[1:59] I call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the Walla Walla City Council
[2:03] for today, September 23rd, 2026.
[2:07] Welcome, all of you who have joined us this evening. Would Ms.
[2:10] Neitzel please do the roll call for us?
[2:14] Yes, Your Honor. Council Member Eskel?
[2:17] Here.
[2:17] Council Member Outlaw?
[2:18] Present.
[2:19] Council Member Willis?
[2:20] Here.
[2:21] Council Member Robinson?
[2:22] Here.
[2:23] Council Member Brown?
[2:24] Present.
[2:25] Council Member Moss?
[2:26] Here.
[2:27] Mayor Rayna?
[2:28] Present.
[2:29] Thank you very much. Would you please stand up and join us for the pledge of
[2:32] allegiance?
[2:35] I pledge allegiance
[2:36] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
[2:40] and to the Republic for which it stands.
[2:43] One nation, under God, indivisible with
[2:47] liberty and justice for all.
[2:50] Thank you. You may be seated.
[2:53] We will proceed as per the written agenda this evening.
[2:58] The first item in our agenda this evening is public comments.
[3:01] This is a time for the public to bring any comments regarding
[3:05] city businesses on items that are not already in the agenda.
[3:09] If you are here to talk about or provide input into anything that is
[3:13] in the agenda for this evening, you can wait until that comes in
[3:17] the agenda. In the meantime, this period of time is for any other
[3:21] comments that are on items not in the agenda this evening.
[3:25] Just to remind you, if some of you haven't been here, you have three minutes to
[3:28] provide your input. You can come to the podium and identify
[3:32] yourself and
[3:34] share that with us.
[3:36] Do we have any public input on items not on the agenda?
[3:45] My name is Barbara Knudsen, 1011 Home Avenue.
[3:48] I'm here today to speak on the proposed critical areas ordinance that is scheduled
[3:52] to go into effect in December. I have five sections of creek on my
[3:55] property, and close by on neighboring properties.
[3:58] We would not be able to make any improvements on either of our homes.
[4:01] One has been there for 125 years, the other for 40 years.
[4:05] According to the new rules, out of seven acres, I could
[4:09] not build anywhere on the seven acres.
[4:11] According to the old rules, I could build on five.
[4:14] This will lose great value for my property.
[4:17] Because of this impact, and because the advertised information was daunting, I
[4:21] attended the council work session on Monday.
[4:24] During the work session, staff's reluctance to inform
[4:27] council of what transpired with the planning commission at their meeting last week
[4:31] was very concerning.
[4:33] Planning commissions are tasked with listening to the residents and staff and
[4:36] forming a decision. Staff did not present the planning commission's decision,
[4:40] and this was a first big red flag.
[4:43] Ultimately, Council Member Brown did an excellent job of presenting what staff
[4:47] failed to put forward.
[4:49] During the meeting, Council Member Outlaw questioned simply whether you would be
[4:53] able to add to the back of your home.
[4:55] The correct answer was no, not if it's within 115
[4:59] feet of the creek. But instead, he was given a big word salad
[5:03] that he could do it on the side or in the front where there's other
[5:07] restrictions that he has to go by,
[5:10] and that applies to most city lots.
[5:12] We learned from council's question that there would be exceptions.
[5:16] However, you'll be required to do your own study and footwork.
[5:19] Just the study will be between $3,000 and $5,000 per lot.
[5:23] I am estimating the entire package, if you had a professional do it, would be
[5:26] $20,000.
[5:28] Council Member Eskel asked whether existing home streams would have to be
[5:32] replanted in their yards. Again, no real clear answer.
[5:37] Weed removal reports, inspections, arborists, all listed in the
[5:40] plan, not giving clear information.
[5:43] This honestly feels like the first step in government taking control of our
[5:47] creekside properties. Clarity needed.
[5:50] That was big red flag number four.
[5:52] Council asked, "Why is a larger buffer better than a smaller buffer?
[5:56] What are the relevant percentages of filtration?" Again, no one
[6:00] knew. Big red flag number five. Zero net loss
[6:04] explained as using vegetative properties of those who have large properties and
[6:07] setbacks to make up for those properties that don't have tree plantings on their
[6:11] properties, kind of like stealing property from one property owner to make up for
[6:15] another who hasn't done what they should.
[6:18] I am respectfully asking that this ordinance be tabled for a period of time to
[6:22] obtain studies and community input, and proper notification
[6:26] of residents. Thank you very much.
[6:28] Thank you very much.
[6:31] Any other comment?
[6:37] Hello. My name is Vicki McClellan.
[6:39] I live at 1212 and 1202 Pleasant Street, and I've been there since
[6:43] 2000.
[6:44] And I am also here to talk about the
[6:48] critical area ordinance.
[6:50] So,
[6:52] our neighborhood, same neighborhood that
[6:54] Barbara Knudsen is in, is
[6:57] really blessed by the springbeds and creeks that flow to
[7:01] Stone Creek. In August, through Facebook posts and an article in "The
[7:05] Union Bulletin," I became aware of upcoming changes mandated by the
[7:09] state of Washington to the critical areas ordinance that governs the size of
[7:13] riparian buffer zones in Walla Walla.
[7:15] I've read through the ordinance with the proposed amendments on the city's
[7:19] website and attempted to open and make sense of the map provided on the city
[7:23] website. Along with many others, I attended the planning commission's
[7:27] public hearing on September 14th.
[7:29] I have many concerns about the proposed changes.
[7:32] Number one, the public hearing was well attended with citizens
[7:36] offering remarks, and there were multiple comments that had been sent in ahead of
[7:40] the meeting that were well-researched and very clear.
[7:44] Still, it seems that many property owners are unaware that they will be affected by
[7:48] the change to a 100-foot riparian buffer zone.
[7:51] I believe our city has a responsibility to notify all property owners of
[7:55] how their land will be affected by the changes to the CAO.
[7:59] I believe our city has a responsibility to broadly distribute an accurate
[8:03] map that details which addresses will be affected.
[8:06] Two,
[8:08] the best available science report noted as the justification
[8:11] for increasing the riparian buffer zone from 35 to 100 feet
[8:16] is very broad and does not address the site-specific conditions
[8:20] that are in Walla Walla. There is no detail provided of what improvement can
[8:24] be expected by increasing the buffer distance from 35 to 100
[8:28] feet, and no detail comparing the effectiveness of a well-planted
[8:32] and managed riparian zone of 35 feet versus an
[8:35] ill-maintained riparian zone of 100 feet.
[8:38] There is no guidance beyond a generic sketch of what constitutes a
[8:42] riparian border, and no suggested planting layouts or
[8:45] planting selections pertinent to Walla Walla.
[8:48] There's no discussion of any difference between a riparian zone along a
[8:52] fish-bearing stream
[8:54] compared to a non-fish-bearing stream.
[8:56] I question how this appliance can be applied to our city.
[9:00] Number three, speakers at the planning commission hearing
[9:04] brought forward a concern that although existing structures
[9:08] and uses will be allowed to remain in their current state, those
[9:12] properties may be reclassified as non-conforming.
[9:17] Is that correct? What is that? How will we be affected?
[9:21] Has the city included this possibility in their review, and
[9:25] will property owners be notified?
[9:28] Finally, I am concerned by the speed at which these ordinance changes are being
[9:32] made. An implementation date of 12/31/26
[9:35] gives property owners very little time to make plans and decisions
[9:39] for their property, and our city and planning and permitting staff will
[9:43] no doubt be completely overrun with requests and plan submissions.
[9:48] How will so much work be accomplished in so little time?
[9:52] And I know I'm over time here, so I'll say thank you, but I will just close with,
[9:57] I believe there is a solution to this.
[9:59] I believe that solution is going to take time.
[10:01] I believe it will take community engagement.
[10:05] And
[10:06] I think that as a city, we really want healthy
[10:10] riparian borders, but they need to be healthy for our economy,
[10:14] they need to be healthy for our residents, and they need to be generated
[10:18] by our city, not placed upon us by the state. Thank you.
[10:22] Thank you very much for your input. Do we have any other public input?
[10:26] Yes, sir.
[10:29] Please identify yourself. You have three minutes.
[10:32] Thank you.
[10:33] And we would appreciate if you use your time.
[10:36] Okay. My name is Ron McKay. I live at 1131 East
[10:40] Chestnut Street in Walla Walla. My wife and I have lived here for about two
[10:44] years. I'm here to speak in opposition to the
[10:48] proposed buffer zone.
[10:50] My concerns are really with the consequences to existing homes that
[10:54] are here.
[10:56] Our home is almost entirely within the
[10:58] 100-foot buffer zone that's being proposed.
[11:03] So
[11:06] my concerns is what's going to happen to the property value, the
[11:09] resale value should this pass, should it go through?
[11:14] What happens should there be such a thing as a fire?
[11:18] Are we allowed to rebuild? If we want to make any additions or
[11:22] modifications to the house, are we allowed to do it since we're within
[11:26] that 100-meter buffer? Is this going to have any
[11:30] concerns with our insurance
[11:33] or possibly the resale value of the home because of what this does?
[11:38] So if the proposal is adopted as is currently written,
[11:44] it could significantly affect our resale and property value.
[11:48] That's my main concern. Thank you.
[11:51] Thank you.
[11:54] Yes, sir.
[11:58] Douglas Demers, 1309 Monroe, Walla Walla.
[12:02] Thank you, Mayor and City Council of Walla Walla.
[12:05] Walla Walla, the land of many waters.
[12:07] I oppose the proposed expansion to 100 foot of
[12:11] critical area setback around the numerous waterways, creeks,
[12:15] and all intermittent channels within city limits, both fish and
[12:19] non-fish bearing. I ask the following questions: Where
[12:23] is the list of 1,500 or more affected properties?
[12:27] Were the landowners directly noticed about the proposed change that
[12:31] radically affects their property besides a Facebook posting
[12:35] and a Union-Bulletin advertisement?
[12:38] Not everyone follows Facebook or subscribes to the UB.
[12:42] Where is the detailed map showing the waterways?
[12:45] I found the city-posted map pretty useless for details, and I tried
[12:49] the online Washington State Riparian Data Engine and found no
[12:53] easy way to find the data.
[12:55] In my opinion, the city has the responsibility to provide
[12:59] accurate details of the affected properties, including a map of the current
[13:03] setbacks and proposed 100-foot setback.
[13:07] Does Development Services have a GIS layer or parcel
[13:10] list? If so, why is this not publicly
[13:14] available?
[13:16] The city posting also showed an idealized stream profile,
[13:20] active channel, riparian zone, zone of influence, which
[13:24] seems to be out of touch with the reality of waterways within the city
[13:28] limits. Sagebrush, bunch grass, and zone of
[13:31] influence within the city, really?
[13:35] Perhaps 150 years ago, that model might be
[13:39] realistic, but not now. I doubt if there are more than a couple places
[13:43] within city limits that look like the idealized model.
[13:47] Although several people in the online discussions have noted that the current
[13:51] 35-foot setback is not uniformly enforced, a change to
[13:55] the ticky box on permit applications asking if more than
[13:59] 100 feet from waterways rather than the current
[14:02] setback would mean automatic rejection of the
[14:06] application.
[14:08] I urge you to stop rushing this through your process and providing
[14:12] proper supporting data and notice to property owners who will be
[14:15] affected by this ordinance change. Thank you.
[14:18] Thank you very much.
[14:22] Yes, good evening.
[14:26] Good evening.
[14:28] My name is Sharon Schiller, and I reside at 1414
[14:32] Topaz Street in Walla Walla,
[14:35] and this is about
[14:38] public comments.
[14:40] Having made public comments intermittently
[14:44] after listening closely at city and county meetings,
[14:49] I often experience extreme disappointment after being
[14:52] shut down in response, as if I am wasting others'
[14:56] time
[14:58] and therefore wasting my own.
[15:01] A
[15:03] fallacy that becomes a barrier in discourse
[15:06] between members of the public and public officials
[15:10] is ad hominem,
[15:13] or personal comparisons of occupation that supposedly make the
[15:17] elected representatives better than members of the
[15:21] public and then carry the weight of government decisions.
[15:25] For example, quote, "I am a lawyer," or
[15:29] quote, "The public does not understand the scope
[15:33] of my job."
[15:35] This sets a negative tone and defeats the reason for being up here
[15:39] in the first place.
[15:41] There is also the argument of word usage and taking offense
[15:46] when it is not the intention to offend.
[15:50] For example, a public comment is made with a call to action
[15:54] after stating a problem. If I ask an
[15:58] elected representative to step out of his or her box,
[16:03] it is stepping out of the box of everyday routine
[16:07] of that person's occupation.
[16:10] It can be done, and there is no obligation to remain
[16:13] there because of one's chosen occupation.
[16:18] Legal jurisdiction does put a representative in a box,
[16:22] but we are all part of a larger land mass.
[16:28] We are in a current time box with deadlines, but we should
[16:32] never abandon the futures of our children that
[16:36] we may have brought into the world
[16:38] and forget the ecosystem that was so kind to
[16:42] us
[16:43] during our lifetimes and make the excuse that we
[16:47] had our hands tied, or we were stuck in a box. Thank you.
[16:51] Thank you very much. Appreciate that.
[16:54] Yes, sir.
[17:00] My name is Steven Zilio. I've lived in Walla Walla for 40 year,
[17:04] and I live on 914 Home Street here in town.
[17:08] The North Fork of Stone Creek forms the north and west
[17:12] boundaries of my property. My house was built in
[17:15] 1941.
[17:17] I have owned this property for 26 years.
[17:20] We purchased our home in large part due to its beautiful location on
[17:24] Stone Creek. I'm retired, and a large part of our
[17:28] retirement wealth is in our house, which we own outright.
[17:33] If the unbuildable setback is changed to 100 feet and my house
[17:37] burns, can I rebuild it, or do I lose my home?
[17:41] If this is the case, then certainly my home lose much as of its value.
[17:46] If in my retirement I need to sell my home or perhaps get a
[17:49] reverse mortgage, will any bank become involved if my home is
[17:53] closer to the creek than 100 feet?
[17:56] What value do my children get from my estate?
[18:00] The city does not provide sewage service on my block of Home
[18:04] Street. My septic system is 40 years old this year.
[18:08] If the field fails, will I be permitted to install a new one?
[18:13] One of the reasons we moved to Walla Walla is because of the many,
[18:16] many spring-fed creeks. I'm sure there are hundreds of
[18:20] homes here within 100 feet of a creek.
[18:24] This proposed new rule, as I understand it, has the potential
[18:28] to cause a massive disruption in our community and a large
[18:32] loss of wealth
[18:34] To those affected, I urge the city council to reject this
[18:38] rule and keep the current rules. Thank you.
[18:41] Thank you.
[18:43] Do we have any other public input?
[19:00] Good evening, council,
[19:03] city staff.
[19:05] No script, no costume tonight, just me
[19:08] here again.
[19:11] I've been here so many times I can't count at this point in the last 18
[19:15] months. I tried to. I couldn't figure it out. Dozens.
[19:18] Dozens of times I've been here,
[19:21] and it struck me that I don't think that any of you actually really realize what it
[19:25] feels like to be on this side of the dais.
[19:28] It is utterly disempowering
[19:31] and deeply, deeply disheartening.
[19:36] I've worked really, really hard on my comments.
[19:39] I've worked really, really hard on my research.
[19:42] I am very, very earnest when I present facts to you.
[19:45] I
[19:46] do my research. I have sources. Please ask
[19:50] me for them or look at the ones that I've presented to you.
[19:54] I've sent you so many emails. How many of you have ever responded to me?
[19:58] Think about it. Ever.
[20:01] For any reason. Even just acknowledging, "Hey, thank you for
[20:05] sending this email. I received it," which Council Member Brown did
[20:08] after I sent you a draft ordinance that I sent to you because you
[20:12] were genuinely, apparently at a loss for what your recourse could be
[20:16] other than making comments in a NEPA process when it comes to
[20:20] managing the watershed. I sent you an ordinance that I spent countless hours
[20:24] drafting, battle testing. I sent it to legal eyes to
[20:28] give me a second read. Is this actually valid?
[20:30] Could I bring this as a ballot initiative? Would it pass Mr.
[20:34] Donaldson's review?
[20:36] I worked so hard on that, and what did I get? Nothing.
[20:40] Not a word of acknowledgment. I wasn't ever expecting that you would
[20:44] actually genuinely consider it, but I would at least hope that you would consider
[20:48] the earnest effort behind it. So much so that I
[20:51] honestly, I've done more work to make these comments than I've seen most
[20:55] of you do in the entire time I've been showing up here to actually weigh
[21:00] the input of the public, and it's deeply, deeply frustrating to many
[21:04] of us. I know I share this with many other people who radically disagree with
[21:08] me on other topics.
[21:10] But
[21:11] Council Member Eskel, I'm going to call you out on this.
[21:13] I was told you publicly apologized for statements that you made that I don't
[21:17] think you would have apologized for had I not posted them on the Internet in a way
[21:21] that caused a lot of eyes to see that.
[21:24] But I was never apologized to. Do you know what it's like to hear someone who's
[21:28] literally standing behind a bulletproof barrier, who can call upon the chief of
[21:32] police to post a sergeant outside,
[21:35] threatening someone for
[21:37] joking about tasing me? Think about if I were to make that kind of a joke,
[21:42] how the reaction would be radically different.
[21:45] I have to be so careful to not get thrown out of here, and
[21:49] where's the care on your end? I just don't understand.
[21:53] You owe me an apology for that.
[21:54] I apologized to the public.
[21:56] You apologized to the city.
[21:58] No, I apologized to the public.
[22:00] Well, sir,
[22:02] I am an individual who deserves an apology for those comments.
[22:06] Could you please wrap up your comment?
[22:08] Thank you. Thank you for giving me a little bit of extra time, just like you gave
[22:12] this other person time. That's really appreciated. Little steps.
[22:15] I appreciate the little steps.
[22:16] That's good. Thank you.
[22:18] Okay.
[22:18] Appreciate it.
[22:20] Any other public input?
[22:26] Yes, sir.
[22:32] Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to comment for three minutes.
[22:35] I'm RL McFarlane, 3731 Middleitzburg Road.
[22:38] As you know, I'm an advocate of communication and transparency.
[22:42] After several events that I experienced as a member of the city council, regular
[22:45] meeting audience, and council retreat audience between January of
[22:49] 2026 and June of 2026, I'm now going to
[22:52] add context to my interest in promoting communication
[22:57] and transparency. I first became involved with communication and
[23:00] government thanks to the Community Council's 2013 Improving Communication
[23:04] Among Citizens and Government study.
[23:07] Through that three-year study that included two years of advocacy, I became extra
[23:11] involved with attending Port of Walla Walla commissioner meetings, Walla Walla
[23:15] County Board of Commissioner meetings, and the Walla Walla City Council regular
[23:18] meetings, retreats, and workshops.
[23:20] This past January 2026, a new weather front
[23:24] entered the Walla Walla City Council chambers, best described a few months later by
[23:28] one council member as a change of culture.
[23:31] In offering this term, the council member accompanied it by extending thanks to the
[23:35] newly elected mayor.
[23:37] As a direct result of this change of culture, I, along with numerous
[23:41] other public commenters, found ourselves dramatically cut off with the stroke of
[23:44] three minutes. I can't emphasize enough how dramatic it was, and at least
[23:48] for me, how startling it was to the point, regardless of how many years I've
[23:52] been attending and participating in city council meetings overseen by
[23:56] earlier mayors, I momentarily lost track of what my name was and what I'd
[24:00] been saying, literally. Now, jump forward to the city council
[24:04] retreat of May 29, 2026. The agenda for the
[24:08] retreat was a normal and familiar format to include at the top, "Members of the
[24:11] public may attend and participate in this regular meeting." At one point
[24:15] during the council's discussion, I heard something offered that I felt might
[24:19] benefit from some added context. I raised my hand and was advised I
[24:23] could not speak. I attempted one more time, I believe, and again was
[24:26] denied the opportunity, an opportunity clearly extended
[24:30] to the public, printed at the top of the agenda.
[24:33] I sat down, totally puzzled
[24:36] at the extent to which the newly adopted change of culture had overridden what was
[24:39] published on the council's own meeting agenda.
[24:43] Now I'm going to jump forward to August of 2026 And a very
[24:46] diplomatic letter sent from the Walla Walla City attorney to
[24:50] my personal attorney. Upon receiving a copy of Tim's letter, I noted that he'd
[24:54] CC'd the entire city council, as well as the city manager.
[24:58] First, I want to thank Tim for extending what I'm going to refer to as an olive
[25:02] branch. Consequently, I'm going to do the same thing.
[25:05] Now, I want to highlight something that you're yet to learn about, at least those
[25:09] members of the city council who are not aware of the two letters sent on my
[25:12] behalf to Tim subsequent to May 29, 2026,
[25:16] prior to Tim's letter to my attorney dated August 19, 2026.
[25:20] In one of those two letters sent by my attorney on June 23rd and August
[25:24] 7th, in the June 23rd letter, towards the end of the letter, in a paragraph it
[25:29] states this: "My client hopes to reach a satisfactory
[25:32] resolution of this problem through discussion, not litigation."
[25:37] Would you mind closing your-
[25:38] I'm just going to stop here. I'd like to tell you more what I'm going to be saying,
[25:42] but no one will know what it is, because you could ask for this to be
[25:46] continued in
[25:48] unfinished business. Thank you.
[25:50] Thank you.
[25:51] Do we have any additional
[25:54] public comments? Yes.
[26:00] Mary Gibson,
[26:02] 938 Home Avenue here in Walla Walla.
[26:06] I'd like to comment on the critical areas ordinance that
[26:10] you're working on,
[26:12] and I'd like to start by thanking the city council
[26:18] for
[26:19] your comments and discussion in Monday's work meeting.
[26:25] I was very encouraged and impressed,
[26:29] and
[26:31] I know that represented a lot of work and I'd just like to thank you
[26:35] for that.
[26:37] I'd also
[26:38] like to say that I'm grateful for the planning commission's
[26:42] work and for their recommendation on how to proceed,
[26:46] and I agree with the thought that they should have had some
[26:51] presence at Monday's meeting,
[26:54] and that we should hear from the planning
[26:57] commission about their recommendations.
[27:01] I think a lot of work had been done there.
[27:06] I'd also like to say
[27:08] that,
[27:10] through COVID, some of us became skeptical
[27:14] of
[27:16] encouragement to trust the science,
[27:20] and I think that bleeds over into this situation.
[27:25] And, I think
[27:28] skepticism is warranted.
[27:32] I'd also like to echo some of the comments made earlier
[27:36] that it would be
[27:39] very important to some of us to see a detailed map
[27:43] so that we can see specifically how
[27:47] this ordinance would affect our properties.
[27:51] I think in some cases it's very clear, but I think not in
[27:55] all of them, and I think there are going to be people who are
[27:59] surprised that it would affect their properties the way
[28:03] it does.
[28:06] I think also that if the council
[28:10] can find a way to lengthen the timeline, that would be
[28:14] a good thing for our community.
[28:17] Thank you.
[28:18] Thank you very much.
[28:21] Do we have any additional public input?
[28:27] Seeing none, Ms. Nisell, do we have anyone online?
[28:31] No raised hands, Your Honor.
[28:32] Okay. Very well. Thank you all very much for your input.
[28:36] We'll move on to the next item on our agenda,
[28:39] and that is our consent agenda for this evening.
[28:42] There are four items in the consent agenda.
[28:45] Ms. Nisell, please read those for us.
[28:48] Yes, Your Honor. Members of council, tonight's consent agenda consists of
[28:52] items A through D as follows. Item A, resolution
[28:56] 2026-079, authorizes an interlocal
[29:00] agreement regarding the 2026 Edward Byrne Memorial
[29:04] Justice Assistant Grant between Walla Walla,
[29:08] the City of Walla Walla, and Walla Walla County.
[29:11] Item B, resolution 2026-080,
[29:15] authorizes a professional service contract with Consor Engineers
[29:19] to amend the water system plan and develop a watershed control program
[29:23] for the watershed in the amount of $74,144.
[29:28] Item C, resolution 2026-081,
[29:32] authorizes a construction contract with Precision
[29:35] Concrete Cutting
[29:38] for the 2026 sidewalk grinding project to reduce
[29:41] sidewalk tripping hazards in the amount of
[29:44] $65,618.44.
[29:49] And item D approves the minutes of the September 9, 2026
[29:53] regular meeting.
[29:55] Thank you very much, Ms. Nisell. Bringing it back to council, do we have
[29:58] any
[30:00] councilor with an item in the consent agenda that they would like to move to the
[30:03] active agenda? We have many hands raised.
[30:06] I'm going to move from left to right, if that's okay.
[30:09] Your Honor, I request that item B, resolution
[30:11] 2026-080, authorizes a professional service
[30:15] contract with Consor Engineers to amend the water system
[30:19] plan and develop a watershed control
[30:23] program for the watershed in the amount of
[30:25] $74,144
[30:29] be moved to the active agenda for further discussion.
[30:32] Okay.
[30:33] Item B moves now to the active agenda.
[30:36] I saw some other hands-
[30:36] It's mine
[30:37] ... that was yours too? That was you too? Yours too? Yours too. Okay.
[30:40] So we had a unanimous move to the active agenda.
[30:44] So we'll move to that item first.
[30:47] So this is resolution 2026-08, authorizing a professional services
[30:51] contract with Consor Engineers to amend the water system plan
[30:55] and develop a watershed control program for the watershed in the amount of
[30:59] $74,144.
[31:01] Do we want to do the consent agenda first, get that approved?
[31:04] We are going to do
[31:06] So,
[31:08] we move that into the active agenda.
[31:10] Right.
[31:10] We don't generally vote on do we move to the active agenda?
[31:13] No.
[31:14] No.
[31:14] No. We're good.
[31:16] We're good. Yeah, no, I thought you were moving on to discussing it.
[31:18] No. I'm reading it so that then-
[31:21] Okay
[31:21] ... we have a presentation first, and then we have public input, et cetera.
[31:25] So I'm describing what is now
[31:28] first item in the active agenda. Ms.
[31:31] Chamberlain, would that be you presenting this, or is Mr. Klein, or?
[31:34] I think what Council Member Willis was...
[31:37] Okay.
[31:37] Should probably finish the consent agenda, the other items-
[31:40] Yes, thank you. The rest of the consent agenda-
[31:43] Hold that
[31:43] ... before we move it to that.
[31:44] Yeah.
[31:45] Okay. Thank you.
[31:48] Do we have any public input on the rest of the consent agenda,
[31:54] as amended?
[31:56] So I'm unfamiliar with the process.
[31:59] I would like to comment on
[32:02] consent agenda item two.
[32:05] Yes, that is coming now into an active agenda, meaning we will treat
[32:08] it separately
[32:10] in its full. No worries.
[32:13] I don't believe anybody really knows this process, and as you can say,
[32:18] I sometimes forget it myself, so we're all good.
[32:21] Do we have anyone online making any public input on the consent
[32:25] agenda?
[32:26] No raised hands, Your Honor.
[32:27] All right. Bringing it back to council, do we have any questions, comments on the
[32:31] amended consent agenda?
[32:34] Yes.
[32:34] Your Honor, thank you.
[32:35] Yes.
[32:35] I just wanted to express appreciation to
[32:39] the City of Wallowa and the police department for accepting the burn money,
[32:43] and then working with the Wallowa County.
[32:46] This is now several years, as I recall, that we've
[32:50] played this role, and I think it not only
[32:55] allows for the funds to be properly spent, but for better
[33:00] operation and collaboration amongst the
[33:03] police forces in our area.
[33:06] Absolutely.
[33:07] Any other comment or question? All right.
[33:10] How would you like to proceed with the amended consent agenda?
[33:14] Council Robinson.
[33:15] Your Honor, I move that the consent agenda be approved as
[33:19] amended. Second.
[33:21] We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say, "Aye."
[33:24] Aye.
[33:24] Aye. Aye.
[33:25] Any opposed? That passes. So now we get down
[33:29] to the first item in the
[33:32] active agenda, as I said before. Ms.
[33:34] Chamberlain, would you have a presentation on that, or?
[33:37] It's going to be Director Beeley, and-
[33:38] Director Beeley
[33:40] ... often-
[33:41] All right
[33:41] ... others will be available for questions.
[33:43] Mr. Beeley, welcome, and
[33:45] our eyes, I think we have a lot of people interested in this.
[33:49] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[33:52] Again, this is item B from... It got moved from the
[33:55] consent agenda. This is the contract with Consort Engineers to
[33:59] amend the water system plan
[34:01] and develop a watershed control program for
[34:05] the city. So jumping right in, first with the watershed
[34:09] control program, this is a requirement for unfiltered systems with the purpose of
[34:13] protecting the source. So what measures does the city take to
[34:17] protect that source is really the focus of that program.
[34:20] These are elements such as our contract with the US Forest
[34:24] Service for patrols and enforcement.
[34:27] The watershed is a closed area to the public, so that is an example of
[34:31] a component of what this watershed control program is.
[34:34] We,
[34:36] I would say loosely, have a program that is broken up in a number of different
[34:39] documents. This effort is to pull everything together into a
[34:43] singular
[34:44] program, and to submit that to the Department of Health.
[34:48] So that is one element of two elements of
[34:51] this contract proposal with Consort Engineers.
[34:55] The cost of the watershed control program
[34:58] development is about $46,000 of the, I think it's
[35:02] $74,144.
[35:06] The second component is a
[35:09] water system plan amendment, and in essence, what this amendment proposes
[35:13] to do is to align
[35:16] the city's water service area with the city limits.
[35:20] So there's some history, and this specific area is the
[35:24] area north of the water treatment plant out on the east end of town,
[35:28] that has also been identified as the Mill Creek Gateway Project.
[35:32] And it is through that application that we realized that that area was not
[35:36] included in the water service area.
[35:38] It's part of the city, but not in the water service area.
[35:41] And there's a long history associated with that property dating back,
[35:46] give me one quick moment. Moving back.
[35:49] So I had to do a lot of research on that particular piece of property,
[35:52] understanding how it came in,
[35:56] assuming why it was missed in the 2020 water system plan
[36:00] update.
[36:02] It dates back to 2005, and there's extensive history,
[36:06] both with the county and with the city.
[36:08] Included that history as condensed as possible in the staff report.
[36:14] In essence, when the water system plan was prepared in 2020,
[36:19] it was an oversight that that area wasn't included.
[36:21] If you look back through the history of that particular property, there was
[36:25] a development agreement that started in the county and then was transferred to the
[36:29] city, and there were timelines associated with that, and it correlates
[36:32] based on what I've been able to discern is the expiration of some of
[36:36] that work,
[36:38] from years and years ago, happened at the same time that the 2020 water
[36:42] system plan was being prepared. So it wasn't included.
[36:44] I think it was an oversight at the time.
[36:46] So this action would address that, align the
[36:50] city's water service area with the city limits, because again, that property is
[36:54] part of the city.
[36:55] The cost of that effort is approximately 28,000.
[37:00] Consort, the engineering firm assisting the city with both tasks, will prepare the
[37:04] necessary documents and submit them to the Department of Health, Office of Drinking
[37:07] Water,
[37:08] for their review. And pending their review, the Department of Health, that is-
[37:13] The water system plan in particular will come back to council
[37:17] for formal adoption. We do similar processes with the general sewer
[37:21] plan. If we have to make an amendment to the general sewer plan, those amendments
[37:25] have to come back to council. Same idea here, making an amendment to the
[37:29] water system plan, that will ultimately need to come back to council, likely
[37:33] in 2027, I'm guessing in the springtime.
[37:36] So it's a longer process. There are specific steps, review steps,
[37:40] and public notice steps that are associated with that process.
[37:44] Happy to answer any other questions council has.
[37:47] Okay, Mr. Reed. Before we move to public input, what is
[37:51] on the agenda today for us to take action on is entering into the
[37:55] contract with a consultant to put the information together.
[37:58] That is correct.
[37:59] That is what we have. Okay, thank you.
[38:02] Coming to provide any public input, if you're here to provide any
[38:07] public input on this matter,
[38:09] please come to the podium, identify yourself. You'll have three minutes.
[38:13] We appreciate if you stay with that.
[38:17] Daniel Clark, 1717 North Main, Walla Walla.
[38:21] As I mentioned in an email to the council that I sent this morning,
[38:25] it's highly premature to amend the city's water system plan at
[38:29] this time to expand the service area to include the MC
[38:33] Gateway development.
[38:35] There are many issues regarding the appropriateness of this development
[38:39] that need to be addressed and decided before taking city
[38:43] action to accommodate it,
[38:45] which might not at all be in the public interest.
[38:48] These include the environmental health risks of such a project,
[38:52] which would put over 600 new residences in close proximity to the
[38:56] hazardous facilities at the airport and at the city's water treatment
[39:00] plant. In addition, the project would make no contribution to
[39:04] resolving the city's low and middle income housing needs, but would
[39:08] take out of production several hundred acres of prime agricultural
[39:12] land, producing over 100
[39:16] bushels of wheat per acre without any irrigation.
[39:21] There are also water issues relating to the project's needs,
[39:24] including the declining level of our aquifers and the
[39:28] recent damage to our watershed, as well as the project's
[39:32] proposed water rights transfer and expansion
[39:36] application filed with the Department of Ecology for a well
[39:39] five miles away from the site, concerning which
[39:43] several formal protests have been filed.
[39:47] Your development services department has also not decided yet
[39:51] what action to take regarding the environmental impacts of the project under
[39:55] SEPA, the State Environmental Policy Act, including
[39:59] any needed mitigation.
[40:01] I've sent you my own comments on the inadequacies of the
[40:05] project's environmental checklist.
[40:08] Many other letters of concern have been filed, as well as with regard to
[40:12] the environmental issues and the water rights transfer
[40:15] application.
[40:17] To bring this before the council tonight for summary action
[40:21] by you, despite these widespread major
[40:25] community concerns over the project that have not been addressed,
[40:29] appears very disrespectful of the public.
[40:33] The Walla Walla community needs full consideration by you of its concerns
[40:37] about this development before any action, such as tonight's
[40:41] proposed resolution, is taken.
[40:44] Along with others, I request the inclusion
[40:47] of the MC Gateway project site and
[40:51] the proposed resolution be denied. Thank you.
[40:55] Thank you. And just to reiterate, this is really about entering into a
[40:59] contract. This will come later on, and public input will be definitely
[41:03] part of that process.
[41:05] Just to make sure.
[41:07] Any other public input?
[41:13] My name is Dorothy O'Brien. I live at 1218 Yellow Hawk Way.
[41:19] Dan just said pretty much everything I'm going to say. I'm going to try it anyway.
[41:22] My own words.
[41:24] Why is the city considering amending its water system
[41:27] plan for a development that has not been approved?
[41:31] That was my first question.
[41:33] There's been no date set for the hearing examiner to receive public
[41:37] comments.
[41:38] The list of concerns about this project equals the size of the project
[41:42] itself,
[41:44] all of which need to be addressed before being approved.
[41:47] The claim from MC Gateway that Walla Walla already has the infrastructure
[41:50] capacity to handle the water needs of 670
[41:54] single-family residences, 150-room hotel,
[41:58] 80,000 square feet of retail space, and close to 200 acres of
[42:02] landscaping, while technically accurate,
[42:06] coexisting water constraints in our watershed is another reality
[42:10] altogether.
[42:11] The watershed already has more water rights than physical water
[42:15] available. Mill Creek frequently suffers from low seasonal
[42:19] stream flows and high water temperatures.
[42:22] Our deep basalt and shallow gravel aquifers face steady
[42:26] decline every year. And while managed by the City of Walla Walla
[42:29] Public Works Department, the watershed's regulatory jurisdiction is
[42:33] split between Washington, Oregon, the
[42:37] Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and federal laws.
[42:41] But the water, albeit the most important part, is just
[42:45] one part of this shockingly large footprint
[42:49] that is MC Gateway. The aggressive impact
[42:53] on our roads, our schools, our hospital,
[42:58] our local resources, indeed the very character of Walla Walla, will
[43:02] be felt for a generation through the increase of public
[43:06] tax hikes, levies, and bonds to fund the
[43:09] exponential upgrade to the infrastructure.
[43:12] There are no apartments, no duplexes, no tiny houses,
[43:16] nothing like the comprehensive plan has.
[43:19] So assumingly, no middle housing, which is the type of affordable
[43:23] housing that Walla Walla is desperate for.
[43:27] This is all for the developer,
[43:29] not for Walla Walla, and it all begins with water.
[43:33] I predict if this amendment and other concessions like it
[43:38] get approved, layering the foundation for the hearing examiner,
[43:42] and ultimately you, the city council, to destroy
[43:46] one of Walla Walla's most iconic characteristics.
[43:49] It will also end in water with tears.
[43:53] Lots and lots of tears.
[43:55] Thank you.
[43:58] Any other input?
[44:05] Jean Dolling.
[44:09] This entire valley
[44:12] is a floodplain that we live in.
[44:15] It's fed by the Blue Mountains. There's
[44:19] South Fork, North Fork, Mill Creek, Touchet.
[44:23] We have got a lot of waterways that become floodways.
[44:28] We're using our water up,
[44:31] is what we're doing. Our riparian areas have not been
[44:35] left to work, and anybody that lives along any of the
[44:39] creeks in town,
[44:41] including, I can tell you a story a little bit later about August Linky and I
[44:45] down in the basement with it flooding.
[44:50] People that live along these creeks will tell you about
[44:54] hydraulic pressure, because that's what it is,
[44:58] hydraulic pressure. When the streams run high,
[45:02] hydraulic pressure flows out into the riparian areas
[45:06] and starts and recharging the aquifer.
[45:10] We've got the sub-aquifer, shallow gravel aquifer,
[45:14] and the basalt aquifer. The city of Walla Walla
[45:18] has been pumping, fortunately, water into the
[45:22] basalt wells from Mill Creek.
[45:25] And
[45:27] trust me, if you hadn't been doing this after this
[45:31] fire,
[45:32] you would be wishing you had.
[45:37] I don't know how to tell you simply, more than simple.
[45:42] There's no life without water,
[45:45] and that's where we're headed. No water.
[45:48] And we've got all this development going on, and
[45:52] we're ending up with no water. And people that
[45:56] are
[45:58] told that they can't irrigate, they can't have lawns,
[46:02] don't like it. They're not happy citizens.
[46:05] There's no life without water. We've got these
[46:09] malfunctioning,
[46:12] steep, dry, hard-packed slopes that don't absorb
[46:16] water, and they're talking about logging.
[46:19] That is not the thing to be doing. We need to have
[46:23] durable, fire-resistant foliage on
[46:27] the mountain slopes so that there's root systems
[46:32] and natural
[46:34] biological systems that foliage lives,
[46:38] dies, decomposes, starts all over again.
[46:43] Compost.
[46:45] That soil that is composted would be
[46:50] absorbing water. We need to get up there into that.
[46:57] I would like to get up there with some drones
[47:00] and the
[47:04] proper artillery and blast into some of those
[47:07] steep slopes, knock them down to the bottom, and start
[47:11] terracing.
[47:12] Thank you.
[47:17] Yes, sir.
[47:20] Thank you.
[47:22] My name's Jacob Coburn, and
[47:25] just want to start,
[47:26] just a quick comment. The MC Gateway property has been within the
[47:30] city limits for over a decade.
[47:33] Under the Growth Management Act, the city must plan to ensure public
[47:37] facilities and services are adequate to serve the development at the time
[47:41] of occupancy
[47:42] without decreasing service levels below locally established minimum
[47:46] standards. This is known as concurrency.
[47:50] The city is just doing its job by updating the city water system plan under
[47:54] the Growth Management Act and planning for the properties within the city.
[47:59] Thanks.
[47:59] Thank you.
[48:04] Burl McFarland. At first, I'm going to mention the city annexed this over 20 years
[48:08] ago. It goes back to about 20 years ago with Ilihi, that that became an
[48:12] island
[48:14] out in the county, and the only reason that really happened is because it's right
[48:17] boundary to boundary to the city's water system.
[48:19] So that's how that got established. I want to follow up.
[48:22] Dan Clark gave you really good reasons for thinking twice about what's going
[48:26] on here, and I'm sorry that the mayor tried to downplay it and suggest that
[48:31] what Dan brought up would be dealt with later.
[48:33] What you need to deal with tonight is right here.
[48:36] It's now on the active agenda.
[48:39] Resolution 2026-080. The part
[48:43] about the Watershed Control Program that Kai explained, excellent.
[48:47] Do it tonight. We need it. It's no-brainer.
[48:50] But it's kind of like an emergency thing. We need to do that now.
[48:55] But what's happening here that feels really fishy is something that was
[48:59] forgotten back in 2019, and that was the water system plan update.
[49:03] It got forgotten. Maybe
[49:05] really did get forgotten or was it just overlooked because some people were not
[49:09] focused on that? They were focused on Cottonwood, Bach told Hayden
[49:14] Mer, and maybe didn't want to think about developing up there
[49:18] the city. It's particularly...
[49:20] There is so much going on that is going to delay this project
[49:26] The normal time to add this to the water system plan is every 10
[49:30] years, in 2029. There's no rush for you tonight because
[49:35] right here, and I'm going to forward this to you, here's my comment letter that was
[49:38] sent to the Department of Ecology during their recent public comment period
[49:43] about the water right transfer that the MC Gateway project is
[49:46] moving from north on Lower Waitsburg Road.
[49:50] So they will potentially double the water they can draw off their property.
[49:55] Doubling it. Okay.
[49:57] What they use, that means that they're adding 50% potentially if
[50:01] they're allowed to move it.
[50:04] In their documents, they're going to use that added water, 50% more,
[50:08] for landscaping purposes, which
[50:12] if you'd been to the early water committee meetings or...
[50:15] No, actually, I think it was at a workshop, I forget.
[50:18] But Adrian and our water department, our water department's
[50:22] wonderful. They're all rock stars, but
[50:25] sometimes
[50:28] they're confined by what they're allowed to tell you, and the public can
[50:32] add more to it. And what Adrian talked about at that meeting
[50:35] was what happens if you have to run all of your city wells at one time,
[50:39] if the watershed fire causes you to have to depend
[50:43] solely on the aquifer?
[50:45] You potentially run into disturbances. It's called the cone effect.
[50:49] When if you have several of your city wells close to one another running at high
[50:52] speed constantly, they screw each other up.
[50:55] If
[50:57] MC Gateway, which they have the right to drill, they have a water right
[51:01] there, but if they add the second one,
[51:03] they're drilling and pumping right next to your wells.
[51:07] So you need to pay attention,
[51:10] and there's no rush. So I would amend tonight, simply remove
[51:14] the
[51:15] addition that was forgotten until 2029 when it's the normal time to add
[51:19] it. Thank you.
[51:20] Thank you.
[51:21] Any other input?
[51:36] Charles Harley.
[51:38] Leave
[51:40] it.
[51:40] It is now your time. Welcome.
[51:45] Thank you for your patience.
[51:48] Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council.
[51:49] My name is Charles Harley, H-A-R-L-E-Y.
[51:53] I've lived in Walla Walla for 42 years, very happily.
[51:57] And
[51:58] I have a concern. I'm a bit of an acolyte of Dan Clark's.
[52:02] I have a concern that the city, in its eagerness to
[52:06] expand, may be overstepping its resources.
[52:11] I
[52:12] noticed the need to, I think, drill another well
[52:16] well out of the city in order to provide
[52:20] water for this proposed development.
[52:23] And I have lived in cities
[52:26] where water has been cut off in the middle of my shower
[52:31] because the supply of water has been mishandled and abused
[52:36] by developers on the periphery of the city,
[52:39] undermining the comforts of the people in the center of the city.
[52:43] So
[52:45] I'm inexpert in all these matters, but I just
[52:49] recommend that the resolution
[52:53] be shifted from the consent agenda
[52:57] to the active agenda on the understanding that this will give greater
[53:01] attention to the proposals.
[53:05] I might say that
[53:08] we have tenants ourselves, and
[53:11] industrial tenants, and we are very much aware of the
[53:15] need to follow the law on
[53:19] development matters.
[53:21] I read Dan Clark's book about
[53:24] that attempt in the first years of this century to
[53:28] make a development,
[53:30] and I just say that
[53:33] our tenants have always paid the strictest attention to every single
[53:37] requirement of the law,
[53:39] that it be followed,
[53:41] and I hope that
[53:43] the city will insist on the same
[53:46] integrity. Thank you.
[53:47] Thank you.
[53:50] Do we have any other
[53:52] public input? Yes, sir.
[54:01] Douglas Demers, 1309 Monroe, Walla Walla.
[54:05] Everybody, there have been a lot of eloquent speakers here.
[54:07] I'll make this very quick. There seems to be so
[54:11] many issues regarding the appropriateness of the MC Gateway project,
[54:16] and rushing this forward
[54:19] seems like highly premature to be moving this forward.
[54:23] Thank you.
[54:25] Thank you.
[54:27] Anyone else? Yes. Yes, sir.
[54:31] Thank you. My name is Jerry Norquist, 1239 South Division
[54:35] Street.
[54:36] I think the council's well aware that this valley is
[54:40] over-allocated with water.
[54:42] We don't have enough water to support what already exists here.
[54:46] You know there's a program, a
[54:48] 2050 project, that's trying to work on those issues,
[54:52] and I would hope that the council will consider any development that's going to go
[54:55] on in this valley, that we
[54:59] match it with the water that's available, and we don't overdevelop
[55:03] and exacerbate the problem. Thank you.
[55:06] Thank you.
[55:11] Anyone else?
[55:19] Council,
[55:20] this looks like a routine engineering contract.
[55:23] It is not.
[55:26] I think it's quite unprecedented that tonight the council is being asked to
[55:29] authorize this CONSOR contract to do two different things with
[55:32] one agenda item. Both have enormous long-term
[55:36] consequences. One is expanding the city's water service area, and the other
[55:40] is writing a new standalone watershed control program for Mill Creek.
[55:44] Mind you, pursuant to state law, once this property is included inside a
[55:48] municipal water service area, the city is legally obligated to serve the new
[55:51] connections.
[55:53] Expanding that service area is the single most consequential decision that this
[55:56] council will get to weigh in on throughout the implementation of this entire
[56:00] development project, especially since you passed off the development agreement
[56:03] authority to the hearing examiner earlier this year.
[56:06] Meanwhile, the Watershed Control Program that this contract authorizes is a
[56:10] completely separate and equally troubling issue.
[56:13] As you are no doubt aware, Consor is the same engineering firm that violated
[56:17] federal grant requirements by implementing an unauthorized post-hoc scope
[56:21] amendment to avoid addressing or incorporating the vast majority of
[56:25] public input on the Watershed Resiliency Master Plan.
[56:29] That plan has not been adopted yet for a reason.
[56:32] That reason is because it is the subject of an active FEMA grant
[56:35] compliance complaint and pending litigation with the city, as I would
[56:39] know. And now, while that process remains contested, the
[56:43] same firm is the one being hired to write the Watershed Control Program, the
[56:47] document that the state law requires the city to use to
[56:50] identify potentially harmful watershed activities and establish
[56:54] measures for controlling them. These are the exact tasks that this
[56:58] same firm failed to do the first time, and when called out on it,
[57:02] doubled down by trying to surreptitiously purge the public voice from the record.
[57:06] We are literally in the midst of historic drought,
[57:10] unprecedented climate change. The governor has declared an
[57:13] emergency for the Mill Creek Watershed, specifically because of ash and
[57:17] sediment that the treatment plant cannot remove, and the increased risk of
[57:21] flooding, landslides, debris flows, and sedimentation.
[57:24] And these are the precise concerns that the public raised in our formal
[57:28] comments that Consor broke its own grant conditions to try to
[57:32] avoid having to respond to on the record.
[57:35] We have no idea how extensive the consequences of this summer's fire will be for
[57:39] our water supply. This is not the time to double down on new
[57:42] development. It is the time to carefully examine how
[57:46] to respond to the existing water supply
[57:50] crisis. Anything else is a
[57:52] conflagration of the public interest,
[57:56] if not a downright threat to public safety.
[58:00] So I just want to ask one question before this is rubber-stamped as routine
[58:03] contract administration. And as comforted as I am by
[58:07] your assurance, Mayor, I want to know, when is the council going to get another
[58:10] vote on this? Because nothing I've seen guarantees that either of this contract's
[58:14] work products comes back to this council for public ratification.
[58:17] Based on the wording of the resolution presented for adoption, all further
[58:20] authority to execute this contract's deliverables lies with the city manager.
[58:24] The council is effectively giving away its next decision.
[58:26] The only appropriate vote tonight is no.
[58:29] Thank you.
[58:32] Anyone else?
[58:34] Yes.
[58:38] Hi.
[58:39] Hi there.
[58:40] My name is Anna. I'm a resident here.
[58:44] And I'm here to express similar viewpoints to the people that came
[58:48] before me. I'm in opposition to the MC Gateway project,
[58:52] and I'm also deeply troubled by the fact that these two items are being
[58:55] bundled together in one agenda item.
[58:59] Why would the city entertain the notion of expanding water service to support
[59:02] roughly 670 homes, a hotel, commercial development, a golf
[59:06] course, and acres of landscaped green space in a basin that is
[59:10] already stretched? There are already more legal rights to water
[59:14] in this basin than there is water available.
[59:17] We are in the fourth consecutive year of a statewide drought declaration,
[59:21] and these problems existed long before this summer's wildfires.
[59:25] Once this land is brought into the city's water service area, the city is
[59:29] taking on an enduring responsibility to supply water there.
[59:33] The city's own water system plan says extensions occur
[59:37] as resources are available.
[59:40] So are they? Our groundwater has been declining for decades, and parts
[59:44] of the basalt aquifer were losing many feet of groundwater
[59:47] year after year, and considerably more in drought years.
[59:51] These are just the conditions we know.
[59:53] What about 20, 30, 50 years from now?
[59:56] What happens this coming El Niño year, predicted to bring even more drought and
[1:00:00] less snowpack than this past year?
[1:00:02] Why are we willing to gamble with the water of future generations for the
[1:00:06] sake of short-term profit?
[1:00:09] There is only so much water.
[1:00:11] We cannot keep pretending otherwise.
[1:00:14] I am deeply troubled by the process happening around this.
[1:00:18] I appreciate this being moved to the active agenda, but
[1:00:22] bundling a water service area amendment with the Watershed
[1:00:25] Control Program, two things with profoundly different implications, is deeply
[1:00:30] problematic. Decisions of this magnitude belong in
[1:00:34] full public view the entire time. They should not be
[1:00:37] shaped by a handful of people behind closed doors and then presented to the
[1:00:41] public once the plan is already moving.
[1:00:44] If what Paul is saying is true, I'm deeply concerned by the city manager being
[1:00:48] given so much authority in pushing this plan through.
[1:00:51] So who is driving this? Who is benefiting, and who is bearing the
[1:00:55] consequences? It won't be the developer.
[1:00:58] It will be the taxpayers who live here, the people who come after us, and the
[1:01:01] watershed itself.
[1:01:03] Water is not just another utility we can extend indefinitely to
[1:01:07] accommodate whatever we want to build.
[1:01:09] Water dictates the limit of our growth.
[1:01:13] Water is the currency we actually swim in.
[1:01:16] Water is life. Thank you.
[1:01:19] Thank you.
[1:01:27] Yes.
[1:01:29] My name is Linda Herbert. I live at 621 Pleasant Street.
[1:01:32] I do appreciate that you moved this item from the consent
[1:01:36] agenda to the active agenda. I really don't have a lot
[1:01:40] to add to the marvelous speakers who have come before me,
[1:01:44] but I just want to also weigh in and say that I totally
[1:01:48] oppose this proposal. I don't think that we have
[1:01:52] established that the MC Gateway project
[1:01:56] is beneficial for our community. I think a lot more
[1:01:59] time and investigation and consideration of the impact of
[1:02:03] climate change on our water supply, for one thing,
[1:02:07] is deserved here.
[1:02:10] And I look forward to the public hearing against the
[1:02:14] MC Gateway Project itself. Thank you.
[1:02:17] Thank you.
[1:02:21] Anyone else?
[1:02:25] Seeing none, do we have anyone online, Ms. Lysengen?
[1:02:29] No raised hands, Your Honor.
[1:02:30] All right, bringing it back to council for questions, comments from council.
[1:02:34] Do we have any questions or comments? Yes. Councilor Willis.
[1:02:40] So the Allahi Pembroke
[1:02:45] MC Gateway Project has
[1:02:48] been around for about 20 years.
[1:02:53] And
[1:02:55] it started out, and I'll
[1:02:57] just be upfront with you, I've been opposed to this project from the very
[1:03:01] beginning.
[1:03:02] And so I think the previous council 20 years ago got
[1:03:06] sold a
[1:03:07] bill of goods.
[1:03:10] The idea was that
[1:03:12] this island out there above the water treatment
[1:03:15] plant was going to get its
[1:03:19] water from the Port
[1:03:23] of Wallowa,
[1:03:24] and that's,
[1:03:25] I think, probably why it wasn't included in the
[1:03:29] original drawings that we're proposing to include it now,
[1:03:33] because it was never really expected at the time to be
[1:03:37] on city water. It was going to get the water from the port.
[1:03:42] The
[1:03:44] citizenry organized
[1:03:47] and opposed this development, and have
[1:03:51] been for the 20 years it's been sort of out there in the wind,
[1:03:55] and ended up filing a lawsuit and won.
[1:03:59] They killed the project for 20 years essentially by killing the water, the
[1:04:03] source of the water.
[1:04:05] The port was told it couldn't sell MC Gateway the water
[1:04:09] that they wanted.
[1:04:11] So water's been kind of the focus of this whole thing from the
[1:04:15] beginning.
[1:04:20] But the second piece of this is the sewer.
[1:04:24] Because in order for this thing to work, you've got to extend sewer
[1:04:28] all the way up Mill Creek Road past the
[1:04:33] water treatment center plant.
[1:04:35] That's going to be an enormous expense.
[1:04:39] Absolutely enormous expense. Not to mention all the road improvements that have to
[1:04:42] go in, or should go in probably along the same time to
[1:04:47] handle the increased traffic.
[1:04:51] So
[1:04:53] this was an ill-conceived project from the get-go.
[1:04:58] And I have said this at council meetings before, personally, I think there
[1:05:02] is a legal mechanism, I believe, to retract this annexation.
[1:05:06] I think it would require public vote to do it, but that would
[1:05:10] be my preference.
[1:05:12] Rather than having this island out there
[1:05:16] that is going to suck up an extraordinary amount of public resources
[1:05:20] to provide, as
[1:05:22] has already been said here tonight, housing we don't really need
[1:05:26] that much of at the moment. We have far greater
[1:05:30] housing needs than what is proposed in this development.
[1:05:34] So
[1:05:35] I'm a no on this thing at every possible step,
[1:05:38] and so I'm a no on the
[1:05:40] water sewage system plan update amendment.
[1:05:44] Now,
[1:05:46] I have less problems with the control program.
[1:05:49] It's state required. We have to hire somebody to do this
[1:05:53] work.
[1:05:55] I don't really have a problem with the company that's been chosen,
[1:06:00] so
[1:06:01] I'm not opposed to splitting this.
[1:06:04] Voting yes on the control program, no on the amendment.
[1:06:08] Okay. Any other questions or comments? Yes, Councilwoman.
[1:06:12] Several questions if you don't...
[1:06:14] I have a question for Tim. So I appreciated the comment
[1:06:18] about the concurrency requirement.
[1:06:21] Are there legal repercussions for the city if we don't
[1:06:24] extend water service out to serve all of the city
[1:06:28] limits at this time?
[1:06:31] I don't think so, no.
[1:06:36] I didn't hear.
[1:06:37] The answer was no.
[1:06:38] No.
[1:06:38] There would be no-
[1:06:39] There's requirements, again, when you get into our water
[1:06:43] system plan, of what we have to serve.
[1:06:47] And my understanding in the past was is that we're required to serve the things
[1:06:51] within the city, but
[1:06:53] I don't think that we are required at this point to
[1:06:57] expand our water system.
[1:07:00] And the rules are a little bit different.
[1:07:02] You can't serve something that is outside of
[1:07:04] your UGA.
[1:07:08] Right.
[1:07:08] And so this was brought into our UGA in
[1:07:12] 2005. So we can serve it,
[1:07:16] but I don't think there's a requirement that we have to serve it.
[1:07:20] But I would have to look and see with respect to it being within the
[1:07:24] city. Now with concurrency, the concurrency
[1:07:27] requirements are you can't develop unless...
[1:07:32] In other words, it's not an obligation of ours to provide
[1:07:36] the utilities for somebody to develop.
[1:07:39] It's that they can't develop until they are provided.
[1:07:41] So I don't think it's necessarily an affirmative duty that we have to
[1:07:45] extend water or sewer out there. That's a choice of the council.
[1:07:50] Thank you.
[1:07:54] Let's see.
[1:07:56] So
[1:07:58] I have a question for Kai.
[1:08:02] There have been a lot of comments about water rights
[1:08:06] at the site, and then a comment about drilling an additional
[1:08:10] well
[1:08:13] I'm curious if you could speak to either of those comments that were brought up.
[1:08:17] And then I'm also curious if you could share perspective on
[1:08:21] the potential different impact in water use
[1:08:26] if we're looking at adding 600 housing units out at
[1:08:30] this site versus 600 units in
[1:08:34] town, and if you feel like there is a big difference in water
[1:08:38] use. Sorry, that was three questions. I'm happy to repeat any of them if you want.
[1:08:42] I caught two of them.
[1:08:43] Okay.
[1:08:44] So let's start with the water use. So,
[1:08:50] as far as residential is concerned, there are kind of standard amount of usage
[1:08:54] that's expected for a residential use, depending on
[1:09:01] the number of people that live in a residence. It's a generalized number.
[1:09:05] So that planning is pretty universal.
[1:09:07] What
[1:09:08] is influenced is typically the landscaping around it, the
[1:09:12] other amenities, and that's where, again, as I understand it,
[1:09:17] the property owner has applied for a water rights transfer.
[1:09:21] This is something they've done on their own.
[1:09:22] This is not something affiliated with the city.
[1:09:25] I think RL McFarland had mentioned, made reference to that.
[1:09:30] They are going through that process through the Department of Ecology to move
[1:09:34] a water right to that property, is my understanding.
[1:09:38] The city is not involved in that. We don't have oversight of that.
[1:09:43] We have certainly looked at it,
[1:09:46] but that is a kind of a separate issue.
[1:09:47] And why they're doing that, I think they outlined in their application that
[1:09:51] they were intending to use it for irrigation use.
[1:09:54] So again, that helps offset that demand.
[1:09:57] Demand comes in many forms. The city, when it provides a water system, a lot of the
[1:10:01] demand that it's trying to provide has to do with fire
[1:10:05] protection.
[1:10:07] Usage
[1:10:08] is more on the residents and the type of use.
[1:10:11] So a commercial has a certain type of use, or industrial.
[1:10:14] They all have different types of uses and demands associated with them,
[1:10:18] in addition to such things as irrigation.
[1:10:21] So
[1:10:23] hopefully I'm answering at least two of those questions, and help me out with the
[1:10:27] third, or if you have additional follow-up questions on-
[1:10:29] Mm-hmm
[1:10:30] ... my explanation.
[1:10:32] I think the third was the comment about drilling an additional well.
[1:10:36] I believe that's related to the water rights transfers-
[1:10:39] Water, okay
[1:10:39] ... which that would be tied to.
[1:10:41] That's great, thank you.
[1:10:43] This question may be appropriate for you or for other staff.
[1:10:47] As the city is looking at the terms of the development agreement,
[1:10:52] I have heard concerns about water use for landscaping, and
[1:10:56] my question is, would it be possible to require
[1:10:59] drought-tolerant landscaping be used throughout the entire
[1:11:03] development?
[1:11:05] Is that something that the city has the authority to request or require?
[1:11:08] Hold for that question.
[1:11:08] Short answer is yes, that can be part of the discussions on the development
[1:11:12] agreement.
[1:11:13] Okay.
[1:11:18] I have other questions, but I'll leave time for my-
[1:11:23] You can certainly ask them.
[1:11:24] Okay.
[1:11:26] I also just want to share, I agree with Council Member Willis's
[1:11:30] concerns. I would like to see this split into two separate
[1:11:34] items. I think that that's important for transparency,
[1:11:38] just because of the questions that we've gotten from the community about the cost
[1:11:41] and about wanting to be sure that we're very clear and transparent
[1:11:45] about the whole process.
[1:11:47] So I would just echo those concerns.
[1:11:53] And my last question, I guess is, is it appropriate to
[1:11:58] wait until the development agreement is approved
[1:12:01] before extending water service out to this site?
[1:12:07] Is there a reason it needs to happen now rather than in
[1:12:10] 2029 as part of the standard process?
[1:12:16] I would
[1:12:19] kind of unpack that maybe se-- And it's a couple different answers.
[1:12:23] Amending the water system plan, to go back to Director Beeley's
[1:12:27] earlier presentation of the staff report, this property's in the city
[1:12:30] limits. We're recognizing that we should be serving it with water
[1:12:35] at some point. Does it mean we're approving the development with the water system
[1:12:38] plan? They're completely separate actions.
[1:12:43] The amendment of the water system plan is to,
[1:12:46] can the city serve it with water? In the water system plan, part of that
[1:12:50] analysis looks at, do we have the capacity to serve it, yes or no?
[1:12:54] And that goes through a whole review process and amendment process
[1:12:58] through the Department of Health.
[1:13:00] Can we wait until we do our periodic update, which occurs every 10 years?
[1:13:04] We certainly can. It just
[1:13:07] delays the development,
[1:13:09] and pushes that out.
[1:13:14] Sorry, I lost my train of thought there for a minute.
[1:13:16] In regards to the comments about that the city manager gets to approve this,
[1:13:21] I have no authority to approve an amendment to the water system plan.
[1:13:25] That approval process is outlined in state law and
[1:13:29] the steps that we are required to go through, whether it's a periodic
[1:13:32] update or an amendment. So I don't have any authority to make any
[1:13:36] changes to that plan, adopt that plan.
[1:13:39] All of that rests with the city council.
[1:13:42] It's at your discretion if we do the
[1:13:46] amendment now. Again, as we identified, it was
[1:13:49] missed back in when we did the last periodic update, partly because,
[1:13:54] as identified by Council Member Willis, the water was going to be originally
[1:13:57] provided by the port. And so as we started to uncover and kind of
[1:14:02] dig out through all this history
[1:14:04] of this project, we reached out to the port and say, "Port of Walla Walla, is this
[1:14:08] property still referenced in your water system plan?" It's not.
[1:14:12] This property's kind of an island right now,
[1:14:15] because it's not identified in either jurisdiction's water system plan.
[1:14:20] And so that's why we were bringing the amendment forward, is to basically correct
[1:14:24] what got missed back in the last periodic update.
[1:14:29] I hope that answers your-
[1:14:30] Thank you. And just to clarify, would there be an opportunity for public
[1:14:34] comment again before the plan amendment was actually approved?
[1:14:38] Oh, of course. I think we even require public hearings and such with
[1:14:42] the plan amendment, if I remember correctly.
[1:14:45] The DOH reviews and authorizes it to basically come back to council for
[1:14:49] formal adoption.
[1:14:51] Okay, great. Thank you. I guess the last thing I would say is
[1:14:54] just,
[1:14:56] at this point, we don't know for sure if the development agreement is
[1:15:00] going to be approved, and so my personal preference is to wait until
[1:15:04] we know that that is going to for sure move forward.
[1:15:09] Mr. Alcuff?
[1:15:10] Oh.
[1:15:11] I don't really have a question in this.
[1:15:13] I read this thing a couple times,
[1:15:16] thought about it,
[1:15:18] read my emails a couple times.
[1:15:22] And I agree, I think it should be split up.
[1:15:24] I think transparency is needed here.
[1:15:27] Time is needed here.
[1:15:30] Public input is definitely needed here.
[1:15:32] This isn't a decision that we should make lightly
[1:15:35] going forward. So I don't really have a question, I just wanted my thoughts to be
[1:15:39] on the record.
[1:15:40] Mm-hmm.
[1:15:41] Mr. Moss?
[1:15:42] Your Honor, thank you.
[1:15:49] From staff,
[1:15:51] was there
[1:15:52] a potential cost savings by putting these
[1:15:55] two activities under one contract?
[1:15:59] Yes.
[1:16:01] Do you have a sense of how much?
[1:16:03] Not really.
[1:16:04] Part of it's staff time, and part of it is efficiency in working with the
[1:16:08] consultant team.
[1:16:10] Particularly the Watershed Control Plan or program was something that was
[1:16:14] identified in the Watershed Resiliency Plan as reviewing those
[1:16:17] documents.
[1:16:19] Yes, while some of it's there,
[1:16:21] it needed to be formalized, so that was one of the
[1:16:25] areas of improvement that was identified through that process.
[1:16:30] Again, it's more efficient to run one contract than it is to run two contracts.
[1:16:35] That's why it was put together that way, and it's the same consultant team
[1:16:39] that we're looking at to assist us on both items.
[1:16:42] So it made sense to put them together.
[1:16:45] If council were to
[1:16:47] decide to split them, that's doable, though?
[1:16:51] Yes.
[1:16:53] What exactly
[1:16:56] are we, as a city, if we approved
[1:17:01] the $28,000 scope of work,
[1:17:06] what are we buying for that?
[1:17:08] That is the Watershed Control Program, and it is a Washington
[1:17:12] administrative code requirement.
[1:17:15] Again, it's kind of been handled through a
[1:17:18] conglomerate of different documents and pieces
[1:17:21] that DOH has kind of given us a pass on in the past.
[1:17:25] But it's something that we need to formalize and make as a
[1:17:28] standalone
[1:17:30] document that
[1:17:32] helps us manage it going forth because they are, I believe it's
[1:17:36] annual sanitary surveys that are conducted where this plan is reviewed and our
[1:17:40] actions and reporting and it all brings better alignment and
[1:17:44] uniformity by doing so. So that's why we're trying
[1:17:47] to formalize it.
[1:17:49] But by having the state's eyes
[1:17:53] on the project, if we were to approve it,
[1:17:56] that gives us
[1:17:59] additional
[1:18:00] resources. Is that fair?
[1:18:03] I don't know that it brings us additional resources.
[1:18:05] It formalizes that program in a much easier way to
[1:18:09] follow and execute and administer over time.
[1:18:13] If the study were to proceed,
[1:18:16] the information from that study,
[1:18:19] whatever the recommendations are, would come back to the city council?
[1:18:23] The Watershed Control Program
[1:18:25] or the Water System Plan Amendment?
[1:18:27] I'm talking about
[1:18:29] for the LE project.
[1:18:31] Yes, that would come back to council.
[1:18:33] Again, after there's a pretty specific process that we have to follow,
[1:18:38] and address certain documentation with the Department of Health
[1:18:42] to their satisfaction, and once that's done, then that amendment would come back
[1:18:46] to council for formal adoption.
[1:18:48] So the council, as I understand it,
[1:18:52] if we approved it, we would be getting a consultant's
[1:18:58] opinion, information on if we,
[1:19:02] the city, were to provide water to this area,
[1:19:06] what those
[1:19:08] requirements
[1:19:10] would be, maybe even cost figures, I don't know.
[1:19:13] No, not to that level of detail. This is basically,
[1:19:17] again, saying that the water service area aligns with the city
[1:19:21] limits. So what's in the city is served by the city.
[1:19:24] That's one component. But you also have to go through a process to
[1:19:28] assure that you have sufficient resources in order to provide that water.
[1:19:32] So that's one step. There are additional steps into actually the
[1:19:36] infrastructure component of putting pipes in the ground and that type of thing.
[1:19:40] That's another step. That's another element that will have to be
[1:19:44] reviewed by the Department of Health.
[1:19:46] But it's not a task that necessarily the city will take on as far as that
[1:19:50] expense. That would be the developer's responsibility for those
[1:19:54] design elements and going through
[1:19:57] the design process.
[1:19:59] And that too, goes through Department of Health to review.
[1:20:03] But a separate element from
[1:20:05] the
[1:20:06] water service area plan amendment, if you will.
[1:20:11] So we, the city,
[1:20:13] neglected to, forgot about, it missed
[1:20:18] being on the list of issues that we were to
[1:20:22] report on in
[1:20:24] 2020. Is that
[1:20:26] my-
[1:20:26] Honestly, I think there's a lot of conjecture of how did this get missed?
[1:20:30] Was it intentionally missed?
[1:20:31] Yeah.
[1:20:31] I don't really want to go there.
[1:20:32] It did happen
[1:20:34] I can tell you is there's a lot of history with that particular piece of property
[1:20:37] when it comes to serving it with water that's hard to unpack and
[1:20:41] unravel.
[1:20:42] Who is going to serve it, how much water is going to be available, all those kinds
[1:20:46] of things.
[1:20:47] Yes.
[1:20:47] And then the fact that,
[1:20:50] in my mind,
[1:20:53] one of the principal reasons that the project didn't proceed was we had the
[1:20:57] Great Recession.
[1:20:59] That was my understanding, and that there was a number of extensions-
[1:21:01] In the middle of it.
[1:21:05] The money wasn't there, the project
[1:21:07] fell apart. The property's been sold.
[1:21:11] Is that correct?
[1:21:12] Mm-hmm.
[1:21:12] It's not the-
[1:21:13] That is correct
[1:21:13] ... original
[1:21:15] developer that brought it to the city and
[1:21:19] got the
[1:21:20] property annexed.
[1:21:26] So, if we do provide the study, all we're
[1:21:30] doing is
[1:21:31] asking for
[1:21:33] how the water
[1:21:36] would have to be provided? I'm still confused on this.
[1:21:40] Yeah. We're essentially updating the service area map
[1:21:43] and
[1:21:46] can we provide it with water. And
[1:21:48] hopefully I'm not going to add more confusion to this, but when we do a water
[1:21:52] system plan, when we do our general sewer plan,
[1:21:55] part of those plans look at what is our projected growth over our
[1:21:59] 20-year planning horizon. It's all connected with the comprehensive.
[1:22:02] So when we did the
[1:22:05] water system plan update, the last periodic update, all of that
[1:22:08] information was provided and included within that water system plan,
[1:22:13] which included this property. Because it was in the city limits, we needed to do
[1:22:16] our population projections. We had the property zoned as urban plan
[1:22:20] community. All of that was contemplated within
[1:22:24] the current water system plan.
[1:22:27] It's just when you go to the map, when it says, "Is it within our service area?"
[1:22:31] This property just doesn't have a line around it.
[1:22:33] I
[1:22:35] don't want to make it as simple as that, but it's almost as simple as that.
[1:22:37] We just need to draw a line around the property and say, "It's in our water
[1:22:41] service area."
[1:22:43] So are we out of compliance by not having that?
[1:22:49] That's a little hard to say, and I would recommend probably with all the questions
[1:22:52] that we're hearing tonight, there is not a rush to make this
[1:22:56] decision this evening on the water system plan amendment.
[1:22:59] I would recommend that council separate these two issues.
[1:23:02] Let's take the action on the watershed control program, and
[1:23:06] we'll come back and workshop the water system plan amendment, and we'll
[1:23:09] answer these questions for you.
[1:23:11] I appreciate that. Just one more clarification.
[1:23:16] Any new development that happens, whether it's
[1:23:20] near the airport, south of town, east of town, north of town,
[1:23:25] the developer is required to put in
[1:23:29] and pay for the resources-
[1:23:31] The infrastructure
[1:23:32] ... to get the water to them, and for the sewer line to
[1:23:36] take
[1:23:37] the resources
[1:23:39] out of that property. Is that correct?
[1:23:41] That is correct.
[1:23:42] Thank you.
[1:23:43] Councilor Robinson.
[1:23:45] Apologies for not raising my hand earlier.
[1:23:48] I was collecting my thoughts. It has been quite the week.
[1:23:52] I would support splitting these.
[1:23:55] As a rule, I believe in the axiom, we grow, or we die.
[1:24:00] And I believe my record of voting for things would
[1:24:04] showcase that.
[1:24:06] But I don't think it's unreasonable for people to say, "Let's take a
[1:24:10] moment here." This thing has been around for 20-plus years.
[1:24:14] I read the most fascinating noir novel written by Dan Clark.
[1:24:18] It was called "Walla Walla: A Study in Corruption," and I'm not going
[1:24:22] to lie to you, there were so many twists and turns in the darn thing
[1:24:26] that I thought I was reading-- You have a gift.
[1:24:30] A gift. And I hope you'll write my obituary if I
[1:24:33] predecease you. It's that good, okay?
[1:24:36] It was beautiful, Dan.
[1:24:38] That being said, I think we do have a lot of difficult
[1:24:42] questions. We do have a comprehensive plan that's going through the process of
[1:24:46] being approved. It's not unreasonable given a lot of what has
[1:24:50] happened in the past before many of us even got on council to take it a little
[1:24:54] slower, to see where we end up, to see what pieces we're going to
[1:24:58] be working with. And
[1:25:00] when the time comes, if we need somebody to make a motion to split them, I'd be
[1:25:03] happy to. I have one in mind.
[1:25:06] Councilor Escala, you had a question.
[1:25:07] Yeah.
[1:25:09] I agree with
[1:25:10] everything that's said.
[1:25:12] I think that right off the bat, R'L hit it on the head, that
[1:25:16] there's no rush because they're going to look at it in 2029 anyway.
[1:25:22] But I do not think--
[1:25:25] I was listening to Council Member Moss' questions.
[1:25:28] Simply because something's been zoned this way or adopted this
[1:25:32] way,
[1:25:33] I don't think that makes it mean we have to do that.
[1:25:37] There's always ways to change things.
[1:25:39] And
[1:25:41] as
[1:25:42] Monty said, I've followed this for 20 years when it
[1:25:46] was Alahi and Pembroke and now MC Gateway.
[1:25:49] And the public has
[1:25:52] been highly opposed
[1:25:55] every step of the way. And I think what the public
[1:25:59] believes, the general public believes, and the taxpayers, it
[1:26:03] should matter. And for us to put things in
[1:26:07] there, we really have to look at what the cost will be to
[1:26:11] the public. And
[1:26:15] on the issue of whether we should just approve this now because it's just
[1:26:19] a starting point,
[1:26:21] I would prefer we just leave the
[1:26:24] train at the station, the horse in the
[1:26:26] barn, all that stuff. I think
[1:26:31] there's going to be opportunity for the public to weigh in-
[1:26:35] And it won't be on such a short notice that there's a big rush to get down to
[1:26:39] City Hall and make a protest. So-
[1:26:42] ... I would
[1:26:44] concur with my councilman.
[1:26:45] Councilor Williams, you had-
[1:26:46] So I,
[1:26:48] big thing, one small thing.
[1:26:50] The big thing was
[1:26:52] thinking about this sewer trunk line that's going to have to go up there, up Mill
[1:26:55] Creek Road to get there.
[1:26:59] The trunk lines like that, we usually don't ask developers to put those
[1:27:03] in on established public roads
[1:27:06] that might service lots of other properties along the way.
[1:27:10] Is that really how we
[1:27:12] would build that out?
[1:27:13] That one is to be determined how that's going to go forth, because it is a big
[1:27:17] expense, is how to do that.
[1:27:20] Because that doesn't strike me that that's the way that works,
[1:27:23] typically anyways. So just putting that one out there.
[1:27:26] That seems like that's going to be a massive public expense along with the
[1:27:30] road improvements, because I can't see them being able to make enough on
[1:27:34] those houses to pay for
[1:27:37] that sewer extension. That just makes the thing whole unfeasible.
[1:27:41] So that's number one.
[1:27:43] And then number two, and this is a smaller thing, but nonetheless,
[1:27:47] we are
[1:27:48] dealing with a budget shortfall, and this is money we don't have to spend now.
[1:27:52] Mm.
[1:27:53] This is money that I don't think this development's going to happen, if it happens
[1:27:56] at all, until way in the future. So
[1:28:00] just from a pure financial perspective, I don't see the
[1:28:03] point of spending this money now.
[1:28:06] We're looking for places to save money.
[1:28:08] This looks like a great one to me.
[1:28:11] So...
[1:28:12] All right. Any other questions or comments?
[1:28:15] Nope.
[1:28:17] From my... Yes, did you have another question?
[1:28:18] No, I was moving my hand.
[1:28:20] From my perspective, reading the history, the very convoluted history of this,
[1:28:24] it's not clear that the decisions that were made at some
[1:28:28] point had in consideration the current reality of our
[1:28:32] water supply or our drought, et cetera.
[1:28:34] So,
[1:28:35] should that come to council at this point, based on the current
[1:28:39] conditions of our city,
[1:28:42] I doubt that we would make decisions that were made several years
[1:28:46] ago. And I don't mean to second guess them, but they were made
[1:28:50] at a different time and a different context than what we have today.
[1:28:54] So that alone, which is I think where many of the people who came here
[1:28:58] to talk about, is very important for us to reconsider.
[1:29:03] It really resonates with me, the question of budget and that we need to
[1:29:07] make these expenses at this time when we have a lot of other constraints.
[1:29:11] I know that as one of the alternatives that was given to us on
[1:29:15] this policy was to direct staff to renegotiate the scope
[1:29:19] of work and separate the water system plan amendment and the Watershed
[1:29:23] Control Plan Program. What I heard earlier is that we
[1:29:27] have...
[1:29:30] Ms. Chamberlain, I think you said we will table one
[1:29:33] entirely in any case, but-
[1:29:35] Mm-hmm
[1:29:35] ... but we still need to have
[1:29:37] a motion to separate them so that we can vote on one
[1:29:41] separately. On each separately, but one is already maybe would
[1:29:46] need to vote on it being tabled? Not sure.
[1:29:49] Or should we just agree that it's being tabled?
[1:29:53] You just need to make, if you only want to proceed on one
[1:29:56] aspect, just make the motion that you're just
[1:30:00] voting to approve that. The other part of it just-
[1:30:03] The other part would remain out. Okay.
[1:30:05] Anything else?
[1:30:08] Go for it. So I move to approve the Watershed Control Plan
[1:30:14] as outlined in the
[1:30:18] agenda item, which was originally
[1:30:21] designated as Resolution
[1:30:24] 2026-080.
[1:30:28] Second.
[1:30:28] We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Yes.
[1:30:31] Just a note that we're approving the contract with Consort
[1:30:34] Engineers to complete the Watershed Control
[1:30:38] Program, not approving the Watershed Control Program.
[1:30:41] Oh, right. Yeah.
[1:30:42] Right.
[1:30:42] I was sort of incorporating-
[1:30:43] Okay
[1:30:43] ... what was in number two, but that's great. Yeah.
[1:30:45] Okay.
[1:30:46] If you want to take over and make the motion, then you're-
[1:30:48] You got it.
[1:30:48] Go for it.
[1:30:49] Just want to make sure we're clear.
[1:30:50] Second again.
[1:30:51] Yeah.
[1:30:53] We're approving a contract with a contractor to put together documentation that
[1:30:56] goes to the Department of Health.
[1:30:58] Correct. Do we need the updated dollar amount?
[1:31:03] No, not for the resolution you don't. Okay.
[1:31:05] As long as it's clear and the staff go back and
[1:31:09] change the scope of work to match what you've approved.
[1:31:13] Okay.
[1:31:13] All right.
[1:31:14] I would yield. You want to-
[1:31:14] And Councilor Moser, you have something else?
[1:31:16] I just want to
[1:31:18] recognize the clerk and make sure she understands-
[1:31:21] What the motion is
[1:31:22] ... for the record.
[1:31:23] The record.
[1:31:25] My understanding is the motion is to approve the Watershed Control
[1:31:28] Program contract with Consort.
[1:31:30] Contract with.
[1:31:32] Correct.
[1:31:33] We have that motion. We have a second.
[1:31:36] Yep.
[1:31:37] Okay, all those in favor, please say aye.
[1:31:39] Aye.
[1:31:39] Aye.
[1:31:39] Aye.
[1:31:40] Any opposed?
[1:31:42] That passes unanimously. Okay.
[1:31:46] The next item in our
[1:31:49] active agenda is Resolution
[1:31:52] 2026-082, authorized as a professional services
[1:31:56] contract with
[1:31:57] Hill Associates Architects, PLLC, in the amount not to
[1:32:01] exceed 214,700.
[1:32:05] That is
[1:32:07] Ms. Click, and that's related to WesCom, if I understand correctly.
[1:32:11] That's correct.
[1:32:12] All right.
[1:32:16] Thank you. Welcome. And
[1:32:18] move that one.
[1:32:23] That better?
[1:32:24] Okay.
[1:32:25] I did have a presentation.
[1:32:30] Did you put it back? Is it in the-
[1:32:31] I did put it in the folder.
[1:32:32] Sure, okay.
[1:32:38] She didn't
[1:32:52] Perfect. Thank you. I just wanted to give you guys-
[1:32:56] Sure.
[1:32:56] Oh, sorry.
[1:32:59] Yeah.
[1:33:15] All right.
[1:33:16] No, you're good. Thank you. I appreciate it.
[1:33:19] So for those of you that don't know me, my name's Esther Click, and I'm the manager
[1:33:23] at the 911 dispatch,
[1:33:26] also known as WESCOM. We provide services for the entire Walla Walla County.
[1:33:30] So today, I'm presenting to you a resolution requesting
[1:33:34] for approval
[1:33:36] of us to engage in what we are considering a phase one of
[1:33:41] a very long extended project.
[1:33:44] So in 1997, WESCOM was relocated to
[1:33:48] its current location,
[1:33:50] which is 27 North Second.
[1:33:52] It was supposed to be relocated there on a temporary basis.
[1:33:56] And now we're in 2026, so it was not so temporary.
[1:34:02] In 2023, throughout the time, there's been a lot of conversations of
[1:34:06] getting us relocated to a more appropriate place,
[1:34:09] for security reasons and
[1:34:12] seismic issues,
[1:34:14] water flood issues, all sorts of risks that we are exposed to at our
[1:34:18] current location.
[1:34:19] We've always kind of fallen a little bit short of being able to
[1:34:24] make that a complete goal. In
[1:34:27] '23, the county started to engage in
[1:34:31] looking at some options, and they looked
[1:34:34] and had some federal partners and were able to obtain some federal
[1:34:38] funds to look into a port property.
[1:34:42] Ultimately, that was not
[1:34:44] deemed a good location. The expense to relocate us
[1:34:48] there was going to be vast more than just building
[1:34:52] from the ground up.
[1:34:54] But building from the ground up is very expensive and something that we are not
[1:34:58] considering at this time because of our financial
[1:35:02] situation. And then in 2024,
[1:35:06] we started doing a couple different things.
[1:35:09] I was asked, coming in as a manager, to look at some
[1:35:13] sustainable funding for our dispatch center, and it came forward
[1:35:17] as a ballot for all of our citizens across the entire county.
[1:35:20] We worked really hard to educate our county and our citizens as
[1:35:24] to why we were doing this and what our needs truly are.
[1:35:28] And relocating us from our current location to
[1:35:32] a more proper location was definitely one of the items that were
[1:35:36] discussed during that campaign. So,
[1:35:40] that passed. We have
[1:35:43] started collecting, at the beginning of this year, those funds,
[1:35:47] and we're looking at different things that we can obviously do with those funds,
[1:35:52] and considering what our options are, how we can use those funds appropriately to
[1:35:56] move to a new location.
[1:35:59] During the summer of '25, I believe it was,
[1:36:04] we engaged in conversations with Walla Walla Community College.
[1:36:09] As most community colleges, they're experiencing some of their
[1:36:12] spaces not being utilized to its fullest
[1:36:15] ability or capacity. And so they engaged a conversation with us
[1:36:19] about partnering and maybe allowing us to
[1:36:23] take over some space. Obviously, we would have to retrofit it.
[1:36:27] There's
[1:36:28] building codes that we have to
[1:36:31] maintain based on our public safety standard.
[1:36:35] So we started having those conversations, and now we're to the
[1:36:39] point where we believe that partnership between the city, the
[1:36:43] county, Walla Walla Community College, DES, and
[1:36:47] all those partners that need to be involved, could be fruitful,
[1:36:51] and we could actually look at something that we could
[1:36:54] financially support and be able to maintain moving
[1:36:58] forward.
[1:37:01] So there have been some further studies.
[1:37:04] We engaged IXP, which had been engaged previously by the
[1:37:07] county. However, we did it ourselves, asked them to
[1:37:11] look at the potential of retrofitting the Walla Walla Community College.
[1:37:15] And the conclusion of that was that retrofitting is actually feasible.
[1:37:19] So we continued down that conversation.
[1:37:22] May 14th,
[1:37:24] we put out an RFP for a new public safety answering
[1:37:28] point and emergency management facility.
[1:37:31] That RFP closed on June 11th.
[1:37:33] We went through a selection process.
[1:37:35] There was a panel, there was an interview after the first
[1:37:39] preliminary scoring panel. And we came down
[1:37:43] to reaching our selected firm, which was MJ Neal.
[1:37:47] MJ Neal has since then engaged in further conversations with us,
[1:37:51] given us a proposal. What this phase one is going to do--
[1:37:55] And you can skip over to the next one.
[1:37:58] What the phase one's going to do is provide us a schematic design and cost
[1:38:02] estimating. So this is where we live at.
[1:38:04] This is where your 911 facilities for the entire county live right
[1:38:08] now.
[1:38:09] And yes, we are able to perform our duties to the
[1:38:13] best of our abilities with what we have.
[1:38:17] But I think our community, when they look at this, would
[1:38:21] rather see something that's better, that's more
[1:38:24] modern, that's
[1:38:27] robust, and that can withstand a lot of other things, given
[1:38:31] where we're at and where we would like to be at, and being able to
[1:38:35] live into the future far beyond our lifetime.
[1:38:40] So,
[1:38:41] what this vision and what this phase one will do is, if you can skip into the next
[1:38:45] one, next slide.
[1:38:47] We're starting to look at what this would look at. This is the technology building.
[1:38:52] Big red doors, if anybody has been down to the community college.
[1:38:56] It would be located on the second floor.
[1:38:58] And these are just rough ... sketches of what we're
[1:39:02] trying to envision, of what we could do to be able to
[1:39:07] retrofit and relocate our dispatchers and our emergency
[1:39:11] management department into a newer facility
[1:39:14] with new technology.
[1:39:17] And be able to fulfill the needs of our community
[1:39:20] a little bit better maybe than we are today.
[1:39:23] So today, I'm asking you guys to please consider approving this
[1:39:28] resolution so that we can move into this phase one.
[1:39:31] Questions?
[1:39:32] Okay. Thank you very much, Ms. Click.
[1:39:34] Yes.
[1:39:35] We'll give the public an opportunity to provide any input they
[1:39:38] have on this matter.
[1:39:42] We don't have any public input. Do we have anyone online, Ms. Nysol?
[1:39:46] No raised hands, Your Honor.
[1:39:47] All right. Bring it back to council. Do we have any questions?
[1:39:51] Yes, Councilor Willis, start with you.
[1:39:53] So if I understand this correctly,
[1:39:56] the thing with the physical plan is that it doesn't
[1:40:01] hold up to scrutiny when it comes to natural disasters and those sorts of things,
[1:40:04] right? It needs to be built in such a way, you need to have a space that if
[1:40:08] we have a major problem, you guys still are answering the phone.
[1:40:12] Yes.
[1:40:13] For people who call and say, "Oh, I'm the one in trouble."
[1:40:16] Yes.
[1:40:16] "Send help here."
[1:40:17] Yes.
[1:40:18] The current facility doesn't do that.
[1:40:21] Not very well.
[1:40:22] Well, it doesn't mean it is out of compliance, I understand.
[1:40:25] If they came and looked at it, they would say, "Well, no, you really should be
[1:40:28] someplace else."
[1:40:29] Yeah, and they've done that. We've had those studies.
[1:40:31] I know the county performed a study
[1:40:34] before '23, and then when I came into the picture,
[1:40:38] I brought in CISA, which is a firm at the federal level, to
[1:40:42] assess our redundancies. And that's when we
[1:40:46] started having some conversations again about
[1:40:50] we really probably need to consider relocating ourselves.
[1:40:53] So that's the impetus behind this whole thing.
[1:40:54] Yes, sir.
[1:40:55] And so then you move to the community college, and the question there is
[1:40:59] can this existing building be retrofitted to meet all those
[1:41:03] requirements.
[1:41:04] Yes.
[1:41:04] And that's basically what this,
[1:41:07] or at least part of what this contract is supposed to be answering, right?
[1:41:10] So that has been partially answered.
[1:41:12] What we're looking more, we're trying to get into further detail is can we
[1:41:16] afford this?
[1:41:18] Okay. Is this feasibility in addition to...
[1:41:20] So we know it needs to be done, now is it feasible for our budget to
[1:41:24] get there?
[1:41:24] Yeah. Financially feasible. The feasibility of it getting retrofitted,
[1:41:29] the way that it was presented to us before in the other
[1:41:32] engineering assessment was that, yes, it can, but there's a lot of little details
[1:41:36] that need to get looked at a little bit further to fully
[1:41:40] give you a good
[1:41:43] schematic design of what needs to happen in order to meet
[1:41:46] those level four, category four codes.
[1:41:50] And also, what that's going to cost you.
[1:41:54] Well, I fully support figuring out whether it's feasible or not.
[1:41:58] I wish it didn't cost so much.
[1:42:00] That would be my only comment.
[1:42:01] Yep.
[1:42:04] And there's a lot of components to it.
[1:42:06] Some of the things is site surveying.
[1:42:09] There's been no site surveys. There's
[1:42:11] soil testing that needs to be performed.
[1:42:14] There's aerial footage that needs to be taken.
[1:42:17] There's all sorts of components that are going to lead to
[1:42:20] those studies that are going to all come back together to develop that schematic
[1:42:24] design. And yes,
[1:42:26] I would agree that I wish it was not that expensive.
[1:42:30] Councilor Vesco.
[1:42:31] Yeah.
[1:42:32] I fully support the idea, but like Council Member Willis, I'm concerned
[1:42:36] about the money. So
[1:42:39] since this is
[1:42:41] a cooperative effort with the county and all the cities involved,
[1:42:46] will the city get paid back for
[1:42:49] this $214,700?
[1:42:53] So the funding comes out of the Westcom budget, which is already a
[1:42:57] compilation of all the users of Westcom have put into it.
[1:42:59] So all the users are already paying their share of this.
[1:43:03] So it comes out of that Westcom budget, not the city's general-
[1:43:06] So this isn't coming out from the city?
[1:43:08] No.
[1:43:08] Okay.
[1:43:09] It's funded by the phone, though.
[1:43:09] Just, yeah. That's good.
[1:43:12] And
[1:43:14] is the process that we went through
[1:43:17] to get the
[1:43:20] vendor,
[1:43:22] was that proper? Because it didn't sound like we went out for bid or anything.
[1:43:25] No, we went out for a request for proposals, so that request for
[1:43:29] proposals was advertised per basically our purchasing policy
[1:43:33] approach. And
[1:43:35] so it was advertised per, and then the scope of works or the submittals were
[1:43:39] per what we advertised. And then those were scored and reviewed by a panel.
[1:43:43] And then the top two were interviewed.
[1:43:45] And then the
[1:43:47] selected firm was MJ Neal. So we went through our-
[1:43:51] Yeah
[1:43:51] ... appropriate process.
[1:43:52] I just ask, again, because it's not just the city, it's a
[1:43:56] cooperative, so I want to make sure we're doing that right.
[1:43:59] And then the request for proposals was signed off on by the executive committee.
[1:44:03] Okay. And do we know if they do get to build this at the community
[1:44:07] college,
[1:44:10] will there be a lease?
[1:44:12] Most likely. We're still working on some of those details.
[1:44:16] But yes, it would be a lease situation and a fairly long term.
[1:44:20] I was going to say, was it going to be like the forest service and the-
[1:44:23] And all of those would come back to council.
[1:44:27] We're still in some of those conversations.
[1:44:29] But again,
[1:44:32] what decision comes first? And we needed to know this sort of step, what was going
[1:44:36] to be our planning cost estimate-
[1:44:38] Right
[1:44:38] ... to actually do the work, and then we'll start bringing forward-
[1:44:42] Right
[1:44:42] ... subsequent items for council.
[1:44:44] So we would know that. And again, just like everything else, the city is the lead
[1:44:48] agency, so we need-
[1:44:50] Which is why this comes to you, because you guys are-
[1:44:51] Right. So-
[1:44:52] ... receiving the budget for Westcom.
[1:44:53] So we collect the money, and then we send it out.
[1:44:56] So they operate the city. Mm-hmm.
[1:44:58] Okay.
[1:45:00] All right.
[1:45:02] And-
[1:45:07] At what point are we going to know if it's a go and we get to
[1:45:11] do this?
[1:45:12] How long of a process is this?
[1:45:14] I'm going to have to look to Esther for that.
[1:45:19] If I remember the schedule, I thought it was by the end of the year.
[1:45:21] Year.
[1:45:21] Okay.
[1:45:21] It's a very aggressive timeline that they have, and then they
[1:45:25] built in
[1:45:27] contingencies within it. But
[1:45:30] if I remember right, it's the mid-December, end of November.
[1:45:34] I'd have to look at it. I don't have it with me, so I'd hate to say what the date
[1:45:38] is, but it's before the end of the year.
[1:45:41] Okay, and if you get the green light, how long will it take them
[1:45:45] to get moving, and what would be anticipated move-in time?
[1:45:49] So we would have to go back out for bid for the next phase.
[1:45:52] Right.
[1:45:52] And there would have to be that process once again.
[1:45:56] So I think if we're being honest, very
[1:45:59] aggressive, and if we were successful the whole way through, we're probably looking
[1:46:03] in 2028.
[1:46:04] Okay.
[1:46:05] Mm-hmm.
[1:46:05] All right, thank you.
[1:46:07] Any other questions on this item?
[1:46:09] Anybody want to say? Thank you, Faith.
[1:46:13] Fully support-
[1:46:14] Thank you
[1:46:14] ... the Westcombe new facilities and all the upgrading of systems and
[1:46:18] all kinds of things. So this is really just going to help you understand
[1:46:22] what
[1:46:23] do you need, at what cost, et cetera.
[1:46:26] I have one question. This is purely a contract between Westcombe
[1:46:30] and
[1:46:31] the contractor.
[1:46:33] It's not really related to the community college in any way.
[1:46:38] I am a trustee of the community college, and I just want to make
[1:46:42] sure that
[1:46:44] I can vote on this. I should perhaps just abstain from this
[1:46:48] vote, even though it's not directly related.
[1:46:50] You don't have a conflict on this because there's no financial benefit
[1:46:54] or gain or anything to the community college
[1:46:58] or even remotely to you, so I don't think there's any kind of conflict.
[1:47:01] Okay. But probably the public disclosure that I am
[1:47:06] on the board of trustees of the community college, so that is all transparent.
[1:47:10] Anything else from us?
[1:47:13] All right. So I will
[1:47:15] ask for us to decide what we're going to do with Resolution
[1:47:19] 2026-082, authorizing professional
[1:47:23] services contract with MJ Neal Associates, Architects, PLLC,
[1:47:27] in the amount not to exceed 214,700.
[1:47:31] Your Honor, I move to approve Resolution
[1:47:34] 2026-082.
[1:47:38] All right. We have a motion.
[1:47:40] Second.
[1:47:40] We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say "Aye."
[1:47:44] Aye.
[1:47:44] Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimous, so thank you.
[1:47:49] We'll move on to the next item on our agenda, and that's Resolution
[1:47:52] 20-083, authorizes applying for
[1:47:56] and accepting a water quality combined funding program loan for
[1:48:00] up to 8 million for
[1:48:02] the wastewater system improvements.
[1:48:06] Yes, Mr. Bailey, you're back.
[1:48:09] Yes. This is a request to apply for
[1:48:13] loan funding for wastewater treatment plant and pump station
[1:48:16] improvements
[1:48:18] up to 8 million. There is specific financial comments in there.
[1:48:22] I believe the state has changed this program slightly.
[1:48:25] It's not as familiar to me as some of the other programs we've applied for in the
[1:48:28] past.
[1:48:30] Other programs we have applied for in the past are contained within this
[1:48:34] program now, so a little bit of a change.
[1:48:36] So this specific request is for up to $8
[1:48:40] million loan. Typically, a low-interest loan varying in
[1:48:44] rates between 1.4% up to
[1:48:47] 3.7%, and it's dependent upon the term of the loan.
[1:48:51] So as an example, for a 20-year term, 2.8%
[1:48:55] interest rate, which is looking very good these days.
[1:49:01] The term would vary.
[1:49:02] There is also some potential for grant or loan forgiveness
[1:49:06] as part of the program that's going to be dependent upon hardship evaluation.
[1:49:11] These funds would be used towards, again, if we're successful with
[1:49:15] our loan application, and
[1:49:20] we're awarded this, it is a long process.
[1:49:23] The funding would be used, again, for a variety of wastewater treatment plant
[1:49:27] projects. I can list those out for you.
[1:49:28] They were not contained in the staff report.
[1:49:31] They probably won't mean much to you, I'll be honest with you.
[1:49:33] It's a lot of basically replacing
[1:49:36] failing elements of the wastewater treatment plant.
[1:49:40] The other one is replacement of the fairway lift station.
[1:49:44] That lift station,
[1:49:46] I think, was installed in
[1:49:48] 2004.
[1:49:52] It's in a very difficult location. It has very high run times.
[1:49:57] It's essentially sandwiched in the backyard of about three different
[1:50:01] properties. It's a tough spot, I'll be honest with you.
[1:50:04] A very difficult spot to maintain and operate, and it's
[1:50:07] nearing the end of its useful life on the components of that
[1:50:12] pump station. So we're looking at what are the alternatives to move that out of the
[1:50:15] backyards if we can. Sewer systems are very challenging because they have
[1:50:20] gravity pipes leading into them, so it's quite a challenge to move a pump
[1:50:24] station. Because you have those pipes leading into it, you
[1:50:28] don't have a lot of leeway. But we need to look at it to improve that scenario, so
[1:50:32] that is one of the projects that's contained in this request.
[1:50:35] And again, a laundry list of other repairs elements
[1:50:40] associated with the wastewater treatment plant.
[1:50:43] HVAC improvements,
[1:50:46] pump replacements,
[1:50:48] freeze protection at the headworks,
[1:50:52] master control cabinet replacements.
[1:50:55] Basically, electronic components at the wastewater treatment plant, and that list
[1:50:59] goes on and on. There's
[1:51:04] 10 different items
[1:51:07] requesting loan funding. Again, I'm happy to answer additional
[1:51:10] questions council has Best of my abilities on this one.
[1:51:14] All right, Mr. Riley. We'll let any public input happen first.
[1:51:18] Anybody has public input on this item?
[1:51:24] Council, it's Perry. Be brief.
[1:51:26] I am a big fan of functional wastewater treatment plants.
[1:51:32] I'm such a big fan, in fact, of functional wastewater treatment plants that this is
[1:51:35] exactly the kind of issue that I think should be forefronted by the council,
[1:51:38] especially prior to connecting a very significant percentage increase
[1:51:42] in the number of wastewater
[1:51:45] users. I just want to
[1:51:48] further a message that was relayed to me by members of the public who do not
[1:51:52] live within the city limits and did not feel that it was their place to comment at
[1:51:56] city council meetings that live on the Gozi Irrigation District ditch,
[1:52:01] to which the city of Walla Walla discharges its wastewater from the
[1:52:05] months of May through
[1:52:09] November, I believe, before then transferring that wastewater into Mill Creek,
[1:52:13] where I've personally gone and tested some of the discharge and done a bit of my
[1:52:16] own research on it. It is a
[1:52:19] festering, stinking problem that the city has not addressed
[1:52:23] adequately. And to put it bluntly, in the words of
[1:52:27] my dear friend who lives there and smells it every day, he says, "That ditch
[1:52:31] smells like s**t." Please forgive my language, but I just thought that the council
[1:52:35] should be made aware of that and that $8 million makes sense considering how
[1:52:39] much equipment it is.
[1:52:41] But that's a lot of money, money that should be spent on dealing with our waste
[1:52:45] before it's spent on other things.
[1:52:47] And forgive me for the bait and switch, but one other point that I wanted to make
[1:52:51] is, I wanted to correct my earlier comment
[1:52:54] that the issues would not come back to council for ratification
[1:52:58] on the Consort contract.
[1:53:01] I was specifically speaking about that not going back to council before it is sent
[1:53:05] off to the Department of Health for review, and that is true.
[1:53:09] Obviously, would've after going to the Department of Health, come back to council.
[1:53:13] If you were to extend the water service area, it would obligate the city
[1:53:17] to serve that area. You are not obligated to at this time.
[1:53:21] If you were to extend it, contrary to the city manager's characterization,
[1:53:25] you would be obligated. So I just wanted to correct that on the record. Thank you.
[1:53:28] All right. Thank you.
[1:53:30] Any other public input?
[1:53:34] Do we have any comments online, Ms. Noisel?
[1:53:36] No raised hands, Your Honor.
[1:53:37] All right. Bringing it back to council for questions, comments.
[1:53:42] Councilor Willis.
[1:53:44] So,
[1:53:45] the wastewater treatment plant is old.
[1:53:49] Really old.
[1:53:51] And we've been kind of
[1:53:54] duct taping it
[1:53:57] together for a little while now, is my impression.
[1:53:59] We've been sort of making do with and making repairs and
[1:54:03] it's time that we made some
[1:54:06] significant improvements
[1:54:08] to the plant. And we've been talking about this for a while now, I think.
[1:54:12] And unfortunately, we will probably be talking about it for a while.
[1:54:16] Yes.
[1:54:16] Yeah. Well, that $8 million won't get spent immediately, assuming we
[1:54:20] get it. It'll take some time, yeah.
[1:54:23] So yeah, I think this is an obvious yes. I don't know.
[1:54:27] Obviously,
[1:54:30] everybody wants a working toilet,
[1:54:33] and this is how we get there.
[1:54:35] So I wish it didn't cost $8 million, but it's
[1:54:40] what we need to do.
[1:54:41] Mm-hmm.
[1:54:42] Okay. Any other questions? Yes, Council Moss.
[1:54:45] Your Honor, thank you. And to piggyback on Council Member Willis'
[1:54:49] comments,
[1:54:52] I've been on the council now my 11th year, and we've been talking about
[1:54:55] these kinds of issues for 10 of those
[1:54:59] 11 years.
[1:55:02] Will the $8 million
[1:55:06] significantly get us to the point where we have a more perfect
[1:55:10] system?
[1:55:13] I'm going to say no,
[1:55:15] it's not. These are
[1:55:18] pumps and
[1:55:20] componentry. This is not a major upgrade. I'm sorry.
[1:55:23] It's not.
[1:55:25] There is a lot of needs at the wastewater treatment plant.
[1:55:28] I wish I had a graphic of the plant up to show you, because it is a very large,
[1:55:32] complicated facility with many aspects occurring there.
[1:55:38] Steel structures degrade over time. They rust.
[1:55:41] There's care that needs to be taken.
[1:55:43] We've gone through a planning process, which is
[1:55:47] referenced in the staff report about the general sewer plan, which really looks
[1:55:51] at the collection system.
[1:55:53] And then the other aspect is the facilities plan, which
[1:55:57] looks specifically at the treatment plant, the processes,
[1:56:01] and what are the needs there. So we've gone through a pretty extensive planning
[1:56:04] process that is
[1:56:06] currently being reviewed by the Department of Ecology.
[1:56:09] Those two plans will come back together and come before council for
[1:56:12] adoption. That will set the course for probably the next 20
[1:56:16] years' worth of projects, and a lot of it is repair
[1:56:20] and replacement.
[1:56:22] And
[1:56:23] I wish I had better news.
[1:56:26] This is going to be tough. The wastewater rates will be tough,
[1:56:30] and this is going to be a long road for keeping that wastewater system
[1:56:34] up and running.
[1:56:36] Well, my question was purposeful so
[1:56:40] council understands and the community understand that this is a
[1:56:44] long-term, costly project.
[1:56:47] The
[1:56:49] information says that we can apply for up to $8 million.
[1:56:53] We will be applying for the full $8 million?
[1:56:55] Yes.
[1:56:57] And
[1:56:59] if we're approved,
[1:57:02] depending on the terms,
[1:57:05] the interest rate, those kinds of things, that will come back to council to
[1:57:09] accept
[1:57:10] the loan.
[1:57:12] Not as currently proposed. As currently proposed, it's authorized
[1:57:16] applying for the loan, and then you're also authorizing the city manager to
[1:57:20] accept that loan. Now, that could be changed if council would
[1:57:23] prefer to have the loan terms come back for formal acceptance.
[1:57:27] That is certainly an option, council's option.
[1:57:30] Well, I was just trying to-
[1:57:33] My own mind figure
[1:57:36] what the negotiating
[1:57:39] strength would be
[1:57:41] if it were
[1:57:43] with the city manager or with the council for the interest rates, and I
[1:57:48] don't know if you're able to even respond to that.
[1:57:49] I don't think that there's negotiation that occurs.
[1:57:52] I think it's pretty formalized as what it is.
[1:57:54] They will tell us what the interest rate will be?
[1:57:56] Correct.
[1:57:57] For their bond rate.
[1:57:57] And the terms?
[1:58:00] The terms are typically dictated by the life of the asset that's
[1:58:04] being funded.
[1:58:06] That's typically what dictates those terms.
[1:58:08] And then you made reference to some
[1:58:11] loan forgiveness.
[1:58:14] Did I hear that correctly?
[1:58:15] Yes. That's a potential. We don't know if we will qualify or not.
[1:58:20] But we'll learn that during this process?
[1:58:23] Correct.
[1:58:24] Very good. Thank you very much.
[1:58:26] Yes, Council Brown.
[1:58:26] I do have a question.
[1:58:29] I think that Council Member Moss brought up a good point.
[1:58:32] I'm curious, what if we are
[1:58:36] offered a loan and it's a five-year loan?
[1:58:39] Does the city have the ability to repay an $8 million
[1:58:44] loan plus interest rate within five
[1:58:48] years?
[1:58:49] That will be also part of the process, and I mentioned that, or it was mentioned in
[1:58:53] the staff report that we're also simultaneously right now going through
[1:58:57] a financial plan for both water, wastewater, and storm water to take these
[1:59:01] factors into account.
[1:59:04] Part of the driver here is the deadline for this loan application is September
[1:59:08] 30th. Now, we don't actually formally receive that loan
[1:59:12] until, I think it's next June.
[1:59:15] So the timeline is fairly long. That will be factored into the financial planning
[1:59:19] process to assure that we can afford that loan, or
[1:59:23] that there's a plan to adjust rates to be able to pay for these expenses.
[1:59:27] And that's likely what this is going to look like is it's a part of
[1:59:31] the rate evaluation process to be able to cover our
[1:59:35] obligations and pay for future improvements.
[1:59:39] Okay. Thank you.
[1:59:41] And if we-
[1:59:42] Yes, Bill
[1:59:42] ... just to clarify what I heard in your response to
[1:59:46] Council Member Brown, that a five-year, if
[1:59:50] it were five years, I can't imagine
[1:59:53] that that would be the case, but if it were something less than we would
[1:59:57] hope,
[1:59:58] the other area that we, the council, could weigh in on would
[2:00:02] be the budgetary process.
[2:00:05] Correct. And you will. You'll have to.
[2:00:07] Thank you.
[2:00:09] Any other questions or comments? All right.
[2:00:11] How would council like to proceed on Resolution 2026-083
[2:00:15] authorizes applying for and accepting Water Quality Combined Funding
[2:00:19] Program loan for up to 8 million for wastewater system
[2:00:23] improvements?
[2:00:25] Your Honor,
[2:00:27] I move that Resolution
[2:00:28] 2026-083 authorizes
[2:00:32] applying for and accepting a Water Quality
[2:00:36] Combined Funding Program loan for up to 8
[2:00:39] million,
[2:00:41] it says foe, but I think it means for wastewater system
[2:00:44] improvements
[2:00:46] be approved as presented.
[2:00:49] Second.
[2:00:49] We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye.
[2:00:53] Aye.
[2:00:53] Aye.
[2:00:54] Any opposed? That passes unanimously as well.
[2:00:58] We'll move on to our next item, and that is Resolution
[2:01:02] 2026-084 authorizes a professional service contract
[2:01:06] amendment with David Evans & Associates for construction
[2:01:10] phase services on the Poplar Street project.
[2:01:13] That's from 5th to 14th in the amount of
[2:01:16] $1,695,312.
[2:01:21] Mr. Bielay is the Mr. Bielay show today, and you were tasked with
[2:01:24] everything. Well...
[2:01:26] Yes. This is a professional services contract amendment, and I want to
[2:01:30] make sure I make that distinction.
[2:01:32] So David Evans & Associates is the design engineer for the
[2:01:35] Poplar 5th to 14th project.
[2:01:38] Design is nearing the finish line at this point in time.
[2:01:44] The project has progressed nicely.
[2:01:48] Right of way negotiations are in process.
[2:01:50] That is one caveat that we need to have that completed before we
[2:01:54] get authorization to go to bid. But this is a step
[2:01:58] in the construction side of that process.
[2:02:00] So these are construction phase services, so this is the engineering firm that's
[2:02:03] helped design this project, will stay with us through construction
[2:02:07] for construction engineering, administration, oversight,
[2:02:11] inspection.
[2:02:14] There will also be cultural resources
[2:02:17] monitoring as part of this project. Very large project.
[2:02:20] This is one of our biggest single road projects we've
[2:02:24] done. I think the estimate is approximately 10.3
[2:02:28] million. So very large project.
[2:02:31] A lot of components, and it'll also expand approximately two
[2:02:35] years of construction. Probably much to the dismay of all of our residents.
[2:02:40] But that's how we fix roads, and it takes time, and there's a lot of infrastructure
[2:02:43] underneath these roads to address.
[2:02:46] So very large project.
[2:02:49] Lots of grant funding involved in this project.
[2:02:51] I think grants at this point in time are at 8.3 million.
[2:02:55] Staff has done an outstanding job.
[2:02:57] I know that's a little bit of a sidebar, but an outstanding job securing these
[2:03:00] grant funds to help pay for this project. There are local funds involved as well.
[2:03:05] However, back to this specific amendment.
[2:03:07] Again, this is a construction phase services amendment
[2:03:11] that follows the design engineer and helps us deliver
[2:03:15] this project through construction.
[2:03:17] Again, complying with many federal requirements that are associated with
[2:03:20] this because there is a number of different federal funds involved in the grants.
[2:03:27] Staff, if depending on staff's capacity, we will also play a role in
[2:03:31] that. As I had mentioned with the Pine Street construction phase
[2:03:35] services, if we have staff capacity, we will assign it to
[2:03:38] that project. This is based on a worst-case scenario that we
[2:03:42] won't have the staff capacity available to assist, but we do our best to
[2:03:46] minimize those costs. However,
[2:03:49] we need to have that support regardless and need to be prepared to be able to
[2:03:53] deliver that. So happy to answer questions.
[2:03:56] Thank you, Mr. Billy. Do we have any public comments on this item?
[2:04:01] Seeing none, Ms. Nichelle, do we have anyone online?
[2:04:05] No, Rick's handling it.
[2:04:05] All right. Bringing it back to council for questions, comments.
[2:04:10] Looking to my left. Looking to my right.
[2:04:12] I just have a question and a comment, I guess.
[2:04:15] So, I'm new to this role and this process, and
[2:04:19] I
[2:04:20] was just looking through this, I noticed this seemed like a really
[2:04:24] large contract amendment, and so I had asked,
[2:04:27] why would we be doing a contract amendment rather than going out
[2:04:32] to bid for a new proposal through the competitive bidding
[2:04:35] process? But just to clarify, it sounds like this is a pretty standard
[2:04:39] process when we move from design to construction to stay with
[2:04:43] the same
[2:04:44] contractor. Is that right?
[2:04:46] It is. And,
[2:04:48] we follow state law when it comes to consultant selection for
[2:04:51] architects.
[2:04:53] As Esther had presented, that was an architect group as well as engineers.
[2:04:57] This happens to be an engineer group, which their selection goes through a process
[2:05:00] of most qualified. So we went through a formal selection
[2:05:04] process back in,
[2:05:07] actually, in 2023. This big project's been going on a while.
[2:05:10] So, there was a formal process that we followed, in
[2:05:14] accordance with state law, to make the selection of this firm.
[2:05:18] They were selected as the design engineer as the most qualified, and again,
[2:05:22] amending that contract to include these construction
[2:05:26] phase services for consistency throughout the project.
[2:05:29] Now, when it comes to the actual construction, that will be a
[2:05:33] bid that is-
[2:05:35] Okay
[2:05:35] ... publicly advertised. Bids are opened, and then we
[2:05:39] review the bids and then bring forth to council, the
[2:05:42] lowest responsive and responsible bidder, and that is a formal bid
[2:05:46] process, which is a different set of laws.
[2:05:49] Okay. Thank you for clarifying. That's helpful.
[2:05:50] Absolutely. Council Moss.
[2:05:54] First of all, congratulations to get us to this point.
[2:05:58] It has been a long process.
[2:06:01] Hearing the $8 million
[2:06:04] that we've obtained, again, congratulations to city and city
[2:06:08] staff
[2:06:09] for
[2:06:11] looking for all those resources, being competent
[2:06:14] enough in previous projects to be
[2:06:17] trusted to be awarded future projects.
[2:06:23] It makes
[2:06:24] imminent sense to me to have the same
[2:06:27] firm,
[2:06:29] follow up with the oversight. And if my
[2:06:33] calculations are correct, it's about 16% of the total
[2:06:37] project, and that's well within
[2:06:40] reason and within
[2:06:43] other contracts that we've led.
[2:06:47] Thank you.
[2:06:48] All right. Anybody else? Councillor Reske.
[2:06:51] I just want to ask, so in the
[2:06:54] staff report it talked about if we had more engineers, we wouldn't have to do
[2:06:58] this, spend as much, correct?
[2:07:02] That is certainly a component, but not for everything, because we don't possess all
[2:07:06] of the expertise necessary for everything that's going to be
[2:07:09] required here.
[2:07:11] So that's why I mentioned if we have staff available that we can
[2:07:15] assign, we will probably do that. If we don't, we have to rely
[2:07:18] upon them.
[2:07:19] Okay. Well, again, I want you to have more engineers.
[2:07:24] I got that. And then-
[2:07:26] Hire one.
[2:07:27] Yeah.
[2:07:29] And then I recall, when we do these, go out for bid,
[2:07:32] and we get it, you're projecting 10 million, but it comes in
[2:07:37] lower.
[2:07:38] Seems to me this price should then go down, but it doesn't.
[2:07:41] It does not.
[2:07:42] I don't understand that.
[2:07:43] Time and materials is what that basis is.
[2:07:46] So this is driven by time, and again, they're not
[2:07:50] connected to each other per se. What you're referring to is a rule of
[2:07:54] thumb-
[2:07:54] That's what I'm referring
[2:07:55] ... that Council Member Moss had alluded to.
[2:07:56] Right.
[2:07:57] 16%. It seems like it's in the range.
[2:07:59] He's actually correct, but for the number of federal grants involved in this,
[2:08:04] it's actually a lower percentage, to be quite honest.
[2:08:07] Because it brings a lot of additional work that comes with the federal grants.
[2:08:12] But it's an engineering firm versus construction.
[2:08:16] And they're not necessarily connected to each other per se.
[2:08:20] This is time and materials, and it's dictated by the time that's going to be
[2:08:24] spent.
[2:08:26] Doing it faster shortens that time, less money.
[2:08:29] Oftentimes it takes more time.
[2:08:30] Okay. So we're just dealing with the world we're living in.
[2:08:34] Got it.
[2:08:36] Anything else?
[2:08:38] All right. How would you like to proceed with resolution
[2:08:41] 2026-084 authorizes professional service contract
[2:08:45] amendment with David Evans & Associates, Inc., for construction
[2:08:49] phase services on the Poplar Street project in the amount of
[2:08:52] $1,695,312.
[2:08:56] Your Honor, I move to approve resolution
[2:08:59] 2026-084.
[2:09:02] All right. We have a motion. Do we have a-
[2:09:04] Second.
[2:09:04] We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye.
[2:09:08] Aye.
[2:09:08] Any opposed? That passes unanimously as well.
[2:09:12] Next item on our agenda, and I can already foresee who the presenter
[2:09:16] will be. Resolution 2026-085 authorizes
[2:09:20] a contract with RH2 Engineering, Inc., for an
[2:09:24] on-call water engineering support services in the amount of
[2:09:27] $50,000 per year, and that goes from 2026 to
[2:09:31] 2029.
[2:09:34] Yes. So this is an on-call contract, and
[2:09:37] in essence, it's replacing one that we had
[2:09:41] executed previously. Included in the staff report is a history.
[2:09:45] We did an
[2:09:47] on-call contract and went through a formal process to select RH2 Engineering to
[2:09:51] assist us with on-call water items.
[2:09:53] And those types of things are our
[2:09:55] troubleshooting challenges, assisting, guiding, helping us
[2:09:59] navigate regulatory requirements, those types of elements.
[2:10:02] It's not
[2:10:04] a specific project, it's help us. Help us with the
[2:10:08] water system modeling types of things.
[2:10:10] So, that's what this contract is specifically targeted at.
[2:10:14] Now, we went through a selection process in
[2:10:17] 2024, entered into a contract with RH2.
[2:10:22] And with that, we were also awarded a FEMA grant
[2:10:26] for generators for two of our wells.
[2:10:29] We brought that to council as an amendment
[2:10:33] to add to RH2's contract. They were very qualified in that area,
[2:10:37] in particular, amongst other areas.
[2:10:40] So, we added an amendment into that on-call contract.
[2:10:44] We probably shouldn't have done that in hindsight.
[2:10:47] While it was fully compliant with FEMA's selection process,
[2:10:51] what it's done is it's created a contract
[2:10:55] tracking dilemma for us. So I actually
[2:10:58] called city attorney's office and said, "We have this going on.
[2:11:02] It's very hard to keep all this neat and tidy, which we like to do with our
[2:11:06] contracts. What do you suggest? Here's my thought, is we should just
[2:11:09] bring a new contract to council, have council authorize that, let that old one
[2:11:13] just be the generators, and do our on-call contract over here and just separate the
[2:11:17] two." And Tim agreed, hence the reason why I'm standing here
[2:11:21] before you. It dates back to a selection process in
[2:11:25] 2024. Yes, we're in 2026. It was
[2:11:29] intended to be a five-year on-call contract because we develop a relationship with
[2:11:32] these folks, and they help us troubleshoot through those years.
[2:11:36] So that's in essence what this is, is a contract cleanup.
[2:11:38] It just simply makes it easier to track in our financial system,
[2:11:43] track our contract management, and track monitoring easier for not only
[2:11:47] finance, but our contracts and our engineers as well, and just keep
[2:11:51] it all separate, nice and tidy is really what this is about.
[2:11:54] All right. Very well. Thank you. Do we have any public comments?
[2:12:00] Do we have anyone online, Ms. Neisen?
[2:12:03] No raised hands, Your Honor.
[2:12:04] Do we have any council questions? Yes.
[2:12:07] So
[2:12:08] not any problem with the contract itself.
[2:12:11] The part that I read that concerned me was this sort of
[2:12:15] add-on. That staff additionally request city manager supplemental authority up to
[2:12:19] $50,000
[2:12:21] per calendar year for this contract.
[2:12:24] So we're moving what needs to come before council as a part of this from
[2:12:28] 50 to 100. Am I understanding that correctly?
[2:12:31] What we're asking council is for the term, the $50,000 a
[2:12:35] year for 20... Let's see here. 20-
[2:12:39] 6 to 29.
[2:12:40] 26 to 29. Thank you.
[2:12:44] If we have on-call needs above that 50 per year,
[2:12:48] we'd like to be able
[2:12:49] to go to Elizabeth and say, "Hey, we need this." It needs to be typically a fast
[2:12:52] turnaround. And the specific reason why we added that in for this
[2:12:56] one has to do with preparation and response to the
[2:13:00] Paradise Fire. At the time we wrote this, very concerned.
[2:13:04] We're feeling better now. Again, we're not out of that just yet,
[2:13:08] but we wanted to have
[2:13:11] greater flexibility to get assistance to help navigate through whatever
[2:13:15] happens there, which is specifically why we put that in there.
[2:13:21] That's it in a nutshell is I know we have an emergency declaration where
[2:13:25] we could probably do that anyway.
[2:13:28] We want, again, keep this as organized and
[2:13:31] as we possibly can, and we felt like that additional authority might be
[2:13:35] necessary. Now, in your standard resolutions,
[2:13:39] typically, I think it's 50,000 for the entire contract.
[2:13:44] We felt the need to have 50,000 additional per year just in
[2:13:48] case. Again, it's a just in case subject to
[2:13:52] city manager's approval, as well as going through our legal services
[2:13:56] process approval.
[2:13:57] Yeah.
[2:13:59] I don't think that's necessary,
[2:14:02] quite frankly. You can always call an emergency meeting, and I guess I'd like to
[2:14:05] see it become a problem before we actually just start giving away that kind of
[2:14:08] authority
[2:14:10] myself. So yeah, I would strike that before
[2:14:14] me.
[2:14:16] Any other questions, comments?
[2:14:20] Council Moss.
[2:14:23] I know it's a small likelihood, but we could actually spend
[2:14:27] less than 50,000.
[2:14:29] Typically, we do.
[2:14:32] So
[2:14:33] it's not like a retainer fee, it's
[2:14:36] up to 50,000 based on
[2:14:40] issue, time,
[2:14:42] complexity?
[2:14:43] Yes.
[2:14:44] And we had actually even discussed whether we should just, "Hey, let's make
[2:14:48] it 100,000 for each year," which is in essence what this is.
[2:14:51] But we also like to try to keep it under 50 if we possibly can.
[2:14:57] But extenuating circumstances come up, and that is the reason why we were
[2:15:01] concerned this time around.
[2:15:03] Understood. And I appreciate staff has always been very
[2:15:07] responsive in making us aware of any time a
[2:15:11] contract is exceeded
[2:15:13] authority, and so
[2:15:16] I appreciate what we're trying to do here. Thank you.
[2:15:19] All right. Any other questions, comments?
[2:15:21] Well, I just ask since this is the discussion.
[2:15:25] Should it then up to the amount of 50,000 rather than in?
[2:15:31] In the actual
[2:15:33] resolution?
[2:15:33] Well, sure it does in the contract, but as we're approving this
[2:15:38] for the per
[2:15:40] Just as a description and-
[2:15:41] Yeah, as a description for the public, because-
[2:15:44] Okay
[2:15:44] ... it makes a difference.
[2:15:48] Um,
[2:15:51] Your Honor.
[2:15:53] That's when Ralph was thinking.
[2:15:55] Oh.
[2:15:56] Yes.
[2:15:57] I do believe if when we do make a motion on this
[2:16:00] point, if Council Member Eskel could be the one to
[2:16:04] frame that motion and make that motion with that adjustment, I think
[2:16:08] that might help us to-
[2:16:10] To
[2:16:10] ... bolster transparency and make sure that we're getting the right
[2:16:14] thing done here,
[2:16:17] when we get to that point.
[2:16:18] Before we get there, any other comments, questions? Councillor Brown.
[2:16:21] Sorry, that was a thumbs up.
[2:16:23] That was a thumbs up. Okay. Very well.
[2:16:25] Uh, all right, Councillor Eskel, do you want to make the motion?
[2:16:29] Sure. Uh,
[2:16:31] I move we approve Resolution
[2:16:34] 2026-085, authorizes a contract
[2:16:38] with RH2 Engineering Incorporated for an on-call
[2:16:42] engineering support services up to the amount of 50,000 per
[2:16:46] year,
[2:16:47] 2026 through 2029.
[2:16:50] Second.
[2:16:51] We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye.
[2:16:54] Aye.
[2:16:54] Aye.
[2:16:55] Aye. Any opposed?
[2:16:56] Aye.
[2:16:57] One. Okay. So that passes six
[2:17:01] to one. Thank you.
[2:17:06] The next item on our agenda is review and take action,
[2:17:10] uh, on submitting a city comment letter on the Draft
[2:17:13] Environmental Impact Statement Blue Mountain Forest Plan
[2:17:17] Revision.
[2:17:19] Okay.
[2:17:20] Uh, so before council is a draft comment letter on the
[2:17:24] Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Blue Mountain Forest Plan
[2:17:28] Revision. Uh, this is for the, um,
[2:17:32] three, uh, national forests in our region.
[2:17:36] Uh, those current forest plans, uh, date back to 1990.
[2:17:40] And, uh, the proposed, uh, plan revisions, um,
[2:17:44] we basically are looking at kind of all the changes over the past 32
[2:17:48] years, um, and, uh, amending those plans.
[2:17:52] So this is the, uh, draft, uh, environmental impact statement on
[2:17:56] those revisions. Uh, the proposed letter, um, it takes the
[2:17:59] approach of, um, supporting alternative three.
[2:18:02] There's three alternatives that were analyzed, uh, within the draft
[2:18:06] EIS. There's always the no-action alternative, which is
[2:18:10] what that says, no action, let you stay with the 1990
[2:18:14] plan. Um, alternative two, which is the preferred
[2:18:18] alternative, uh, by the, uh, US Forest Service, and
[2:18:22] then alternative three. Um,
[2:18:26] I'm not going to go into every detail of what's different with the alternatives,
[2:18:30] why I recommended that we look at alternative three, because I think it
[2:18:33] accomplishes the goals that, uh, the city has set out
[2:18:37] with its, uh, previous legislative priorities.
[2:18:40] Um, I structured the letter of kind of the issue areas that were,
[2:18:44] um, identified in the draft EIS and whether, uh, we
[2:18:48] had a specific comment or support, um, on
[2:18:52] those. Um,
[2:18:54] there was a couple, uh, clarifications.
[2:18:56] Um,
[2:18:57] uh, primarily around... Uh, so I'm on page two of the draft
[2:19:01] letter, and this has to do with protection of mature and large trees.
[2:19:05] Um,
[2:19:06] I think it's a, uh,
[2:19:09] maybe reading of what the phrasing in the draft alternative.
[2:19:11] It says alternative three retains the limitations on harvest of larger
[2:19:15] trees. Um, when I went back and reread that
[2:19:19] section of the, um,
[2:19:23] draft EIS, it does say,
[2:19:28] for instance, alternative three includes a guideline for large tree habitat
[2:19:31] by retaining and managing. So that's why I use the words retain.
[2:19:36] Um, uh, there is a comment about whether it's a
[2:19:39] guideline or, um, a fact, a required retention.
[2:19:43] So that could be something that we clarify within the draft letter.
[2:19:47] Um, but overall, it's, um,
[2:19:51] it's supporting, um, alternative three.
[2:19:53] Um, I felt that that was in line with our, um,
[2:19:58] legislative priorities for, uh, working with the Forest Service on fuel
[2:20:02] reduction and fuel management, and management of our watershed,
[2:20:07] um, and things that we have been actively engaged with, um, when we do our
[2:20:10] legislative actions, um, uh, in Washington, DC.
[2:20:14] Um, one thing I do want to, uh, point out in alternative three
[2:20:18] recognizes the importance of the roadless lands.
[2:20:21] Uh, so it does make an assumption that the roadless rule remains in place.
[2:20:24] As council knows, at your last meeting, we submitted a comment letter, um, on
[2:20:28] that draft EIS, um, on the rescission of the roadless rule.
[2:20:32] And so, um,
[2:20:34] there is some connection between, um, those two actions and what's in this
[2:20:38] plan. Um, this is council's, uh, uh, draft
[2:20:42] letter or council's letter, excuse me, um, that ultimately gets submitted.
[2:20:46] Um, so
[2:20:47] I'm not married to any of this, so please, this was just a starting point and a
[2:20:51] recommendation to work from. Um, I know Council Member Brown has some suggestions,
[2:20:55] um, for council's consideration. Happy to answer any questions.
[2:20:58] Um, the deadline to submit, um, or the comment, um, uh,
[2:21:02] deadline is September 30th, um, uh, which is next week.
[2:21:06] All right. Very well. Um,
[2:21:10] before we go there, do we have any public comments on this item?
[2:21:24] Council, do not send this letter.
[2:21:27] This is not a harmless statement of preference among Forest Service alternatives.
[2:21:31] It places the city of Walla Walla on the federal record explicitly endorsing weaker
[2:21:35] protections and increased commercial logging in the forest that supplies our
[2:21:39] drinking water. Worse, the letter is misleading, and several of its
[2:21:43] central claims are plainly false when compared with what's actually in the draft
[2:21:46] environmental impact statement.
[2:21:48] The city's letter praises Alternative 3 for larger stream buffers.
[2:21:51] The buffers are not larger.
[2:21:53] It says the 21-inch large tree protection is retained.
[2:21:56] It is not retained. An enforceable standard becomes a mere suggestion.
[2:22:00] The letter praises stronger protection of roadless lands, but Alternative 3
[2:22:04] provides no protection of roadless areas.
[2:22:07] If the federal roadless rule disappears, it opens our municipal watershed to roads,
[2:22:11] logging, mining, and grazing.
[2:22:13] And most remarkably, the letter thanks the Forest Service for its consideration of
[2:22:17] municipal watersheds, when the actual language plainly in the forest
[2:22:21] plan explicitly directs the agency to, quote, "Prioritize
[2:22:25] timber harvest," end quote, in municipal watersheds,
[2:22:29] and specifically determines that drinking water quality is not a
[2:22:32] consideration for analysis. That is what the letter asks this
[2:22:36] council to affirmatively endorse.
[2:22:39] There is no ethical or scientific reason for the city to actively support
[2:22:43] this administration's shameless agenda to liquidate our public forests.
[2:22:48] Unless there is some financial incentive I'm not yet aware of, there is
[2:22:51] no rational reason for you to send this letter.
[2:22:55] The city failed to preserve its objections during the formal comment period for the
[2:22:58] Tiger Mill timber sale. That failure is now repeatedly invoked as the
[2:23:02] reason that the city cannot challenge the commercial logging currently happening
[2:23:06] in our watershed. You have the opportunity today to not
[2:23:10] repeat that same failure.
[2:23:12] I have here a draft letter that simply advocates for the
[2:23:15] retention of the modest yet hard-won protections of the existing forest
[2:23:19] plan. It is a simple, straightforward letter that places the city's
[2:23:23] role accurately to protect our water. That's it.
[2:23:27] If you're unwilling to consider that or sending a different letter, then please do
[2:23:30] not send anything at all. Whatever you do, do not send this letter
[2:23:34] as drafted. It gives away the only recourse you and all of your
[2:23:38] successors will have to ensure that our community's most precious
[2:23:42] resource is protected. Protect the city's water,
[2:23:46] protect the city's future objections in the formal process,
[2:23:50] and please do not put Walla Walla on the federal record advocating for the
[2:23:54] dismantling of what few protections have safeguarded our
[2:23:57] watershed for so many generations up till
[2:24:01] now.
[2:24:02] We need those protections more than ever.
[2:24:10] Thank you.
[2:24:10] All right.
[2:24:11] Thank you.
[2:24:11] Thank you.
[2:24:14] Any other public comment?
[2:24:24] Oh, thank you, Council.
[2:24:27] I had the privilege of reading Paul's email to you
[2:24:32] earlier today,
[2:24:35] and he's obviously studied the actual
[2:24:41] Option 3 and the
[2:24:44] draft plan very carefully. He's committed to the
[2:24:48] health of our community and its water supply.
[2:24:54] I think that I agree with every one of his points.
[2:24:57] He's
[2:24:59] paraphrased some of them today and enlarged upon them, but
[2:25:03] this is very, very important, and the citizens have been
[2:25:07] very, very concerned about protecting the watershed.
[2:25:11] Here is your opportunity. Paul,
[2:25:14] he was giving two alternatives. One, send nothing,
[2:25:19] so as not to worsen
[2:25:22] your situation by not having commented previously.
[2:25:26] The other is to adopt his draft letter, which
[2:25:30] deals with all of the community's goals
[2:25:35] in a way that... And
[2:25:37] the city manager agrees that you should
[2:25:41] consider how to amend this draft of hers.
[2:25:46] The letter is from the council, not just the staff.
[2:25:50] And so I strongly urge you to
[2:25:54] look at and approve a response that
[2:25:57] touches on each of the concerns that Paul has studied
[2:26:02] and presented to you. Thank you very much.
[2:26:04] Thank you.
[2:26:07] Any other comments?
[2:26:14] I think there's very few people who have studied this issue as
[2:26:18] thoroughly as Paul Linn, and I
[2:26:21] absolutely endorse everything that he has said, and I
[2:26:25] am very appreciative that he is doing this homework
[2:26:29] for you and for us.
[2:26:32] So I am an avid recreator in the Blue Mountains, and
[2:26:36] I absolutely appreciate the forested lands there
[2:26:40] for their diverse ecosystem, for the
[2:26:43] connectivity that they provide for wildlife,
[2:26:47] migration, and habitat.
[2:26:51] I am also a drinker of Walla Walla water.
[2:26:55] So I am submitting my own letter
[2:26:58] to state my opinion on the forest
[2:27:01] revision plan. But I really
[2:27:05] hope that you, as city council members, will share the
[2:27:09] values that I have about the Blue Mountains and
[2:27:13] that Paul has elucidated for us. Thank you.
[2:27:16] Thank you.
[2:27:19] Anyone else?
[2:27:20] Yes.
[2:27:26] Jane Dowling.
[2:27:28] One thing is evident. There's people
[2:27:32] outside of Walla Walla that are in the federal government and in the
[2:27:36] forestry department that have absolutely, totally
[2:27:40] no clue
[2:27:41] what needs to be done to protect this watershed.
[2:27:45] And-
[2:27:47] Furthermore, we need to make our own rules, and when
[2:27:51] someone has made rules that are watershed
[2:27:54] killing, we simply need to ignore them.
[2:27:58] Don't even argue about it,
[2:28:01] and don't send any letter of approval
[2:28:05] about this roadless.
[2:28:07] The only people that need to be kept off road are the
[2:28:11] four-wheelers that get up there and just tear the hell out of the
[2:28:15] place and leave a mess that is erosive,
[2:28:20] that causes more flooding and causes more damage to the
[2:28:23] environment. Also, there are known lists
[2:28:27] of
[2:28:29] grasses, shrubs, and trees that
[2:28:32] are tough, durable, deep-rooted, fire-resistant,
[2:28:37] and that is what needs to be
[2:28:40] restored to that watershed.
[2:28:42] There are invasive
[2:28:45] annual
[2:28:47] shrubs and trees and grasses
[2:28:50] that need to be taken out because what happens, they
[2:28:54] feed fire
[2:28:56] because they catch fire and they burn.
[2:28:59] The durable, tough foliage, grass,
[2:29:03] shrubs, and trees are what we need to cover the land.
[2:29:07] We don't need bare ground up there.
[2:29:10] That's what's causing our flooding.
[2:29:13] And until we start restoring our
[2:29:17] riparian area and soaking up the water,
[2:29:21] recharging our aquifers, we are in trouble.
[2:29:25] We just as well leave, go home, let the world heat
[2:29:29] up, turn back to wet,
[2:29:32] warm, and give it back to the damn dinosaurs.
[2:29:36] Thank you.
[2:29:41] Yes.
[2:29:42] Jerry Norquist, Division Street.
[2:29:44] I want to thank Paul for the work he's done on this.
[2:29:48] The value of our forests
[2:29:50] to this community is extraordinary, and I would say the value of
[2:29:54] recreation in our forest
[2:29:56] gives us a larger return on investment than logging
[2:30:00] it. So I hope you will consider Paul's comments, and I hope you will
[2:30:05] adopt the letter that he's suggested to you. Thank you.
[2:30:08] All right. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes.
[2:30:15] RL McFarland. And
[2:30:17] this is just amazing.
[2:30:20] Everything Paul shared with you and Dan shared with you,
[2:30:23] it's all about... I'm going to bring it down to how special this
[2:30:27] is for me, but it should be special for everybody.
[2:30:30] I've mentioned this before, but I'll go a little bit deeper.
[2:30:34] My dad used to, with a twinkle in his eye, try to embarrass me when he would say,
[2:30:37] "Well, you know where you were conceived?" And I'd go, "Oh, no.
[2:30:39] Not again." And he would say, "It was up at our cabin,"
[2:30:43] which was built by my mother's grandfather in 1921, just
[2:30:47] between Henry Canyon and Tiger Canyon.
[2:30:50] And the family had a compound up there.
[2:30:53] My family, the Baker family, and the Edwin Baker family next door became
[2:30:57] Ruth Baker Kimball. Now it's part of the
[2:31:00] Whitman compound up there, their retreat. But here's the deal.
[2:31:03] I was allowed to roam those mountains by myself as a little kid, back when
[2:31:08] kids could do that. And so I know how special it is
[2:31:12] up there. And in 1921, when my great-grandfather built the
[2:31:16] cabin,
[2:31:17] the main feature was the
[2:31:20] fireplace in the main room, and with a big wooden
[2:31:24] mantle. And in twigs nailed into
[2:31:27] across the front of the
[2:31:30] mantle,
[2:31:31] it simply said, "Lift up thine eyes unto the hills." I'll never forget
[2:31:35] that. And that's what it's all about up there.
[2:31:38] So
[2:31:39] what I'm saying to you basically is this is something very special.
[2:31:43] So please listen to all the voices that you've heard that are
[2:31:47] trying to share with you how special it is, so that
[2:31:51] we make sure we make the right decisions at the right time, as
[2:31:55] opposed to the wrong ones. Thank you.
[2:31:57] All right. Thank you very much.
[2:31:59] Anyone else? Yes.
[2:32:05] Hi there. I didn't know I was going to be here tonight. I didn't prepare a comment.
[2:32:10] But I urge you to not send the letter to the Forest Service as
[2:32:14] is, and please consider Paul's letter as an alternative.
[2:32:18] There's this deep irony to me in the fact that
[2:32:22] earlier this spring, we filled this room full of
[2:32:26] people
[2:32:27] simply asking you, council members, to send a letter
[2:32:31] to the Forest Service, not
[2:32:35] saying we were against the Tiger Mill plan, just saying we were concerned as a
[2:32:38] public, and we just simply wanted you to send the letter.
[2:32:42] Council Member Brown and Outlaw, you weren't there at this time, but the room was
[2:32:46] full.
[2:32:47] And
[2:32:49] frankly, I feel a little hurt and offended
[2:32:53] that this is just an active agenda item, just going through business as
[2:32:56] usual. And
[2:32:58] it feels like it's more about maintaining our relationship with the Forest
[2:33:02] Service, this decision to send this letter or, in the spring, the
[2:33:06] decision to not send a letter expressing the public's concern, than it
[2:33:10] really is about prioritizing the health of the
[2:33:14] watershed.
[2:33:15] I'm deeply concerned about
[2:33:18] the regulations that this takes away from our
[2:33:22] already
[2:33:23] unprotected watershed. I have a lot of problems with that
[2:33:27] plan that I will submit to the Forest Service.
[2:33:31] But yeah,
[2:33:32] there's this phrase that one of you said earlier that's just
[2:33:36] rattling around in my head, and it's not personal, but we grow
[2:33:40] or we die.
[2:33:43] And I'm just thinking of trees, and if we don't
[2:33:46] let them grow, I think we will die. And when
[2:33:50] we let economic growth go unchecked, we die.
[2:33:56] So please don't send this letter. Please do your homework.
[2:33:59] Please consider all the research that Paul and many scientists have
[2:34:03] presented to you. Thank you.
[2:34:06] All right. Thank you very much.
[2:34:08] Anyone else?
[2:34:11] Do we have anyone online, Ms. Nisel?
[2:34:14] Nobody is in chat.
[2:34:15] All right. Bringing it back to council. Councilor Robinson.
[2:34:19] Thank you. So just so I understand, let's assume for a moment
[2:34:23] we don't send a letter. What would the effect of that be?
[2:34:27] How would that impact our rights going forward?
[2:34:32] Well, we would still have
[2:34:34] certainly the final EIS to
[2:34:37] provide comment on. This is the draft.
[2:34:40] So typically, you know how these steps go.
[2:34:43] You have the draft EIS, you submit comments, then the agency that
[2:34:46] is issuing that EIS goes back and
[2:34:50] revises how they
[2:34:53] see fit based on the comments that
[2:34:56] have been submitted, and then a final EIS is issued, which would still have a
[2:35:01] comment period.
[2:35:03] I looked at Tim. I don't know if not commenting at this stage would affect
[2:35:07] us.
[2:35:08] We could still comment on the final EIS.
[2:35:11] I can't say that for sure.
[2:35:13] Yeah.
[2:35:13] And so,
[2:35:15] typically the rule on these things is that you have to
[2:35:19] comment, or you have to do something at certain steps along the way
[2:35:23] to preserve your right later on. I've not been involved in this
[2:35:27] particular letter, so I don't know.
[2:35:30] My concern also would be is that there's not only a requirement
[2:35:34] when you comment,
[2:35:36] that you have to do it in certain timelines, that
[2:35:40] you're limited to this. So if you have objections, you're limited to the
[2:35:44] scope of the objections you may make.
[2:35:46] That you make.
[2:35:47] And so, if we're wanting to object,
[2:35:52] I think that it would be
[2:35:55] prudent to send something
[2:35:57] to at least preserve that right for
[2:36:01] the final
[2:36:04] EIS.
[2:36:06] We could certainly-
[2:36:06] Just to say that we just-
[2:36:08] Mm-hmm.
[2:36:10] I just think it would be a mistake not to send something.
[2:36:13] I'm not endorsing
[2:36:15] any of the letters at this point. I'm just telling you legally to preserve your
[2:36:19] rights,
[2:36:21] I would worry about
[2:36:24] that you would potentially foreclose yourself from objecting
[2:36:27] later if you don't do something at this stage.
[2:36:32] My approach to the letter was looking at each issue section, but we could
[2:36:36] certainly take an approach that is not quite so specific
[2:36:40] in each issue section, and focus a little bit more of
[2:36:43] maybe more of a similar approach that we took to the roadless rule.
[2:36:47] EIS is focused on the watershed and that we
[2:36:51] expect protection of the watershed, concurrence with following our
[2:36:54] 1918 agreement. We can take maybe just a little broader
[2:36:58] approach to our comments at this stage.
[2:37:01] It isn't getting into specific
[2:37:05] issue points,
[2:37:07] and we don't have to say we concur with one alternative or the
[2:37:11] other either at this point.
[2:37:14] If we want to
[2:37:16] be a little less detailed in
[2:37:19] the comment letter, I think that's certainly an option for council's consideration.
[2:37:23] So I do have another question, but I direct this to you, Your Honor, so that I
[2:37:27] can make sure that the-
[2:37:29] I have another question. Everybody will be able to ask questions and make comments.
[2:37:33] Well, so for this particular point, are we just supposed to ask
[2:37:36] questions or is this the time at which we should also be making comment?
[2:37:43] I don't know the difference, but please go ahead.
[2:37:45] Well, so
[2:37:48] I appreciate
[2:37:50] that the phrase grow or die is in your mind, and
[2:37:54] it's been in my mind too, and I find the analogy to trees very
[2:37:58] moving.
[2:37:59] So I do want to clarify that. I'm not saying unrestricted
[2:38:03] economic growth. Never going to say that.
[2:38:06] What I am going to say is here's the irony that I see.
[2:38:10] At a time right now when our faith in our institutions is
[2:38:14] dying,
[2:38:16] and where we are looking at the prospect where there could be
[2:38:20] wholesale political violence like what we saw on January 6th,
[2:38:24] it is more important than ever that we have to follow the steps
[2:38:28] prescribed by law when we are doing things.
[2:38:31] That when we're making comments, they are in the times afforded to us
[2:38:35] by law. That we have no choice but to follow
[2:38:39] it as closely as we possibly can.
[2:38:43] I will support sending a letter, but I do think we need to have revisions.
[2:38:47] To me, it's ironic because
[2:38:50] you
[2:38:51] don't realize how fragile our democracy and the
[2:38:55] concepts of rule of law are until you wake up every
[2:38:59] single morning
[2:39:01] and you see them eroded, and you see people that you know, that you love,
[2:39:06] telling you that they're going to flee the country because they're terrified
[2:39:10] something will happen to them if they don't.
[2:39:13] The reason why I've held the position and why, to clarify, because I do
[2:39:17] believe you're all owed this explanation, why I did not support sending
[2:39:21] a letter is because I believe firmly that the
[2:39:24] process as outlined, especially by the staff that
[2:39:28] we pay to look at the process that we entrust with
[2:39:32] so many vital city matters, and the other
[2:39:36] institutions of government, we have to have faith, now more
[2:39:40] than ever, that the rules, the laws, the regulations that are put
[2:39:44] forward and in effect should be followed.
[2:39:48] That does not mean that when we have an opportunity like this where we can
[2:39:52] preserve our rights, where we can preserve comment,
[2:39:55] that it would be wise to be silent. Silence is death.
[2:40:00] When I was young, that's what my community said when AIDS
[2:40:03] hit us.
[2:40:06] So I'm not going to be silent on this. I think we amend the letter.
[2:40:10] I think we look and see what Council Member Brown
[2:40:13] proposes, and if we can take some things from Mr.
[2:40:17] Lind's letter, I think we do that. I think Mr.
[2:40:20] Lind also, by the way, makes a really good point.
[2:40:22] I do hope he's holding onto his chair because I do read every email you
[2:40:26] send. I enjoy them. I didn't know you wanted a response back.
[2:40:29] I'll be better about that, and I apologize if I made you feel
[2:40:33] disrespected. That one's on me. It's a misunderstanding on my end, and I own
[2:40:37] that, okay?
[2:40:38] I just would say this. Instead of not sending a letter, let's see what we can
[2:40:42] do to send the best damn letter they've ever read.
[2:40:45] Because let me tell you something, folks, if we're going to go into a battle for
[2:40:48] the soul of this country, if we're going to go into a battle for the soul of our
[2:40:52] environment to protect people, I ain't shutting up, but I
[2:40:55] sure as hell would like to go in with the best weapon available,
[2:40:59] the best letter. And I want people, when they look at our institutions, to
[2:41:03] understand just because we saw it on the news, just because we
[2:41:07] saw people say they don't matter anymore, the heck
[2:41:11] they don't. The rules, the institutions, the
[2:41:14] Constitution, and the rule of law do matter, and we can
[2:41:18] still trust them if we are but willing to use them.
[2:41:22] That are my thoughts.
[2:41:24] Yes. Councilor Willis?
[2:41:29] So, the previous letter referenced, I did vote for it.
[2:41:33] However, it doesn't have the
[2:41:37] legal import that this does. This is much more meaningful.
[2:41:41] So at this stage of the game, what we need to do is preserve as many of our
[2:41:46] rights as possible.
[2:41:48] So from my perspective, that means objecting to anything and everything we can.
[2:41:52] At least that's the way I would probably approach it.
[2:41:55] Because you don't know going forward if you're going to need that objection
[2:41:59] down the road or not, so
[2:42:01] you make it now.
[2:42:03] So that would be my-- In terms of policy direction, that's how I would sort of
[2:42:09] speak to staff or whomever who's going to take another run at this.
[2:42:13] Get as many objections in there as you can,
[2:42:16] because
[2:42:17] we don't know if we're going to need them later, and we need to preserve them now.
[2:42:21] So.
[2:42:22] Yes. Councilor Outlaw.
[2:42:25] Thank you.
[2:42:27] I agree with Council Member Willis and Robinson, and I
[2:42:30] want to share something. I'm new to this council.
[2:42:34] I'm new to this conversation.
[2:42:37] And as I sit back and listen,
[2:42:40] not just about Mill Creek or
[2:42:43] the watershed,
[2:42:45] we always talk about communication.
[2:42:49] We talk about
[2:42:52] how people feel not heard when they have their three minutes,
[2:42:56] or when they don't get an email. And we talk about
[2:43:00] who cares about what.
[2:43:03] And one of the things
[2:43:06] I hear a lot in this
[2:43:09] back and forth is pointing fingers, and sometimes I wish we
[2:43:13] could just take the time
[2:43:15] to realize that we all care. We might just care in a different way,
[2:43:19] right? And like Councilman Willis said, we need to
[2:43:23] object to everything we can
[2:43:26] to hold our
[2:43:28] voice in a place to have a voice
[2:43:31] in the fight.
[2:43:32] So going forward, I think my ask is
[2:43:37] aligning with Councilman Willis is that
[2:43:41] we all try to understand that,
[2:43:44] right? They're a room full of good ideas. There's public input.
[2:43:48] There's objections to be made.
[2:43:51] Great ideas from council.
[2:43:53] We all get
[2:43:55] a little
[2:43:56] flustered because we're passionate,
[2:43:59] and we love what we love. We love our community, right?
[2:44:03] So
[2:44:04] let's keep that in mind when we're trying to work through these to send these kind
[2:44:08] of letters, because I think if we don't send a letter like
[2:44:12] our city attorney said, I think we lose our place in the fight.
[2:44:17] So we have to send something.
[2:44:19] So if we're going to send something, let's send something that, for a change,
[2:44:23] represent us and the people.
[2:44:27] That's all I have to say.
[2:44:29] Council Moss.
[2:44:32] Your Honor, I would support the
[2:44:35] comments that Council Member Willis shared.
[2:44:39] I think it is important.
[2:44:43] I would propose that the council consider
[2:44:48] having
[2:44:49] Council Member Willis, the mayor,
[2:44:52] Council Member Brown, the city attorney, and the city manager
[2:44:57] comprise a letter and send it on behalf of the city
[2:45:02] since we've got a September 30 deadline.
[2:45:05] There are some details in here
[2:45:08] at first blush and very, very supportive, but I would like to have
[2:45:12] the city attorney take a look at it and see what the implications, if any,
[2:45:16] would be. And so I'll just throw that out as a
[2:45:20] notion.
[2:45:22] Council Member, did you have anything to...
[2:45:24] Yes, I would like to say something.
[2:45:29] I appreciate the community comments.
[2:45:31] I spent a lot of time earlier today reviewing the draft environmental impact
[2:45:35] statement, and I sent a list of the concerns that I
[2:45:39] had with the letter to City Manager Chamberlain
[2:45:43] and the mayor. Thank you for printing this out so everybody has it in front
[2:45:47] of them.
[2:45:49] Initially, I had planned to kind of talk through the list of
[2:45:52] concerns that I had and the specific objections.
[2:45:57] But at this point,
[2:45:59] I am supportive of the next step of working with Council
[2:46:03] Member Willis, the city attorney, and city manager.
[2:46:07] I would like to-
[2:46:09] compile pieces of this letter-
[2:46:11] Mm-hmm
[2:46:11] ... and really simplify it so that it's clear that we're
[2:46:15] objecting to a broad, non-specific list of items,
[2:46:19] but that gives us standing to object in the future
[2:46:23] if we win, probably, we need to.
[2:46:27] Mm-hmm.
[2:46:27] So, yes.
[2:46:28] Hi, Jim Escola. Yeah, I just have a question for Mr. Donaldson.
[2:46:31] So
[2:46:33] legally,
[2:46:34] how can this be done? I think
[2:46:37] Mr. Moss is-- I like his idea. But are we on good
[2:46:41] legal ground doing it that way?
[2:46:43] I think so. Right now I'm on page four of six of Mr.
[2:46:46] Lynn's letter, and I think there's a lot to work from, from this.
[2:46:49] I haven't seen
[2:46:51] Council Member Brown's, but there's nothing
[2:46:54] incendiary in it, in what Mr. Lynn's suggesting.
[2:46:58] These are stating some of our concerns and our objections.
[2:47:01] And so,
[2:47:03] I think that it would be smart to, I mean, what Council Member
[2:47:07] Brown says is to kind of cull from those things and put it together, and again, it
[2:47:11] doesn't have to be a hostile letter, just something that we have these
[2:47:15] concerns and these objections and we're not supporting either of these
[2:47:19] alternatives at this time. And then,
[2:47:22] as it goes on and we're able to give more study to it.
[2:47:25] But I fully agree with Council Member Willis, is that at this point,
[2:47:30] what you really want to do is preserve as many of your objections as you can.
[2:47:34] And like I say, I'm just through page four of six, but I think Mr.
[2:47:38] Lynn's done a lot of that.
[2:47:40] Well, I thought Council Member Brown's
[2:47:44] concerns were very valid, so I would say that.
[2:47:48] I just also want to make sure,
[2:47:50] coming up against the deadline, and I just say
[2:47:54] this from someone who's had to write things and then have other people look
[2:47:58] at it. At some point, you just have to have someone write it.
[2:48:01] I mean, you don't want to have it written by a committee because then you have an
[2:48:05] elephant. So, I'm just saying that I-
[2:48:09] If you're putting me on it, it'll go out. It'll be time.
[2:48:12] Right. And-
[2:48:13] It's
[2:48:14] not going to-
[2:48:14] Staff would rewrite the letter-
[2:48:16] Yeah
[2:48:16] ... and then run it by, if that's the council's direction, by
[2:48:20] the three council members that have been mentioned before we submit
[2:48:24] it before the deadline's due.
[2:48:25] Right. Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
[2:48:27] I don't think we need to have
[2:48:30] 75 people look at it.
[2:48:31] A letter by committee.
[2:48:32] Letter by committee is never good. Never good.
[2:48:34] So but I feel good with Council Member Willis Brown,
[2:48:39] City Manager, and the attorney.
[2:48:42] Mr. Robinson.
[2:48:43] I would take this just one step further.
[2:48:46] I would challenge, if we do this committee thing, I would challenge
[2:48:50] the public, not just Mr. Lynn. To rely on only one
[2:48:54] person in a time like this is not fair to that one person, and
[2:48:58] it's not fair to us as a democracy. I would encourage
[2:49:01] every single member of the public who sees this meeting, I want
[2:49:05] your letter.
[2:49:07] I would say that if we're going to do that, we allow the members of the public to
[2:49:10] send whatever thoughts they have to
[2:49:13] the staff, that that be shared with the committee as well.
[2:49:16] Worst that can happen is you sit there and you read letters for several hours,
[2:49:20] and then you condense and come up with something else.
[2:49:22] But if we're serious about doing this and we're serious about the result, let us
[2:49:26] at least turn to the public, especially those who can write
[2:49:30] wonderful noir novels on Facebook, and
[2:49:34] see if we can't have more than just one
[2:49:38] voice.
[2:49:40] Can I add-
[2:49:41] Yeah, Council Brown
[2:49:41] ... to that? I would love to help draft that initial
[2:49:45] draft. So I
[2:49:47] have plenty of time later this week to work on that.
[2:49:52] I'm happy to read any letters that other members of the public would like to
[2:49:56] send. But I do want to thank Paul for taking the time to
[2:50:00] put this together. My understanding is this took you a lot of hours,
[2:50:04] and I know you did that because you really care. So, thank you.
[2:50:09] Any other comments, questions?
[2:50:12] Well done, Paul. Well done.
[2:50:16] That's it.
[2:50:19] From my perspective, so the one acknowledgment I think that
[2:50:23] you're asking from us is
[2:50:25] just acknowledging that we read what you say, that we care about what you said.
[2:50:30] We might not agree on everything, but we appreciate the work that goes
[2:50:33] into putting a statement with references, research,
[2:50:37] and so on. So we appreciate the work.
[2:50:40] We share the same concern about the health of the
[2:50:44] watershed and
[2:50:46] the drinking water that we have. So,
[2:50:48] I want to make sure that you feel supported on
[2:50:52] understanding what you're trying to accomplish, and I think
[2:50:56] this letter, similar to what we did before, should state all
[2:51:00] of the things that we care about in terms of protecting that watershed
[2:51:05] with all of the
[2:51:07] detail that is necessary to put and not getting too much into
[2:51:11] details that may be
[2:51:13] difficult. So,
[2:51:14] I like the resolution of having that
[2:51:17] letter drafted,
[2:51:19] probably with a lot of Paul's, if not all of his input, given that
[2:51:24] he's taken the time to read through
[2:51:27] the EIS and make comments on that.
[2:51:31] So I think that
[2:51:33] we would need to make a resolution to or vote
[2:51:37] on taking that course of action, if anybody's ready to make
[2:51:41] that-
[2:51:42] But we don't even have a resolution here.
[2:51:45] Well, no. Not a resolution. I mean, course of action on how-
[2:51:48] Okay
[2:51:48] ... to do things.
[2:51:49] Well, I'll frame my comments in the form of a motion.
[2:51:54] Okay.
[2:51:55] Which was
[2:51:58] to incorporate...
[2:52:01] Excuse me. To request that the mayor, Council Member
[2:52:05] Willis, Council Member Brown,
[2:52:10] the city manager, and city attorney-
[2:52:16] Take a look at information that we've been provided this
[2:52:20] evening
[2:52:21] and come up with a letter to be submitted
[2:52:25] by
[2:52:26] September 30th, on behalf of the city council.
[2:52:30] Well said. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye.
[2:52:34] Aye.
[2:52:35] Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that passes unanimously.
[2:52:38] Thank you very much for all of your input tonight and all of the time
[2:52:42] invested on this.
[2:52:46] Next item in our agenda
[2:52:53] is approving the minutes of the September 8th, 2026 work session.
[2:52:57] Council members Outlaw and Willis to abstain on that.
[2:53:03] Your Honor, I move to approve the
[2:53:05] minutes
[2:53:08] for the September 8th, 2026 work session.
[2:53:13] All right. A motion and a second.
[2:53:15] Second.
[2:53:16] Motion and a second. All those in favor,
[2:53:19] please say aye.
[2:53:20] Aye.
[2:53:21] Aye.
[2:53:21] And we have abstentions. Yes.
[2:53:25] All right. The next item on our agenda is approving the August 2026
[2:53:29] accounts payable register.
[2:53:33] If you don't mind,
[2:53:36] could you please take your
[2:53:39] conversation outside, if you don't mind?
[2:53:42] Thank you.
[2:53:53] Not wishing to extend the meeting any longer than necessary,
[2:53:57] we're getting close to the 9:30 hour.
[2:53:59] I would move to
[2:54:02] extend
[2:54:03] the meeting beyond 9:30, if necessary.
[2:54:08] Awesome.
[2:54:08] Second.
[2:54:09] Motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye.
[2:54:11] Aye.
[2:54:12] Aye.
[2:54:12] Aye, reluctantly.
[2:54:14] Reluctantly?
[2:54:15] Yeah.
[2:54:16] Reluctantly.
[2:54:17] I want to go home.
[2:54:19] Being said, I'll quickly go through the
[2:54:22] motion to accept the August 2026 accounts
[2:54:26] payable register, which totals
[2:54:27] $5,865,733.02,
[2:54:34] with the exception of one check, number
[2:54:37] 38137,
[2:54:39] which is to the Blue Mountain Action Council for $90.
[2:54:44] And
[2:54:46] all of the council may vote on that.
[2:54:49] I second.
[2:54:50] We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye.
[2:54:53] Aye.
[2:54:53] Aye.
[2:54:54] Any opposed?
[2:54:55] That passes unanimously.
[2:54:57] The second motion is to approve the payment of that check
[2:55:00] 38137 to the Blue Mountain Action Council for $90.
[2:55:05] It was for low-income senior and people with disabilities
[2:55:09] service
[2:55:10] eligibility determination.
[2:55:13] All right. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye.
[2:55:16] Aye.
[2:55:16] Aye.
[2:55:17] And one abstention.
[2:55:19] The mayor abstains.
[2:55:19] Yes.
[2:55:20] I further move to approve the payroll register certification for the
[2:55:24] August 31, 2026 payroll period.
[2:55:29] Second.
[2:55:31] All those in favor, please say aye.
[2:55:32] Aye.
[2:55:33] Aye.
[2:55:33] Aye.
[2:55:33] Any opposed? That passes unanimously as well.
[2:55:37] We move into council member meeting reports.
[2:55:40] Start with you, Councillor Robinson.
[2:55:43] God help me to be brief.
[2:55:45] I went to the CDBG meeting, I hope to God I
[2:55:49] said that right, with our new CDBG.
[2:55:54] They have approved a recommendation for
[2:55:58] a report on how those funds were used called, and I am not kidding you,
[2:56:03] CAPER.
[2:56:06] So we'll see how that goes. That and the
[2:56:09] work session on Monday, which I found to be very informative, and was
[2:56:13] deeply impressed
[2:56:15] with the staff on, especially our planning director, Emily.
[2:56:20] I thought she was
[2:56:22] very professional in that meeting, and it was appreciated. That's it.
[2:56:25] All right. Councillor Esco.
[2:56:27] Okay. On the 11th, I met with
[2:56:32] deputy city manager and slash,
[2:56:36] development director, Preston Frederickson, and
[2:56:40] city manager Elizabeth Chamberlain to ask questions about
[2:56:44] the comprehensive plan and the amendments to the comprehensive plan.
[2:56:49] On the 14th, I watched the
[2:56:53] planning commission public hearing on
[2:56:55] the
[2:56:59] riparian-
[2:57:00] Various ordinances
[2:57:02] ... ordinances. On the 15th, I attended the Humane
[2:57:06] Society board meeting.
[2:57:10] The things that came out of here that pertain to the city
[2:57:14] is there is a fatal cat disease
[2:57:17] breakout at the homeless shelter camp.
[2:57:21] Oh.
[2:57:21] Yeah. Not good. And
[2:57:24] I can't remember the... It's a very Latin name for this disease,
[2:57:28] but it
[2:57:30] kills the cats very quickly, and it's very spreadable.
[2:57:33] So
[2:57:35] the Humane Society can't do anything, bring them in there, into
[2:57:39] the Humane Society. So they're trying to do what
[2:57:43] they can to help, but there's not much they can do to help.
[2:57:47] And they're still having problems with three
[2:57:51] animal hoarders. They have 40 cats, 40 dog
[2:57:55] situation.
[2:57:56] The one thing, and that's clearly a mental health problem, as I outlined the last
[2:58:00] time. But our
[2:58:02] care team working with the fire department ambulance,
[2:58:06] one of the team members is on the Humane Society
[2:58:10] board, and she reported that they have gone out there
[2:58:14] to these houses several times and trying to work with these people.
[2:58:18] But it's very difficult because
[2:58:22] the Humane Society would like to bring them in and get them spayed or
[2:58:26] neutered, but that's very expensive.
[2:58:29] It's just been very difficult, and it's a tough situation for them, but
[2:58:33] they're working on it, so.
[2:58:37] The work session on Monday, and then on
[2:58:42] Tuesday, I went to the Port Economic
[2:58:47] Information update, and
[2:58:50] it was interesting, albeit somewhat grim
[2:58:54] because of the
[2:58:57] state statistics that were given us from the person from the
[2:59:01] Small Business Administration, number of businesses that want to
[2:59:04] leave the state, the businesses that don't want to come to the state.
[2:59:09] And one of the main issues, according to him, and he said he didn't want to make it
[2:59:12] a big issue of the millionaire tax.
[2:59:15] However, it's the fact that
[2:59:17] it is an income tax, and there's concerns about what that will bring.
[2:59:21] So he talked about that as being concerning.
[2:59:24] Also, tax collections locally have been down,
[2:59:28] and the air travel
[2:59:30] off of Alaska Airline here is down month by
[2:59:34] month, year over year. So 25 was higher than 26 each
[2:59:38] month of the year, and it's
[2:59:40] looking like that trend will continue.
[2:59:42] The good part is Alaska Airline is still pleased with what they're
[2:59:46] seeing, and they're not asking us to pay money like they did when
[2:59:50] they wanted that $500,000. So that's positive.
[2:59:54] All right. Councilor Willis.
[2:59:56] Okay. I'm going to be really brief.
[2:59:59] Two finance committee meetings on the 10th and 18th of September,
[3:00:03] and the work session on Monday.
[3:00:04] All right. Thank you. Councilor Brown.
[3:00:06] Yes. On September 16th, I attended the Water Wastewater
[3:00:10] Advisory Committee meeting. On the 17th, I was at the Valley Transit
[3:00:14] Board meeting.
[3:00:16] On September 21st, I met with Port Commissioner Kelly,
[3:00:20] and two folks from BMAC, and we had a great conversation about the state of
[3:00:24] childcare in the Walla Walla County area and talked about how this
[3:00:28] is an economic development challenge for us.
[3:00:32] I was at the work session on the 21st as well, and then on the
[3:00:35] 22nd, I was also at the Port of Walla Walla economic development meeting.
[3:00:40] Councilor Outlaw.
[3:00:42] Monday, September 21st, work session meeting.
[3:00:46] All right. Councilor
[3:00:48] Mayor Pro Tem Moss.
[3:00:50] The agenda-setting meeting with Your Honor and staff, the Valley
[3:00:54] Transit board meeting that was mentioned, the work session, and the
[3:00:58] two finance committee meetings that also were mentioned.
[3:01:01] All right. Very well. For me, yes, Thursday, September 10th,
[3:01:05] finance committee meeting to review some of the budget proposals.
[3:01:09] September 16, the agenda-setting meeting.
[3:01:12] September 17, I attended the BMAC board meeting, where
[3:01:16] several projects regarding affordable housing were
[3:01:19] discussed in more detail and timelines.
[3:01:23] Friday, September 18, I attended the finance committee again to continue
[3:01:27] having
[3:01:28] that budget proposal discussion.
[3:01:31] September 21st, I attended the work session to discuss the critical areas
[3:01:34] ordinance. September 22nd, the Port of Walla Walla economic development
[3:01:38] report, as previously mentioned.
[3:01:41] September 22nd also, I attended a meeting with several community
[3:01:45] leaders from government, education, nonprofit, for a
[3:01:48] presentation of the Walla Walla Community College
[3:01:52] Community Vibrancy Program initiative, which is in
[3:01:56] essence focused on measuring and working towards the success of
[3:01:59] students in our community beyond graduation and onto being
[3:02:03] able to attain
[3:02:05] living wage jobs and what living wage jobs means in Walla Walla, which
[3:02:09] is a big area of concern,
[3:02:12] in terms of retaining some of the students who graduated and
[3:02:16] preparing them for jobs that actually exist in the community and have
[3:02:21] future potential in that.
[3:02:23] Really what came out of that meeting, and somebody said, "Let's just take action
[3:02:26] instead of continuing to talk about it," is how do we
[3:02:30] collectively work on that community development, economic
[3:02:34] development to ensure, one, there's affordable housing, two, there are
[3:02:39] jobs that can pay for at least a living wage
[3:02:43] and many of the other
[3:02:45] issues that have to do with the port, with the county, with some of the nonprofits,
[3:02:48] with BMAC and so on. So it's really a collective effort
[3:02:52] that we've independently have discussed in many arenas
[3:02:56] but haven't really come together to say, "Look, economic
[3:03:00] development in our community is super important because
[3:03:04] we're suffering otherwise, and our young people aren't able to
[3:03:09] certainly find a place to live and much less having a job that can afford them that
[3:03:12] place to live." So it
[3:03:14] is an initiative that for me, it's really meaningful and
[3:03:18] I'm thankful to all the agencies and all the government organizations that are
[3:03:22] coming together to do that.
[3:03:25] And that is my report.
[3:03:28] Moving on to our next item, which are unfinished or new
[3:03:32] business. Any unfinished or new business? Yes, Councilor Willis.
[3:03:37] I have mixed emotions about this, but RL had something that
[3:03:41] he was meaning to bring up,
[3:03:44] didn't get a chance to. Is there something meaningful you wanted to quickly
[3:03:48] tell us that you didn't get a chance to tell us before?
[3:04:00] Thank you. I would just like to
[3:04:03] read the last couple paragraphs of my letter because it adds
[3:04:07] context, and that was what everything was about.
[3:04:09] I will start at the point where
[3:04:13] I said, in one of the two letters sent by my attorney on June
[3:04:17] 23rd and August 7th of '26.
[3:04:21] In the June 23rd letter, towards the end, there's a paragraph,
[3:04:24] "My client hopes to reach a satisfactory resolution
[3:04:29] of this problem through discussion, not litigation."
[3:04:33] There's my offer of an olive branch back on June 23rd,
[3:04:37] 2026
[3:04:39] Followed by Tim's offer of an olive branch on August 19th,
[3:04:43] 2026. So
[3:04:46] please stay tuned as just in case all council members are not familiar
[3:04:50] with the two letters sent by my attorney, I will be providing all
[3:04:54] seven members of the council with copies of the two letters sent on my behalf.
[3:04:59] Hopefully with the knowledge of what they contain, i.e.
[3:05:02] context,
[3:05:03] we, all of the council, everybody in the room, everybody, will
[3:05:07] be able to continue forward a bit more enlightened, discussing from time to
[3:05:11] time issues with totally transparent communication,
[3:05:16] 360 degrees of advocacy, along with a new appreciation
[3:05:20] for the value of context. Thank you for letting me finish.
[3:05:23] All right.
[3:05:23] Thank you.
[3:05:24] Thank you.
[3:05:25] Mark, just so you know, your letters were provided to all of the council
[3:05:28] members.
[3:05:29] Yeah, we've already read them.
[3:05:30] We know the letters.
[3:05:31] Wow, that's great. Thank you.
[3:05:33] We've received them all.
[3:05:35] Anything else on new business?
[3:05:37] Yes, Councilor Wilkes.
[3:05:39] I would like to respond to the public comments about the Critical Areas
[3:05:42] Ordinance.
[3:05:45] One, I don't expect that we have an answer on this, but I just thought I would ask,
[3:05:49] have we heard anything about a potential extension from Commerce?
[3:05:53] Okay.
[3:05:56] And then
[3:05:58] we heard several concerns expressed about the map
[3:06:01] not being legible and that people couldn't tell whose
[3:06:05] property would be impacted. And I did notice, reading through the
[3:06:09] report from Facet, I think, they actually did
[3:06:13] recommend updating certain maps because
[3:06:17] there were maps referenced that couldn't be found online.
[3:06:22] And so I would just make a request that before we have the public
[3:06:26] hearing, that there is a really
[3:06:29] easy-to-access, accurate map of the buffers
[3:06:33] that would be shared.
[3:06:34] We already noted that.
[3:06:35] Okay, perfect. Thank you.
[3:06:37] There you go.
[3:06:37] And then I feel like the issues of non-conforming use and then the clarity on the
[3:06:41] fire concern were addressed at the work
[3:06:45] session. But maybe just for those who didn't watch
[3:06:48] that, could you kind of clarify any concerns about
[3:06:52] non-conforming use and then the concern about could you rebuild if your
[3:06:56] house burned down?
[3:06:57] And maybe before City Attorney Donaldson jumps in,
[3:07:01] Deputy City Manager Fredrickson found a good reference tool
[3:07:05] that I think came from the City of Puyallup
[3:07:08] that was kind of an FAQ list. So we're going to do something similar
[3:07:12] that will answer a lot of those questions for...
[3:07:14] And then folks can reference that if they didn't attend the meeting or
[3:07:18] not want to watch the video to get those answers.
[3:07:21] We'll have it kind of in a easy to find one spot location
[3:07:25] answering all of those questions.
[3:07:27] Thank you.
[3:07:28] Yeah.
[3:07:31] They're not here, so-
[3:07:31] Yeah.
[3:07:33] So we will do that. We'll make sure that there's something, and then at least at
[3:07:36] the public hearing-
[3:07:38] Mm-hmm
[3:07:38] ... that people will know. So we'll have an answer for those things.
[3:07:41] Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm.
[3:07:43] Well, any other business?
[3:07:44] Well, yeah, I'm going to just-
[3:07:46] Councilor Hulsing
[3:07:46] ... same issue.
[3:07:49] I have talked to a county commissioner, other peoples
[3:07:53] about this, and
[3:07:58] I don't have that, if it's a fact or just hearsay,
[3:08:02] but that other cities in Eastern Washington have opted to
[3:08:06] just reject it on the grounds that
[3:08:10] as you pointed out, the one that the planning commission said that
[3:08:14] for economic, a variety of reasons, and they think that's good
[3:08:18] enough, and you disagree with them, and that's fine.
[3:08:22] But
[3:08:23] apparently Walla Walla County's taken that same tact.
[3:08:29] I was wondering if there's some way we could find out
[3:08:34] how many cities and counties are objecting, and
[3:08:39] legally, what's happened with that.
[3:08:41] So we'll know
[3:08:43] at the public hearing, if possible,
[3:08:46] what the real facts are about that.
[3:08:49] If indeed cities are opting out, and then what happens
[3:08:53] to them if they opt-out.
[3:08:55] At this point, maybe nothing. It doesn't happen till the end of the year.
[3:08:58] We don't know until they-
[3:09:00] Exactly
[3:09:00] ... take that particular action-
[3:09:02] Right. But-
[3:09:03] ... see if there is that
[3:09:05] ... my thinking is if there's a bunch of cities and counties,
[3:09:09] and we end up with a similar position,
[3:09:13] if there's a way to approach fighting
[3:09:17] it that way,
[3:09:19] if indeed that's the way we go. And based on what I heard Monday, I
[3:09:23] think that's possible.
[3:09:24] All right. Councilor Wilkes?
[3:09:26] I totally approve of the collaboration
[3:09:29] suggestion. I think perhaps rather than
[3:09:33] taking what could be a legally
[3:09:36] detrimental position,
[3:09:38] we would perhaps
[3:09:40] use that collaboration to try to put pressure on the legislature to back
[3:09:44] off on
[3:09:46] some of these
[3:09:47] requirements
[3:09:49] so that we get more flexibility. I realize they're not going to make it go away
[3:09:52] entirely. But if we could
[3:09:56] perhaps collaborate to try to get some more lobbying effort on this particular
[3:10:00] issue to create more flexibility in the state law so that we have more flexibility
[3:10:03] at the local level-
[3:10:04] Mm-hmm
[3:10:04] ... that would be probably where the time would best be spent.
[3:10:10] I
[3:10:11] have a hard time with us taking a position
[3:10:14] that could be legally detrimental, crossing our fingers that we don't lose God
[3:10:18] knows how much grant funding and whatever else
[3:10:21] because we've decided to
[3:10:24] take a position contrary to state law.
[3:10:26] Seems like we got to go to the state and get them to understand
[3:10:30] what we're going through rather than us just shooting
[3:10:34] ourselves in the foot.
[3:10:37] So that would be my suggestion.
[3:10:39] Councilor Robinson?
[3:10:42] I totally think that that's a valid approach, but I'm going to
[3:10:46] have to splash a dose of reality on this.
[3:10:50] And I say this as somebody who is very, very, very obsessively
[3:10:55] aware of everything the legislature's doing.
[3:10:59] I don't know how effective lobbying them on this
[3:11:03] is going to be.
[3:11:05] They have proven particularly resistant,
[3:11:09] let's put it nicely. They've been particularly
[3:11:12] resistant when they decide that they're going to level an unfunded
[3:11:16] mandate against you with turning around and then
[3:11:20] saying, "Well,
[3:11:22] gosh, we know that we may or may not have driven a semi through your
[3:11:26] house." I know I'm going back to that chestnut.
[3:11:28] So I totally believe in that,
[3:11:30] but my opinion personally remains unchanged.
[3:11:34] I'm told that my use of the phrase shotgun wedding on Monday
[3:11:38] is circulating. I'll say it again.
[3:11:40] I'm afraid I'm not a fan of shotgun weddings, and I don't think that this--
[3:11:45] I would rather fight it to the best of our ability, see what our actual legal
[3:11:49] options are. I don't know that they're in a mindset to listen to
[3:11:53] us. We are, after all, but humble Eastern and Central Washingtonians.
[3:11:57] We do not, in their mind, I would imagine, possess quite the
[3:12:01] worldliness of Seattle and Olympia.
[3:12:05] Any- anybody else?
[3:12:07] I should share a link. I found a link from MSRC,
[3:12:12] that lists a number of examples from other cities.
[3:12:15] I think that that might be a good resource for us to read because it does
[3:12:20] talk about some of the other cities have done,
[3:12:23] particularly in the area that I think where we might have some
[3:12:27] local leverage, which is in the reasonable use
[3:12:31] exceptions area.
[3:12:33] I think I mentioned that during our work concession, and there might be
[3:12:37] something in that language that we can use to our advantage to accomplish
[3:12:41] what many of our- They talk about- ...
[3:12:43] residents talk about, which is some of the concerns they have about their property
[3:12:47] and et cetera. But that might be a good resource
[3:12:51] for us to read through and get some other ideas from other cities.
[3:12:55] And then,
[3:12:57] just for some of the folks who attended the meeting, we have a public hearing
[3:13:01] October 14 at 6:30 on this matter.
[3:13:05] And I think
[3:13:08] I would say that
[3:13:10] city council, having listened to and having the input from the,
[3:13:14] Planning Commission, do you have pretty much an agreement to what the
[3:13:18] Planning Commission
[3:13:20] had asked us to do, which is to bring that matter here for a public
[3:13:24] hearing and make a determination on our end.
[3:13:27] So-
[3:13:28] I think their recommendation was for to reject it for those very reason.
[3:13:32] It wasn't for us to make our own determination.
[3:13:35] They wanted us to reject it. I'm just saying that's the way I read it.
[3:13:39] But it's coming to us, and we think that decision will have a public input, and
[3:13:42] hopefully we'll have some additional resources to rely upon.
[3:13:46] Yeah.
[3:13:47] Anything else? No.
[3:13:49] All right.
[3:13:52] We are now adjourned.
[3:13:55] Thank you. Thank you all.
[3:13:57] Thank you.