[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.

[1:31:40] 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.

[2:00:54] 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.

[2:16:55] 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.

[2:24:14] 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.

[2:54:54] 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.

[2:55:17] 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] 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.

2026-09-23 City Council Meeting

Transcript