best practice

[37:34] for implementing transit signal

[37:36] priorities. So, it's still a priority,

[37:38] but the city needs more buses and it the

[37:44] recommendation from the administration

[37:45] is to do this as part of a corridor with

[37:49] buses rather than at a spot location.

[37:54] I'm going to talk a little bit about the

[37:55] project TR012,

[37:58] the front and sunset left turn

[38:00] improvement projects. So, this has been

[38:02] a concurrency project in our long-term

[38:05] project list for many, many years. And

[38:09] it came to the forefront in 2023 when

[38:13] the administration did a transit study

[38:15] that looked at improvements that the

[38:17] city can do to help improve access,

[38:20] speed, and reliability of transit. And

[38:24] this is an intersection that has

[38:26] currently the 554 bus coming from

[38:28] Newport Way onto Sunset and then

[38:31] continuing up to the Highlands and then

[38:32] in reverse. And then starting this fall,

[38:35] the revised 556 bus is going to go along

[38:39] Gilman and then front to Sunset and then

[38:43] likewise in reverse. And so this project

[38:46] is intended to improve the speed and

[38:50] reliability of the bus routes along

[38:52] here. And what it will do is redesign

[38:55] the intersection on the west leg for

[38:59] eastbound traffic. It'll add a through

[39:02] right turn lane and then have a

[39:05] standalone left turn lane. And then

[39:08] what's called phase two. And depending

[39:10] on what the traffic analysis and the

[39:14] cost estimate determined as well as a

[39:16] grant application. Oops.

[39:20] Hold on.

[39:24] Stop sharing. Just give me a minute. Oh,

[39:28] it is not letting me share.

[39:35] There we go.

[39:40] All right. Oh, you're back.

[39:41] » Wonderful.

[39:43] And so then the phase the second part of

[39:46] this project would work on the east leg

[39:49] of this intersection where it would

[39:51] convert the existing right turn lane

[39:54] into a right through lane and then the

[39:57] existing

[39:59] through left turn lane would become a

[40:02] left turn lane. And these improvements

[40:04] will reduce congestion for everyone at

[40:08] the intersection, but especially for the

[40:10] bus movements.

[40:17] Some of the Now I'm going to talk about

[40:19] some of the primary drivers for changes

[40:21] to existing projects. And that one of

[40:25] the things that we did for the two

[40:28] Newport projects, the SR900 to 54th and

[40:31] Maple to Sunset, we created and as well

[40:34] as the strategic small capital project,

[40:37] what I call tiplets. So right now,

[40:40] Newport Way SR900 to 54th, it is TR022.

[40:45] Well, what we did is we created TR22A,

[40:48] TR22B, and TR22C. And the reason why we

[40:52] did it is that project is going to be

[40:53] constructed in to phases. And we wanted

[40:56] to show as part of this update how that

[41:00] project would get constructed in phases

[41:04] to add a little bit more transparency.

[41:07] And then the strategic small capital

[41:09] project. One of the things that this

[41:11] update did is it identified some

[41:15] larger small projects that would be good

[41:18] candidates for the transportation

[41:20] improvement board's complete streets

[41:22] grant. And one of the things that the

[41:24] transportation improvement board likes

[41:26] is to see projects listed in the public

[41:30] agency's tip. And so we want to start

[41:32] listing those to help improve our

[41:34] chances of receiving external funds as

[41:38] well as to also show the community the

[41:40] specific small improvements that the

[41:42] administration is planning to make.

[41:46] I mentioned a little bit about TR 101

[41:50] that that project was moved up in order

[41:52] to

[41:55] get permitted before changes to the

[41:57] storm water requirements.

[41:59] Um, additional costs were added to

[42:02] TR033.

[42:03] That's the Black Nugget retaining wall

[42:05] to based on where the design's at, the

[42:08] cost estimate has increased. And then TR

[42:12] 80, 90, 91, and 92. These are all the IT

[42:17] replacement projects, and those have

[42:20] been updated based on the current

[42:21] replacement schedules.

[42:26] The projects listed here are the ones

[42:28] that the administration is proposing to

[42:30] use transportation benefit district back

[42:33] for that is signalization project at the

[42:36] intersection of front street and

[42:38] dogwood. This is one that the

[42:39] administration has heard a lot from the

[42:43] transportation advisory board that this

[42:45] is a priority project.

[42:47] TR23A Newport Way Maple to Sunset. Um,

[42:52] next one is a big priority for the

[42:55] administration. TR028,

[42:58] Northwest Seamish Road Non-motorized

[43:01] Improvement Project.

[43:03] TR99, this is a bridge scour repair

[43:07] project

[43:09] for the bridge that goes over Isawak Paw

[43:11] Creek along Southeast 56th Street. It's

[43:15] to help protect the

[43:18] lightweight film material on the east

[43:21] side of the creek um from potential

[43:25] damage due to creek scour and the TR 101

[43:30] 190th place and 191st Avenue project.

[43:39] something to consider for the

[43:40] transportation benefit district back

[43:42] debt. The TBD sales tax expires in 2034

[43:47] and the council at that time may choose

[43:50] to reauthorize the tax or not.

[43:54] If the tax is renewed, then TBD revenues

[43:57] can likely support any debt issued for a

[44:00] project throughout the life of the debt

[44:03] service. However, if the tax is not

[44:06] renewed, then the debt service for these

[44:09] projects will need to be paid for from

[44:11] another source such as the general fund.

[44:16] The transportation improvement program

[44:18] went to both the transportation advisory

[44:21] board as well as the environmental

[44:23] board. I'm going to talk a little bit

[44:24] about the feedback that the

[44:26] administration got from those boards. On

[44:28] March 25th, the administration presented

[44:30] the tip to the tab and generally the

[44:35] feedback supported the proposed changes.

[44:38] Some of the members on the tab

[44:40] questioned the criteria from the

[44:42] mobility action plan

[44:45] and increasing wanted to increase the

[44:48] objectivity to the criteria in the

[44:50] mobility action plan that was used to

[44:52] evaluate these projects. And some

[44:55] members had questions about the use of

[44:58] debt as a financial practice and

[45:01] expressed concerns about additional

[45:03] non-permeable payment.

[45:07] The board also highlighted safety

[45:08] concerns and a preference for bicycle

[45:11] and pedestrian facilities as a priority

[45:14] in the tip.

[45:17] On April 16th of this year, the tip was

[45:20] presented to the environmental board and

[45:22] again the environmental board generally

[45:24] supported the proposed tip updates.

[45:27] Members noted several corridors for

[45:29] additional bicycle facilities and the

[45:33] potential to protect and enhance tree

[45:35] canopy throughout the tip. and board

[45:40] members had questions about specific

[45:43] projects, jurisdiction working with King

[45:45] County Metro and East Scooter programs.

[45:51] And then on May 12th, the TIP was

[45:53] presented to the mobility and

[45:55] infrastructure committee. And again, the

[45:57] support was generally or the the

[46:00] committee generally supported the tip

[46:02] updates. Members noted the importance of

[46:05] having the Northwest Seamish Road

[46:07] non-motorized improvement project as

[46:09] part of the 2027 to 2028 operating

[46:13] budget.

[46:15] Not losing bicycle and pedestrian

[46:17] facilities while focusing on congestion

[46:19] relief. And there's a brief discussion

[46:22] on impact fees.

[46:25] The direction that the administration is

[46:27] seeking from the council

[46:30] are the major themes and changes with

[46:33] this update. Specificly,

[46:36] the emphasis on smaller scale projects,

[46:38] the prioritization of maintenance over

[46:41] new construction, and the use of debt

[46:45] specifically

[46:47] funded by the transportation benefit

[46:49] district

[46:50] with tax revenue that is scheduled to

[46:52] sunset. And we did add a slide to the

[46:56] presentation to talk about projects that

[46:58] add bicycle and pedestrian facilities. I

[47:01] know there are some concerns based on

[47:03] the performance metrics that were

[47:06] reported out. And so the proposed

[47:09] six-year transportation improvement

[47:10] program has over 16,000 ft of bikeways

[47:16] proposed to be constructed. And I've got

[47:19] a list here of the projects that make

[47:21] improvements to pedestrian or bicycle

[47:25] facilities.

[47:28] The timing and next steps.

[47:31] Right now, we're here on June 1st to

[47:33] conduct a public hearing.

[47:36] And then on June 15th, the

[47:39] administration is going to propose

[47:41] council adopt the

[47:44] transportation improvement program. And

[47:47] then once it's adopted within 30 days,

[47:49] the administration will

[47:53] submit the six-year tip to the state.

[47:58] And that concludes my presentation.

[48:01] » Thank you very much, John. Council

[48:02] member Joe is chair of the mobility

[48:04] infrastructure committee. Would you like

[48:05] to summarize the committee's

[48:06] recommendations on this item?

[48:09] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh we reviewed uh

[48:12] this particular topic at our mobility

[48:15] and infrastructure meeting on May 12th.

[48:17] Um it does highlight uh some of the

[48:20] topics that were discussed at our May

[48:22] 9th retreat. We appreciate the uh

[48:25] administration's efforts to find small

[48:28] projects that we can get done in a

[48:31] timely manner to show that we're making

[48:32] improvements uh to transportation in the

[48:35] city of Isiqua so that people that live

[48:37] in the city are able to get from point A

[48:40] to point B, whether it's from school to

[48:42] Costco or whether it's from um you know

[48:45] um Target over to uh the the the park

[48:49] and ride or the park and ride in the

[48:51] Highlands. Um so we do appreciate the uh

[48:54] emphasis on the Dogwood uh intersection

[48:58] stoplight and the sunset stoplight as

[49:01] well. Um the committee was generally in

[49:04] favor of the proposal from the

[49:06] administration. uh there was an emphasis

[49:08] on um exploring and continuing to

[49:11] explore uh other ways to get funding

[49:13] including councilmatic bonds in the

[49:16] future as a point of conversation for us

[49:19] so we can continue to make those

[49:20] improvements along the way. Um, I won't

[49:23] speak directly for uh, Council President

[49:25] Marts, but he did uh, put in a pitch for

[49:28] uh, Council Matter Bonds. And uh, also

[49:31] wanted to talk a little bit about the

[49:32] the wall behind Fred Meyer and the

[49:35] potential uh, liability and the

[49:38] potential way that we need to seek

[49:40] additional funding from our partners

[49:41] with with King County. But overall, the

[49:44] committee was generally in favor of of

[49:45] this going forward. Thank you.

[49:47] » Excellent. Thank you very much. Uh,

[49:50] okay. With that, I'm going to open this

[49:52] public hearing at 7:58 p.m. and we're

[49:56] going to go back to audience comments.

[49:58] If you're joining virtually, uh, please

[50:00] raise your virtual hand or send the host

[50:03] a chat message. And

[50:06] clerk Mueller, do we have folks signed

[50:08] up in the room for audience comments?

[50:14] » I don't see anyone at this time with a

[50:15] raised hand uh virtually. Uh we did have

[50:18] one individual sign up uh online. Um I'm

[50:21] unsure if they are virtual or in person.

[50:23] I have Earl Pigot.

[50:27] Looking for Earl.

[50:30] Not seeing Earl online or in person. Is

[50:34] there anybody in the room who has a

[50:35] desire to speak in the transformation?

[50:37] Oh, come on up.

[50:40] Let's go to the lectern in the middle

[50:41] and you just have to hit the button.

[50:52] Thank you. Um, there's a a dangerous

[50:55] turn on Newport Way.

[50:58] » Can you please state your name in

[50:59] relation I'm so sorry. I do this

[51:01] relation to the city. Thanks.

[51:02] » I'm Margaret Escobar and I live on

[51:05] Squawk Mountain and I've lived in Isiqua

[51:08] for

[51:09] um 25 30 years. Um there's a dangerous

[51:13] turn of where um sunset goes into

[51:17] Mountain Park Drive and crosses Newport

[51:19] Way. I live up on Squawk Mountain and so

[51:22] I've seen numerous accidents there. Um

[51:27] both lefts are dangerous. Both if you're

[51:31] um going straight across and people are

[51:33] making lefts in front of you. If you're

[51:36] making a left onto Mountain Park Drive

[51:38] from Newport Way, um there's a kind of a

[51:41] rise and you can't see the car coming

[51:44] and people are very impatient. I mean,

[51:46] I've seen probably weekly almost hitting

[51:50] each other and I've seen several um

[51:53] dangerous

[51:54] um accidents over the years. Um is there

[51:58] a plan to put dedicated red light left

[52:01] turns on that crossing? It's pretty

[52:05] crowded. It's pretty well traveled and

[52:08] there's no dedicated like left like you

[52:10] have to make a left and judge traffic in

[52:13] order to to it in all the directions. I

[52:16] think it would be um I know it's costs

[52:19] money but it would be a move to make the

[52:21] city safer.

[52:23] Excellent. Thank you very much. We're

[52:25] nor what I would suggest is leave your

[52:27] contact information with our city clerk

[52:30] and uh and then we can get back to you

[52:32] in terms of your specific ask and uh by

[52:34] email. Thank you very much.

[52:38] » Is there anybody else in the room who

[52:39] would like to make

[52:41] comments? Okay, not seeing any.

[52:45] The audience comments are now going to

[52:49] be closed. City council, is there any

[52:51] objection to closing the public hearing?

[52:54] Okay, not seeing any. The public hearing

[52:57] is now closed. We are now going to go to

[53:01] council questions

[53:03] uh for John.

[53:07] Looking looking

[53:09] council member Nichols.

[53:12] Thank you. Um first of all, thank you

[53:14] for the great presentation and all the

[53:16] work that's gone into this, all the

[53:17] feedback that's been requested and

[53:18] implemented. Uh the first question I've

[53:20] got is on that feedback. Uh one of the

[53:22] things that you mentioned was that for

[53:24] both TAP and the environmental board

[53:25] that they highlighted safety concerns

[53:27] and a preference for additional bike and

[53:29] pedestrian facilities as raising in

[53:32] priority in the tip. Um I appreciated

[53:34] the list of uh projects that you

[53:36] presented that included elements that

[53:38] touch on our uh pedestrian and bike

[53:41] facilities. Uh but I wanted to know what

[53:43] was altered in the plan as a result of

[53:44] that feedback. What was brought was

[53:46] anything altered to incorporate their

[53:47] feedback versus what they were

[53:50] originally presented with.

[53:57] There were no alterations based on that

[53:59] feedback.

[54:02] » Is there an opportunity to take their

[54:05] feedback into account and

[54:08] rep prioritize based on the the board

[54:11] and commission's feedback?

[54:16] My preference would be to if there is a

[54:19] change in the prioritization to include

[54:21] it as part of the budget deliberations

[54:25] for the 2027 to 28 budget bienium

[54:29] budget. Um just because and yes the tip

[54:33] could technically be changed but my

[54:36] recommendation would be to if there are

[54:41] if there is a desire to make changes to

[54:44] the transportation projects in the next

[54:46] two years to do it as part of the budget

[54:49] process not as part of the tip process

[54:51] but

[54:53] I think both are possible.

[54:58] Councilor Walsh.

[55:01] » Thank you. Um John, I'm wondering toward

[55:04] that same concept of pedestrian bike

[55:08] infrastructure and all of that. Um

[55:12] how should we determine or kind of

[55:15] understand the fact that we have

[55:18] separate um impact fees set up for bike

[55:21] and pedestrian versus transportation?

[55:25] Um, do we have a sense whether or not

[55:27] having a specific much smaller budget

[55:31] for bike and pedestrian infrastructure

[55:35] increases

[55:36] um access to funding for that type of

[55:39] project or whether it decreases their

[55:44] focus um within the larger

[55:46] transportation budget? Do we know how

[55:49] that funding model impacts our choice of

[55:52] projects and whether or not we can

[55:54] effectively do something?

[55:56] » Oh, thank you very much. I I love that

[55:57] question, Council Member Walsh. Um, I'll

[56:00] try and be concise and not go on too

[56:02] long of a rant here. Um, because this is

[56:04] something that I'm really excited for.

[56:06] So the way Isqua has it right now is

[56:11] long time ago a council decided that

[56:15] wanted to fund non-motorized projects

[56:18] and so the city has a

[56:24] bike ped mitigation fee that funds bike

[56:27] ped projects and then as part of our

[56:30] transportation concurrency where there's

[56:32] an adopted level of service at

[56:34] intersections We have traffic impact

[56:38] fees. And then

[56:41] I will say that traffic impact fee

[56:44] funded projects do include bike ped

[56:47] facilities like Newport Way. Uh the

[56:52] challenge that we have with the bike ped

[56:54] mitigation fees is it's a short list of

[56:57] projects and the city has not updated

[56:59] the traffic impact fees or bike ped

[57:03] mitigation fees since 2019.

[57:07] And since 2019, the city has done a lot

[57:11] of work to prioritize multimodal

[57:14] transportation. And the projects that we

[57:16] want to do with the

[57:19] non-motorized fees are different than

[57:21] what we wanted to do back in 2019. And

[57:23] so the challenge is is there's a short

[57:26] list and not a lot of the projects on

[57:28] that list are the projects that we're

[57:31] hearing from the community that the

[57:33] community wants us to build. So the

[57:35] administration has also heard from the

[57:37] city council a desire to lower traffic

[57:39] impact fees. And there's been some

[57:42] changes in state law since the city last

[57:45] adopted traffic impact fees in 2019. And

[57:48] that trafficked impact fees can also be

[57:52] used to construct bike and ped

[57:54] facilities um that are standalone bike

[57:58] ped facilities, not just tied to

[58:01] capacity projects for cars. And so I

[58:06] think that in the future a good policy

[58:08] discussion would be how to go about

[58:11] looking at possibly lowering the traffic

[58:14] impact fees. What does the city want for

[58:16] concurrency and how those could be

[58:19] utilized whether it's for a congestion

[58:22] relief project for growth from

[58:25] development or how it could be used for

[58:28] bike ped facilities. And so I hope I'm

[58:32] answering your question, but that's how

[58:34] I see it.

[58:35] » Okay. I really appreciate that related

[58:37] to um the you know what our financial

[58:40] situation is with this separation and

[58:43] hearing that we can use some of those

[58:46] traffic impact fees or mitigation fees

[58:48] for bike and pedestrian um pieces. But I

[58:52] think I also heard and I just want to

[58:54] clarify there that maybe we don't have

[58:56] the most upto-date list of bike and

[59:00] pedestrian projects that the community

[59:02] has said that they're interested in

[59:05] included in this tip and so is there a

[59:10] plan to

[59:14] do a better job of updating that and

[59:17] maybe taking the the feedback that we

[59:19] heard from TAB. So I would say that the

[59:22] projects in the tip are ones that are

[59:25] community priority that the ones that

[59:27] are it's the list of projects that can

[59:30] use the bike ped mitigation fees are

[59:34] not necessarily the ones that are the

[59:36] highest priority right now. And I also

[59:39] would say that when the city updates the

[59:43] traffic impact fees, one of the things

[59:45] that I would want to evaluate is merging

[59:48] those two programs together now that

[59:51] there's been a change in state law. So I

[59:53] would say that the six-year tip has a

[59:55] lot of the community's non-motorized uh

[59:58] priorities. For example, there's a

[1:00:01] project to do a interim sidewalk project

[1:00:03] on Isqua Pine Lake Road. That's one in

[1:00:06] the nine years I've been with the city.

[1:00:08] I've been hearing over and over again

[1:00:10] residents saying, "We just want to walk

[1:00:11] to the Highlands and then I'd have to

[1:00:14] tell them, well, we got this $17 million

[1:00:16] project." And then they would say, "I

[1:00:18] don't want to wait. I just want to

[1:00:20] safely walk." So trying to

[1:00:23] implement these projects that we've been

[1:00:25] hearing from the community. It just is

[1:00:28] instead of using well that wouldn't be a

[1:00:30] location probably to use mitigation fees

[1:00:32] but u trying to utilize the revenue that

[1:00:37] the city has to the best extent possible

[1:00:40] to meet the community's desires is what

[1:00:42] we're always working for with this

[1:00:44] transportation improvement program.

[1:00:50] » All right. Uh so actions being requested

[1:00:53] at the June 15th city council meeting.

[1:00:54] However, if you have feedback on the

[1:00:56] major themes and changes with this

[1:00:57] update, this is sort of the time to

[1:01:00] share that feedback. Uh,

[1:01:04] and oh, Council President Marks.

[1:01:08] [clears throat] So, uh, I I had a whole

[1:01:11] stem winder of a speech at committee.

[1:01:14] Um, I'm going to save that stemwinder

[1:01:16] speech if I need it on the 15th. I'm

[1:01:19] meeting with manager Mortonson and

[1:01:20] Director Moon earlier on the day on the

[1:01:22] 15th. And uh I I will just I'll save my

[1:01:25] STEM minder speech. It's about TTRO28,

[1:01:28] which has been uh I won't go into it. We

[1:01:32] all know how I feel about TTRO 28 and

[1:01:34] how long we've been waiting uh to uh put

[1:01:37] sidewalks into uh South Cove. So

[1:01:40] hopefully my conversation will go well

[1:01:42] and I won't ever share with that

[1:01:44] stemwinder speech again. Thank you.

[1:01:46] Well, I think and the administration's

[1:01:48] been very public that the 2728 budget is

[1:01:51] going to fund through bonding the TBD

[1:01:54] tax that non-motorized improvement so

[1:01:57] they can get into the town. Uh, Council

[1:01:59] Member Boyd,

[1:02:01] » Um, I have a question, John, and if you

[1:02:04] can't answer it, then I I apologize for

[1:02:05] not asking you in advance. Um, not

[1:02:07] keeping to the no surprises rule here,

[1:02:08] but just about the Black Nugget

[1:02:09] retaining wall. You mentioned that um

[1:02:11] cost has gone up since initial

[1:02:13] estimates, but um I know back um on my

[1:02:16] TAB days, we had looked at a couple

[1:02:18] different alternatives and I don't know

[1:02:19] if the cost increased. Uh does it get to

[1:02:22] either of those alternatives? I believe

[1:02:23] the lowest cost alternative had been

[1:02:25] chosen, but if you could just give a

[1:02:26] little more context on that, I'd

[1:02:28] appreciate it.

[1:02:29] » Yeah, it so the preferred alternative

[1:02:32] that is proceeding with design, it is

[1:02:35] the lowest cost one. Um, the solution is

[1:02:40] to build a retaining wall in front of

[1:02:42] the existing retaining wall and the

[1:02:45] costs are just due to geotechnical

[1:02:47] conditions and needing to do more work

[1:02:50] for that.

[1:02:54] » Okay, Council Member Nichols,

[1:02:57] » One more and this is on how things come

[1:02:59] off. Um,

[1:03:01] are we going to take some things off of

[1:03:03] the tip at some point? that I mean the

[1:03:04] one that pops out to me is the central

[1:03:06] multimotal crossing. Um I wasn't on

[1:03:09] council at the time but my recollection

[1:03:10] of council's reaction to that was uh not

[1:03:13] positive. Um

[1:03:17] to be um not as blunt as I could be um

[1:03:21] and it's also extremely large. I think

[1:03:22] that was hund00 million or something

[1:03:24] like that. So that has 20 I think

[1:03:26] » Lots of lots of things. Um, when are we

[1:03:29] get are we planning to re to address

[1:03:32] some of those things that are likely not

[1:03:36] within

[1:03:38] the realm of things that the council or

[1:03:40] the city will actually take on?

[1:03:43] » The answer to that is as part of looking

[1:03:45] at the traffic impact fees that will be

[1:03:49] considered. And so whenever we do a

[1:03:52] concurrency update, we always like to

[1:03:55] look at a few of the projects and see if

[1:03:58] they are needed or not needed. And the

[1:04:00] last concurrency update, a project was

[1:04:03] eliminated along Northwest Mammoth Road

[1:04:05] that would have widened the already wide

[1:04:07] road, one more lane in each direction.

[1:04:09] Um, but in order to look at which ones

[1:04:13] to take off, it needs to be done

[1:04:15] holistically because right now the city

[1:04:17] hasn't adopted level of service of at

[1:04:21] signalized intersections of D or better

[1:04:24] except for six locations where they can

[1:04:26] be at E or F. And so if we start taking

[1:04:29] projects off, we need to be careful to

[1:04:32] make sure that

[1:04:34] the city is either able to still meet

[1:04:37] the adopted level of service or to

[1:04:42] consider other things. So, um, and I

[1:04:47] don't know what would happen if the city

[1:04:48] does not construct the I90 crossing, but

[1:04:51] some of the things that I would want to

[1:04:52] look at are when the city got its

[1:04:54] regional growth designation, one of the

[1:04:56] requirements was to have a crossing of

[1:04:58] I90. So, I'd want to have a conversation

[1:05:00] with PSRC to see, okay, is that still

[1:05:03] the case? Because I'd want the council

[1:05:04] to know that as how it would impact

[1:05:07] future things with the ESQUA. And then

[1:05:08] I'd also want to know, okay, if we don't

[1:05:11] construct it, what happens to the rest

[1:05:15] of the transportation system because it

[1:05:17] does carry a lot of cars in our future

[1:05:19] traffic model. Um, also understanding

[1:05:22] that it is really expensive and it does

[1:05:23] make the traffic impact fees more

[1:05:25] expensive. So would the council I if if

[1:05:29] and this is a big if if removing that

[1:05:32] project would make it so that way

[1:05:34] intersections were no longer meeting the

[1:05:36] level of service. There's a couple of

[1:05:37] levers the council could say well we

[1:05:40] want to increase the assumption of trips

[1:05:42] that will be done by transit bicycle

[1:05:45] walking and then maybe that might solve

[1:05:48] it. It could be that the council could

[1:05:50] say well we want a lower level of

[1:05:52] service because we want we don't want to

[1:05:54] do this project. So maybe the level of

[1:05:56] service becomes E instead of D. So

[1:05:58] there's a number of possible outcomes

[1:06:02] that got to go through a policy

[1:06:04] discussion before we can start

[1:06:06] eliminating those long-term bigger

[1:06:08] projects.

[1:06:12] » Deputy President Jen.

[1:06:14] » Um so kind of going on to that policy

[1:06:17] question. I mean, so it seems like we're

[1:06:19] currently evaluating transportation

[1:06:21] projects based on, you know, how well

[1:06:24] car traffic is moving through our city.

[1:06:26] And given, you know, our future vision

[1:06:28] for what type of community we want

[1:06:30] around light rail, given, you know, we

[1:06:32] have climate goals, presumably we

[1:06:34] probably want to reduce vehicle miles

[1:06:36] traveled. And so I'm wondering, you

[1:06:39] know, is that ever included as a metric

[1:06:42] for evaluating transportation projects?

[1:06:45] And if so, you know, how would that get

[1:06:46] into the policy conversation?

[1:06:48] I

[1:06:49] » I'll answer it two ways. So, the first

[1:06:50] way is here at Isiqua, we have as part

[1:06:54] of the Isqua climate action plan, a goal

[1:06:57] to reduce vehicle miles traveled. I

[1:06:59] forget the details, but there is a goal

[1:07:01] for a reduction and u

[1:07:05] we're working on ways to measure it.

[1:07:06] Right now, there's regional ways to

[1:07:08] measure it. We recently, as of today,

[1:07:11] got access to a software subscription

[1:07:13] that I think will allow us to be able to

[1:07:16] measure vehicle miles traveled. So

[1:07:18] that's what we're currently doing to

[1:07:20] look at vehicle miles traveled. And then

[1:07:23] there are some agencies like the city of

[1:07:26] Seattle where instead of having their

[1:07:28] level of service be delay at an

[1:07:30] intersection, it is vehicle miles

[1:07:33] traveled. And so that could be an

[1:07:35] alternative. Um, there would be pros and

[1:07:37] cons that could be discussed as part of

[1:07:39] a policy discussion.

[1:07:42] » Great. Thank you. And do you have a

[1:07:43] sense of when that policy discussion

[1:07:45] might occur?

[1:07:47] » Well, I will I don't know the exact

[1:07:50] schedule. I've been working on it. I do

[1:07:51] know that the council did say that

[1:07:53] lowering traffic impact fees by the end

[1:07:55] of 27 was a very high priority.

[1:08:02] » City administrator.

[1:08:03] » Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of

[1:08:04] the council. Uh the planning development

[1:08:06] environment committee has tasked staff

[1:08:09] to uh sort through this uh issue of the

[1:08:13] uh all of our impact fees. Um we are

[1:08:16] hoping to come back to the committee in

[1:08:18] the next 60 days with some ideas with

[1:08:21] that. I mean what we are struggling with

[1:08:23] is uh the desire to perhaps change the

[1:08:27] the trajectory of some of our projects

[1:08:29] along with the desire to charge less

[1:08:31] fees. And so um we're going to be

[1:08:34] bringing some options to PTE. I think at

[1:08:36] that point the committee can decide if

[1:08:37] they wish to move this up to the full

[1:08:39] council for discussion uh or uh discuss

[1:08:42] it in committee for some time. But uh

[1:08:44] what we're certainly hearing from

[1:08:46] planning development environment is is

[1:08:48] they would like us to address the impact

[1:08:50] fee question sooner than later.

[1:08:53] » Great. Thank you,

[1:08:54] » Council President Marks.

[1:08:56] So, I want [clears throat] to expand on

[1:08:58] uh council member Nichols comments on

[1:09:00] the central Isiqua multimmoal I90

[1:09:02] crossing. Uh yes, your memory is

[1:09:05] correct. Um it wasn't necessarily that

[1:09:08] the council I don't think the council

[1:09:10] expressed an opinion about having a I90

[1:09:13] crossing. They expressed an opinion

[1:09:14] about the study that was commissioned

[1:09:16] and presented to us and the majority of

[1:09:19] the council, as I recall, did not like

[1:09:22] that study and chose not to formally

[1:09:24] accept it. I believe we paid the nice

[1:09:26] people uh their bill, but uh we did not

[1:09:29] want that study entered into the record

[1:09:32] because we had such concerns about the

[1:09:34] contents of that study. Um you know, it

[1:09:38] is interesting to hear that that is an

[1:09:40] essential part of the future of the city

[1:09:42] because as I recall, one of the things

[1:09:44] that we did not have in that was a full

[1:09:46] traffic study. We did not torsten the

[1:09:48] problem, right? Torstston being our uh

[1:09:51] traffic consultant who does such amazing

[1:09:53] studies for us. I don't believe we got

[1:09:55] levels of service associated with that

[1:09:57] potential overcrossing and this was one

[1:09:59] of the challenges um that this council

[1:10:02] considered when choosing not to formally

[1:10:04] accept that study. So, um, if in fact

[1:10:07] the administration at some point wants

[1:10:09] to come back and revisit this topic, um,

[1:10:12] I think that a a a pretty comprehens

[1:10:16] comprehensive conversation needs to

[1:10:17] occur about what that study would need

[1:10:19] to contain um to get a a more favorable

[1:10:22] response uh from the council. Thank you.

[1:10:27] Well, I think I share your concerns that

[1:10:30] the project does not seem financially

[1:10:31] feasible, but I think to John's point is

[1:10:33] we make those kind of changes, we have

[1:10:35] to do it thoughtfully to understand the

[1:10:37] impact. So, I think that's the plan as

[1:10:39] we move forward this year is to figure

[1:10:40] out Yeah. what the impacts are. Is it

[1:10:44] Yeah, I think there is agreement that

[1:10:46] projects

[1:10:47] » Mr. Mayor.

[1:10:48] » Oh, yeah.

[1:10:50] » Director Moon, who's in the audience,

[1:10:52] good evening. uh has texted me to let me

[1:10:55] remind me that the the city council did

[1:10:57] accept the pro uh uh report but not the

[1:11:00] recommendations on the report. So just

[1:11:02] to make sure that the record's clear,

[1:11:04] » I stand corrected.

[1:11:07] » Uh [clears throat]

[1:11:09] okay. So I guess the the guidance we're

[1:11:12] looking to get is if this returns on the

[1:11:14] June 15th meeting, would after this

[1:11:17] discussion having just happened, would

[1:11:18] it would the preference to have it be on

[1:11:20] consent or on regular business? And I

[1:11:22] will reiterate that the budget will 100%

[1:11:25] fund TR028 and finally build the trail

[1:11:28] from South Copen to town. But once

[1:11:30] again, this is looking for guidance.

[1:11:32] Council member Joe.

[1:11:34] » Mr. Mayor, I would ask that the public

[1:11:36] hearing remain open and that we continue

[1:11:39] it to the next council meeting so that

[1:11:42] public can have time to analyze this and

[1:11:44] then come back and comment and then we

[1:11:46] can close it out on the regular agenda

[1:11:49] at the next meeting. Be my preference.

[1:11:52] Is there a second?

[1:11:54] » Second. There's

[1:11:55] » Been a motion and a second. All those in

[1:11:58] favor of continuing the public hearing,

[1:12:00] please say I.

[1:12:01] » I.

[1:12:03] » All those opposed. Nay. Okay, that

[1:12:06] passes unanimously. So, we will continue

[1:12:08] the public hearing on the tip and then

[1:12:11] we will come back on June 15th and we

[1:12:13] will have another opportunity for public

[1:12:16] input and then at that point the plan

[1:12:18] will be to to then go to regular

[1:12:21] business and the council can adopt the

[1:12:23] DIP or not at that stage. Excellent.

[1:12:26] Okay. So, that concludes

[1:12:29] that discussion item. We're now going to

[1:12:31] go to regular business. Agenda Bill 9178

[1:12:33] is Squad Police Department's

[1:12:34] Congressional Community Appropriations

[1:12:35] Grant. We're gonna have Dale Marky Crim.

[1:13:00] We go. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of

[1:13:04] the council. uh Dale Marquee Crimp,

[1:13:06] assistant to the city administrator. Uh

[1:13:08] and I am here tonight to present on the

[1:13:10] Isiqua Police Department's uh

[1:13:13] congressional community appropriations

[1:13:15] grant.

[1:13:16] The purpose of my presentation this

[1:13:19] evening is twofold. One is to seek the

[1:13:22] council's approval uh for the acceptance

[1:13:25] of the grant uh for conducted energy

[1:13:28] devices. I will also uh like Sergeant

[1:13:31] Asel call them tasers for the remainder

[1:13:33] of the presentation. um for the Isqua

[1:13:35] Police Department and to PA seeking uh

[1:13:40] council passage of a proposed resolution

[1:13:42] outlining the terms of the grant

[1:13:44] acceptance, the cancellation of the

[1:13:47] flock safety memorandum of understanding

[1:13:49] and uh setting a policy requirement uh a

[1:13:53] policy adoption requirement for any city

[1:13:55] action on automated license plate reader

[1:13:58] technology.

[1:14:00] Bless you. I don't know where it came

[1:14:02] from, but bless you.

[1:14:04] Um, the administration is recommending

[1:14:06] that the city council approve the

[1:14:08] resolution accepting the grant funds and

[1:14:10] outlining how the grant funding will and

[1:14:13] will not be spent.

[1:14:16] But first, a little bit of background or

[1:14:19] a lot of bit of background.

[1:14:21] So, in taking us all the way back um to

[1:14:24] January 2025,

[1:14:27] potentially late December 2024, when the

[1:14:30] Isqua Police Department was first

[1:14:31] considering applying for this grant, um

[1:14:35] at the time they actually initially were

[1:14:38] considering two separate applications,

[1:14:40] one for tasers and one for ALPR

[1:14:43] technology.

[1:14:45] In conversation with Representative

[1:14:47] Shrier's office, the administrator of

[1:14:49] the grant, uh it was recommended to them

[1:14:51] to combine those two requests into one

[1:14:55] single request. Also, it became clear to

[1:14:59] the police department at the time that

[1:15:00] they were considering this that while

[1:15:02] the council was likely quite familiar,

[1:15:05] we found out at the last meeting some

[1:15:07] very familiar with tasers um on the

[1:15:10] receiving end of a taser, um they were

[1:15:13] probably less familiar with ALPR

[1:15:14] technology and that whether or not our

[1:15:17] grant application was accepted, whether

[1:15:19] or not that grant application was then

[1:15:21] funded, the police department did need

[1:15:24] to come to the council to share about AL

[1:15:26] LPR technology in the first place, even

[1:15:29] though the city had no money at the time

[1:15:31] to fund it. Then you can see this

[1:15:33] beautiful green line in the middle of

[1:15:35] this lovely timeline.

[1:15:37] It's meant to represent a long gap, but

[1:15:39] it is a very short line. The city was

[1:15:42] notified in January of 2026

[1:15:46] uh that the the grant request was going

[1:15:49] to be funded. This is kind of a long

[1:15:51] delay. Um but a lot of time had passed

[1:15:54] and a lot had happened in the community

[1:15:56] between the original submission of the

[1:15:58] grant and finding out that it had been

[1:16:00] funded. Um as is shared in the materials

[1:16:03] for tonight. Um not only did we have um

[1:16:07] act federal immigration enforcement

[1:16:09] activity in our community um that really

[1:16:12] called into question the safety,

[1:16:13] security, and data privacy of flock

[1:16:17] safety camera systems. Um, we also had a

[1:16:19] new mayor who had an opportunity to meet

[1:16:22] with the police department and get clear

[1:16:23] on what their priorities were, what the

[1:16:26] funding needs were, and what technology

[1:16:28] was most needed by the department.

[1:16:31] Simultaneously,

[1:16:32] uh, around this early January time, our

[1:16:35] state legislature was considering

[1:16:37] regulation at the state level of ALPR

[1:16:39] technology.

[1:16:42] So, um, in March and April, we heard

[1:16:47] from the community loud and clear, um,

[1:16:49] and also members of the council that

[1:16:50] there was some extreme reservation

[1:16:54] around the city's adoption of ALPR. The

[1:16:57] mayor also met with the police

[1:16:58] department to get clear with them on how

[1:17:00] they wanted to use this money that had

[1:17:02] been awarded. And on April 6th, IPD

[1:17:06] knowing that um tasers were the singular

[1:17:10] priority for them at this point, um they

[1:17:13] went back to Axon, who is the supplier

[1:17:15] of our taser and our bodywn camera

[1:17:17] equipment to get an up-to-date uh quote

[1:17:20] about how much it would cost. At that

[1:17:23] point, uh, the IPD realized or learned

[1:17:26] from Axon that the cost of the tasers,

[1:17:28] as originally quoted, were going to take

[1:17:30] up nearly all of the gr awarded grant

[1:17:33] money. And so they explored other

[1:17:36] options for how they might spend the

[1:17:37] very small amount, the just over 4,500

[1:17:39] remaining dollars in this grant award.

[1:17:42] on May 11th, uh folks much closer to

[1:17:46] this technology than I came and

[1:17:47] presented to the council about both the

[1:17:49] grant and the proposal to the new

[1:17:52] proposal which I have on the next slide

[1:17:54] um on how to spend the money.

[1:17:58] So again, just to reiterate as a bit of

[1:18:00] background, um there was an initial uh

[1:18:03] request

[1:18:05] that was made in the grant um

[1:18:07] application for tasers and for flax

[1:18:10] safety cameras.

[1:18:13] That request was updated um when we went

[1:18:15] back to Axon to request a new quote for

[1:18:18] tasers, finding that it would take

[1:18:20] nearly all of the appropriated dollars

[1:18:22] of the grant towards tasers.

[1:18:25] It was then decided that a better spend

[1:18:27] of that remaining $4,500 would be on

[1:18:31] replacing um the recently uh broken

[1:18:35] interview room camera system in our

[1:18:37] police department.

[1:18:41] Before I talk very briefly about tasers,

[1:18:43] it should be um reiterated the city then

[1:18:46] went back to Representative Shrier's

[1:18:48] office to ensure that this was an okay

[1:18:50] change. That money was granted. it would

[1:18:53] this be an okay change to how we spend

[1:18:55] the money and that was approved

[1:18:58] and now actually Representative Shrier's

[1:19:00] website reflects that change as well.

[1:19:04] So just a a quick reminder on tasers,

[1:19:07] why why the city is requesting money for

[1:19:10] tasers, why this was a really important

[1:19:12] financial request through this

[1:19:14] appropriations um grant. So, as it was

[1:19:18] presented by Sergeant Asbel, someone

[1:19:20] much more an expert in tasers than I,

[1:19:22] um, in consultation with the mayor

[1:19:24] earlier this year, they emphasized that

[1:19:27] taser replacement was essential at this

[1:19:30] point. We have a number of tasers that

[1:19:32] are getting very close to or slightly

[1:19:34] past their useful life, um, which

[1:19:37] reduces safety for both the community

[1:19:39] and our officers.

[1:19:41] New tasers, as we learned about on May

[1:19:44] 11th, um provide added safety for our

[1:19:48] community and our officers through

[1:19:50] updated ways of both signaling that the

[1:19:54] uh device is being used and making sure

[1:19:56] that it's done successfully and

[1:19:58] accurately.

[1:20:00] Also, um, and what I thought was was

[1:20:03] most exciting, um, as a civilian and

[1:20:06] novice, um, is that the these new tasers

[1:20:09] would have connectivity to our bodywn

[1:20:11] camera system, ensuring that anytime a

[1:20:13] taser is taken out of its holster, um,

[1:20:16] it activates not just the body camera of

[1:20:18] the officer with the taser, but the body

[1:20:21] camera of any officers within the

[1:20:23] vicinity of the the scene.

[1:20:28] And I think it's notable that I'd like

[1:20:30] to talk a bit about um the trade-offs

[1:20:32] with the ALPR technology and choosing

[1:20:34] not to pursue that as part of this grant

[1:20:36] process.

[1:20:38] Many members of the community, some who

[1:20:39] are here tonight, some who are just

[1:20:41] here, and oh, some who are standing, um

[1:20:44] have shared very clearly their concerns

[1:20:46] about the use of ALPR and and of flock

[1:20:49] safety systems in particular. Um, while

[1:20:53] the original proposal included uh 12

[1:20:56] flock safety cameras, this proposal

[1:20:59] evolved for valid reasons, not just the

[1:21:02] concerns that were named, but also the

[1:21:04] the data security and the appropriate

[1:21:06] use of the tool. As shared on May 11th,

[1:21:09] um, researcher Phil Nef uh shared

[1:21:12] research that these systems were being

[1:21:15] accessed by federal officers both

[1:21:18] through directly and indirectly. um and

[1:21:21] the lack of security around how the data

[1:21:24] is used and stored brought up a lot of

[1:21:26] questions about the technology as it

[1:21:28] currently exists. And um as also shared

[1:21:32] at that same meeting, ALPR can still be

[1:21:35] an invaluable tool for investigative

[1:21:37] purposes.

[1:21:39] However, no matter the trade-offs, no

[1:21:41] matter where you personally fall on the

[1:21:43] spectrum of ardent support for ALPR or a

[1:21:48] full ban, uh we can all I think agree

[1:21:51] that there's a need for a clear policy

[1:21:53] that regulates ALPR use in line with

[1:21:56] Isiqua's community values before we move

[1:21:58] forward in adopting any technology. And

[1:22:01] so that's why it came out um of the

[1:22:04] proposed use of the grant dollars.

[1:22:07] So, the proposal tonight is to approve

[1:22:10] the acceptance of the 2026 community

[1:22:13] appropriations grant for the purchase of

[1:22:15] new tasers and the replacement of

[1:22:17] interview room camera equipment.

[1:22:20] Specifically, the administration is

[1:22:22] recommending that you pass the city

[1:22:24] council pass a resolution further

[1:22:25] outlining the terms of this grant

[1:22:27] acceptance to include the following.

[1:22:29] that the money will only be spent on

[1:22:31] tasers and interview room camera

[1:22:32] equipment that acknowledges the

[1:22:34] termination of the city's memorandum of

[1:22:37] understanding with flock safety and that

[1:22:39] requires an ALPR reader policy be

[1:22:42] developed public consider publicly

[1:22:44] considered and adopted by ordinance by

[1:22:46] city council before any future city

[1:22:48] action is taken on this technology.

[1:22:53] A bit about why this is the

[1:22:55] administration's proposal.

[1:22:57] So, we're here June 1. I don't have

[1:23:00] quite as uh lovely as a highlight as

[1:23:03] John did in his but June 1 today. Um

[1:23:07] there are two kind of significant

[1:23:09] deadlines that the administration is

[1:23:11] working within right now. One is the

[1:23:14] June 30th deadline where our current

[1:23:16] quote from Axon expires and we would

[1:23:19] need to ask for another quote and the

[1:23:21] other is the September 30th expiration

[1:23:23] of the funds themselves that by which

[1:23:25] date we would need to accept those funds

[1:23:27] or they we do not get them they go away.

[1:23:31] It's not as easy as just saying yes

[1:23:33] there is some administrative work that

[1:23:35] will need to happen to prepare to

[1:23:37] receive to receive the funds. Um, and we

[1:23:40] know that I believe a conversation about

[1:23:44] automat automated license plate reader

[1:23:46] cameras may take longer than a single

[1:23:49] meeting. And with this in mind, we want

[1:23:51] to make sure that we can act on

[1:23:53] accepting the money for the tasers as

[1:23:55] quickly as possible and then turn our

[1:23:57] focus to making sure we have strong

[1:23:59] meaningful policy that regulates a

[1:24:01] technology.

[1:24:03] So, you can see on here the plan is to

[1:24:06] uh come back to council on July 20th to

[1:24:09] be able to start that conversation

[1:24:10] together as a group.

[1:24:14] The options tonight are three-fold. Um

[1:24:17] they of course have some nuance within

[1:24:19] them, but pass, delay, or do not pass.

[1:24:23] The administration is recommending that

[1:24:24] we pass the resolution that you pass the

[1:24:26] resolution this evening. You may of

[1:24:28] course choose to delay, but delaying

[1:24:30] risks the taser quote lapsing, the costs

[1:24:33] increasing, or missing the window to

[1:24:35] accept those grant funds and not

[1:24:38] passing. Um, well, I don't think this

[1:24:41] has been talked about a ton. Um, the

[1:24:44] tasers are going to be in need of

[1:24:45] replacement. This is about, you know,

[1:24:48] half a million dollars that we have to

[1:24:51] accept to spend on essential equipment.

[1:24:54] And if we were to choose not to accept

[1:24:56] uh the grant award, we would need to

[1:24:59] find a new way. The word budget has been

[1:25:01] mentioned many times tonight, a new way

[1:25:03] to fund this essential purchase um that

[1:25:07] would potentially take money out of um

[1:25:09] other commitments, whether it be for

[1:25:11] police facilities or it be the general

[1:25:13] fund at large. So while that might not

[1:25:16] happen tomorrow, it will absolutely be

[1:25:18] the case over the course of the upcoming

[1:25:19] years that this equipment will need to

[1:25:21] be replaced.

[1:25:23] So again, the recommendation tonight uh

[1:25:25] from the administration is to approve

[1:25:26] the resolution accepting the grant funds

[1:25:28] and outlining how the grant funding will

[1:25:30] and will not be spent

[1:25:32] and timing and next steps. Following

[1:25:35] tonight's meeting, if the resolution is

[1:25:37] passed, the administration will take the

[1:25:39] necessary administrative steps to accept

[1:25:41] the grant award and purchase the tasers.

[1:25:43] Um, and also work um to return to the

[1:25:49] council when the tasers are purchased.

[1:25:51] Given the purchase amount, the dollar

[1:25:52] amount is above $300,000, we'd come

[1:25:55] back. So, you would know when those are

[1:25:56] purchased. And then on the bottom half

[1:25:58] of this timeline, you can see the

[1:25:59] workaround automated license plate

[1:26:01] reader cameras that will come back to

[1:26:03] the council. um currently working on uh

[1:26:06] some draft policy matrix, but we'll come

[1:26:08] back to the council on July 20th to talk

[1:26:10] more about that.

[1:26:13] And that is where I'll pause.

[1:26:16] » All right. Any questions for Dale?

[1:26:20] Looking looking.

[1:26:22] There you go, Jay. That is the ultimate

[1:26:25] sign of success.

[1:26:27] You got in front. Okay. So, not seeing

[1:26:32] any questions. Is there a motion?

[1:26:35] Council President Marts. I move to

[1:26:38] approve resolution number 2026-13

[1:26:41] authorizing the acceptance of $452,477

[1:26:46] in grant funding from the fisc year 26

[1:26:49] discretionary community funding program

[1:26:51] for the purchase of tasers and interview

[1:26:53] room equipment for the Isiqua Police

[1:26:55] Department and restricting any city

[1:26:57] action related to automated license

[1:26:59] plate reader technology until after a

[1:27:01] policy has been adopted by the Isiqua

[1:27:03] City Council and authorized the

[1:27:05] inclusion of 452,000 $477 in revenues

[1:27:09] and related expenditures in a subsequent

[1:27:11] 2025 2026 budget amendment if needed.

[1:27:15] » Second.

[1:27:16] » All right, there's been a motion and a

[1:27:18] second. Is there any council discussion?

[1:27:20] Council member Walsh.

[1:27:23] » Thank you, Dale. Great presentation. Um,

[1:27:26] I think my concern coming out at this

[1:27:29] point was we had talked about this quite

[1:27:32] a lot and there was a lot of information

[1:27:33] out there. He did a really good job of

[1:27:36] explaining to the community that their

[1:27:39] message was heard loud and clear and

[1:27:41] that not only was that said in words,

[1:27:44] but it was also said in the motion and

[1:27:47] the way that the presentation was made

[1:27:50] to show that okay, not only are we doing

[1:27:53] this with the congressional grant

[1:27:55] acceptance, but here's the exact pathway

[1:27:58] that we are taking. So, thank you very

[1:28:00] much for that clarity to the community.

[1:28:02] Thank you very much for showing up. Your

[1:28:05] voices have been loud and clear and

[1:28:08] heard and will be continued to be heard

[1:28:10] as we go through the process of adopting

[1:28:13] that technology. But this is a check

[1:28:16] mark for good community engagement.

[1:28:18] Thank you.

[1:28:19] » Thank you very much. Council member

[1:28:21] Nichols, you're in the halfway point. I

[1:28:23] can't quite tell. Okay, that was okay.

[1:28:25] Go, go, go.

[1:28:27] » Thank you. Um,

[1:28:30] didn't I? Yeah. Um, uh, thank you. I

[1:28:34] want to second everything that, uh,

[1:28:35] Council Member Walsh has stated. Uh,

[1:28:36] again, thank you to Dale. Uh, lots of

[1:28:39] conversations on this topic over the

[1:28:41] past, uh, several months, I think. Um,

[1:28:43] and I know you put a ton of time into

[1:28:44] this, a lot of work, and, uh, there

[1:28:46] you've had to come up to speed on a lot

[1:28:48] of new topics as well. Um, also, thank

[1:28:50] you to the community for coming out and,

[1:28:52] uh, sharing your opinions with us very,

[1:28:54] very clearly. Uh, those opinions were

[1:28:55] heard, and you can see the results of

[1:28:57] those opinions being reflected in what

[1:28:59] you're being presented with tonight. Um,

[1:29:01] so I'll just be brief and say that I

[1:29:03] support the resolution and I'm

[1:29:04] comfortable that it satisfies the

[1:29:05] community concerns that have come up.

[1:29:07] Um, I think this is a a good path

[1:29:09] forward, will give us a chance to set

[1:29:11] some very clear uh guidelines as

[1:29:14] ordinances and uh that we will have more

[1:29:16] opportunity for everyone to take a look

[1:29:18] at those. They'll be there will be

[1:29:19] plenty of time to review them. Uh, and

[1:29:22] feedback will again be very uh helpful

[1:29:25] in that process. And uh, I appreciate

[1:29:26] that y'all will come out for that that

[1:29:28] as well. So again, thanks everybody for

[1:29:30] the good work and uh all the time that

[1:29:32] went into this.

[1:29:34] » Right, Council Member Adair.

[1:29:36] » Yeah, echoing the same thing. I I fully

[1:29:38] support this resolution as well as how

[1:29:39] you presented it and really made it very

[1:29:41] clear to both us, the audience, everyone

[1:29:43] who on how we how we got to here, what's

[1:29:46] been done and and addressing all their

[1:29:47] concerns. And the only thing I'm just

[1:29:48] going to really add is just further

[1:29:50] encouragement to the community to reach

[1:29:52] out to us, to talk to others about what

[1:29:55] you want this ordinance to look like.

[1:29:57] Um, I personally have a lot of questions

[1:29:59] in how to shape this and how how we

[1:30:02] address these technology concerns while

[1:30:05] helping public safety and what that

[1:30:07] looks like. And I'm not positive what it

[1:30:09] looks like yet. And so I encourage the

[1:30:10] community to continue to reach out to

[1:30:13] us, but also to you the rest of the

[1:30:15] community so that everyone can give us

[1:30:16] that feedback so that we can draft

[1:30:17] something that really reflects what our

[1:30:19] community needs. So thank you.

[1:30:22] » All right. Thank you very much. Oh,

[1:30:24] Council President Marts.

[1:30:26] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, first and

[1:30:28] foremost, I want to thank the public.

[1:30:30] You know, we are not done uh with the

[1:30:33] subject of ALPRs. We This is um to quote

[1:30:36] my favorite politician, this is not the

[1:30:39] end. Uh this is not the beginning of the

[1:30:42] end, but this is perhaps the end of the

[1:30:44] beginning. That's Winston Churchill. Uh

[1:30:47] so, but the public has been both

[1:30:50] consistently passionate and extremely

[1:30:53] focused in its feedback. I mean, I I am

[1:30:56] I am always sensitive to what uh the

[1:30:58] community hears and what our um city

[1:31:01] employees hear and and what I have heard

[1:31:03] is a real respect for the IPD, but a

[1:31:06] real concern about this technology. And

[1:31:08] I think that fundamental um point is

[1:31:11] extremely important for for everyone to

[1:31:13] understand. I want to thank my fellow

[1:31:14] council members on this issue. you know,

[1:31:16] later on a different issue, you're going

[1:31:18] to hear me say that, you know, talk

[1:31:20] about the three biggest issues that

[1:31:21] we've had as a city in the 17 years that

[1:31:23] I've been on. I consider this one of the

[1:31:25] three. And the fact that three

[1:31:28] ostensively four of our council members

[1:31:31] are relatively new um to the council is

[1:31:33] is is really quite extraordinary to have

[1:31:36] such a major issue come up with so many

[1:31:39] um essentially new council members um

[1:31:41] and yet still be able to find um the

[1:31:44] important conversations with the

[1:31:46] administration. Again, we're not done

[1:31:47] with this topic tonight, but we're

[1:31:49] taking a major step forward in both

[1:31:51] addressing community concern and council

[1:31:53] concern. So, I want to thank my fellow

[1:31:54] council members for this important

[1:31:56] discussion and of course I'll be

[1:31:57] supporting this. Thank you.

[1:31:59] » Thank you, Council Member Boyd.

[1:32:02] » Thank you, echoing all the thanks for

[1:32:04] the um detailed, incredible work that

[1:32:06] staff has done and uh to the community.

[1:32:10] Um thank you so much for your feedback.

[1:32:13] Um and uh again I welcome echo council

[1:32:16] member Adair of um

[1:32:20] help your feedback will help build what

[1:32:23] ultimately our guard rails will be on

[1:32:26] any future technology. And uh I've often

[1:32:31] uh for me sometimes it's easier to you

[1:32:33] know definitively say what we don't

[1:32:34] want. I think the community has

[1:32:36] definitively said what they do not want

[1:32:38] and then sometimes the more difficult

[1:32:40] work is deciding what we do want. And so

[1:32:42] I look forward to our future policy

[1:32:45] conversation on that. Thank you.

[1:32:48] » Thank you very much. And Dale, congrats.

[1:32:50] You've been a rock star through this

[1:32:51] whole process. And uh if we gave out

[1:32:53] gold stars, you would get a gold star.

[1:32:55] Uh maybe we should start giving out gold

[1:32:57] stars, Wally.

[1:32:59] Okay. There's no further discussion. The

[1:33:00] motion for the council is to approve

[1:33:01] resolution number 2026-13 authorizing

[1:33:04] the acceptance of $452,477

[1:33:07] in grant funding from the fiscal year 26

[1:33:09] discretionary community funding program

[1:33:11] for the purchase of tasers and interview

[1:33:12] room equipment for the Esqua Police

[1:33:13] Department and restricting any city

[1:33:15] action related to automated license

[1:33:16] plate reader technology until after a

[1:33:17] policy has been approved by the city

[1:33:19] council and authorized the inclusion of

[1:33:20] $452,477

[1:33:23] in revenues and related expenditures in

[1:33:24] a subsequent 2026 budget amendment if

[1:33:28] needed. All those in favor, please say

[1:33:30] I.

[1:33:31] » I.

[1:33:33] » All those opposed, nay. And that passes

[1:33:36] unanimously. Uh the next item of

[1:33:39] business is ID 2037 Eastside Fire and

[1:33:41] Rescue Long-Term Governance and

[1:33:42] Financing Options. And our city

[1:33:44] administrator is going to give us a

[1:33:46] briefing.

[1:33:53] I was just concerned about our facility

[1:33:55] staff waiting through this for the next

[1:33:57] position, but they said they're okay. Uh

[1:34:00] Mr. Mayor, members of the council, good

[1:34:01] evening. Uh we've placed on the agenda

[1:34:03] this evening at the request of Mayor

[1:34:05] Mullet and the council leadership a

[1:34:08] discussion regarding East Side Fire and

[1:34:10] Rescue uh future organization and

[1:34:12] finance issues. Chief AO, thank you for

[1:34:15] for coming this evening. I think he did

[1:34:17] a nice job of kind of setting uh context

[1:34:19] to this. Uh council member Walsh has

[1:34:22] shared uh updates uh with the Epher

[1:34:25] board's discussions over the last uh

[1:34:28] couple of months, but it was the feeling

[1:34:30] of Mayor Mullet and council leadership

[1:34:32] that perhaps this was an opportune time

[1:34:34] for the council to have a larger

[1:34:36] discussion about where we are at this

[1:34:38] point, what the council feels it needs

[1:34:41] uh to instruct its representatives on

[1:34:43] the Ephraer board as these discussions

[1:34:44] move forward. So, uh, that really is the

[1:34:47] the presentation, Mr. Mayor. Um, we're

[1:34:49] certainly happy to answer any questions.

[1:34:50] Uh, Kristen was on the call, she's no

[1:34:53] longer. Uh, but, uh, we'll be happy to

[1:34:56] answer any questions, but certainly, I

[1:34:57] think between yourself, uh, Council

[1:34:59] President Mart, you could lead the

[1:35:01] discussion, uh, from the the the talks

[1:35:04] that were had last week.

[1:35:08] Council President Marter, the uh

[1:35:12] I think the fairy board is obviously

[1:35:15] going to make a fairly large decision to

[1:35:17] decide kind of as we heard I think from

[1:35:21] Chief Ajo during the public comments in

[1:35:23] terms of the three options going

[1:35:25] forward. And I think at council

[1:35:28] leadership meeting last week on

[1:35:29] Wednesday, I think it was discussed that

[1:35:31] well as council president Mars just said

[1:35:33] like four of our council members are

[1:35:35] fairly new in this process. And I think

[1:35:37] the kind of discussion was to maybe

[1:35:41] discuss if the council is ready to have

[1:35:43] an opinion on those three options

[1:35:45] already or if the council would like to

[1:35:46] kind of request to get more information

[1:35:48] from East Side Fire and Rescue at a

[1:35:50] committee the whole meeting so they can

[1:35:52] understand kind of what the different

[1:35:54] permutations and options look like and

[1:35:56] what the impacts are to the community.

[1:35:57] And I think that's what prompted this

[1:35:59] discussion. And I see council member

[1:36:00] Walsh who is our rep bunny side fire and

[1:36:03] rescue. Council member Walsh.

[1:36:05] » Thanks. Um, I just wanted to start with

[1:36:08] kind of a clarification on what the June

[1:36:12] meeting is, but also I'm just very

[1:36:16] excited and passionate about this. And

[1:36:18] so, I'm sorry if some of my lengthy

[1:36:20] updates have given the impression that

[1:36:22] things are moving really quickly or that

[1:36:24] we're hitting a point of no return. Um,

[1:36:26] the Ephro board has really tried to take

[1:36:28] a very intentional path in having this

[1:36:32] conversation. As some of you who were on

[1:36:34] council last uh budget cycle know, we've

[1:36:38] had some really difficult budget

[1:36:40] seasons. Um, and seeing those costs

[1:36:44] increase has been really difficult. East

[1:36:47] Side Fire and Rescue really was

[1:36:48] established

[1:36:50] as an innovation in bringing together,

[1:36:56] you know, regional governance for a fire

[1:36:59] service, but we did so before the state

[1:37:02] had any kind of revenue levers. And so

[1:37:06] what we got was this really great cost

[1:37:09] savings from shared services. and we end

[1:37:14] up with, you know, more services than we

[1:37:17] could necessarily do with an individual

[1:37:19] fire service. That's why we've seen so

[1:37:21] many cities and fire districts move

[1:37:24] toward this east side fire and rescue

[1:37:26] model. But what we didn't get was any

[1:37:29] additional revenue levers. And so when

[1:37:31] the state developed this idea of

[1:37:35] regional fire authorities, we saw a lot

[1:37:37] of communities and fire districts

[1:37:39] adopting this. But what East Side Fire

[1:37:43] and Rescue tried to do was this very

[1:37:44] intentional path of saying, "Okay,

[1:37:46] what's our problem statement that's

[1:37:48] around these budget issues and that's a

[1:37:51] similar um and then reviewing all of our

[1:37:54] limited options." So, I'll put it out

[1:37:56] there. There's basically three options.

[1:37:58] Stay the course and continue having all

[1:38:00] of the cities and fire districts fund

[1:38:03] via just their revenue model. The second

[1:38:06] one is consolidate into a fire district.

[1:38:11] Um that gives us additional revenue

[1:38:14] options, but we lose a lot of governance

[1:38:18] because none of us can represent on that

[1:38:21] board. It just becomes an elected fire

[1:38:24] district board. And then the third is

[1:38:26] explore a regional fire authority that

[1:38:29] can give us some of the governance

[1:38:32] options as well as um the additional

[1:38:36] financing levers. There's a few other

[1:38:39] pieces and you know tweaks in there but

[1:38:41] those are the three main ideas. So we

[1:38:45] were reviewing those limited options and

[1:38:47] then discussing the pros and cons of

[1:38:49] each of them from three different

[1:38:51] perspectives. the residents, what do

[1:38:54] they get if we make a change? The

[1:38:56] jurisdictions, you know, the cities and

[1:38:58] the fire districts and also East Side

[1:39:00] Fire and Rescue. So, I wanted to start

[1:39:02] with why you've been hearing a lot about

[1:39:04] that is because East Side Fire and

[1:39:06] Rescue Board has been going through that

[1:39:09] conversation and educating ourselves so

[1:39:12] that we can make an educated movement

[1:39:15] forward. That being said,

[1:39:18] the decision point for Epher on June

[1:39:21] 11th is a vote merely to approve

[1:39:25] that the chief begin education of our

[1:39:29] member jurisdictions, which is the city

[1:39:31] and fire districts.

[1:39:33] There is no vote saying

[1:39:36] regional fire authority is it all of

[1:39:39] that. That decision is the cities and

[1:39:42] the fire districts. Um, but we wanted to

[1:39:46] ensure that the board's questions were

[1:39:48] answered and we could kind of agree on a

[1:39:50] general direction before asking the

[1:39:53] chief to go into all of those

[1:39:54] discussions which we're proposing would

[1:39:57] happen from July to October. Um, so I

[1:40:02] guess I I want to clarify that the

[1:40:05] decision point

[1:40:08] is direction and education, but our

[1:40:13] direction to the chief is going to be

[1:40:16] that each of the cities and fire

[1:40:18] districts should go through the full

[1:40:21] pros and cons of all of these options

[1:40:24] along with the board's recommendation

[1:40:26] because it would be too difficult to it

[1:40:30] it wouldn't be true to just give one

[1:40:34] recommendation and not have that full

[1:40:36] conversation out there. Um, and Isiqua

[1:40:41] maintains the decision authority on

[1:40:43] whether to join a planning committee to

[1:40:47] create a fire district or a regional

[1:40:49] fire authority. Once something like that

[1:40:52] is created, it's about 18 months of

[1:40:55] detailed work on what are all of the

[1:40:57] levers, what are all of the pieces, and

[1:41:00] then everything would go in front of

[1:41:03] voters if we went down um that path. So,

[1:41:07] happy to answer any questions. I'm sure

[1:41:09] the chief can answer a lot of questions,

[1:41:12] but I just wanted to clarify there are

[1:41:14] no

[1:41:16] decisions

[1:41:18] in June at the Eastside Fire and Rescue

[1:41:21] that tie Isaakqua's hands. It's just

[1:41:25] whether or not we feel that we're ready

[1:41:29] um from an eastside fire and rescue

[1:41:31] perspective for the chief to go out and

[1:41:32] start the conversation with each of the

[1:41:35] cities.

[1:41:36] » Okay. before I call on Council President

[1:41:38] Martz, but I think I mean if I'm looking

[1:41:40] at Chief Ajo correctly from his public

[1:41:42] comments, I thought there was at the

[1:41:45] June 11th meeting going to be a request

[1:41:47] to pick one of those three options as a

[1:41:50] initial

[1:41:52] study path. Is that correct? Mhm.

[1:41:55] » My direction to the chief as vice chair

[1:41:58] was that we as a board from Epher make a

[1:42:03] recommendation

[1:42:04] of a path and use that and present all

[1:42:11] of the options to each of the cities

[1:42:13] because there is no locking in on

[1:42:17] anything because each of the cities

[1:42:20] would have to choose to join a planning

[1:42:22] committee.

[1:42:23] » Okay. And I'll turn to Council President

[1:42:24] Marts. I think at leadership the

[1:42:26] discussion was it seemed like the order

[1:42:27] was kind of flip-flopped. It seemed like

[1:42:29] it would be like let's have the

[1:42:30] discussion with the council of how the

[1:42:32] options look so the council could kind

[1:42:34] of weigh in. But go President Council

[1:42:36] President Marts.

[1:42:38] » So I'm a former member of East Side Fire

[1:42:41] and Rescue board. Um I I think there's a

[1:42:45] lot there's a lot of questions. I don't

[1:42:46] know I don't really understand the the

[1:42:49] timing all that well right at the

[1:42:51] moment. I guess I'm a visual person. and

[1:42:52] I like presentations. Um, at the heart

[1:42:55] of it, um, and I'm not arguing one way

[1:42:58] or the other. I'm just

[1:43:00] enunciating the the questions I guess

[1:43:02] that I have. At the heart of it, it's a

[1:43:04] decision about continuing to carry this

[1:43:06] cost ourselves or to potentially move to

[1:43:10] an option where somebody else carries

[1:43:12] those costs, right? With legislated

[1:43:15] options that are different than us

[1:43:17] carrying those costs. Um, one of the

[1:43:20] things that I haven't seen, I've heard

[1:43:22] whispers. People who are for say one

[1:43:25] thing, people who are against say

[1:43:26] another thing. I would really love to

[1:43:28] see comps. I would really love to see

[1:43:30] what the actual costs of fire districts

[1:43:33] are for residents. What the actual costs

[1:43:35] of RFAS are for residents versus the

[1:43:38] costs that we have because my

[1:43:39] understanding is, and somebody can tell

[1:43:42] me if I'm wrong, but we actually

[1:43:44] Eastside Fire and Rescue does a pretty

[1:43:45] amazing job with the money that it has.

[1:43:47] And we have we pay although costs have

[1:43:51] been going up um we pay a very

[1:43:53] reasonable amount of money still a huge

[1:43:55] number but a but for our residents if

[1:43:59] you ask our residents how much do you

[1:44:00] spend for your $500,000 house or

[1:44:03] whatever um that we do very well with

[1:44:06] East Side Fire and Rescue. So I that's

[1:44:07] part of what I would want to understand

[1:44:09] um before going much further. Um and

[1:44:12] then I'm still I am honestly still

[1:44:14] confused about options and timing. We're

[1:44:16] part of a large group. East Side Fire

[1:44:18] and Rescue in incorporates three cities

[1:44:22] and several fire districts and um

[1:44:26] contract cities. And I won't I I tell

[1:44:29] you today, I don't really understand how

[1:44:31] this, you know, there's game theory on

[1:44:33] this whole thing, right? And I don't

[1:44:35] really understand how the game theory

[1:44:37] works out when there's so many different

[1:44:38] organizations, some of whom are not in

[1:44:42] as and I hate to use the word rosy

[1:44:44] because Wall-E will probably blanch

[1:44:46] because I'm sure our finances aren't

[1:44:47] really rosy, but our finances are rosy

[1:44:49] compared to some of the other partners

[1:44:51] in East Side Fire and Rescue and that

[1:44:53] gets into some of the conversations. So,

[1:44:54] these are all questions that I have and

[1:44:56] again I'm not saying we should do one

[1:44:57] thing or the other, but they're a bunch

[1:44:59] of question marks that I have today

[1:45:01] tonight and wondering how we proceed as

[1:45:04] a city to get those question marks

[1:45:07] answered because I do worry that if we

[1:45:10] go down if if East Side as a

[1:45:12] organization goes down a certain path,

[1:45:14] our options will be limited um after

[1:45:17] that decision is made.

[1:45:19] » Thank you, Council Member Boyd.

[1:45:21] Um I think it would be helpful for me to

[1:45:23] get some clarity when we talk about uh

[1:45:25] education. I I guess you can tell me if

[1:45:27] my what I'm picturing is correct or not

[1:45:30] not of uh if the board effectively gives

[1:45:34] their preferred path. Um and then that

[1:45:38] means that the chief or representatives

[1:45:41] of the chief go to the different member

[1:45:44] jurisdictions, cities and the education

[1:45:47] portion is them saying this was the

[1:45:51] epher board's preferred path. Here are

[1:45:54] the other paths and just okay sorry if

[1:45:56] I'm just repeating back to you what you

[1:45:58] said but okay if that accurately

[1:46:00] captures it that's helping me understand

[1:46:01] a little better. Thank you. And I think

[1:46:03] tonight's discussion is decide if this

[1:46:04] council is ready to pick one of those

[1:46:06] three preferred paths tonight because

[1:46:08] there's not another council meeting

[1:46:10] between now and June 11th. So that

[1:46:13] decision would have to be made because

[1:46:16] Aqua as a member of Epher at this point

[1:46:19] is expected to take a position on which

[1:46:21] three of those paths to pick and I think

[1:46:23] that's the reason we're having this

[1:46:24] conversation. Council member Nichols

[1:46:32] It seems like there's a good amount of

[1:46:33] confusion just around the timing of

[1:46:35] different events and when so what the

[1:46:37] what so there's confusion around what

[1:46:39] the events are, what the timing of those

[1:46:42] events are and what the implications of

[1:46:44] those events are and also

[1:46:50] doors or not. Um that would probably be

[1:46:53] a a good presentation. We have a June

[1:46:56] 8th cow. Um, I appreciate that's not a

[1:47:00] scheduled meeting, but that seems like

[1:47:01] it might be a good time to if that can

[1:47:03] be put together briefly as a overview of

[1:47:08] just lay out a calendar. Here's the

[1:47:10] decisions that will come. Here's the

[1:47:11] ones that are

[1:47:14] that we that we really can't walk back

[1:47:15] from by statute. Here's the ones that

[1:47:19] even though we could walk back from

[1:47:21] them, they will h they will put us on a

[1:47:23] path that may be harder to walk back

[1:47:24] from. and here's the ones that really

[1:47:26] are not real decisions at all. They're

[1:47:29] moreformational. I think that's the bit

[1:47:32] of information that we're lacking at the

[1:47:33] moment. Uh I don't think there's any way

[1:47:35] we can make a decision tonight. I don't

[1:47:36] see how that would be possible. Um but

[1:47:38] that seems like the biggest missing

[1:47:40] piece that would be good to get out as

[1:47:43] soon as possible essentially. Council

[1:47:45] member Adair.

[1:47:47] » Uh as uh the other member on East Side

[1:47:50] Fire, um I the only thing I'll add to

[1:47:52] this in terms of my perspective on it

[1:47:54] and the perspective on this decision. Um

[1:47:57] you know, I've had discussions with some

[1:47:59] members here and I've also, you know,

[1:48:01] this has been one of the things on my

[1:48:02] mind a lot because I think this is a

[1:48:04] very big consequential decision and has

[1:48:06] a a ton of complexity to it. So I fully

[1:48:08] understand people's confusions, people's

[1:48:10] questions on this because every option

[1:48:12] has so many different pros and cons and

[1:48:15] things to it. So how I've viewed this

[1:48:16] June meeting discussion has not been a

[1:48:19] this is a point of no return. This is a

[1:48:21] um key decision point other than the

[1:48:25] board having been presented all the

[1:48:27] options. Is there an option that is not

[1:48:30] just stay the course that we should add

[1:48:34] get more information on? Because one of

[1:48:36] the options as mentioned is just stay

[1:48:37] the course, leave everything as is. And

[1:48:39] so if the board were to decide that,

[1:48:40] then everything would stay, nothing

[1:48:42] would change. And more that the board's

[1:48:44] discussion is about do is any of these

[1:48:47] other options worth pursuing? And if so,

[1:48:50] we're saying let's pursue one of these

[1:48:52] options as a possibility to to do

[1:48:55] because everything so many of the

[1:48:57] questions to this that what it's going

[1:48:58] to cost our residents, what it's going

[1:49:00] to be actually can't even fully be known

[1:49:03] yet until we into like even like the

[1:49:05] planning committee. So, it's more

[1:49:08] is this is this something that East Side

[1:49:10] Fire should look into and then again

[1:49:12] start presenting to the city, start

[1:49:14] seeing what city involvement is. And so

[1:49:17] that's how I have perceived this this

[1:49:18] decision to be made next week is that

[1:49:21] are any of these choices worth worth you

[1:49:25] know continuing down the path but I do

[1:49:27] not see it as any kind of you know

[1:49:29] definitive gate that you know requires

[1:49:32] anything that is not able to be backed

[1:49:35] out of it's really just like should we

[1:49:38] proceed should we look into something

[1:49:40] that is not stay the course and so

[1:49:41] that's how I have kind of perceived this

[1:49:43] decision coming up if that helps clarify

[1:49:46] anything for anybody else?

[1:49:47] » Council member Joe,

[1:49:49] » Thank you. Um,

[1:49:52] when I first came on council in 1999, I

[1:49:55] didn't request uh East Side Fire and

[1:49:57] Rescue as a committee, but I was placed

[1:49:58] on East Side Fire and Rescue as as a

[1:50:00] committee. And they were going through

[1:50:02] the initial growing pains of of a new

[1:50:04] organization. And it was um refreshing

[1:50:08] and invigorating to see a new

[1:50:10] organization get its legs under it under

[1:50:12] under it and and to flourish along the

[1:50:15] way. But at that time there was and

[1:50:18] there always has been discussion of how

[1:50:20] to fund the organization, how to

[1:50:22] properly make sure that uh all the

[1:50:24] members were paying their fair share

[1:50:26] etc. This is one avenue of regional fire

[1:50:29] authority that needs to be explored and

[1:50:31] it was recently put into place by the

[1:50:33] legislature. I think we deserve to have

[1:50:36] it explored, but we also need to keep in

[1:50:38] mind that we probably need more

[1:50:39] information. Um,

[1:50:42] this last month we we devoted $800,000

[1:50:45] in our in our budget to East Side Fire

[1:50:48] and Rescue, which amounts to about 13%

[1:50:50] of the monthly expenditures. So, it's a

[1:50:52] fairly big chunk and we need to make

[1:50:54] sure that we understand all the options

[1:50:56] before we um give our representatives u

[1:51:00] um guidance on how we want to go

[1:51:02] forward. So, I would be in favor of

[1:51:03] bringing it to a Cal when we have the

[1:51:05] appropriate scheduling so that we can

[1:51:07] get some of those questions answered. Um

[1:51:10] uh and uh I would encourage leadership

[1:51:12] to reach out to each of us to um give us

[1:51:16] some additional an additional cheat

[1:51:17] sheet if you will and then we can ask

[1:51:19] our questions from there uh and try to

[1:51:22] have a good basis of of uh the issues

[1:51:25] that we think are are um at the heart of

[1:51:27] things for us right now that can be

[1:51:29] discussed at that uh cal whenever it

[1:51:32] does get scheduled. Thank you.

[1:51:34] Can I ask uh Chief AO would you be able

[1:51:37] to answer a question if you I guess on

[1:51:40] Council Member Joe's

[1:51:42] is there a is is there a time

[1:51:45] sensitivity to making this initial

[1:51:48] decision on June 11th or is that date

[1:51:50] have flexibility to it or what's there I

[1:51:53] guess what's the sense like if if the

[1:51:56] council were to request to have more

[1:51:58] information is it like well we can't

[1:52:00] wait because we have to go forward on

[1:52:02] June 11th for X Y and Z or what's that

[1:52:04] look like? I guess from from Epher's

[1:52:06] perspective.

[1:52:06] » Yeah, it's a fair question. Um,

[1:52:08] [clears throat] excuse me. Uh, yeah,

[1:52:11] June 11th is not a a drop deadad date on

[1:52:14] that. That was one that we had um

[1:52:17] decided upon only because we've been

[1:52:19] talking about this since March as we go

[1:52:22] through the educational process. Um,

[1:52:24] there is two partners that uh are within

[1:52:27] East Side Fire and Rescue that are have

[1:52:30] already made a decision and they are

[1:52:31] moving forward. Um uh

[1:52:35] » Is that 38 in in Northbend?

[1:52:38] » Yeah. And so in fact tomorrow night the

[1:52:40] city of Northbend is going to appoint

[1:52:42] their three planning committee members.

[1:52:44] So some of it was to try to get in

[1:52:46] alignment uh for the overall

[1:52:49] conversation. So there isn't a couple

[1:52:51] partners that are getting either too far

[1:52:54] out ahead of the rest of either overall.

[1:52:57] So we can try to coordinate this as a

[1:53:00] concerted effort and maintain East Side

[1:53:03] Fire as the original founders were um

[1:53:06] deciding uh those we do have some

[1:53:08] partners as uh council member Walsh

[1:53:11] identified was do have some financial

[1:53:13] concerns where they are within two years

[1:53:16] that they have to make some decisions.

[1:53:18] Um, and being this an 18 months a 2-year

[1:53:21] process, uh, the clock is ticking. As

[1:53:24] far as East Side Fire, uh, the existing

[1:53:26] ILA will expire in 31. So, trying to

[1:53:31] coordinate something with, uh, five

[1:53:33] partners plus the potential of

[1:53:36] incorporating some of the contract

[1:53:38] agencies if they so choose, uh, ahead of

[1:53:42] the expiration of that ILA can be a

[1:53:45] lengthy process. um not only as we

[1:53:48] talked about here is educating all of

[1:53:50] our elected bodies, but also the

[1:53:52] education that the community is going to

[1:53:55] to need to understand what the direction

[1:53:57] is um from our governing bodies. So

[1:54:00] yeah, sorry longwinded.

[1:54:02] » No, no, that's so and then is there an

[1:54:05] example like if 38 and Northbend formed

[1:54:08] an RFA? Yes, sir.

[1:54:09] » Is there any examples of RF? There's I

[1:54:12] mean East Side Fire and Rescue is such a

[1:54:13] unique model. I think it was kind of

[1:54:15] ahead of its time or still is a unique

[1:54:18] model I guess.

[1:54:19] » Yeah.

[1:54:19] » So there's really no examples of RFAS

[1:54:21] partnering with like an Epher because

[1:54:22] Epher is really one of a kind, right? Is

[1:54:25] that fair? So there's really

[1:54:26] » Yeah. There's no other fire departments

[1:54:28] districts in Washington state that are

[1:54:31] structured the way East Side is.

[1:54:32] » Yeah.

[1:54:33] » So yeah, it's a unicorn from that

[1:54:34] standpoint.

[1:54:35] » Yeah. Council member Walsh.

[1:54:37] » Yeah. Uh two statements on this. First

[1:54:39] of all, I've talked with the chief. Um

[1:54:42] if Northbend and D38 do form an RFA,

[1:54:45] they can continue to be a part of East

[1:54:48] Side Fire and Rescue even if the other

[1:54:50] um jurisdictions do not. That would just

[1:54:53] much like we have fire districts that

[1:54:55] have um a different funding model and a

[1:54:58] fire benefit charge, they could do so

[1:55:01] and that would be just their payment.

[1:55:03] So, we've asked that question, but one

[1:55:06] of the reasons we are moving on this

[1:55:09] timeline is because D38

[1:55:12] won't have money in two years. And what

[1:55:15] does that mean for East Side Fire and

[1:55:17] Rescue as an organization? Can we keep

[1:55:20] the band together? Can we keep

[1:55:21] everything moving? And then if D38 and

[1:55:25] Northbend are setting up their own RFA

[1:55:29] planning committee,

[1:55:32] you know, I know that we could join in

[1:55:38] at a later date, but I do get worried

[1:55:41] about another organization starting to

[1:55:44] make decisions and going down a path

[1:55:48] that we then have to push into if we

[1:55:52] decide that's the right move for us. So

[1:55:56] I think toward what council member Adair

[1:55:59] said about the idea of why is the East

[1:56:02] Side Fire and Rescue Board making a

[1:56:05] decision and a recommendation at this

[1:56:06] point is just if we recommend to

[1:56:10] continue funding as is. There is no

[1:56:13] action for the chief to take to educate

[1:56:17] all of the cities and fire districts. If

[1:56:20] we do recommend a path forward, then the

[1:56:24] goal is to do all of the education on

[1:56:27] what are the pros and cons of each of

[1:56:29] these

[1:56:31] and why the Epher board recommended a

[1:56:35] certain path um

[1:56:38] but then any organizations can or can't

[1:56:43] join in

[1:56:45] um or continue paying with the current

[1:56:49] model that we have. It just would be it

[1:56:53] would continue to take up a very large

[1:56:55] portion of our budget if we continue on

[1:56:58] um with this same model.

[1:57:04] So I guess

[1:57:07] Chief Ajo, it seems like the the

[1:57:08] decision on June 11 you're saying isn't

[1:57:12] like it's not like a drop dead date, but

[1:57:15] so the

[1:57:17] I guess this would maybe be an offline

[1:57:19] conversation. It's just to figure out

[1:57:21] like is there time for a committee the

[1:57:23] whole discussion to go through some of

[1:57:25] the permutations or not. Uh,

[1:57:29] and that just becomes a question of what

[1:57:31] date makes the most sense for that, I

[1:57:33] guess. But council president Marts.

[1:57:35] » Yeah, I just want to plus one council

[1:57:37] member Nichols suggestion of bringing it

[1:57:39] to a cow, whether it's on the ETH, which

[1:57:41] I will unfortunately not be able to

[1:57:42] attend, um, or a different date, coming

[1:57:45] back with some of the information, in

[1:57:47] particular the comps. I I hear council

[1:57:49] member Adair. um some of the financials

[1:57:52] aren't particularly understood but we

[1:57:54] can see right granted epher is a unicorn

[1:57:57] okay how do we compare to fire districts

[1:57:59] how do we compare to RFAS that are out

[1:58:01] there right I have heard a lot of

[1:58:03] opinions about RFAS but as you and I

[1:58:06] know the the bucks

[1:58:09] you the bucks really tell a story all

[1:58:12] their own so that plus other

[1:58:15] supplemental information um you know I I

[1:58:18] mean I hear

[1:58:21] There's still this question about game

[1:58:22] theory, right? And there's organizations

[1:58:24] that are already moving forward and

[1:58:25] that's already going to circumscribe

[1:58:27] that's already changing the landscape,

[1:58:29] but I would like to understand the

[1:58:30] landscape um better at that cow whenever

[1:58:33] whenever it occurs. Thank you,

[1:58:35] » Council Member Dair. Um, I think my

[1:58:38] question is kind of in terms of the

[1:58:40] clarity of this discussion we're having

[1:58:42] here is that is there are we trying to

[1:58:45] get to either an answer on what how

[1:58:48] we're supposed to vote on the 11th or

[1:58:51] trying to see if East Side Fire can have

[1:58:53] not have the decision on that date and

[1:58:56] is that what we're trying to get to

[1:58:58] today? Um, and that's what I'm trying to

[1:59:01] kind of clarify in terms of where where

[1:59:02] we're going in today's discussion. um is

[1:59:06] yeah what we're trying to say here and

[1:59:07] and if if we are saying we need to move

[1:59:09] that date is that possible because like

[1:59:11] it's not just our voice that's at that

[1:59:12] meeting so yeah what that looks like

[1:59:15] » Uh deputy president Jay

[1:59:18] » Um yeah I think I mean I just want to

[1:59:20] reiterate what I think has been said

[1:59:22] before which is that this is you know no

[1:59:24] matter how you slice it fire is a very

[1:59:26] big portion of our city budget second

[1:59:29] possibly only to police in terms of our

[1:59:31] general so any decision that we make I

[1:59:34] do think it is very important that our

[1:59:36] whole council is very cleareyed and

[1:59:37] knowledgeable about all the different

[1:59:39] aspects of it including you know the

[1:59:40] funding models what a fire benefit

[1:59:43] charge is. I mean I have no idea. So I'm

[1:59:46] very much looking forward to being

[1:59:47] educated on this. Um I think you know I

[1:59:51] I do think it's important for us to as a

[1:59:54] council learn about all those different

[1:59:55] things before we make a decision one way

[1:59:57] or the other. If the decision that's

[2:00:00] being made on the 11th really is just,

[2:00:02] you know, oh, this is, you know, giving

[2:00:04] the chief approval to go to the councils

[2:00:06] and educate them about all the different

[2:00:09] options. I think that's fine. But I also

[2:00:11] think it might be a bit premature to

[2:00:12] say, you know, oh, here are the options

[2:00:14] that we think are the best ways forward.

[2:00:16] I think we do need a full, you know,

[2:00:19] exploration of what all the different

[2:00:21] options are before we can say, oh, yeah,

[2:00:23] this is, you know, the one that we want

[2:00:25] to recommend. Unless you know there's

[2:00:26] something where it's too too much staff

[2:00:28] time to go into all three of those

[2:00:30] options in detail and you really can

[2:00:31] only choose one. So I guess my question

[2:00:33] to you Chief Ajo would be is it

[2:00:36] realistic to you know give the full

[2:00:38] council an overview of what all the

[2:00:40] different options are and what the

[2:00:41] potential you know financial etc um

[2:00:44] implications would be.

[2:00:45] » Yeah. Uh I already have the PowerPoint

[2:00:47] built. We just went through it uh at the

[2:00:49] last epher board meeting and I've uh to

[2:00:52] answer some of your question, I've

[2:00:53] already gone out and started educating

[2:00:55] uh some of our contract agencies. In

[2:00:58] fact, I've got another presentation to

[2:00:59] do tomorrow night uh which is walking

[2:01:01] the commission through uh to council

[2:01:04] member Walsh's comment earlier. We

[2:01:06] didn't want to waste your time if epher

[2:01:08] board says no, we're happy with how it

[2:01:10] is. So then that puts puts a pin in it

[2:01:13] right there. Um, so, uh, it may seem a

[2:01:17] little bit out of sequence, um, on

[2:01:19] there, but we're just trying to

[2:01:21] represect your all of your time.

[2:01:26] » Council member Boyd.

[2:01:28] » Thank you, Chief. If I could ask as the

[2:01:30] um I guess newest like alternate member

[2:01:34] of the board who hasn't actually had a

[2:01:35] meeting yet, could you uh talk a little

[2:01:37] bit about the intersections of this um

[2:01:41] you know I'm hearing slower decision

[2:01:43] point uh with the eerone you know

[2:01:47] budgeting process cycle etc.

[2:01:50] » Yeah, those are run uh two independent

[2:01:53] timelines. Uh we still have to develop a

[2:01:56] 2728 budget process. Um uh our first

[2:02:01] meeting on that is June 9th with the

[2:02:03] subcommittee um uh on that. So the RFA

[2:02:08] conversation or the future consideration

[2:02:11] conversation

[2:02:12] uh that's going to take a lot longer

[2:02:15] through the budget process um to come up

[2:02:18] with the final determination.

[2:02:20] Ideally, we don't have to go through

[2:02:21] another budget process like this. Um but

[2:02:25] that is a decision for you all to make.

[2:02:29] Council member Walsh.

[2:02:31] » Okay. So reiterating what council member

[2:02:33] Adair said,

[2:02:39] what is the direction for the Epher reps

[2:02:43] for this next meeting? and maybe uh

[2:02:47] talking to the administration, is it

[2:02:49] possible to put something in on the June

[2:02:52] 8th committee of the whole meeting? I

[2:02:55] will say the EA board, it's taken us, I

[2:02:59] don't know, probably three or so hours

[2:03:02] of education on this to get to the point

[2:03:06] where we understand the financials, the

[2:03:09] governance model, what the options are,

[2:03:12] all of those things. So, I think that

[2:03:15] would be a lot to put this council

[2:03:17] through on such a quick time frame. But,

[2:03:22] I mean, I think council member Walsh,

[2:03:24] you just hit kind of the nail on the

[2:03:25] head. I think that's why people are

[2:03:26] saying, is the June 11th date absolutely

[2:03:28] necessary? Because, as I think you just

[2:03:30] accurately 100% described, there's two

[2:03:33] members of this council who sit on the

[2:03:34] Epher board. The presentations have been

[2:03:36] very lengthy and complicated. And I

[2:03:38] think the conversation of leadership was

[2:03:41] can we have one committee the whole

[2:03:43] discussion to kind of have a deeper

[2:03:45] dive. So the entire council kind of gets

[2:03:48] a little more cut up to speed before

[2:03:50] there's a you know just trying to I

[2:03:53] think I understand your sequencing

[2:03:55] question. I think at this point I think

[2:03:58] it's uh it's fair to say the education

[2:04:00] is not going to be a waste of time. I

[2:04:02] think it's going to be valuable. So, I

[2:04:05] think the council, every member of the

[2:04:07] council feels like they have enough

[2:04:08] information to say, "Yes, this makes

[2:04:10] sense." And uh I think that would just

[2:04:12] be the hope, but I think the the

[2:04:14] question is, as you say, we're just one

[2:04:17] member of that board. And so, I don't

[2:04:18] know if that date can be adjusted to

[2:04:21] because I agree with council member

[2:04:22] Walsh doing that same and council

[2:04:25] president Marks isn't here on the 8th.

[2:04:27] So, it would kind of be the committee

[2:04:29] the whole

[2:04:31] which would be July 13th, I think.

[2:04:33] Correct. City administrator would be the

[2:04:34] next one after June 8th. And so it's

[2:04:37] just a it's not like a timeline given

[2:04:40] the big scheme of what we're talking

[2:04:41] about. We're talking about a month uh

[2:04:44] difference or so. But I think there

[2:04:46] would I don't know. That's the question

[2:04:48] for this council. I think is is is the

[2:04:50] request to have the committee the whole

[2:04:53] discussion

[2:04:54] so the council can kind of figure out

[2:04:56] like

[2:04:58] how they would want their ephera reps to

[2:05:00] vote during that

[2:05:04] vote when it does occur of which of

[2:05:06] those three options is the best one to

[2:05:08] kind of go down. So, the other part of

[2:05:11] the question is,

[2:05:14] does the city council feel like this is

[2:05:18] one of those doors that you can't go

[2:05:20] back through? I think we've tried to

[2:05:23] clarify that

[2:05:25] at this point the the goal of Epher

[2:05:30] making a recommendation and sending the

[2:05:34] chief or a representative out to each of

[2:05:36] the jurisdictions is like let's educate

[2:05:40] but there is no decision there isn't

[2:05:43] anything that locks us as a city in to

[2:05:47] any changes. we could continue paying

[2:05:50] via our current model even if every

[2:05:53] other organization within Epher goes a

[2:05:57] different pathway. So I I'm not sure

[2:06:01] what

[2:06:03] the city

[2:06:05] councils need to

[2:06:09] have the information before that vote

[2:06:12] whether that makes sense to me.

[2:06:16] Council member Rair.

[2:06:18] » Yeah. Again, I'll kind of clarify like

[2:06:20] how was saying my perspective and

[2:06:22] position on this has been almost like

[2:06:23] that the Ephford board has been

[2:06:26] a SSP committee has been a subcommittee

[2:06:30] going through digging in all the details

[2:06:32] and then saying, "Okay, here's what we

[2:06:33] think and now we're going to pass it up

[2:06:35] to council." Is how I've kind of seen

[2:06:38] this decision as about digging all the

[2:06:40] details, seeing what's there, and now

[2:06:41] we're going to pass it to the cities to

[2:06:43] actually look at this and see what each

[2:06:44] city sees. And I feel that once this

[2:06:48] decision made it was in June, I was kind

[2:06:50] of my perspective has been that it was

[2:06:52] going to involve probably quite a few

[2:06:55] months of discussions and education

[2:06:57] throughout this council on these

[2:06:58] different decisions. And so, you know, I

[2:07:01] I I'm I'm not positive that even pushing

[2:07:04] this decision a month is going to be

[2:07:05] enough time to educate this council to

[2:07:08] the extent that I think you want to be

[2:07:09] educated in terms of making a decision.

[2:07:11] Because for me, like saying I've seen

[2:07:12] this decision is not this isn't we're

[2:07:14] making an RFA. let's do this. This is

[2:07:16] okay. This seems worthwhile to get more

[2:07:18] information on and now let's send it to

[2:07:21] all the jurisdictions to now see what

[2:07:23] each individual jurisdiction thinks

[2:07:26] about it and if they support it or not

[2:07:28] because then if they don't again then

[2:07:30] that kills it there as well. So that's

[2:07:32] been my perspective of this decision and

[2:07:35] um how I'm treating it in terms of what

[2:07:37] my thought process.

[2:07:39] » Deputy President Jane. Yeah, I mean I

[2:07:42] think that if you know the decision on

[2:07:44] June 11th is just okay, is this

[2:07:46] something that's worth informing the

[2:07:47] city councils about and I think the

[2:07:50] answer is yes. Um, and then I think I

[2:07:53] mean based on you know the conversations

[2:07:55] that I've had with you council member

[2:07:56] Adair of like what the steps in the

[2:07:59] process are. I think there's a step in

[2:08:01] the process which is like we would have

[2:08:03] to create a 27 member board with like

[2:08:06] three representatives from every

[2:08:08] jurisdiction to actually explore the

[2:08:09] creation of a regional fire authority.

[2:08:11] And I think that would be a path where

[2:08:13] it's like then you're really committing

[2:08:16] to do it. So I don't think we're at that

[2:08:18] point yet. And I do think it's worth it

[2:08:19] for us to all become educated about the

[2:08:22] issue. And if the vote on the 11th is

[2:08:25] should we become more educated about

[2:08:26] RFAS, then I would personally, you know,

[2:08:29] be supportive of that.

[2:08:32] » But just to clarify, deputy president,

[2:08:33] you're saying that's different than

[2:08:35] saying this is our preferred route.

[2:08:37] You're saying a vote to educate is a

[2:08:39] slightly different

[2:08:41] » Kind of board decision on the 11th.

[2:08:42] Yeah.

[2:08:43] » Yeah. I I think if the vote is a vote to

[2:08:45] educate, then I'm in favor of that. And

[2:08:47] if it's a vote to educate about RFA

[2:08:50] specifically or a vote to educate about

[2:08:52] all the options, I would be in favor of

[2:08:54] a vote to educate us about all the

[2:08:55] different options.

[2:08:57] » Council President Marts.

[2:09:00] » So, I guess I'll just name my concern.

[2:09:03] Um, if we were to get back information

[2:09:05] that said that every single RFA jams the

[2:09:08] meter on price, right, then I would not

[2:09:14] be in favor of considering going down

[2:09:16] that path because we are a city that can

[2:09:19] afford to fund a fire department if the

[2:09:22] alternative to our city was a 50%

[2:09:25] increase in the cost of fire, even if it

[2:09:28] took it off of our shoulders, right, and

[2:09:31] put it on an independent agency.

[2:09:33] So this is my concern and why I would

[2:09:34] like the information in the form of a

[2:09:37] cow before this body makes a decision. I

[2:09:40] have heard through the rivine that RFAS

[2:09:43] jam the needle on cost. If that's not

[2:09:46] true,

[2:09:47] then it's worth considering. But if it

[2:09:49] is true, then I think it would be a bad

[2:09:52] decision for us to go down that path. So

[2:09:54] that's why I want supplemental

[2:09:56] information. I didn't want to go into it

[2:09:57] tonight because I don't want to didn't

[2:09:58] want to argue about for against RFAS,

[2:10:01] but that's the kind of stuff that real

[2:10:04] data washes away rumor and and innuendo.

[2:10:14] Okay. Uh, city ministry, I'm not sure.

[2:10:16] We've had a good discussion. I I don't I

[2:10:19] think uh leadership will

[2:10:23] be meeting again on Wednesday morning

[2:10:25] and we can kind of

[2:10:28] Mr. Mayor, members of the the council,

[2:10:31] um I think the last point that council

[2:10:33] member Jen made is a very interesting

[2:10:35] one and maybe worth a little bit further

[2:10:38] discussion because I think and please

[2:10:40] correct me deputy council president if

[2:10:41] I'm misstating this is that there is no

[2:10:44] preference in what you said that if the

[2:10:48] board if the epher board says let's

[2:10:49] educate on these items versus saying

[2:10:52] here is a preferred model to educate I

[2:10:55] think that's a significant difference

[2:10:57] and if the council's this evening is

[2:10:59] comfortable with that. Um perhaps that's

[2:11:02] sufficient to ask your representatives

[2:11:04] to make that distinction. Um I also want

[2:11:07] to go back to the council president's

[2:11:08] point about our partners. um some of our

[2:11:11] partners are not in rosy financial

[2:11:13] conditions and I think the circumstances

[2:11:15] that they're facing uh and this question

[2:11:18] are different than this council's and so

[2:11:20] if our representatives are able to share

[2:11:23] the concern of the council that says

[2:11:25] education is great but preference is not

[2:11:28] something that the isqua city council is

[2:11:29] comfortable with at this point maybe

[2:11:32] that's the right context of a discussion

[2:11:35] on June the 11th see what happens have

[2:11:38] your representatives report back and

[2:11:40] then decide next steps. But I think that

[2:11:42] distinction is a very key distinction

[2:11:44] that the deputy council president made

[2:11:46] and I would ask Mr. Mayor maybe the

[2:11:49] council could take a moment to talk

[2:11:51] further about that.

[2:11:53] I mean, I would agree that the deputy

[2:11:55] president Jen suggestion does seem to be

[2:11:57] the best because there is I've heard

[2:11:59] unanimous agreement from all seven.

[2:12:01] Well, I think Council Walsh is very up

[2:12:03] to speed already being the primary rep,

[2:12:05] but I think that the other I think would

[2:12:09] five of the seven would definitely are

[2:12:11] all saying very clearly, we would love

[2:12:12] to learn more and get educated more. So

[2:12:14] I think I think Deputy President Jen

[2:12:16] probably did have the best suggestion so

[2:12:19] far of a possibility of just framing it

[2:12:22] as we're definitely want to be educated

[2:12:24] more. Council member Nichols

[2:12:27] » Or Walsh.

[2:12:28] » Yeah, I I guess what I was going to say

[2:12:30] off of that is you know with my epher

[2:12:33] hat on epher vice chair hat on the

[2:12:37] request from the board there was to make

[2:12:40] a recommendation

[2:12:43] um there. So, I think that is going to

[2:12:44] be the motion on the table with my

[2:12:47] Isiqua City Council hat on. I can go to

[2:12:50] that meeting and make a request or an

[2:12:53] alternate motion that asks us merely to

[2:12:57] say, do we think the current model

[2:13:00] doesn't work and the others should be

[2:13:04] educated on, you know, or the

[2:13:06] jurisdiction should be educated on

[2:13:08] options and things like that. So, I'm

[2:13:10] comfortable with that. I just don't know

[2:13:12] if that's going to be something that

[2:13:14] passes the board.

[2:13:16] » And I don't think it's so much the

[2:13:17] current model doesn't work. I just think

[2:13:19] the current model could be working and

[2:13:20] there's still a benefit getting educated

[2:13:22] on other options. So I think I've heard

[2:13:25] consensus from this council tonight.

[2:13:27] Everyone's in favor of getting more

[2:13:28] education of what the options look like

[2:13:31] in the fire space. So it's not I think

[2:13:33] saying the current I don't think you

[2:13:35] even have to say that. I think it's just

[2:13:36] like the motion from isqua's perspective

[2:13:39] would just be we're in favor of getting

[2:13:42] more education of what the options look

[2:13:43] like in the fire space. Uh council

[2:13:45] member Nichols.

[2:13:47] » Yeah, going a bit off of what council

[2:13:51] Mal said, my I I appreciate the the idea

[2:13:55] from Deputy Council President to try to

[2:13:57] make this into more of anformational ask

[2:14:00] from the board, but we're not in

[2:14:02] control. Um, so we can make that ask,

[2:14:05] but or can still

[2:14:07] uh decide to take a different path than

[2:14:09] we would like since it's a large multi-

[2:14:11] agency board. Um, so it it still could

[2:14:13] be useful for us to try to schedule some

[2:14:16] time assuming it's possible. I don't

[2:14:18] know if it is ahead of that simply to

[2:14:20] arm our uh representatives with the best

[2:14:23] possible set of uh opinion of our best

[2:14:27] consensus at that time. Even if it's not

[2:14:29] a full fully informed consensus, um it

[2:14:32] could be better informed than it is at

[2:14:34] the moment.

[2:14:36] » Council member Boyd,

[2:14:38] » I feel like I'm maybe not fully

[2:14:40] appreciating the um

[2:14:43] board decision point, which is not any

[2:14:46] kind of point of no return, uh that says

[2:14:48] this is our preferred alternative. I

[2:14:50] guess is a hybrid of the education piece

[2:14:53] being here are the three different

[2:14:56] options you know status quo say the

[2:14:58] course etc of the three this is the

[2:15:01] board's preferred option but an equal

[2:15:05] amount of time is spent on all the other

[2:15:07] options and maybe there's some context

[2:15:09] given to the discussion of the board

[2:15:11] discussion. um we as a city can still

[2:15:15] decide, you know, hey, thanks board for

[2:15:17] that feedback and the three of us that

[2:15:20] would have weighed in on that. It's a

[2:15:21] bit weird getting on the timeline there

[2:15:23] for me, but um I I don't know. I guess

[2:15:26] I'm not

[2:15:28] having any particular worry about the we

[2:15:31] we can still decide

[2:15:34] what our thoughts are on the decision we

[2:15:38] have to make. Whatever the board's

[2:15:40] preferred alternative is

[2:15:45] » Uh council

[2:15:48] I didn't see who went first Walsh or

[2:15:50] Council Walsh. Go ahead. Um toward

[2:15:53] Council Member Nichols point, I can

[2:15:55] certainly share around the um

[2:15:57] presentation that uh Chief AO has made

[2:16:00] to the East Side Fire and Rescue Board,

[2:16:03] which does include many of the back of

[2:16:05] the napkin things about, you know, the

[2:16:08] finances of these two options and what

[2:16:11] the governance model is. I would be

[2:16:13] happy to give a quick, you know,

[2:16:17] PowerPoint or email about here's the

[2:16:19] pros and cons of each of the three as

[2:16:21] discussed by the board. and I would be

[2:16:23] happy to make some goof to the order

[2:16:26] comments and further discussion on the

[2:16:30] June 8th meeting um after I've sent that

[2:16:34] information out because I do think

[2:16:36] council member Nichols point of I can

[2:16:39] advocate for one way based on this

[2:16:41] conversation

[2:16:43] um but it isn't at all definitive that I

[2:16:47] can change

[2:16:49] what the motion is and what comes out of

[2:16:52] that board recommendation.

[2:16:54] » Council President Marts.

[2:16:56] » So I have perhaps a question for Chief

[2:16:59] AO and it comes back to this whole game

[2:17:01] theory thing, right? So let's just say

[2:17:06] we get to the 11th and everybody else

[2:17:10] says go and Isiqua says we don't know

[2:17:13] like we have lots of we have lots of

[2:17:15] questions still. How does that change

[2:17:17] the landscape? because the possibility

[2:17:21] of Isiqua going it alone or forming its

[2:17:24] own fire authority with whoever um you

[2:17:27] know we have the headquarters we have a

[2:17:28] bunch of fire stations we're at the

[2:17:30] heart of the district does it

[2:17:32] fundamentally change and and and our

[2:17:35] partners some of our partners may be

[2:17:37] watching this very council member this

[2:17:38] very meeting this evening wondering how

[2:17:40] isqua is going and hearing that Isiqua

[2:17:42] has a bunch of questions does it does it

[2:17:44] change the conversation that occurs at

[2:17:45] epher

[2:17:47] » Yeah anybody that uh looks at um uh

[2:17:54] pausing a decision to slow up a

[2:17:56] directionfree side. It can have a um a

[2:18:01] slowing effect of what does

[2:18:03] sustainability look like for the

[2:18:05] organization.

[2:18:06] That doesn't preclude uh anybody from

[2:18:10] going a

[2:18:14] uh not a pathway on their own. That's

[2:18:16] probably the poor not not a good way to

[2:18:19] craft that. It does e epher will still

[2:18:22] remain in existence

[2:18:25] even though 38 in you know using 38

[2:18:27] northb going out for an RFA. Uh each

[2:18:32] individual partner has a decision to

[2:18:35] make as far as the timing should

[2:18:38] something uh be worthy of changing.

[2:18:41] So east side as it's currently crafted

[2:18:44] can still remain. Now, we do still have

[2:18:46] that 2031 deadline that we would have to

[2:18:48] address for the ILA

[2:18:50] um piece on there. So, and what we've

[2:18:53] talked about with Epher leadership is

[2:18:56] like, okay, we get to June. Now, our now

[2:19:01] our work begins. We've done the easy

[2:19:03] part. We've educated the Epher board.

[2:19:05] Now, we need to go out and educate each

[2:19:07] of our partners and we need to invest

[2:19:09] that time into the the partners. So uh

[2:19:13] and relying on each of the

[2:19:15] representatives that are put forward to

[2:19:17] help to provide education to each of the

[2:19:20] individual councils and commissions

[2:19:22] moving forward. So we've talked about is

[2:19:25] there a point of no return. The point of

[2:19:27] no return is when you put it to ballot

[2:19:30] whatever the decision is or or don't put

[2:19:33] it to ballot. That's your point of no

[2:19:35] return.

[2:19:36] Even if we get into the planning phase

[2:19:40] of hypothetically say we all decide that

[2:19:43] we're going to go down an RFA, we get in

[2:19:45] the planning phase.

[2:19:46] » Um, you can opt out at any point during

[2:19:50] during that time.

[2:19:51] » And my question is a little bit

[2:19:52] different. It's what if everybody else

[2:19:54] is on board? Yes. RFA, go for it

[2:19:57] » Except Isiqua.

[2:19:58] » And Isiqua says, "We don't know. Um, we

[2:20:01] need more information. We're not sure.

[2:20:03] You can't have our vote tonight. Yeah,

[2:20:04] » I know you want our vote, but you can't

[2:20:06] have it because we're all concerned and

[2:20:08] confused, right? What does that do to

[2:20:11] the go forward plan if one of the cities

[2:20:14] that is one of the biggest contributors

[2:20:16] both in terms of material and dollars to

[2:20:19] the current organization is only a a

[2:20:22] maybe or a question mark on on the RFA?

[2:20:30] » Question.

[2:20:32] I think it was directed at Chief Oh. I

[2:20:36] mean,

[2:20:37] » Yeah. Uh it doesn't it it doesn't

[2:20:40] preclude progress being moving forward

[2:20:43] for the overall decisions. So, um it is

[2:20:46] a if if the majority of the folks say we

[2:20:49] need to continue to towards a pathway,

[2:20:52] then we can continue towards a pathway.

[2:20:55] Um, if I is quad needs more information,

[2:20:59] then I just need to understand what

[2:21:02] information you need to help bring uh

[2:21:05] inform you so you can be comfortable

[2:21:07] with the journey or make a decision to

[2:21:09] not. Um, that is still council's

[2:21:13] decision. So, it doesn't it doesn't

[2:21:15] stop.

[2:21:17] » Thank you, Council Ross.

[2:21:21] From a practical standpoint,

[2:21:24] if I can't convince the East Side Fire

[2:21:27] and Rescue board to go with an

[2:21:28] alternative motion, us abstaining or

[2:21:32] voting no, I believe is two out of seven

[2:21:37] votes. Um, is that correct? Two out of

[2:21:41] eight. So

[2:21:44] if everybody else votes to move forward

[2:21:48] with having a recommendation, I believe

[2:21:51] the next step would be all of the cities

[2:21:54] and districts get educated. So it would

[2:21:58] be no

[2:22:00] different

[2:22:02] just from a practical standpoint if I

[2:22:04] understand the way the voting would

[2:22:05] work.

[2:22:08] My concern isn't whether we can prevail

[2:22:10] on the on the on the 11th. My concern is

[2:22:13] that if the economics change, I mean, if

[2:22:16] if I were one of our fellow cities, I'm

[2:22:19] not going to presume to say which one,

[2:22:21] but um you know, the I suspect the

[2:22:24] economics look different if everybody

[2:22:25] goes in on it versus if there's a

[2:22:28] suspicion that down the road Isiqua

[2:22:31] might want to do something else because

[2:22:32] it can afford to. Uh

[2:22:36] that's this is this comes back to this

[2:22:37] game theory thing, right? And would the

[2:22:39] RFA look different to those other

[2:22:43] entities um knowing that isqua is only a

[2:22:47] maybe and that maybe we do in the end,

[2:22:49] maybe we don't in the end um as opposed

[2:22:51] to being go go.

[2:22:54] I actually can answer that one. So now I

[2:22:56] understand the question a little bit

[2:22:57] better. Yes. If Isiziqua says no then or

[2:23:01] not now uh it does change the economic

[2:23:05] uh landscape for everybody else

[2:23:08] because it's assessed valuation it's

[2:23:11] resource needs and service level

[2:23:14] associated with that. If we're trying to

[2:23:16] do something collectively together,

[2:23:19] there still is ways to craft it so we

[2:23:22] can do it collectively together

[2:23:26] and underneath the the existing epher

[2:23:29] model, but the funding side of it is

[2:23:32] going to look different.

[2:23:35] » Thank you. I mean, there's a lot of

[2:23:36] weird permutations out there, right? We

[2:23:38] could become a contract city

[2:23:40] » To a new RFA, right? I mean there's a

[2:23:42] there's just it has the permutations get

[2:23:45] weird very quickly. Thank you.

[2:23:46] » Yes, sir.

[2:23:50] » City administrator.

[2:23:52] » Fascinating discussion and thank you all

[2:23:55] for for taking the time. I think there

[2:23:57] is one thing that Isakiqua can bring to

[2:23:59] the table that will make our partners

[2:24:00] pay attention and that's the issue of

[2:24:02] scrutiny

[2:24:04] that if Isiqua says yes we want to go

[2:24:07] down this path we would prefer there not

[2:24:08] be a preferred path but understand

[2:24:10] partners that we are going to scrutinize

[2:24:12] this in our community we have an

[2:24:14] expectation of transparency we have an

[2:24:16] expectation of sharing full information

[2:24:19] and so you all can do whatever you think

[2:24:21] makes sense in your community but

[2:24:23] understand that we're going to set a

[2:24:24] very high bar here in Isiqua. We're

[2:24:26] going to have community dialogue. We're

[2:24:28] going to ask the kind of questions that

[2:24:30] all of you have raised this evening. And

[2:24:32] that may be a level that our partners

[2:24:34] either haven't thought about or perhaps

[2:24:36] aren't prepared to go down. And so I

[2:24:39] think the one thing that you can do and

[2:24:41] ask your representatives to the Epher

[2:24:42] board to do is to signal the scrutiny

[2:24:45] that you plan to bring to this. And so

[2:24:48] that whatever vote there is ultimately

[2:24:49] for Miqua, understand that there will be

[2:24:52] lots of community dialogue. there'll be

[2:24:54] lots of information shared and the

[2:24:56] expectation is that our partner agencies

[2:24:58] will be doing the same thing and I think

[2:25:00] that may be a very interesting message

[2:25:02] to send and I think may game theory

[2:25:06] council president very much on my mind

[2:25:08] too um that may make some of them have

[2:25:11] to pump the brakes to ever so slightly

[2:25:13] understanding that the level of scrutiny

[2:25:15] the level of transparency that the

[2:25:17] Isiqua City Council intends to use may

[2:25:20] be different than our partners

[2:25:28] Okay, thank you very much chief. Uh I

[2:25:31] think with that we are going to

[2:25:35] move on. [laughter]

[2:25:38] So I I don't know uh I mean I think it's

[2:25:41] been a great dialogue and to be clear

[2:25:44] this is the first council dialogue on

[2:25:46] this topic as a whole. This tonight that

[2:25:48] just happened. Council President Mart,

[2:25:51] » Can I just ask if our Epher reps feel

[2:25:53] that they are prepared for the meeting

[2:25:55] on the 11th?

[2:25:59] » Um, I would say no. Um,

[2:26:05] I think what I have heard is an ask

[2:26:09] for

[2:26:12] making an alternate proposal that does

[2:26:15] not include a recommendation. And so

[2:26:17] that I have heard and heard enough

[2:26:20] members say yes. Um

[2:26:24] I don't know if council agrees with what

[2:26:28] city administrator said and I don't know

[2:26:31] if that alternate proposal does not get

[2:26:35] accepted how you want me to vote. So no

[2:26:44] » I mean I I thought

[2:26:47] I did I mean I appreciated what uh city

[2:26:50] administrator said and that you know I

[2:26:52] feel like I said I've I've treated this

[2:26:55] decision as a point of while the even if

[2:26:58] this even if the board were to make a

[2:27:00] recommendation that this is merely like

[2:27:02] of the options we think this is viable

[2:27:04] so let's pursue it. So even that in and

[2:27:06] of itself has not been a

[2:27:09] strong recommendation in my own mind.

[2:27:12] And so for me being there and being very

[2:27:15] open to the rest of the board about the

[2:27:17] scrutiny we want to apply to it makes

[2:27:19] sense to me and is already where

[2:27:22] my plans were. You know I am on the

[2:27:25] financial committee for the budget just

[2:27:27] this cycle because I want to get dig

[2:27:28] into the details of East Side Fire and

[2:27:30] know everything. You know were we to

[2:27:33] start a planning committee. I do want

[2:27:34] that level of scrutiny. So I am

[2:27:37] comfortable with that kind of a

[2:27:39] statement for our partners to know that

[2:27:41] we are going at this with a ton of

[2:27:43] detail and a ton of not uh suspicion but

[2:27:48] like apprehension like saying I am

[2:27:50] person I personally have apprehension

[2:27:52] about this decision and thus I think

[2:27:54] it's worth pursuing more information on

[2:27:57] it but it's something that I want to do

[2:27:59] a lot of scrutiny on before making any

[2:28:01] kind of final recommendation to voters

[2:28:04] of what should happen. So for me, I am

[2:28:07] comfortable with that kind of a

[2:28:08] statement to be given at the board. Um

[2:28:10] but in terms of how the vote functions,

[2:28:12] that is a fair question in terms of what

[2:28:14] the vote would look like. But my also my

[2:28:16] perspective is that vote again does not

[2:28:18] tie anything. And even if the rest of

[2:28:19] the board says let's go forward, they're

[2:28:21] still approving us to bring you know

[2:28:23] education materials here. And even if

[2:28:26] maybe one of those is emphasized,

[2:28:29] I'm will gladly teach everybody about

[2:28:31] all the other options too. So, you know,

[2:28:34] that's comfortable for me.

[2:28:36] » Okay. And Council President, just before

[2:28:38] we go to Cresident Marts, I think to

[2:28:41] summarize, I think what Council Walsh

[2:28:43] did say is I think there is support on

[2:28:46] the council to do Deputy President Jen's

[2:28:49] suggestion to say, can we please make

[2:28:51] this a motion that we want to educate

[2:28:53] our members in their full voting bodies

[2:28:56] of the options in front of us? And then

[2:28:59] I think it's now there's a shade of gray

[2:29:01] of if that motion doesn't pass, what

[2:29:04] happens next? Council President Marks.

[2:29:06] » So, um, this is all like a a game of,

[2:29:10] uh, diplomacy if anybody's ever played

[2:29:12] diplomacy before. Um, I have confidence,

[2:29:15] Council Member Walsh, in your leadership

[2:29:17] that you can go to that body and say,

[2:29:22] and it isn't it isn't whether they will

[2:29:24] agree with you and and vote in support,

[2:29:26] but I think if you go and you say, I

[2:29:29] know so many of you are enthusiastic

[2:29:30] about this option, Isiqua is going to be

[2:29:33] a hard may be a hard cell. You know, I

[2:29:36] encourage all of you to go watch

[2:29:37] Isiqua's council meeting and hear what

[2:29:40] count isqua's concerns are. For

[2:29:42] instance, this evening, I'm going to

[2:29:43] propose X as as as a response from what

[2:29:47] I've heard from this council, but you

[2:29:49] should all the rest of you on the on the

[2:29:51] Epher board should understand isqua's

[2:29:53] concerns. I think you will convey that

[2:29:56] appropriately. And whether that motion

[2:29:58] passes or fails, the very fact that you

[2:30:01] come back and say that as opposed to go

[2:30:03] go go will all those board members have

[2:30:06] have I have great respect for. They've

[2:30:08] been doing this for a while and they c

[2:30:09] and they understand the questions to ask

[2:30:12] when one of the core cities says they're

[2:30:15] have concerns and have questions and are

[2:30:17] not go. Does that is that helpful?

[2:30:23] as it yes if you're still fine with if

[2:30:29] like conveying that message. Yes. But if

[2:30:32] that

[2:30:34] amendment or alternate motion doesn't

[2:30:36] happen still being able to move forward

[2:30:40] like do you want me to abstain at that

[2:30:41] point if that motion doesn't happen?

[2:30:49] I I think I like council member Adair

[2:30:53] view this more like a committee vote

[2:30:57] that scrutinizes something and passes up

[2:31:00] a recommendation but the council can

[2:31:03] absolutely tear things apart and educate

[2:31:07] and you know all of that. So I feel

[2:31:09] comfortable with moving forward with a

[2:31:14] recommendation vote.

[2:31:17] I just want to make sure I am not

[2:31:20] making a movement that the council does

[2:31:23] not agree on. And y'all are trying to do

[2:31:27] this with a lack of information and you

[2:31:30] know rumor information and all of that

[2:31:32] and not knowing what a fire benefit

[2:31:34] charge and all of those things. So

[2:31:37] obviously much like a committee I've

[2:31:39] gone through a lot of those rigors

[2:31:43] but don't make the final decisions.

[2:31:48] » I mean to answer your question I don't

[2:31:50] think you have a sense of the body

[2:31:51] that's that's ready to vote yes on that

[2:31:54] moving forward with any of those

[2:31:55] options. Right. This body has not looked

[2:31:57] at those various options um as as a as a

[2:32:02] group. So, I would expect I would hope

[2:32:04] that you would vote no. And if it still

[2:32:06] moves forward, you you you did your best

[2:32:09] to convey what this body said tonight,

[2:32:10] which is that we're confused and unsure

[2:32:13] which of those options are best and

[2:32:14] haven't been convinced that an RFA is

[2:32:16] best.

[2:32:18] » Councilor Boyd,

[2:32:20] » Can uh part of the education aspect also

[2:32:22] be what the vote was? Um I don't know if

[2:32:26] that's helpful in this case of we where

[2:32:29] if it would did come to um an

[2:32:32] alternative proposal

[2:32:34] wasn't approved and the majority of the

[2:32:36] board moved with uh and so if that's

[2:32:39] maybe not what isqua this particular

[2:32:41] body wanted to move forward with but at

[2:32:45] least uh the education including this is

[2:32:49] what each member of the board

[2:32:53] had what their concerns were out or I

[2:32:56] don't know if that's helping us suade

[2:32:59] any of the concerns with this too.

[2:33:03] » Council Rair,

[2:33:06] » Uh to Council President Mart's uh point,

[2:33:08] my and maybe I'm wrong in terms of this,

[2:33:11] but my view is that a no vote at that

[2:33:14] meeting is a vote saying we want to stay

[2:33:17] the course and we don't want to p look

[2:33:19] into any other option. that that's what

[2:33:22] a no vote represents at that meeting is

[2:33:24] that we've looked at the options of

[2:33:26] funding and we're saying don't pursue

[2:33:28] them other than just stay the course is

[2:33:30] what that no vote represents like saying

[2:33:32] the the vote of yes is saying okay let's

[2:33:36] continue looking into an RFA or a fire

[2:33:38] district and now go educate the the

[2:33:41] jurisdictions about it. So, a vote of no

[2:33:43] at that meeting would be us saying we

[2:33:45] don't want you to pursue any other

[2:33:48] uh potential funding source and that's

[2:33:51] what a no vote would represent at that

[2:33:52] meeting. It'd be my perspective of that

[2:33:54] which is why I think that that doesn't

[2:33:56] quite convey what your intended message

[2:33:58] is. Um because that's the vote again is

[2:34:01] saying if we saying if we all vote if

[2:34:04] the all districts say no at that meeting

[2:34:06] basically no other funding source is

[2:34:07] going to be pursued or investigated.

[2:34:10] So that's what no represents to me. in

[2:34:12] that vote.

[2:34:13] » But I think uh first off, I think

[2:34:16] council president Marts made it clear.

[2:34:17] He thought council member Walsh and

[2:34:19] yourself would have success in

[2:34:21] explaining to people that the amendment

[2:34:24] proposed by deputy president Jen which

[2:34:26] is we're completely supportive of

[2:34:29] getting educated. It seems like everyone

[2:34:31] in this dis is saying they want to be

[2:34:33] educated for more options and uh so and

[2:34:38] this council did not pick the June 11th

[2:34:40] decision date that was picked by Epher

[2:34:42] and that date was picked before this

[2:34:43] council was updated on with all the

[2:34:46] information they're asking for tonight

[2:34:47] and as deputy president Jen said what's

[2:34:49] a fire benefit charge so it seems like

[2:34:51] you can't make a decision on June 11th

[2:34:53] without so but deputy president Jen go

[2:34:55] ahead

[2:34:56] » Yeah I was going to say I mean

[2:34:58] potentially you know the proposal could

[2:35:00] be to split split the

[2:35:02] uh split it into two votes. One on, you

[2:35:04] know, do we want to get educated and

[2:35:06] then a second vote on whether there's a

[2:35:07] recommendation and then, you know, you

[2:35:09] could vote on those items separately

[2:35:10] because they are completely different

[2:35:12] questions.

[2:35:16] » Uh Walsh or Nichols? Walsh or

[2:35:20] Nichols. Then we'll go to Walsh. Um, I

[2:35:23] think it's going to be really important

[2:35:24] and I I trust you folks fully to do this

[2:35:27] to communicate with that vote perhaps

[2:35:30] more than what is strictly within the um

[2:35:35] the scope of that vote itself. Um so

[2:35:38] even if formally voting no means that we

[2:35:41] are we would be saying say the course um

[2:35:43] implicit in either a no or abstension is

[2:35:48] can be many other things and we have

[2:35:49] limited tools to communicate that

[2:35:54] type of information that could put us in

[2:35:55] a better position

[2:35:57] further down the line if we do want to

[2:35:59] take harder positions or if we do want

[2:36:01] to push back in other ways that that

[2:36:03] could be a potentially good reason to

[2:36:05] take that position. at that type of a

[2:36:07] meeting. Um, even if having read the

[2:36:10] room, you know that you're not going to

[2:36:12] win that vote and it's it's not going to

[2:36:14] go a certain way. And this is simply

[2:36:16] getting back to Council President Mart's

[2:36:18] comments about the game theory of the

[2:36:19] situation. I appreciate this is going to

[2:36:22] be a potentially difficult negotiation,

[2:36:24] but we do have we are in a situation

[2:36:25] where we should be able to drive a lot

[2:36:27] of that conversation and communicating

[2:36:30] that is going to be

[2:36:34] beyond the formalities of any individual

[2:36:36] vote and what that would mean.

[2:36:39] » Council Walsh.

[2:36:41] » Okay. I'm hearing a second option which

[2:36:43] is split the vote. Again, happy to put

[2:36:48] that forward as an option. Happy to

[2:36:51] represent this city as much as possible.

[2:37:00] How do I separate like

[2:37:04] as a subcommittee member, you know, if I

[2:37:06] was part of SSP or something and

[2:37:09] reviewing this, I can vote yes on this

[2:37:13] is the recommendation, it should come to

[2:37:15] full counsel and then choose to vote no

[2:37:19] there. Um,

[2:37:24] I guess I am concerned about the idea of

[2:37:26] voting no as a recommendation.

[2:37:31] Um, if that ends up being the motion,

[2:37:33] just based on

[2:37:36] how rocky the east side fire

[2:37:39] relationship can be. you know, 10 years

[2:37:43] ago, we had a certain city to the north

[2:37:46] of us suggest that they wanted to take

[2:37:48] their toy fire trucks and go home. Um,

[2:37:50] and that would have increased our costs

[2:37:53] dramatically. So, I guess I'm also

[2:37:57] looking at the implications of voting no

[2:38:01] suggesting that

[2:38:04] we want to do things on our own. I

[2:38:09] » I mean I think people are making it

[2:38:10] clear they're not saying that. I think

[2:38:11] people are saying that

[2:38:14] we're going to I think it'll be crystal

[2:38:15] clear the squad preferences.

[2:38:17] We're not in a position to take a

[2:38:19] position. So please educate us. I mean

[2:38:21] deputy president is Jane going back to

[2:38:23] the original motion. I think that I

[2:38:25] think seems like it's the best path

[2:38:27] forward. And uh and and

[2:38:31] yeah, and I think the middle ground

[2:38:33] between voting no and voting yes is

[2:38:34] obviously just abstaining, saying, "Hey,

[2:38:36] we we told you what we could support

[2:38:38] tonight. We could support a motion to

[2:38:41] get us better educated on what our

[2:38:43] options are." It seems like there is

[2:38:44] unanimous or close to unanimous support

[2:38:47] on this council for that option. And uh

[2:38:50] so and I still think there's a high

[2:38:52] probability that option will pass. I

[2:38:55] just I honestly do I think the Epher

[2:38:57] board is a very reasonable group and I

[2:38:59] think they want to move forward when

[2:39:00] they have as much consensus as possible

[2:39:02] and I think

[2:39:05] I go back to what council president Mart

[2:39:07] said. He was confident I think we can

[2:39:08] get this motion to be approved by the

[2:39:10] board and I agree with him. Council

[2:39:12] member Walsh.

[2:39:14] » Okay. And I I hear you on that. I can

[2:39:17] move forward. I also agree that it that

[2:39:19] is most likely, but at this point I

[2:39:24] don't know and I've heard a lot from the

[2:39:27] mayor and the council president, but not

[2:39:30] necessarily as much from everyone

[2:39:33] whether there is authority or

[2:39:35] recommendation for a yes, no, or abstain

[2:39:38] vote here. And so without more clarity,

[2:39:45] I don't know how to do that next

[2:39:48] Thursday. So one proposal is I come back

[2:39:52] to the committee of the whole on the 8th

[2:39:55] and

[2:39:57] you know

[2:39:59] get feedback then or get feedback here.

[2:40:08] I'm looking at council leadership to see

[2:40:10] if they have a preference. Uh,

[2:40:13] » Sorry, say again. [snorts]

[2:40:15] » Oh,

[2:40:15] » I'm just saying I I need

[2:40:18] feedback that if I cannot get that

[2:40:21] through whether there should be

[2:40:26] » She's asking for [clears throat] a

[2:40:26] recommendation of no, abstain, or yes.

[2:40:29] Yeah,

[2:40:29] » I think Council Walsh is saying if so

[2:40:32] there's consensus that the goal is for

[2:40:34] Deputy President Jen's amendment to

[2:40:37] hopefully pass and then the question is

[2:40:39] if it doesn't pass I think Council Walsh

[2:40:42] is fairly asking for guidance of no,

[2:40:45] abstain or yes and see if there is a if

[2:40:48] there's four votes for one of those

[2:40:50] options. So Council President Marts,

[2:40:52] » I think it depends on what the motion

[2:40:54] is. I think if um there's been a

[2:40:57] discussion that I am confused and I was

[2:41:00] trying to look up the agenda for the

[2:41:01] meeting and I couldn't tell from the

[2:41:02] agenda for the meeting what the actual

[2:41:04] proposed motion is. Right. If it is this

[2:41:07] board would like to pursue a regional

[2:41:10] fire authority, then I think you should

[2:41:11] vote no. If the if the motion is this

[2:41:14] board would like to pursue options

[2:41:16] including a fire authority and a

[2:41:18] regional fire and a fire district and

[2:41:20] whatever else. If it's in the spirit

[2:41:23] of what I think you have heard from the

[2:41:25] majority of the council tonight, not

[2:41:27] just the mayor and myself, which is a

[2:41:29] which is not being ready to go down a

[2:41:31] path for an RFA. Um, but if it's in the

[2:41:34] spirit of exploration, then that

[2:41:37] follow-on vote you I I personally would

[2:41:40] be comfortable with you voting yes. But

[2:41:41] if it's we believe that a regional fire

[2:41:43] authority is the way for the east side

[2:41:45] of King County to go, then I think you

[2:41:47] then I think you should vote no because

[2:41:48] I don't think this body has said that.

[2:41:50] But I think you know that and I think

[2:41:52] you'll figure it out. I understand your

[2:41:54] concern tonight. I understand you don't

[2:41:55] want to leave here without more explicit

[2:41:57] guidance and I appreciate that. But I

[2:41:59] think you will in the moment accurately

[2:42:02] reflect what this body has said tonight.

[2:42:05] » Thank you.

[2:42:07] Is there any other comments from Is that

[2:42:09] a good way to end it? Is folks okay

[2:42:12] ending it there?

[2:42:14] Okay. And uh [clears throat]

[2:42:17] I I know right now Harvey's wishing he

[2:42:20] retired just I mean [laughter]

[2:42:23] just one meeting earlier. He's like man

[2:42:26] I picked the wrong meeting to retire

[2:42:28] from the city of Isiqua. Sorry

[2:42:30] [clears throat] G. [laughter]

[2:42:33] » [snorts]

[2:42:33] » Okay, we are going to Agenda Bill 9205.

[2:42:36] Oh, wait. Agenda Bill 20. Wait. Oh.

[2:42:41] Yeah. Agenda Bill 9205. Mid-budget

[2:42:43] request to add capital project manager

[2:42:44] facilities full-time employees. Autumn,

[2:42:46] you're up.

[2:42:53] » Thank you, mayor, and members of the

[2:42:55] city council. My name is Autumn Monahan.

[2:42:56] I'm the administrative services director

[2:42:58] and I promise to be short this evening

[2:43:00] in my presentation um which is an

[2:43:03] overview of a proposed position for a

[2:43:05] capital project manager for facilities.

[2:43:09] The administration's recommendation is

[2:43:10] to authorize the addition of a capital

[2:43:12] project manager full-time position to

[2:43:14] the administrative services department.

[2:43:17] As a little bit of background, um I was

[2:43:20] before you on April 20th where the

[2:43:22] council approved an agreement to

[2:43:23] purchase a building for city hall

[2:43:26] located at 1055 Northwest Maple Street,

[2:43:29] freeing up uh 130 East Sunset Way

[2:43:31] exclusively for police use um once we

[2:43:34] remodel it. The closing is underway for

[2:43:37] that purchase. Um I'm excited to say so

[2:43:40] we're continuing on that process.

[2:43:42] Meanwhile, we have continued design now

[2:43:44] for the police remodel to better refine

[2:43:46] those costs with our design design firm

[2:43:49] DLR group, which helped us before with

[2:43:50] the task force work. We also have put

[2:43:53] out an RFP for um architect help for the

[2:43:56] city hall space planning, uh tenant

[2:43:59] improvements, furniture, and all the

[2:44:01] things needed to move to city hall. uh

[2:44:03] knowing the bulk of work that is ahead

[2:44:05] on both of those massive projects, we're

[2:44:08] here before you tonight proposing for an

[2:44:09] FTE for a proposed capital projects

[2:44:12] manager to support that work.

[2:44:16] As always, we'll be returning to the

[2:44:17] city council as we refine these projects

[2:44:20] um with further details and budget both

[2:44:22] for the city hall move and for the

[2:44:24] police renovation. But as a first step,

[2:44:26] we're looking for resources.

[2:44:30] The duties of this position include

[2:44:32] ensuring successful delivery of these

[2:44:33] projects from planning all the way

[2:44:35] through to construction, coordinating

[2:44:37] with a whole lot of parties including

[2:44:39] internal departments, consultants,

[2:44:41] contractors,

[2:44:42] uh permitting agencies and of course the

[2:44:44] community. Um there is a whole lot of

[2:44:46] just budgeting, scheduling, all the

[2:44:48] things that come with uh uh project

[2:44:51] management as well as contact negotiate

[2:44:53] contract negotiations and really being

[2:44:56] the oversight for consultants.

[2:44:59] the priority projects for this position.

[2:45:01] Um we we have plenty for the first

[2:45:03] several years. Um first with the city

[2:45:05] hall move and then with the police

[2:45:07] station remodel which will take um

[2:45:09] several years to complete.

[2:45:12] Quickly a financial overview. This

[2:45:14] position will cost fully loaded about

[2:45:16] $230,000.

[2:45:17] Um if we are successful in hiring a

[2:45:19] position quickly, which is my goal, that

[2:45:22] would be about $115,000 this year.

[2:45:24] Expenses for this position will largely

[2:45:26] be paid by the associated capital

[2:45:28] projects. And so in the near term, that

[2:45:30] includes funds that we have set aside

[2:45:32] for the city hall project.

[2:45:36] A quick timeline in July, we hope to

[2:45:38] have a contract with an architect for

[2:45:39] that city hall work to really drill down

[2:45:41] on the final space planning and

[2:45:43] improvements needed for that building.

[2:45:45] Hopefully, we're hiring a position come

[2:45:46] August, returning to you with more

[2:45:49] refined planned uh for that project,

[2:45:52] moving to city hall in the first quarter

[2:45:54] of 2027, and then returning to you as

[2:45:56] well with refined details for the police

[2:45:59] remodel.

[2:46:02] And with that, this is the proposed

[2:46:03] motion from administration, and I'm

[2:46:04] happy to answer any questions.

[2:46:08] » Are there any uh council member?

[2:46:10] » I had quick question. Now, you answered

[2:46:11] it via email cuz I was asking about the

[2:46:13] numbers cuz like in the provided

[2:46:15] description, the salary was 124 to 164K,

[2:46:18] but the ask was 230K.

[2:46:20] Uh the answer was that that's so you

[2:46:22] know, payroll taxes and benefits. It's

[2:46:24] really 60 to $70,000 on top of the

[2:46:27] salary.

[2:46:29] » Yes.

[2:46:30] » But I will add this is uh this is a much

[2:46:33] better value knowing that we have this

[2:46:35] body of work for several years than only

[2:46:37] paying consultants.

[2:46:38] » True. True. Okay. But just wanted to

[2:46:41] triple check that that was the value of

[2:46:42] all of that.

[2:46:43] » Yes.

[2:46:44] » Okay. All right. Thank you,

[2:46:45] » Council Member Adair. I learned that the

[2:46:47] first week of January and it's a

[2:46:48] depressing reality, but it is a reality.

[2:46:50] It comes to the president Mart.

[2:46:52] » I will just say the carrying cost in

[2:46:54] private industry is higher. So that's

[2:46:56] that's actually kind of a deal um

[2:46:58] compared to in private industry.

[2:47:01] » Don't tell my employees.

[2:47:06] » Okay. I'm not seeing

[2:47:08] any other questions. So, is there a

[2:47:12] motion?

[2:47:15] » President Council President Marts.

[2:47:17] » I move to authorize the inclusion of an

[2:47:19] additional capital project manager to

[2:47:20] the city's 2026 staffing levels.

[2:47:23] » Second.

[2:47:24] » If there's been a motion, a second. Is

[2:47:25] there any further discussion? Uh, not

[2:47:28] seeing any. All those in favor, please.

[2:47:30] Oh, yeah. I'll just repeat the motion is

[2:47:32] to authorize the inclusion of additional

[2:47:33] capital project manager city's 2026

[2:47:35] staffing levels. All those in favor

[2:47:37] please say I.

[2:47:38] » I.

[2:47:40] » All those opposed nay and that passes

[2:47:43] unanimously.

[2:47:46] All right. Thank you very much.

[2:47:49] Yes, we are taking a five minute break.

[2:47:52] We will be back for the final item.

[2:54:35] Okay,

[2:54:36] this city council's fivem minute break

[2:54:39] is over. Uh invite deputy city clerk

[2:54:43] Cassidy Miller to present this item.

[2:54:45] It's amendments to council rules of

[2:54:47] procedure agenda bill 9137.

[2:54:56] Right. Thank you, council. I'm Cassidy

[2:54:58] Miller, deputy city clerk,

[2:55:01] presenting on the uh council rules of

[2:55:03] procedure before you tonight. Um at the

[2:55:05] May 4th, sorry, I do not have a visual

[2:55:07] presentation. Um at the May 4th city

[2:55:10] council meeting, staff and the council

[2:55:12] rules ad hoc committee members presented

[2:55:14] the committee's recommendations and

[2:55:15] answered questions. The city council

[2:55:17] then requested amended language to

[2:55:19] section 3.11 confidentiality to provide

[2:55:23] a process for council members to receive

[2:55:25] a non-confidential version of

[2:55:26] information upon request. There was

[2:55:29] agreement that this item be postponed to

[2:55:31] the June 1st council meeting so that

[2:55:33] language could be provided. The

[2:55:35] following language has been added to

[2:55:36] section 3.11 confidentiality. If a

[2:55:39] council member wishes to share

[2:55:41] information publicly that includes

[2:55:43] confidential content, the city council

[2:55:45] member may request city staff provide a

[2:55:47] version of the information that omits

[2:55:49] the confidential content.

[2:55:52] The resolution provided in your packet

[2:55:54] has been updated to include the revised

[2:55:56] language, which is exhibit C. Tonight,

[2:55:58] the city council can choose to approve

[2:56:00] the resolution adopting the updated

[2:56:02] council rules as presented in exhibit A,

[2:56:05] or can offer amendments. Three potential

[2:56:08] amendments were submitted to the clerk's

[2:56:09] office in advance of tonight's meeting.

[2:56:11] These were distributed to the council

[2:56:13] for review earlier today. Should these

[2:56:15] amendments or any others be made, I can

[2:56:17] bring them up on the screen to help

[2:56:18] ensure that they're captured correctly.

[2:56:20] Thank you.

[2:56:24] » Okay, I'm looking at the council.

[2:56:28] Are there any questions?

[2:56:33] What's Okay, I'm not

[2:56:37] see any questions. Uh

[2:56:41] I think it looks like everyone's looked

[2:56:43] at the rules, so I think we could just

[2:56:46] go straight to a motion.

[2:56:50] Oh, Council President Walsh, I mean,

[2:56:52] Council Member Walsh. So, um,

[2:56:56] you're proposing

[2:56:58] we had something tabled from the last

[2:57:02] meeting, correct? And so, is this a

[2:57:06] motion that replaces what we had on deck

[2:57:11] or did we not have something tabled?

[2:57:17] » I think this is the entire rules and

[2:57:19] procedures that were created. Is that

[2:57:20] correct? I think it's everything with an

[2:57:21] amendment already updated in the system.

[2:57:26] Go ahead.

[2:57:30] » I'm not sure either. I think we have

[2:57:32] three amendments tonight for what was

[2:57:34] presented in the packet and so I think

[2:57:36] that there is something included that

[2:57:38] was in the packet was incorporated based

[2:57:40] on the council's direction and then

[2:57:42] there are three additional amendments.

[2:57:45] I am also a very visual person. So, it

[2:57:48] would be helpful if we are going to have

[2:57:52] a motion um to have something up on the

[2:57:56] screen and then potentially have

[2:57:58] something available if we are to word

[2:58:00] smmith or add amendments. Um because all

[2:58:04] I heard was the confidentiality stuff. I

[2:58:07] don't know what the other portion, but I

[2:58:10] guess a motion hasn't been made, so that

[2:58:13] would happen in that realm.

[2:58:17] Yes, to my understanding, that's

[2:58:18] correct. And I apologize. I um I am not

[2:58:22] aware if there was already a motion on

[2:58:24] the table or if the item was tabled

[2:58:26] before a motion could be made. Um so I

[2:58:29] apologize for that, but um the the

[2:58:32] presented motion was um and I can pull

[2:58:34] that on the screen. um that was provided

[2:58:36] by the city clerk uh is is uh to um

[2:58:42] approve the the resolution and the and

[2:58:44] then adopt the ordinance. Um and then uh

[2:58:47] from that um amendments or new motions

[2:58:50] or amendments to this motion can be made

[2:58:52] uh to um further revise the rules of

[2:58:56] procedure before anything is adopted.

[2:59:07] So I think

[2:59:09] city clerk Miller the question you are

[2:59:12] you looking for the original motion and

[2:59:14] then the amendments or are you looking

[2:59:16] for

[2:59:19] » I can do whatever you need. I am just

[2:59:21] looking for my share button.

[2:59:23] Let's I would suggest that we take a

[2:59:27] nonb breaking two-minute break to let

[2:59:30] the the clerk's office figure out

[2:59:32] whether we have a standing motion or not

[2:59:34] » Or or we can table the entire item to

[2:59:37] your next meeting.

[2:59:39] » I I mean I I would like to get at it

[2:59:42] tonight. There's just a question of

[2:59:43] whether the original mo whether there's

[2:59:45] a motion

[2:59:47] » In already. I I think it's it's worth

[2:59:48] letting the clerk take a couple minutes

[2:59:50] to figure that out and then we can

[2:59:52] either um continue that motion or move a

[2:59:55] new motion.

[2:59:58] » Okay, we're we're on a two-minute break

[3:00:01] to we'll return.

[3:01:39] Okay, we're back in session. Uh, city

[3:01:42] administrator, update us on where we're

[3:01:44] at.

[3:01:45] » Yes. Uh, there is no pending motion. Um,

[3:01:49] reading from the staff report, at the

[3:01:51] May 4th council meeting, staff and the

[3:01:53] rules committee presented the

[3:01:54] committee's recommendations. The council

[3:01:56] then requested amended language to

[3:01:58] section 3.11 confidentiality to provide

[3:02:00] a process for council members to receive

[3:02:02] non-confidential version of the

[3:02:04] information upon request. There was

[3:02:05] agreement that this item be postponed

[3:02:07] till June 1 so that language could be

[3:02:09] provided. The language was provided

[3:02:11] section 3.11 confidentiality. If a

[3:02:14] council member wishes to share

[3:02:15] information publicly that includes

[3:02:17] confidential content, the city council

[3:02:18] member may request city staff provide a

[3:02:21] version of that information that omits

[3:02:22] the confidential content. The attached

[3:02:24] resolution has been updated to include

[3:02:26] the revised language. So what is before

[3:02:28] you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council

[3:02:30] is that revision and the recommendation

[3:02:33] is act is to adopt with that language

[3:02:36] included from your May 4 meeting.

[3:02:41] » Council President Marts.

[3:02:42] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move to approve

[3:02:44] resolution number 2026-11

[3:02:47] amending various sections of the city

[3:02:49] council rules of procedure as

[3:02:50] recommended by the council rules ad hoc

[3:02:52] committee and repealing resolution

[3:02:54] number 20008-15

[3:02:57] relating to the policy for council

[3:02:58] expenditures and adopt ordinance number

[3:03:01] 3140 amending sections 2.06.110

[3:03:06] and 2.06.120 06.120

[3:03:08] of the Isiqua Municipal Code relating to

[3:03:11] city council meetings in order to align

[3:03:12] them with the city council rules of

[3:03:14] procedure.

[3:03:15] » Second.

[3:03:18] » Okay, there's been a motion and a

[3:03:20] second. Is there any discussion or

[3:03:22] additional amendments?

[3:03:27] Council member Nichols.

[3:03:28] » Um, thank you. I am motioning to amend

[3:03:32] section 3.11 confidentiality. Um,

[3:03:37] how do do you want me to read the

[3:03:38] amendment in its entirety?

[3:03:44] » Okay,

[3:03:53] there it is.

[3:03:55] I think they he just wanted to show Go

[3:03:57] ahead, Council Member Nichols. But that

[3:03:59] is up there and we will have to read it

[3:04:01] before we vote on the amendment,

[3:04:02] obviously. But for right now, you can

[3:04:03] just speak to it. Okay. So, I'll I'll

[3:04:05] speak briefly. Uh, so first of all, I

[3:04:08] appreciate the city's additions to what

[3:04:09] the ad hoc committee brought to us in

[3:04:11] the fourth. Uh, the amendment that I

[3:04:13] proposed is simply intended to

[3:04:15] strengthen some of the concerns were

[3:04:16] brought up by council members, president

[3:04:18] Martz, and council member Walsh. Uh, to

[3:04:21] strengthen slightly the council members,

[3:04:22] the council, city council's expectations

[3:04:24] of the administration. Really all this

[3:04:26] is intended to do is to make something

[3:04:28] explicit that from my read of this is it

[3:04:30] is at the moment somewhat implicit in

[3:04:32] the rule. That information is

[3:04:34] confidential only if it could be

[3:04:36] withheld under the public records act um

[3:04:38] with a narrow exemption for executive

[3:04:40] session and litigation timing. And

[3:04:42] that's intended to answer council member

[3:04:44] Walsh's question about what makes

[3:04:45] something not confidential. Um as well

[3:04:48] as council member Adair's concern about

[3:04:50] labeling something confidential just

[3:04:51] because it's awkward etc. though that is

[3:04:53] of course strictly hypothetical. Um and

[3:04:56] council president Mar Mart's points

[3:04:58] about tying this to the public records

[3:04:59] act which matters given the penalty here

[3:05:01] can't be forfeiture of office in an

[3:05:03] extreme case. Um it also is intended to

[3:05:06] give a member who questions the

[3:05:07] designation a clear path uh to ask the

[3:05:10] city attorney to review it and get a

[3:05:11] sharable version if needed um and put

[3:05:13] that in writing uh to avoid any lack of

[3:05:16] clarity there. I also appreciate city

[3:05:18] attorney Turpin's review earlier today

[3:05:20] and suggestions uh to the amendment I

[3:05:22] originally proposed which I incorporated

[3:05:24] uh and I would urge adoption.

[3:05:28] » Council member Walsh.

[3:05:30] » Second.

[3:05:31] » There's been a motion a second. Is there

[3:05:33] further discussion?

[3:05:36] » Council Walsh.

[3:05:37] » That answers all of the questions that

[3:05:39] were brought up. It's very clear

[3:05:41] language and I appreciate the clarity

[3:05:43] both for staff and council members. Um,

[3:05:47] I think this does a good job.

[3:05:50] » Okay, seeing no further discussion, the

[3:05:51] amendment for this body is amend section

[3:05:54] 3.11 confidentiality of the council

[3:05:55] rules and procedure and resolution

[3:05:56] number 2026-11 by adding to the end of

[3:05:59] the first paragraph. In doing so, they

[3:06:00] will identify the laws in which the

[3:06:02] information will be withheld in response

[3:06:03] to a public records request. information

[3:06:04] will be designated confidential only

[3:06:06] where it would be withheld in whole and

[3:06:08] relevant part in response to public

[3:06:10] records request under chapter 42.56 RCW

[3:06:13] or where it is reasonably likely to

[3:06:14] become the subject of a specific

[3:06:15] upcoming executive session or relates to

[3:06:18] a pending or potential litigation and

[3:06:20] adding to the end of the second

[3:06:21] paragraph council member questions

[3:06:23] whether information has been properly

[3:06:24] designated as confidential or wishes to

[3:06:26] know the specific sections of the RCW or

[3:06:28] other law under which the information is

[3:06:29] designated as confidential or in any

[3:06:31] time limit for such designation may ask

[3:06:33] the city attorney to review the

[3:06:34] designation may request a written

[3:06:36] explanation and a version that emits

[3:06:38] only the confidential contents of the

[3:06:39] remainder may be shared. All those in

[3:06:42] favor of the amendment, please say I.

[3:06:45] » I.

[3:06:46] » I.

[3:06:46] » All those opposed

[3:06:49] and that amendment is adopted.

[3:06:52] Other amendments.

[3:06:57] » I move amendment

[3:07:01] 3.1A.

[3:07:03] I'm so sorry. This is my first time

[3:07:05] doing this.

[3:07:09] » Do I keep reading it?

[3:07:11] » We can see it. So, you can speak to the

[3:07:13] amendment. I'll repeat it before we

[3:07:15] vote.

[3:07:15] » All right. Um I uh had asked for some

[3:07:18] clarity on effectively this just changes

[3:07:20] council leadership to council president

[3:07:22] to better clarify um when you would like

[3:07:25] to attend remotely. Who gives a thumbs

[3:07:28] up for that?

[3:07:33] Uh, council Walsh.

[3:07:35] » Second.

[3:07:37] » Got a motion, a second. Is there any

[3:07:38] other discussion?

[3:07:41] » Okay. Not seeing any, I will read the

[3:07:44] amendment is the section 3.10

[3:07:47] apprentices a virtual remote attendance

[3:07:49] of the council rules procedure and

[3:07:51] resolution 2026-11 by replacing council

[3:07:53] leadership with council president in the

[3:07:55] sentence. virtual attendance granted for

[3:07:57] reasons other than those listed above.

[3:07:59] Uh medical issue illness or quarantine

[3:08:01] or travel and city business may not

[3:08:02] exceed a total of five meetings per year

[3:08:03] without approval of council leadership

[3:08:06] to be considered an excuse absence. So

[3:08:07] it's just basically

[3:08:10] you know replacing council leadership

[3:08:12] with council president. All those in

[3:08:14] favor please say I.

[3:08:15] » I.

[3:08:16] » All those opposed.

[3:08:18] That amendment is adopted.

[3:08:21] Council president Marts.

[3:08:23] » Thank you Mr. Mayor. I want to move to

[3:08:25] the uh proposed amendment to section

[3:08:27] 4.08 subc sub one

[3:08:33] and following uh this evening's pattern

[3:08:36] I will speak to it. I said earlier

[3:08:38] tonight that I would speak I would say

[3:08:40] the three things that have been the

[3:08:41] biggest deal um to council in the 17

[3:08:44] years that have been on uh Oakrest

[3:08:46] pedestrian death uh Chel sites uh it was

[3:08:50] only one meeting but it was the it was

[3:08:51] the famous 7 hour and 45minute meeting

[3:08:54] and of course ALPRs. So in all of these

[3:08:58] we were able to accomplish what we

[3:09:00] wanted to accomplish without setting

[3:09:01] finite time limits on public engagement.

[3:09:04] um we did it through um respecting what

[3:09:07] we heard and repeating it back to the

[3:09:09] public and letting people have

[3:09:10] non-verbal support for it. I have seen

[3:09:13] people use time limits and game it um by

[3:09:17] the choice of speakers and people wind

[3:09:20] up feeling scuzzy. So if we didn't need

[3:09:22] it for those things, I don't think we

[3:09:23] need to have it in the code, which is

[3:09:25] why I support this amendment. Thank you.

[3:09:34] Second.

[3:09:34] » I'll second him.

[3:09:35] » Okay. There's been a motion, a second.

[3:09:40] » I I'll speak to if I could.

[3:09:41] » Go ahead, Council Member Joe.

[3:09:42] » Uh I appreciate the manner that council

[3:09:45] leadership has been able to guide and

[3:09:47] navigate us through these uh big issues,

[3:09:50] including the recent conversation with

[3:09:52] the the flock cameras. Um I do have uh a

[3:09:57] great deal of trust in the leadership

[3:09:59] that they will be able to um guide the

[3:10:02] public participation in a way where

[3:10:03] everyone feels seen and heard and valued

[3:10:06] along the way and so I am okay with the

[3:10:09] amendment uh that's before the committee

[3:10:11] and we'll be supporting it. Thank you.

[3:10:12] Uh before the council. Thank you.

[3:10:16] » Okay. Not seeing any other discussion.

[3:10:20] Uh the motion is to approve amendment

[3:10:24] 4.4.08

[3:10:26] parentheses C parentheses 1 rules of

[3:10:27] public participation amend section 4.08

[3:10:30] C-1 uh rules for public participation of

[3:10:32] the council rules of procedure

[3:10:34] resolution 2026-11 by striking and to

[3:10:37] set an overall maximum duration for the

[3:10:38] public comment period. If maximum

[3:10:40] duration is set efforts will be made to

[3:10:41] ensure there is an equal opportunity for

[3:10:42] individuals to speak in support of an

[3:10:44] opposition to an issue. So that both

[3:10:47] those sentences would be removed. All

[3:10:49] those in favor, please say I.

[3:10:50] » I.

[3:10:51] » I.

[3:10:52] » All those opposed, nay.

[3:10:54] That amendment is adopted.

[3:10:58] Council president's remarks.

[3:10:59] » The hour is late, but um I just want to

[3:11:02] thank once again uh clerk Geyser for um

[3:11:06] you know, she is a sort of regionally

[3:11:10] maybe even statewide recognized expert

[3:11:13] um in the field of clerking. and this is

[3:11:15] the third or the fourth um major ad hoc

[3:11:18] in the last five or six years that that

[3:11:21] she has helped uh walk through um and

[3:11:24] done a sterling job. So although she's

[3:11:26] not here tonight, I just I want to say

[3:11:27] thank you so much. We're so lucky to

[3:11:29] have her as our chief clerk.

[3:11:32] » Excellent. Okay. And there is no further

[3:11:36] discussion. And the motion for the

[3:11:37] council is to approve resolution number

[3:11:39] 2026-11

[3:11:41] as amended amending various sections of

[3:11:44] the city council rules and procedure as

[3:11:45] recommended by the council rules ad hoc

[3:11:47] committee and repealing resolution

[3:11:48] number 2008-15 relating to the policy

[3:11:51] for council expenditures and adopt

[3:11:52] ordinance number 3140 amending sections

[3:11:55] 2.06.110

[3:11:57] and 2.06.120 of the Isqua municipal code

[3:12:00] relating to the city council meetings in

[3:12:01] order to align them with the city

[3:12:03] council rules and procedures. All those

[3:12:06] in favor, please say I.

[3:12:08] » I.

[3:12:10] » All those opposed, nay.

[3:12:12] And that passes unanimously. The next

[3:12:14] item of business is Oh,

[3:12:19] » The new rules are in effect.

[3:12:22] » And they've already caused a beverage

[3:12:23] spill.

[3:12:24] » Yeah.

[3:12:29] [laughter]

[3:12:43] » [laughter]

[3:12:45] » Yeah, I was going to put an order.

[3:12:48] » Yeah. Yeah.

[3:12:54] » Okay. It is impressive to see how

[3:12:56] quickly the council has already adopted

[3:12:58] to the new rules. And with that, we're

[3:13:01] going to go to an old rule, which is

[3:13:02] committee reports. Council member Boyd.

[3:13:07] » I think this is my last week. Well, I

[3:13:09] have I'll have no report. I don't really

[3:13:11] actually know how that works with being

[3:13:12] an alternate, but um I'm appointed as

[3:13:16] alternate to Epher. And I guess my

[3:13:19] update is that I am in the queue uh for

[3:13:22] being appointed to the Puget Sound

[3:13:24] Regional Council's Transportation Policy

[3:13:26] Board, but there's a few other steps I

[3:13:28] need to clear before that becomes a

[3:13:30] reality. So,

[3:13:31] » Excellent.

[3:13:32] » Yep.

[3:13:32] » All right, Council Member Dair.

[3:13:34] » Uh I have one report. I had a uh meeting

[3:13:37] with the WIA8

[3:13:39] salmon recovery on May 21st. There were

[3:13:42] two presentations on legislative one was

[3:13:44] on legislative updates and planning for

[3:13:45] next year's session. Another was on

[3:13:48] coastal streams and nearshore

[3:13:50] restoration projects. Um but the main

[3:13:52] agenda was approval of the grant review

[3:13:54] committee's funding recommendations

[3:13:56] which included nearly 6.5 million of

[3:13:58] grants to go to the to go before the

[3:14:02] King County Flood Control District and

[3:14:04] Salmon Recovery Boards to be this was

[3:14:06] their recommendations for what should be

[3:14:07] awarded. Uh included in those were a few

[3:14:10] different Isiqua specific grants

[3:14:12] including the uh funding for the Isiqua

[3:14:15] Miawaki forest like Seamish UWRP uh

[3:14:19] repairing stewardship areas along Isiqua

[3:14:21] and Tibbitz Creeks weed treatment at the

[3:14:23] mouth of Isqua Creek.

[3:14:26] Sorry, we're getting late.

[3:14:27] » It's okay. You're fine. You're

[3:14:29] » Meeting of six PPD Q in Isiqua Creek and

[3:14:32] uh Laughing Jacobs Restoration

[3:14:34] Construction. Um, and the next meeting

[3:14:37] is an in-person one on July 16th, though

[3:14:39] I don't believe I can actually attend

[3:14:40] that in person. We will see how that

[3:14:42] shakes up. And that concludes my report.

[3:14:45] » Thank you very much, Council Member

[3:14:46] Nichols.

[3:14:47] » Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have no

[3:14:48] committees to report on tonight. Coun

[3:14:50] Walsh.

[3:14:55] » I can see why you had a hard time

[3:14:57] getting to the thing over here. Okay.

[3:14:59] Um, I have three reports. Uh, the

[3:15:01] planning, development, and environment

[3:15:03] uh committee meets tomorrow. topics

[3:15:05] include the goals and outcomes chart um

[3:15:08] which we made recommendations for

[3:15:10] modifications at the last meeting and

[3:15:12] they're coming back with um those

[3:15:14] changes. Um the clarifying amendments to

[3:15:18] title 18 are land use code and the first

[3:15:22] two code ordinances for um the building

[3:15:28] um better group um which is on stepbacks

[3:15:32] and open amenity space. Um east side

[3:15:36] fire and race rescue will meet next

[3:15:38] Thursday June 11th.

[3:15:41] Um, I think we've talked about that one

[3:15:43] enough, so I'll leave that there. Um,

[3:15:46] uh, ARCH, uh, Council of Electeds, the

[3:15:49] Regional Coalition for Housing, met

[3:15:51] March 21st, and we received a

[3:15:53] presentation on financing and local

[3:15:55] funding for affordable housing. Um, we

[3:15:58] also provided input on um, how regional

[3:16:02] contributions to groups like ARCH should

[3:16:06] be given credit for affordable housing

[3:16:09] investments um, at the state and county

[3:16:12] level. And so Arch is going to advocate

[3:16:15] and kind of lobby on behalf of the

[3:16:18] cities to say, "Hey, if we contribute to

[3:16:22] housing that is built in Belleview or

[3:16:24] Redmond um or any other arch city, we

[3:16:27] should get credit for it." Now, that

[3:16:31] being said, we still need to determine

[3:16:33] if the state or King County are really,

[3:16:36] you know, how they are evaluating our

[3:16:39] five-year mid um comp plan to see

[3:16:42] whether or not we are effective at doing

[3:16:45] our jobs, whether they're really

[3:16:46] counting number of units or rather are

[3:16:49] we making movement toward policy. So, I

[3:16:52] don't know how that will end up going,

[3:16:53] but that concludes my report. All

[3:16:56] » Right, council member Joe.

[3:16:57] » Thank you. The mobility and

[3:16:59] infrastructure committee uh met on May

[3:17:02] 12th. Uh we discussed the the um tip

[3:17:06] this evening. The other item that was on

[3:17:08] the agenda was um discussing

[3:17:12] frontage requirements and um taking down

[3:17:15] power lines in front of public

[3:17:17] facilities as it relates to um Seamish

[3:17:20] Water and Sewer District. That'll be

[3:17:23] coming back later to the council in

[3:17:26] June.

[3:17:27] The June 11th meeting meeting is

[3:17:29] cancelled

[3:17:31] uh for M&I.

[3:17:33] Eltech uh met today and uh on the good

[3:17:38] side of things, uh the committee decided

[3:17:41] to open a new round of funding uh for

[3:17:44] what we call this the second shoulder

[3:17:46] season, which is a little bit later in

[3:17:48] the year. Um $100,000 of funding will be

[3:17:51] opened up. awards can go up to $55,000

[3:17:56] uh in order to encourage uh large

[3:17:59] projects or innovative projects that

[3:18:00] might help uh nonprofits or community

[3:18:03] groups. Um the idea is to um kind of

[3:18:07] grease the wheel or prime the pump, so

[3:18:09] to speak, for economic vitality and um

[3:18:13] uh helping our local businesses. June

[3:18:16] 10th, those applications will open up.

[3:18:18] uh approximately they'll be due around

[3:18:21] July 10th and reviewed by Eltech at the

[3:18:24] end of July.

[3:18:26] Cascade Water Alliance uh board meeting

[3:18:28] will be June 24th. Um and June 16th will

[3:18:32] be the finance and intergovernmental

[3:18:34] committee that I serve on. That

[3:18:36] concludes my report. Thank you,

[3:18:38] » Deputy President Jen.

[3:18:39] » Great. Three reports from me tonight. Um

[3:18:41] first, the King County Regional

[3:18:42] Homelessness Authority Governing Board

[3:18:44] met on Friday, May 22nd. We received

[3:18:48] briefings on the continuum of care, 2025

[3:18:50] accomplishments in 2026 priorities and

[3:18:53] on severe weather shelters in the

[3:18:55] region. The King County Flood Control

[3:18:57] District Advisory Committee met on

[3:19:00] Friday, May 22nd. Um, we received an

[3:19:03] overview of the flood control district

[3:19:04] project process and we also talked about

[3:19:07] some potential tours of flood

[3:19:09] infrastructure across the county. So, I

[3:19:11] might get to go on some tours, which is

[3:19:13] very exciting. Um, and the East Side

[3:19:15] Transportation Partnership is meeting

[3:19:17] next Friday, June 12th at 8 a.m. in

[3:19:21] Woodenville. So, we'll uh go up there

[3:19:23] and see everyone in person. And that

[3:19:25] concludes my report.

[3:19:26] » Right. Council President Mart.

[3:19:28] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Sound Cities

[3:19:30] Association Public Issues Committee will

[3:19:32] be meeting next Wednesday, June 10th at

[3:19:34] 7 p.m. I will not be able to attend. So,

[3:19:36] council member Adair will be uh

[3:19:39] representing Isiqua on deck that

[3:19:41] evening. That concludes my report.

[3:19:44] Excellent. The mayor's report, the park

[3:19:46] bond renewal open house is tomorrow

[3:19:48] night at Pickering Barn from 6:00 to

[3:19:50] 7:00 p.m. and we'll have all the

[3:19:52] projects will be posted and people can

[3:19:53] come and ask questions, learn about what

[3:19:55] projects are in the park bond renewal.

[3:19:56] Garage Pride at the community center

[3:19:58] lawn that will celebrate Pride Month in

[3:20:00] Isqua. The garage pride is this Friday.

[3:20:02] All ages bring the Isqua community

[3:20:04] together to celebrate queer joy with an

[3:20:05] afternoon of connection, creativity, and

[3:20:07] celebration. Enjoy yard games, crafts,

[3:20:09] freebies, and a taco truck. Uh this will

[3:20:11] be happening on Friday, June 5th at the

[3:20:12] community center lawn from 3 to 6:00

[3:20:14] p.m. organized by the teens of the

[3:20:16] garage and 50 years of Esqua Singers

[3:20:19] concert. So celebrate 50 years of music,

[3:20:21] community, and tradition with the Esqua

[3:20:22] Singers 50th anniversary concert. The

[3:20:25] special performance will commemorate

[3:20:26] five decades of coral excellence. And so

[3:20:28] it's the golden anniversary concert is

[3:20:30] this Saturday, June 6th, at the Faith

[3:20:32] Church on Inqu.

[3:20:37] And that concludes the Makers report.

[3:20:40] Good of the order. Council member Joe.

[3:20:43] » Thank you. Um, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to

[3:20:46] thank you for your participation as a

[3:20:48] keynote speaker at the Memorial Day

[3:20:49] celebration. I thought you did a great

[3:20:52] job recognizing the service of all of

[3:20:55] our uh branches of of the armed forces

[3:20:58] and you made some very nice comments. I

[3:21:00] also want to acknowledge the three other

[3:21:02] council members that were there. We had

[3:21:05] a quorum, but we did not discuss any

[3:21:07] business. Um, thank you Deputy Council

[3:21:11] President Jang,

[3:21:13] uh, Council Member Nichols and Council

[3:21:15] Member um, Boyd for attending that. Uh,

[3:21:19] it was a great event to to go to. Um, I

[3:21:22] also wanted to follow our newly adopted

[3:21:25] rules. Um, we um, under 3.12, I believe,

[3:21:30] I'm supposed to let people know that I

[3:21:33] would like to attend the National League

[3:21:34] of Cities in November. And if others

[3:21:37] want to join and go to that, it will be

[3:21:40] an expense over $500 and we would want

[3:21:42] to schedule it to go to the order at an

[3:21:44] appropriate time for council. So if

[3:21:46] others are interested in going going to

[3:21:48] Nashville, um please let leadership or

[3:21:51] the administration know. Thank you.

[3:21:53] » Thank you very much. I will say we

[3:21:55] learned at the memorial service from the

[3:21:57] community volunteers who water the the

[3:22:00] little new flowers around the blue

[3:22:02] memorial that they needed access to a

[3:22:04] water tap, which they have been given

[3:22:05] this week. And so that problem was

[3:22:07] raised and solved. That was uh yeah

[3:22:10] really appreciated from that group. So

[3:22:12] [snorts] the upcoming council meetings

[3:22:14] Monday June 8th committee the whole will

[3:22:16] be right here. It's about climate action

[3:22:19] plan economic development plan action

[3:22:21] downtown association will present

[3:22:23] operations and potential 2026.

[3:22:25] Uh Monday June 15th is the city council

[3:22:27] regular meeting. We're going to have a

[3:22:28] reception for the Isqua Hall of Fame

[3:22:30] winner Fred Nestrom at 6:30 p.m. And

[3:22:32] then we will discuss the Isqua district

[3:22:35] and city joint use agreement which we

[3:22:37] met with the school district this

[3:22:39] afternoon and we left it on the agenda

[3:22:41] for June 15. So that's a good sign.

[3:22:43] There is no executive session tonight

[3:22:45] and being no further business before

[3:22:47] this council is journeying at 10:31. I

[3:22:50] cannot claim this was a meeting of

[3:22:52] brevity but it is still adjourned.

City Council Regular Meeting - Jun 01 2026

Transcript