[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:05] Then it is 5.02 p.m. on March 10th, 2026. And I am councilmember Johnson. I will call the meeting of the lodging tax advisory committee to order.
[0:20] And we will start with the roll call. And if you are here, just say aye, starting the order that is presented in the agenda packet. Richard Anderson.
[0:33] Present.
[0:33] Or present. That works too. Kelly Coughlin.
[0:40] Okay. Lori Hay.
[0:42] Present.
[0:43] And Selena Duane.
[0:46] Present.
[0:46] Did I say that correctly?
[0:49] Yep.
[0:50] Okay, excellent.
[0:51] There is not an agenda approval, so we will just, I guess, assume that it is approved.
[0:59] And there is one discussion item that is the 2026 LTCH application review and recommendations.
[1:07] And there are four items that are before the committee to discuss.
[1:14] There's also a scoring rubric for them.
[1:19] And my understanding is that if someone is the applicant,
[1:24] But they are also a member of this committee, then they are required to accuse themselves from discussion of that item.
[1:34] And the way this will go is that we'll have a motion for each item, followed by discussion of each item, including going through the scoring rubric,
[1:45] followed by a vote after the discussion and going through the rubric as to whether to approve each item.
[1:54] staff, does that sound like the correct order of business?
[1:58] Yes, Council Member Johnson.
[2:00] Okay. Then we will begin with, let me find the right thing here.
[2:09] Okay.
[2:09] I suggest that we start with one of the applications that is not the chamber because she would have to recuse herself from that one.
[2:18] So.
[2:19] Okay.
[2:19] Then that would be the, I'm trying to think how to name this,
[2:25] the Snoqualmie Valley Regional Chamber.
[2:28] And the project name would be the World Kepp Marketing.
[2:32] Yes, so let's move that to the end
[2:34] and then we can start with one of the other three.
[2:37] Oh, got it.
[2:41] Okay.
[2:42] Then going in the order that was in the agenda.
[2:45] All the way around.
[2:46] Yeah, council member Johnson.
[2:48] Okay, that's kind of what I thought.
[2:50] Okay, then we'll start with that one should be the other way since she's not here
[2:53] We should vote on hers because she has to recuse
[2:58] Okay, I feel better. Thank you. Sorry. No, I'm paying attention
[3:05] See whether I was daydreaming or not. Yes, okay, excellent. I've never on the same page
[3:10] then we will go to the snow valley regional chamber the project name is the world-kept marketing and
[3:16] And can I get a motion to approve this item for,
[3:23] and if staff can help me with the precise wording,
[3:27] but the motion would be to approve this application
[3:33] for blank.
[3:38] What is the bill on the blank?
[3:39] Could I just ask a point of order type question here?
[3:43] Could somebody explain to me exactly what we're doing
[3:46] today that's different than what we did in the fall and if there's a scoring rubric what it is
[3:50] you'd actually like us to do because I will do it but I haven't been given any advanced briefing
[3:56] of what I'm being asked to do today. Sure thing Richard um so um some things have changed with
[4:03] the process we improved upon things so and I can make you a copy of the of a rubric but we've
[4:09] created a – so going back to last year, the votes were not for each application – votes
[4:17] were not taken for all of the individual applications.
[4:20] And we also realized that we needed to fill the vacant position.
[4:26] So in that time, we have filled the second position with the San Juanmian, and we have
[4:32] now provided this rubric for the score sheet.
[4:35] so each application will be scored by you guys using this rubric and then we'll review the points
[4:42] and then the money, the funds, you would vote on the funds based on the scoresheets
[4:48] if they meet the criteria. Did you need me to get a copy of the rubrics for you?
[4:52] Yes, I have not received one. Thank you. I will let me pause and I will
[4:57] it was in the packet. I'm sorry that we didn't have a copy.
[5:01] I'm not sure that I got a packet, I'm sorry.
[5:05] Was there a packet sent out?
[5:09] Oh, okay.
[5:12] Oh, she disappeared. That was quick.
[5:15] There's a copy machine now.
[5:17] And then just while that's here and others, I probably should have called and asked.
[5:22] I just wasn't sure what we were going to do today and I thought it was just going to be a short meeting.
[5:27] I apologize for not getting more information.
[5:34] And then I think that the film, the blank is going to be and to prove and recommend a council. Does that sound correct to staff?
[5:43] That does.
[5:44] Okay. Excellent. Thank you.
[5:46] And we'll, I'll reintroduce that when everyone has the scoring group at Candy.
[5:52] Perfect.
[5:52] Right.
[6:01] We're realizing they probably need all the applications as well.
[6:06] Can you can you print from there?
[6:09] Thank you to the downtown printer or the downstairs.
[6:12] Yeah, sure.
[6:14] So, Nicole, we're going to need you to look on your computer.
[6:26] I did not receive it.
[6:35] I never received any notification from her in October that she had sent it, so I never
[6:41] checked in Zoom, get ready and spam anything, so all this time I've not heard from that
[6:45] applicant.
[6:46] I know.
[6:46] So
[6:58] since I'm not there, I'll just have to get a little notification or an indication if we're ready to proceed or not.
[7:10] One moment, Council Member Johnson, we're actually printing out the packet materials for the members.
[7:18] Okay, so while we're getting the packets printed, I think it's good for the sake of the order for the meeting to explain why we are here again.
[7:28] So, yes, we did meet last October, but because we didn't have the position filled and because
[7:37] not all of the applications were motioned and voted and scored correctly, it was determined
[7:44] that that meeting, the actions of that meeting were essentially null and void.
[7:47] So, in the meantime, we have filled the position.
[7:51] We've also created the rubric.
[7:53] So we are taking all of the applications that were turned in at that time and we're
[7:57] now moving them forward. Nothing but the applications has been different from when we met in October.
[8:03] So we're now just here reviewing those four applications. Just for the record, because
[8:07] there was chatter and it probably wasn't recorded on the microphone, it was just brought to
[8:12] my attention that there was an applicant that had submitted an application. I never
[8:16] heard from that applicant at any time last October. There was no verification that
[8:22] that application had been sent.
[8:25] There was no communication, hey, what happened with that meeting?
[8:29] So at this point, I'm not able to do anything with that information.
[8:33] We are going with the four applications that we had received last October.
[8:40] We will get some packets for you right now of all of the applications.
[8:46] Again, the applications are the same, but there are different categories that you will
[8:52] need to look at those to to provide your points and I can just say it's eligibility.
[9:01] So the application was completed and submitted prior to the deadline, which all four applications
[9:07] were submitted prior to the deadline.
[9:09] The completedness is something that you're going to have to look at all four applications
[9:13] because if I'm referring back to that meeting there was one I believe you all felt was
[9:18] was not completed. Project Location. Is the project located within the Sohwami
[9:25] City Limits? Value Assessment. Does the project contribute to local economy? Does
[9:31] the project enhance visitor experience? Is the project viable and
[9:37] efficient in economical use of funds? Marketing Plan. The project marketing
[9:41] plan is identified and the project is designed to attract tourists. Partners
[9:46] partners and collaborators.
[9:47] Project has viable partners and or cooperation that demonstrates community collaboration.
[9:54] And then the points at the bottom, zero meets no requirements.
[9:58] One partially meets requirements, two meets all requirements.
[10:01] And then we are stating on record, committee members that submit applications will abstain
[10:07] from scoring their own applications and this score sheet will become public record.
[10:15] And also abstain from voting.
[10:17] Is that correct?
[10:19] Yes. So they will abstain from voting on an application if it's one that they have submitted.
[10:27] So we have two applications that have been submitted by organizations that two of the commissioners represent.
[10:43] A question, Council Member Johnson.
[10:46] Yes.
[10:47] Shouldn't these scoring rubrics also identify who is doing the scoring then if they're going to be potentially an auditable record?
[11:01] Good question.
[11:05] Mr. Thrall, we do have a question with regard to a record of who is doing the
[11:11] scoring. Should the members of the committee perhaps put their names on these scorecards?
[11:21] I believe that would be a good idea, just so there's a record of how they were scored.
[11:25] And that way, there'd be also the same record of that a member did not score their own item.
[11:35] Correct.
[11:36] Right.
[11:36] So there would be no conflict of issue.
[11:38] Praise.
[11:41] So
[11:46] are we scoring these together or are we scoring them separately?
[11:50] Like we've done in the past.
[11:52] We've done them together.
[11:53] Each one will be scored individually, I believe.
[11:58] That is correct.
[11:58] Yeah.
[12:02] Are we going to come back and talk about it or just score?
[12:05] So we were reviewing, sorry, Chair, we were reviewing standard Robert's Rules of Procedure.
[12:13] So you would have a motion to discuss this application, have your discussion, and then
[12:20] you would have a vote, is that what you're thinking, Chair, a vote to approve or to
[12:28] to total the points and then approve funding.
[12:33] Okay, and one last question. I'm so sorry.
[12:35] But shouldn't we have four of these?
[12:37] I was thinking that too.
[12:39] I thought I had ready four score sheets originally before I handed out the packet.
[12:43] Oh, is there extra somewhere that I didn't know? Do you have extra?
[12:47] I only have one.
[12:57] Sorry.
[13:20] All right, Mr. Brawler, are we ready to proceed?
[13:28] I believe so, Councilman.
[13:30] Okay.
[13:31] Commedia, are we ready to proceed?
[13:41] Then I will take that as a yes.
[13:42] I want to do a roll call for Sik Sissi to come in.
[13:46] Okay.
[13:47] Well, we did do a roll call prepared to you arriving.
[13:51] We'll make a note in the minutes that you've arrived.
[13:52] Okay, thank you.
[13:53] Yeah, thank you for that.
[13:54] Yeah, sorry, I forgot to call that out when Kelly Coughlin came in.
[14:00] So, let's go ahead and move along here.
[14:04] The first item before us that we were just prepared to discuss was the Snow Valley Regional Chamber.
[14:14] That's the organization, and the project name is the World Kept Marketing.
[14:18] And the coordinator is Kelly Coughlin.
[14:22] So because that was going to be our first one that we were about to discuss,
[14:27] I'm going to ask if there are any members of the committee that are that applicant.
[14:33] Yes, Kelly Coughlin.
[14:35] All right, then I'm going to have to ask you to recuse yourself from the scoring of this item and from the voting on this item.
[14:44] Yes.
[14:45] All right, thank you.
[14:47] Can I get a motion to approve the Snow Valley Regional Chamber application and
[14:58] And, uh...
[15:00] And recommend to council.
[15:05] I will so move.
[15:06] And is there a second?
[15:09] I will second.
[15:10] Thank you. Okay.
[15:12] Then this item is open for discussion.
[15:18] And just a quick check.
[15:21] Are we limited in discussion to the rubric itself?
[15:25] Or can there be discussion beyond the rubric?
[15:30] I think it's best to stay within the parameters of the rubric.
[15:33] Okay. I agree. Okay. Then members of the committee, let's start with the first section which is eligibility.
[15:44] The agenda packet or the application packet is completed and submitted prior to the deadline.
[15:50] Is there discussion on that?
[15:57] None for me.
[16:02] Well, I think we know by reference that it was submitted on time because there's a copy
[16:09] of it in front of us, and we presume that if it was not complete, it also would not
[16:14] be presented to us other than what we would see within the content of the application
[16:19] itself.
[16:20] So there were required attachments.
[16:23] Do we assume that all of that is complete, Nicole?
[16:27] Yes, in this case, all of the attachments in the application is complete for this one, yes.
[16:35] Do members have to – this is for staff – do members have to state what their score is out loud, or can they just write it down?
[16:43] What's the best practice?
[16:46] This is the first time we have done this process.
[16:53] Do you have thoughts on that, Robert?
[16:54] I'd recommend staff members, rather not staff, read their scoring aloud since this is a recorded meeting.
[17:04] Okay. And it is a public document anyway that is being filled out, so it's not like it's a secret ballot or something.
[17:10] Correct.
[17:11] Correct.
[17:12] Okay. Then I think that what I'll do is I will ask each member then, unless there's further discussion, when we're done with discussion of this part of the rubric,
[17:21] I'll ask each member then in turn in the order of the agenda packet what their score is
[17:28] For the discussion on this particular part of the rubric about eligibility
[17:39] Seeing none. Let's go ahead and go in order
[17:44] Richard Anderson
[17:46] who
[17:47] Laurie hey to and
[17:50] Selena Dwan
[17:52] to
[17:53] Okay.
[17:57] And then staffs, since I'm looking at a PDF, I can't type it myself to keep track, but my total is six on that.
[18:05] Correct.
[18:06] Okay. Next is the project location. The project is located within the Snoqualmie City limits. Discussion on that item?
[18:25] I mean, I guess my only question on this one is just because I know it's Snow Valley Chamber,
[18:31] But this specific amount of money will just be spent in the city of snow call me not not in the city
[18:38] It is only for snow call me. So as years past we only
[18:44] Market snow call me with this funds. Okay. Okay, and
[18:53] other discussion and
[19:02] seeing none
[19:02] We'll go in order again Richard Anderson
[19:06] to
[19:07] Marie hey to
[19:09] Selena Duane to
[19:13] Then that is also six. The next would be the, excuse me, the value assessment. Does the project contribute to the local economy? Does project enhance visitor experience? Project is viable and efficient and economical use of funds. Discussion?
[19:50] If I'm seeing none, then without objection we'll move to scoring.
[19:57] Okay.
[19:59] Richard Anderson.
[20:00] Two.
[20:01] Lori Hain?
[20:03] Two.
[20:04] Selina Dewan?
[20:05] Two.
[20:06] All right.
[20:07] That item is six as well.
[20:09] Next up is the marketing plan.
[20:11] Project marketing plan is identified.
[20:14] Project is designed to attract tourists.
[20:17] Discussion.
[20:29] And then again, without objection, since I'm hearing no discussion, we'll move to
[20:34] a call of the scores.
[20:39] Two.
[20:41] Yeah.
[20:42] Oops.
[20:42] Sorry.
[20:42] Okay, wrong order. That was Richard Anderson, Laurie Hay.
[20:46] Two.
[20:47] Selena Duane.
[20:48] Two.
[20:50] Okay. And then the last thing is, oh, that's six total.
[20:54] Last one is partners and collaborators.
[20:57] Project has viable partners and or cooperation that demonstrates community collaboration.
[21:03] Discussion for the commission.
[21:08] Committee, excuse me.
[21:16] Okay. Hearing none, then without objection, we'll go to a vote. Richard Anderson?
[21:23] One.
[21:26] Lori Hay?
[21:27] Two.
[21:29] Selena Duane?
[21:30] Two.
[21:31] Okay. Then that is five. Totalling things up. Staff, do we have a total number of points?
[21:40] Twenty-nine.
[21:42] And staff, is that sufficient from a perspective of the minimum requirements in order to be adopted or at least approved and recommended to council?
[21:56] Yes, I believe that meets the requirements.
[22:01] Okay.
[22:02] Any further discussion from the committee on this item?
[22:11] Hearing none.
[22:11] moving to a vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say no.
[22:22] Okay. I thought
[22:23] I only heard two votes out of three. Celina, did you? I think we said it at the same time.
[22:31] Oh, okay. All right, apologies. Okay, then that item is... Excuse me, Chair. Yes. I just want to
[22:38] Did we have three?
[22:40] Selena, did you vote?
[22:43] Yes, well, okay.
[22:44] Yeah, they said it at the same time and it sounded like one.
[22:47] I only heard one as well, but we have confirmation that we have three votes.
[22:51] Speak with one voice, right?
[22:53] Yeah, exactly.
[22:57] Okay, excellent.
[22:59] Then the next item.
[23:02] I'll just go back to the regular order that we had.
[23:05] is the organization name is Historic Downtown Snoqualmie Merchant Association.
[23:11] The project name is Snoqualmie Days, and the project coordinator is Dory Ross.
[23:17] Before we move to discuss this one, is that person present as a committee member?
[23:26] No, not a committee member, not in the room, and it doesn't appear to be online as well.
[23:31] Okay. Then the proposed motion then, if I could get someone to move it, is to move to approve and recommend a council approval of the historic downtown Soqualmie Merchant Association application.
[23:53] So move.
[23:55] Can I get a second?
[23:58] Second.
[23:59] Second.
[24:00] Second.
[24:03] Lori Hayes seconded it.
[24:05] Okay. Thank you.
[24:06] And then Richard Anderson made the motion.
[24:10] Correct.
[24:11] Okay. The first thing then on the
[24:13] Squersheet is eligibility.
[24:15] The application packet is completed
[24:17] and submitted prior to the deadline.
[24:19] Discussion from the committee.
[24:26] Assumptions as before
[24:28] unless we hear otherwise from
[24:29] staff from my perspective
[24:34] The application was turned in on time and appears to be complete.
[24:48] Then with no further discussion, please speak up if you do wish to speak.
[24:55] We'll move to stating what our scores are.
[25:00] And just thinking about in terms of chairing, I feel like if I go in one particular order,
[25:05] There can be perhaps an assumption that the person who speaks first sometimes can be thought of as kind of setting a tone in a weird way.
[25:15] So would it make sense, staff, for me to go perhaps in the opposite order to avoid that issue?
[25:23] I think that's up to you.
[25:26] I think we're tracking fine.
[25:27] That's up to you.
[25:28] Okay. Or could it be assumed that these are all professionals that are making their best judgments from staff's perspective, and I could just go in the same order?
[25:38] Like, does it matter?
[25:40] Yeah, it doesn't. We're good. Yeah.
[25:42] Okay. All right. Then we'll proceed on as we have been. Thank you, staff, for that. Richard Anderson.
[25:57] So Richard, and then who was next? Lori?
[26:01] I didn't hear Richard. Sorry.
[26:03] Okay, Richie said too.
[26:04] Sorry, Kelly Coughlin.
[26:08] Just a thing that Selena just asked, it's in August.
[26:13] I just want to double check that it's August for one day now.
[26:16] Well, one day, right?
[26:17] August 22nd.
[26:18] Oh, okay.
[26:19] I see.
[26:20] Thank you.
[26:22] Okay.
[26:23] And minus two.
[26:26] Lori Hain.
[26:27] Two.
[26:28] And Selena Duane.
[26:30] Two.
[26:31] Okay.
[26:32] Next item is the project location.
[26:34] The project is located within the Snoqualmie City Limits.
[26:38] Discussion from the committee.
[26:46] The event is held in historic downtown Snoqualmie, which is clearly within the Snoqualmie City Limits.
[26:56] Then without objection, we'll move to calling our scores.
[27:00] Richard Anderson?
[27:01] Two.
[27:02] Kelly Coughlin?
[27:03] Two.
[27:04] Laurie Hayne?
[27:05] Two.
[27:06] Selena Duane?
[27:07] Two.
[27:09] All right.
[27:10] Oh, I have not been counting or calling up the totals for eligibility.
[27:14] I counted eight and then from project location, I also counted eight.
[27:18] Correct.
[27:19] Value assessment.
[27:20] Does project contribute to local economy?
[27:22] Does project enhance visitor experience?
[27:25] Project is viable and efficient in economical use of funds.
[27:30] Discussion from the committee.
[27:41] Hearing none, without objection, we'll move to scoring.
[27:46] Richard Anderson.
[27:47] Allison.
[27:47] One.
[27:49] Kelly Coughlin.
[27:50] One.
[27:51] Laurie Hay.
[27:52] One.
[27:54] Selena Duvans.
[27:55] Two.
[27:57] All right.
[27:58] Then by my math, that would be five.
[28:02] Correct.
[28:03] All right.
[28:04] Next is the marketing plan.
[28:06] Project marketing plan is identified.
[28:08] The project is designed to attract tourists.
[28:12] A discussion from the committee.
[28:28] Hearing none, I will move to,
[28:30] Without objection, we'll move to scoring.
[28:32] Richard Anderson?
[28:33] One.
[28:34] Kelly Coughlin?
[28:35] One.
[28:36] Laurie Hay?
[28:37] Two.
[28:39] Selena DeJuan?
[28:40] Two.
[28:43] I counted six.
[28:46] Correct.
[28:47] Next is the partners and collaborators.
[28:50] The project has viable partners and or cooperation
[28:52] that demonstrates community collaboration.
[28:55] Discussion from the committee.
[28:57] Oh, wait.
[28:58] Partners and collaborators.
[28:59] Wait.
[29:00] Did I skip one?
[29:00] Oh, never mind.
[29:03] Okay.
[29:04] Sorry.
[29:05] That's all right.
[29:13] Okay.
[29:13] Then without objection, we'll move to scoring.
[29:17] Richard Anderson.
[29:20] Two.
[29:21] Kelly Coughlin.
[29:22] Two.
[29:23] Laurie Hay.
[29:24] Two.
[29:26] Selena Duane.
[29:26] Two.
[29:27] All right.
[29:28] I thought I heard eight.
[29:29] Is that correct?
[29:31] Correct.
[29:32] All right.
[29:33] Then let's get a total.
[29:44] I didn't write the scores down, I'm sorry.
[29:48] 8 times 3 is 24, plus 6 is 30, plus 5 is 35.
[29:52] Excellent.
[29:53] I just did a story problem.
[29:55] Perfect.
[29:55] And staff, I...
[30:00] I'd like to ask the same question. Does that meet a minimum, I guess maybe I should just ask this in
[30:06] general. Is there a minimum threshold that needs to be met? So that is not, how do I say this, Robert?
[30:18] How is that done with it, like when I don't vote or when Richard doesn't vote? Yeah, because it
[30:22] It changes the diverse.
[30:24] We are putting points to it, but it's also kind of yes, no, yes, no.
[30:32] We were using it more as a guide.
[30:35] I understand the guide that you put together, our rubric.
[30:38] It wasn't based necessarily on our – the recommendation itself was not solely based
[30:43] on the score sheet.
[30:44] it was more of a guide to collect your thoughts
[30:49] and reasoning behind advancing or recommending
[30:54] that candidate to counsel.
[30:56] Is that correct, Nicole?
[30:57] Yeah, before it was just more of a discussion,
[31:02] so this is kind of creating some,
[31:03] then I guess boundary there guides
[31:07] to the different categories and narrowing the focus.
[31:10] Okay, so there isn't a minimum threshold
[31:12] that needs to be met, like, points-wise.
[31:17] No, we did not set it up that way.
[31:21] Okay. Thank you.
[31:22] All right.
[31:23] Then having completed the scoring committee,
[31:27] is there discussion on this item as a whole?
[31:32] I'd just like to offer up, I think, in a way,
[31:36] there's always things that happen that are not documented
[31:40] in the application.
[31:42] They may be generally known in the community and it does make it, you know, we're trying to be ethical about this.
[31:51] I think that it's known that there were folks involved in this that had some serious health challenges
[31:56] and they had difficulty putting together a really good application.
[32:01] And we have, when we discussed this before, we indicated that we were giving the person
[32:08] some leeway that overall the quality of the application, frankly, is not very good.
[32:13] But we were trying to read between the lines based on the person's prior
[32:16] commitment to both the community and the festival. And I just think that if we're
[32:23] making an official record here that that should be reflected in it as well,
[32:28] because we're a small community, we all know each other, and while that isn't officially part of the application,
[32:36] we would be doing a disservice to the community to have scored this low simply because a person was seriously ill
[32:42] during the process, one of the people involved in the process.
[32:52] Other discussion?
[32:59] Hearing none, then we'll move to a vote.
[33:02] All in favor say aye.
[33:04] Aye.
[33:06] All opposed say no or nay.
[33:12] All right.
[33:13] Definitely heard three.
[33:14] I feel like I keep missing one.
[33:16] I think we missed Lori.
[33:17] Oh, hi.
[33:18] Sorry.
[33:19] There you go.
[33:19] All right.
[33:19] Thank you.
[33:20] Excellent.
[33:22] We do want to pause for just a moment.
[33:25] Yes.
[33:25] So I want to apologize too on the record.
[33:28] This is a little clunky.
[33:29] This is a whole new procedure for us.
[33:30] I appreciate the patience with this.
[33:33] But I wanted to remind the group that these applications were for $7,500 each.
[33:38] So when you're approving and voting these, it's for the $7,500 amount.
[33:46] So we've done that now for the last two votes.
[33:49] Just wanted to make that note.
[33:53] All right.
[33:53] Then when I introduce the item next, I'll perhaps just state the amount requested.
[34:00] Does that sound appropriate?
[34:03] Yes, because actually they're not in this situation, but there could be a situation where somebody applied for just $5,000.
[34:11] But the most that these applications or what they were asking for was $7,500.
[34:17] All right.
[34:19] Thank you.
[34:22] Is there any need based on that information to revisit any of these last two items?
[34:35] Okay.
[34:35] Thank you, Chair.
[34:36] So we've had two now, and they've been for the voting members for each one a full vote.
[34:42] The first one was three members could vote for three for $7,500, and then this one was
[34:47] four full members voting for $7,500.
[34:50] All right.
[34:50] I just want to make sure that we're okay with the process that has been followed for
[34:54] those first two, that we didn't do anything that we ought not to.
[34:58] Thank you, Chair.
[35:00] Okay.
[35:01] Okay. Then with that one, we can move on to item number three.
[35:08] This is from, I'm just going again in order, down the agenda packet.
[35:15] The Northwest Railway Museum, the project name is Sankwami Valley Wine Train,
[35:20] and the project coordinator is B.J. Kopakki, who is the administrative officer.
[35:28] Is there anyone who, on this committee, who should recuse themselves for this item?
[35:38] I will not be participating.
[35:41] Okay. Thank you.
[35:44] Then, can I get a motion to approve the application by the Northwest Railway Museum in the amount
[35:52] of $7,500 and recommend a council?
[35:58] I motion to approve and recommend a council.
[36:01] And a second?
[36:02] Second.
[36:04] I believe that that was Lori who made the motion and Selena who seconded.
[36:09] Is that correct?
[36:10] No.
[36:10] Kelly, you second.
[36:12] Okay, Kelly was second, thank you.
[36:15] Okay, then going to the scoring rubric, eligibility.
[36:20] The application packet is completed and submitted prior to the deadline discussion.
[36:31] Seeing none, we'll go to the scoring without objection.
[36:36] Kelly Coughlin.
[36:38] Two.
[36:39] Laurie Hay.
[36:40] Two.
[36:41] Selena Duane.
[36:43] Two.
[36:43] All right. That is six points. Project location. Project is located within
[36:50] Soquami City Limits.
[36:55] Discussion from the committee.
[37:04] Excuse me, committee. I have
[37:05] to plug in my computer. I'll be right back.
[37:08] I
[37:18] need gloves. It's freezing in here, just wanted to say.
[37:24] I have a pocket. You can't put it here. I'll keep this awake.
[37:36] Okay. You should be okay. Apologies for that. Okay. The next item then is the,
[37:47] let's see, we're at project location. I don't, wait, do we call this course for that? I'm so sorry. Project location.
[37:56] We haven't discussed.
[37:58] Okay.
[37:58] Is there any discussion on that one?
[38:00] All right. Then we're at project location. Again, the project is located within Snow
[38:05] Kwame City Limits discussion from the committee.
[38:15] Just really quick, I just wanted to make sure
[38:17] that it starts in Snow Kwame, correct? Richard? I don't know. Am I supposed to answer any
[38:23] questions? Oh, for the staff?
[38:40] I was thinking the same question.
[38:45] Kelly did answer questions
[38:46] to her application?
[38:53] Well, I'll just say it. I don't think it's appropriate that I answer questions,
[38:56] unless the other people who filed applications that aren't here are also given that opportunity.
[39:01] I'd rather just not say anything if we're trying to keep this really fair,
[39:04] and that if we're concerned about this for the future, we should state in the application
[39:09] that people have the opportunity to be present during the deliberations to answer questions.
[39:14] I will state that this meeting was noticed just like any other meeting of the city.
[39:21] So there was a city-wide email sent out.
[39:23] It was noted on the city calendar, on the website, and on our reader board.
[39:29] There was also notice of this meeting today.
[39:32] So there was public notice given for this meeting.
[39:36] I do see under number one that gets travel board historic railcars between
[39:45] Snow Quallby and North Bend.
[39:49] Okay.
[39:50] I think it's important to note this has come up before in the past and might
[39:57] even come up in the future where we and there's been quite a discussions.
[40:01] I don't want this to be a place where we can't have some of the
[40:04] discussion because some of that discussion is necessary when we're
[40:07] evaluating these applications.
[40:11] Just because this travels back and forth to North Carolina, it doesn't automatically negate
[40:16] it.
[40:17] But we have had applications in the past that have been for projects, we'll just use
[40:22] that word, that were not located within the city limits at all.
[40:25] And so that became a discussion.
[40:28] So there are times when that comes into play.
[40:32] So I just wanted, I think it's good to have the clarity of that.
[40:36] This might be a different conversation if the train wasn't loading or coming into Soqualmin anyway.
[40:43] So just to state that. But it was stated in the application.
[40:48] We were able to deduce that from reading the application.
[40:51] Chair, thank you for allowing me to provide that context.
[40:55] Thank you.
[40:57] Further discussion on this item from the committee.
[41:00] Then,
[41:09] with that objection, we'll go to scoring. Kelly Coughlin?
[41:15] Two.
[41:16] Laurie Hay?
[41:17] Two.
[41:18] Selena Duane?
[41:20] Two.
[41:21] Okay, then I count six.
[41:24] The next is value assessment. Does the project contribute to the local economy? Does project enhance visitor experience?
[41:31] Project is viable and efficient in economical use of funds.
[41:36] Discussion from the committee.
[41:37] I
[41:47] am seeing none and hearing none so without objection we will move to
[41:52] scoring. Kelly Kauffman. Two. Laurie Hay. Two. Selena Duvall. Two. And I count six on that.
[42:03] Next is the marketing plan. Project marketing plan is identified. A project
[42:08] is designed to attract tourists. Discussion from the committee.
[42:18] So I did
[42:19] have one comment
[42:24] on that from
[42:26] other train rides that have
[42:28] happened would love to see more
[42:31] collaboration with our local
[42:33] downtown maybe have more
[42:35] marketing towards dinners maybe
[42:39] offered with the train ride so
[42:41] they can come back and have
[42:42] dinner so we can keep them
[42:43] downtown a little bit longer
[42:44] if that's possible.
[42:46] It's just some feedback that
[42:47] we're hearing.
[42:48] Other
[42:54] discussion?
[43:01] Okay, hearing none. Then without objection, we'll move to scoring. Kelly Coughlin?
[43:10] One.
[43:12] Laurie Hay?
[43:13] Two.
[43:15] Selena Duane?
[43:16] Two.
[43:18] Okay, then I counted five.
[43:21] The next is partners and collaborators. The project has viable partners and or cooperation that demonstrates community collaboration.
[43:31] Discussion from the committee.
[43:37] Just love that we're using the wineries that are local, so that's a great thing,
[43:43] when he can.
[43:45] Sorry, I'm just going to...
[43:48] Another discussion.
[43:54] Okay, hearing none, then without objection, we'll move to scoring. Kelly Coughlin.
[44:00] Two.
[44:01] Laurie Hay.
[44:02] Two.
[44:04] Selena Duane.
[44:05] Two.
[44:07] Okay, then I counted six on that one. And do we have a total score?
[44:17] Discussion on this item from the committee as a whole before we move to voting.
[44:31] Hearing no discussion, then we'll move to a vote.
[44:35] All in favor say aye.
[44:37] Aye.
[44:38] Aye.
[44:39] Aye.
[44:41] And any opposed?
[44:44] All right.
[44:45] Then I heard three ayes that time.
[44:47] Yeah, we got them all.
[44:48] and that is approved.
[44:55] That takes us to the last item of the fourth
[45:00] Order that we had in the agenda packet, and that is the project name is discovered downtown
[45:05] Soquami year round. Oh, sorry, the organization name is Historic Downtown Soquami Merchant Association.
[45:13] The project name is discovered downtown Soquami year round, and the project coordinator is
[45:18] Dori Ross. Does any member of the committee feel like they need to recuse themselves for
[45:30] being none, then we will move to scoring.
[45:34] The first item is – oh, no, no, no, we're not, because we need a motion.
[45:40] Can I get a motion to approve and recommend to council the application from the Historic Downtown Soqualmie Merchant Association in the amount – sorry, in the amount of $7,500?
[45:54] Thank you.
[45:55] So in the past, though, the other meeting, we determined that this was not viable.
[46:00] You have to first do the vote.
[46:02] You have to give the motion first.
[46:03] That's just curious if we had to do it.
[46:04] Okay.
[46:06] I'll also move.
[46:08] I will second.
[46:10] Okay.
[46:10] So that was the motion by Richard Anderson and was that second by Lori A.
[46:18] Okay.
[46:18] That's what I thought I heard.
[46:19] Okay.
[46:19] Okay, now I think the best way to do this, again, to be fair to the other applications
[46:26] is to go through the rubric first, and as things come up, and then also the chance to
[46:31] discuss at the end concerns and whatnot as they arise that are relevant to the rubric.
[46:39] Does that sound right to staff?
[46:46] Yes, it's a procedure.
[46:49] Since you, the first three, you went through the rubric first, I would still go through the rubric for this applicant.
[46:55] Okay. Then we'll start with the eligibility. The application packet is completed and submitted prior to the deadline.
[47:04] Discussion from the committee.
[47:07] Yeah, so that unfortunately this was not completed. It didn't have a plan or anything in it.
[47:13] there was nothing in it to, for us to be able to actually even vote on it, just had what
[47:20] they would like to do.
[47:21] There's not an actual plan.
[47:26] Other discussion?
[47:28] Well, I think just in terms of scoring eligibility, it's very binary.
[47:32] It's either complete and submitted prior to deadline or it's not.
[47:40] So I think that's how this category should be scored.
[47:43] I
[47:48] accidentally closed the scoring sheet.
[47:49] Okay.
[47:50] Thank you.
[47:50] Other thoughts on this item?
[47:55] No.
[47:58] Then without objection, we'll move to scoring.
[48:02] And I do apologize.
[48:03] I mixed up my tabs here.
[48:05] There we go.
[48:05] Richard Anderson.
[48:07] Two.
[48:09] Kelly Coughlin.
[48:12] One.
[48:13] Laurie Hay.
[48:14] Two.
[48:16] And Selena Duane.
[48:17] Two.
[48:19] Yeah, I believe that I counted seven.
[48:25] Correct.
[48:26] Okay.
[48:27] Next is the project location.
[48:29] The project is located within so-called City Limits.
[48:32] Discussion from the committee.
[48:37] So the project is four, but it's not,
[48:44] I guess it's okay.
[48:46] I'm not going to.
[48:54] Hearing no further discussion on that, we'll move to scoring.
[48:58] Scoring Richard Anderson to Kelly Kauffman to Laurie Hay to Selena to one to I counted eight
[49:13] Next is the value assessment. Does the project contribute to the local economy?
[49:17] Does the project enhance visitor experience the project is viable and efficient in economically use of funds?
[49:25] discussion from the committee?
[49:29] Well, I think there's – I have some concerns about the quality of the application in terms
[49:34] of what it's claiming it's going to do.
[49:37] It's very light on detail, and our rubric could almost benefit from an additional category
[49:46] just called quality of application to help weight the score in this type of situation.
[49:53] but I'm not exactly clear how they intend to spend the money except on everything and therefore
[50:02] achieve nothing because the amount of money that's being offered is insufficient to,
[50:08] as somebody who does marketing, I offer up that it's insufficient to do what's being claimed,
[50:14] is the objective here.
[50:17] If it was a more narrowly focused in one of the areas listed here, it might be a more
[50:23] appropriate focus for a $7,500 grant, but I feel it's a very poor-quality application
[50:30] and intend to separate as such.
[50:35] I might just say that looking at the application and then in the previous meeting, you had
[50:42] found that there were sections of the application that were incomplete.
[50:45] So that would be the score that would be done in eligibility, which could have been that
[50:50] it partially met requirements because it was turned in on time, but it wasn't complete.
[50:56] So just to point that out, the quality could also be under the value, but I do appreciate
[51:04] the feedback.
[51:05] And that might, this rubric might be something that we review before the next funding cycle.
[51:10] Yeah.
[51:11] Yeah, I think under that section that says the project is viable and efficient in economic use of funds.
[51:17] I think it makes that discussion for this part of the rubric.
[51:28] Okay, other discussion on this item, on this part of the rubric.
[51:32] Okay,
[51:39] then without objection, we'll move to scoring. Richard Anderson?
[51:45] I think I'm going to have to go with zero.
[51:48] Kelly Coughlin?
[51:50] I have to go with zero as well.
[51:52] Loree Hay?
[51:53] One.
[51:55] And Selena DeWon?
[51:56] One.
[51:58] I got a total of two on that.
[52:02] Correct.
[52:02] Next is the marketing plan.
[52:04] The project marketing plan is identified.
[52:06] The project is designed to attract tourists.
[52:09] Discussion?
[52:11] Again, there's no marketing plan in it.
[52:19] Other thoughts?
[52:29] Then without objection, we'll move to scoring.
[52:32] Richard Anderson?
[52:36] Zero.
[52:37] 0.
[52:38] Kelly Coughlin.
[52:39] 0.
[52:41] Laurie Hay.
[52:42] 1.
[52:43] And Selena Duane.
[52:45] 2.
[52:46] I counter total of 3.
[52:49] Correct.
[52:50] Okay.
[52:51] Then I believe that we're on to the last part.
[52:54] The partners and collaborators.
[52:55] The project has viable partners and or cooperation that demonstrates community collaboration.
[53:00] Discussion.
[53:03] So they put down partners, but they have not talked to anybody to know that this is going to go through.
[53:11] So we could have done some really great things with this, but it just didn't happen that it was written correctly.
[53:28] Other thoughts?
[53:37] Hearing done, then without objection, we'll go to scoring on that item.
[53:41] Richard Anderson.
[53:43] One.
[53:44] Kelly Coughlin.
[53:45] Zero.
[53:47] 1.
[53:48] And Selena D'Wan.
[53:50] 1.
[53:52] I think I counted 3.
[53:54] Correct.
[53:55] And do we have a total score?
[53:57] Doing my fast math.
[53:59] 15.
[53:59] And 6 is 21.
[54:00] 22, 23.
[54:02] Okay.
[54:03] All right.
[54:04] Then discussion overall on this item from the committee.
[54:09] So I just want to make sure for our money that comes through this that
[54:17] But we have it as a group to make sure that we do what's right on some of these and on
[54:23] especially this one.
[54:25] And I feel like, unfortunately, even though I'm lover to death, but it just wasn't written
[54:32] correctly and there wasn't a lot of thought to it.
[54:35] And so I just wish that it had more thought and time to put into it because there could
[54:44] be some really good things that couldn't happen with that.
[54:51] It's our tax payers and everybody,
[54:53] I just don't feel like we should pass this on.
[55:01] So are we, I know we discussed last time, basically
[55:09] if we all decided not to go with this one specifically, I think we had discussed last time
[55:16] possibly putting that $7,500 into something that we could possibly approve maybe even
[55:24] before the next LTCH.
[55:25] Was that correct?
[55:27] Were we?
[55:28] We did discuss that.
[55:30] Had we not had to do this meeting over again, the funding would have been approved in the
[55:34] December City Council meeting and these groups would have moved forward with their
[55:37] marketing for this year.
[55:39] Now with getting the contracts, getting this approved to Council in April, getting
[55:43] in the contracts and getting everyone the money,
[55:46] it has really tightened up the season.
[55:48] So I think that for efficiency's sake,
[55:51] for city staff time in this group as well,
[55:55] I don't believe that we would do what we've known
[55:57] in the past as like a mid-year funding.
[55:59] So this will carry over?
[55:59] Yes, money, this $7,500 would carry over
[56:02] and it would go into late to this fall
[56:05] when we could do another meeting for the 2027 funds.
[56:08] Okay.
[56:09] I think because I have the score sheets here,
[56:11] I will just let you know that the three groups that you, three applications that you approved
[56:16] before, the scores were 29, 29, 35, and then this one is 23. So I think that does, I'm just pointing
[56:25] out that's kind of what we were doing with this rubric, like there's room for discussion,
[56:31] thoughtful discussion and evaluation of these applications, but these points in the rubric
[56:36] allows for you to quantify it if that's the right word, not being a math teacher,
[56:39] and to, you know, put a number to it and the votes to it so that it kind of can
[56:43] show you guys areas that maybe you felt were lacking in this application.
[56:49] Yeah and I think putting the money back aside for next year we could actually
[56:53] do a really good one for them. I think I could help really create something
[56:57] that would be beneficial to everybody downtown. I also am recalling now there
[57:03] was a request by Northwest Railway Train Museum that if I could do if we
[57:07] we could have this application process a little sooner than what we had done this year.
[57:12] So that too, I think, gosh, I think that might have even been doing this around this September,
[57:16] August to September.
[57:17] So that's really also going to shorten the time.
[57:20] So another reason why just having this money roll over.
[57:24] But point of order, don't we have to vote on this?
[57:27] You still have to vote on this.
[57:28] Yeah, I think we're still kind of in this discussion because you guys have not decided
[57:31] as a group what you want to do with this application.
[57:34] Sorry, Chair.
[57:35] I'm really...
[57:36] No, no, it's fine.
[57:36] Yeah, we were we were kind of night. Yeah, we were we were skirting close to something
[57:41] I thought it was close enough to the topic that I allowed the discussion on that
[57:46] But it was it was drifting. It was trending away from the topic
[57:51] at hand
[57:56] Okay, any other discussion on this item prior to a vote,
[58:03] okay, then all in favor say aye and
[58:09] Those opposed say nay nay
[58:12] I believe I heard four nays and no eyes.
[58:17] So this item fails and we have approved three.
[58:24] There is no further business before this committee.
[58:29] However, I am just curious from staff's perspective on those other two items where in the motion we didn't say the value.
[58:38] Is there a need to go back and revisit those to just clarify the value in the motion?
[58:44] And if so, what's the best way to do that?
[58:50] So in each of the applications, it does have the lodging tax request of 7,500 across the board.
[58:57] However, I do believe it would be best since it was stated in the last two motions to go back
[59:04] and make a motion stating the funding for each free, the first two that the funding was not stated for.
[59:17] Yeah.
[59:18] Then if you could just help me with the wording, then...
[59:24] The first application was World Cup Marketing.
[59:27] Second, he's talking about the wording for the motion.
[59:29] Oh.
[59:30] Yeah.
[59:30] Right.
[59:30] Okay, so I think that what it could be is something like a motion to amend the approval
[59:42] and recommendation to council for the Snowqualmie Valley Regional Chamber application to include
[59:50] the funds requested in the amount of $7,500.
[59:55] of dollars. Prior to getting that motion, does that sound appropriate to staff?
[1:00:00] motion. Yes, that does. Okay, then, can I get someone from the committee to make that motion?
[1:00:12] Laurie Hay will motion. And can we get a second? Second. Okay, any discussion on that?
[1:00:23] Okay,
[1:00:24] hearing none, I will go to a vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.
[1:00:33] Oh, that's right. Oh, thank you.
[1:00:34] So, okay, prior, I'm sorry, I think that the vote was out of order because before the discussion, I think that I needed to ask if there were any members of the committee who needed to abstain.
[1:00:48] Yes. Kelly Coughlin abstains.
[1:00:50] All right. Thank you so much. I apologize for that committee. Now I'll ask for any discussion and then we'll go back to a vote.
[1:00:58] Thank you, Chair.
[1:01:01] Okay. I am not hearing any discussion. So, all in favor say aye.
[1:01:07] Aye.
[1:01:10] And all opposed say nay.
[1:01:14] Okay. I thought I heard two ayes and no nays.
[1:01:21] I heard three ayes.
[1:01:22] Three ayes.
[1:01:23] Okay.
[1:01:24] Okay. Thank you. As long as we got three ayes. All right. Thank you.
[1:01:27] That was three in favor and none that were opposed.
[1:01:29] Then let's do the same thing then for the next one, which is not that one, the
[1:01:47] right one.
[1:01:59] Apologies.
[1:02:14] Why am I not finding it?
[1:02:23] Okay.
[1:02:23] I think this is the right one.
[1:02:26] This is the historic downtown so-called emergency association for so-called me days.
[1:02:31] I believe that is the other one that we need to do this for.
[1:02:32] Okay.
[1:02:33] Thank you.
[1:02:33] Okay. Then can we get a motion to amend the approval and recommendation to council for the application by the historic downtown so-called Merchant Association to amend that motion to include the funds requested in the amount of $7,500?
[1:02:57] So moved.
[1:02:59] Second.
[1:03:00] Can we get a second?
[1:03:01] Thank you.
[1:03:02] I believe that was Richard Anderson who made the motion
[1:03:06] and who made the second?
[1:03:08] Laurie Hay made the second.
[1:03:10] Thank you.
[1:03:10] Laurie Hay made the second.
[1:03:12] Does anyone from the committee feel the need
[1:03:15] to recuse themselves on this item?
[1:03:22] Hearing none, then we'll go to a vote.
[1:03:25] All in favor say aye.
[1:03:27] Aye.
[1:03:28] Aye.
[1:03:28] Aye.
[1:03:30] And any opposed?
[1:03:33] Hearing none opposed, that was foreign favor and none that were opposed, and that motion passes as well.
[1:03:40] I believe that there's no further business before this committee. Let me just check with staff to make sure that there's nothing else that need to be done here.
[1:03:49] That's correct. We are finished.
[1:03:52] Okay. Then there being no further business before the committee. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
[1:03:59] Move to adjourn.
[1:04:01] And a second.
[1:04:03] Second.
[1:04:03] All right. Who's seconded?
[1:04:07] Kelly.
[1:04:08] Okay. Kelly's second.
[1:04:10] So Richard Anderson moved and Kelly Coughlin seconded.
[1:04:14] And I believe the motion to adjourn is not debatable.
[1:04:17] Is that correct?
[1:04:19] Correct.
[1:04:21] All right. Thank you.
[1:04:22] Then all in favor say aye.
[1:04:24] Aye.
[1:04:26] Aye.
[1:04:27] Any opposed?
[1:04:29] All right.
[1:04:29] That's four in favor.
[1:04:31] Opposed?
[1:04:31] and we are adjourned at 6.06. Thank you.
[1:04:35] Thank you.