[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.