[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.