[0:06] Good evening and welcome to the March

[0:07] 9th, 2026 city council regular meeting.

[0:11] Thank you for joining us. Um I'm uh

[0:14] Mayor Mayhew and I'll be presiding

[0:16] tonight. Deputy City Clerk, please call

[0:19] the role.

[0:20] » Thank you, Mayor. Council member Murphy

[0:21] » Here. Council member Watson

[0:23] » Here.

[0:24] » Council member Holloway

[0:25] » Here.

[0:25] » Council member Washington

[0:27] » Here. Council member Cotton

[0:29] » Present.

[0:30] » Council member Christensen

[0:31] » Here.

[0:32] » Council member Johnson

[0:33] » Here.

[0:35] » All present uh and accounted for. Um

[0:39] please stand and join me in the pledge

[0:41] of allegiance. Council member Cotton,

[0:43] will you please lead the pledge of

[0:44] allegiance?

[0:55] I pledge algiance to the flag of the

[0:58] United States of America and to the

[1:00] republic for which it stands. One

[1:03] nation,

[1:04] indivisible, liberty and justice for

[1:07] all.

[1:19] Is there a motion to approve the agenda?

[1:21] » Some moved.

[1:22] » Second.

[1:23] » U moved by Council Member Johnson and

[1:25] seconded by Council Member Holloway. Um

[1:28] is there any discussion?

[1:29] » Point of order.

[1:32] » Uh state your point.

[1:34] » Um we have a question.

[1:38] » State your point of order. point of

[1:40] border is that there's a question from a

[1:42] council member.

[1:44] » Sorry, we're calling for any discussion

[1:47] on the agenda.

[1:48] » Yes, I'd like to make an amendment to

[1:50] the agenda.

[1:52] » Now would be the time. Council member

[1:53] Cotton.

[1:54] » Yes.

[1:56] Um

[1:57] uh yes, I'd like to uh make an amendment

[2:02] um uh that would uh in effect be open a

[2:07] line of discussion uh which would be

[2:09] fine after the uh uh FNA's

[2:13] um discussion on uh uh later in the

[2:17] program. Um with regards to uh

[2:21] resolution number 1452,

[2:25] rules of procedure of the city council

[2:27] um to open some discussion under uh

[2:31] specifically rules five, six, and seven.

[2:34] Um just to bring some information to

[2:36] light.

[2:38] » Is there a second?

[2:40] » Second.

[2:42] » A really technical thing. I think you

[2:44] mean resolution 1542.

[2:46] » 1542. Did I get my numbers mixed up? Am

[2:49] I dyslexic?

[2:50] » All right. Sorry. And uh which council

[2:53] member seconded that?

[2:55] » I did and somebody.

[2:56] » Council member Murphy. Uh moved by

[2:59] Council Member Cotton, seconded by

[3:00] Council Member Murphy to add a

[3:02] discussion in Finance and Administration

[3:04] Committee of

[3:07] Resolution

[3:09] 1542

[3:11] uh sections 5,6 and 7. Any discussion?

[3:15] Council

[3:17] Council Minister Johnson.

[3:19] » Uh yeah, I'm curious uh if that's

[3:22] something that um they would be

[3:24] recommend for an executive session or

[3:26] not.

[3:35] » Um I think it depends

[3:39] answer. I think it's going to depend on

[3:40] where we're going with the conversation.

[3:43] So, if I could um defer till later in

[3:46] the evening.

[3:49] » Council member Holloway.

[3:51] » Would this come under FNA or would this

[3:52] come under committee the hall?

[3:55] » It didn't come up through FNA.

[3:57] » No, it's I I said after the FNA

[3:59] discussion.

[4:00] » I'm just replying back to what the mayor

[4:03] had said.

[4:03] » All right. So to clarify, this would be

[4:05] an item under committee of the whole

[4:08] uh discussion of resolution 1542

[4:11] sections 5,6 and 7. Is that correct,

[4:13] Council Member Cotton?

[4:14] » That is correct, sir.

[4:17] » Any further discussion?

[4:21] » Uh, Council Member Johnson, just to

[4:22] clarify, this is on the little dinosaur.

[4:24] » That's correct.

[4:25] » Okay.

[4:26] » All right. All those in favor of the

[4:28] » Chair.

[4:29] » Uh, sorry. Council member Holloway,

[4:32] » Can I get what are the bullet points

[4:34] under those sections to be discussed?

[4:38] » Council member Cotton

[4:39] » Specifically um under rule five. There's

[4:43] some um uh uh reports that um that I'm

[4:49] not aware of council ever receiving that

[4:51] are supposed to be included in our

[4:52] agenda packets.

[4:54] um council pending business lists um

[4:57] council meeting follow-up reports under

[5:00] rule six and rule seven. This is the has

[5:03] to do with the um roles and

[5:07] responsibilities of of committee

[5:09] chairpersons and department heads.

[5:19] Council member Christensen,

[5:21] » Could I just make a request if anyone's

[5:22] able to send a copy or put that just so

[5:25] that I can look at it or we can pull it

[5:26] up on the screen. That would help me a

[5:27] little bit because I don't know where it

[5:29] is off the top of my head. I know I have

[5:30] it in binder somewhere at home, but

[5:32] that's not going to help me at this

[5:33] moment.

[5:36] » I I have an advantage you don't have. I

[5:38] have people on either side of me looking

[5:40] it up as we're talking. Uh yes, we'll uh

[5:43] looks like we'll get No, no, no. Let's

[5:45] send it out. I Sorry. Were you wanting

[5:47] to discuss that now?

[5:49] » No, I'm I'm just making a request so

[5:50] that when we get to it, I I can look at

[5:52] it because I don't know if I see

[5:53] » The Okay, we'll get that done.

[5:56] » Thank you.

[5:57] » All right. Any further discussion of the

[6:00] motion to add an item under committee of

[6:03] the whole.

[6:05] Okay. Uh see no further discussion. All

[6:08] those in favor of adding the agenda item

[6:10] under committee of the whole say I.

[6:13] » I. Those opposed say nay. Motion

[6:16] carries. Any further discussion of the

[6:20] agenda? Council member Johnson move to

[6:23] add recognition of service under

[6:26] proclamations

[6:27] uh following the presentation uh from

[6:30] the state auditor's office.

[6:32] » Is there a second?

[6:33] » Second.

[6:34] » Second by council member Cotton. moved

[6:36] by council member Johnson to add service

[6:39] recognition of service as an item under

[6:43] uh uh after the presentation by the

[6:45] state auditor's office. Any discussion?

[6:49] Hearing none. All those in favor say I.

[6:51] » I.

[6:52] » Those opposed? Nay. The me motion is

[6:55] passes and the agenda proposed agenda is

[6:58] so amended. Any further discussion of

[6:59] the agenda?

[7:02] Seeing none. Those in favor of um

[7:05] approving the agenda as amended say I.

[7:08] » I.

[7:09] » Those opposed say nay.

[7:12] Agenda as amended is approved.

[7:18] » So this evening um we have members from

[7:21] the Washington State Auditor's office um

[7:24] here for the city's exit conference on

[7:26] their audit for fiscal year 2024.

[7:30] welcome to our guests and uh we will

[7:32] turn the floor over to you for your

[7:34] presentation.

[7:36] » All right. So before they begin, I'm

[7:38] going to kick it off. Um I'd like to

[7:40] take a moment to welcome the state

[7:42] auditor's office to the city of Swami

[7:44] for our fiscal year 2024 exit

[7:46] conference. Uh specifically, I'd like to

[7:48] recognize from the SEO Adams, the

[7:51] audit manager, June Lee, the assistant

[7:54] audit manager, and Zach Schultz, the

[7:56] audit lead. Over the past four months,

[7:58] the SEO has diligently conducted a

[8:00] fiscal year 2024 audit of the city's

[8:03] financial statements,

[8:05] uh, important areas of financial control

[8:07] and our compliance with the Corona virus

[8:09] trade and local fiscal recovery fund

[8:11] program requirements. Certainly is a

[8:13] mouthful. Now, following this exit

[8:15] conference, in the days ahead, the SEO

[8:17] will publish three separate reports on

[8:19] their website. This includes an

[8:21] accountability audit report, financial

[8:23] statements audit report, a report on

[8:25] compliance with Corona virus state and

[8:27] local fiscal recovery funds program

[8:29] requirements, and it's important to know

[8:31] that the effort the SAO has put into

[8:33] conducting the audit and staff has put

[8:36] into facilitating the audit is to not

[8:38] mandatorily check a box. It really is

[8:40] far more important than that. These

[8:43] audits represent a powerful tool that

[8:45] can help the city identify

[8:46] vulnerabilities, enhance accountability,

[8:49] ensure transparency, and build public

[8:51] trust and confidence in the management

[8:53] of the city's common resources. All this

[8:56] work the SEO pours independently into an

[8:58] audit and the audit opinions produced

[9:01] can signal financial health and a

[9:03] precautionary vigilance which can help

[9:05] cities such as ours negotiate better

[9:07] interest rates and earn community

[9:09] confidence. and we can't thank the SAO

[9:12] enough for their hard work. Um, so with

[9:14] that said, I'd like to invite Adams

[9:16] up uh to present the city's fiscal year

[9:18] 2024 audit results. Thank you.

[9:23] » All right, thank you. Yes, my name is

[9:24] Adams. I'm the audit manager and

[9:26] I'm with Zach Shelton who was the audit

[9:28] lead and then June Lee who was the

[9:29] supervisor as well on the audit. And

[9:32] then we have provided you a packet of

[9:33] information. So that does include the

[9:35] copy of the draft audit reports that'll

[9:36] be issued and then also um the exit

[9:39] conference document for today as well.

[9:41] So with that I'll get over to Zach and

[9:43] he'll go over the results of the audit.

[9:49] » All right, thanks All right, so if

[9:51] everyone will pull out your packet and

[9:53] we'll start with that first page there

[9:55] um where it says office of the

[9:56] Washington state auditor. Um so this is

[9:58] our exit conference of the city of

[10:00] Snowqualami as was stated. So we have

[10:02] three different reports that we are

[10:04] publishing and so I wanted to go through

[10:05] the three really quickly and then we'll

[10:07] go through in each detail. So the first

[10:09] is the accountability audit and that was

[10:11] for January 1, 2024 through December 31,

[10:15] 2024. There's also the financial

[10:17] statement audit of that same period

[10:19] January 1 through December 31, 2024. And

[10:22] then the report on compliance with

[10:23] coronavirus state and local fiscal

[10:26] recovery funds program requirements for

[10:29] the same period of January 1, 2024

[10:31] through December 31, 2024. So I'll start

[10:35] by going to page seven. So if you look

[10:38] in the middle um the at the bottom, the

[10:40] page number is page seven. There's two

[10:42] different page numbers, but page seven

[10:44] and it says audit results and results in

[10:46] brief. So that's the first one we'll be

[10:48] looking at. Perfect.

[10:51] And so the this report describes the

[10:53] overall results and conclusions for the

[10:54] areas that we've examined, which we'll

[10:56] go through a little bit today. Um but in

[10:58] in keeping with general audit practices,

[11:00] we don't examine every transaction

[11:02] activity, policy, internal control, or

[11:04] area. Um but we wanted to state that the

[11:07] city complied in all material respects

[11:10] with applicable state laws, regulations,

[11:12] its own policies and provided adequate

[11:15] controls over the safeguarding of public

[11:17] resources. So then looking down at about

[11:19] the audit, um we completed a risk

[11:22] assessment for the year ended December

[11:24] 31st, 2024 and then we examined the

[11:27] following areas during the audit period.

[11:29] So I'm going to talk about a little bit

[11:31] about these today and the testing that

[11:33] we did for those. So for the police

[11:35] department with the evidence room, we

[11:37] worked closely with the police

[11:38] department to review evidence to ensure

[11:40] that it was being kept correctly, it was

[11:43] being adequately tracked, and that they

[11:45] were able to um basically show us pieces

[11:47] of evidence that we requested.

[11:51] Additionally, we also reviewed tracking

[11:53] and monitoring of thefts sensitive

[11:54] assets such as computers, tools, and

[11:57] equipment. So we worked with several

[11:58] departments in the city to look at a

[12:01] list of assets that they had and then we

[12:03] would review those assets in real time

[12:06] to make sure that they existed and they

[12:07] were tracked correctly. We also reviewed

[12:10] surplus equipment with dis disposition

[12:12] and receipt of sales proceeds. So we

[12:14] worked closely with the IT department to

[12:17] make sure that the city is tracking the

[12:20] disposition of assets properly and

[12:23] receipts of those sales. And then

[12:25] additionally for all uh local

[12:28] governments we also review open public

[12:29] meetings compliance with minutes

[12:32] meetings and executive session

[12:33] requirements and part of that is

[12:35] reviewing the minutes. And then

[12:36] additionally we review financial

[12:38] condition in reviewing for indications

[12:40] of financial distress. So I always like

[12:42] to put a plug in there for the financial

[12:44] condition that we have a really great

[12:45] tool called the financial intelligence

[12:48] tool. Um and it's on our website at

[12:50] seao.wah.gov of and that's a great place

[12:52] to see um the financial health of your

[12:55] city, but also to be able to compare

[12:57] your city to cities across the state. Um

[12:59] and so that's a great tool to be able to

[13:00] go in and see each fund and kind of

[13:03] track that as well as again like I said

[13:05] see results from other states as well or

[13:07] other cities.

[13:09] All right. And so next we're going to

[13:10] move to the next report which is the

[13:11] financial statement audit report. And so

[13:14] that is going to start on page 14 of

[13:17] your packet. And so like I said, it's 14

[13:20] in the middle at the bottom. And so the

[13:22] first one is the report on internal

[13:24] control over financial reporting and on

[13:26] compliance. And so we've audited in

[13:29] accordance with auditing standards for

[13:31] generally accepted in the United States

[13:33] of America. And we issued an unmodified

[13:36] opinion on the fair presentation of the

[13:38] city's financial statements in

[13:39] accordance with its regulatory basis of

[13:41] accounting. So unmodified is the opinion

[13:44] that you want to receive and it provides

[13:46] assurance that the financial statements

[13:48] are fairly stated and are materially

[13:50] correct. And so in addition, we also

[13:52] report on internal control over

[13:54] financial reporting. And if you turn

[13:56] over to the next page on page 15, um we

[13:59] are required to alert you of any

[14:01] deficiencies in internal controls. Um

[14:03] but we're pleased to report that we did

[14:05] not identify any deficiencies in

[14:07] internal controls that we consider to be

[14:09] a material weakness.

[14:11] And then additionally um it's important

[14:13] to note that uh we have ensure that

[14:16] their city's financial statements are

[14:18] free from material misstatement. And so

[14:20] we perform tests of its compliance with

[14:22] certain provisions of laws, regulations,

[14:25] contracts, and grant agreements where

[14:27] non-compliance could have a direct and

[14:29] material effect on the financial

[14:30] statements. But again, our opinion, um,

[14:32] we do not express, um, any instances of

[14:35] non-compliance or other matters that are

[14:37] required to be reported under government

[14:39] auditing standards.

[14:42] And so now we're flipping that page

[14:43] again and we're going to page 17 now.

[14:46] And so this is the report on the audit

[14:48] of the financial statements themselves.

[14:51] And so on page 17, you'll see the report

[14:54] on the audit of the financial

[14:56] statements. So we've audited the

[14:57] financial statements like I said for

[14:59] that year of ending December 31st 2024

[15:03] and then we also have an unmodified

[15:05] opinion on the regulatory basis of

[15:07] accounting or the bars manual. So again

[15:09] that unmodified opinion is what you want

[15:11] to receive and again it provides support

[15:13] to know that your financial statements

[15:15] are fairly stated and are materially

[15:17] correct.

[15:22] And then moving forward to page 18 as

[15:24] well. Um management's responsible for

[15:27] preparing the fair presentation of the

[15:29] financial statements and that includes

[15:31] determining the basis of accounting and

[15:33] then preparing the financial statements.

[15:35] Uh we're required to evaluate certain

[15:37] risks that we may bring to your

[15:38] attention. Um and so there is a risk

[15:40] that management has the ability to

[15:42] circumvent certain controls. Um but

[15:44] we're pleased to report that we noted no

[15:46] instances where management was able to

[15:49] circumvent certain controls there.

[15:53] All right. And then lastly, we have one

[15:55] more thing we want to bring to your

[15:56] attention with the report. Um, we have

[15:59] the report on compliance with Corona

[16:01] virus state and local fiscal recovery

[16:03] fund program requirements. Again, it's a

[16:05] pretty long one. Um, so we're going to

[16:07] go to page 25 for that one.

[16:10] And I'll give Drew a chance to go all

[16:12] the way down.

[16:16] Perfect. And so we examined the city of

[16:18] Snowquami's compliance with these

[16:20] compliance requirements for activities

[16:22] allowed or unallowed and also for

[16:24] allowable costs and cost principles with

[16:26] this federal funding. And so recipients

[16:29] um would otherwise be required to

[16:31] undergo a single audit or a program

[16:33] specific audit, but in this case um they

[16:35] were able to do an attestation or in

[16:38] this case the um independent audit. And

[16:40] so um management is responsible for the

[16:43] city's compliance with the specified

[16:45] requirements and then our responsibility

[16:47] is to express an opinion over the city's

[16:50] compliance. And so um we will see that

[16:53] um our examination um does not provide a

[16:56] legal determination of the city's

[16:57] compliance with specified requirements.

[16:59] that in our opinion the city of

[17:01] Snowqualami complied in all material

[17:03] respects with the affformentioned

[17:05] requirements during the period January

[17:06] 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024.

[17:13] All right. And then lastly, I also

[17:14] wanted to turn your attention to the

[17:16] very last page that we have as well on

[17:19] the very back, page 34. We wanted to

[17:21] talk really quickly about uh summary of

[17:23] uncorrected items. Um and so we have one

[17:26] uncorrected misstatement on the

[17:28] financial statements that we wanted to

[17:30] talk about. Um first we um believe that

[17:33] these uncorrected misstatements are not

[17:35] material in nature. Um and we are off

[17:37] also confident that management will

[17:39] correct these in the following audit. Um

[17:42] but this is regarding the compensated

[17:43] absences liability. Um as the city did

[17:46] not properly implementate or implement

[17:48] major bars changes for new requirements

[17:50] in determining the valuation of

[17:52] compensated absences liability. Um this

[17:55] was a year of bars implementation for

[17:57] compensated absences and so the city was

[18:00] required to evaluate the likelihood that

[18:02] leave will be used and paid according to

[18:04] historical use among other requirements.

[18:07] So again, just wanted to put that out

[18:09] there that again, we don't expect these

[18:10] to be material. And then again, we

[18:12] expect we would expect management to

[18:14] correct these in the following um audit.

[18:17] And so before we go over to June for a

[18:20] few more closing remarks, were there any

[18:21] questions over the reports that I just

[18:23] went through at all?

[18:28] No. Perfect. Okay. Before I turn it over

[18:30] to June, just wanted to highlight the

[18:32] audit highlights. Um, and so I just

[18:34] wanted to say thank you first to city

[18:36] staff and council um, for your

[18:38] consistent communication and your

[18:40] dedication to the audit process. It does

[18:42] not go unnoticed. Um, but then in

[18:44] particular, we also really want to thank

[18:45] Drew, Jennifer, Kyla, and an for their

[18:49] commitment to providing audit requests

[18:50] in a timely manner resulting in an

[18:52] efficient audit. Um, they did a

[18:54] basically a back-toback audit. um and

[18:56] they were more than happy to continue to

[18:59] provide us support and um just constant

[19:02] communication which was really great for

[19:03] us. So I'm going to turn it over to June

[19:05] really quickly for a few more closing

[19:06] remarks.

[19:15] » All right. Um okay. So, with our

[19:18] official closing of this audit tonight,

[19:21] um all of the reports that Zach just

[19:23] covered will be issued in about a week.

[19:26] Um you'll get a notification email once

[19:29] those reports are posted on our website.

[19:31] So, let me clarify you, meaning Drew and

[19:34] um Jen, so you you won't be bothered

[19:36] with all of those emails. Um at the same

[19:39] time, you will receive an audit survey.

[19:41] Um we love to hear from you um on things

[19:44] that you like or don't like about the

[19:45] audit and how we can do better next

[19:47] time. Um so any feedback is much

[19:50] appreciated.

[19:52] Um also since we perform an attestation

[19:55] and we'll issue a report on the

[19:57] compliance of recovery fund

[19:58] expenditures, we will send you a

[20:01] reminder email with instructions um on

[20:04] how to submit the report to the US

[20:06] Department of Treasury.

[20:10] So, we were able to complete this audit

[20:12] within budget. Um, the final audit cost

[20:14] approximate um what we quoted at the

[20:16] beginning of this engagement. Your next

[20:19] audit for fiscal year 2025 is scheduled

[20:22] later this year around October or

[20:24] November. Um, it will cover both the

[20:27] accountability and financial statement

[20:29] sections. Um, so if you spend more than

[20:32] $1 million in federal funds, um, we

[20:36] would like to know as soon as possible.

[20:38] Um so just to mention that the 1 million

[20:41] is the new threshold that um kickstarts

[20:44] a single audit. So if a single audit is

[20:47] required then we need to reconsider the

[20:50] timing of your next audit so that we can

[20:52] meet your federal deadline.

[20:56] So um before we finish up here um just

[20:58] one more reminder that there are some

[21:00] complimentary services that we offer to

[21:02] our clients.

[21:04] » Um so help is available if you need it.

[21:06] Um I'll just name a few examples. Our

[21:09] local government support team provides a

[21:11] um onetoone technical assistance. Um

[21:15] answers questions on the latest

[21:17] accounting and auditing uh topics. And

[21:19] this team also assists on all of those

[21:22] um annual uh report filings.

[21:25] And then our center for government

[21:27] innovation team offers lean services,

[21:30] cyber checkups, and some helpful tools

[21:32] and checklists from the resource

[21:34] library. So if you need to find out more

[21:36] information um definitely go visit our

[21:39] website for a full list of those

[21:41] services and that's sao.wah.gov.

[21:45] And at this time um I would like to ask

[21:47] if you have any questions for us to

[21:49] answer. If I could just ask uh for the

[21:52] benefit of those here and those watching

[21:54] our residents, uh we'll be posting the

[21:58] results of the audit on our website, but

[21:59] if they wish to see the results directly

[22:02] at the state auditor's website, where

[22:04] would they go to see those results?

[22:07] » Um it it's the same website. It's the

[22:09] www.sao.wah

[22:12] and then you just um put in city of

[22:15] snowquami and then search the report and

[22:17] it should find it.

[22:18] » Great. And when do you expect those will

[22:20] be up? Maybe it'll be at least a week

[22:22] till it's finalized.

[22:23] » About a week.

[22:25] » Great.

[22:25] » Any questions, council?

[22:30] » All right.

[22:31] » Thank you all very much for the great

[22:33] service um with the audit and um for

[22:37] turning up tonight and and telling us

[22:38] about the results. Thank you very much.

[22:40] » All right. So, I'm just going to have

[22:42] some concluding statements. Uh this work

[22:44] between us and the SEO concludes

[22:46] approximately 20 months of almost

[22:48] straight catchup effort uh from both the

[22:51] SAO and staff which has culminated in uh

[22:54] 12 published reports representing the

[22:55] years 2021 through 2024. And really this

[22:59] is a fantastic accomplishment for both

[23:01] the SAO and the city. Um and with that

[23:03] I'd like to just kind of take a moment

[23:05] to recognize the finance department

[23:06] staff back here. We have Jen Hughes, our

[23:09] deputy finance director, Kyla Henderson,

[23:11] senior accountant, and Bcker,

[23:13] accountant, and the rest of the finance

[23:15] team that isn't here tonight for their

[23:17] facilitation of the audit. They've

[23:19] simply been amazing uh throughout this

[23:21] entire process, and I can't thank them

[23:22] enough for that effort. And just to

[23:24] finish really quickly, the finance

[23:26] department intends to continue the good

[23:27] work shared here today by remaining

[23:30] devoted and vigilant in evolving our

[23:32] systems, policies, and procedures. And I

[23:34] know with this team, with this mayor, we

[23:37] certainly will. So, thank you and

[23:39] appreciate your time, council.

[23:42] » So, to the staff on behalf of the whole

[23:44] city, thank you for the work. I know an

[23:46] audit is on top of all the work that you

[23:48] have to do every day. Um, and uh, thank

[23:51] you so much for getting us uh,

[23:53] successfully through the audit and all

[23:54] the work you do every day in support of

[23:56] the city

[24:04] council. Any comments or questions?

[24:08] All right.

[24:15] Uh moving on to the next item which is

[24:19] service recognition. Um it's uh with

[24:24] very mixed emotions uh tonight that I um

[24:28] uh have a service recognition uh

[24:30] presentation to make. Um Council Member

[24:34] Cara Christensen will be leaving us. She

[24:37] is embarking on a new sort of uh time of

[24:41] her life. Her family's moving to London.

[24:44] um and uh wish her nothing but the best.

[24:48] But uh it's it's also our loss. She's

[24:50] been a fantastic council member. And um

[24:53] I just like to read the um the plaque

[24:56] that we're going to award her tonight.

[24:58] It says um council member Cara

[25:01] Christensen was appointed to the

[25:02] Snowqualami City Council in September of

[25:05] 2021 and elected in 2023.

[25:09] She served the community through her

[25:12] leadership, dedication, and financial

[25:14] expertise until her term ended in March

[25:17] 2026.

[25:19] On behalf of the residents of

[25:21] Snowqualami with sincere gratitude, this

[25:24] recognition is presented to Cara

[25:26] Christensen on it's dated the day of her

[25:29] last service, which is a week from

[25:31] today, uh dated on this 16th day of

[25:33] March, 2026.

[25:36] Thank you.

[25:52] Tell you what, how about we go on that

[25:54] side and take a picture with Council

[25:56] Member Christensen.

[26:04] You guys all get to come up in a sec.

[26:16] Come on.

[27:01] note to self that's a little bit hard to

[27:03] read and um keep your voice steady.

[27:07] Okay. Uh next on the agenda is public

[27:10] comment. Now, uh, for those who wish to

[27:13] make public comment tonight, the way we

[27:15] do public comment in Snowqualami is we

[27:17] have public comment now for items that

[27:20] are not on the agenda.

[27:22] If you're here to make public comment

[27:24] for items are on that are on the agenda,

[27:26] for example,

[27:29] the uh

[27:32] the uh several pages later, the

[27:36] ordinance um on automated traffic safety

[27:39] cameras that uh we will take public

[27:42] comment on that when we're ready to take

[27:44] up that matter, which will be very

[27:47] shortly from now. But uh this public

[27:49] comment section would be for those who

[27:52] wish to make comment on items not on the

[27:54] agenda. Now we have an electronic

[27:56] signup. So I'll just go through the list

[27:58] here and ask uh each speaker whether you

[28:01] wish to speak now or whether you wish to

[28:03] speak at the time of that um ordinance

[28:07] uh being considered.

[28:11] So I'll start with Eddie Gomez.

[28:13] Now

[28:14] » It's Edie. Edie.

[28:22] All right, Edy, you sorry, Miss Gomez,

[28:25] you'll have three minutes and the um

[28:27] lights there will let you know when

[28:28] we're getting down uh towards the end,

[28:30] but uh three minutes. If you could

[28:32] please state your name and city of

[28:34] residence for the record, then go ahead.

[28:37] » My name is Edy Gomez, Snowqual Mey,

[28:40] Washington, Osprey Court. Good evening,

[28:42] council members. My name is Edie Gomez

[28:45] and I live on Osprey Courts and I'm here

[28:47] with my wife ECAT who works for

[28:48] Starbucks and is currently seeking a

[28:50] higher paying opportunity. We're proud

[28:52] to call residents and I'm here to share

[28:54] a cautionary tale. Earlier this year, we

[28:57] transferred $20,000

[29:00] um in connection with what we believed

[29:01] was a legitimate opportunity. These

[29:04] funds were sent in good faith after

[29:06] discussions about our participation.

[29:08] I've been at my job for 10 years and a

[29:10] single transaction hurt our household

[29:12] budget. After our transfer, the

[29:15] opportunity did not include us despite

[29:17] multiple requests to funds have not been

[29:19] returned. We're now pursuing legal

[29:21] remedies. Though, as you know, legal

[29:23] processes are lengthy, expensive, and

[29:25] offer no guarantee of recovery. Speaking

[29:28] of unexpected challenges, our cat, a

[29:30] polyactyl gentleman gentleman with six

[29:32] toes on each paw, decided this was the

[29:34] perfect time to require surgery. He acts

[29:37] more like a dog, which means he has a

[29:38] loyalty of a golden retriever and a and

[29:41] the veterinary bills to match. I joked

[29:43] with ECAT that the with 24 toes total,

[29:47] maybe he could get a job and start

[29:48] contributing. So far, he has declined.

[29:52] » I'm not here asking for sympathy, but

[29:54] we've learned critical lessons about

[29:55] transparency and accountability when

[29:57] people solicit financial contributions.

[30:00] Here's what I hope others take away.

[30:02] Always insist on clear written

[30:04] agreements before transferring funds.

[30:07] Research, ask questions, ask friends and

[30:09] family. Trust your instincts. If

[30:11] something feels rushed or someone

[30:12] discourages independent advice, that's a

[30:15] red flag. Council members, these

[30:17] situations happen even here in

[30:18] Snowqualami, even to cautious people. By

[30:21] speaking openly, we might prevent

[30:23] another family from experiencing this. I

[30:26] encourage the council to consider

[30:27] promoting financial literacy on this

[30:29] topic in our community. Perhaps

[30:31] resources on the on the city website or

[30:33] workshops on protecting against

[30:35] financial exploitation. Small steps

[30:38] toward education can have significant

[30:40] protective effects. Thank you for your

[30:42] time and service to our community. I

[30:45] look forward to running for mayor to

[30:46] help protect fraud victims and victims

[30:48] of scams someday and continuing to serve

[30:51] Snowquali in whatever capacity I can.

[30:54] And if anyone knows about a job opening

[30:56] for a cat, please let me know.

[30:59] Thank you, Miss Gomez.

[31:06] Su Ga, do you wish to speak now or? Yep.

[31:12] » Three minutes isn't very long. I'm

[31:13] Subalo. I live in Snowqualami on

[31:15] Snowqualami Ridge and I'm here to

[31:17] express deep concerns about this uh

[31:20] Cascade Ridge battery storage facility

[31:23] and all I don't know how many of you are

[31:24] aware of it. It's on the ridge. There's

[31:27] 45 acres proposed just south of the um

[31:31] Forest Creek Fisher Creek Park. I live

[31:34] just below that. It butts up right

[31:36] against the snowcom trail systems that

[31:38] are up in there. It's in by trails,

[31:42] parks, wildlife habitat, wetlands, and

[31:44] surrounded by forests that run most of

[31:47] the way down to Snowquali. Those forests

[31:49] with houses in between. Um, when I look

[31:51] at other sites like this around the

[31:53] country, this is battery storage which

[31:55] we're going to have to have in our

[31:56] country. They are in open flat lands.

[31:59] And you look at aerial photos and there

[32:01] is nothing near them for a reason. These

[32:04] have extreme danger of fires and

[32:06] explosions.

[32:08] They've been going less frequently than

[32:10] they used to be. But when they happen,

[32:12] they have runaway fires that these bad

[32:14] lithium ion batteries, you don't just

[32:16] put them out. They have to burn

[32:18] themselves out. And if we were to have

[32:20] an explosion of this facility up there,

[32:22] there's toxic gases that would go into

[32:25] the community, go out, you've got

[32:27] hydrogen fluoride, fluoride, carbon

[32:29] monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, which is all

[32:32] dangerous to all of us in the wildlife.

[32:35] The materials they use to diffuse and

[32:38] cool down these batteries as they burn

[32:41] down takes time because otherwise it

[32:44] increases the risk of an explosion. that

[32:46] heavy metals then get into the

[32:47] groundwater which then come down into

[32:49] snow quality. Now, while this is up on

[32:51] the ridge and deeply sensitive to all of

[32:54] us who live around it with an immediate

[32:56] fire, there's businesses, there's this

[32:59] uh what is it? Mount Sai, whatever the

[33:03] elementary school up there. I don't have

[33:04] kids in there. I can't remember the name

[33:05] of it, but it's there on the King County

[33:08] site. This area is designated uh what is

[33:12] it? RA 2.5,

[33:14] I quote off their site, rural area

[33:17] designation in unincorporated King

[33:19] County that allows one residential unit

[33:21] for 2 and a half to 10 acres aimed at

[33:24] maintaining rural character,

[33:26] agriculture, and open spaces.

[33:29] Quote unquote, and they want to put this

[33:31] battery storage thing in there. I am

[33:32] terrified of these fires. It requires

[33:34] special equipment, special training.

[33:37] Apparently, Seattle Fire Department has

[33:39] a trained crew for that, which doesn't

[33:41] do us a lot of good unless we get

[33:44] training here. What do we know about

[33:47] what's going to be trained for our local

[33:48] firefighters? Who's going to pay for

[33:50] that? How does that happen? And what's

[33:51] the risk? Very concerned. There's been

[33:54] several fires, California, Arizona,

[33:56] while they're not as frequent as they

[33:58] used to. As security, safety of them

[34:00] gets better.

[34:02] They have to close down. People have to

[34:05] evacuate. lock, you know, reside in I

[34:08] can't think of the words for it. Reside

[34:09] in space. Close down all ventilation

[34:11] systems. There's a school.

[34:15] I can't say it all, but my request is

[34:19] that you guys as a committee would help

[34:21] us get all the information. Eight days

[34:24] from today, I just got in the mail.

[34:27] Eight days from now, the company doing

[34:29] this has offered a public meeting. You

[34:32] could conclude your remarks. Thank you

[34:34] very much, Miss Briette.

[34:44] Vanny Albert.

[34:47] » Hi, good evening everyone. I'm here to

[34:50] talk on the same topic of the Cascadia

[34:53] Ridge resilience energy storage. Uh so

[34:57] why do we oppose uh taking lithium

[35:00] batteries in the plane? We know that and

[35:04] the same is why I am here to say that

[35:07] this is at a very close proximity to the

[35:09] school. Many of us go out of this place

[35:12] to work and by the time we come home we

[35:15] think our kids are safe. The plan that

[35:18] we we are we are going to have nearby is

[35:21] closer to the residential property. Uh

[35:24] it's closer to the uh electricity line

[35:27] and on top of that our kids are are at

[35:30] risk here. So as Sue mentioned there is

[35:34] lot of um chemical hazard on this. I'm a

[35:37] chemistry student and I know that um

[35:39] even when we handle it in the lab we

[35:41] have to be very careful about the

[35:43] lithium. That said, um the the we stay

[35:48] in a place where it rains and lithium

[35:52] gas easily combines with hydrogen which

[35:55] means there is there the amount of fumes

[35:58] that you're going to get is more

[36:00] hazardous and um

[36:03] talking about the hazard and talking

[36:06] about the affordability.

[36:08] uh coming to the home insurance.

[36:10] anything near to this plant is really

[36:13] going to spike our insurance and many do

[36:15] not approve when we are nearby which is

[36:19] a huge cost on our cost of living and I

[36:22] would um kindly ask you all to also

[36:26] consider the noise that will be impacted

[36:29] from this facility which is like 70 to

[36:32] 92 decibb coming 24/7 to keep it at a

[36:37] cooling uh pace. So um with many other

[36:40] factors coming to the environment hazard

[36:43] uh to our kids and especially with the

[36:46] evacuation route the cascade view is

[36:48] really close to the place and it is like

[36:51] a grid either you have to come on to the

[36:54] fair view or you have to go through the

[36:55] central if something happens. So um we

[36:58] are going out thinking that our city is

[37:01] taking care of us our kids and um I'm

[37:05] not in a position that this plan should

[37:07] not come. I do not want it to come near

[37:09] to our residential places. They can move

[37:11] it out to somewhere far off where it is

[37:14] safer for them. It can add value to the

[37:17] business. It can add value to the people

[37:19] around us but not closer to the

[37:20] residential place. Thank you.

[37:23] » Thank you, Miss Albert.

[37:31] » Uh Andrew Wink,

[37:34] speak later.

[37:41] Carissa Wakefield

[37:45] and please state your name and city of

[37:46] residence uh as you begin your comments.

[37:49] » Cararissa Wakeford, Snowqualami,

[37:51] Washington. I am echoing the um

[37:56] unpopular

[37:58] um report about the Cascadia Juniper

[38:02] Power Plant that they're planning on

[38:03] putting here. However, I'd like to add

[38:05] in a couple other things. Um, posted is

[38:08] the estimated um square mile if there

[38:11] was a fire and it goes all the way down

[38:14] to Fall City, part of Preston and mo

[38:18] much of North Bend. Um, there's toxic

[38:21] fumes. The noise complaint, I actually

[38:24] have one that is up

[38:28] um, pardon me. Um, I have a video of

[38:32] just the noise. You can kind of hear of

[38:35] the 24/7 noise that is put out from it.

[38:40] It's not quiet and it's 247

[38:44] and this is the noise that we have to

[38:45] deal with potentially if we can't fight

[38:48] against this.

[38:52] Um, on March 17th from 5:00 p.m. to 7:30

[38:56] p.m., Juniper Power will be coming to

[38:58] talk about all of how it is safe and it

[39:01] won't impact us. But the fire codes that

[39:05] they that I've read about it is that

[39:07] they're very difficult to impossible to

[39:09] actually put out with proper um water

[39:12] and traditional uses. So, they let it

[39:14] burn out. The last one that had a fire,

[39:17] it was 11 days that people were forced

[39:20] out of their homes because of the toxic

[39:22] fumes. The ash can spend or uh go for

[39:25] miles and in impact our waterways, our

[39:29] our dirt, our land, our kids. Um I live

[39:34] in Fischer Creek Park where they're

[39:37] going to put it. So, not only will I

[39:38] have a visual reminder of it, but also

[39:42] the noise complaint. Um, they're saying

[39:45] that it won't have any nighttime

[39:46] lighting, but I also saw that the amount

[39:49] of traffic and and noise that was from

[39:52] building it and maintaining it. It it

[39:54] will increase things negatively upon our

[39:58] community. And I just ask that you

[40:00] please consider um doing what you can to

[40:03] help us out as a city and um as the

[40:07] Snowqualami Valley to protect the water,

[40:09] our children, our environment. Thank

[40:12] you. Oh, and one more thing. It puts a

[40:15] strain. They say it was good for

[40:17] electricity, but it puts a strain on our

[40:19] own grid. So, it from everything that

[40:22] I've read, and and I'm not a scientist,

[40:24] so I don't know for sure, but everything

[40:25] I've read said it puts a strain on our

[40:27] own grid, and that's already going to

[40:29] increase as more people are getting

[40:31] electric cars and whatnot. Thank you.

[40:34] » Thank you, Miss Wakeford.

[40:39] It's Jordan, do you wish to speak now or

[40:41] Yep.

[40:48] Hadley Evers,

[40:54] Brock Brady,

[40:59] and please remember to state your name

[41:00] and city of residence.

[41:02] » Thank you. Uh I'm Brock Brady and still

[41:05] Quami is my city of residence. Um, I'm

[41:09] also up here about the Cascadia project,

[41:10] but I'm coming at it from a little bit

[41:12] of a different angle. I'm not opposed to

[41:13] clean energy. I am opposed putting a

[41:16] documented fire hazard immediately

[41:18] upstream from my house,

[41:20] as I think you guys would all be, too.

[41:23] Um,

[41:25] however,

[41:26] when you know these, everybody's talked

[41:29] about how these gases, you know, the

[41:30] gases that get released and everything

[41:32] else, but um, I would like you guys to

[41:35] consider helping us ask Jupiter some

[41:37] questions and put some things on the

[41:39] county record. Um, first, I'd like to

[41:41] require Jupiter Power to formally

[41:43] evaluate safer tech as a permit

[41:45] condition. long duration energy storage.

[41:49] So the LDES using iron air chemistry

[41:52] produces zero flammable gases

[41:56] cannot enter thermal runaway and poses

[41:59] zero fire or chemical risk to this

[42:01] wershed.

[42:03] LED Trail, a certified US manufacturer

[42:06] already embedded with the city of

[42:08] Tacoma, Port of Seattle. they've done

[42:09] some wash dot programs uh or projects

[42:13] proactively reached out through this

[42:15] very process and offered to connect with

[42:17] the developer and Jupiter power has not

[42:19] responded. Uh that non-response should

[42:22] be on the SBA record.

[42:25] On the subject of costs, the one big

[42:27] beautiful bill act did not eliminate the

[42:30] uh section 48e investment tax credit for

[42:33] standalone storage. It's available

[42:36] through 2032 for any technology. So,

[42:40] however, it did create new prohibited

[42:43] foreign entity restrictions that place

[42:45] lithium ion supply chains, which run

[42:48] overwhelmingly through China, under a

[42:50] serious compliance question. So, this

[42:53] company LED Trail, their domestic

[42:55] manufacturing faces none of that risk

[42:58] and qualifies for the full domestic

[42:59] content bonus credit. the count they you

[43:02] really have to remember like require

[43:04] that Jupiter power to submit a written

[43:06] tax credit eligibility analysis before

[43:09] any permit is issued. So and then third

[43:13] um the SEPA review must explicitly model

[43:16] downstream contamination risk to Fiser

[43:18] Creek from fire suppression runoff. This

[43:21] is a known documented risk category and

[43:23] it must not be glossed over. Um you know

[43:26] I moved to Snowquali to be part of a

[43:28] community and you being able to be out

[43:29] in the green like everybody else. I

[43:31] think I did not think this would ever

[43:34] show up. So, I'm all about green energy,

[43:38] but let's have a different

[43:41] outcome than what these guys are trying

[43:42] to put together. And it it's going to be

[43:45] more cost-effective for them. So, I I

[43:48] don't I'm not sure why they're not

[43:50] reaching out, but thank you.

[43:53] » Thank you, Mr. Brady.

[43:56] Um, also, uh, council members, as you're

[43:59] aware, um, uh, public comment, there was

[44:03] a public comment that was emailed into

[44:05] the city council, uh, by, uh, Emily

[44:09] Anderson. Her comment has been shared

[44:11] with the council.

[44:13] Are there any others uh, who have not

[44:16] called who would like to speak tonight

[44:18] uh, during public comment?

[44:21] All right. Um,

[44:25] Sorry, if you could step to the uh

[44:27] microphone and uh state your name and

[44:29] city of residence and you have three

[44:31] minutes.

[44:32] » Hi, my name is Emanuel Lewis and I'm

[44:34] here visiting from Dallas, Texas in

[44:36] support of my friend Edy Rakan who was

[44:39] scammed out of uh $20,000. Uh we did

[44:43] some research on the lady and found out

[44:45] she scammed others and uh came down here

[44:48] and spoke to Michael Chamblas who

[44:50] referred me to the police chief and his

[44:52] staff and we were able to file a report

[44:54] and I want to thank you for that. That's

[44:56] all I have to say.

[44:58] » Thank you very much.

[45:02] All right. See no other uh people uh

[45:06] looking to make comment during public

[45:08] comment. Public comment is now closed.

[45:12] Mayor,

[45:14] » Council Member Cot.

[45:15] » Um, I don't know if you had Yeah, and I

[45:18] missed it. I I if so, I apologize, but I

[45:20] hope you did pass on to the people that

[45:23] have submitted written comments that you

[45:25] have been forwarding all of those

[45:27] comments and letters that you folks have

[45:29] sent in um on to King County Council

[45:33] member Sarah Perry um as they will be

[45:36] holding the public hearings. and uh

[45:40] since this is this is unincorporated

[45:42] King County land that will be used for

[45:45] that. And so um so hopefully you folks

[45:48] are getting responses back from the King

[45:51] County Council uh regarding the upcoming

[45:53] permitting for uh Cascadia.

[45:57] » So as as a reminder for all those making

[46:00] comment or watching uh during public

[46:03] comment, council does not respond to

[46:05] those comments. We listen respectfully.

[46:08] However, we do take down those comments.

[46:10] We go back and we um look into those

[46:13] comments. Uh as you've seen on other

[46:16] comments that have been made here, we

[46:17] often respond publicly to those

[46:19] comments. So, um our process is that we

[46:23] listen tonight and then we'll come back

[46:25] with responses later. That's why you're

[46:28] not hearing a response tonight from

[46:30] council. That's because we take that, we

[46:32] give it thought, and then we come back

[46:34] with public responses uh where

[46:36] appropriate.

[46:38] All right, moving on to the consent

[46:40] agenda.

[46:42] Consent agenda tonight contains approval

[46:45] of the city council meeting minutes

[46:47] dated February 23rd, 2026

[46:50] and approval of the claims report dated

[46:52] March 9th, 2026.

[46:54] Is there a motion to approve the consent

[46:56] agenda?

[46:58] » So moved. Second.

[47:00] » Moved by council member Johnson and

[47:02] seconded by council member Murphy.

[47:08] Uh is there uh any public comment on the

[47:12] items in the consent agenda?

[47:16] Seeing none, uh council, is there any

[47:18] discussion of the consent agenda?

[47:21] Seeing none, all those in favor say I.

[47:24] » I.

[47:25] » Those opposed say nay.

[47:27] » The consent agenda is approved.

[47:31] Under ordinances, we have agenda bill

[47:34] 26-004,

[47:37] ordinance 1316,

[47:39] adding chapter 10.13, automated traffic

[47:43] safety cameras to the Snowqualami

[47:45] Municipal Code. This is the second

[47:48] reading of ordinance 1316.

[47:55] moment.

[48:04] » Would the public safety chair please

[48:07] read the introduction and motion?

[48:10] » Thank you. This is agenda bill 26-004

[48:14] permitting the use of automated traffic

[48:17] safety cameras.

[48:19] Summary is this. The city of Snowqualami

[48:22] has seen an increase in speeds on in

[48:25] school zones. The city proposes adding a

[48:28] code section permitting the use of

[48:30] automated traffic safety cameras to

[48:33] provide additional resources

[48:36] for the safety of our youth and

[48:39] community. That I move to approve the

[48:43] ordinance adopting Snowqualami Municipal

[48:46] Code Chapter 10. 13 authorizing the use

[48:50] of automated traffic cameras. Do I have

[48:54] » Second?

[48:55] » Moved by council member Watton and

[48:57] seconded by council member Christensen

[49:00] to approve agenda bill 26-004.

[49:06] Uh so now we'll take public comment on

[49:08] this item starting with

[49:14] uh Andrew Wink.

[49:18] And again, you have three minutes. Uh,

[49:20] please state your name and city of

[49:21] residence for the record.

[49:23] » Andrew Wink. I live in Snowqual Me,

[49:25] Washington. Uh, first I wanted to say

[49:26] thank you to Council Member Cotton,

[49:28] Council Member Holloway, and Council

[49:30] Member Watton for advancing this to the

[49:31] full council floor. Uh, I was

[49:33] fortunately able to attend the public

[49:36] and safety committee subcommittee

[49:38] meeting. I think it was two weeks ago. I

[49:40] was up traveling in Bellingham for some

[49:41] work. wasn't able to be there to speak

[49:43] on behalf of what I think is a very good

[49:45] option that we have for curtailing I

[49:48] don't think there it goes

[49:51] for curtailing what I think we have as a

[49:53] significant problem um in our city I

[49:55] live on Park Street and it is an

[49:58] incessant racetrack at odd hours going

[50:00] up and down that street um I typically

[50:04] leave for work at like 5 in the morning

[50:06] work as an electrician for Prime

[50:08] Electric down in Seattle so I'm

[50:09] commuting a lot and even at 5 in the

[50:11] morning. This morning I was leaving for

[50:13] work at 4:45 and a car came blasting

[50:15] through the four-way stop between

[50:17] Metobrook and Park Street, zoomed past

[50:20] the uh Metobrook, well past the

[50:23] elementary school and back out towards

[50:24] the field and I was loading things in

[50:26] the side of my truck with the cart at 5

[50:27] in the morning. He was cruising about

[50:29] 40. So I think these cameras uh they

[50:32] would go a long way to help curb some of

[50:34] that behavior. Um, and understanding

[50:37] that I'm only supposed to be speaking

[50:38] specifically to the resolution. Um, and

[50:41] knowing that I missed the initial public

[50:42] comment, I think it ties in a little bit

[50:44] at least. Um, just synchronization would

[50:46] also be really helpful probably. Um, out

[50:49] along Metbook Way, we have flashing

[50:52] lights that only flash when drop off and

[50:54] pickup is going. Past the high school,

[50:56] we have signage that dictates the speed

[50:58] of 20 m hour between, I think, 7 and 4.

[51:01] and then on Park Street it flashes for

[51:03] the duration of the school day. So

[51:05] navigating between those three things

[51:07] knowing that that's a large

[51:08] intersection. Um I think maybe a little

[51:10] bit of coordination would go a long way

[51:11] in helping uh during the uh education

[51:15] phase if this moves past. Uh with that I

[51:17] see the remainder of my time. Thank you.

[51:22] » Uh thank you Mr. Wisink. Um Fitz Jordan

[51:26] again if you state your name and city of

[51:28] residence and you have three minutes.

[51:30] Right. Hello. I'm Fitz Jordan. I live in

[51:33] Snowqualami, Washington. Um, yeah, I

[51:37] would like to basically echo what Andrew

[51:40] mentioned and really, uh, yeah, give my

[51:43] support for the automated speed cameras.

[51:45] I've lived on Park Street for about four

[51:46] years now, and we have dealt with, seen,

[51:50] and, uh, yeah, experienced the racing

[51:52] that goes on in our neighborhood. It's

[51:54] very unfortunate. We live in such a

[51:56] great neighborhood in Metobrook with the

[51:58] high school there, the elementary

[52:00] school, the middle school, Centennial

[52:02] Park. We have churches nearby. It's such

[52:05] a great community hub, but it's been

[52:06] overrun and and really impacted by the

[52:09] speeding. Uh the safety of the

[52:11] neighborhood is is a big concern for us

[52:14] and we hope it is for you as well. Uh, I

[52:17] do want to thank the police chief for

[52:19] doing something about this and and

[52:21] trying to collect some data with the

[52:23] speed study to understand the problem.

[52:25] Uh, I think that was a big win for us

[52:27] validating that there's a huge issue

[52:28] here and I hope that the council sees

[52:30] that as well. Um, I know that there are

[52:33] some concerns with the cameras and some

[52:35] risks that the council is worried about.

[52:38] Uh, and I understand that, but I don't

[52:40] think we should just roll over at any

[52:42] risk or concern that we have with the

[52:44] cameras. These cameras are used in many

[52:46] other cities across the state and um

[52:49] they seem to be working well in those

[52:52] cities. So I hope that we can find a way

[52:54] to to implement these cameras and and

[52:57] yeah really bring some safety back to

[52:59] the Metobrook neighborhood.

[53:00] » Thank you.

[53:02] » Thank you, Mr. Jordan. Um Hadley Evers

[53:06] and remember to state your name and city

[53:08] of residence for the record. You have

[53:09] three minutes.

[53:13] Um, hi everybody. Uh, I'm Hadley Evers.

[53:16] I also live in Snowqualami. Um, right

[53:17] around the corner from Mountside High

[53:19] School. Uh, some neighbors and I, a few

[53:21] that are here tonight, came to the

[53:23] public safety commission meeting just

[53:24] about a year ago um, about speeding in

[53:27] schools in Snowqualami. So, I do want to

[53:29] start by thanking the public safety

[53:31] commission, um, the police department

[53:33] and the city staff that took those

[53:35] comments to where we are today. Um, it's

[53:38] it's really great. Uh, so I listened to

[53:41] the meeting last week or two weeks ago

[53:44] where you all were discussing the

[53:46] cameras and I did um want to say a few

[53:50] things. Um, I love that there was

[53:53] discussion of road design changes. Um,

[53:56] it's my understanding though those are

[53:57] expensive investments like multi-year

[53:59] projects. Um, and I'd love to see and it

[54:01] sounded like there was a lot of interest

[54:02] in that and I'd love to see the city

[54:04] make some commitments to those kinds of

[54:06] changes. um because I do think the

[54:08] cameras is just one piece of the

[54:10] approach, right? Um Isiqua also came up

[54:12] a lot. So I I was curious about Isiqua

[54:15] High School and and the cameras that

[54:17] they have. And um I learned that Isiqua

[54:19] High School is the same size as

[54:21] Snowquali High School. So the same

[54:23] number of students um and Isiqua's

[54:25] police force has 38 officers to the

[54:28] eight officers that Snowqualami has or

[54:30] we have dedicated to Snowqualami. Um, so

[54:32] for me that really underlines how much

[54:34] we need these cameras as a force

[54:36] multiplier. Like the high school brings

[54:37] in, you know, it's not just the

[54:38] students, it's events. It's it's just a

[54:41] huge hub, which is wonderful, but um it

[54:44] is the idea of just approaching it with

[54:46] enforcement sounds like a tall order for

[54:48] a relatively small force at least

[54:50] compared to the high school size. Um, so

[54:53] I would just end by saying that I

[54:55] believe that the world we're in where

[54:57] there's reality of limited resources and

[54:59] competing priorities, the cameras are a

[55:01] way to make a maximum impact on a really

[55:04] severe issue which was underlined by the

[55:06] speed study. Um, so I hope that the

[55:08] council will approve the ordinance and

[55:09] move our city towards safer streets.

[55:12] Thank you.

[55:13] » Thank you, Miss Evers.

[55:15] Are there any other uh individuals who'd

[55:18] like to speak to the um

[55:22] the ordinance?

[55:28] Remember to state your name and city of

[55:30] residence and you have three minutes.

[55:32] » Hello, my name is Stephanie McNamera and

[55:35] I live here in Snowquami and I am a

[55:37] school bus driver. Speaking on the

[55:40] audience, um I would love to see a lot

[55:44] of that take part in the cameras. As a

[55:48] bus driver driving around our whole

[55:50] entire district, I see numerous people

[55:53] cutting buses off, cutting people off,

[55:57] going in a school zone, driving around a

[55:59] bus in a school zone, clearly going over

[56:01] the 20 miles an hour. And um the cameras

[56:06] would just be another added

[56:10] thing and a and a tool to be able to let

[56:14] people know that we mean business and

[56:16] that children are involved when they are

[56:19] in a school district whether it's

[56:21] summertime or not. Um on Park Street, we

[56:24] know that there's um certain areas that

[56:28] can be, you know, a nice little

[56:30] racetrack. Um on Mebrook itself, we do

[56:33] have a school district sign that says

[56:35] from 700 a.m. to 4. However, that's all

[56:39] year long. It needs to be specific

[56:41] during school times that we have that

[56:44] sign and lighting on 202. We have right

[56:48] there at um Snowquami Middle School that

[56:52] is actually run by uh WSP. A lot of

[56:55] people may not know that, but they are

[56:57] in charge of the light function. If we

[56:59] could get maybe the city to incorporate

[57:02] help with that to make sure that they

[57:04] are timed, um it would make things

[57:08] a little more safer. Um, especially I

[57:12] don't know, a lot of people don't like

[57:13] speed bumps, but that might be something

[57:16] to think about. Um, I know it would be

[57:20] probably more costing to um, the city

[57:23] because it can be expensive, but I think

[57:26] if you put a high fine on some of these

[57:28] um, individuals who are going through

[57:31] the school districts and speeding, uh, I

[57:34] can guarantee they will be one and done.

[57:38] Um, if a fine is $500 and something

[57:41] dollars more, I guarantee they're not

[57:43] going to do it and insurance will go up

[57:45] on them. So, as a bus driver, I ask that

[57:48] you really definitely look into this for

[57:50] the future. I think it will be a great

[57:52] tool for all involved and I think the

[57:54] safety of our kids and the neighborhoods

[57:56] around that have to deal with the school

[57:58] zones will be

[58:01] will be good. Thank you for your time.

[58:04] » Thank you, Miss McNamer. Any

[58:07] other speakers to wish uh are the

[58:09] members of the public that wish to speak

[58:11] on this topic?

[58:13] Seeing none, uh council, is there any

[58:16] discussion of this motion? Council

[58:20] member Watton,

[58:21] » I'll lead off. First of all, I want to

[58:23] thank um Advis and so many of the people

[58:27] that have come before and actually this

[58:29] is almost a year and a half long since

[58:32] uh we've started this. Um but it has

[58:36] been a concern and of course our

[58:39] community has one of the highest

[58:41] populations of kids. So this is a high

[58:44] priority and and many of our streets

[58:47] that uh border our schools um are

[58:51] impacted obviously and so this is only

[58:54] one method of addressing that. Um, but

[58:57] we definitely appreciate the the

[59:00] citizens that have expressed a concern

[59:02] and and we're following through and

[59:04] public works has been an incredible

[59:07] partner to the police department and we

[59:09] we certainly appreciate it. One thing I

[59:11] do want to speak on and that is um the

[59:14] the other aspect of um personal privacy

[59:19] and that is we've been very intentional

[59:21] in in making sure that these are not

[59:24] real time tracked cameras. These are

[59:27] things that uh we will see hours later.

[59:30] So it's not that's the first thing. The

[59:32] second thing that uh we've cons

[59:34] consistently have addressed and that's

[59:36] making sure that it stays that

[59:39] information stays with the city as much

[59:42] as possible and and uh we'll continue to

[59:46] to go down that path, but we're not

[59:48] there yet. This is merely a means for us

[59:51] to take the next step. So um uh that's

[59:55] the deliberation for this body this

[59:58] evening is uh do we add it to our codes

[1:00:02] so that we can move forward um but it is

[1:00:04] not the end all solution. So, um, again,

[1:00:07] I appreciate the the work of the police

[1:00:10] department, public works, the

[1:00:12] administration, the other council

[1:00:14] members that have served on public

[1:00:17] safety, including our outgoing

[1:00:20] council member Cara Christensen, and uh,

[1:00:24] for this work. So, anyway, those are my

[1:00:26] comments for now. Thank you very much.

[1:00:31] » Any further discussion? Council member

[1:00:33] Holloway.

[1:00:35] Um, all right. So, I'm I'm concerned

[1:00:40] that

[1:00:42] uh I guess two two separate facts. One

[1:00:45] that uh basically on anecdotal none none

[1:00:50] of these systems are uh self-funding.

[1:00:54] They're usually a cost anecdotal. Love

[1:00:57] to see some facts data, but anecdotally,

[1:00:59] these are usually a cost to the city.

[1:01:02] Um, I'm further concerned by statements

[1:01:05] which have been made that we will adjust

[1:01:07] enforcement to cover the service costs

[1:01:11] and I blatantly refuse to delegate

[1:01:14] the level of enforcement to a for-profit

[1:01:17] entity outside the city.

[1:01:20] Uh, having said that, I'd like to make a

[1:01:22] motion for alteration.

[1:01:25] Move to amend section 10.13.020

[1:01:28] 020 to add section D stating

[1:01:33] establishment and change to minim min

[1:01:35] minimum parameters must be presented to

[1:01:37] council and approved by council.

[1:01:42] » We have a second

[1:01:43] » Motion by council member Holloway to add

[1:01:46] a section D to the proposed ordinance.

[1:01:49] Is there a second?

[1:01:50] » Second.

[1:01:51] » Seconded by council member Washington.

[1:01:53] Any discussion of the proposed

[1:01:55] amendment?

[1:02:01] All right. Uh, council member one.

[1:02:04] » Thank you. I have some concerns.

[1:02:07] Concerns are this. We set policy. We do

[1:02:11] not direct and we don't currently direct

[1:02:15] the police department how they enforce

[1:02:18] traffic moving traffic violations. That

[1:02:22] is given to the police department. It's

[1:02:24] the same as if public works. We do not

[1:02:28] tell them what their schedule is or how

[1:02:30] they go about their work. We set policy.

[1:02:35] And the reality is there is a speed

[1:02:38] limit and those things are reviewed by

[1:02:40] this council. We make those policies,

[1:02:43] but we don't enforce it. The enforcement

[1:02:46] comes from the police department. We

[1:02:48] have confidence in doing that. And I I

[1:02:51] can recall having a conversation with

[1:02:54] the um chief of the state patrol and

[1:02:58] asking her point blank,

[1:03:02] we can go 5 miles over the speed limit.

[1:03:04] She said, "No, you're in violation of a

[1:03:06] mile over." So I I think that it's

[1:03:10] reasonable to understand that we set

[1:03:13] policy and we give the police department

[1:03:17] those policies to enforce and it would

[1:03:21] make very little sense for them and and

[1:03:24] they don't today enforce things at a

[1:03:28] certain mileage over. There is only so

[1:03:32] much in resources that they have and if

[1:03:36] they need more resources that's the job

[1:03:38] of the council

[1:03:40] but they have to determine

[1:03:44] at what point do we and secondly

[1:03:47] state of Washington every traffic

[1:03:51] infraction has to be enforced

[1:03:54] by a member of our law enforcement. It

[1:03:56] can't be done out of state by another

[1:03:59] third party company. They just simply

[1:04:02] help facilitate, but they do not write

[1:04:06] the violation. So, I want to make sure

[1:04:08] that we're perfectly clear. And for

[1:04:10] those reasons, I'm not in favor of this

[1:04:14] amendment. Even though I understand the

[1:04:17] purpose is to make sure that our police

[1:04:19] are not overreaching,

[1:04:22] but I think that we also need to be on

[1:04:24] the side of safety. And Council Member

[1:04:28] Murphy did an excellent job of pointing

[1:04:30] that out in our last discussion here. Um

[1:04:34] that speed does kill and exponentially

[1:04:38] goes up when speed increases. So, with

[1:04:41] that, I respectfully say that I can't

[1:04:45] support this amendment.

[1:04:48] » Council member Christensen.

[1:04:50] » Thank you. May I ask that the motion be

[1:04:52] read back? I want to make sure that I

[1:04:54] understand exactly what's being proposed

[1:04:56] so then I can hopefully respond to it.

[1:04:58] » Yes, Council Member Holloway. We tried

[1:05:00] to capture it, but you spoke very

[1:05:02] quickly.

[1:05:02] » I went off script just a bit, I admit.

[1:05:04] All right. So, I'll read it back as best

[1:05:06] we captured it. And if you could help

[1:05:08] correct my uh readback to the extent

[1:05:11] it's not correct.

[1:05:13] » Um motion to add section D to uh the

[1:05:18] proposed ordinance 10.13

[1:05:21] to establish

[1:05:23] minimum.13.020

[1:05:28] » 10.13.020.

[1:05:31] It's a lot of numbers to catch really

[1:05:33] quickly. I only got 10.13. So 10.13.020

[1:05:39] to add section D.

[1:05:42] We may have it. Hold on.

[1:05:46] » I did a little word smithing from the

[1:05:47] email.

[1:05:48] » All right. Um,

[1:05:50] which states

[1:05:52] » I said the establishment and changes to

[1:05:54] minimum and then you can read the rest

[1:05:56] of the email.

[1:05:58] add section D to establish

[1:06:02] » The establishment and change

[1:06:05] » Establishment

[1:06:06] and change

[1:06:08] » Of

[1:06:11] and then the part of the email that's in

[1:06:13] quotes

[1:06:15] » The minimum enforcement par parameters.

[1:06:22] Can you read out the whole thing for me?

[1:06:24] I can't make it make sense.

[1:06:27] Motion to amend section 10.13.020

[1:06:31] to add section D which states the

[1:06:34] establishment and changes to the minimum

[1:06:37] enforcement parameters must be presented

[1:06:39] to the city council for approval.

[1:06:42] » Got it. Thank you.

[1:06:48] Council member Christensen. Is that um

[1:06:51] answer your question? Yes, that's

[1:06:52] helpful because initially I had

[1:06:54] understood council Holloway's concerns

[1:06:57] being that if we allow a third party to

[1:07:00] be determining when and at what mileage

[1:07:03] someone would get a ticket, I understand

[1:07:05] wanting to make sure that that's kept

[1:07:06] within the city and specifically within

[1:07:08] the police department, right? Because

[1:07:10] they're going to be the ones that are

[1:07:12] going to be best suited um to figure out

[1:07:15] where exactly those lines need to be

[1:07:17] based on the speed study and things like

[1:07:18] that. Um,

[1:07:21] I'm kind of in this I I'm inclined to

[1:07:23] agree with Council Member Watton that

[1:07:24] that is not typically making the these

[1:07:27] lines of demarcation for what deserves a

[1:07:29] ticket is not something that is

[1:07:30] currently reserved to city council. And

[1:07:32] I do think that that's more of the role

[1:07:34] for administration and specifically the

[1:07:35] police department to to go ahead and

[1:07:37] make those decisions going forward. If

[1:07:39] there were an issue, I'm sure that we

[1:07:41] would hear about it from our residents.

[1:07:43] Um, and I think maybe at that point in

[1:07:45] time we could bring it back. Again, it

[1:07:47] would be a different conversation, at

[1:07:48] least from my perspective, if again that

[1:07:51] decision was being made by someone

[1:07:53] outside of the city, outside the police

[1:07:54] department.

[1:07:55] » If if I could add, just for clarity,

[1:07:58] under Washington state law, no

[1:08:00] infraction can be issued by anyone other

[1:08:03] than one of our police officers. So, no

[1:08:06] outside company will issue an

[1:08:08] infraction, only our police officers.

[1:08:11] Mechanically,

[1:08:13] the outside provider will capture data

[1:08:16] and provide it to our police officers

[1:08:18] who then must review each instance that

[1:08:22] they wish to issue a that they decide to

[1:08:25] issue an infraction on. And then they

[1:08:28] either issue an infraction or don't.

[1:08:29] Those decisions are made solely by our

[1:08:32] police officers as required by state

[1:08:34] law. So even if you

[1:08:38] wanted to allow some third party,

[1:08:41] actually state law would prohibit you

[1:08:43] from allowing that. Um so and that is

[1:08:46] just as it's done today when police

[1:08:48] officers pull over uh people for

[1:08:50] potential infractions. They make

[1:08:52] judgment calls every day and um you

[1:08:56] allow them to make those decisions. So

[1:08:58] just for clarity, it is just the police,

[1:09:01] it is only our police officers that can

[1:09:03] issue an infraction. Council

[1:09:08] member Holloway.

[1:09:09] » So, I'll make a couple response. Uh,

[1:09:12] yes. And to to that last comment of uh

[1:09:16] community policeman, police enforcement,

[1:09:20] in my opinion, is an aspect that we're

[1:09:22] somewhat losing in this. Okay. But

[1:09:26] understand the efficiency of an officer

[1:09:29] can't stand there with his eyes open

[1:09:30] 24/7. He'll just, you know, go go blind.

[1:09:32] Um, and a camera can understand that.

[1:09:36] Okay. I I do counter that. We do set the

[1:09:40] laws. We do set what gets enforced and

[1:09:43] what doesn't get enforced.

[1:09:46] I'm only putting in place something

[1:09:48] because I have a camera in the middle of

[1:09:50] this versus an officer who's making a

[1:09:53] judgment based on a video and three

[1:09:55] pictures

[1:09:58] that and a service that in my opinion

[1:10:01] will end up

[1:10:03] costing us more than it

[1:10:06] generates, which I'm okay with, but I

[1:10:10] want us to be aware of that. And nor do

[1:10:13] I want the ser the enforcement

[1:10:17] lowered to such a sense that, you know,

[1:10:19] one mile over gets you a ticket because

[1:10:21] I can't pay for the service.

[1:10:23] I do not want the service adjusted based

[1:10:26] on its cost. I want the service adjusted

[1:10:28] based on the effect of the enforcement.

[1:10:31] Those need to be separated.

[1:10:34] And I have statements from the chief in

[1:10:36] which he has said, quote unquote, I will

[1:10:39] adjust the level of enforcement to pay

[1:10:41] for the service.

[1:10:43] I

[1:10:45] you can hear my voice. I totally

[1:10:48] disagree with having an outside firm

[1:10:52] from a for-profit organization

[1:10:54] determining what the enforcement levels

[1:10:55] are inside the city of Swami. And that's

[1:10:57] what that statement does. Council

[1:11:03] member Johnson.

[1:11:04] » Yeah, I I think the council member

[1:11:05] Holloway brings up a really good point

[1:11:07] about the idea of should we be enforcing

[1:11:10] things more in order to pay for an

[1:11:14] outside cost to a for-profit company.

[1:11:17] Um, I don't know that this is the right

[1:11:19] mechanism uh in the proposed amendment,

[1:11:24] » But I definitely hear the concern and

[1:11:28] I would like to find a way to get that

[1:11:30] concern addressed in a meaningful way.

[1:11:33] Again, I'm not sure if this is the right

[1:11:35] mechanism or not. So, I I think I'll

[1:11:38] leave it there for a moment.

[1:11:40] » Council member Washington.

[1:11:46] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:11:48] My I have a follow-up question and I

[1:11:50] don't know if uh maybe the chief can

[1:11:52] answer this question, but

[1:11:55] I think there's a question if if I'm

[1:11:57] understanding um enforcement mechanisms.

[1:12:01] So, specifically when we're looking at

[1:12:02] school zones, uh I had a chance to go to

[1:12:05] Washington just revised uh some of their

[1:12:08] best practices on this. My understanding

[1:12:11] is if we're going to enforce school

[1:12:15] speed zone safety,

[1:12:18] it can only be at 20 miles an hour. It's

[1:12:21] very specific in what it can do. 300 ft

[1:12:23] from a school district, from a school or

[1:12:26] a playground border. So, we can only

[1:12:30] force

[1:12:31] in in force with a camera during those

[1:12:33] operating hours. And it's very specific

[1:12:36] that it must be a beacon.

[1:12:40] Is that is that your reading of the

[1:12:43] statute, chief?

[1:12:46] » So my question is for the chief, Mr.

[1:12:48] Mayor.

[1:12:49] » Yeah. I I'm not sure the chief should

[1:12:50] give that answer. Perhaps city attorney.

[1:12:52] You're asking for interpretation of the

[1:12:54] law.

[1:12:54] » Okay.

[1:12:56] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:12:57] » Um I believe what you're saying is

[1:12:58] accurate. My understanding

[1:13:02] » Oh, sorry.

[1:13:03] » No. Council member Washington, go ahead.

[1:13:05] » Sorry. I'm sorry. Go ahead and finish,

[1:13:07] please, city attorney. I'm so sorry.

[1:13:08] » Could you repeat it again because I

[1:13:09] thought it was going to the chief, so I

[1:13:11] » Okay.

[1:13:14] » So, there seems to be this question that

[1:13:17] just, you know, for me of okay,

[1:13:22] so think of it as kind of I think of it

[1:13:24] as two separate programs. First program

[1:13:26] would be literally enforcing the speed

[1:13:30] zone for the school district.

[1:13:32] So take for example Timberidge

[1:13:35] and you know you have to sorry I don't

[1:13:39] have children but I think the um the

[1:13:41] hours of operation for the school zone I

[1:13:44] believe it's 9:45 to 11:45 it's or is it

[1:13:48] 8:45 to 10:45?

[1:13:51] » I'm not allowed to respond back to you.

[1:13:53] So I so two hours in the morning and two

[1:13:56] hours in the evening. From what I

[1:13:58] understanding, under state law, we would

[1:14:00] only be able to enforce

[1:14:02] the speed for that speed zone, the

[1:14:04] school speeding zone during those times

[1:14:09] similar to Mount Sai, I think it's 7

[1:14:13] a.m. to 4 to 4 p.m.

[1:14:16] Council, if I could just clarify your

[1:14:17] question for that. Um,

[1:14:18] » Please, please. you, as I understand it,

[1:14:21] you're asking not about the wording in

[1:14:23] this partic particular um proposed

[1:14:26] ordinance. You're asking with respect to

[1:14:29] state law, which would potentially

[1:14:31] further restrict how this ordinance

[1:14:34] could be implemented, you're asking if

[1:14:36] state law restricts the timing of when

[1:14:40] this um would uh be permissible,

[1:14:44] » The enforcement of it. Yeah,

[1:14:45] » Correct. Um,

[1:14:48] » So my my understanding was that we had

[1:14:49] the ability to increase the parameters.

[1:14:52] Is that your understanding? Yeah.

[1:14:55] » So my and maybe this is just where we

[1:14:58] need to be a little bit more clear and

[1:15:00] and get as much data as possible. That's

[1:15:02] not my understanding of it under state

[1:15:05] statute is that it can only be if it's

[1:15:08] specifically for a school speed zone. It

[1:15:11] can only be enforced during those

[1:15:13] specific times

[1:15:15] when the beacon is active.

[1:15:18] » So I think okay so the infra there would

[1:15:20] be two different types of infractions

[1:15:22] that would be issued. If it's during the

[1:15:23] school zone during school hours the

[1:15:26] person speeding would receive a certain

[1:15:28] one type of infraction. It's the

[1:15:29] speeding in a school zone. If it's if

[1:15:31] the program is expanded outside of

[1:15:34] school zone times, then it would just be

[1:15:36] your normal speeding infraction.

[1:15:39] » Okay. I I would ask for clarity on that

[1:15:42] and just where we can point to that in

[1:15:44] the law because that's not my

[1:15:45] understanding of it.

[1:15:47] » Okay. Uh inter chief, uh to answer your

[1:15:50] question, the cameras can be operated

[1:15:52] 247

[1:15:54] and there's two designations. There's

[1:15:56] the in time school zone times which we

[1:15:58] designate for uh the 8:45 to 9:45

[1:16:03] 3 to 4 and then the 7 to4 I have all

[1:16:06] those memorized. So there there's those

[1:16:09] infra those those violations and then if

[1:16:12] for instance if we're looking at Squami

[1:16:14] Parkway alone the time u between 9:45

[1:16:18] and 3 p.m. can will be operated at a

[1:16:21] different parameter or can be operated

[1:16:24] at a different parameter. So for

[1:16:26] instance, industry standard for a school

[1:16:29] zone infraction

[1:16:31] on an automated system is typically s

[1:16:34] it's the infraction begins at six or

[1:16:36] seven miles over the speed limit. Then

[1:16:38] if you're outside the school zone times

[1:16:40] it moves up to 10 miles an hour. So

[1:16:42] you're operating in both sections. And

[1:16:44] then for instance on Metobrook if you

[1:16:46] did it you could do it after school

[1:16:48] hours where we have school events kids

[1:16:51] going there. So they're operating after

[1:16:53] that. And again, it moves from the

[1:16:55] school zone speed of 20 miles an hour to

[1:16:57] there to a 10 mile over the speed limit

[1:17:00] outside of the school zone time. So, it

[1:17:02] does both. You can do both. We can

[1:17:04] regulate it more. We can regulate it,

[1:17:06] but we can't go less than what the RCW

[1:17:08] states.

[1:17:09] » Just a quick followup Washington. Yeah,

[1:17:11] » Thank you.

[1:17:12] » Understood, Chief. Um, just for

[1:17:14] transparency sakes, um, because I'm I'm

[1:17:16] not seeing that and looks like they

[1:17:18] revised this at the beginning of 2025. I

[1:17:21] would just need to I would need to see

[1:17:23] in the law where you can point to that

[1:17:26] because I'm just not seeing it under

[1:17:27] current law.

[1:17:30] » Give me just a minute. I'll pull some

[1:17:31] stuff.

[1:17:32] » Let's be careful about shooting from the

[1:17:34] hip on answering that that he wants a

[1:17:36] very specific and clear answer that is

[1:17:39] that I'd want or

[1:17:41] » Okay, Council Member Holloway.

[1:17:43] » Well, and I just wanted because the the

[1:17:46] question maybe we're getting to it. The

[1:17:48] question was not the capability of the

[1:17:49] system. The question was legal

[1:17:52] applicable

[1:17:54] excuse me of the system to do both

[1:17:58] school infraction and speeding

[1:18:01] infraction based on time of day or

[1:18:03] whatever. Um where the material he's

[1:18:07] looking at seems to imply it's one or

[1:18:09] the other but not both.

[1:18:13] » Understand that that's part of the

[1:18:14] question. Yes.

[1:18:18] No, I just

[1:18:21] council member Wen

[1:18:23] » Just for clarity and I did go into the

[1:18:25] RCWS is 46.61.440

[1:18:30] and 46.61.400.

[1:18:35] Those both address school zones and the

[1:18:39] times that those are enforced and how

[1:18:41] they're enforced. And uh it would seem

[1:18:45] to me under those two things that we are

[1:18:47] consistent with the state law with one

[1:18:50] thing is we have to make sure that our

[1:18:53] beacons are working during those hours.

[1:18:56] And secondly, the times have to be

[1:18:59] clearly posted in 7 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. um

[1:19:04] appears to be within the parameter of

[1:19:07] this body to determine. So, um, but

[1:19:12] those are are valid concerns and thank

[1:19:14] you for bringing those up and and want

[1:19:17] to get back to Council Member Holloway's

[1:19:20] um motion.

[1:19:26] » Uh, Council Member Murphy. Um,

[1:19:30] so if you could help me understand, um,

[1:19:34] when we're talking about enforcement

[1:19:36] parameters, are we just are we talking

[1:19:38] about speed or time of day or both? I

[1:19:41] guess that'd be a question for the maker

[1:19:43] of the motion.

[1:19:46] » Well, council member

[1:19:48] » Giving my partial answer. Uh because

[1:19:51] part of the answer depends on which

[1:19:54] system you may be using. But it would be

[1:19:57] whatever parameters we communicate to

[1:19:59] the vendor that says forward on

[1:20:03] infractions at this speed level for the

[1:20:06] officers to review and what that speed

[1:20:09] level is is what this would be aimed at.

[1:20:13] And so would I still have the

[1:20:16] outstanding question here, but at least

[1:20:18] between eight and 10. I'm just going to

[1:20:20] round up. Uh between eight and 10,

[1:20:24] » We said six miles over,

[1:20:27] go to the office for for review,

[1:20:29] whatever. At least that statement would

[1:20:31] come to council to approve and look at.

[1:20:34] If at a later date we want to bring that

[1:20:36] down or bring that up, that also would

[1:20:38] come to council to review.

[1:20:42] if I could help. Um, what I put on the

[1:20:45] screen here is the, um, code section

[1:20:48] that you're considering. And as you see

[1:20:51] in section A, you're only, uh,

[1:20:54] considering authorizing,

[1:20:56] uh, school speed zone violations.

[1:21:01] So, not the other chapter of

[1:21:03] » Not off hours.

[1:21:04] » Not off hours. you're only authorizing

[1:21:06] right now school speed zone school speed

[1:21:10] zone violations.

[1:21:12] So, um, that and then I'd also tell you

[1:21:15] just

[1:21:17] the chief's comments may not have

[1:21:20] fully anticipated how you might hear

[1:21:22] them, but we anticipate

[1:21:26] far more infractions

[1:21:29] in the zone of where we would be willing

[1:21:32] to issue infractions,

[1:21:35] meaning not one mile over the speed

[1:21:36] limit. far more initially than we

[1:21:42] actually have the capacity to issue uh

[1:21:44] those infractions. So what we want to do

[1:21:46] is hold down the number of infractions

[1:21:49] to a level that we can actually handle

[1:21:52] with the officers that we have. Now, if

[1:21:56] we don't, we also believe that based on

[1:21:59] how these systems go, when they're

[1:22:01] implemented everywhere else, that as

[1:22:03] soon as these cameras are being

[1:22:05] enforced, the amount of speeding drops

[1:22:07] dramatically,

[1:22:09] we still expect that that level will be

[1:22:12] at a level higher than our existing

[1:22:15] force can issue. So, uh can issue

[1:22:17] infractions. Remember, each one has to

[1:22:20] be reviewed and an officer has to make a

[1:22:21] determination and issue the infraction.

[1:22:24] a certain percentage of those then go

[1:22:26] and get heard at traffic court and our

[1:22:28] officers have to turn up for those. So

[1:22:31] there's a whole administrative burden.

[1:22:32] What we're what the chief was trying to

[1:22:35] communicate is that we're going to hold

[1:22:38] down the number of infractions we issue

[1:22:40] so that we don't overload overload our

[1:22:43] existing force. We believe that that

[1:22:45] number will generate revenue far

[1:22:48] exceeding the cost. So what we're saying

[1:22:50] is we're going to initially calibrate

[1:22:52] this to make sure we at least cover the

[1:22:54] cost number one meaning not going down

[1:22:58] to lower speed limits but as we say well

[1:23:01] how many do we at least want to issue so

[1:23:03] that we'll start at the much higher

[1:23:05] speeds in excess of the limit and then

[1:23:09] um we'll enforce further to a level that

[1:23:14] our officers can um handle the load on

[1:23:18] and then as we see how that goes goes in

[1:23:20] the first couple months, we'll report

[1:23:21] back to you, see how that's going, and

[1:23:25] then we can talk to you about, well, do

[1:23:27] you want further enforcement beyond that

[1:23:29] because in that case, we might need more

[1:23:31] officers, and we'll have that discussion

[1:23:33] then. But in no way, uh, do we expect

[1:23:36] that this will be something that results

[1:23:38] in the speed that we enforce being lower

[1:23:42] than we would otherwise enforce. So, for

[1:23:44] example, that we would enforce with

[1:23:46] actual patrol officers. So, that was

[1:23:49] sort of the intent of those statements.

[1:23:51] Hopefully, that helps. But, um, that

[1:23:55] that's sort of the context in which

[1:23:56] those comments were being made.

[1:23:59] Council member Christensen,

[1:24:01] » Thanks. Yeah, I was just going back to

[1:24:02] the traffic study that was given to us,

[1:24:04] and this is specifically looking at over

[1:24:06] at Mount Sai at Metobrook. So, again,

[1:24:08] during school enforcement hours over

[1:24:10] that three-day period, there were over

[1:24:12] 1,00 well, it was 1,615 violations.

[1:24:16] 1,200 of those were, you know, that 27

[1:24:19] and up. 277 were, you know, 32 to 36 and

[1:24:23] 49 were over 30 37 miles an hour. So, I

[1:24:27] don't think that again that that we'll

[1:24:28] be, you know, having to lower it

[1:24:31] significantly. I think that again, our

[1:24:32] officers will be able to move forward

[1:24:34] with the most significant violations.

[1:24:36] And I I'm would love to see this come

[1:24:39] back to the, you know, the future

[1:24:41] council to to make those, you know,

[1:24:42] fine-tuning things and have those

[1:24:44] conversations, but I don't

[1:24:46] I I think that the path that the

[1:24:48] administration is setting forward with

[1:24:49] this with the police heading it up, they

[1:24:52] will be more than willing to and able to

[1:24:54] cover this.

[1:24:55] » Council member Holloway,

[1:24:56] » And you did exactly

[1:24:59] what I'm trying to avoid. Your first

[1:25:02] consideration, you stated, was the cost

[1:25:04] of the service.

[1:25:07] That should not be a determining factor

[1:25:10] in the level of enforcement needed to do

[1:25:13] what we're talking here.

[1:25:16] That's what I'm trying to separate.

[1:25:20] » Council member Johnson,

[1:25:22] » Uh I must have asked this before and now

[1:25:24] I'm probably just forgetting, but um is

[1:25:27] there a a um an air statements on the

[1:25:30] speeds uh that are captured? And the

[1:25:32] reason I'm asking is that whenever I go

[1:25:34] past one of those little uh beaconyy

[1:25:36] things we have out there, like one on

[1:25:37] the Parkway, which one of the digits is

[1:25:39] out by the way, um

[1:25:42] it's never right. That thing has never

[1:25:44] matched my speedometer and that's having

[1:25:47] owned several vehicles. Um, so and I

[1:25:50] mean it could be off by, you know, three

[1:25:52] to five miles per hour. Um, so I'm

[1:25:54] curious. Um, I must have asked that

[1:25:56] before because I feel like as a science

[1:25:58] teacher, I'm I must just be forgetting I

[1:26:00] asked that.

[1:26:01] » So to answer your question, yes, the the

[1:26:03] radar the radar unit in each camera

[1:26:05] system is calibrated annually just like

[1:26:08] our patrol cars are. And then if they if

[1:26:11] » What error statement like plus or minus

[1:26:13] how much?

[1:26:13] » I would have to get that information for

[1:26:15] you because there's a technical side to

[1:26:16] that that I don't get into. Um but we

[1:26:20] for instance in our patrol cars we hire

[1:26:21] a company annually. They just came out

[1:26:23] they calibrate the radars. These are

[1:26:25] done the same way. So make to ensure

[1:26:27] that they're the accuracy is within

[1:26:29] whatever that percentage is. But I can

[1:26:31] get that for you.

[1:26:32] » But mayor follow

[1:26:34] up. Council member Johnson.

[1:26:35] » Okay. And the the reason I ask is

[1:26:36] because I think this is relevant to the

[1:26:38] the motion before us uh in that uh if

[1:26:41] there was some adjusting u to to make up

[1:26:44] for costs or whatever, I would

[1:26:45] definitely want to make sure that uh

[1:26:47] even if we did somehow go down that road

[1:26:50] that we would stay outside of whatever

[1:26:52] the error margin is uh on those. And I'm

[1:26:55] not sure if that's captured in here. So

[1:26:57] that could be a motion that will have to

[1:26:59] come later.

[1:27:01] » Right. By the way, on the electronic

[1:27:03] speed sign on the Parkway, that is

[1:27:06] serviced for us by uh King County. Uh um

[1:27:11] » It's it's serviced by King County and

[1:27:13] that one is not calibrated annually.

[1:27:15] Fair enough.

[1:27:15] » And that one um they were out last week.

[1:27:18] As soon as the second digit failed, they

[1:27:20] need a part. Uh they expect to have it

[1:27:23] in uh later this week. So hopefully

[1:27:25] we'll see that repaired, but um that

[1:27:28] we're actually all over that almost

[1:27:29] immediately. It was just a missing part

[1:27:31] they needed.

[1:27:32] » Council member Christ Jensen,

[1:27:34] » Just responding, Council Member Johnson,

[1:27:36] I agree that, you know, as things are

[1:27:38] said, I'm sure that it'll be

[1:27:39] recalibrated and that, you know, they'll

[1:27:41] take a look at the margin of error. The

[1:27:42] the beacon that is on the Parkway is

[1:27:44] different than what was used uh for this

[1:27:46] study or this study, which was, it's my

[1:27:48] understanding, the ropes, and so it was

[1:27:50] not related to that at least it issues.

[1:27:54] Council member Murphy.

[1:27:56] » So, going back to the um

[1:27:59] the motion here and like if I'm not

[1:28:02] getting this, just like let me know. But

[1:28:03] I think like like prescribing the

[1:28:06] minimum enforcement parameters. I think

[1:28:08] like we're really taking some discretion

[1:28:11] away and we talking about community

[1:28:14] policing and and you know officers

[1:28:17] wishing officers maybe were uh

[1:28:19] patrolling and and pulling folks over

[1:28:21] more using discretion but we're now

[1:28:23] taking away discretion for the cameras

[1:28:27] and I if I'm get if I'm if I'm not

[1:28:29] getting it right let me know but that

[1:28:31] doesn't square with me and I think like

[1:28:33] making sure that we have at least

[1:28:36] getting this going operational

[1:28:37] flexibility, right? There's going to be

[1:28:39] some manner of fine tuning, but when

[1:28:41] we're setting the code and the

[1:28:43] enforcement standards, this isn't like,

[1:28:44] oh, we're going to go back and cut and

[1:28:46] paste this like a month from now, right?

[1:28:49] So, that's my concern related to the

[1:28:52] motion. If again, if there's a

[1:28:54] misunderstanding on my part, please let

[1:28:56] me know. But, um, wanting to maintain

[1:29:00] some semblance of operational

[1:29:01] flexibility is is where I keep getting

[1:29:03] hung up, uh, on this one. Council member

[1:29:07] Cotton.

[1:29:08] » Yes. I'd like to dovetail in on what uh

[1:29:11] Council Member Murphy is saying is that

[1:29:15] um the last thing I want is to take away

[1:29:17] the officers abilities out on the street

[1:29:21] to either

[1:29:23] um

[1:29:24] choose to educate to um you know issue a

[1:29:31] citation

[1:29:32] um or you know what whatever they in

[1:29:37] their experience and learnings um are um

[1:29:41] capable of of you know rendering a

[1:29:43] decision on a particular instance.

[1:29:46] That's that's what we pay them for and

[1:29:48] that's what they should be doing um and

[1:29:50] not what we're necessarily dictating um

[1:29:54] from the the podium so to speak. So I

[1:29:57] want to make sure that that uh remains

[1:30:00] intact for the officers um to be able to

[1:30:04] have that discretion.

[1:30:07] Council member Watton.

[1:30:08] » Thank you. And I want to also follow

[1:30:10] along because an officer has actually

[1:30:14] three options and would under this

[1:30:17] system. One is issue a citation. Two

[1:30:22] issue a warning or give them the verbal

[1:30:28] education for the lack of a better word.

[1:30:32] Those are still things that are viable

[1:30:34] through this system. that does not

[1:30:36] change. And I think that comes back to

[1:30:39] community policing, doing what's right,

[1:30:42] and having knowing that sometimes it

[1:30:46] will only simply be a warning. And I

[1:30:48] want to leave that up to the police

[1:30:49] department.

[1:30:52] » Council member Holloway,

[1:30:54] » Morning clarification. We're having the

[1:30:55] officers called,

[1:30:58] guys. Let's be clear what we're talking

[1:31:00] here, okay? And actually there's another

[1:31:03] option uh for uh repeat offenders that

[1:31:07] get a little bigger hit in the wallet.

[1:31:10] So there's an option of repeat offender

[1:31:13] you get this price tag versus this price

[1:31:15] tag. Um but uh we're manning this so

[1:31:20] that we have enough time for the

[1:31:21] officers to go through and to do that

[1:31:24] decision of

[1:31:26] uh warning.

[1:31:28] Probably going to say citation. It's

[1:31:30] probably an appropriate word. Is it

[1:31:32] okay? All right. His citation or

[1:31:35] citation for multiple offense,

[1:31:38] but we're I haven't heard a conversation

[1:31:41] that there will be community engagement

[1:31:43] as a result of that beyond this. U

[1:31:46] that's when they're out doing their

[1:31:48] community. They're out in the streets in

[1:31:50] the cars doing their community

[1:31:51] engagement at that stage. Um Chief can

[1:31:54] correct me if that's part of the

[1:31:56] program, but I had not heard that today.

[1:31:58] Council member Washington, but before

[1:32:01] you uh make your comment, if I could I

[1:32:03] believe we have an answer for you or you

[1:32:05] from city attorney.

[1:32:06] » Okay.

[1:32:07] » Um so RCW46.63.250

[1:32:10] 2550 talks about the different

[1:32:11] situations where the cameras can be used

[1:32:15] and um there's two different sub there's

[1:32:17] multiple subsections but two of those

[1:32:19] one is school speed zones the other

[1:32:21] school walk zones and then there's other

[1:32:23] situations where they can be used but

[1:32:25] this specific ordinance is only talking

[1:32:27] about those school zones.

[1:32:29] » Okay. So just a quick followup.

[1:32:30] » Yes, Council Member Washington.

[1:32:32] » Thank you, Mayor. So sorry about the

[1:32:34] raspy voice this evening. Um, this

[1:32:38] specifically would only be for school

[1:32:40] zones during those during those posted

[1:32:44] times. Correct.

[1:32:48] » It would be um

[1:32:52] » So those posted times of enforcement.

[1:32:55] » Correct. That's my understand because

[1:32:56] that's when it's the school. Yes.

[1:32:58] » Okay.

[1:32:59] And so that's just to be clear, that's

[1:33:01] by function of state law which governs

[1:33:04] how this ordinance would be uh

[1:33:07] implemented.

[1:33:10] Does that answer your question, Council

[1:33:11] Member Washington?

[1:33:12] » Yes. Yes, it does. But I just have a

[1:33:14] quick comment.

[1:33:14] » Absolutely.

[1:33:15] » Thank you, Mayor. So, I absolutely hear

[1:33:19] what Council Member Holloway is saying.

[1:33:21] This is going to change the way we

[1:33:23] police our community.

[1:33:25] I don't know the cost of this program.

[1:33:27] And I think there's a real concern there

[1:33:29] because it is a new program and we don't

[1:33:31] know the cost of it. The question would

[1:33:34] be what what harm would there be in

[1:33:37] keeping that piece of discretion, the

[1:33:39] minimum standard with the council.

[1:33:42] Um

[1:33:44] I I think there is discretion still in

[1:33:46] the program for our officers that they

[1:33:48] can decide to issue warnings to issue

[1:33:52] tickets.

[1:33:54] I so I still think there is a large

[1:33:56] piece of discretion still available for

[1:33:58] officers even in keeping this peace with

[1:34:01] the council

[1:34:05] » If I could the um

[1:34:09] sorry I lost train of thought.

[1:34:12] » So as I said earlier uh I think that I

[1:34:16] understand what the underlying concern

[1:34:18] is behind the motion um and I I concur

[1:34:22] with that concern. the idea that um and

[1:34:25] and correct me if I'm misstating the

[1:34:27] intent here, but the concern being that

[1:34:29] um enforcement could change such that we

[1:34:32] are paying some private entity enough to

[1:34:35] keep the system going. Um

[1:34:38] the exact mechanism of deciding how and

[1:34:42] when our police can and should do what I

[1:34:44] I hear the other argument on the other

[1:34:46] side of is that really the place of

[1:34:48] counsel or not. I I'm thinking about it.

[1:34:51] I'm not sure yet. I haven't come to to

[1:34:52] an answer in my own head on that. Um but

[1:34:56] certainly uh uh I do share the concern

[1:34:59] of that that underlying problem. Um so

[1:35:02] uh I think what I'd like to do is make a

[1:35:05] motion to send this back to committee to

[1:35:08] consider the uh issue uh the the two

[1:35:11] issues. The first being um council

[1:35:14] involvement in making that

[1:35:15] determination. Um but especially and

[1:35:18] perhaps more importantly uh how to uh

[1:35:22] address the issue of um of how to fund

[1:35:26] it if it were to start to uh cost a

[1:35:29] significant amount uh such that we're

[1:35:32] not policing uh or we're not uh changing

[1:35:35] how uh we are um uh enforcing

[1:35:39] uh the law to benefit a private company.

[1:35:42] » Okay. Uh hold please.

[1:35:44] » Yes. That was a very long motion. Okay.

[1:35:47] Write those words down for us.

[1:35:49] » Write those words down.

[1:35:50] » I think you I have stated my intent. I

[1:35:54] think that rather I'll just motion to

[1:35:56] send back to committee.

[1:35:57] » Okay. Uh could you just hold on? I just

[1:35:59] need to make sure I know the procedure

[1:36:01] because we've got a motion and then a

[1:36:04] motion to amend and now another motion.

[1:36:05] Just give me a moment with city attorney

[1:36:07] to make sure that I understand the

[1:36:09] procedure.

[1:36:40] I'm advised that that motion is out of

[1:36:42] order at this time because the uh uh

[1:36:45] motion to amend is uh the motion is the

[1:36:50] motion to amend the motion is on the

[1:36:52] floor. So, uh, we could either resolve

[1:36:55] that current pending motion and then

[1:36:59] take up you would then have an

[1:37:00] opportunity to make this motion or, uh,

[1:37:04] if you're so interested, I'm advised you

[1:37:06] could, uh, withdraw the current motion

[1:37:09] and then we could immediately take up

[1:37:10] this motion.

[1:37:12] » If second is willing, I am with I I

[1:37:16] reserve the right to read motion, but I

[1:37:17] withdraw a motion.

[1:37:19] » Draw my second.

[1:37:20] » All right. Uh so now uh Council Member

[1:37:24] Johnson.

[1:37:25] » All right. Uh move to uh send this uh

[1:37:29] back to committee.

[1:37:30] » Second.

[1:37:31] » All right. Motion to return this item to

[1:37:34] committee and seconded by uh made by

[1:37:36] Council Member Johnson.

[1:37:38] U seconded by Council Member Washington.

[1:37:41] Hold on just a minute.

[1:37:52] Council member Washington.

[1:38:00] I'd like to amend the motion.

[1:38:05] Okay. So, I'd like to make a motion

[1:38:08] amending the motion to return back to

[1:38:12] committee

[1:38:13] until such time as we have analysis for

[1:38:16] alternatives on enforcement options and

[1:38:20] service options.

[1:38:23] » Count uh is there second to motion by

[1:38:27] council member Washington

[1:38:32] » Hearing no second. The motion dies for

[1:38:35] lack of a second. He can't second

[1:38:36] though. He has a he

[1:38:39] question.

[1:38:40] » All right. Uh so we're back to the

[1:38:42] motion to return to committee. Any

[1:38:43] further discussion? Council member

[1:38:45] Christensen.

[1:38:46] » Yeah. Thank you. Um so I just have a

[1:38:47] couple quick questions and they may be

[1:38:49] directed to the administration. So, it's

[1:38:50] my understanding that in order to

[1:38:51] proceed further down the road of whether

[1:38:53] or not we're going to ultimately do

[1:38:55] speed cameras in the school zones, we

[1:38:57] need to first authorize it under the

[1:38:59] existing Staccomi municipal code before

[1:39:01] we're able to go out and get vendors to

[1:39:02] come and give us quotations for how much

[1:39:05] it would cost to put in the polls and

[1:39:06] the lights. So, while I do agree that

[1:39:09] there it sounds like there's going to

[1:39:10] need to be more conversation surrounding

[1:39:12] the price and things like that, in order

[1:39:14] to be actually able to go out and get

[1:39:16] that information, we have to authorize

[1:39:18] it generally in the municipal code at

[1:39:19] this time. So, it's my further

[1:39:22] understanding then that if we just refer

[1:39:24] it back, we'll essentially be killing

[1:39:26] the opportunity to do it at this time.

[1:39:28] So, I just want to make sure that's

[1:39:30] accurate. Council member Christensen. Um

[1:39:34] » I know it was a whole lot of

[1:39:37] » Um the uh this this were you to approve

[1:39:43] this ordinance tonight,

[1:39:46] nothing will happen.

[1:39:47] » Yeah.

[1:39:48] » Because we don't have your authorization

[1:39:51] to engage a vendor. The next step would

[1:39:54] be to go get proposals from multiple

[1:39:58] vendors, bring them back to you, at

[1:40:01] which time you would then either

[1:40:03] authorize or not authorize an actual

[1:40:06] program to commence under this

[1:40:07] authorizing ordinance. But nothing will

[1:40:10] happen without a further action by this

[1:40:13] council to approve a vendor.

[1:40:16] And I would point out any ordinance you

[1:40:20] pass, you also can amend. Uh, Council

[1:40:22] Member Holloway,

[1:40:23] » But the statement of requirements and

[1:40:26] submitting for proposals is not held

[1:40:30] by not passing this tonight. Correct?

[1:40:33] » If I could answer, we wouldn't have we

[1:40:35] wouldn't know what to ask in the RFP. We

[1:40:37] wouldn't know what the standards are

[1:40:38] that we're asking them to propose on.

[1:40:44] So, for example,

[1:40:45] will you ultimately pass

[1:40:48] um the recommend just specific

[1:40:52] locations? Will you ultimately pass

[1:40:54] speed cameras at all times? Will it just

[1:40:56] be traffic uh speed uh school zone

[1:40:58] cameras? We we don't really know what

[1:41:00] you will ultimately authorize them.

[1:41:03] Therefore, we don't know what to ask the

[1:41:04] proposers to specifically uh propose on.

[1:41:08] But

[1:41:11] I don't believe those are specified by

[1:41:13] the actions tonight.

[1:41:15] But can we as part of the public safety

[1:41:20] take up those parameter discussions so

[1:41:22] that the request for proposals can

[1:41:26] proceed?

[1:41:28] » Council member Watton. Um let me speak

[1:41:32] on on this particular issue and that is

[1:41:37] the reason why we're bringing forward

[1:41:40] the amendment to the municipal code is

[1:41:44] we did take in public comment about the

[1:41:48] concern over speeding. We knew that we

[1:41:51] didn't have enough enforcement through

[1:41:54] our our officers and we looked for a

[1:41:58] solution. This was an easy one to to

[1:42:02] review first of all because it's

[1:42:04] available in 20 other cities in the

[1:42:07] state including Isiqua. So it's

[1:42:09] compatible. But we also heard in our

[1:42:13] committee concern about making sure that

[1:42:16] we address the municipal code first

[1:42:18] before we go out and solicit for other

[1:42:22] studies or or other uh RFPs for a system

[1:42:27] and which system to use tonight. It's

[1:42:30] purely this gives us the ability to move

[1:42:33] forward and that was the recommendation

[1:42:35] that came through the committee loud and

[1:42:37] clear that we needed to address this

[1:42:40] piece first and then decide on the

[1:42:44] vendor and uh so I would I would put

[1:42:49] that framework in and and the more back

[1:42:52] and forth we go we're not making any

[1:42:55] progress and we don't have more

[1:42:57] officers. So, we've got to figure that

[1:42:59] part out. And I understand that, you

[1:43:02] know, the concern of the cost, the

[1:43:04] concern of ongoing costs,

[1:43:07] but we also have other variables going

[1:43:10] in, and that's the cost of additional

[1:43:13] patrol officers, which we have a pretty

[1:43:15] good idea that we can't add more patrol

[1:43:18] officers just to handle this one

[1:43:20] function. And this is a better solution

[1:43:23] going forward, we believe. But we also

[1:43:26] want to be realistic in knowing that um

[1:43:29] when it's implemented

[1:43:32] uh the number of infractions are going

[1:43:34] to be higher and and people's habits

[1:43:36] will change. But we have to get through

[1:43:39] this part first. I encourage you know

[1:43:41] you to go ahead and pass

[1:43:45] the change the municipal code and then

[1:43:48] we can go back to committee and

[1:43:49] fine-tune things. But without this step,

[1:43:53] we're going to be caught in this back

[1:43:55] and forth motion. This this is the

[1:43:58] second reading we've had in here, but

[1:44:01] we've been talking about it in public

[1:44:03] safety for some time. So anyway, that's

[1:44:06] kind of my perspective.

[1:44:09] » All right, so I've got in the following

[1:44:10] order. We'll take Council Member

[1:44:12] Johnson, then Holloway, then Murphy. So,

[1:44:14] Council Member Johnson,

[1:44:16] » Uh, so I appreciate that it could be

[1:44:19] easier to address this issue if we had

[1:44:22] numbers, but I don't think that we need

[1:44:23] the actual numbers because to me it

[1:44:26] sounded like the underlying issue and

[1:44:27] and the one that I'm taking issue with

[1:44:29] myself is uh the concept of if the price

[1:44:33] goes up regardless of what the number

[1:44:34] is, then should the enforcement

[1:44:37] mechanism be to then make sure that uh

[1:44:41] we are making up for those additional

[1:44:44] costs. Um, and uh, I don't think that we

[1:44:48] should be adjusting our costs or excuse

[1:44:50] me, adjusting our enforcement based on

[1:44:53] the cost. We should be enforcing or uh,

[1:44:56] adjusting our enforcement based on the

[1:44:58] need uh, for safety and things like

[1:45:00] that. Um so my intent of this motion was

[1:45:04] to go back and address that issue uh at

[1:45:07] the committee level and then come back

[1:45:09] and you know sometimes government does

[1:45:12] uh move slowly and uh the reason it does

[1:45:15] is that uh if we do move too fast on

[1:45:17] things then um you know there there are

[1:45:19] significant consequences sometimes

[1:45:21] frustratingly so there there have been

[1:45:23] plenty of things in my four years uh so

[1:45:25] far where I wish I could have moved

[1:45:27] faster but I understand that sometimes

[1:45:30] you have to go back and you got to

[1:45:31] review something for um whatever reason.

[1:45:36] » Council member Holloway

[1:45:40] don't know if you guys noticed it or

[1:45:42] not, but I'll say uh I noticed that

[1:45:44] about twothirds of the enforcement

[1:45:45] window for this went out the window

[1:45:47] tonight. It wasn't was assumed coming in

[1:45:50] here. So things are shifting. Let's get

[1:45:52] this right. But and I refuse to hold an

[1:45:57] RFP hostage for this. That's just not

[1:46:02] we're not doing our job before that.

[1:46:04] Okay. So, I would like to amend the

[1:46:06] motion to direct public safety to

[1:46:08] discuss with administration

[1:46:10] parameters. Uh well, I say specifics

[1:46:14] around data required for an RFP.

[1:46:18] So the current motion on the floor is to

[1:46:20] return this matter to committee

[1:46:24] » And I would like that committee to

[1:46:25] discuss information required to support

[1:46:28] an RFP.

[1:46:30] » Second.

[1:46:33] » Okay. Move.

[1:46:35] » So I thought we had a first we had a

[1:46:38] motion to send back to committee. Then

[1:46:40] we had a motion to amend to return to

[1:46:41] committee to discuss analysis on

[1:46:43] alternatives and service options. Did

[1:46:45] you get a second?

[1:46:46] » That failed.

[1:46:46] » That failed tracking. Okay.

[1:46:48] » Yeah.

[1:46:49] » Sorry.

[1:46:49] » Okay.

[1:46:50] » Okay.

[1:46:50] » Sorry. Thank you for

[1:46:53] » How many dinosaurs are going?

[1:46:54] » Exactly.

[1:46:55] » All right. So, just to be clear, we have

[1:46:56] a motion by council member Holloway,

[1:46:58] seconded by

[1:47:01] Council Member Johnson. Thank you. All

[1:47:04] right. Discussion on the motion.

[1:47:08] » I'm sorry, mayor. I did not catch um

[1:47:11] council member Holloway's uh motion.

[1:47:14] » Sorry, could you state it again? Council

[1:47:16] member Holloway

[1:47:18] try.

[1:47:19] » So mean. Um

[1:47:23] motion direct to direct committee with

[1:47:25] administration to discuss information

[1:47:28] required to proceed with RFP.

[1:47:33] » Point of order. Is that germanine to the

[1:47:36] motion that's on the floor? Council

[1:47:38] legal pole, please.

[1:48:12] So the item is not germaine because this

[1:48:15] is discussion of an RFP. That's not the

[1:48:18] matter that's in front of you. The

[1:48:19] matter in front of you tonight is the

[1:48:20] adoption of an ordinance. The motion is

[1:48:23] to return that ordinance to committee.

[1:48:25] There's no RFP mentioned in this

[1:48:28] ordinance. So it's not germanine to the

[1:48:30] topic.

[1:48:31] » Chair council member I disagree and

[1:48:33] appeal to the council.

[1:48:35] » Okay. So

[1:48:35] » I am clarifying the motion to return to

[1:48:37] committee to include that.

[1:48:39] » So council member Holloway is um uh

[1:48:42] appealing the decision of the chair to

[1:48:44] the full council on uh whether the

[1:48:47] matter is his motion is germanine or

[1:48:51] not.

[1:48:52] Any discussion on that topic?

[1:48:57] Okay.

[1:48:58] See none. All those in favor of

[1:49:04] » The motion.

[1:49:05] » How do I state that?

[1:49:13] » Retaining the motion for consideration.

[1:49:14] » So all those in favor of

[1:49:18] uh deciding that the motion is not

[1:49:21] gerine

[1:49:23] say I.

[1:49:24] » We're deciding the motion is not

[1:49:26] germanine.

[1:49:27] » Yeah. The the decision of the chair was

[1:49:29] that the motion was not germanine to the

[1:49:32] matter. That question has been appealed

[1:49:35] to the council. So now the council must

[1:49:37] decide is it or is it not germanine.

[1:49:41] So the vote an I vote would be that you

[1:49:44] Okay, I'm now saying it backwards.

[1:49:47] So let's say it clearly. An I vote would

[1:49:50] mean that you think the matter is

[1:49:52] gerine.

[1:49:54] A nay vote would be that you do not that

[1:49:57] you support the position of the chair

[1:49:59] and it is not gerine.

[1:50:01] » So with that in mind,

[1:50:03] all those in favor that the matter is

[1:50:06] germaine say I.

[1:50:07] » I.

[1:50:08] » I.

[1:50:09] » Those opposed say nay.

[1:50:10] » Nay.

[1:50:11] » Nay.

[1:50:13] » Sounds like a roll call.

[1:50:15] » Can you

[1:50:15] » The motion does not uh carry. The ruling

[1:50:18] of the chair is upheld.

[1:50:21] » Request for a roll call vote. Okay,

[1:50:23] we'll take a roll call vote on the

[1:50:25] matter.

[1:50:26] » Point of order.

[1:50:28] » What's your point?

[1:50:29] » Is it a 2/3 requirement to sustain the

[1:50:33] motion or is it 50% plus one?

[1:50:36] » Good question. We'll just check that.

[1:50:38] So, hold

[1:50:41] » We haven't gone the age

[1:50:43] more. So,

[1:50:59] Yeah. And to be clear, I'm only aware of

[1:51:01] one other time that a motion was a

[1:51:04] Germaine motion was appealed. Wasn't me.

[1:51:06] So in 20 years is this very seldom done.

[1:51:12] You need next.

[1:51:19] It may be two. This time we'll declare a

[1:51:21] fivem minute recess of the council.

[1:51:23] We'll be back in five minutes at 9:55.

[1:51:26] 9:56

[1:51:29] 8. Let's try that again. 856.

[1:51:34] » Hour.

[1:51:42] » Okay. The uh

[1:51:45] uh

[1:51:47] the um

[1:51:50] » The book said

[1:51:51] » The book said

[1:51:52] » It's going to the book.

[1:51:54] » The motion to um appeal is a majority

[1:51:58] motion only, not a two-thirds. Um so, uh

[1:52:01] we'll proceed with the roll call vote.

[1:52:04] Um Council Member Murphy,

[1:52:07] » Nay.

[1:52:09] » Council member Watton,

[1:52:10] » Nay.

[1:52:12] Council member Holloway.

[1:52:13] » Hi.

[1:52:14] » Council member Washington.

[1:52:15] » Hi.

[1:52:17] » Council member Cotton.

[1:52:18] » Nay.

[1:52:19] » Council member Christensen.

[1:52:20] » Nay.

[1:52:21] » Council member Johnson.

[1:52:23] » I.

[1:52:24] » Uh the tally is four. Nay. And three I.

[1:52:28] The um uh motion does see the the appeal

[1:52:34] does not

[1:52:36] pass. mot the motion is determined not

[1:52:40] germaine.

[1:52:43] » So let's see where we stand. We have a

[1:52:45] motion

[1:52:47] » We have a uh hold on we stand

[1:52:53] we

[1:52:55] » I think we're back to motion to table

[1:52:57] back to committee.

[1:52:58] » Exactly.

[1:52:59] » So the motion on the floor is to uh send

[1:53:02] the ordinance back to committee.

[1:53:06] Any further discussion on that? Council

[1:53:07] member Christensen.

[1:53:09] » Thank you. Um, so I was on I'm obviously

[1:53:11] no longer on public safety committee

[1:53:13] now, but I was on public safety

[1:53:14] committee for the year that we went

[1:53:17] through where we discussed this at

[1:53:18] Nauseium where we had significant public

[1:53:20] feedback. Guys, we are having 7,000

[1:53:24] violations at Timber Ridge over a

[1:53:26] three-day period while the beacons are

[1:53:27] going. It feels like sending it back to

[1:53:30] committee is is going to slow it down.

[1:53:33] Okay. Well, there is a demonstrated

[1:53:35] ongoing public safety risk for the kids.

[1:53:38] Like I think that generally speaking,

[1:53:41] folks are in line with going forward

[1:53:44] with trying to get quotes and other

[1:53:46] things and generally speaking in line

[1:53:50] with getting this moving forward. I just

[1:53:54] I really worry that if we're sending it

[1:53:55] back to committee, we're going to have

[1:53:57] to go back through. We're going to have

[1:53:58] to renotice everything else. It'll be at

[1:54:00] least a month or two before we're even

[1:54:01] back in a situation where we can have

[1:54:03] this go forward. This is not the last

[1:54:05] touch point on this, okay? There will be

[1:54:08] other opportunities. You'll get to

[1:54:09] review the vendors before they come.

[1:54:10] You'll get to talk about the specific

[1:54:12] locations, but again, this is a step in

[1:54:14] the process towards making sure that the

[1:54:16] kids are safe.

[1:54:18] I just I don't think that we can wait

[1:54:22] any longer. Again, having not only our

[1:54:25] citizens come and tell us, but then

[1:54:27] we've gotten the proof that they're

[1:54:28] right. like let's move this forward.

[1:54:33] » Council member Murphy,

[1:54:35] » I echo that completely. I think um

[1:54:39] we need to we need to move forward and

[1:54:42] deliver some results here and I think

[1:54:43] that the framework that uh in the

[1:54:46] ordinance is very strong. I think it's

[1:54:49] it comports with what other

[1:54:50] municipalities have done on this matter.

[1:54:53] Um, I think we have reams of data both

[1:54:58] within our city and within other

[1:55:00] municipalities that show the

[1:55:02] effectiveness of these uh of speed

[1:55:04] cameras of the need that we have for the

[1:55:07] speed cameras. Um, I I fear similarly to

[1:55:12] Council Member Christensen that we're

[1:55:14] just going to be delaying this inevit uh

[1:55:16] indefinitely. So, um I I don't support

[1:55:21] um the motion to bring bring back to uh

[1:55:25] bring back to um to committee and I I

[1:55:27] would hope that we can get some results

[1:55:29] uh done tonight.

[1:55:32] » All right. Any further discussion on the

[1:55:34] motion to return this topic to

[1:55:37] committee? Council member Cotton,

[1:55:39] » Just to echo for the second or third or

[1:55:43] fourth time that I agree with council

[1:55:46] members

[1:55:47] Murphy, Watton, Christensen. Um, I'm not

[1:55:52] on the road anymore, but let me tell

[1:55:54] you, the tragedy that hits any community

[1:55:58] is when a child is killed in a in a

[1:56:03] pedestrian accident, and I've been on

[1:56:06] too many of those in various

[1:56:07] jurisdictions through the course of my

[1:56:09] career. I don't want our folks, our fire

[1:56:12] department, our police officers to be

[1:56:15] the ones responding into a school zone

[1:56:18] while we're deliberating this back and

[1:56:20] forth. So, that's where I stand.

[1:56:24] » All right. Any further discussion on the

[1:56:27] motion to return this topic to

[1:56:29] committee?

[1:56:30] Seeing none,

[1:56:32] all those in favor of the motion to

[1:56:34] return to committee say I.

[1:56:37] » I. I. Those opposed say nay.

[1:56:40] » Nay.

[1:56:42] » I count four nay, three I. The motion to

[1:56:46] return to committee is not upheld. We

[1:56:48] return to the motion to adopt the

[1:56:52] ordinance. Um, and any further

[1:56:55] discussion on that? Council member

[1:56:56] Holloway

[1:56:57] » Would like to reintroduce my motion on

[1:56:59] uh whatever the heck it was, minimum

[1:57:01] enforcement parameters. All

[1:57:03] » Right. I think we might have that

[1:57:04] wording. Let's take a shot here.

[1:57:06] » I think we do. When does that go over?

[1:57:08] Let's

[1:57:09] » Have that word.

[1:57:11] » Yes, I have it as

[1:57:13] move to amend section 10.13.020

[1:57:18] to add section D which states the city

[1:57:21] establishment or sorry the establishment

[1:57:24] and changes of minimum minimum

[1:57:26] enforcement parameters must be presented

[1:57:28] to the city council for approval.

[1:57:31] » Councilor Holloway, is that correct?

[1:57:33] » Correct.

[1:57:33] » Is there a second to this motion?

[1:57:38] Second.

[1:57:39] » Seconded by council member Washington.

[1:57:41] Any discussion of the motion to amend

[1:57:46] the ordinance.

[1:57:50] All right. Seeing none, we'll move to a

[1:57:52] vote. Those in favor of amending the

[1:57:55] ordinance

[1:57:58] say I.

[1:57:59] » I.

[1:58:00] » I.

[1:58:01] » Those opposed say nay.

[1:58:03] » Nay.

[1:58:03] » Nay. Motion to amend um is not passed

[1:58:08] and we return to the motion as

[1:58:10] originally made for the ordinance. Is

[1:58:12] there any further discussion? Council

[1:58:15] member Johnson.

[1:58:17] » Um so I do think that uh there are some

[1:58:21] things that uh can make this better that

[1:58:23] I've discussed tonight and that will be

[1:58:26] able to continue being discussed as this

[1:58:28] process moves forward. Um, but uh I

[1:58:31] still think that uh this option of using

[1:58:34] the cameras uh is at least functional

[1:58:39] for the time being. Um while I I would

[1:58:42] hope that we'll make investments in the

[1:58:44] future to the physical infrastructure to

[1:58:46] make our roads look like the speed

[1:58:48] limits that they are supposed to be. Um

[1:58:51] I have again pointed to is we love

[1:58:53] pointing to Isiqua, don't we? Uh Isqua

[1:58:55] has traffic calming zone. I mentioned in

[1:58:57] our previous council meeting how the

[1:58:59] school that I work at has a traffic

[1:59:01] calming zone. Um so I realize that that

[1:59:04] may be more expensive. It may be a

[1:59:05] longer term thing. Um but uh but at

[1:59:08] least this allows us to do something. Um

[1:59:13] I uh do have also some significant

[1:59:15] concerns about the issue of uh privacy

[1:59:19] for people. It's not so much that that

[1:59:22] the technicality of this exact proposal

[1:59:25] um

[1:59:28] it it nudges up against a line in terms

[1:59:32] of um you know whether the officers are

[1:59:34] actually seeing it and uh monitoring

[1:59:37] people and stuff. But you know it's not

[1:59:38] that I think that any of our council

[1:59:40] members here are like yeah let's go 1984

[1:59:42] or anything like that. I mean, it's just

[1:59:44] that this is something that can over

[1:59:46] time become referenced by future

[1:59:48] councils to uh introduce things like uh

[1:59:52] cameras for red lights and uh other

[1:59:54] kinds of enforcement. Uh that said, the

[1:59:59] uh committee uh and staff bent over

[2:00:02] backwards to avoid those kinds of issues

[2:00:06] and uh I am just very thankful to uh the

[2:00:09] council's commitment to uh a lot of

[2:00:11] those principles about privacy and uh

[2:00:14] and community policing. Um so seeing as

[2:00:18] how on that particular issue, I'm not

[2:00:22] aware of a way to make it better. uh I

[2:00:24] don't have a proposed amendment to make

[2:00:26] it

[2:00:28] m to to better improve citizen privacy.

[2:00:31] Uh so as a result um uh even though I do

[2:00:34] have some issues with certain things

[2:00:35] about uh the program um and I think that

[2:00:38] some of those may be addressed in the

[2:00:39] future as we go for an RFP etc etc uh I

[2:00:43] am in favor of the underlying motion as

[2:00:46] it stands.

[2:00:47] » Right. And just as a point of

[2:00:49] information, um

[2:00:52] the systems that we're looking at, and

[2:00:54] you'll hear more about this, assuming

[2:00:56] you pass this and we go through the

[2:00:57] proposal process, do not capture images

[2:01:00] of the driver,

[2:01:01] » Right?

[2:01:01] » They capture images of the license plate

[2:01:04] of the car. Uh Council Member Murphy.

[2:01:08] » Yeah. Um I'll just say I'm really proud

[2:01:10] to support this. I think, um I the staff

[2:01:13] deserve a ton of credit for getting it

[2:01:15] to the place that it's in. We've had, as

[2:01:18] mentioned, a lot of public engagement.

[2:01:20] Obviously, many of many of that predated

[2:01:22] my time on council. And I really want to

[2:01:25] thank the chief for uh bringing this to

[2:01:27] us and going in and kind of making this

[2:01:31] um uh a key priority for the department

[2:01:34] and for public safety, for the

[2:01:35] community. So, I I strongly uh I think

[2:01:38] this is something that is a great first

[2:01:41] step for us. excited to see kind of how

[2:01:43] we move forward as it relates to

[2:01:46] different vendors that we'll be

[2:01:47] evaluating and things of that nature.

[2:01:49] But, you know, we're solving an issue.

[2:01:51] We're solving for an issue that has, you

[2:01:54] know, that's backed in data on a

[2:01:56] solution that's backed in data and um

[2:02:00] something where we've had significant

[2:02:02] public engagement on, right? We don't

[2:02:05] always we don't often get that. we don't

[2:02:07] often get folks kind of coming in and

[2:02:09] being persistent and showing up and and

[2:02:12] um you know asking for something. So I'm

[2:02:15] proud that we're able to deliver some

[2:02:17] results for them and um very supportive

[2:02:20] of uh of the underlying um motion.

[2:02:26] Any further discussion?

[2:02:28] » Council member Holloway

[2:02:33] » With the I assume passing of this coming

[2:02:35] here shortly. I hope that in the next

[2:02:37] public safety meeting we can have a

[2:02:38] discussion on the RFP and steps moving

[2:02:40] forward. Okay.

[2:02:46] Any further discussion?

[2:02:49] Seeing none,

[2:02:51] uh we'll uh vote. All those in favor of

[2:02:54] the ordinance say I.

[2:02:56] » I.

[2:02:57] » I.

[2:02:58] » Those opposed say nay.

[2:03:00] The ordinance passes unanimously.

[2:03:04] Moving on to

[2:03:06] committee reports. Uh public safety

[2:03:09] committee. Uh there was anformational

[2:03:11] item in your agenda packets.

[2:03:14] » Yes. Starting uh and council member

[2:03:16] Watton.

[2:03:18] » Thank you, Mayor. Um in light of the

[2:03:20] hour, I'm just going to point out a

[2:03:22] couple things. uh every quarter the fire

[2:03:26] department has a report to let us know

[2:03:31] where they're at, but it's also part of

[2:03:33] the accreditation, the ongoing

[2:03:35] monitoring of of how our tax dollars are

[2:03:38] being deployed. Uh the good news is the

[2:03:42] number of uh responses have gone down

[2:03:45] slightly, which is a good trend to have.

[2:03:48] Um secondly, uh mutual aid continues to

[2:03:53] be something that we monitor on a

[2:03:55] quarterly basis. Mutual aid to our

[2:03:58] citizens means that

[2:04:01] we may go out to other districts and

[2:04:04] we're we're going to respond to those um

[2:04:08] incidents that are closest to us even

[2:04:10] though they're being covered by for

[2:04:12] instance east side fire. But the offset

[2:04:16] to it and and you'll see that in the

[2:04:18] report is that when we have an incident,

[2:04:21] they're sending multiple um sometimes

[2:04:24] multiple units out to respond with us.

[2:04:28] So, um we're always concerned about

[2:04:31] about the costs and the benefit back.

[2:04:34] And then the other one, and that's

[2:04:35] transport services because that's

[2:04:38] revenue that we get by transporting

[2:04:40] patients. And sometimes you see our aid

[2:04:43] car go over to Isiziqua or down to

[2:04:46] Belleview um for hospital transfers from

[2:04:50] our hospital in particular. So those are

[2:04:53] things that we're always monitoring. We

[2:04:55] want to be transparent and that's why

[2:04:56] this report is put forward. the chief

[2:04:59] and his team to do an excellent job. And

[2:05:03] I got a chance to spend 10 hours with

[2:05:05] them a Sunday before last just and and

[2:05:08] the only reason why I'm doing this

[2:05:10] report, I think, is because I used a

[2:05:12] fire hose to wash out the fire truck

[2:05:16] bay. And I think I may be the first one

[2:05:20] other than council member Cotton to do a

[2:05:22] forced entry practice as well. Um, and

[2:05:26] it was great spending time with them.

[2:05:28] And the good news is we didn't have a

[2:05:30] single call during the 10 hours, but

[2:05:32] they were absolutely busy doing things

[2:05:35] to make sure that our community is safe.

[2:05:37] And for that, I'm proud and grateful for

[2:05:39] the work of our fire department.

[2:05:42] » So, I'm a bit confused, Council Member

[2:05:44] Watton, because when I had my first

[2:05:45] mayor meeting with the firefighters,

[2:05:49] five minutes into the meeting, the alarm

[2:05:51] went and they all left. So, I I don't

[2:05:54] know. Should I draw any conclusions from

[2:05:56] your experiences compared to mine?

[2:05:58] » Just invite me next time.

[2:06:02] » Okay. Um, moving on. Any further public

[2:06:05] safety committee report?

[2:06:06] » That's all that we have this evening.

[2:06:08] Thank you very much.

[2:06:09] » Community development committee, any

[2:06:11] report?

[2:06:12] » Nothing at this time, Mr. Mayor.

[2:06:13] » Parks and Public Works Committee, any

[2:06:15] report?

[2:06:16] » No report at this time.

[2:06:17] » Finance and Administration Committee.

[2:06:20] Um, agenda bill introduction discussion.

[2:06:25] » Thank you, mayor. Uh, so this was an

[2:06:27] item that was brought to uh FNA uh to

[2:06:31] discuss uh whom who or whom I'm probably

[2:06:34] using those incorrectly, but should read

[2:06:36] in the introduction of uh our agenda

[2:06:39] bills, whether it should be the mayor or

[2:06:41] the chair of the committee. And uh there

[2:06:44] were arguments in both directions uh for

[2:06:46] that. Um, obviously historically it's

[2:06:49] been the chair. Um, mayor, did you want

[2:06:51] to say anything uh about this?

[2:06:53] » Yeah, just this is just a point of look,

[2:06:55] we want to serve you however's best.

[2:06:58] There is this sort of this idea that the

[2:07:01] administration writes the introduction,

[2:07:03] but then you end up reading it. So just

[2:07:06] we offer, hey, if you'd rather have us

[2:07:08] read it, that's fine. But uh the other

[2:07:12] point is to be clear in committees you

[2:07:15] can change the introduction to that

[2:07:18] which you would like to read. So either

[2:07:20] way you want to go we just want to say

[2:07:22] we're we're here to support whichever

[2:07:23] way you want to go and um just let us

[2:07:26] know. We're just trying to address

[2:07:27] something that looked a little sort of

[2:07:30] um odd forcing you to read something you

[2:07:32] actually may not have realized you could

[2:07:34] change.

[2:07:36] Council member Johnson. Uh so this uh

[2:07:38] isn't a motion to to change the way that

[2:07:40] we've been doing things uh that's on the

[2:07:42] table presently, just a discussion as it

[2:07:45] says. Um so uh I think that if we could

[2:07:49] just take as a piece or as a point of

[2:07:52] information, if that's even really a

[2:07:53] point, I don't think it's even a point,

[2:07:54] but anyway, as information uh and a

[2:07:56] reminder that chairs can uh assist in

[2:07:59] the crafting of those introductory

[2:08:01] statements and and take some ownership,

[2:08:03] uh that they may do so. uh that it

[2:08:06] doesn't have to just be the

[2:08:07] administration writes them and then um

[2:08:10] you know it just is what it is.

[2:08:13] » Council member Washington.

[2:08:15] » Yeah, just a quick question, Mr. Mayor.

[2:08:17] How would that be done? Is that a matter

[2:08:19] of working with city attorney or working

[2:08:22] with staff or what would be the best

[2:08:24] process for that?

[2:08:24] » Each chair can just work with the

[2:08:26] director that in their committee that

[2:08:29] brought that item. If you just let them

[2:08:32] know what you want, um they can change

[2:08:35] that to whatever wording you'd like. And

[2:08:36] if you need that to sort of facilitate

[2:08:38] these, it's like, hey, could you give me

[2:08:39] the wording so I could electronically so

[2:08:41] I could just change that? We can just

[2:08:43] facilitate that for you. So just speak

[2:08:45] with the director of that's bringing the

[2:08:48] matter to you in your committee.

[2:08:52] Council member Johnson,

[2:08:54] » Uh I I'll yield.

[2:08:56] » Council member Christensen.

[2:08:58] » Thanks. So just so that I understand

[2:09:00] then because I know that in the past on

[2:09:02] council there's been significant push

[2:09:03] back if anybody's tweaking anything

[2:09:04] after it's left committee and before it

[2:09:06] gets brought to council. So I guess at

[2:09:08] what point would the chair then be

[2:09:10] weighing in and changing the language of

[2:09:12] what would ultimately be in the agenda

[2:09:13] packet because I just want to make sure

[2:09:14] that

[2:09:15] » However the language is presented it's

[2:09:17] it's what kind of that committee has

[2:09:19] decided so that there's you know he

[2:09:22] there as well

[2:09:22] » At the time of your committee meeting.

[2:09:24] » Okay.

[2:09:26] or prior or prior because we uh do try

[2:09:30] and show you the things prior to your

[2:09:33] committee meeting. But either prior to

[2:09:35] or at the committee meeting, we're happy

[2:09:37] to facilitate you changing the

[2:09:39] introduction. Remember, the introduction

[2:09:41] is just what you read that the body of

[2:09:44] uh the background section still has all

[2:09:46] the information that um administration

[2:09:50] has written kind of explaining and

[2:09:51] supporting the the proposal. But um this

[2:09:54] is really to let you since you're the

[2:09:56] ones that are going to speak that

[2:09:58] section to allow you to write what it is

[2:10:00] that you're speaking and to have your

[2:10:02] committee's um you know input and

[2:10:04] support in that.

[2:10:07] » Council member Johnson. Then I think

[2:10:09] hopefully just one final thought uh from

[2:10:11] my end is um that I hope the

[2:10:14] administration still intends to continue

[2:10:15] writing the uh what could be interpreted

[2:10:18] as a rough draft but would also be

[2:10:20] serviceable as a final draft if no

[2:10:23] further input were given. Um and then I

[2:10:26] just perhaps have a request that in the

[2:10:27] past sometimes the introduction has been

[2:10:29] multiple paragraphs and then we're

[2:10:31] supposed to just read the first

[2:10:32] paragraph. there could just be a very

[2:10:34] clear introduction is one paragraph and

[2:10:36] then below that is is a heading. That's

[2:10:38] the next thing.

[2:10:39] » You may have noticed that since January

[2:10:41] 1 of this year, you have not received

[2:10:44] multiple paragraph introductions.

[2:10:46] » Appreciate that.

[2:10:50] » So that uh we are already attempting to

[2:10:52] absolutely address that. But and that to

[2:10:54] be honest, that's what gave rise to this

[2:10:56] is wait a minute, we're we're changing

[2:10:58] the language. Okay, we've got this

[2:11:00] objective, but by the way, isn't it

[2:11:02] really for the council member that's

[2:11:04] going to read it to ultimately decide if

[2:11:06] that wording is right and and as you

[2:11:07] point out uh the committee along with

[2:11:10] that chair. So we just want to

[2:11:11] facilitate that. Um or if you didn't

[2:11:15] want to do that say well if you want to

[2:11:17] if you want to if you want us to read it

[2:11:19] since we wrote it we're happy to do that

[2:11:21] but more importantly if you would like

[2:11:23] to write it um happy to facilitate that

[2:11:26] as well.

[2:11:30] Okay. Any further discussion?

[2:11:32] » Uh, nothing else from FNA.

[2:11:34] » All right. Uh, committee of the whole,

[2:11:36] we have a topic.

[2:11:38] See if I got this right. Discussion of

[2:11:41] resolution 15-42,

[2:11:44] paragraphs five, six, and seven. Did I

[2:11:47] get that right, Council Member Cotton?

[2:11:49] » Five, six, and seven. Yeah. And they

[2:11:51] actually dovetailed right into what FNA

[2:11:53] just brought up. um uh if I might in um

[2:11:59] several areas. This the this is the

[2:12:03] rules of procedure for the city council

[2:12:06] um under

[2:12:08] um some of the responsibilities of the

[2:12:10] committee chairperson.

[2:12:12] Um that's 6.4.2

[2:12:16] and uh and also under department heads

[2:12:20] that's rule seven. There's um it

[2:12:23] specifically mentions that the uh

[2:12:26] responsibility of a committee

[2:12:27] chairperson is to solicit the views of

[2:12:30] the department heads of each department

[2:12:32] affected by each matter referred to the

[2:12:35] committee. Um which

[2:12:39] uh and also under the department heads

[2:12:42] 7.1 input to committees. It shall be the

[2:12:46] right and responsibility of each

[2:12:48] department head to make his or her

[2:12:50] position known to the council committee

[2:12:52] on each matter for council action

[2:12:54] affecting the department referred to the

[2:12:57] committee. Um, so I'm very happy to hear

[2:13:01] the input that FNA is is is lining out

[2:13:05] that we can actually have communication

[2:13:08] with our department heads. Um, and uh

[2:13:12] discuss pending business. uh in rule

[2:13:17] five the uh one of the things that's in

[2:13:20] uh uh brought to bear is that the um

[2:13:25] matters that come on specifically agenda

[2:13:28] bills coming onto the agenda um it's um

[2:13:34] the responsible council committee or

[2:13:36] department head is to um provide the

[2:13:41] agenda bill completed. Um it does

[2:13:44] mention signatures of both the chair and

[2:13:47] the department head. Um so they

[2:13:49] obviously need to confer

[2:13:52] um and discuss the items that are going

[2:13:54] to be coming forward. And so we just

[2:13:56] want to make sure that um that that

[2:14:00] these are being uh these items are being

[2:14:03] addressed in the process and um that

[2:14:07] however we decide to do that. if there's

[2:14:10] going to be a standardized approach, if

[2:14:12] there's going to be it's up to the

[2:14:14] individual chairs, um they want to do

[2:14:18] communications by phone, by email, via

[2:14:21] meeting. Um those are all things that um

[2:14:25] would certainly be of benefit to keep

[2:14:28] the lines of communication open between

[2:14:31] committees, committee chairs, and their

[2:14:35] department head and department staff.

[2:14:38] Um,

[2:14:40] specifically in uh rule five, there's

[2:14:43] there's two reports that I've never seen

[2:14:46] and I just wondered if these are still

[2:14:49] um being utilized. Um uh it refers to

[2:14:54] the um city clerk um and the city

[2:15:00] administrator shall prepare and submit

[2:15:02] to city council and the department heads

[2:15:05] a monthly report of pending council

[2:15:08] business containing a statement of the

[2:15:10] status of each matter referred to

[2:15:12] council committee or department head

[2:15:15] upon which no final action of council

[2:15:18] has been taken. um at the council. The

[2:15:21] report shall be called the council

[2:15:24] pending business list and she'll be

[2:15:26] included in the agenda packet.

[2:15:29] And then the um there's also a council

[2:15:33] meeting follow-up report that the clerk

[2:15:37] repairs after each council meeting uh

[2:15:40] containing the actions taken at the

[2:15:42] council meeting. This report is to be

[2:15:45] circulated at a minimum to the mayor,

[2:15:48] members of the council and department

[2:15:50] heads. Um and then of course the

[2:15:53] department heads should be responsible

[2:15:54] for following through. So um I don't

[2:15:57] know if anybody has any other input on

[2:16:00] that if this can go to FNA for you know

[2:16:04] review of the ideas or you know the

[2:16:08] these I couldn't find that there was any

[2:16:11] um amendments that removed these reports

[2:16:16] or these um um working relationships and

[2:16:20] recommendations. So, I just wanted to

[2:16:23] make sure that that these things are

[2:16:25] addressed. All

[2:16:26] » Right. So, Council Member Cotton, it

[2:16:27] sounds like a discussion item. You're

[2:16:29] not making a motion at this time.

[2:16:30] » That is correct. I just wanted to bring

[2:16:32] it up and and uh see if there was any

[2:16:34] additional council input or um referral

[2:16:39] to committee. I realize the lateness of

[2:16:42] the hour.

[2:16:43] » Council member Holloway.

[2:16:44] » So, appropriate the council rules and

[2:16:47] procedures. the the mayor pro Tim has

[2:16:50] the ball on that and through FNA to make

[2:16:53] changes revisions bring that through. So

[2:16:55] let's take this back to FNA have

[2:16:57] discussions. There's probably some

[2:16:58] archaic things in there that just some

[2:17:01] house cleaning we need to take care of.

[2:17:06] » Okay. Any further discussion?

[2:17:09] » Council member Murphy.

[2:17:10] » Yeah. So, I um you know, as the new new

[2:17:13] person up here, really appreciate

[2:17:14] Council Member Cotton kind of just

[2:17:16] raising this and I think um you know, I

[2:17:19] have read through this, but there's a

[2:17:20] lot here. So, um I think a reminder of

[2:17:23] some of what's um what's in our rules

[2:17:25] and procedures, what's being followed,

[2:17:27] what is maybe archaic that needs

[2:17:29] adjustment, and what's in here that

[2:17:32] maybe we need to um you know, continue

[2:17:35] to receive, I think is all really good.

[2:17:37] So, I hope that we can continue that

[2:17:39] discussion. Um, and I'm sure it'll

[2:17:42] happen at FNA, but perhaps something

[2:17:43] just to to consider for the council

[2:17:46] retreat.

[2:17:48] Council member Christensen,

[2:17:49] » I I agree. It's a fantastic time to take

[2:17:51] a look at it. Um, and again, going

[2:17:53] through the things that we should be

[2:17:55] doing probably or things that maybe

[2:17:57] don't make sense anymore, but also just

[2:17:59] I think to have a general conversation.

[2:18:00] Obviously, we have a new administration

[2:18:02] uh in place and so there will be I'm

[2:18:04] sure a lot of conversations. I don't

[2:18:06] whether it's the council retreat or it

[2:18:07] can be sooner just so that everybody

[2:18:08] kind of understands the best way to go

[2:18:10] forward and everybody's in the lane that

[2:18:12] they're supposed to be in just to make

[2:18:13] sure that you know we're doing the best

[2:18:15] work that we can for the residents. I

[2:18:16] think would be really helpful. Also,

[2:18:18] just based on today, we may want to have

[2:18:20] the uh Jurassic Parliament lady come

[2:18:22] back because it seems like we're we're

[2:18:25] getting in it and we're we're hobbling

[2:18:26] through. But um you know, it might might

[2:18:28] be helpful to have her bring her

[2:18:30] dinosaurs back in

[2:18:31] » So that you are aware.

[2:18:34] » They were not. We started asking in

[2:18:36] January, not available until June.

[2:18:38] » The lady herself has retired,

[2:18:40] » But her firm has other uh trainers, none

[2:18:44] of which none of whom are available

[2:18:45] until

[2:18:47] um

[2:18:48] uh June was the earliest,

[2:18:52] but we have it is a significant cost.

[2:18:56] » Okay.

[2:18:57] » Significant and well beyond any budget

[2:19:00] that we have. So, this is something that

[2:19:02] we could um if you like, you know, talk

[2:19:05] about or if you'd like to spring this up

[2:19:07] at FNA, but um figuring out how to to be

[2:19:10] honest, I sort of um walked away from it

[2:19:13] when I saw we had no budget for it. Um I

[2:19:15] think it's really valuable training um

[2:19:18] and I thought um okay, got to figure out

[2:19:21] how to pay for this. And I don't have a

[2:19:23] solution to that yet. But um obviously

[2:19:26] for what it's worth, I agree that that's

[2:19:28] extremely valuable training. Um there

[2:19:31] are other ways other than having her or

[2:19:34] them come here. So perhaps um perhaps

[2:19:38] city attorney and I can take a little to

[2:19:40] try and get ourselves a little better

[2:19:42] trained so uh we can uh kind of support

[2:19:45] you a bit more. But I I understand that

[2:19:46] you're also bringing up the training

[2:19:48] that all of you would get as well and

[2:19:49] it's it's incredibly valuable. Yeah. Do

[2:19:52] you have follow Council Member

[2:19:54] Christensen?

[2:19:54] » Yeah. Um then maybe just the the

[2:19:57] conversation or training between like

[2:19:58] the roles of of the mayor and council

[2:20:00] would be great. And then another idea um

[2:20:03] just in terms of that I know that the

[2:20:04] AWC has put out her trainings before and

[2:20:07] I know that the city has video

[2:20:10] recordings. I know that would not be

[2:20:11] particularly exciting but it may still

[2:20:12] be helpful. You could have some popcorn

[2:20:14] or something and you know get your own

[2:20:16] little dinosaurs.

[2:20:17] » Okay. we uh let us um look into that and

[2:20:20] if it's acceptable to the council, we

[2:20:23] can either bring back ideas here or

[2:20:25] perhaps take some ideas to FNA um and uh

[2:20:28] try to kind of bring you guys into the

[2:20:30] loop on options and cost and so forth.

[2:20:34] » Thank you.

[2:20:35] » Okay, any other discussion on this

[2:20:37] topic?

[2:20:40] All right. Um moving on to mayor's

[2:20:43] report.

[2:20:47] Yeah.

[2:20:48] » Um

[2:20:50] we had the blood event town hall on

[2:20:53] March 4th.

[2:20:55] We had a great turnout. We had um we

[2:20:58] counted 37 residents. We had two of us

[2:21:00] count the same number. So that was very

[2:21:03] encouraging. We had a lot more people

[2:21:05] there. We had press there. We had some

[2:21:07] other folks. We had um Washington State

[2:21:10] Patrol turned out three officers. Um

[2:21:14] um

[2:21:16] yeah, Chief, did I say that right? It's

[2:21:19] captain and two officers. What's the

[2:21:20] correct way to describe that?

[2:21:24] » No, no, no. The um Oh, the of the state

[2:21:27] patrol.

[2:21:29] » Yeah, captain and two sergeants. So,

[2:21:31] that was fantastic. Our residents were

[2:21:33] able to talk with them. Um our residents

[2:21:36] were able to see that they turned out um

[2:21:38] to talk about the flood event and to

[2:21:41] support us. Um, we had a fantastic

[2:21:44] presentation. Um, we asked our staff,

[2:21:48] this was not a presentation by mayor or

[2:21:51] council members. This was our directors

[2:21:54] connecting with our community. We asked

[2:21:56] them to give um so of the hour that we

[2:21:59] so we had about an hour of um a

[2:22:02] structured time and then another half

[2:22:04] hour following that where we just put

[2:22:06] our directors available in different

[2:22:08] corners of the room and let folks go

[2:22:09] talk to them, ask questions, give input.

[2:22:11] But what we did was for about 20 minutes

[2:22:14] give um kind of an overview of what we

[2:22:17] saw from the city, what our directors

[2:22:20] saw as the significant events that

[2:22:21] happened and the lessons that we

[2:22:24] learned, things that we can improve on

[2:22:26] going forward. So that was all shared in

[2:22:27] the presentation. Um you really missed

[2:22:30] out a fantastic presentation. My

[2:22:33] favorite part is the firefighters

[2:22:36] climbing in the back of a

[2:22:39] dump truck that was then driven out

[2:22:42] through the water because it was heavy

[2:22:43] enough and had high enough clearance to

[2:22:45] rescue folks that were stranded in cars.

[2:22:48] Um, but there was other just fantastic

[2:22:50] stories there. In any event, then we

[2:22:52] asked the public to spend about 20

[2:22:54] minutes

[2:22:56] breaking into groups and then giving us

[2:22:58] feedback on things we did well that we

[2:23:00] want to make sure we keep doing well.

[2:23:02] And then the last 20 minutes was tell us

[2:23:05] things that you saw that would be

[2:23:07] additional areas for improvement. And so

[2:23:09] we captured all of that. We're going to

[2:23:11] have a report out to you of that. You'll

[2:23:14] see that coming up in your committees

[2:23:15] this next cycle. We'll be heading

[2:23:17] towards a report out to the uh public.

[2:23:20] And then most importantly, that's being

[2:23:22] put into an action plan of how we're

[2:23:24] going to address all those areas for

[2:23:26] improvement. You'll be seeing that as

[2:23:28] well in your in in the coming weeks.

[2:23:31] So great event, uh, great turnout, great

[2:23:34] job by our presenters. Um, if you get a

[2:23:36] chance to because our presenters,

[2:23:39] that's not what they do day in day out.

[2:23:41] What they do is they go solve the

[2:23:42] problems in our community. They're the

[2:23:44] folks that get things done. But Chief

[2:23:46] Hores was there. Um, uh, Chief, uh, uh,

[2:23:50] Bailey was there and, uh, parks and

[2:23:52] public works director Hamlin did a

[2:23:53] fantastic job of presenting, I thought.

[2:23:55] And just so you know, there's a bunch of

[2:23:58] rehearsals that they did to get

[2:23:59] themselves ready for that. So, just a

[2:24:01] fantastic job. And then a just super job

[2:24:04] by our support folks that arranged for

[2:24:07] the event. Big thank you to um Snomi

[2:24:10] Valley School District for hosting us at

[2:24:11] Mount Sai High. Um but we had uh some

[2:24:16] food available, drinks available. we had

[2:24:19] some ability to look after kids um and

[2:24:23] uh so that their parents could

[2:24:24] participate fully. It was just a great

[2:24:26] effort by our staff and please give them

[2:24:29] your thanks when you have time. Uh Twin

[2:24:32] Peaks Day was Tuesday, February 24th. We

[2:24:35] had a great turnout for those that you

[2:24:37] haven't those of you that haven't

[2:24:39] participated in this. the uh the sign

[2:24:42] which is in our lobby. Uh the Twin Peaks

[2:24:44] sign is we take it out, we mount it, we

[2:24:47] take it out and we put it on the Renick

[2:24:49] Road where um where it was in the Twin

[2:24:52] Peaks series and the number of people

[2:24:55] that turn out from all over the world is

[2:24:59] amazing. There was well over 50 people

[2:25:02] uh I thought um my count wasn't verified

[2:25:06] but my count was well over 50 people

[2:25:08] turned out um and uh they just enjoy it

[2:25:12] so much and that's a great tourist draw

[2:25:14] for Snowqualami for the whole upper

[2:25:16] valley um great event

[2:25:19] draw to your attention the city of

[2:25:20] Isiqua is encouraging city of Snowquami

[2:25:24] and valley residents to support efforts

[2:25:26] that they're focused on to keep the

[2:25:29] planned Sound Transit uh line three,

[2:25:32] which would provide service between

[2:25:34] Kirkland and Belleview and Isiqua.

[2:25:37] There's a big question at Sound Transit

[2:25:39] whether that line is going to stay in

[2:25:41] the plan or not. Um as a reminder,

[2:25:45] residents here, while we don't we're not

[2:25:48] part of that taxing zone, we don't pay

[2:25:49] the property tax. Many our residents

[2:25:51] have been paying that sales tax for a

[2:25:53] long long time when they go and they

[2:25:54] shop inside the zone. and uh it's a

[2:25:57] service that um they would very likely

[2:26:00] very likely uh take advantage of. So,

[2:26:02] it's something I think is of interest.

[2:26:05] Um just be aware that that's um a

[2:26:07] significant issue and I think the city

[2:26:08] of Isiqua would appreciate any help from

[2:26:10] many of us uh as well as our residents

[2:26:13] in trying to support them keeping that

[2:26:15] line in the plan.

[2:26:17] » Mayor

[2:26:19] Council Johnson know if they still have

[2:26:20] any of those nice t-shirts.

[2:26:22] » I do not know. They do have some some uh

[2:26:25] t-shirts that sort of say keep the line

[2:26:27] and they I don't exactly what it says

[2:26:30] keep line three but and then they've

[2:26:31] been uh big groups of them have been

[2:26:34] going to sound transit meetings to try

[2:26:36] and send the message the community

[2:26:38] really wants this. So anyone that can

[2:26:40] help out with that I think would would

[2:26:42] be helping our residents. Council member

[2:26:44] Christensen.

[2:26:44] » Yeah. Just a question about whether

[2:26:46] council would consider signing on to a

[2:26:48] letter in support of that. I know that

[2:26:50] it did come up at the meeting that

[2:26:52] councilor Hall and I Holloway and I

[2:26:54] attended with the tribe as well. Um so

[2:26:56] that may be something to consider doing

[2:26:58] a a group letter in support of that.

[2:27:01] » I will um circulate to you. Um I did

[2:27:03] sign a letter in support on behalf of

[2:27:06] the city, not on behalf of you, but on

[2:27:08] behalf of the city, I will circulate it

[2:27:09] to you and um a letter if you all were

[2:27:13] interested in signing similar to that I

[2:27:15] think would be very helpful to the whole

[2:27:18] process. So, I'll get that circulated to

[2:27:20] you. Council member Christensen,

[2:27:21] » If you get it to me by Monday, I'll sign

[2:27:23] it.

[2:27:24] » I'll have to read it first, but

[2:27:27] » Okay. Um

[2:27:30] we were contacted um

[2:27:33] uh over the last uh well since our last

[2:27:36] meeting so over the last two weeks by

[2:27:38] the US 8th district representative Kim

[2:27:41] Shrier whose district Snowqualami is in

[2:27:45] uh with a potential federal funding

[2:27:47] opportunity

[2:27:49] um that um wasn't really on our radar.

[2:27:52] We had to move quickly. Um, you'll hear

[2:27:54] more about this in committee this coming

[2:27:57] cycle, but we submitted a proposal. Um,

[2:28:00] we'll give you more of the details on

[2:28:02] that, but I just mentioned this because

[2:28:04] a that's a great opportunity, but b be

[2:28:06] aware that our staff really scrambled to

[2:28:09] meet that short deadline and go in with

[2:28:12] what I think is a a very um a request

[2:28:16] for a very a very good request,

[2:28:18] something that should be received well.

[2:28:20] So, um, we did work with, uh,

[2:28:23] Congresswoman Shrier's office regarding

[2:28:24] was sure we got that in in time, uh,

[2:28:27] that had everything in it needed to

[2:28:29] have. So, there's still some things that

[2:28:30] we need to submit. Um, but, uh, we'll

[2:28:32] get all that done. You'll hear more

[2:28:34] about it at committee, but, um, there's

[2:28:37] a was a big scramble by our parks and

[2:28:39] public works people. They did a great

[2:28:40] job.

[2:28:42] Uh, we've been we've had extensive

[2:28:44] interviewing for our four open positions

[2:28:46] over the last two weeks. I say this

[2:28:49] because we do panel interviewing. When

[2:28:51] we interview for a position, a lot of

[2:28:53] our staff get involved in that to try

[2:28:55] and make sure we get that right. Um

[2:28:57] we've conducted interviews for city

[2:29:00] clerk. We have identified qualified

[2:29:03] candidates. So we're now moving through

[2:29:05] um that process. We have hired a

[2:29:09] communications coordinator whose first

[2:29:11] day on the job was today. Uh so that's

[2:29:14] helped to um uh Nicole Weebi and that

[2:29:17] that whole function. So and and just um

[2:29:22] welcome support in the whole

[2:29:24] communications area. Um assistant

[2:29:26] planner interviews have been conducted.

[2:29:28] Qualified candidates have been

[2:29:30] identified there. We're going through

[2:29:31] the process. So uh it's a lot of work to

[2:29:34] get those set up. A lot of commitment of

[2:29:35] time from our staff and that's all been

[2:29:37] happening while we've been doing all the

[2:29:39] other things.

[2:29:41] Um we've been uh let's see um

[2:29:46] the last thing I want to bring up is we

[2:29:48] shared with um the council. It was in

[2:29:52] your agenda packet uh the immigration

[2:29:55] topics um that were brought up by

[2:29:59] members of the public at a previous

[2:30:01] meeting um shared with you the responses

[2:30:05] the two responses that have gone out

[2:30:06] from the city. one uh from the police

[2:30:08] chief and me and the mayor of North Bend

[2:30:11] and then another that came out uh from

[2:30:14] the city uh on additional topics. So,

[2:30:16] we've given you a report. It's in your

[2:30:18] advanced materials uh with the kind of

[2:30:20] status on each of the requests and where

[2:30:22] we're at with that.

[2:30:25] With that, um let's see in the mayor's

[2:30:27] report is are there any commission or

[2:30:29] committee liaison reports? Council

[2:30:30] member Holloway. Well, can I like jump

[2:30:32] back committee the whole um

[2:30:35] the uh

[2:30:38] given the public comment we had the

[2:30:41] meeting where Juniper is discussing with

[2:30:44] the public is next Tuesday from 5 to 7.

[2:30:47] Can we shift our Tuesday meetings to

[2:30:50] Wednesday so that some of us might

[2:30:52] attend?

[2:30:54] » Do you want to make a motion?

[2:30:56] » Yes.

[2:30:56] » All right. Uh move to move. I think it's

[2:31:01] community development and FNA from

[2:31:03] Tuesday next week to Wednesday next

[2:31:04] week.

[2:31:05] » Is there a second?

[2:31:07] » Seconded by council member Christian,

[2:31:08] moved by council member Holloway. Um,

[2:31:12] hold on. We'll ask the city attorney to

[2:31:14] comment.

[2:31:14] » I just wanted to say I think I think it

[2:31:16] would be parks and public work and FNA.

[2:31:19] » It's late. I'm sorry.

[2:31:21] » Okay. So, uh,

[2:31:22] » I accept the friendly amendment to my

[2:31:24] motion. So to restate, the motion is to

[2:31:27] move parks and public works committee

[2:31:30] and FNA committee from Tuesday to

[2:31:33] Wednesday of next week. And that motion

[2:31:36] was seconded by council member

[2:31:37] Christensen.

[2:31:39] Any discussion?

[2:31:43] Seeing none, all those in favor say I.

[2:31:45] » I. I.

[2:31:46] » I.

[2:31:46] » Those opposed say nay.

[2:31:48] » The motion carries. Council member

[2:31:50] Christensen. Um, since we're going to be

[2:31:53] doing that, I'm just flagging it that we

[2:31:55] may also want to be noticing it as a

[2:31:58] potential quorum.

[2:31:59] » We will definitely do that.

[2:32:01] » Yeah, I'll be sure to get it noticed.

[2:32:05] » Um,

[2:32:08] sneak in.

[2:32:09] » Okay. Any other commission committee

[2:32:11] liaison reports?

[2:32:15] » Council member Christensen.

[2:32:16] » Thank you. Um, yeah, Council Council

[2:32:19] Member Holloway and I is late. uh did

[2:32:21] meet the with the tribe. It was a very

[2:32:23] friendly conversation. I did want to

[2:32:24] pass along that they were very pleased

[2:32:26] um we did what we said we would do

[2:32:29] essentially putting down the the panels

[2:32:31] um as well as moving the story pool that

[2:32:34] was located in downtown. They they

[2:32:36] appreciate that and they also um

[2:32:38] referenced the fact that um the city did

[2:32:41] fly the tribal flag over city hall when

[2:32:43] they met last and and that was

[2:32:45] appreciated significantly as well. Um, I

[2:32:49] don't speak for the tribe, but there

[2:32:50] there was just general they they're

[2:32:52] looking forward to having the

[2:32:53] opportunity to work with us on a number

[2:32:54] of things um that impact, you know, the

[2:32:57] valley as a whole and and the residents.

[2:33:00] So,

[2:33:02] » Council Member Johnson,

[2:33:04] » Given that we're not quite at the end of

[2:33:06] the agenda yet, do we need a motion to

[2:33:07] extend past 10 before we would go into

[2:33:10] executive session?

[2:33:11] » Maybe hold on to that thought for a

[2:33:13] moment. I've been watching the clock

[2:33:15] carefully with that very thought in

[2:33:16] mind.

[2:33:19] Any further commissioner committee

[2:33:21] leaison reports?

[2:33:25] If not, um we'll uh

[2:33:30] we'll uh adjourn into executive session

[2:33:34] pursuant to RCW42.30-110i

[2:33:36] 30-110i

[2:33:41] to discuss with legal counsel

[2:33:42] representing the agency matters relating

[2:33:45] to agency enforcement actions or to

[2:33:47] discuss with legal counsel representing

[2:33:49] the agency litigation or potential

[2:33:51] litigation to which the agency the

[2:33:53] governing body or a member acting in an

[2:33:55] official capacity is or is likely to

[2:33:58] become a party when public knowledge

[2:34:00] regarding the discussion is likely to

[2:34:02] result in an adverse legal or financial

[2:34:05] consequence to the agency. The meeting

[2:34:07] is expected to take no more than 20

[2:34:09] minutes. It is not expected that we'll

[2:34:12] take any action following the executive

[2:34:14] session. Um we'll return at 2 minutes to

[2:34:19] 10 uh following that executive session.

[2:34:24] Uh we inviting

[2:34:29] city attorney and city administrator are

[2:34:31] invited to join us in the executive

[2:34:33] session.

[2:34:34] Uh we will be adjourning to the uh

[2:34:36] conference room upstairs

[2:34:39] here.

City Council Regular Meeting

Agenda

Transcript