[0:01] Mayor Prom, can you do a mic check?

[0:05] » Mic check. >> Thank you. Gracias. Um, what else? Thank

[0:09] you. See,

[0:13] after two years of doing

[0:44] All right, it is six o'clock. Are you ready, city manager?

[0:48] » We're ready. Thank you. >> Perfect. I would like to call to order

[0:53] the city council meeting of July 28th, 2026. It is 6 p.m. and we will start

[1:02] with the pledge of allegiance. And I I can't believe if it's council member

[1:07] Allison or council member um Duk. I mean um Keski. Council member Allison, would

[1:12] you like to lead us?

[1:17] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the for

[1:24] one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[1:33] Leah, could you do roll call, please? >> Mayor Vignell

[1:36] » here. >> Mayor Portm Duk

[1:38] » here. >> Council member Cavaleri

[1:41] » here. >> Council member Stler

[1:43] » here. >> Council member Allison

[1:45] » here. >> Council member Paddock

[1:47] » present. >> Council member Goies

[1:49] » here. >> Next up, we will move to audience

[1:53] communication. The city welcomes public comment at the beginning of our

[1:56] meetings. Public comments are on the official record. Council does not

[2:00] respond to comments at this time um or questions. So, make sure that you give

[2:06] your contact information to the clerk if you would like us to reach out to you.

[2:11] Um please make sure that you um do not address one individual and address us as

[2:17] a whole. Please limit your comments to no more than three minutes. Any written

[2:23] comments received will be added to the official record but will not be read

[2:26] aloud. With that, I have someone who has signed

[2:31] up this evening to start off with. It's Linda Schulman. Is she here? Hi, Linda.

[2:36] If you want to come up to the microphone there and you can give us your your

[2:41] name, even though I just read it and um your city and you have three minutes.

[2:47] I will hurry. I am Linda Schulman. My husband Neil and I are here. We have

[2:53] lived in the Highlands for 20 years and been very happy with most everything.

[2:59] But right now, we have a couple things going on in our area that are upsetting.

[3:04] We have some young people on motorbikes and they are very fast and they are just

[3:14] on the verge of having an accident someplace because we have young children

[3:19] and we have older people who are walking around and we need some help. We need

[3:23] the police or someone to come up and go around and make sure that these that

[3:29] these young people know they can't go fast on these streets. They also are

[3:34] going on the trails and I am very concerned along with the rest of the

[3:40] people in our HOA that there will be an accident. That is my first thing. The

[3:47] second thing is that we have been working with the city for 18 years to

[3:54] replace our trees on the medians and we had part of them at our block on the

[4:03] median 29th to 30th done I think about 18 years ago and the rest was promised

[4:09] us for within five years. Didn't happen. Last year we were supposed to have them

[4:14] put in and they told us that the trees had not been ordered in time. I am

[4:21] hoping that they will take care of this and order the trees so we get those

[4:26] trees in our medians. And so that is really all I wanted to

[4:33] say. So thank you very much. >> Thank you.

[4:41] Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak tonight?

[4:48] Is there anyone online that would like to speak this evening?

[4:53] Barb has a different name tonight. Throw me off, but keep going once more. Is

[4:58] there anyone in the audience that would like to speak this evening?

[5:05] All right. There will be another chance for public comment at the end of the

[5:09] meeting this evening. So next up we will move on to

[5:14] presentations. I have a proclamation for National Night

[5:18] Out.

[5:23] Whereas the National Association of Town Watch sponsors a national community

[5:28] building campaign on Tuesday, August 4th, 2026 entitled National Night Out.

[5:34] And whereas the National Night Out campaign provides an opportunity for

[5:38] neighbors in Mil Creek to join over 38 million neighbors across 17,000

[5:43] communities from all 50 states, US territories, and military bases

[5:48] worldwide. And whereas National Night Out is an annual community building

[5:53] campaign that promotes strong police community partnerships and neighborhood

[5:57] camaraderie to make our neighborhoods safer, more caring places to live and

[6:03] work. And whereas neighbors in Mil Creek assist the local law enforcement agency

[6:09] through joint community building efforts and support National Night Out 2026.

[6:14] And whereas it is important that all neighbors of Mil Creek come together

[6:18] with police and work together to build a safer, more caring community. And now

[6:23] therefore, I, Stephanie Vignell, the mayor of the city of Mil Creek, on

[6:28] behalf of the entire city council, to hereby call upon all of our neighbors of

[6:33] Mil Creek to join the Mil Creek Police Department and the National Association

[6:37] of Town Watch in support for National Night Out on Tuesday, August 4th, 2026.

[6:45] Further, let it be proclaimed that Tuesday, August 4th, 2026 is National

[6:50] Night Out in Mil Creek. And tonight I have members of our

[6:57] citizen patrol here to um accept this wonderful proclamation. So I have Diana

[7:05] is is it okay Leopa?

[7:10] I'm saying it wrong. And Samantha Barry and Monique Morgan and Cindy Pasco if

[7:17] you all would like to come up. And um maybe the chief would like to come up

[7:22] too, I don't know, and um meet us and have a photo.

[7:51] Yeah,

[8:05] » seriously. >> Okay.

[8:13] I don't think

[8:34] » so.

[9:08] Thank Thank you. Our citizen patrol is so amazing. So, thank you all for all

[9:11] you do. I was having lunch recently with a with one of my girlfriends and we were

[9:16] we walked out and saw a couple of you were just walking down the street and

[9:20] looking in on things. We were like, that's is so nice to see you out there.

[9:24] So, thank you for all you do. >> You too.

[9:29] » Thank you. >> All right. There's no old business and

[9:34] no new business and no proposed new initiatives. So we will move on to study

[9:40] sessions. So next up we have a study session on initial annexation scenario

[9:45] analysis and key updates. City manager Martin Yamamoto and Rob Finty from 1961

[9:52] Consulting and Sarah Emmensme Consulting will guide us in this

[9:58] presentation tonight. >> Thank you Mayor Council. Just want to

[10:01] say a few things to kick this off before Rob comes up and starts presentation.

[10:07] Um, just want to mention that the annexation scenarios uh that you're

[10:10] about to review are a critical step in implementing council's 2040 vision and

[10:16] strategic plan. I do believe the annexation is the

[10:20] catalyst for achieving that vision by strengthening the city's long-term

[10:24] financial sustainability and supporting

[10:29] and supporting strategic growth. The

[10:34] direction that council provides this evening will not only determine our path

[10:37] forward for for potential annexation, but also help shape the city's physical

[10:42] growth and also positioning the city with the financial capacity necessary to

[10:46] support future long-term investments and deliver on those long-term priorities.

[10:50] So, with that, I'll hand over to Rob Fenty, 1961 Consulting, to lead us

[10:54] through the annexation scenarios.

[11:00] Thank you, city manager, mayor, mayor prom, and members of the council. Thank

[11:04] you. It's nice to be with you tonight. So, uh, as you remember at our last

[11:08] study session, where we left off was the direction to staff to go analyze

[11:14] specific blocks that we had identified as, uh, potential scenarios, uh, in a

[11:19] first step of annexation. So, we're going to break this into three sections

[11:23] tonight. Uh I'll go through a handful of slides just to get us back in the room

[11:27] of where where we left last time and uh what the assignment was and then I'm

[11:32] going to hand it over to Sarah so that she can walk through the financial

[11:35] analysis uh that she's done um in the interim that uh really pulls together

[11:41] the scenarios so that we can look at them and then we'll have a discussion

[11:44] around four different scenarios that have come out of that based on the the

[11:48] guiding principles that uh that you defined in the last session. So, just to

[11:54] bring us back in the room, we started this conversation in May uh with just

[11:58] getting ourselves grounded on a path to the fall. And the idea was that by the

[12:02] fall, we wanted to have clarity from a go no-go perspective of whether you were

[12:06] interested in pursuing annexation as a financial viability step for the city

[12:11] and if yes, what were the most likely scenarios that you you would want to

[12:15] pursue. So in June uh we came back and focused on uh making sure we had very

[12:21] clear uh guiding principles for the decision-making that could guide us all

[12:25] through the process both in analysis and decision. And we focused on

[12:29] infrastructure uh because that was a big uh conversation and a big question mark

[12:34] around what was going on in the different areas. And so we brought the

[12:38] information from the county together uh and and talked about what was happening

[12:42] infrastructure-wise across the the different um muga areas that we were

[12:47] considering. Out of that we came up with uh five uh five different blocks

[12:52] basically to the east and the south that we wanted to go analyze. So tonight the

[12:58] the intent of tonight is to go through the scenarios that have come out of that

[13:02] analysis that fit your guiding principles and to talk about those

[13:06] scenarios with the intent at the end for you to give us guidance on which one

[13:12] feels the most likely that you'd like to pursue. So this is not a decision night.

[13:17] We're still in conversation. uh we still have a lot of room for analysis between

[13:22] now and September to really dive down into the final details and the

[13:27] implementation level thinking, but we would like your guidance tonight on

[13:30] which of these scenarios uh fit the best with where your heads are at and what

[13:34] the guiding principles are for the city so that we can narrow in our analysis

[13:38] and bring you back uh more detailed information.

[13:42] So, uh as a reminder of the guiding principles, we came up with three

[13:46] guiding principles. Uh the first um and really the primary was financial impact.

[13:51] What got us into this conversation was a was really discussion around long-term

[13:56] financial viability of the city. And you're going to see the analysis

[14:01] confirms that and we'll talk specifically about how how the analysis

[14:05] confirms the the current state and point in time for Mil Creek and what the

[14:09] options are to strengthen financial viability over over the the next um

[14:15] period. The summary of this guiding principle

[14:18] was really that we're looking for near-term substantive impact. And so we

[14:23] defined that was within three years. And so that's what we were looking for in

[14:26] the analysis. And we wanted it to be real. So those are the scenarios that

[14:30] we're going to bring to you. The second was we wanted to retain the Mil Creek B

[14:35] brand and vision, meaning that the neighborhoods that you think about

[14:39] annexing should feel like they're a part of Mil Creek. um and may not be

[14:44] immediately, but there's a path to to integrate them and have them be a part

[14:49] of Mil Creek, and we want the city to be able to maintain its standards for

[14:53] clean, safe, and well-maintained. So, those were the two really central

[14:57] parameters within that one. The third was strategic value, uh which was a

[15:03] should compared to the first two, which were really must. And what we were

[15:08] looking for in the scenarios is do the annexation scenarios give us more

[15:13] influence or control over the entry points to the city. So the so the places

[15:18] where people have that first experience of the city. Uh do they give the city

[15:22] any influence over what's going to happen to the west in terms of the 164th

[15:27] and light rail development? And does it provide any benefits in terms of

[15:31] financial capacity meaning bonding, grants, legislative funding, etc. So we

[15:35] had our eyes on those things as well. So as you remember uh this is where we

[15:41] left left the last conversation and uh we looked at four different MOA areas

[15:46] all around the city and narrowed in on five blocks and we specifically as you

[15:51] remember narrowed them down to for to blocks so that we could analyze them and

[15:55] really look at how they m mix together how they match together to provide the

[16:00] the the right and appropriate steps for the city. We're going to be talking

[16:05] about four scenarios. And so as you as you listen to Sarah's analysis, Sarah

[16:10] broke them down by blocks so that financially we could mix them together.

[16:14] Uh what I'm going to be presenting to you is there are combinations of those

[16:18] blocks that form the scenarios that meet the guiding principles that you've

[16:21] talked about. The first is A plusB. So that is the scenario of going east uh

[16:28] which we've talked about as um annexing neighborhoods that feel um very

[16:32] appropriate and and and some of which already feel a part of Mil Creek. The

[16:37] second scenario is CDNH which is the corridor to the south. Um the 527

[16:44] corridor goes right between DNH. Um council member Cavaleri

[16:48] » Rob as you give those can you give the population uh numbers in there as well

[16:52] please? I'm going to come back and I'll give you I'll give you specific numbers

[16:55] for each of the scenarios as as we talk about them. Um the third scenario is

[17:00] AD&H. So that's picking up the block to the east and coming down the power lines

[17:05] uh to include the the 527 corridor uh between D&H. And then the final scenario

[17:11] which some of you brought up which is let's state the intent to do it all. And

[17:16] that would be the caveat of that scenario is that effectively it would be

[17:20] a staged implementation scenario that would take multiple years and uh we

[17:25] would go off as a next step with staff and come back with the staging of that

[17:29] but it would take but but the assumption of that is it's not one swoop it would

[17:32] be it would be over multiple segments and multiple years. So I just want to

[17:36] give you a little bit of framing and reminder so that when you're listening

[17:40] to Sarah's analysis uh you can fit that together. What we're going to do after

[17:44] Sarah runs through her numbers is I'll come back and take you through each of

[17:47] these scenarios uh with population, with what's the financial impact, with what

[17:52] the pros and the cons are. Uh we'll do a quick run through of each of the

[17:56] scenarios and then we can talk about which ones feel like the most

[17:59] appropriate to consider. Okay, great. So Sarah, I will hand it

[18:05] over to you and let you run uh through your numbers.

[18:08] » Great. Uh good evening everybody. I'm sorry I'm not there in person. Although

[18:12] I'm probably more useful to to you tonight as a computer head on the wall

[18:17] in case you have questions because I do have a lot of backup that I can refer

[18:21] to. I think Rob will do a really good job of keeping this high level. Um so

[18:25] just to kick off the analysis that I did um I should have probably zoomed in on

[18:30] the blocks that we'll be looking at so you can see the colors better, but I did

[18:34] cost these out uh and and estimate revenues for each block discreetly. um

[18:39] which means that I'm relying really heavily on on this future land use uh

[18:43] assumptions or the designations from the counties as well as as uh assessor data.

[18:48] So this is not you know I it would have been great if I could drive through and

[18:51] make a count of every retail store in each area but I didn't do that. Um so

[18:56] you know this these again are estimates. Um, just before we start, the blocks A

[19:01] and C, as you can see, are really highly residential, and there's very little

[19:04] commercial activity that's assumed to be happening or to happen eventually in

[19:08] those areas. And that's really important from a fiscal analysis standpoint, but

[19:12] because it means those two areas are um there's a lot more reliance on property

[19:18] tax. Property tax and sales tax being the two primary general fund revenue

[19:22] sources. So those are the areas that when you see a red numbers on the next

[19:27] page um that's really why that that's happening as well as the fact that

[19:31] because there is population in those areas there are staffing assumptions and

[19:35] other costs that are assumed to scale with population in those two areas. So

[19:40] we can skip to the next slide and and because I can't see your faces except

[19:43] very tiny on my screen please just shout at me if you um have a question and want

[19:47] me to stop. Um so this view is the first year the assumed first year which would

[19:53] be 2027. Um and of course that number could change based on what actually

[19:58] happens but it's just kind of helpful to have an assumed year to start uh for

[20:01] inflation purposes. And then 2044 is shown on the right and the top half of

[20:07] this screen is the revenue side. So you can see general fund revenues and the

[20:12] composition there. Um the second line is the sales tax. You can see it is assumed

[20:16] to be uh relatively lower in in block C and and block A, although I don't have

[20:22] the populations on this view. Um they're they're on a later page. Um compared to

[20:28] sales tax and property taxes, as you know, also grow more slowly than sales

[20:33] tax. Uh it's it's based on uh the 1% plus new construction. So in those two

[20:38] areas where there's relatively less development that's assumed to happen, uh

[20:42] revenues just tend to grow more slowly. Uh on the bottom half of the screen you

[20:48] can see the expenditures. Oh, I'm sorry and I skipped over the other funds. So

[20:51] we have street REIT and road fund revenues. That's the real estate excise

[20:55] tax. Um there's some multi uh motor vehicle fuel tax portion that's that's

[21:00] distributed largely based on population. Uh there's a car tab estimate in there

[21:05] as well. Um and and so forth. And and even though these funds uh tend to pay

[21:10] for different things, I thought it would be helpful to kind of have them all

[21:13] together just so you can see the the top line bottom line um view here. And then

[21:19] on the bottom part of the screen, we have all of the uh ongoing operating

[21:24] expenditures as well as some u road fund maintenance and operations expenditures

[21:29] uh for each of the areas. police being the largest portion of costs especially

[21:33] in blocks A with its high population and block D with just a lot of of stuff

[21:39] going on. Um so this this staffing model that is underlying these these numbers

[21:45] um is is largely based on the ratios that I developed for the first phase of

[21:50] this analysis and presented to you back in the winter um with some review of by

[21:54] staff just based on the fact that you know instead of taking those full muga

[21:58] areas we would be looking at sub areas um so that's kind of where those numbers

[22:02] came from. There are also assumptions based on uh the previous model about

[22:07] overhead, about non-personnel costs, vehicle purchases, uh and so forth. And

[22:12] so all of those together uh give you the bottom line net surplus or deficit in

[22:17] the cases of of blocks A and C. Um and you can see how those uh grow in either

[22:24] a negative or a positive direction uh from 2027 over to the last year that I

[22:30] costed out, which was 2044. And again, this is just kind of to give give you a

[22:35] sense of the relative scale of the details behind the numbers. Uh, so

[22:39] there's a lot of talking here. I think I'll pause and see if you all have any

[22:43] questions about this detail um before I move on.

[22:47] » Um, yes, Council Member Allison has a question.

[22:50] » Thank you, Sarah. Um, on the the the revenue sides, what is in the other

[22:56] taxes bucket? >> Sure. That's a portion of the um c the

[23:00] county criminal justice sales tax that's distributed to cities. Uh there are also

[23:05] utility taxes that are um I did an analysis based on current taxes in the

[23:10] city of Mil Creek and then I just kind of scaled things based on parcels with a

[23:14] lot of assumptions behind it.

[23:20] » Any other questions? Um Council Member Seckler.

[23:24] » Yeah, I uh I have a couple questions. This might be better to wait till later

[23:27] or we could do it now because it's on the screen.

[23:30] » But I have a a number of questions about the expense line.

[23:35] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[23:37] » All right. So, I'm I'm looking at some of these numbers and and I I don't

[23:40] understand where these expenses come from. For example, in uh this district

[23:45] A, which is a strip that runs alongside our current border. It's not a a deep

[23:51] penetration of area. It's just kind of a slight expansion of the area that we

[23:54] already are covering. We've got a $1.6 million increase in the police

[23:59] department, which I didn't quite understand how that could be where that

[24:04] number came from. I just need answers on, you know, where these numbers come

[24:06] from. In the first year, I've got a $950,000

[24:11] expense for surface water. And I don't understand where that number comes from

[24:15] or where that that expense is was created, as well as each one of these

[24:19] expense lines. And uh I I'd like to understand

[24:22] you know what what drives these numbers. >> Sarah, I might I might jump on in on the

[24:27] staffing part and then um you can talk about surface water. So, um so I engaged

[24:32] with staff uh after the last study session to go block by block so that we

[24:36] could sit down and make staffing assumptions. And the guidance we used

[24:40] was the effectively the guidance you gave us to use the existing Mil Creek

[24:44] model to stay lean. And so we were sanity checking the staffing based on

[24:49] the current ratios uh that Mil Creek uses. Now we made a judgment here that

[24:56] we were going to wait until implementation planning to push on any

[24:59] of that. We could have a conversation that says a if we go into a that there

[25:03] may not be as much necessary staffing. Uh but we just use the guidance you gave

[25:09] us in terms of the current Mil Creek ratio as at this point so that you can

[25:13] see the financial estimates and then when we get to the the nuances of

[25:17] exactly how many staff we we'll we'll pick that up in implementation planning

[25:20] is the next step. So you so you'll have an opportunity to push on some of that

[25:25] block by block based on what guidance you give us in terms of which area you

[25:28] want to pursue. The challenge is that we're looking at these numbers now and

[25:32] going to be making decisions you what looks better, what looks worse, and

[25:35] we're all looking at the bottom line. And if these numbers aren't necessary,

[25:39] then the bottom lines are all going to change. Or if some areas are actually,

[25:44] you know, going to need lot more expenses. I I I would what I'd like to

[25:47] see is an analysis that's based on probable expenses on these particular

[25:53] areas. What makes sense? For example, I picked the biggest one of all because

[25:58] it's it How how in the world are we going to spend a million dollars on

[26:01] surface water? What what have we seen in there that would justify that projected

[26:05] expense? >> So So I think we have followed that

[26:07] guidance that the probable expenses based on the existing level of

[26:11] resourcing that the city uses. We have not we have not used other cities

[26:16] benchmarks. We've used Mil Creek's benchmarks.

[26:19] And and the reason we've done that is that over time what that's borne out is

[26:24] that's the appropriate level that the city has found in order to support the

[26:28] services that it needs. Now it may be that we would push and say in year one

[26:33] or year two we could go in with less but we chose to give you numbers that were

[26:38] more of a sustainable number so that you could see what the financial the best

[26:41] guess of what the financials would be. Now from that perspective remember these

[26:46] financials at this point are estimates. So you will get to a budgeting process

[26:50] every year. Uh but what we've done is is is integrated all the different

[26:54] assumptions from staffing, infrastructure,

[26:58] equipment, etc. to give you guidance on on which which of these areas are

[27:03] effectively financially accreative and and to what level is. Are the numbers

[27:07] down to the $10 accurate? No. But they're they're directionally going to

[27:10] be correct for you. >> Yeah. I'm worried they're kind not even

[27:12] down to the $10, down to the million dollar number because you know if if

[27:15] we're 20 if if for example this area A is 25% of our population increase we're

[27:20] going to increase by 25%. Then we're taking 25% of our current police 25% of

[27:24] our current surface water and adding that on. Well, that makes no sense to me

[27:28] because we don't know if that particular area is going to need that additional

[27:31] police coverage if it's going to even need the surface water. But it will

[27:34] affect our decisions going forward. And more importantly, there are certain

[27:38] areas where our current numbers are not going to make sense. You know, we're

[27:42] we're going to look at some areas where we're going to need higher numbers than

[27:45] we're currently, you know, and our that are that are that are based on our

[27:49] current population distribution. In other words, some areas are going to

[27:52] need more police than the current uh Mil Creek model. Correct. Some areas going

[27:56] to need less police than the current milk truck model. So, I really think we

[27:59] need to I I would really love to to scrub each one of these numbers and say

[28:04] where does it come from? Where would we need it in the first year? And if we

[28:08] don't need it, the good news to that is after the first year instead of being

[28:12] down 147,000, we may have a couple million dollars which will help us to

[28:16] fund other areas as we move down the road that will need si significant uh

[28:21] increases. >> So, so as we get to the next level,

[28:23] we'll push on that. I I would caution you is you've been very clear in your

[28:28] guiding principles. We want to maintain the standards of the city. So one of the

[28:33] assumptions that we used is to maintain the standards of the city. We're going

[28:37] to use the current city's rubric in terms of staffing to thousand citizens

[28:44] and we'll apply that in the numbers so that you have you have a good benchmark

[28:48] collectively in terms of this is the staffing we'd go in with to maintain the

[28:52] standards of the city at the lean model that the city is using. Now I think it's

[28:56] a dangerous path for you to start going down and picking on every single one. Um

[29:01] there are there are ch there there's potential we might be able to gain some

[29:04] synergies but at this point I would guide you that there's been a lot of

[29:08] discipline put into these numbers from from an analysis perspective I would use

[29:13] these numbers and then let's get into implementation planning and see if we if

[29:16] there are any other gains >> once we dig down not to interro once we

[29:20] dig down to the areas that we're most interested in I'm sure the numbers are

[29:24] going to change and so to council member Steph's point so these are just I

[29:28] wouldn't say they're wags but they're just kind of you know what the numbers

[29:32] bear out currently. >> Yeah. And and just to be clear, there's

[29:36] nothing finger in the air about these numbers. This is all the available

[29:39] sources from the county. Uh Sarah has gone into the the line item detail

[29:44] around the revenue numbers and the expenses from everything we know. So

[29:47] these these numbers are pretty borne out. Um and yes, to council member

[29:51] Cavaleri's point, as as you give us guidance on the areas that we'll go

[29:54] into, we will go down one more level and really start pushing. So do you feel

[29:59] confident that your this number for uh area A is a realistic expense number

[30:05] that we would incur in the first year >> based based on the current ratio of

[30:09] employees FTE to thousand people? Yes. >> So the $950,000 is just based upon our

[30:16] current surface water program. >> Can I answer the question, Rob? Would it

[30:20] be helpful? Um, can we go to slide four on the presentation

[30:26] because I think this might help clear things up. So, this is where we have the

[30:30] personnel. This the assumed per staff spread for each of the departments and

[30:36] you can see for area A there are two FTE that are assumed CD and H each have 1.3.

[30:43] So the 900,000, you know, there are assumptions about

[30:47] salaries and benefits and about vehicles per FTE that we get from the from the

[30:52] the scrub of budgets that we did over the winter in Mil Creek and and other

[30:56] like communities. Um, as well as talking to the county, if you're talking about

[31:01] an A plus B scenario, that 900,000 would be split across the two blocks. Um, and

[31:07] we did talk a lot about surface water infrastructure in the last meeting.

[31:10] there there is quite a bit of infrastructure in all of these areas.

[31:13] There weren't as many culverts that were identified, but those wouldn't be in

[31:16] this cost anyway because those were assumed to be capital. So, I do feel

[31:20] pretty confident after going through the the infrastructure for for streets and

[31:25] roads and surface water at the last meeting and having worked with the

[31:28] operating budget for, you know, eight months now that that we're getting we're

[31:33] a Mil Creek is staffed currently. Um, but looking at these numbers and scaling

[31:38] as best as we can. But does that answer your question about kind of how what's

[31:42] what what's driving the the difference here?

[31:44] » No, I still see confusion because in in area A, you've got an FTE increase of

[31:51] two on streets and two on surface water, right? These are FTE counts. Am I

[31:54] correct? >> Yes.

[31:55] » Okay. And then over in uh area D, which is a larger area, you have a smaller

[32:01] number of FTE counts. So how could they be based on population? And if the

[32:04] population is bigger in D, why is the number of FTEEs lower?

[32:08] » So this this is kind of back to Rob's this is sort of a directional

[32:11] conversation because what staff did with Rob's guidance was walk through the two

[32:17] sets of blocks, not in each one discreetly um for the purposes that he's

[32:23] going to show you next where he has the different scenarios of of two or three

[32:27] blocks. And what I did because I'd already built a revenue model that went

[32:31] block by block was I spread them based on this just so I could show you an

[32:35] individual bottom line knowing that when you were were going to be discussing

[32:40] scenarios you'd be combining them. So I think that you know that like if you

[32:44] were to I don't think anybody would assume you would just have one you know

[32:47] a third of an FTE on one area. It would be more sort of as you're considering

[32:51] these what would the appropriate staffing level be?

[32:55] Yeah, it still doesn't add up for me, but I know we're I'm saying the same

[32:58] thing, so we can move on. >> Yeah,

[33:01] go ahead, >> deputy director.

[33:02] » So, I know on this, but I did want to point out that the FTE figures were

[33:07] configured to be used in block scenarios and not individually. So, we identified

[33:14] the need based in A. If you did A and B together, that scenario is a little bit

[33:20] different. And more than likely, you're not going to be able to do

[33:24] just B because it comes down and with the um

[33:31] the boundary review board, they likely won't approve that because of the flag

[33:36] annexation. >> Um so these are all considering the

[33:41] different scenarios that are likely. So don't just strictly say, "Oh, we're only

[33:46] looking at A or we're only looking at B." Because you're not just going to be

[33:50] annexing B. >> Laurel, you may you might talk the about

[33:54] the multiple rubrics too that some of them are based on thousand people, some

[33:58] of them are based on road, you know, numbers.

[34:01] » So the other piece, so pieces of this, um, so like your streets, we're going to

[34:06] have expenses more than likely based on street mile.

[34:11] So, your staffing is going to be tied to that or the number of parks that we're

[34:15] going to be taking in based on the different areas. And then we also have

[34:20] police. The easiest way to get your police number is going to be based on

[34:24] population because that's historically what we've used. Um, so that also plays

[34:29] a big role in how we came up with these numbers.

[34:34] I I promise they were not wax.

[34:39] » Any other questions?

[34:43] Yeah, I'm I'm I I I still would would like to reserve my opinion on these

[34:49] expense numbers and you know, not related during this meeting right now,

[34:53] but based on moving forward, I'm not I'm not I'd like to spend more time with

[34:56] them, but maybe at a later date when we get to a decision-m stage. Okay.

[34:59] » Yeah. And I think specifically if you guide if you guide us to go look at a

[35:03] that's one that we can really dig in with you.

[35:06] » Yeah.

[35:13] Um, excuse me. So, uh, just before we turn off of this slide, actually,

[35:17] there's a pretty big update that I meant to give when we were looking at the map

[35:20] earlier. Um, so the one kind of major change from the presentation I gave in

[35:25] June was the population for block H, which um, originally I'd done just sort

[35:31] of scale kind of a rough cut uh, based on purely on parcel analysis and the

[35:36] uses of parcels in the assessor data. But after looking at it more closely,

[35:40] there is some fairly large uh multifamily housing in this area. So

[35:45] I've updated the estimate, it was about 1,000, which I believe was too low. Uh

[35:50] and it's about 2600 now. So you can see the the population of of H has assumed

[35:55] to be bigger at this point. So maybe the best thing to do would be

[36:00] to go back to slide three or two. That gives the or sorry uh go one more

[36:09] back. Yeah, there we go. That one. The big table.

[36:15] Uh this one. Yes. Can you zoom in a little

[36:20] bit? Um and again, I hope you know I don't

[36:25] know how useful this is. Maybe I can do a quick math exercise and add these up

[36:29] for you while you're talking. But um this is intended to show the lifetime of

[36:33] each of these blocks. um and kind of what's you know what what what the

[36:37] tipping point would be. Um the expiration of the assumed annexation tax

[36:42] credit is what's causing a to go kind of closer to zero and then back down again

[36:47] in 2032. That's a six-year tax credit that's assumed to expire at that point.

[36:52] Um but everything else should hopefully be be pretty straightforward. I have the

[36:55] assumed growth rates there and um you know population growth is is assumed at

[37:02] the same rate as last presentation. Um is there anything else I can provide to

[37:07] be helpful here Rob or do we want to go into go back to your conversation?

[37:14] » Council members, do you have questions for Sarah?

[37:21] Did >> Council member Pedic did you have any

[37:23] questions? Okay, we're good. >> And Sarah will hang with us.

[37:26] » Oh, wait a minute. You know what? Because I granted she could yell, but I

[37:29] cannot see. >> No, no questions for me. Thank you very

[37:32] much. >> Okay, just want to make sure. You're

[37:33] welcome. >> Don't worry, I'll yell.

[37:35] » I'm looking out for you. >> Okay, Sarah will hang with us uh as we

[37:39] go through the scenarios if there are other questions uh that we can use her

[37:42] uh phone a friend um expertise. Um I I want I want to just call out Sarah.

[37:48] She's done an immense amount of work to really tie all these together and has

[37:51] done a really great job. So Sarah, thank you for all the the background work

[37:54] you've done on this. >> No problem. If you had questions about

[37:57] housing units or retail sales square footage, that's in the assumptions page,

[38:01] which I know you had some questions about last time.

[38:05] » Okay. So, so you saw the analysis by block and and the the caveat that to

[38:10] call out is when we did staffing assumptions, we were looking by these

[38:13] scenarios because sometimes the the staffing it was hard to do by by the

[38:18] little block C as an example. uh that um so uh so Sarah amvertised those. So if

[38:24] we start to look at them as scenarios, you start to see the financial picture

[38:28] of what it might look like when they're combined together.

[38:32] And there was a theme that I want to call out to you which I found very

[38:35] interesting in the analysis as as we got it back. And the theme was that the

[38:40] areas that are residentially centric, especially single family home centric,

[38:46] those are the areas where costs over time will outpace the revenues. And we

[38:51] knew we had we had that hypothesis going into this. And it was actually the

[38:55] problem statement which led us into this because that's the Mil Creek footprint.

[38:59] Uh pre going into the South Town Center and and and having higher density. uh

[39:04] the the city faces that scenario which puts us in a situation where we're

[39:09] setting ourselves up to increase taxes down the road to maintain services. So

[39:13] that bore out in in in the analysis and so you saw blocks like A follow that

[39:19] pattern uh where low growth single family centric and over time the costs

[39:24] outweigh the revenues where what that led to a conclusion was

[39:30] that the center of the annexation scenarios that are the most financially

[39:34] accreative follow one of two things. The first is the commercial corridors. And

[39:40] so you saw that in this case you're looking at D and H as the most

[39:44] financially accretive of of all of these blocks and it also follows the pattern

[39:49] of higher density. And so where we saw those dynamics running uh those were the

[39:54] the blocks that actually you could put together as a first step because that's

[39:58] all we're talking about here uh that provide the the biggest financial

[40:02] benefit to the city in the short term. So there are four scenarios that came

[40:06] out of this analysis that met your criteria in terms of that financial

[40:10] creativeness plus fit with the city. The first is A plus B. So that is the

[40:14] scenario going east and so I'll pull up each of these. U that's the least

[40:20] financially accretive as you'd expect because of the of the dynamics.

[40:24] » Sorry Rob. Council member Cavaleri has a question.

[40:26] » Yes, Council Member Cavaler. >> Thanks Rob. So just a quick explanation.

[40:31] Why would the residential outpace um anything else to the negative over a

[40:38] period of time? Because are you factoring in in like those homes are

[40:42] going to be sold over time and the city's going to collect revenues from

[40:46] that, they're going to be renovated and all those things.

[40:49] » So Sarah, I'll I'll turn this one to you in terms of what's behind in the

[40:52] numbers. >> Yeah, sure. So yeah, we do have an

[40:56] assumption about how much of the market the market value as a as a whole turns

[41:01] over each year. We um stuck with three and a half% for all the areas which is

[41:06] pretty much in line with Mil Creek for the last five or six years. Um and I

[41:12] think part of it too is that those residential areas do they're they do

[41:16] turn over um which drives REIT revenue, but there's not as much new development

[41:20] that's assumed in terms of like additional properties that are built. Um

[41:24] really the growth in those areas that are um going to have more high density

[41:28] residential uh industrial and and commercial development and mixeduse

[41:33] development will just have new construction which adds to the property

[41:36] tax roles more than like a kind of stable single family residence uh

[41:41] dominated area. >> But those but is aren't those just

[41:45] one-time collected fees? >> Yes, on the REIT yes I mean we do you

[41:49] know we have make an assumption that there's some portion that turns over

[41:51] every every year. Uh but the new construction is added as assessed value

[41:56] that's in then in the tax base from there on out. So it's above the 1%

[41:59] growth in your property taxes every year. So it's an ongoing increase if

[42:03] there's new build. >> Thank thanks sir.

[42:05] » The other dynamic in there council member Cavalier is is the growth. So so

[42:09] the areas that have low growth associated with that will obviously have

[42:12] that dynamic. >> Any other questions? Okay. So, I'll run

[42:18] through each of the scenarios uh fairly as a high level because you've all seen

[42:22] these in the packet and then uh and then we'll stop and talk. So, the first

[42:26] scenario is what we've been calling Mil Creek East which are blocks A and B. Uh

[42:31] you can see from the the top it's Seattle Hill Road, uh which is coming

[42:36] between the existing city boundary and A. Uh B is bordered on the south by

[42:41] 180th and then 35th uh Avenue Southeast on the on the western border.

[42:47] So if you look at uh the summary of of this the population is about 10,700.

[42:54] Uh it is primarily residential. Um it is financially accretive when you combine

[42:59] the two and it does be remain financially accretive through year 18.

[43:04] Uh this is the one scenario where the u benefits to the city decrease over time

[43:10] rather than increase. So, it starts to uh be about $1.1 million uh net to the

[43:16] city, revenues minus costs, and by the time we get to year 18, it's about

[43:20] $500,000 net positive. So, it's um it basically becomes uh becomes less

[43:26] accretive over time. The benefit of this is that many of these neighborhoods

[43:31] already think of themselves as Mil Creek and as many of you have pointed out, uh

[43:35] citizens in these areas are already using the services of Mil Creek. So,

[43:39] they feel integrated with the city. Uh so there are lower identified risks uh

[43:44] with uh with with this going this direction and there's the potential to

[43:48] leverage REIT dollars. Um and uh in this process we looked at parks um and Tanark

[43:54] park is in this area. When we look at the cons of this relative to the other

[43:58] scenarios um it doesn't gain any significant commercial activity or

[44:02] corridor. So um this is primarily residential. uh we've talked about this

[44:07] as being easier uh but we don't get the commercial uplift or the industrial

[44:12] uplift and as we saw in Sarah's initial analysis that we looked at earlier in

[44:16] the year this area has lower growth uh and lower growth capacity compared to

[44:21] the other areas. Um the other thing that I would say is just to call to your

[44:25] attention is there is some signaling that's going to happen in whichever area

[44:30] you choose to move forward around and uh there's different signaling by moving

[44:36] down the commercial corridors and the entrances to the city versus simply

[44:40] moving into some of the residential areas to the east. So I think this is

[44:43] less of a signal to the region uh in terms of the intent of the city if you

[44:48] are thinking down the road that you may want to uh move farther south or or or

[44:54] even move west as as a as a possibility. The one thing that we did want to call

[44:59] out here is obviously we have to have conversations with the boundary review

[45:02] board. Uh the bottom part of B in this picture does provide a non-ontiguous

[45:07] border. Uh so we believe that we would have there may be some conversations

[45:11] with the B boundary review board and they may even have concerns about the

[45:14] bottom part of B in this scenario. Any questions on that scenario?

[45:23] Okay. Scenario two is uh is Mil Creek South. Uh there are two um scenarios two

[45:30] and three where we'll be looking at DNH as the as the main commercial corridor

[45:35] blocks. This is the first of those. So, uh, uh, block C is bordered on the east

[45:41] by 35th, uh, and the south by 180th. And then you can see it follows the power

[45:46] lines, uh, down to 196, uh, uh, at the bottom of H.

[45:55] So, this population is about 11,700 uh, between those three. Obviously, it

[46:00] does gain the the Highway 527 corridor uh, down to 196th.

[46:06] Um, blocks D and H, as you saw in the packet, are the most financially

[46:10] accretive. They're accretive from year one, and they actually grow in

[46:13] positivity over time. So, for CD and H, you would expect about two thou $2.7

[46:20] million net to the city in year 1, and that would grow over time to be about

[46:25] 5.3 million in year 18. >> Um, Rob, I actually have a question. Um,

[46:31] and I apologize for not thinking of it till now, I guess, but is there a reason

[46:37] that we're not just looking at DNH as one of the scenarios? Are we throwing in

[46:43] either C or the other one? Um, because we think they want the boundary review

[46:49] board or for some other reason because to me it would make sense to look at

[46:54] » those two. So that's certainly something that you could guide the the rationale

[46:58] between putting these blocks together is there's some residential connection

[47:02] between C and D. And so uh as going south and and with contiguous borders

[47:07] going down, we expected that this would be a more acceptable option.

[47:12] » Okay.

[47:17] » So this Yes, Council Member Steckler. So uh um again I'm looking at the D and H I

[47:26] see on the revenue side under sales tax um A has a projected sales tax of 747

[47:33] and just D alone has a projected sales tax of almost 2 million with almost the

[47:39] same number of people. What what is the driver for the $1.2 million in

[47:44] additional sales tax revenue in D? >> Sarah, can you jump in on that? Sure.

[47:49] Yeah. If you in the packet um look at the um assumptions and notes page

[47:56] there's I think it's page five. You can see how I split out the taxable sales

[48:01] amounts. Again, these were from the department of revenue um that were

[48:06] provided for um so the department of revenue provided us estimates or

[48:10] actually they provide us actual uh sales tax revenues collected in the full muga.

[48:16] And I used parcel analysis based on the use of parcels and where they were

[48:21] classified as um retail or other type of other type of taxable retail sales

[48:27] activity to split out the in-person sales based on these different blocks.

[48:33] And there wasn't really any activity occurring in B and C and very minimal in

[48:37] block A which is kind of what we expected after looking at the future

[48:41] land use and where we think that um development will occur. So uh based on

[48:46] um that I portioned the activity that's occurring in person largely to blocks D

[48:53] and H where we have a lot of industrial and commercial um sales activity that's

[48:58] that or uses that are happening in those areas.

[49:02] » I imagine that in H I was just surprised with D when I looked at this sheet um

[49:08] you have a significant increase in in in D for uh retail sales tax of 1.8 8

[49:14] million versus uh 55,000 for A. So that's where the the driver is. It's in

[49:20] I assume that's retail building, not um I mean the retail sales for the

[49:27] residential should be the same because you got

[49:30] basically the same population, right? >> Yeah. So um

[49:35] » what businesses are driving the increases in D? Indeed, it's the the ret

[49:41] the um parcels that are classed as re classed as retail services or um I you

[49:48] know even the industrial was I made an assumption about taxable uh host

[49:52] wholesaling activity that might be subject to retail sales. Um so I I lean

[49:57] pretty heavily on the land use here. Um, in terms of the remote sales, there are

[50:01] also assumptions about per household and then per um, some businesses do, you

[50:06] know, have have remote taxable sales as well. So, that's kind of where those

[50:10] numbers came from. >> So, for example, in A, you've got 55,000

[50:13] in retail sales. That's all residential retail sales.

[50:16] » So, on page five, if you look in the middle of the page there, it says

[50:20] taxable sales. And then you can see remote construction or in person.

[50:26] Um so in the assumption is in 2026 in block A there's about 24.2 million in

[50:33] remote taxable sales from deliveries in that area. In block D there's an

[50:38] assumption about 38 million. Part of that too is based on the per household

[50:42] versus per um h per per housing unit versus per um uh person. So there's um

[50:52] you know more housing there more housing units in block A, but the population is

[50:57] a little higher. There's also just more businesses in block D that might be uh

[51:01] you know ordering things and paying remote taxable sales. So that's kind of

[51:05] where those numbers came from. And then the in-person is is pretty based

[51:10] primarily on where businesses are assumed to be located and where they're

[51:14] collecting sales taxes. >> Well then forgive me for asking again

[51:18] too. I I apologize for this, but when I look at that what you just mentioned,

[51:22] that one area in the middle, um A is a population of 6,61

[51:26] with remote sales of uh 24 million, correct?

[51:30] » Yes. >> Okay. And D is a similar size area of 6

[51:34] uh 6,325, but their their remote is 38 million in

[51:42] sales versus 24 million. Uh but the commercial is separate from that. This

[51:46] is just remote. So this 24 to 38 for the same size population

[51:53] » population, isn't it? >> So the the other thing is that the

[51:57] remote taxable sales base um for blocks A and B was based on Mil Creek East and

[52:03] what's happening there. So Department of Revenue

[52:06] gave us the number of the amount of remote sales activity that's occurring

[52:12] in block A and part of block B. So that came from the Department of Revenue. It

[52:17] was a lot lower on a per household basis than what's happening in Mil Creek South

[52:22] of which blocks C, D, and H are apart. So the per when you look at it on a per

[52:28] household basis in Mil Creek East, and this again from the Department of

[52:31] Revenue, it's about 11 or 12,000 per household. In Mil Creek South, it was

[52:38] higher. It's about 18,000 per household. There's also an assumption about taxable

[52:42] deliveries to businesses that are happening in D that are not happening in

[52:46] A. So that's why even though the populations aren't that different, the

[52:49] numbers are are higher. >> So A and B was based on a different

[52:53] analysis. It was actual sales numbers and I assume CD&H you said were based on

[52:59] a on a on a formula. >> They're based on my estimate based on

[53:03] Department of Revenue Actuals. So, Department of Revenue actual gave us

[53:07] after like four months of waiting actual taxable sales information in Mil Creek

[53:15] East, Mil Creek South, uh, Marth Martha Lake and Larch. So to get to this level

[53:21] of analysis rather than go back to the department and you know not be able to

[53:25] get you what you needed for this meeting, I made assumptions about what's

[53:29] happening in Mil Creek East, which was relatively easy because it's just A and

[53:33] then like half of B. And then Mil Creek South, which was harder because there's

[53:37] areas that you're not looking at with more scrutiny. So I tried to make

[53:40] informed assumptions about the Mil Creek South activity and aortion it to each of

[53:46] the blocks that you were interested in based on what we learned in the last

[53:49] analysis and what we see and think might be happening now.

[53:52] » What what I heard you say sir is that the average was higher in south from the

[53:57] do data than in east which >> yes that is one of the factors. Yep.

[54:03] » Okay. So it's the same analysis in every block.

[54:05] » Right. But for some reason they gave a much the people in D are remotely

[54:12] ordering significantly more almost 40% more

[54:15] » that's what it says >> sales tax revenue versus the people in

[54:17] east >> I also think the casino was a big

[54:20] economic driver at the time as well but that would be in person.

[54:24] » Yeah that's um I had a question on that. Were we able to look at that data for or

[54:30] to pull out data for the casino? I know I'd mentioned it to Martin and I don't

[54:34] know the way the do gave us the information because we we can't know

[54:39] which individual businesses are are we able to

[54:44] in any way extrapolate how much would be coming from the casino since

[54:50] they're closing? >> Yeah, thanks Mayor. I did I did

[54:53] extrapolate that data and I did send that to the group. I I I can pull that

[54:58] up and and recall that information right now probably online, but

[55:02] » and we we actually have a line item list by casino of what of what they've been

[55:06] generating, so we can incorporate that. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you.

[55:14] » Okay, so uh financially accreative approximately $2.7 million uh starting

[55:20] off in year one. It grows over time. Uh obviously uh this gains the commercial

[55:25] corridor. The other thing that I would highlight is there's industrial zoning

[55:28] as we go south which provides additional economic opportunity that's not yet

[55:32] embedded in the numbers. Uh this also does gain um additional influence over

[55:38] the entry points to the city which aligns to that part of your guiding

[55:42] principles. Uh on the con side we we know that there

[55:46] may be some resistance. uh we're starting to get into the difference

[55:50] between whether this is the right thing and how because a lot of wh where we are

[55:55] going to hit some neighborhoods where they need to be educated or brought

[55:58] along uh th those are things that are controllable. Um uh we do know that

[56:04] there is part of this segment that crosses into Northshore School District.

[56:09] So, uh, if you look at this little triangle right here at the bottom of D,

[56:14] we actually start to cross over into a different school district and and that

[56:17] will be a dynamic as you look at at at different areas around the MOAS. Um, and

[56:22] we know that there are some some continual unknowns. We've actually done

[56:26] a lot of analysis around Maze Pond and uh and North Creek Park. Uh, it's

[56:31] something we continue to have our eyes on as we go forward. So, if this is if

[56:35] this is the guidance, that's one of the things we'll continue to dig in to make

[56:38] sure that there aren't any unknowns that we're not accounting for.

[56:45] Okay. The next scenario is AD&H. Uh this was a spin on DNH that you suggested

[56:50] that we look at uh which was to incorporate the areas to the east uh

[56:55] which um again already feel uh somewhat part of the city and then run down the

[57:00] power lines uh to the the southeast border of DNH down to the same point at

[57:06] 196. So if you look at the financials, this

[57:09] is actually very similar to CDNH. Uh this is larger in population because of

[57:14] incorporating block A. So this is about 15,000 in population. Um and it is a

[57:20] combination of the the neighborhoods to the east that are are um you know that

[57:25] that should feel fairly natural to assimilate with that commercial corridor

[57:30] down 527 to 196th. Um again because of blocks DNH this is financially accretive

[57:37] from year 1. It's about uh estimated to bring a net of 2.8 8 million to the city

[57:42] in year 1 and then grow over time slightly slower than the last scenario

[57:47] of CD and H to 4.8 million um uh just because A grows slower uh or or A has a

[57:54] an influence to that effect. So this has the benefit of uh of naturally

[58:01] assimilating areas that feel like a part of the city. It has natural assimilated

[58:05] borders along the power lines and you gain the commercial corridor and the

[58:08] industrial opportunity going south. Um it continues also to signal to the um to

[58:13] the to the region your the city's interest in influencing the entry points

[58:18] to the city. The cons on this are are very similar to CD&H uh and the unknowns

[58:24] um are are very similar. So um there isn't a lot to add in terms of um risk u

[58:30] that we didn't talk about in the last scenario.

[58:34] » Um Council Member Cavalary. >> Thanks Mary. I I think the

[58:39] the one thing I know I know council member Paddock and I um we kind of like

[58:45] pieced together this hybrid idea of of this uh D&H and how that comes together.

[58:52] Well, one of the things for me is that that strikes me is that that A is going

[58:56] to always be there. There's no one from the east looking to annex towards Mil

[59:02] Creek. So I you know what I mean? So it might be a safe I was I was under the

[59:07] impression initially that that it's probably the best safe first step but

[59:12] due to the population number I think it's it might be something we would add

[59:17] later. Just I'm just throwing that out there. you and I had I think we all had

[59:21] our own private discussions with Rob our Zoom meetings and so so I've evolved a

[59:26] little bit on that that that a will always be there and so what is

[59:30] the best case scenario to put your toe in the water and test now so

[59:37] » I I will tell you there's very good continuity across the council around the

[59:40] blocks D&H uh there's there's one council member thinking there's a

[59:45] different first step uh but the rest of you think that DNH is the core and and

[59:49] now you just have slightly different uh points of view around staging and where

[59:54] to go first and how to piece this together. So, it's an appropriate time

[59:57] to to add that into the conversation. Okay. So, the final scenario is the

[1:00:04] let's do it all. Uh this is the stated intent that you believe that uh that

[1:00:09] these borders will actually be a part of Mil Creek over over the next several

[1:00:13] years. Uh the caveat to this is that we would do this with a staged

[1:00:17] implementation approach. So we would go into staging um and and likely this

[1:00:22] would happen over two or three blocks and over multiple years. So we're

[1:00:27] talking five, six, etc. years. I'm not giving you those numbers as planning

[1:00:31] vehicles, but to say that we would we would come back with this is the

[1:00:35] staging, but it would happen over time so that these areas could be assimilated

[1:00:39] into the city naturally and give staff time to hire appropriately because

[1:00:44] there's staff that will be ha have to be hired to support each of these. So in

[1:00:48] this integrated scenario, uh effectively it doubles the size of the city. So it's

[1:00:53] 22,400 people. Um it uh effectively has both the pros and the cons integrated of

[1:00:59] all the other scenarios. So it integrates the east neighborhoods that

[1:01:03] already feel a part of Mil Creek and that use the services today with the

[1:01:07] commercial corridor going south and the economic opportunity uh associated with

[1:01:11] that. The thing that is is an additional note about this is that larger scale

[1:01:16] means increased regional influence and so this larger scale does increase the

[1:01:21] city's bonding capacity uh the ability to go get grants the econ potential

[1:01:26] economies of scale. So this is this is the one additional benefit if you will

[1:01:31] of this scenario that is that is it does increase the the influence and the

[1:01:35] capacity of the city uh in terms of future investments. So from a financial

[1:01:40] perspective uh in year 1 it brings a net 3.8 million to the city uh and grows

[1:01:46] over time to 5.9 million in year 18. So uh it it it continues to grow creatively

[1:01:53] throughout that period. Um and as we've talked um it it integrates both the the

[1:01:58] residential sections to the east and the commercial corridor of the south. This

[1:02:02] is effectively a step to accelerate the path of ex annexation. So rather than

[1:02:06] you having to come back to the table and make multiple decisions around an intent

[1:02:11] that you already feel like this is where you're going, this is the statement to

[1:02:14] say this is where we're going and now let's manage it appropriately and

[1:02:17] smartly in implementation and do it and do it over stages. If you look at the

[1:02:22] city uh footprint, it also creates uh continuous borders um and um and

[1:02:29] certainly sets up whatever additional conversations that would come after this

[1:02:32] whether you would want to talk about going further south or west if that's

[1:02:35] something if uh that that you choose to do. The con on this one is that doubles

[1:02:40] the size of the city and therefore uh it does um uh require it to be staged in

[1:02:46] implementation and it just increase risks along the way in terms of uh

[1:02:50] things that could come up in the process.

[1:02:51] » Um council member Cavaleri has a question.

[1:02:54] » So this has been one of my biggest worries because what this also does is

[1:02:58] ties us to some of the latest legislation on mandatory growth for

[1:03:03] cities with certain u population numbers. And so would that have the

[1:03:08] potential to like we want D&H to be a a commercial powerhouse at some point,

[1:03:14] right? We you know, we want them to really generate money. Um would that

[1:03:18] force us into a um situation where we're having to put more apartments in there

[1:03:23] just to accommodate the current laws that exist, kind of like we're doing in

[1:03:27] South Town Center at this point. Now, that's that's one of my biggest worries

[1:03:31] about this one big swoop, this one big bite. we'd be we'd be pushed into that

[1:03:36] corner uh almost immediately. >> Okay.

[1:03:41] » Any other questions on this scenario? And then and then I will open it for

[1:03:44] discussion uh around uh which scenario uh you're thinking about.

[1:03:49] » Any other questions? Um council member Paddock. Yeah, I guess a [clears throat]

[1:03:53] point of clarification just that each one of these that have multiple blocks,

[1:03:57] the idea is is that it would be a single block that would go first,

[1:04:02] second block would go second, etc. It wouldn't be grabbing all of it at once.

[1:04:07] There's no none of these scenarios say we're going to go after all of them in

[1:04:11] one fell swoop. >> Correct? So se separate the intent for

[1:04:14] what you want to do with the how we will do it because we will come back with

[1:04:19] then detailed options and recommendations on here is even if you

[1:04:23] chose this one we'll come back with here is how to stage through this start with

[1:04:27] this block and then we'll take time and then we'll do and then the

[1:04:30] recommendation is these so we'll we'll come back with that level of analysis.

[1:04:34] » Great. [clears throat]

[1:04:37] » Any other questions? >> Okay. So what we are looking for is

[1:04:42] guidance. Uh and um based on the guiding principles that you laid out, the

[1:04:48] scenarios that fit best with your guiding principles uh are effectively

[1:04:53] two, three, and four. Um we can change that, but those are the ones that fit

[1:04:58] best. And so uh really what we're looking for here is is guidance around

[1:05:02] your preferred scenario uh for us to do that next level of planning and and

[1:05:08] implementation staging so that so that you are when you get to the point of

[1:05:12] let's make a decision you actually are eyes open. That's what that's what we're

[1:05:15] looking for is to get you that next level of detail. So based on the

[1:05:18] financials and based on the analysis that's been brought to you, this is the

[1:05:22] point we're looking for guidance on on where where you want us to focus.

[1:05:28] » Does anybody um have any comments? It's a study session, so you can have

[1:05:32] comments. >> I guess I have

[1:05:34] » or question if that's okay. >> No, go for it.

[1:05:37] » So um I know these scenarios we've talked about going through which one

[1:05:42] which package here um or we want to talk through. Is there any reason what would

[1:05:49] be the downside of just saying we want to look at one of the sections

[1:05:54] rather than two, three, four, five, six or all of them? Is there any

[1:06:01] do we are we locked into anything if we say look we just want to go into I'll

[1:06:07] I'll because I don't want to jaice the jury. We want to go into zone Z and

[1:06:12] start there and see what happens. Is there any downside to that?

[1:06:20] » So I I would bring you back to your guiding principles uh which which uh

[1:06:24] were meant to guide us in the process of if we're choosing a a scenario or

[1:06:29] scenarios that actually are substantive substantively financially creative and

[1:06:36] can be maintained with the brand and the vision and give you that next step of an

[1:06:40] example then there's no reason it shouldn't be on the table.

[1:06:44] » Okay. Okay. I thought I might have be missing something. Thank you,

[1:06:47] » Council Member Stuckler. >> Well, when I um look at the numbers here

[1:06:52] on the on the chart, it would seem to make sense to me and one of our guiding

[1:06:56] principles was economic viability. That was really the number one driver. We

[1:07:00] have some concerns about the future and we wanted to look at annexation as a way

[1:07:04] to generate additional income for our city. You mentioned we could take all of

[1:07:09] these regions and generate 3.8 8 million, right, in first year. Or we

[1:07:13] could just take D and H and generate almost three million, which uh is going

[1:07:17] to be a lot easier to do, just two little regions, DNH versus adding on A,

[1:07:21] B, and C. So, if economic viability is number one, um I I would I would vote

[1:07:27] for the for uh D and H and definitely not A because A never makes us money. A

[1:07:33] cost us forever. So it's not a vi according to these numbers I would you

[1:07:37] know and if I really want to believe in economic viability I don't want to go

[1:07:40] into a ever that's that's a that's a killer to that's a loser. So um the

[1:07:45] other thing is it does give us what six 8 9,000 additional residents against our

[1:07:51] 21,000. So we do increase significantly without overloading the number which was

[1:07:55] some of the concerns of other council members that you know we don't want the

[1:07:58] tail wagging the dog here. we'd still have the majority of our population

[1:08:01] within the Mil Creek proper area. And it provides us, you know, a a somewhat

[1:08:06] contiguous uh border, not as good as the power line, I thought, but you know, I

[1:08:11] think it's something a lot easier to explain. So, DNH um gosh, generate 3

[1:08:17] million the first year. Um that seems to be the the most viable. And if we

[1:08:22] started with council member Paddock's comment, what if we just do D first and

[1:08:26] then H? I'm having a problem with that. But those two would be the easiest two

[1:08:31] areas for us to handle and the best possible return.

[1:08:37] » Council member Cavaleri also has >> Thank you, Mayor.

[1:08:43] Um, yeah, I agree with all the council members. Um, our bullet was strategic

[1:08:48] value, right? That's that was our main goal here was to have strategic value.

[1:08:54] Um I also think it has to have the ability to pass um boundary review board

[1:09:01] scrutiny uh uh with council member Steckler's

[1:09:05] plan. I think I if you eliminate C from the from the uh model um which 180th is

[1:09:14] a you know is really the I guess the delineating line that really runs

[1:09:19] through there. I think we'd have a difficult time just simply annexing D

[1:09:23] and H without C. And so with with those three and a population of 11,700,

[1:09:31] I don't think we lose much. I think we I think it provides a lot more opportunity

[1:09:36] and like I said before a A and B will always be there. I don't think anybody's

[1:09:40] going to be annexing, you know, towards us from the other side. So I, you know,

[1:09:46] while it's still in our muga, I get that. But but um I I think I think those

[1:09:50] three together and again keeps us in line with with with our the other vision

[1:09:55] other thing we talked about is not wanting to be reverse assimilated or or

[1:09:59] like you said have somebody just said the tail wagging the dog. And so, um,

[1:10:05] I'd like to keep the population numbers down with our combined cities just for

[1:10:10] that other reason I specified before so that we're not moving into next level

[1:10:15] where we have to have a certain amount of density and certain amount of regions

[1:10:19] that we cannot utilize this for commercial at some point. Does that make

[1:10:23] sense? So, so I my personal opinion is the CDH approach would would probably be

[1:10:30] the most viable and bear out the least amount of scrutiny from the boundary

[1:10:34] review board. >> Great. Thanks.

[1:10:38] » Um I'm going to speak real quick and then um Council Member Gobeski and then

[1:10:42] I was double checking um Melissa, but I um I'm going to agree with um Council

[1:10:49] Member Cavalerics. I technically agree with um Councilman Stler. If it could

[1:10:56] pass the design review board, I I would say let's just move down into DNH

[1:11:01] um and just go down and add commercial space because we are really needing

[1:11:06] commercial space. And it brings in the financial viability that we need some

[1:11:12] more stability and another tier, if you will, of of revenue coming in that's not

[1:11:19] totally reliant upon our residents having to have property taxes go up all

[1:11:24] the time. But that considered, if we're going to need to take in one other spot

[1:11:30] in order to be able to get it approved, I I would prefer to go with C rather

[1:11:36] than A. So, I would say CDH would be my preference as well. Um, and then Council

[1:11:44] Member Golki has lit up. I'm looking at um

[1:11:50] what I'm hearing from our long-term conversations that we've had about this

[1:11:54] and if we're looking at taking these steps

[1:11:59] long term, I think that the long-term effect of taking ABCDH,

[1:12:05] saying we're going to take it now and then implementing a phased approach

[1:12:09] versus saying we're going to take part of it now and we'll probably take part

[1:12:14] of it later. The end result from an operational

[1:12:17] standpoint is the same, but the process is more complex and doesn't signal to

[1:12:25] our neighbors that we're taking this process as seriously in terms of those

[1:12:31] intangible things we talked about like um influence to the west if that's our

[1:12:36] eventual goal. So I feel like inevitably we're going to take these areas and for

[1:12:44] us to signal now we would like to take them knowing that we would stage the

[1:12:49] implementation allows us to stage the implementation in the best possible way

[1:12:54] across all five of those areas instead of

[1:12:58] the easiest that we think is the easiest now because sometimes there's an economy

[1:13:03] of scale in those steps also right that like if you take a tiny bit and you take

[1:13:08] a tiny bit and you take a tiny bit, you're creating a process each time you

[1:13:13] take more and that costs money and time. So to just make the decision, this is

[1:13:19] what we want to do and then we're going to go ahead and do it correctly over

[1:13:24] time seems like it would be better for all of us and send a signal

[1:13:30] to our neighbors that we are serious about uh growing and we're serious about

[1:13:35] having influence in our region. We're serious about our borders and our entry

[1:13:40] points and these neighbors that already feel like they're part of our community.

[1:13:47] » Can I just make a comment? >> Well,

[1:13:51] council member Paddock was lit up though.

[1:13:53] » So So in that not to pick on your scenario, but but it's really useful and

[1:13:58] thoughtful the way you laid that out. If we were to not just signal but and

[1:14:05] you know announce our presence uh to do these these these um all all of the

[1:14:10] above if if if you will starting with one of the six or one of

[1:14:17] the five [clears throat] but then we learn that hey we're not good at this

[1:14:24] and and and this is not as accreative as we'd like it to be or whatever the or

[1:14:29] it's it whatever the problems Right. What's our backout?

[1:14:36] I is there and I and I'm I don't know. Is there a backout once we've said we

[1:14:43] want ABCDH?

[1:14:48] So then I'll just I guess go finish the thought a little bit because if there's

[1:14:53] a backout then I would agree with what Council Member Golioski was saying. um

[1:15:00] it may not be exactly that but you know some combination of them because it

[1:15:04] would make sense to say to the community etc that this is where we'd like to go

[1:15:10] but I'm very very conscious of we need to be iterative in this process

[1:15:18] and we have a by design we have a threadbear staff

[1:15:24] and asking

[1:15:27] that threadbear staff to even bring new people on to go out and and grab a big

[1:15:34] chunk of population and have our community absorb that population

[1:15:39] on the hope that it's going to work. Man, I that'd be hard for me to sign up

[1:15:45] for and I think it would be hard for our community to sign up for. But if we

[1:15:49] could iterate on it and do I'll use numbers so we don't get into the do

[1:15:53] section one first and then two and then three and then four.

[1:15:59] If we are successful with number one, that seems like the prudent path, the

[1:16:05] safest path to go down. Even if it costs more to do in the long run, it will save

[1:16:10] us from not making a big mistake if we are not good at step one. And um there

[1:16:17] was one more thing I was thinking about that that I've completely lost. Um so

[1:16:21] I'll leave it at that. >> So So let me

[1:16:25] » Well, Rob um Mayor Prom is had her hand raised and hadn't got to speak yet. So

[1:16:29] if you want to answer him and then let her and then let her talk. So

[1:16:34] » that's okay. Let's let's go to Mayor Prom and then I'll come back.

[1:16:38] » Okay. Yes. >> Okay. Mayor Prom,

[1:16:41] » thank you very much. Um, I really it's it's I I um after much consideration,

[1:16:48] I'm actually very much aligned with what the way that council member Gobieski

[1:16:53] phrased it and framed it in the conversation of the signaling that like

[1:16:58] this is our larger area and now this next step is what are the which ones

[1:17:03] make the sense? How are we going to do it? what are the nitty-gritty of like

[1:17:06] what is that communication with these areas and really hearing about it and I

[1:17:10] really appreciate council member PA comment about like if we're not good at

[1:17:14] it but also what happens that we haven't done any um external communication with

[1:17:18] these neighborhoods right and with these communities so what about when we go out

[1:17:22] there and we find out you know there's a huge opposition we had someone come to

[1:17:26] council at the last meeting talking about a particular service and how they

[1:17:29] would absolutely be going out there publicly to be talking about um the what

[1:17:34] whatever they feel about the the services that might be provided and how

[1:17:38] it would be impacted. And I think we can't really go into that discovery

[1:17:42] without um making this statement of this is the area that we're going into. I do

[1:17:49] want to say that for myself personally, I think to understand if we

[1:17:55] can do it, if you know, what does this look like? How does this impact our

[1:18:00] staff? What is the process like? Is it a vote? Is it ILA? Like what all that like

[1:18:05] nitty-gritty it seems the safest and the most you know maybe conservative in in

[1:18:11] thinking for time cost opinion is to go with um scenario one which is um A and B

[1:18:18] understanding I heard what council member Cavaleri said about like how that

[1:18:21] area is you know not like we can come back to it but I do think there's

[1:18:25] something to going there first to get the kinks out of this process and what

[1:18:29] we're questioning what we're asking about to learn more but um um fully

[1:18:34] supportive of of signaling that this this area we're looking at not to the

[1:18:38] left, not further south, but this is the area we're looking at. And now what does

[1:18:43] that mean? Because it does make they all do as individually grouped together all

[1:18:48] make sense. Um but if there is um a specific conversation about what areas

[1:18:55] within if it's not that larger signaling um I might be on by myself on the AB but

[1:19:01] I just wanted to flag my thoughts on it. Thank you.

[1:19:06] » Um Rob, if you wanted to go ahead and go back and answer that and then council

[1:19:09] member question. >> Um

[1:19:11] » actually I'll council member Goby. Everybody has questions. I'll I'll defer

[1:19:16] to the council members and then we'll and then I'll

[1:19:19] » then you >> I'll provide input at the end.

[1:19:25] » I respect >> all All right. Um so I just he he pretty

[1:19:32] much iterated exactly kind of my thoughts on the matter maybe more

[1:19:37] eloquently than I would have. Uh we the things that we do know uh about A and B

[1:19:43] is that they're effectively built out and they're residential, right? So

[1:19:47] they're not there's no there's night no light at the end of the uh of the

[1:19:52] rainbow because we know uh over time it loses money, right? though. Um,

[1:19:59] those numbers are already factored in, which is why I I said I reassessed even

[1:20:04] though it was the safe bet. Once I saw those numbers and then and then Sarah

[1:20:08] reiterated them again this evening with um with the longer term data, you can

[1:20:13] you can see that they're always going to be there. We'll always have that option

[1:20:18] if it's something we want to do later. So, um I I I like the small bite for

[1:20:23] that reason. And I and I think and the fact that A&B is is like I said like you

[1:20:28] said is completely it's it's residential. We know exactly what it is

[1:20:32] and it's built out. It's not going to change. So um I I think that's probably

[1:20:37] the makes the better case I think for HDC or

[1:20:42] or or whatever hybrid we come up there. But but all at once and the last point

[1:20:48] I'll make is that A&B is still in our muga. So, we we will always have the

[1:20:54] opportunity to go back and get it if we want to. So, it's not going anywhere.

[1:20:58] » Um, Council Member Allison has something to say, too.

[1:21:03] » Yeah. So, to, you know, to carry over that point, A and B are up against an

[1:21:08] area that is not in anyone else's MUA. So, um, it's boundaryless basically. Um,

[1:21:16] at this point in the game, I would rather us just keep looking at the whole

[1:21:20] area. all of them with possible staging of

[1:21:24] those elements. Um I think the assimilation factor for A and A and B

[1:21:30] would be very easy. I'm not so sure about the other areas. Um but the

[1:21:35] revenue D&H, you know, that's it's a no-brainer. We somehow have to go after

[1:21:41] those areas. And I don't know if right now is the right time for us to be

[1:21:45] cutting off our nose despite our face. we've gotten a lot of data collected and

[1:21:48] going one level down so that we can make a good decision

[1:21:53] seems like the right thing to do. >> So, so I am hearing a two strains or two

[1:22:00] themes in this conversation there. there is a theme across most of you around

[1:22:05] CDNH or D&H that this south corridor is very important and and that uh is where

[1:22:12] the financial gains come from both from a strategic value and a financial value.

[1:22:16] Um the second theme is there are um about half of you that are thinking that

[1:22:21] the city ends up with all of these and so it's so in that council member

[1:22:27] Paddock back to your comment I think there is the potential for this to be a

[1:22:30] distinction between intent and actual first step uh actual staging of this is

[1:22:36] what you're going to do and so it's something that we'll go off with as as

[1:22:40] we go into staff the next level is look at that staging of exactly how that can

[1:22:45] be and what does that mean for what you come back to the table in terms of the

[1:22:48] language of the resolution or what you would um what you would uh

[1:22:54] » Yes, Laurel. >> I just wanted us to consider so we're

[1:22:58] all thinking about this at the same time. Um as we talk about breaking it

[1:23:03] off into little bits, I don't think the boundary review board would ever allow

[1:23:07] us to just take H. I don't think they would let us just take B. I don't think

[1:23:12] they'd do C. And honestly, I don't know if they'd even say D the way it is would

[1:23:18] work. So, we're going to have to work in scenarios for them to be okay with this.

[1:23:24] So it would probably be some kind of combination of if we were to do it all

[1:23:30] HDC and then BA

[1:23:34] maybe in a phase like one and then the other just logically where I would think

[1:23:40] that step would go >> and and that maps to the themes actually

[1:23:44] that I'm hearing from you that there is a block that's centered in on CDH and a

[1:23:48] block that's centered in on everything which is just simply a staging

[1:23:51] conversation between CD and H versus A and B. So, I think I think we can look

[1:23:56] at it that way. >> Um, Rob, Council Member Paddock had

[1:24:00] something else to say and then Council Member Stler.

[1:24:02] » Okay. >> Go ahead, S.

[1:24:04] » Yeah, I I defer to Martin first. That's fine. Yep.

[1:24:08] » Thank you. Uh, one of the things I wanted to mention too is is that part of

[1:24:12] the the how is how we uh structure the interlocal agreement with with the

[1:24:18] county as well. So maybe not get maybe not get too hung up on um you know

[1:24:25] blocks because part of how we can get out of it to to council member Paddock's

[1:24:30] question is could be structured within that agreement or how we move forward.

[1:24:34] So um I think that's something important to consider as well.

[1:24:40] » I've I've um heard a couple of comments about the boundary review board and I've

[1:24:44] I don't know where they lie and what the you know and whatnot. However, I've been

[1:24:49] around long enough to know that let's not put that onus on us,

[1:24:54] let's if we want to go for section one and we're afraid that they might say you

[1:24:59] got to take two and three. Let's ask for section one and then let them tell us

[1:25:04] nope, you're going to need two and three >> and and that's why we're asking for your

[1:25:08] guidance of what you want. Then then we can start to have those conversations

[1:25:11] » to give you feedback. >> And thanks for listening. The mayor told

[1:25:15] me to say that council member Stinkle, you're next. [laughter]

[1:25:20] » That was really well done. >> You know, uh, one I'm in agreement on,

[1:25:26] uh, uh, H, D, and C. That's what the boundary review board tells us we need

[1:25:31] to do. I'm that's that's going to be small enough that the the C numbers here

[1:25:35] don't don't deter that much. The concern I've got with A and B is unless we can

[1:25:39] come back with some different rationale numbers analysis. I mean, a is just not

[1:25:45] in in I don't see the benefit to us. I see an economic deterrent to us and b

[1:25:50] the only benefit there was really the projections here for for B is a a a de

[1:25:58] um the expenses are $ 1.5 million less in in B than in A. So they have like I'm

[1:26:04] I'm worried that that may not be a reality that we might not get that low

[1:26:08] of an expense number. So if we go into that that area that that could be even

[1:26:12] also more negative for us. So for me I would I would rather have us put put a

[1:26:16] plan forward on HD and C and you know we haven't talked about west. Would we want

[1:26:20] to go west before we go into A&B if we ever went into AM? I don't see the

[1:26:25] reason for A&B. I do see the the reason for south and we've had lots of people

[1:26:30] Hi Jeff, how you doing? uh promoting going west [laughter]

[1:26:34] for for understandable reasons and and so would that be more important to us in

[1:26:39] the timeline to go west before we go to A&B. So I I'm definitely focused on

[1:26:44] south. Focused on south is what I would recommend. East it could be a discussion

[1:26:48] down the road if the numbers ever change. But you know that's why you know

[1:26:52] people we ask for these numbers to make sense and we get the numbers and if

[1:26:55] these are true numbers it doesn't make sense to go in that just doesn't make

[1:26:59] sense. It makes more sense to do the south and go to the west than to take

[1:27:03] advantage of Martha Lake and take advantage of that development that's

[1:27:06] going to be going on up by the freeway. And also we said something about a

[1:27:09] entryway to our city. You know, there's other challenges with going west. We've

[1:27:12] talked about those at length in our other meetings, but there there's some

[1:27:16] some some great logic and cost uh uh revenue opportunities for us as a city

[1:27:21] to go west. So, the thing that I would play back to you is that the glue

[1:27:24] between all of the options that you're talking about really does center in CD&H

[1:27:30] or DNH. And so, what I would suggest as our next step is we center in on that

[1:27:35] block to get more specific around what it would mean. And we will alternatively

[1:27:41] look at the full scenario of if we're if we were going to think about the ABM

[1:27:46] block as well of what guidance would we give you in terms of staging and and how

[1:27:51] that would happen over time. But I think we start with the center of CDNH as uh

[1:27:56] as the glue that seems to be running through through all of your

[1:27:59] recommendations. >> Um council member Stler,

[1:28:02] » I'm sorry. I just wanted to bring up one other point. I I'll I think I'm hearing

[1:28:06] the council more majority not in support of AMB and maybe I'm wrong but that's

[1:28:11] kind of what I've been hearing to the comments down the line and so

[1:28:14] » though I don't know how many people are really in in into AM.

[1:28:17] » So what I what I heard in all my one-on- ones council member Steckler is that

[1:28:21] there is half that are really thinking about CDH and half that are thinking

[1:28:24] about everything and that's where A&B comes in but the glue is CD&H as the as

[1:28:30] the financial viability engine. I just didn't want you to go to all that re

[1:28:33] research and then have find out that it's not supported. That that was my

[1:28:37] concern. >> Um does Mayor Pertim have another

[1:28:42] comment? No. Okay. Just checking.

[1:28:46] » Okay. So, so in terms of guidance does that uh let me just sanity check that

[1:28:51] we're uh so we're going to focus on the next step as CD&H and we'll go down to

[1:28:57] that next level and start to reach uh see what boundary review board and what

[1:29:01] type of feedback we can get to answer your questions. Um alternatively we will

[1:29:06] think about A and B as a as a staging scenario of what that might look like

[1:29:10] » and and the information will come back in the blocks not not the in the D C

[1:29:15] » in the scenarios. >> Copy. Okay. Yep. Does that play back uh

[1:29:20] correctly as next steps?

[1:29:24] Okay. Um the other thing that I would tell you is I actually think we're at a

[1:29:28] big a pivotal moment in the process. Uh because we talked about multiple go

[1:29:34] no-go uh that we would hit in this process and one of the humps that we

[1:29:38] would hit is the realization of we actually need to do something and uh and

[1:29:45] and that is aligning. And so we're we haven't made decisions yet. You'll get

[1:29:50] to that point where you formally make your decision. But I would say in my

[1:29:53] conversations with you, there is great alignment across the council in terms of

[1:29:57] the need to to to look at these and actually take some sort of action to to

[1:30:02] uh enhance the the financial viability of the city. So that's a big step

[1:30:06] forward. Um and now we can get much more into the details of the how and the

[1:30:11] which ones and and in what time frame so that uh so that you can make eyes open

[1:30:16] decisions of what is that appropriate first step that you want to take.

[1:30:23] Okay. Any other questions or thoughts, Martin or Laura? Yep. Perfect. I think

[1:30:30] one thing I want to comment on too is staff, we consider all the different

[1:30:35] strategic priorities that council has on the plate as well as a lot of the CIP

[1:30:39] projects and the M projects that we're starting to discuss and internally in in

[1:30:44] stage and sequence. And one thing to consider as you grow, so is our bonding

[1:30:48] capacity. So nothing to really get dive into at this point in time, but with

[1:30:53] growth comes your ability to increase sales um bond um you know general

[1:30:59] obligation on property or if it's revenue on storm water and so forth. So

[1:31:04] just something to think about as you as you start to think about not necessarily

[1:31:09] which block but as you get bigger our ability to borrow. And so we'll start to

[1:31:15] more align our projects with um Rob's uh helping us kind of stage things out

[1:31:23] going forward. So I just want to bring that up so council starts to think about

[1:31:26] that as well. >> And Sarah, just uh again, thank you very

[1:31:31] much for all the analysis and depth of work in the financials.

[1:31:35] » No problem. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:31:40] » Thank you, Rob.

[1:31:44] Next up, we have another study session. We have a review of the final South Town

[1:31:49] Center Master Plan draft. And tonight, we have Justin Horn, our senior planner,

[1:31:53] and GGLO.

[1:32:04] All right. Good evening, Mayor Council. I'm excited to uh present the uh review

[1:32:10] of our Southtown Center subary plan. Um you know, we had a lot of touch-ins over

[1:32:14] the past few months, but we have a final draft here and uh excited to go through

[1:32:19] it. The goal this uh presentation is to

[1:32:22] review the South Town Center subarial plan and associated uh zoning

[1:32:26] commitments to implement that plan. We'll go over the background and guiding

[1:32:30] principles, redevelopment framework, design and development guidelines,

[1:32:34] implementation recommendation, and next steps.

[1:32:38] All right, so I have I have quite a bit of material to go through, so I'm going

[1:32:41] to go pretty quickly, but just tell me to slow down if I going too fast.

[1:32:46] So from the start, we've had three main project goals. The first is to extend

[1:32:51] and enhance town center. The second is to support long-term

[1:32:55] community and economic vitality. And the third is to align growth with

[1:32:59] infrastructure, mobility, sustainability.

[1:33:03] Paired with those project goals, we also had uh came with four community

[1:33:08] priorities. These are developed uh in um the are our two joint volunteer board

[1:33:14] workshops. Uh the first is pedestrian flow. Want to make sure the sub area is

[1:33:18] safe and accessible for pedestrians. Um the second is community activation

[1:33:23] space. We want to have more community areas people can gather and uh have

[1:33:27] community. Third is diversity of retail. Won't

[1:33:30] there be a big mix of businesses um that active street life? And lastly um

[1:33:38] nature. We want to make make sure that the the green belt is uh preserved and

[1:33:43] um the trails maintain accessible to everyone.

[1:33:49] Here's a summary of our previous actions uh so far. So, sort of the the the start

[1:33:55] to this entire project was the Mil Creek Boulevard study that uh started prior to

[1:34:00] COVID and it finished up in June of 2022.

[1:34:03] That led directly to the creation of the uh Southtown Center sub area as part of

[1:34:08] our uh comprehensive plan adoption in uh 2024.

[1:34:13] Uh we started working with GGLO um on our to develop the plan in May of 2025

[1:34:20] and expanded their scope in December 2025 to include additional financial

[1:34:24] analysis for the financial or the environmental

[1:34:28] planning. Um we had a public comment period from January to March where we

[1:34:33] received quite a bit of public comment and then in March uh planning commission

[1:34:38] recommended a preferred development alternative and then city council um

[1:34:43] selected that preferred alternative in April 2026

[1:34:47] and then just this month we issued our final environmental impact statement.

[1:34:54] And then we um last month uh reviewed the initial draft of the subaria plan.

[1:35:02] And then this month we um we reviewed the design guidelines with the design

[1:35:06] review board. And the planning commission recommended the adoption of

[1:35:11] the subaria plan and amendments uh last night.

[1:35:18] All right. All right. So, we got a quote here from Daniel Burnham, the father of

[1:35:20] American planning, which is, "Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir

[1:35:25] men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized." So, we have tried to

[1:35:30] implement this in our se planning. We think we have a good plan. It's

[1:35:33] ambitious but manageable and I think it's uh you know, it's a has potential

[1:35:38] to be a great asset to the city. The plan itself is divided into six

[1:35:43] parts. There's an introduction, an existing conditions, a redevelopment

[1:35:48] framework plan, design and development guidelines, implementation strategies,

[1:35:53] and appendices.

[1:35:57] And then here is the vision statement of South Town Center. And it is Southtown

[1:36:02] Center is envisioned as a vibrant, walkable, mixeduse extension of Mil

[1:36:06] Creek Town Center, expanding opportunities for housing, jobs,

[1:36:10] shopping, public gathering, and access to parks, trails, and open space while

[1:36:15] supporting a more connected, resilient, and community oriented future.

[1:36:20] You can see on the right, we have some images. These are pulled from the

[1:36:23] Subbury plan. I think they look pretty nice. I'm pretty happy that turned out.

[1:36:28] So here's sort of the the main um aspects of of the plan. First is having

[1:36:35] a walkable core. Um we make sure there's pedestrian first streets uh better

[1:36:40] connection and parking along the edges rather than on those active streets.

[1:36:45] There's an activated public realm which includes new city parks for for people

[1:36:50] to use. There's a vibrant retail mix where we require um certain commercial

[1:36:56] uses on our main corridors. There's an integrated green network where we have

[1:37:01] North Creek Trail um the green belts uh parks and stormwater features all

[1:37:06] connected. There's a little balance where there's

[1:37:09] active corridors which a lot of with a lot of um activity and commercial and

[1:37:14] then quieter areas for the more residential focused and then it's also

[1:37:18] uh coordinates growth for housing jobs and infrastructure.

[1:37:26] All right. So the redevelopment plan section the plan

[1:37:30] um starts with what exists. So currently the entire sub area is zoned in the town

[1:37:38] center zone. There's no required commercial. There is no maximum density.

[1:37:44] Um the maximum height is 60 ft for residential buildings and 50 ft for

[1:37:48] non-residential buildings. And there's 250 square ft of required open space per

[1:37:54] dwelling unit. And then for um parking um there's a requirement of one space

[1:38:00] per 250 square feet for retail, one space for every 100 to 200 f feet of

[1:38:07] restaurants, one space per every 400 square 400 800 ft of office and 1.5 to

[1:38:14] 2.5 spaces per unit based on how large uh the dwelling units are.

[1:38:23] So the sub areas exist now on the left here. You can see that there's very

[1:38:29] large blocks to 900 ft. They're not great to walk around in and there's uh

[1:38:35] no parks, but we have a new proposed framework where we have broken up those

[1:38:40] big super blocks into smaller manageable blocks about 350 ft. So it'll really

[1:38:46] increase the um the walkability of the area. We also have that new central park

[1:38:51] and uh gateway park.

[1:38:58] The neighborhood would then be organized uh along these lines where you have the

[1:39:02] main street which is highlighted in red that goes through the center of the sub

[1:39:07] area. Then in pink you have the central core which would be the new uh central

[1:39:12] park and then the uh dense commercial areas surrounding it.

[1:39:16] The yellow highlighted areas are more residential focused. Uh commercial is

[1:39:21] allowed there but just not required. And then in blue you have the primary

[1:39:26] gateways to the sub area. So you know Mil Creek Boulevard, uh Main Street,

[1:39:30] 164th, 161st. These are the primary entries to the city or to the sub area.

[1:39:36] And then in gray, it's a little hard to see. um you have a transition zone

[1:39:40] around the border of the sub area along the north end along 527 and 164 and in

[1:39:47] those transition areas there's extra design guidelines to make sure that the

[1:39:51] buildings uh seamlessly blend into certain areas

[1:39:57] » Justin going back to that uh existing and proposed framework slide it's about

[1:40:01] two or three slides back um the photo on the left u doesn't have

[1:40:08] the walkability because the majority of those structures are commercial for

[1:40:12] commercial use. So, uh that that's always been my biggest worry is you're

[1:40:17] replacing the commercial with uh I believe uh 5,500 apartments was the

[1:40:22] number I heard last time. So, um, while I appreciate the walkability, I'm very

[1:40:27] concerned about the lack of commercial that's that's going to be eliminated

[1:40:33] from the from the city's corridor there right on

[1:40:37] both Libert Highway. >> Yeah, it's a great point. Um, we've

[1:40:40] tried to address that in a couple ways. One of them is that, you know, the the

[1:40:44] existing zoning has no require commercial requirements. So, if it were

[1:40:48] develop redeveloped now, you could end up with 100% residential. So, one thing

[1:40:52] we focus on is making sure that all these key corridors were requiring

[1:40:57] commercial and specific kinds of commercial that are um generate sales

[1:41:00] tax and a lot of pedestrian activity. Um, I can show you we'll get to a part

[1:41:05] where that's where those areas are required. Um,

[1:41:10] but it's it's a balancing act because if we were to require ground for commercial

[1:41:14] across the whole area, we may end up with no development. So, um, but it's

[1:41:21] it's it's a good point. >> I I really What what was our target

[1:41:25] number by the state? Minimum 26.50. So, we're effectively doubling that.

[1:41:32] » For apartments and so again, it's been a concern, always been a concern of mine

[1:41:36] and it and it remains. So, >> yeah. And one motivation to allow that

[1:41:42] much housing was that um when we talked with GGLO

[1:41:47] um the consensus was that if we allow more housing will end up with more

[1:41:51] commercial just because you have the bodies to support the that additional

[1:41:55] retail. Um

[1:42:02] so here is where we're requiring um ground level commercial. Um you can see

[1:42:08] these red highlighted areas is where we require uh commercial to happen. The

[1:42:14] yellow areas uh are flexible areas where commercial is encouraged but not

[1:42:19] required. And one thing I'll get into is we have

[1:42:22] developed some development incentives to to uh encourage additional commercial as

[1:42:27] well in these these yellow areas.

[1:42:33] Here's the street neck work street neck proposed. So um the red is the

[1:42:39] commercial main street. This is uh you know it's the the heart of the the sub

[1:42:44] area where we require a lot of active commercial uses. Um it has um on street

[1:42:50] parking and uh two-way cycle track. Uh purple is Mil Creek Boulevard. It's a

[1:42:55] similar street. It's also has those nice wide sidewalks and a cycle track.

[1:43:00] Um dark blue are these are secondary access streets. This is where you would

[1:43:05] have access to uh parking and um um service access. Then orange around

[1:43:14] Central Park. This is a these are pedestrian oriented streets that can be

[1:43:17] turned in uh um used during festivals or events. They can be converted to

[1:43:23] pedestrian only areas. And then green are pester only paths or fire access

[1:43:28] roads.

[1:43:32] Uh, one nice thing about the sub area is it has great access to transit. Um,

[1:43:36] there's two bus rapid transit lines, the orange and the green line that go north,

[1:43:40] south, and um and then east or sorry, and then west. There's also an east west

[1:43:46] uh local route, route 166.

[1:43:51] Another focus of the plan is to increase uh bike and pedestrian facilities. So,

[1:43:56] we've increased uh bike safety by adding protected bike lanes on Main Street and

[1:44:00] Mil Creek Boulevard as well as on 161st. Um there are several pedestrian oriented

[1:44:06] streets that can be that are designed to slow down cars and make it a safer place

[1:44:11] to walk around and also um can be potentially converted into pest only

[1:44:15] areas during certain uh events. And then we also have a new intersection

[1:44:22] uh or new a new intersection on 161st and highway 527 where people from

[1:44:27] outside sub area can then uh cross the street safely and enter the sub area.

[1:44:36] Possibly I think the most exciting thing for me is the new parks and open space

[1:44:40] that we're proposing. So there's going to be uh three parks in the sub area. Uh

[1:44:46] number one is a central park right in the heart of sub area. Adjacent to it is

[1:44:51] our sponge park which is uh uh a combined facility that incorporates both

[1:44:57] open space and uh storm water facilities. And then three are North

[1:45:02] Gateway Park which connects Mil Creek Boulevard to North Creek Trail.

[1:45:12] As I mentioned, um the the um the sponge park is a combined facility. So, one

[1:45:18] aspect of the plan is developing a regional storm water facility. Instead

[1:45:21] of having every development have its own uh detention vaults and storm water uh

[1:45:27] management, we're combine it all into one facility. So, the entire sub area

[1:45:31] drains as one spot and it's just easier to manage and maintain um and will

[1:45:36] improve our water quality uh before enters North Creek. So what that

[1:45:40] involves is a large vault underneath the central park which then drains into

[1:45:45] shallow chambers um in the sponge park and then during storm events the sponge

[1:45:51] park is designed to fill with water for additional storage capacity.

[1:45:58] All right. So now uh I'll go over our design and development guidelines. These

[1:46:03] are meant to establish a walkable human scale town center that integrates with

[1:46:08] existing town center and starting neighborhood context.

[1:46:12] It'll create a defined and engaging public realm. Uh transition from

[1:46:16] autofocus to pedestrianoriented development pattern over time. Reinforce

[1:46:20] a cohesive Mil Creek town center character. Support mixeduse development

[1:46:25] and housing diversity. And prioritize multimodal mobility and integrated

[1:46:29] parking housing diversity. So what does that what does that boil

[1:46:34] down to? Um one of the things design guidelines focus on are the street

[1:46:38] frontages. There are several different frontage types. One is the primary

[1:46:43] commercial frontage. That's this red red highlighted areas that are focused on

[1:46:49] especially active commercial uses that have a lot of pestern activity.

[1:46:53] uh pink is a secondary mixed frontage which allows um some non-active uses but

[1:47:00] it's still commercial focused and then uh the uh the yellow is

[1:47:06] residential frontages um on other streets although again if

[1:47:12] commercial develops in these areas they would be required to um utilize a

[1:47:15] secondary frontage um were commercial proposed

[1:47:20] and part of those frontages um focuses on pest design. So, it should be great

[1:47:24] for pedestrians walking. It should provide street definition. So, we want

[1:47:28] to make sure that as you're walking down the street, there's defined edges and

[1:47:31] it's very uh comfortable. Weather protection. So, awnings, arcades provide

[1:47:36] protection from rain and sun. Um, and frontage continuity. So, making sure you

[1:47:43] have don't have big gaps in the building frontages as you walk along.

[1:47:50] So the streetscape is designed to be walkable and human scaled. There was a

[1:47:54] big focus on um the ground level. So as pedestrians walk

[1:47:59] along, we make sure that the buildings are designed especially in the ground

[1:48:02] level so that they are really inviting to pedestrians uh with um uh building

[1:48:08] articulation, lots of transparency for uh commercial windows, um trees,

[1:48:14] landscaping, lighting, furnishings, protection.

[1:48:18] um curb cuts along the uh the main streets are minimized. So we'll focus

[1:48:23] all the parking and service areas at certain locations

[1:48:26] and um several streets pri prioritize pedestrians and bikes while safely

[1:48:31] accommodating vehicles at intersections.

[1:48:36] [clears throat] So here are some of the architectural

[1:48:38] standards that are in the the plan. So buildings should be scaled for comfort

[1:48:43] at the street level with varied heights and upper level setbacks.

[1:48:47] Um this bottom picture here shows an example of that. You can see the the

[1:48:53] first 60 feet of the building here or above the first 60 feet there is an

[1:48:57] upper upper level setback. So once you reach 60 ft you have to set back the

[1:49:01] building by 10 ft. Um there's also proposed floor play reductions. So if

[1:49:07] you have a building along the street you can only have 70 feet of building before

[1:49:13] you have to have a 50ft gap. So, um, this provides, you know, it breaks up

[1:49:18] the building so it's more manageable. It feels less imposing.

[1:49:22] We want to make sure the ground floors are active, transparent, and weather

[1:49:25] protected. Um, we also require durable, high quality materials, especially on

[1:49:30] the ground floor. And we make sure that um, roof lines, mechanical screening,

[1:49:35] service and parking are integrated and um, screened from view.

[1:49:45] We've also looked at parking parking areas. We're envisioning a lot more

[1:49:49] structured parking uh in the sub area than surface parking although surface

[1:49:52] parking is allowed uh with some limits.

[1:49:57] And then we are proposing um changing the minimum parking requirements

[1:50:02] slightly and I I'll get into uh some more details of that on a a following

[1:50:07] slide. So implementation recommend

[1:50:11] implementation recommendations there is near-term, medium-term and

[1:50:16] long-term um things that need to happen in the near term. We need to adopt a sub

[1:50:22] area plan. We adopt an urban form overlay district. We need to adopt and

[1:50:27] apply the design and development guidelines. We need to prepare a public

[1:50:31] improvement and funding strategy. We need to initiate right-of-way and

[1:50:35] property acquisition planning and conduct additional property owner

[1:50:39] business and developer outreach. And the lead department for the most of

[1:50:45] these is community development and planning, but public works is also

[1:50:49] heavily involved especially in the the public improvements and right ofway.

[1:50:54] In the medium term, we'll need to um um reconfigure Main Street and Mil Creek

[1:51:00] Boulevard. We will plan priority transportation

[1:51:04] intersection improvements along major intersections. Prepare a basin level

[1:51:08] storm water and green infrastructure plan,

[1:51:11] secure future park and open space opportunities,

[1:51:15] establish development agreement and binding site plan procedures and update

[1:51:19] capital planning and funding programs. In the long term, we want to coordinate

[1:51:25] with developers uh on long-term private development. We want to build out the

[1:51:29] entire open space trail and public rail network. We want to monitor the EIS

[1:51:35] assumptions to make sure we don't uh uh exceed them. And we want to evaluate and

[1:51:40] refine our tools over time to make sure development is happening as we intended

[1:51:44] it to.

[1:51:48] So to make all this happen, we need to pass some zoning code amendments.

[1:51:53] Um and the way we are anticipating that is with an overlay zone. So, an overlay

[1:51:58] zone, um, I guess, let me back up. So, every

[1:52:02] every parcel in the city has as part of a a zoning district, in this case, South

[1:52:09] the town center zone. We want to add what's called an overlay zone, which

[1:52:12] adds additional regulations on top of the underlying zoning. And these overlay

[1:52:17] zones are they're targeted on specific issues like form or streetscape or

[1:52:22] parking. and they provide um additional tools to implement these goals.

[1:52:29] So the overlay zone you have your you have your you know your your zoning

[1:52:33] regulations in the town center and the overlay zone will add additional ones on

[1:52:37] top. Um and if they are more strict the more strict zone uh requirements will

[1:52:42] apply. So here I'm going to run through what

[1:52:46] those standards are for the overlay zone. uh first active

[1:52:51] commercial standards. So we have designated specific corridors where

[1:52:56] these standards apply and uh for now it's Mil Creek Boulevard and Main

[1:52:59] Street. Although once we have plans for Central Park that are um you know firm

[1:53:05] plans, we can add that as an additional corridor

[1:53:09] in these corridors. Any commercial uses on the ground floor have to be

[1:53:14] commercial recognition commercial recreation assembly, food and beverages,

[1:53:19] retail, personal services or lodging. And then um along the street frontage,

[1:53:25] at least 70% of the frontage on these corridors has to be these active uses.

[1:53:31] And at every intersection corner, you have to have these active uses as well.

[1:53:35] And that aligns with these go back a little bit. these um these red areas

[1:53:41] here.

[1:53:47] Okay, we have modified the parking standards

[1:53:50] slightly. Um not huge changes but we are reducing the minimum parking. Um

[1:53:58] so commercial recreation assembly actually no proposed change. Food and

[1:54:02] beverages have um four stalls per 10,000 square feet down from 5 to 10. Retail

[1:54:09] services and sale retail sales and services three per 10,000 ft down from

[1:54:14] 3.3 to 4. Lodging unchanged offices uh now two down from a range of 1.25 to

[1:54:23] 2.5. And multi-unit dwellings are down to 1

[1:54:28] to 1.25 down from 1.5 to 2.5. We also have a maximum on the amount of

[1:54:36] surface stalls in any one parking lot of 100 stalls.

[1:54:44] » All right. We also have >> Justin, why such a drastic um Can you go

[1:54:49] back to There it is. Why such a drastic reduction in the commercial parking? I

[1:54:55] mean, if if we're hoping this for to cost out and not just be for apartment

[1:55:00] parking um by reducing it, I I don't don't you think that's going to hinder

[1:55:05] everything we're trying to do here? >> I mean, I if we want to encourage more

[1:55:09] commercial, this is one way to do it. Um so, these are the the minimum

[1:55:13] requirements. Um developers can build more than that if they want. If they

[1:55:17] think this is enough parking for our our youth, we our restaurant needs more

[1:55:20] parking, they can add more. We're just we're trying to make the floor low. that

[1:55:24] those the businesses that want to come and they don't think they need as much

[1:55:27] parking are able to um develop affordably. Structured parking is up to

[1:55:35] I mean ballpark around 50,000 bucks per stall. So you start thinking you know um

[1:55:42] it's it's quite expensive to build up the parking. So um

[1:55:48] » yeah the reason I say that is I don't I don't know any businesses that would say

[1:55:51] I want less parking. >> Right.

[1:55:53] » Right. And this this isn't saying they this

[1:55:55] isn't there's no caps here. They can build as much as they want. We're saying

[1:55:58] the minimum the floor is lower.

[1:56:03] We also have provisions for um shared parking. So it could be that um per uh

[1:56:10] businesses can that don't have overlapping time of day uses. Let's say

[1:56:13] you have a business that has it's focused on let's say uh like a church

[1:56:19] would be on has most of its parking requirements on the weekend and you have

[1:56:23] say an office which has most of requirements on the weekdays. They can

[1:56:26] then share parking. Um we have those provisions as well. So they can um you

[1:56:31] know uh you don't we need need as much because you have to share when there's

[1:56:36] offset time of uses.

[1:56:42] We've also added a a housing standard. So, one thing we're worried about is we

[1:56:47] don't want to develop all these plans for these great, you know, all these

[1:56:52] design guidelines for these great beautiful buildings that that work well

[1:56:55] and have support a lot of housing growth. Uh we didn't want that to turn

[1:56:59] into all town homes, uh which wouldn't support the commercial we want or the

[1:57:03] housing targets we need to hit. So, we have a limit of up to 20% of units can

[1:57:08] be middle housing. We want to allow some just not the entire development to to

[1:57:12] happen like that. Um we have setback standards where the

[1:57:18] front setback at the street is 10 ft from the sidewalk. You have to be within

[1:57:24] 10 ft of the sidewalk. Um and then there's no setbacks for the side and the

[1:57:28] rear. Our open space standards have also

[1:57:32] changed. So the minimum open space now is 250 square feet per unit which works

[1:57:38] well for lowscale development. Let's say if you're building a small apartment

[1:57:42] building or town homes 250 ft per unit it's great but if you are developing

[1:57:47] larger multif family buildings you reach a point where the amount of required

[1:57:51] open space is larger than the lot you have which is obviously not developable.

[1:57:56] So we have decreased the minimum open space to 100 square feet per unit and

[1:58:01] then up to 25% of the site and then we have some provisions for

[1:58:06] allowing building common areas to be used as open space. So imagine if you

[1:58:12] have a a green roof or um uh indoor amenity rooms like a you know you have a

[1:58:18] movie room or shared areas that every like a exercise room those can count

[1:58:23] towards your um your minimum open space.

[1:58:30] Next up we have requirements for the the building massing and materials. So the

[1:58:35] first is we will limit the maximum building length to 180 ft. So since the

[1:58:39] block size is around 300 feet square feet, you end up with a minimum of two

[1:58:44] buildings per block. You don't end up with, you know, one building consuming

[1:58:48] the entire block. You're going to have numerous buildings. So it breaks up that

[1:58:52] um the mass there. Upper level stepbacks. So above

[1:58:57] the second or third floor, you have to step back the uh the wall by at least 8

[1:59:02] feet along active active commercial corridors

[1:59:07] requiring primary and secondary articulation. So primary articulation is

[1:59:12] major shifts in building massing and those have to happen every 100 ft. And

[1:59:16] secondary articulation is smaller things like um adding balconies or bays or

[1:59:21] windows and it has to happen every 20 to 40 feet.

[1:59:25] And it's just to that's just to break up, you know, the building mass, add add

[1:59:28] more articulation. As I mentioned before, along the edges

[1:59:33] of the sub area, there are transition zones where you have to do at least one

[1:59:37] of these two things. One, you have to reduce the floor plate. So if you have

[1:59:42] 70 ft of building, you have to have a break of 50 ft before you can have more

[1:59:48] building. Or you can have an upper level step back. So above the 60 ft you have

[1:59:53] to bring it the walls back by at least 10 feet.

[1:59:59] And then we have required materials on the lower levels. You have to have

[2:00:04] something that's durable um and looks nice like brick or stone or you know

[2:00:10] wood or timber. And it has to be 75% of the facade. And if you use fiber cement

[2:00:15] you can only use those on the upper floors.

[2:00:24] And uh we also have standards for ground floor frontage frontages. So that's you

[2:00:31] know we want make sure that when you're at ground level it's really nice. It's

[2:00:34] pleasant place to walk around. So part of that is frontage continuity.

[2:00:38] This means that along a street at least 70% of the

[2:00:44] frontage on that street has to be occupied by building. You cannot just

[2:00:48] have uh a blank blank spaces. The ground floor has to be high. There's

[2:00:54] a 18 foot ground floor to floor height for non-residential uses.

[2:01:00] Um non-residential uses also required to have 75% transparency on the ground

[2:01:06] floor while residential has to have at least 30%.

[2:01:11] Um, residential areas or buildings must also have an 18inch um, elevation from

[2:01:18] the street level so that there's a a separation between residential areas and

[2:01:23] um, and and the active street life. [clears throat] And you required to or

[2:01:30] you can't have blank walls that are wider than 20 feet on active commercial

[2:01:34] corridors or 30 feet on other areas.

[2:01:40] Um, along active commercial corridors, you're not allowed to have parking

[2:01:46] entrances. And then along other streets, you're allowed up to 60 ft of width for

[2:01:51] those those parking and service areas. Um, and it has to be uh screened with a

[2:01:58] low wall or vegetation. Um and then

[2:02:04] at uh there's a requirement for primary entry frequency. So that means every 75

[2:02:09] ft there has to be a building entrance. So you don't have long stretches where

[2:02:12] there's nothing going on. And then there's also along active

[2:02:17] commercial corridors a requirement for 75% of the frontage to have overhead

[2:02:22] weather protection. Um, other commercial areas had to have 50% weather protection

[2:02:28] and then at every public entryway you're required to have some sort of weather

[2:02:32] protection.

[2:02:38] All right, the next piece of the code update is going to be a development

[2:02:42] incentive program. Um, developments that qualify for the program are given a 25

[2:02:48] foot uh height bonus. And to qualify, you have to either have 70% of your

[2:02:55] French used for commercial uses, 30% of your dwelling units be three or

[2:03:01] more bedrooms, or 20% of your dwelling units as for sale. So, um these came

[2:03:08] from the um the workshops we did with the planning commission and with uh with

[2:03:12] council. Um these are some of the these are three of the most important

[2:03:17] priorities identified. So, you know, um encouraging commercial, encouraging

[2:03:22] familysized um h homes and encouraging for sale homes. We also uh plan to look

[2:03:28] at additional incentives at a later date, but these are the easiest to

[2:03:31] implement now before we develop the entire incentive program.

[2:03:37] We also have the option of expanding this development center program to other

[2:03:40] areas if council decides. For instance, if we want to um extend the development

[2:03:46] center program uh elsewhere in the city, we could for instance um allow the

[2:03:51] forale condo um provision to be used for that height bonus.

[2:04:01] Here's just summary of changes between the current zoning of town center and

[2:04:05] the proposed overlay. Again, we are adding required commercial areas.

[2:04:11] We have similar height except that with with the incentives you get an extra 25

[2:04:16] ft of height. We've reduced the uh open space requirement

[2:04:21] and then slightly reduced the minimum parking standards

[2:04:29] » and the and the height additions would be for

[2:04:33] commercial use and and home ownership dwellings only. Correct.

[2:04:37] » Exactly. Yes. >> Thank you.

[2:04:42] All right. So, next step, um planning commission actually recommended the

[2:04:47] draft and amendments last night. Uh we are reviewing um here at council tonight

[2:04:53] and then we would like to have formal adoption in September.

[2:04:59] Are there any questions? >> Any questions?

[2:05:06] » I can't see. Um, Council Member Dukay, do you have any questions?

[2:05:11] » Nope, she's not lit up. Okay. And Council Member Paddock does have a

[2:05:14] question. >> Not a not a question, but just an an

[2:05:16] accommodation. So, um, all this work was done in a pretty

[2:05:21] relatively short amount of time. It probably felt like a long long time.

[2:05:25] And, um, Chair Hamilton had a a email that he had sent around to the crew and

[2:05:30] I just want to read part of it. said, "My hats off to Serena, Justin, and

[2:05:35] Jeff, and the company that created this this product. It's a top-notch and was

[2:05:41] done in very short time. Kudos to the whole team, and just wanted everyone to

[2:05:44] hear that from from the chair. So, well done.

[2:05:47] » You >> Thank you for sharing that." Um, council

[2:05:51] member Cavaleri and then council member

[2:05:54] Gobeski. >> Thank you, Mayor. So, a lot of this

[2:06:00] looks going looks like it's going to require a large investment from the

[2:06:04] city. So, um if if we go with the vision that you have here, um changing road

[2:06:11] directions and uh maybe purchasing land and whatnot. So, where's um where are we

[2:06:17] thinking that money is going to come from?

[2:06:19] » That's a wonderful question. We I mean that's not we haven't fully explored all

[2:06:24] the options. That being said, it kind of depends on how fast we want it to

[2:06:28] happen. Um, all of these, if we look at some of the street network, um, if we

[2:06:35] wait for private development to build these areas out, all these new streets

[2:06:39] will be built by the developers. They have they'll have to build their half of

[2:06:42] the rideway up to our standards. So, that would be paid for. Um, the regional

[2:06:46] storm facility, um, we are looking at having an inloo fee. So we would build

[2:06:52] it but then when development happens they would pay us back for their

[2:06:54] portion. Um so that's those are some of the ways we can you know we can have

[2:07:01] development pay for itself but again it's uh some things I mean it's be

[2:07:06] expensive building the the parks for instance could be expensive. One

[2:07:09] alternative we've explored but haven't instituted yet would be having um

[2:07:13] perhaps um an inloo fee where if they don't have the minimum open space they

[2:07:18] can pay an inloo fee to us that would go towards building park space. Um we've

[2:07:23] also looked at increasing our park impact fees to pay for the central park

[2:07:29] um as well as um updating our transportation impact fees um which are

[2:07:33] both both those impact fees are quite out of date. So, we want to make up uh

[2:07:37] update those so we get more revenue coming in to pay for these projects.

[2:07:41] Um, as far as the other, you know, the other expenses, uh, a lot it's going to

[2:07:45] be part of our capital improvement plan, um, which, uh, Dan's up next to talk

[2:07:51] about,

[2:07:56] » Council Member Gobies, >> thank you. Um, this entire process is

[2:08:01] clearly a lot of work, so kudos to the whole team. I think it's a beautiful

[2:08:05] vision. Um, I just have a quick question on the process because I haven't been

[2:08:09] doing this for very long. As individual development

[2:08:14] projects come up, >> they meet these requirements, do they

[2:08:18] still go before the design review board for the specific

[2:08:22] » Yeah. So any um any buildings that are built have to be reviewed by the design

[2:08:26] review board? Okay. >> And they would apply these the the DRB

[2:08:29] would apply these standards. Um Okay. >> Yeah. So these standards are across the

[2:08:33] whole thing, but individually somebody still has eyes on their Okay. Exactly.

[2:08:37] » Thank you. I thought so, but I wanted to double check.

[2:08:41] » Um, Council Member Allison. >> So, I had a very specific question. Um

[2:08:47] the light at 160 first >> is that traversible with cars and where

[2:08:55] do they go when they pop out into the central park area that's

[2:09:00] walking only? >> Great question. So the light the light

[2:09:03] 164th um yeah it is patrolled by cars cars traversible by cars. Cars can enter

[2:09:08] the sub area there. Um the biggest in fact there's all you can already access

[2:09:13] there. It's an existing access point. Yeah. You just it's not safe pedestrians

[2:09:16] because there's no requirement. >> There's no light. Yeah.

[2:09:21] » And once they once they come in um they'll be able to go north or south

[2:09:24] along around the central park. >> Okay.

[2:09:26] » Although the southern route will be slower because it's one of those

[2:09:29] pedestrian streets. >> Okay. Thank you.

[2:09:37] » Anybody else have any questions?

[2:09:41] » I don't think so. >> All right. Well, thank you so much for

[2:09:45] your time. >> Thank you.

[2:09:49] Um,

[2:09:54] okay. Next up, we're go Well, let's before we move on to item H,

[2:10:01] let's go ahead and just extend the meeting to um 9:00 to be safe.

[2:10:06] » So moved. >> Thank you.

[2:10:08] » Second. I have a motion and a second to extend the meeting to 9:00 p.m. All

[2:10:13] those in favor say I. >> I.

[2:10:16] » Any against? Any extension? Motion passes 6 because council member Stuckler

[2:10:23] has stepped out for a moment. >> I mean Kevlar, I'm looking at you. I'm

[2:10:28] sorry. Oh, I just realized I forgot that. I think um Thank you. And I also

[2:10:33] think that um I forgot that you um city manager had raised his hand and I think

[2:10:38] he wanted to comment it, but I accidentally moved on. Did I? Is it too

[2:10:42] late? Sorry about that. Um okay, next up we have the introduction to the 2027

[2:10:48] 2032 capital improvement plan and city manager Martin Yamamoto and Dan Cardy,

[2:10:55] the city engineer are going to lead us in that.

[2:10:59] » Thank you, mayor. Uh just before we get kick off this uh draft of the CIP, I

[2:11:04] just wanted to kind of set the stage for not only how the CIP is part of the

[2:11:08] budgeting process, but it kind of reflects that balance

[2:11:12] um we're trying to strike between what our limited funding capacity is uh

[2:11:17] across maintenance operations as well as all the critical capital investments

[2:11:21] that we want to make going forward, including uh the Southtown Center as

[2:11:26] Council Member Cavaleri had brought up and also the um Mil Creek Community

[2:11:31] Center or i.e. the DRCC. Um

[2:11:41] as we start to talk about this budget process, I want to also mention that,

[2:11:45] you know, staff also internally starting to discuss how we

[2:11:50] draft and stage kind of a lot of these projects. And as as as council member

[2:11:55] Cavaleri had a question about how we're going to fund the Southtown Center. Um

[2:11:59] after we approve that master plan, the next step is to start discussing

[2:12:03] um uh the percentage of infrastructure costs that the city will possibly incur

[2:12:09] and that will come uh as the next phase of the discussions with council. So

[2:12:13] you'll get more information uh as we move forward. Uh same applies to the

[2:12:18] DRCC after we complete that master plan as well. Um but internally staff has

[2:12:23] been work is going to continue discussing. We started one meeting uh to

[2:12:29] to just start to brainstorm and figure out how we're going to fund these

[2:12:32] product projects and uh as we bring on the municipal financial advisor as well.

[2:12:36] That's a key component to um uh working with staff and also bringing um probably

[2:12:43] eventually kind of a draft scenario of how we think we can fund these all these

[2:12:48] projects. We do believe that it's not if but how we do it. Uh time is on our side

[2:12:53] and I think um um we'll just rely on our subject matter experts and then probably

[2:12:58] formalize this beginning the next year on how we're going to stage everything

[2:13:02] going forward with our with our consultants. So uh with that I'll hand

[2:13:06] it over to our city engineer to cover our draft CIP.

[2:13:14] » Good evening. Excuse me. Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Poten, Council. Um, I am

[2:13:20] here tonight to uh do our introduction to the 2027 2032

[2:13:26] capital improvement plan. So, I would like to use this opportunity

[2:13:32] to give you a background on the preparation of the plan um the updates

[2:13:35] that we made to the layout um versus the previous issuances and the proposed

[2:13:40] programmed and non-programmed projects. Um, also in coordination with finance,

[2:13:48] we would like to get council's agreement on the uh priority projects for the 2027

[2:13:54] 2028 bienium.

[2:13:58] For background, I've gone over this with you guys

[2:14:01] before, but what is the CIP? What is the capital improvement plan? This is

[2:14:07] primarily a budgeting tool and a budgeting exercise. It says, it looks at

[2:14:12] what our um capital income is and our expenditures and tries to set the

[2:14:19] projects out in the future. So, it looks at our upcoming projects, looks at the

[2:14:23] forecasts for our budgets, and then it also presents a rough schedule, and

[2:14:27] that's um I'll get to that a second. Sorry. Um it

[2:14:33] what it isn't, it's not a work plan. So this is us preparing it and saying we'll

[2:14:39] get we anticipate and hope that um the projects will hit in this year or we'll

[2:14:46] need this funds in this year but maybe the funds don't show up or maybe another

[2:14:50] project goes along or we find a problem with this. So projects may need to shift

[2:14:56] based on the funding or the staffing that we have uh because we may not it

[2:15:01] maybe something came up and we have to uh fix a thousand catch basins all of a

[2:15:06] sudden and our staff needs to jump on that right away. So um

[2:15:12] or there could be that council changes their mind and if you guys want to go in

[2:15:17] a different direction then we go ahead and pivot and go where council would

[2:15:20] like to go. Um, and then as far as the schedule goes, I did a lot of looking at

[2:15:26] other cities CIPs just to see what kind of a layout they have, what kind of a

[2:15:32] um, how they do it and just to get some ideas. And one of the things I found is

[2:15:37] some cities don't even put projected schedules in there. They basically run

[2:15:42] and have these on the shelf and when they have the funding, they'll pick them

[2:15:46] up and go.

[2:15:50] um which [clears throat] projects are in there. So these are based on um council

[2:15:55] priorities that have been passed by ordinances and resolutions primarily. So

[2:15:59] the comprehensive plan, uh the council's strategic visions for 2040 and the 3 to

[2:16:04] five year uh strategic priorities. Um our municipal storm water permit, our

[2:16:09] safety action plan that council adopted last year, uh the midbian update to the

[2:16:14] capital improvement plan. Um, and then other ma major maintenance items that

[2:16:17] have shown up recently. So, we all sat down and took a look at this. Um, staff,

[2:16:23] management, [snorts] executive, we all took a look at it and tried to put

[2:16:27] everything together in a way that still met the council's priorities, but also

[2:16:32] addressed what funding we did have. That being said, I want to talk about

[2:16:39] what we have going on and what we've done. So

[2:16:42] um in the current CIP we have the highway 96 storm storm project which has

[2:16:47] been completed and then by the end of the year we are projecting that

[2:16:52] Sweetwater Ranch, the 2026 paving project, the Veterans Monument and

[2:16:56] Library Park, uh Mil Creek Elementary crossings, Trillium Boulevard and the

[2:17:00] City Hall North projects will all be completed. So we're projecting that by

[2:17:04] the end of year and Trillium Boulevard design of course, not the actual

[2:17:07] construction of it. Um and then we are also ongoing will be going that projects

[2:17:14] that will be ongoing into next year are Silver Crest Drive design uh citywide

[2:17:19] catchbas uh repair and the public works facility.

[2:17:25] So the timeline um today I'm giving you the introduction to the CIP. Um

[2:17:31] September 22nd I will deliver the actual document to you for your review. We will

[2:17:37] have a study session. It's currently scheduled for October 27th along with

[2:17:41] the budget. Um the first public hearing is November 3rd. Final public hearing is

[2:17:46] November 10th and December 1st is our projected adoption date.

[2:17:52] So one thing I did when I came into here is there's a couple things that we had

[2:17:55] been running into that were not clear in the capital improvement plan. Um the

[2:18:01] first one that I wanted to get out of the way is something that we've been

[2:18:04] talking to you guys a lot about. we've been trying to focus on is phase gating.

[2:18:08] So, periodically we'll check in with you guys to on the direction of a project,

[2:18:12] the funding, the schedule, all those kinds of items. What we want to do with

[2:18:17] more of our projects is bring them to 30%. Then we stop for funding because

[2:18:22] 30% is a good place to go and say, um, Federal Highway Administration, we

[2:18:28] have this awesome project. Would you like to give us money? And so that's a

[2:18:33] good point that we can say we have a good amount of knowledge and information

[2:18:38] on the budget and the requirements for this project so we can go and get

[2:18:41] funding and then the projects won't continue until we get funding. So that's

[2:18:47] the thought process we we're going into with this. So we will have projects

[2:18:51] prepared to go out and find additional funding.

[2:18:57] Um, another one in there is that I added a new B a new in coordination with

[2:19:02] finance, we added a new uh budget line item in the CIP. It's called unfunded.

[2:19:08] So that way the impact of the project are

[2:19:12] build appropriately. We assume that the design and 20% of the construction phase

[2:19:18] will be paid for by the city and this works out to a standard grant match

[2:19:24] rate. So most every grant that you go for, they'll say that the city needs to

[2:19:29] show that they have interest in it. So we have to show we have to put up at

[2:19:32] least 20% of the cost. The remainder of the project cost is

[2:19:37] called unfunded. That just means that the source of the funds has not been

[2:19:41] identified. Um and the project will not go forward without those funds. And the

[2:19:47] funds can come from any source. They could be standard funding for our CIPs.

[2:19:51] They could be grants. We get appropriations from um higher

[2:19:55] legislative bodies, uh debt issuance, public private partnerships, P3s or uh

[2:20:00] community based public partnerships, uh special districts, levy lid lifts, tax

[2:20:06] increment financing. There's a ton out ton of options out there and we're not

[2:20:11] experts at that. So we have uh engaged a municipal adviser to help us understand

[2:20:19] the best way to leverage our resources to get projects done.

[2:20:26] The other thing is that we've moved more projects to being non-programmed. So

[2:20:30] that just mean that doesn't mean they're dead or anything like that. It just

[2:20:33] means they're on the shelf ready to get going when we when we can do it. This

[2:20:38] provides the information on project costs and schedules and it allows for

[2:20:41] the funding to be sought for those. Many um

[2:20:46] many grants and other opportunities require you to actually have your

[2:20:49] project in the capital improvement plan in order for you to go for them. So if

[2:20:54] they're in there and they're not programmed, it's in the capital

[2:20:56] improvement plan. So that way we we have the opportunity to go and seek funding

[2:21:01] for these projects.

[2:21:05] The other item is that studies used to be in the capital improvement plan, but

[2:21:08] we've gotten um clarification on the rules and regulations about studies and

[2:21:13] they can't be in the capital only uh budgets. So going forward um

[2:21:19] transportation studies will be funded by the streets fund, facilities will be by

[2:21:22] the general fund and surface water will remain in the 401 fund.

[2:21:28] All right, budgeting. So one of the biggest things we've seen

[2:21:34] um as we have been advertising for um design services, for construction

[2:21:40] services, for consulting is costs are going up everywhere and everything the

[2:21:45] costs are increasing. To put it in perspective, we did our

[2:21:49] midbian update at the end of last year. Um that had a total cost of $15,425,000.

[2:22:00] Um, our proposed six-year budget has a programmed budget of 165 million and a

[2:22:08] non-programmed of about 79,500,000.

[2:22:13] Um, now that being said, council has given us direction to go for some big

[2:22:18] projects and so that is accounted for in there. So that that is also a part of

[2:22:23] the reason that the prices have or the overall budgets have gone up.

[2:22:29] What we did when we are were evaluating this and trying to think about the way

[2:22:34] we were going forward with it is that we took the capital plan and broke it into

[2:22:38] smaller buckets. The first one was the 2027 20228 bianium. Then we also did two

[2:22:44] unfunded buckets the active and the long-term.

[2:22:49] For the 2027 2028 bianium um we looked at the money we had. So it is the REIT

[2:22:57] capital fund, surface water fund, bonding um and so that's the focus of

[2:23:02] this. So we're focusing on the high priority projects that must be done. So

[2:23:08] there's a lot of maintenance in there. There is a lot of um catching up on our

[2:23:13] projects that we just have to do from regulatory items.

[2:23:18] This is a wall of text, but it is for your reference. all of the projects. Um

[2:23:22] we're um both Silver Crest Drive and Trillium.

[2:23:27] We are including those for the outstanding um budget authority that we

[2:23:31] have on those projects just in case uh Trillium goes long and Silver Crest

[2:23:34] Drive will continue with its design. But that is only for design. We are not

[2:23:40] proposing any construction on those uh the upcoming bienium. Um, the next two

[2:23:45] projects are the safe streets for all projects that we I I will be coming back

[2:23:48] to you in September most likely to ask for permission to sign the grant

[2:23:53] agreement for that. So, we'll be accepting the funds then. Um,

[2:23:57] » is is that the crosswalk? >> The crosswalks on the 35th Avenue. Quick

[2:24:01] quick. >> That's what I was asking. Thank you.

[2:24:04] » Um, the traffic light program, roads, curbs,

[2:24:07] and markings. Uh, sidewalk maintenance program. Um,

[2:24:13] and there was one other Oh, the parks facilities. Thank you. Um,

[2:24:20] the parks facilities ones, these are programs that we created to be a hybrid

[2:24:24] of capital and maintenance. So, as we go through, there's a lot of deferred items

[2:24:30] that need to be done. Some of them are smaller, like let's go replace all the

[2:24:34] benches in Hillside Park, and that's great, but some of them are larger,

[2:24:40] like, oh, hey, we need a new play structure. And so the larger ones can go

[2:24:45] and tip over into capital, while the smaller stuff our maintenance operations

[2:24:48] group can go ahead and handle in house. Um, so we're asking in a lot of these um

[2:24:56] h 100,000 or a million dollars a year in ongoing costs so that we can go ahead

[2:25:01] and catch up on this deferred maintenance and catch up on these items.

[2:25:05] And so in the future, if it gets better and we don't need this much money, then

[2:25:09] we can scale it back. But for now, we're planning that for the entire um six-year

[2:25:15] program. >> Dan, I have a question.

[2:25:20] Why on earth are we thinking we're going to have to spend $300,000

[2:25:25] on the Penny Creek Natural Area Master Plan?

[2:25:28] » That's the beginning of the designs for that. So, in the future as we are doing

[2:25:32] that, it's figuring out what we want it to be, how we want it to look and go

[2:25:37] forward with that. And then I believe it's also the the beginnings of the

[2:25:40] first stages of that. >> Okay. I think I'm still struggling on

[2:25:45] this one because I feel like it's supposed to be left mostly natural and

[2:25:48] so I'm still struggling on um but maybe this is a different discussion on a

[2:25:54] different day. But >> I I can

[2:25:56] » I have some questions on that because >> yeah because I I feel like if we're

[2:25:59] supposed to leave it mostly natural and not have that much changing in there,

[2:26:04] the 300,000 seems quite a bit. What we were thinking with that is uh things

[2:26:10] like we need to expand the parking area so that it can potentially have uh

[2:26:13] school buses visit and also there's a burm there that's uh was intended to

[2:26:19] keep people from driving through the property and it wasn't really working.

[2:26:22] So we're looking to put rocks along there to have have it be more natural

[2:26:27] things like that. Um so we're trying to keep it natural but get it so that it's

[2:26:33] working better. Mayor, there might need to be an part of

[2:26:37] that's environmental assessment that needs to happen probably before we

[2:26:40] acquire it as well. And there's a few other things in there that city engineer

[2:26:44] put in. I can't remember the other one. >> Okay.

[2:26:47] » That that's assuming we take this. >> Assuming we take it.

[2:26:50] » Correct. >> Um

[2:26:55] so these are the items that are that are in

[2:27:00] our plan. Uh did you guys have any questions on the ones that we included

[2:27:04] on here so far? Okay. So for the bianium we are projecting

[2:27:11] $17,370,000 of capital expenditures. We are

[2:27:16] estimated to have 12.4 million available. Um the surface water items

[2:27:23] specifically the catch basin repairs came kind of out of left field for us.

[2:27:27] Um, we are actually looking to get a rate study done with that as well as

[2:27:33] engage a bond council to reduce the impact on the rate payers so that they

[2:27:39] don't get a sudden $1,200 surface water fee for two years. Um, so we're trying

[2:27:45] to make it uh easier on them for that. We're anticipating a pro just over $5

[2:27:50] million of that to be um bonded and so that would bring our total expenditure

[2:27:56] down to 12.3 million. So we worked very hard very hard all of

[2:28:02] us to get this within budget. Um so our next bucket of projects is

[2:28:09] unfunded active. So these are priority projects. These are the ones that you

[2:28:14] guys want to have done. They're the ones that are the clean, safe,

[2:28:18] well-maintained. They're the economic growth projects.

[2:28:21] We have not identified a funding source yet. Um, but we're actively working on

[2:28:26] it. Once again, grants, public private partnerships, legislative agenda, and

[2:28:31] the projects will proceed once the funding is procured.

[2:28:35] So, these are council goals like Southtown Center, DRCC,

[2:28:39] um, the public works facility. Um, and so for these costs,

[2:28:46] we're looking at a city share of of about 13.25

[2:28:50] million with about 144 million over the six years for those. Um, we do not have

[2:28:58] firm numbers for all of these, but these are based off of um, estimates from our

[2:29:03] consultants. Um, the one thing I do want to note is that the Southtown Center

[2:29:07] related costs, as um, Justin mentioned earlier, they're potentially recoverable

[2:29:13] through latecomer fees and other items like that.

[2:29:16] » Um, Council Member Cavaleri has a question.

[2:29:18] » Yes. >> Thanks, Mayor. Um, going back to the

[2:29:21] proposed projects, um, I I I the big ticket items, uh, city operations

[2:29:26] facility. I know what that is. So, DRCC campus phase one, six million. What does

[2:29:31] phase one consist of? Uh that one is projected to be the design for the um

[2:29:39] the preliminary design for the first phase once council authorizes it.

[2:29:44] » Okay. All right. Thank you. And just so you guys know for the

[2:29:49] calculations for that I took um about 40 I took about 40 million no 30 million

[2:29:56] and added 20% cost for design 20% cost and then 15 for uh construction

[2:30:02] management and 15 for contingency.

[2:30:08] » All right. Then the other section of unfunded projects are the are the

[2:30:11] long-term ones. These are still important projects. It's just that not

[2:30:14] right now. they can wait a little bit while we search for other funding

[2:30:18] sources. Um, and then once again, they'll go once the funding's procured.

[2:30:22] So, these are things like Trillium Boulevard, Old Seattle Hill Road, Dumas

[2:30:26] Road. Um, we identified both 41st Avenue and 9inth Avenue as major projects need

[2:30:32] to get done. Uh, 41st needs to have a half street improvements and, uh, 9th

[2:30:36] needs to be fully rebuilt. Um, and that's 9th south of 164th.

[2:30:44] Um the 133rd Street rightaway extension

[2:30:48] improvements, Brighton Kosure Trail, um Nickel Creek uh fish passage, um and

[2:30:54] then additional water quality retrofits and um a deeper look into Nickel Creek

[2:30:59] Park were all identified for that. >> Um Council Member Allison has a

[2:31:03] question. >> Are these in priority went through in

[2:31:06] order within this grouping of unfunded long-term projects? No.

[2:31:10] » No. >> Okay. So, which is worse shape, 9inth

[2:31:13] Avenue, South, East, or Trillium? >> Ninth.

[2:31:18] » To be honest, I would say Ninth is worse. Um, we're actually looking at as

[2:31:23] part of the pavement preservation program, we're going to look at uh

[2:31:27] heavily patching Ninth so that it can survive until we can do this whole

[2:31:31] project. >> Thanks.

[2:31:35] » But also, that is not to say that Trillian is not in desperate need of

[2:31:39] being repaved. Yeah, I was going to say I think the

[2:31:43] residents are really um frustrated and pushing for us um to get that done

[2:31:49] sooner rather than later. So, I'm not sure.

[2:31:53] I mean, obviously we need money, but I'm not sure how we managed to get that

[2:31:57] moved up. Um also, I see that Mayor Prom just raised her hand.

[2:32:04] » Mayor Prom, >> thank you. I'm sorry. This I just cannot

[2:32:08] find it and I I apologize for not remembering for project numbers. What

[2:32:12] does NM stand for for bright and coherent trail pavement?

[2:32:16] » That's non-motorized. So it's >> I knew I knew it was going to be

[2:32:19] something I knew. Thank you very much. Apologies.

[2:32:21] » Okay, no problem. >> I saw that you had them in order by

[2:32:24] obviously project number and so I was trying to remember what that one was.

[2:32:28] Thank you. >> I thought it stood for no money also.

[2:32:33] [laughter] >> Yeah, exactly.

[2:32:36] All right. So the the [clears throat] next steps, so I've mentioned it several

[2:32:40] times, funding alternatives. So there are a lot I've just listed the ones that

[2:32:45] I could find in a quick web search. And so there's a lot of things that we can

[2:32:50] do. There's a lot more that we can do as well. Um, so that is why we've engaged

[2:32:55] help of a municipal consultant, a rate analysis, and a bond council to to help

[2:33:01] us figure out all of this and help us be smarter with the money that we do have.

[2:33:09] Um, so the council input that I would request is, do you agree with the 2027

[2:33:16] 2028 CIP projects? First question. So, okay.

[2:33:23] Um, are there other priorities we haven't included, either short or long

[2:33:27] term? Okay. Um, if you wanted us to, we could

[2:33:33] return for a second round on August 11th. Otherwise, we'll proceed with

[2:33:36] these projects to, um, get the budget built and we'll bring all that to you at

[2:33:42] the end of September.

[2:33:46] » Okay. All right. >> I think we're good. that. Thank you very

[2:33:49] much. >> Oh, um, Mayor Pro Tim, is your hand

[2:33:55] still up from before or [clears throat] did you have another question?

[2:33:58] » I can um follow up separately. Thank you very much.

[2:34:01] » You're welcome. >> Can you bring up the uh 2728 project

[2:34:05] list? >> Yeah. Um,

[2:34:08] » just because it sounded like there might be some

[2:34:12] » The second to last slide, please.

[2:34:19] specifically the funded piece

[2:34:29] » because if there are concerns or maybe differing priorities on council, these

[2:34:35] can be pushed into another bienium. So just for instance, I heard some uh

[2:34:43] questions around Penny Creek. So maybe if

[2:34:47] council didn't feel like we wanted to spend 300,000 in this bianium, that's

[2:34:52] something that we could push out. Um we just want to make sure that we're in

[2:34:56] alignment on all of the projects so that when we do bring this up in budget,

[2:35:03] there's less movement then versus now.

[2:35:10] And some of these things like the catch basin repair may not be as flexible

[2:35:17] versus some of the other projects.

[2:35:29] » Yeah. Uh yes that is um road repairs the uh replace of RPMs the

[2:35:38] um uh striping and also crack sealing thermoplastic as well.

[2:35:45] » Thank you. >> And um I had a quick question. What's

[2:35:47] the village green drive quick build? >> That is the safe streets for all. It's

[2:35:52] basically the same thing. It's looking at um adding a couple temporary RRFBs on

[2:35:58] Village Green Drive as well as uh bike lanes.

[2:36:02] » Okay. >> And yeah, I'll get I'll explain more

[2:36:06] about the safe streets for all when I come back for the uh with the contract.

[2:36:10] » Mayor, if I may. And there's one comment on the Trillium 9th tradeoff. We will be

[2:36:16] working on Trillium prior to 9inth Avenue and the implication there

[2:36:21] patching Ninth until we're ready to make a bigger decision on

[2:36:25] that road till Trillium is a priority overnight.

[2:36:30] » Okay. >> And there are a development process

[2:36:32] tradeoffs for that as well on 9inth. um where we could if there's additional

[2:36:39] developments along Ninth as part of this uh in reaction to the Southtown Center,

[2:36:43] we could do um we could force them to do some of the work for us.

[2:36:49] » The only thing I would ask is that that any proposed budgets going forward never

[2:36:54] say Sweetwater Ranch on them again. [laughter]

[2:36:58] » I'm hoping I can take that off before the end of the year. I think that

[2:37:05] » All right. Thank you all very much. >> Thank you.

[2:37:13] » All right. Next up, we will move on to the consent agenda. Myself and council

[2:37:19] member Allison were on the audit committee.

[2:37:22] So we have item I, approval of checks number 77 70563

[2:37:30] through 70643 and AC wire transfers in the amount of

[2:37:34] $440,49049.

[2:37:39] Were there any exceptions? >> No exceptions. No exceptions. In item J,

[2:37:44] payroll and benefit AC payments in the amount of $374,68140.

[2:37:52] Any exceptions? >> No exceptions.

[2:37:54] » No exceptions. And then item K, city council meeting minutes of July 14th,

[2:38:00] 2026. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

[2:38:03] » So moved. >> Second.

[2:38:05] » I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I.

[2:38:09] » I. I. >> I. Any against? Any abstensions? Motion

[2:38:14] passes. 70. Next up, we'll move on to reports. City

[2:38:19] manager. >> Thank you, mayor. A few reports here. Uh

[2:38:23] I have one and then PD as well. Uh first one is well only one that I have is is

[2:38:28] to cancel the August 4th and the August 25th council meetings. If we can move

[2:38:34] forward with that, mayor. >> Yeah. Can I have a motion to cancel the

[2:38:38] August 4th and August 24th council meetings

[2:38:43] » or 25th? >> 25th. I'm sorry.

[2:38:45] » So moved. >> Second.

[2:38:47] » I have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

[2:38:52] » All those in favor say I. >> I.

[2:38:54] » I. Any against? Any abstensions? Motion passes. 70.

[2:39:03] » Next is police updates. Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Potum, Council. I

[2:39:08] have a just a couple of updates for you. Um, Tuesday, August 4th is National

[2:39:13] Night Out at Buffalo Park. Hope to see everyone there. Um, we will have a lot

[2:39:18] of the same entertainment that we have typically.

[2:39:23] Um, we will have the motorcycle there with for the kids to take photographs

[2:39:26] with. We will have our drone demo uh with Detective White. Um we will have

[2:39:31] the speed pitch in line dancing and story time for the kids. Um with

[2:39:36] partnership with Kowanas, the chamber, um Starbucks and Nothing But Cakes,

[2:39:41] there'll be some uh refreshments there as well. Um one of the big things that

[2:39:47] we're asking for this year is so we will be collecting donations for school

[2:39:50] supplies as well as the Mil Creek Food Bank will also be in attendance. So

[2:39:54] anyone that could bring items for those two uh to benefit from, we'd really

[2:39:59] appreciate it. Um and second uh before the meeting

[2:40:04] tonight I handed out to the dis uh our stats for Q2 2020 or sorry it should say

[2:40:09] second quarter 2026 on there. Um those are the correct numbers that are listed.

[2:40:15] Um a couple of points I wanted to make is the reduction in property crimes um

[2:40:19] that we had in in the second quarter of 2026. It's really promising uh the

[2:40:24] reduction in vehicle crimes. there is a reduction in traffic contacts and

[2:40:28] infractions, but that is because we had our motor officer in training um during

[2:40:32] that time frame. And so, uh with his absence, it took a bite out of some of

[2:40:37] that enforcement action. So, other than that, if there's no questions, we'll

[2:40:42] move forward. >> Any questions?

[2:40:46] » I have a question. >> Okay. Neighbor,

[2:40:49] » the um the um school supply uh at National Night Out. Who is the

[2:40:55] organization that is um either collecting it or that you'll be giving

[2:40:59] it to? >> I believe I believe we're accepting them

[2:41:02] at our booth, but I'm not 100% sure on that. I can get that information to you

[2:41:06] uh as quickly as possible. >> Thank you. I just, you know, I know that

[2:41:09] there's the big one, the the stuff the bus through the ever um foundation, but

[2:41:12] I didn't know if there was another organization. It looks like I got my

[2:41:16] answer from the other virtual person on here. So, I will say that it is the

[2:41:20] Everett um uh schools foundation who is will be receiving that. Thank you for

[2:41:25] doing that. That's great. I know that stuff the bus is a huge thing in the

[2:41:28] community. So, thank you very much. >> Yeah. Thank you to our volunteer

[2:41:31] coordinator uh Barb name called something else tonight.

[2:41:37] [laughter] >> Um Council Member Cavaleri.

[2:41:41] Yeah, Chief, are we going to start like um I know what the citizens said earlier

[2:41:46] about the folks speeding with the ebikes and everything. Are we going to start

[2:41:50] tracking those on here? Collisions and am I missing it on here?

[2:41:55] » They would be invol included in those collisions if there were actual

[2:41:59] collisions with vehicles. Um so they're a little bit different. Uh if they're

[2:42:04] actual ebicycles, it's different than a motor vehicle collision,

[2:42:09] » right? Um so that would be a different type of uh documentation. So we are

[2:42:14] working on how do we chart those more accurately.

[2:42:18] » Okay. >> Um we're seeing a lot of complaints uh

[2:42:21] regarding the ebicycles and electric motorcycles. Um but truthfully um we

[2:42:28] haven't seen a lot of actual contact or collisions should just a lot

[2:42:34] of near misses. >> Good

[2:42:35] » which is still a concern. >> Thank you.

[2:42:38] Um, council member Allison. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, do those calls

[2:42:45] come in and get registered under the assist calls in your

[2:42:49] » They can come in in different ways. Okay. So, thank you.

[2:42:51] » It could be a traffic hazard, it could be an assist, it could be different

[2:42:54] different uh what do we call them? Type codes.

[2:42:58] » Okay. There's just a big uptake in the assist calls on your

[2:43:03] » a lot [clears throat] of those are assists to other agencies and things of

[2:43:06] that nature as well. Um, council member Steckler. Hey,

[2:43:10] » quick question, Chief. Um, I've heard some rumors. You can tell me if they're

[2:43:12] true or not, but um are we with the e cycles, which there definitely a lot of

[2:43:18] ordinances now that they are are breaking on those that is our police

[2:43:23] officers confiscating those and taking them back to the making the parents come

[2:43:26] down to the kid to pick them up. >> So, the real concern with ecycles is how

[2:43:31] the what the operation that occurs with them. Um most of the time the officers

[2:43:35] go to contact these individuals and they run. Yeah. So and we are not you know I

[2:43:40] it's it becomes very uh dynamic situation where the officers have to use

[2:43:46] sound judgment uh as to which which way they take that enforcement action. So,

[2:43:51] with dealing with juveniles a lot of the time and their ability to evade us on a

[2:43:57] two- wheeled uh bicycle or motorcycle, >> it makes this situation very difficult

[2:44:03] and they're aware of this and so it's it's very difficult situation and

[2:44:09] » uh I we are meeting with uh representatives, state representatives

[2:44:13] to discuss uh legislative action that might help us in the future. That's

[2:44:17] really we're doing our best to contact as many as we can and educate them if we

[2:44:22] actually do get the opportunity to to talk to some of them and there has been

[2:44:27] a few confis confiscations. >> Okay.

[2:44:30] » Based off of our new ordinance and the changes,

[2:44:34] not not as many as we would hope to see even after some of the education that we

[2:44:39] put out via social media and think other other ways.

[2:44:42] » So reality is you got a lot of people you know taking on the on the lamb. It's

[2:44:46] kind of hard to catch them. >> It's just a

[2:44:47] » when you can you can confiscate, you can, but you know, a lot of times I

[2:44:51] think that's a better use of our officers than racing through the woods

[2:44:53] going after get. >> Very much a balancing act.

[2:44:55] » Yeah. Thanks.

[2:44:59] » All right. I think that's it. >> No other staff reports, Mayor.

[2:45:04] » All right. Thank you. Um, next up, I will move to council reports. So, um,

[2:45:09] the only thing I want to say is I had my, um, mayor meeting, the one that

[2:45:15] Mayor Naring holds every month and really still the topic of conversation

[2:45:20] still is, um, very much the public safety texts that the county is

[2:45:24] discussing. So, um I think we are kind of recommending that everyone, all of

[2:45:31] our council members, everybody reach out to our county council member and maybe

[2:45:36] even all council me county council members and let them know your thoughts

[2:45:41] um on that ahead of when they vote on it, I believe next month. So, um, once

[2:45:46] again, it's really important because this is a councilmatic public safety

[2:45:49] sales cell tax that they can, um, that they can implement and it was already

[2:45:55] voted down by the voters and we'll still have to pay for it and we won't be

[2:46:00] getting anything in return for help for us. So, please

[2:46:05] let them know how you feel about that. And after that, I will call on Mayor

[2:46:10] Part. >> No report. Thank you.

[2:46:16] and Council Member Cavaleri. >> Thanks, Mayor. And just to quickly

[2:46:20] piggyback on what you just said, it's my understanding um the sheriff sent an

[2:46:25] inner office memorandum which pretty much implies that

[2:46:30] uh especially with the conversation I had with two other council members that

[2:46:34] this councilmatic tax will pass. We will not see a penny of it. Um so that that's

[2:46:40] going to happen. and and my other piece, my two cents is um hearts and prayers go

[2:46:47] out to the victims of the bite of Seattle um who were um gunned down by

[2:46:54] thugs in the middle of a what we have come to know as a traditional beautiful

[2:47:00] event in our community and um it's just really unfortunate. Prayers to the

[2:47:05] family. Thank you. >> Council member Stler, any reports?

[2:47:11] I do, mayor. Thank you. Um, couple things I wanted to mention. On on the

[2:47:15] 16th, I went to the Snowish County City Dinners County City's dinner. Um, it was

[2:47:21] all about um how cities are coming with ideas to uh generate more income because

[2:47:26] it's we're all in the same boat. Everybody's has a shortfall. So, there's

[2:47:30] a lot of discussion. Um, uh, the additional auto fee that we passed was

[2:47:34] was something that a lot of other cities have already done. Uh one of the things

[2:47:37] that was unique was that um couple of groups like uh Muckle Tio brought in

[2:47:41] city groups to brainstorm ideas and actually help to implement ideas. So

[2:47:46] they went through some some of the discussions they had and some of the

[2:47:49] success that they've had. Uh the big one was annexation. Uh spent most of the

[2:47:53] time talking about that. Everybody's looking at it. Everybody's talking about

[2:47:57] it. um and more so just knowing that they're going to pick up additional

[2:48:02] numbers anyway on on their comp plan, but just to come up with with additional

[2:48:07] um um additional revenue. Um the one idea that I heard that I thought was

[2:48:12] kind of neat was there's going to be a lot of development going on in the next

[2:48:15] few years and all these cities because they're building all these houses to

[2:48:18] make their comp plans. So, a lot of the cities are talking about substantially

[2:48:22] increasing their development fees um because they it's a great revenue stream

[2:48:27] for them. And of course, what they really want is all the cities to develop

[2:48:31] to increase their development fees. So, there was kind of a plea across the

[2:48:35] board. You know, it'd be great if we all did this so the developers would see

[2:48:38] that it's not just a one city deal, but all cities. Just thought that was

[2:48:41] interesting. Uh, also want to put out a uh, special thank you to our marketing

[2:48:46] team and everyone else uh, that helped put on Party in the Park. Um, extremely

[2:48:51] well done. It was it was an interesting event this year. It was um, it was so

[2:48:58] well organized that they moved those kids through on the run and they got

[2:49:03] them back in the car and they got them home. And you know, before it was kind

[2:49:07] of a conglomerate of kids and time and so there's these big crowds milling

[2:49:11] around. It was it was really interesting that it that the crowds didn't seem as

[2:49:15] big although we had a lot more people running in the in the events but it was

[2:49:19] just because it was extremely um well organized. Um I will say that Kuanas

[2:49:25] because yeah I'm going to say something about Quanis you know me um actually

[2:49:28] Quantis uh p had three booths at this event which was really big for for us

[2:49:33] plus an open space for some some games for the kids. Um, and it was extremely

[2:49:39] positive for your Kuanas organization. They got a chance to, we had a chance to

[2:49:43] meet with a lot of the citizens that came through. The kids played the games

[2:49:46] and got tattooed and everything else. And but it was really nice for to meet

[2:49:50] the community and get the community to meet um, uh, Kana. So, uh, kudos to, uh,

[2:49:56] Party in the Park. And that's it. Thank you.

[2:50:02] » Um, Council Member Allison. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, we had City Chat

[2:50:07] on Saturday,

[2:50:11] uh, 10 to 11. Um, that Starbucks is really busy.

[2:50:17] Um, not too many people stopped by to talk to us, though.

[2:50:21] » And we had probably, I don't know, six or eight kids from the student advisory

[2:50:26] council. So, it was an interesting interesting morning. lot of a lot of

[2:50:34] people running in and out of there and that parking lot's not big enough for

[2:50:37] them. >> On a side note, Councilman uh Council

[2:50:40] Member Alderson and myself were extremely well-dressed up for this event

[2:50:44] and uh it's kind of like remind you when you went to the prom and your date

[2:50:48] dumped you or whatever. We had nowhere to go. [laughter] We did talk to one

[2:50:52] citizen though. That was very nice. >> Um all right. Um Council Member Paddock.

[2:50:59] » Yeah, just a [snorts] couple things. Um one of them actually is about uh ebikes.

[2:51:02] So, um, Deputy Chief, uh, Chartran joined, uh, the board meeting for the,

[2:51:07] uh, Parks at Mil Creek HOA, uh, this last month, and there's been quite a bit

[2:51:13] of ebike activity, uh, in uh, in the in the parks. And, um, any event, uh, from

[2:51:20] what the board president had said, um, and I'm almost glad that Eric's not here

[2:51:25] because he said it Eric could not have been more charming or insightful.

[2:51:30] uh he um he had said uh the deputy chief had said um in no uncertain terms to the

[2:51:36] to the community, hey do not engage, do not chase the writers. It just

[2:51:41] encourages them. Um it's dangerous for you, it's dangerous for them. Call 911

[2:51:47] um without hesitation. It's increasingly a problem. We know it's happening

[2:51:51] everywhere like like we we're hearing. So um it was great to have that that

[2:51:55] kind of um engagement. Uh, I think the the parks folks really really

[2:52:00] appreciated that. Um, so well done. Uh, second, um, the monuments, um, at least

[2:52:08] my coming back from vacation and seeing those monuments up, they look fantastic

[2:52:12] and, uh, um, I'm disappointed Jod's not here or excuse me, um, Jody [snorts]

[2:52:18] Hawkins isn't here because the team obviously did a great job with those

[2:52:21] monuments. They just look fantastic. So, well, well done. It was nice coming into

[2:52:26] the city and seeing something like that new.

[2:52:32] » Council member Goeski. >> Yes. Um I attended the Rya 8 uh meeting

[2:52:38] on July 16th. We were able to do a in-person meeting down in Maple Valley

[2:52:44] uh with a meeting followed by a site visit to one of the projects that's

[2:52:48] being funded. Um, it was fascinating to see in person some of the things that

[2:52:53] are being done to reclaim a site. They've they're purchasing

[2:52:58] purchasing land in flood planes from um residents and reclaiming them, allowing

[2:53:03] the flood plane streams to go through. They're creating

[2:53:08] artificial dams with old timbers. It was fascinating. It was great to be able to

[2:53:12] see it in person. Um, I'll be joining the budget discussions in the month of

[2:53:17] August and then that'll come back to a vote in the month of September when I

[2:53:21] don't think I can make it to the meeting, but um, council member Duk said

[2:53:24] she could take my place that time and then their grant round will start up

[2:53:28] again towards the end of this year, beginning of next year. So, that's when

[2:53:31] we would be looking for if we have projects that are would fall under those

[2:53:36] umbrellas. It was on the Cedar River. Yeah,

[2:53:41] that's all. Thank you. >> Perfect. Thank you. Um, before I move

[2:53:44] forward, could I go ahead and have a motion to extend the meeting? I'm going

[2:53:48] to say 9:30. I don't think we need that long, but just to be safe.

[2:53:51] » So move. >> Second.

[2:53:53] » Second. >> I have a motion and a second to extend

[2:53:55] to 9:30. All those in favor say I. >> I.

[2:53:58] » I. >> I have a motion, a second, and

[2:54:04] I can't even think straight anymore. Or seven. Seven yeses, zero nos, zero

[2:54:10] extensions. Motion passes. Um, all right. Next up, we will move to

[2:54:14] audience communication. Is there anyone in the audience?

[2:54:20] Well, sir, will you please give us your name, city, and you have three minutes?

[2:54:26] » Mike, residents of Mills Creek for more than 43 years.

[2:54:31] » Uh, a couple comments. The, uh, annexation discussion is great to have

[2:54:35] Rob Fenty here and and Sarah online. Excellent work by staff and consultants

[2:54:40] and good discussion. I really liked how that went. It's interesting. It kind of

[2:54:43] aligns with where we were probably 10 plus years ago talking about going south

[2:54:47] as a way to get more commercial and an industrial property. So that that idea

[2:54:51] of doing the whatever the letters were again. Uh that makes a lot of sense and

[2:54:56] I think that not not trying to take the D but not C part of it would be very

[2:55:02] tough. And so I think that kind of makes some sense. Uh, couple things I noted. I

[2:55:06] already mentioned to uh to Rob. You may want to take a look at it. The

[2:55:11] scenario 2, three, and four all talked about.

[2:55:16] I can't remember what letter it was now, but the uh the section going down B

[2:55:20] highway. The Muga goes to 196. Those diagrams all had about 188th,

[2:55:28] which is by the new warehouse labeled as 196. I don't think it changed your

[2:55:32] strategy, but you might look at that. I'm sure Sarah probably did the numbers

[2:55:36] right, but don't think about that as being a way to control that entire uh

[2:55:40] corridor. That's some of the bullets where we control the corridor all the

[2:55:43] way to the south end and you don't that way. So, that's something to think about

[2:55:46] and that may be something the boundary review board says, why are you stopping

[2:55:49] a 188th versus 196? That's kind of towards the close of the edge. But

[2:55:53] again, as Council Member Paddock pointed out, you don't have to tell them that

[2:55:56] upfront. Make them ask, but I think you might have to think about what would

[2:55:59] happen if you were forced to go clear to 196. you probably might might not be

[2:56:03] able to stop there. Then wanted to make some comments on um capital plan. I'll

[2:56:08] try to keep it quick. You think about why we're a city. We're a city be

[2:56:12] because of public safety and because of the public infrastructure that we all

[2:56:15] want in terms of roads, sidewalks, parks, and facilities and those kinds of

[2:56:19] things. And so uh city engineer did a good good job of the kind of the things

[2:56:23] we've been talking about the last couple years. The capital plan is a budgeting

[2:56:26] tool and it's kind of scary big numbers. And I really got to thinking about this.

[2:56:30] The biggest project we've ever had up to this point in time, one project has been

[2:56:34] the 35th Avenue Bridge at about five to six million bucks. There's a lot of

[2:56:38] projects on that list that are a lot bigger numbers. That's scary. It's

[2:56:42] because we've gone from being a young city where the developers built

[2:56:45] everything. Things were cheaper back then, too. But now we're faced with

[2:56:48] maintenance issues and with dreams that are pretty big. And so, it's not a not a

[2:56:53] bad thing to think about borrowing money, bonding monies. We've never

[2:56:56] really bonded for anything as a city. It's okay to bond. It's okay to borrow.

[2:57:00] You didn't buy your house with cash. You didn't wait to buy your million-dollar

[2:57:03] house that you're living in until you had a million dollars. You you bought

[2:57:06] that when you knew you had the capacity to pay for the mortgage, the down

[2:57:10] payment in the mortgage. So, think about it that way for all of these things

[2:57:12] we're doing. Um, I will say that funding wise that I think there's been more uh

[2:57:18] attention by council recently and by staff recently in ter terms of looking

[2:57:22] for other places for funds. Don't think you just go to your favorite legislators

[2:57:26] and ask them for a line item of appropriation. You need to stay involved

[2:57:30] with the regional programs, the federal programs, the state programs, the

[2:57:34] regional programs that are programmatic. And so we need to have a pres, we as a

[2:57:37] city need to have presence down at PSRC. You don't have to go there, but you need

[2:57:41] to be watching what's going on at the transportation policy board about how

[2:57:44] the FHWA funds come through the system to us, and you need to get in line

[2:57:49] because everybody else is already in line. So, make sure that you as council

[2:57:53] members are paying attention as legislators to what's going on down

[2:57:57] there. Don't depend just on the representative for from SEC to to tell

[2:58:01] you what's going on and not uh snag the night money before it gets to you.

[2:58:05] » Get involved with TIB. Watch what they're doing. Look what's going on with

[2:58:09] it. ICC is the group that Dan would intend or city engineer would attend to

[2:58:14] to be county uh county staff things, but also the skit group that we used to go

[2:58:18] to. Uh somebody should be going to the skit. It could be elected, it could be

[2:58:22] staff, it could be both. But Skid is a Snowish County Committee for improved

[2:58:26] transportation. And they together with ICC put together a regional

[2:58:29] transportation priority plan that is put in front of the legislators and put in

[2:58:34] front of everybody every couple of years as a way to say these are the

[2:58:38] priorities. And so we need to be on that list uh so that Mil Creek doesn't get

[2:58:42] neglected because everybody's waiting. Everybody else, all the other cities

[2:58:45] have dreams about big projects too. So that's the advice I've got for tonight.

[2:58:48] Thanks. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the

[2:58:52] audience that would like to speak? Right. Name, city, and you have three

[2:58:58] minutes. >> Hey, my name is Jathan. Um, I'm a I just

[2:59:02] graduated from Jackson High School. Um, I live in the parks. Um, I've been here

[2:59:06] since kindergarten. Um, yeah, one, I really appreciate all you guys do. Um,

[2:59:12] yeah. So, on behalf of my family and everyone I know, um, I think there's

[2:59:17] just a couple things I heard that maybe I could add to, um, I think for the

[2:59:22] annexation stuff, um, especially like B, C, D,

[2:59:27] um, I went to Cedarway Elementary, so a lot of those guys I was friends with and

[2:59:32] we went to Jackson High School together. And then we I feel like a a lot of us

[2:59:37] feel like we're just part of Mil Creek. Um, so if you're part I feel like a lot

[2:59:42] of the people in BC and D already feel like they're in Mil Creek, part of Mil

[2:59:46] Creek because they went to Jackson. Um, and because they went to like Heather

[2:59:49] Woodford Middle School. Um, I think the Southtown Center stuff is really cool

[2:59:55] for like teenagers and stuff. Um, I feel like right now, um, like sometimes like

[3:00:01] if we want to go somewhere, we like can have to go like down to like both or go

[3:00:06] up to Alderwood and stuff. Um, so really, um, this gives us a chance to

[3:00:11] take the bus from the parks, let's just say, go down on like I think the 166 to

[3:00:19] like where the Safeway is now, and then immediately be able to shop and never

[3:00:23] use a car. So, that would really be awesome. Um, yeah, I think that's it.

[3:00:29] Thanks. >> Perfect. Thank you.

[3:00:34] Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak?

[3:00:38] Is there anyone online that would like to speak? H

[3:00:43] » Barb aka Amy Butcher. >> Yes. Uh

[3:00:48] I lost you. Can you hear me? >> We can hear you and see you. So you

[3:00:53] can't see us. >> I can't on the screen. Okay.

[3:00:56] » Okay. You're there. >> Uh thank you, Mayor Barb Hidle. usually

[3:01:00] uh Mil Creek resident, not for a couple days here. It's a little bit hotter over

[3:01:05] this eastern Washington. I'd just like to make a few comments in regard to your

[3:01:12] annexation scenarios. I was noticing you had dropped all the discussions about

[3:01:20] going straight across 180th to make a nice clean block of

[3:01:27] u inexation. Um, I gather it's because you want to add more commercial

[3:01:33] properties for greater revenue. I sort of like the looks of straight across

[3:01:38] 180th. Just my comments. I would sincerely hope

[3:01:42] you, the city, will take on the Penny Creek Nature Area.

[3:01:48] It is such a wonderful asset. The cost on the budget presentation was a bit of

[3:01:54] a surprise to me, too. I hope a search is still actively going on looking for

[3:02:01] grants to take care of that money if it really is needed. Lastly, I hope to see

[3:02:07] many of you at Buffalo Park for National Out a week from tonight on August 4th

[3:02:12] from 5 to 8:00 p.m. Thank you. Thank you, Barb. Is there anyone else

[3:02:18] online that would like to speak? >> Get out of here.

[3:02:22] » All right. Is there anyone else that would like to speak?

[3:02:25] All right. Thank you. >> Nope. Nope. Nope.

[3:02:30] » Lost you. >> Barb is having a hard muting.

[3:02:36] I know. All right. So, with that, we will now move into executive session. We

[3:02:43] will go into executive session to discuss potential litigation pursuant to

[3:02:47] RCW42.30.1101

[3:02:52] I. No action will be taken. We have an estimated time of only five minutes.

[3:03:03] Okay. So, let's say we will we will be back from executive session. I'm going

[3:03:07] to say 9:08 because it takes us a minute to get back there.

[3:03:31] personal. >> Sure.

[3:03:44] C.

[3:03:49] Thank you so much. Have a great evening.

[3:03:54] » I'm sorry.

[3:04:20] That's awesome. >> Yeah, I mean

[3:04:25] it

[3:04:34] is 100%. >> Okay.

[3:04:40] Excuse

[3:04:49] me.

[3:05:52] Nice.

[3:06:06] » Yeah.

[3:06:11] Yes,

[3:06:18] it's

[3:06:32] All

[3:06:42] right. Nice work.

[3:08:04] That's what happens when you're the oldest child.

[3:08:15] » I teleported quickly. [clears throat]

[3:08:42] All right, it is now 9:08. Council has returned from executive session and

[3:08:47] there was no action taken. With that, we will adjourn the meeting at 9:08

[3:08:53] p.m. We will see you back on what? August 11th.

[3:08:58] » Perfect. >> Everybody has gotten silly because

[3:09:01] they're also tired. So, good night everyone.

City Council Regular Meeting - 28 Jul 2026

Transcript