2026-11-02 - Committee of the Whole - Planning and Public Works

02:23Good evening. Welcome to this special

02:25meeting on Monday, November 2nd. This is

02:28our Planning and Public Works Committee

02:30of the whole. We have 1 2 3 4

02:34five items and we will be not discussing

02:37the approval of the 27 pay plan updates

02:39because that is going to be discussed on

02:41Thursday, November 5th in our

02:42deliberation, but we will be discussing

02:45the uh the last item on the agenda.

02:48First up is amending RMC 3.1 development

02:52impact fees and amending contract uh

02:5552-51 an interlocal agreement of

02:57collection, distribution, and

02:59expenditure of school impact fees with

03:01Lake Washington School District 414. And

03:04I will kick it to Deputy I'm sorry,

03:06Interim Director Alan.

03:08>> Thank you and good afternoon, Council

03:10members. Um I am joined here today by

03:12Glenn Coyle, who will brief you all on

03:13the omnibus package, um which will be

03:15amending RMC 310 for impact fees as was

03:18stated. Um this is a combination of the

03:20three separate approval processes into

03:23one ordinance. So, you've discussed and

03:26approved the fire impact fees in

03:27separate processes. Um we do have um

03:30Lindsey Falkenberg and Cameron Zapata on

03:32from Parks in case there are any

03:33questions related to the park fees and

03:35we have um Ami um or Deputy Chief uh on

03:38from uh Fire. And then um please note we

03:41also have Brian Buck uh who came at our

03:43uh request and is a representative from

03:45the Lake Washington School District um

03:47to answer any additional um school

03:49impact fees that weren't addressed in

03:51your Council issue matrix. So, with that

03:53I'll turn it over to um Glenn Coyle, our

03:55senior planner, to provide a brief uh

03:58overview of the package.

04:00>> Uh good afternoon, Council members. I'm

04:02Glenn Coy senior planner.

04:04>> Yep.

04:06Uh, so just as a reminder, impact fees

04:08are one-time charges collected by the

04:10city from new commercial and residential

04:12developments to fund fire, park, school,

04:15and transportation facilities needed to

04:17accommodate growth. Impact fees are

04:20authorized in RMC 310.

04:23We are asking council to adopt an

04:25ordinance by consent on November 17th

04:28amending RMC 310, namely to adopt new

04:32fee schedules for parks, fire, and the

04:34Lake Washington School District. In

04:36addition, this amendment includes the

04:38annual indexing for inflation of

04:41transportation impact fees.

04:43Uh, as noted, this is the combination of

04:45all the separate approval processes in

04:47one ordinance. Both parks and fire

04:50conducted fee studies based on updated

04:52capital facility plans and proposed new

04:55impact fee schedules based on those

04:57updated project lists identified in

04:59those plans. Council provided direction

05:01to fire at the October 20th Committee of

05:03the Whole meeting to adopt a phased-in

05:05schedule, which is included in the draft

05:07ordinance.

05:09>> [clears throat]

05:09>> Council provided direction to parks at

05:11the October 27th Committee of the Whole

05:13meeting to adopt its proposed fee

05:15schedule.

05:16And lastly, for Lake Washington School

05:18District, uh, as noted, we are

05:20requesting an amendment to the

05:21interlocal agreement, um, which was last

05:23updated in 2006. And also in your packet

05:26is a response on the council's question

05:28on the revised school fees.

05:30So, council has seen these four

05:32components of these amendments at

05:33previous meetings and study sessions,

05:35and we're looking for direction to adopt

05:37these amendments by an ordinance. With

05:39that, I'd turn it back to the chair.

05:41Thank you.

05:42>> Thank you. Council, what questions do we

05:44have remaining?

05:51No questions? Council President Stewart.

05:54>> Thank you so much. I've no remaining

05:56questions. Um, Mr. Buck, thank you so

05:57much for being here, and I particularly

05:59wanted to thank uh, one of my brilliant

06:01colleagues asked for uh, the compiled

06:04uh, list of all of the fees so that we

06:06could see them on one uh sheet and I

06:08really appreciate the staff

06:09making that available to us in these

06:11materials. I think that overall in this

06:14package we have tried to balance the

06:15competing needs in our city um and I

06:18support this moving to consent. Thank

06:19you.

06:20>> Thank you. Other questions or comments?

06:22Council Vice President Naveh-Benjamin.

06:24>> Thank you, Chair. Um step I just direct

06:26uh comment for you. Um I will support

06:29this moving forward and um

06:32uh

06:33appreciate how we've been able to

06:35balance the regulatory compliance with

06:37the fiscal responsibility and the

06:39long-term needs. Um but really the the

06:41collaboration as we're working alongside

06:44Lake Washington School District.

06:48>> Thank you. Other questions or comments?

06:52Councilmember Sony.

06:54>> Uh just to ask like you know all other

06:56cities are also adopting at the same

06:58time or will there be any lag and how is

07:00that going to be handled?

07:04>> Correct. [clears throat] Yeah, all of

07:05our um local jurisdictions are updating

07:09their ordinance for school impact fees.

07:14So, this is state law

07:17um and we've worked with King County to

07:20evaluate allowable approaches and have

07:23determined bedroom counts align with the

07:26best for actual student generation. So,

07:29that's the genesis of the change.

07:33>> Wonderful. Thank you.

07:35Anything else?

07:37Seeing none, uh thumbs to put this on

07:40consent on the 17th.

07:42Fantastic. We will see this back on the

07:4317th. Thank you so much for being here

07:45tonight as well. Appreciate it.

07:47>> Thank you.

07:47>> Thank you. Moving on to item number two,

07:50approval of the 2027-2028

07:52budget and work program for ARCH.

07:56Kicking it back to Interim Director

07:57Allen.

07:58>> Thank you. Um I'm joined here today by

08:00Ian Lefcour, our long-range principal

08:02planner, and um Lindsey Masters, our uh

08:05executive director of ARCH, is also uh,

08:07online. Thanks for joining us, Lindsey.

08:10Uh, they will be providing an overview

08:12of the proposed budget, um, and request

08:14placement of the 2027, um, 2028 ARCH

08:17budget and work pro- program on the

08:20November 17th, 2026 Council business

08:23meeting and, um, are here to answer any

08:25questions. Uh, as a reminder, um, this

08:28is, uh, shows in your memo, but this is

08:30a routine bi-annual action that requires

08:33approval from all 16 ARCH, uh, member

08:35councils, and so that's why we're extra

08:37appreciative to have our executive

08:38director joining us today as there are

08:4016 other cities that she works with. Um,

08:43so with that, I'll turn it over to Ian

08:44to provide a deeper overview.

08:46>> Thank you, Sarfi. Good afternoon,

08:48Council. Uh, I'm Ian Lovecourt, he/him

08:50pronouns, principal planner with

08:52long-range planning. And today we are

08:54seeking Council approval to place this

08:56on the consent agenda and to provide

08:58feed- uh, receive feedback and any

09:00questions about the proposed 2027-28

09:04budget and work program for Regional

09:06Coalition for Housing. Uh, as Sarfi

09:08touched on, ARCH is a coalition of 16

09:11different jurisdictions on the east side

09:13of our county and the county itself.

09:17Uh, this is a routine bi-annual process.

09:19We have a 1993 interlocal agreement

09:22which has been amended a few times which

09:24requires that these items do go through

09:27and get approved by each of the member

09:29jurisdiction, uh, legislative bodies.

09:33The overall ARCH administrative budget

09:35is about $3 million. So, that's the

09:37whole pie of what is going forward in

09:40this, uh, administrative budget.

09:42It supports 14 [snorts]

09:44full-time employees.

09:46And this budget is approximately,

09:49um,

09:51uh, for Redmond, about 16% greater than

09:54the last bi-annual. So, we went from

09:56about 600,000 to about 694,000.

10:00Uh, you will notice there is some

10:02variation in how much growth

10:05of requests goes to the different

10:06jurisdictions.

10:08There are some, uh, nuances in the terms

10:11of how the requests are calculated, but

10:15it starts from a per capita basis.

10:17And so

10:19there are program specific components.

10:22There's minimum requirements for

10:23contribution. The county and cities have

10:25different rates, but broadly it is a per

10:27capita. And Redmond and Bothell

10:31experienced the highest population

10:32growth among ARCH members from this last

10:35update process.

10:36And because Redmond has continued to

10:38grow faster than many member

10:39jurisdictions, its contributions has

10:41increased. But that also means we're

10:43benefiting more from the expertise

10:45provided by ARCH.

10:47The funding that supports ARCH's

10:49regional work includes affordable

10:51housing investments, planning, policy,

10:54programmatic administration, and of

10:57course, public outreach and civic

10:58education.

11:00Key priorities include expanding housing

11:02opportunities, preserving existing

11:04affordable housing,

11:06strengthening funding strategies, and

11:08helping cities implement new state

11:09legislation.

11:11For Redmond, ARCH will continue

11:12administering our housing trust fund

11:14investments, supporting local housing

11:16programs, and advancing affordable

11:19housing opportunities like our Sound

11:21Transit surplus property in the Marymoor

11:23area next to that station. That is a

11:25huge opportunity and we are excited to

11:27collaborate with ARCH on it.

11:29ARCH also provides significant ongoing

11:32support in Redmond by overseeing roughly

11:35a thousand affordable housing units, uh

11:37rental units, excuse me, across more

11:40than 40 projects, and they steward about

11:42120 affordable home ownership units.

11:46So, we are here tonight to answer

11:49questions and receive feedback before

11:50bringing this item forward to the

11:52consent agenda at that November 17th

11:54business meeting. And I will turn it

11:56back to the council president for

11:57discussion.

11:59>> Not council president anymore, but I'll

12:00take it.

12:01>> [laughter]

12:02>> Um council questions on the ARCH

12:05contract for 2027-28.

12:08>> [snorts]

12:10>> Council President Stewart, then Council

12:12Vice President Winker Medina.

12:13>> Yeah, thank you so much. This is an

12:14exciting update, and thank you uh

12:16Lindsey for being online with us

12:18tonight. I also wanted to congratulate

12:20you on your um recent recognition from

12:23the Eastside Human Services

12:24Collaborative, which was held over at

12:25the Redmond Senior and Community Center.

12:27So, congratulations, and a very

12:29well-deserved recognition for all that

12:31you and your mighty team uh small but

12:33mighty team accomplish. I was hoping,

12:35Lindsey, if we could hear from you a

12:37little bit um I was fascinated to hear

12:39about some of the details that are in

12:41this budget that are going to help your

12:42team be able to do its work better. So,

12:45one of the examples um that was called

12:47for in this upcoming budget is um a

12:49project to migrate disparate databases

12:52into a cohesive resource. Your team gets

12:55a lot accomplished with the few members

12:57that it has. Um and I was wondering if

12:59you could tell us a little bit more

13:00about what is this project that you're

13:02taking on, and how will it overall

13:04impact uh the impact of ARCH uh after

13:07the project is completed? Thanks.

13:10>> Uh thank you, Councilmember. Good

13:12question, and good evening.

13:13Um well, I'm happy to talk about it cuz

13:15we've actually already started on that

13:17work, and it made some really good

13:19headway.

13:20Um

13:21I'd say probably a couple years ago we

13:22started to sketch out the need to have

13:26something a little more robust hold the

13:28numerous data sets uh than all those

13:30Excel spreadsheets, which current which

13:33we used uh for many years successfully.

13:35And so, um we contracted with a

13:38consultant who actually helps develop a

13:41national database that's used for most

13:43of the homeownership programs throughout

13:45the country

13:46um to create something customized in

13:48Salesforce that would mirror that

13:51homeownership database that we've had

13:53for many years that holds data on the

13:55ARCH ARCH homes that we steward, and

13:58expand that out and to include all of

14:01the rental properties, um as well as a

14:03lot of other data on city programs.

14:06Um so, we're I'd say fairly far down the

14:10road in compiling all of that, and over

14:13the next couple years we're going to be

14:14able to keep refining the system so that

14:17it can create customized reports for

14:20members when you want to have a quick

14:22answer to know what's on the ground in

14:24my jurisdiction, which of our codes and

14:27programs actually helped produce some of

14:30those housing units,

14:32how might some of our different member

14:33jurisdictions compare in what they're

14:36doing.

14:37So we're really excited about that and

14:39already starting to see the fruits of

14:40that labor.

14:42>> Thank you so much. That is really

14:43exciting that we'll be able to see the

14:45impact of the coalition better and be

14:48able to communicate it and celebrate

14:51with you. So thank you so much.

14:54Council Vice President.

14:56>> Thank you chair. Thank you Lindsey for

14:57being here. My question was similar to

15:00President Council President Stewart so

15:03I'll ask a different one but before I do

15:05I just wanted to thank

15:06ARCH staff and as well as our regional

15:09partners just for the thoughtful work

15:10that's reflected in this budget and

15:12especially the work program.

15:14The progress is very very meaningful and

15:17not just the investment in more than 700

15:21affordable housing units but also the

15:23emphasis on home ownership and

15:26preservation of existing affordable

15:28housing and leveraging both public and

15:31private partnerships.

15:32So my question is with the the rising

15:35development costs and increasing demands

15:37on municipal budgets, how is ARCH

15:39evaluating the cost-effectiveness of new

15:42construction compared with preserving

15:44existing affordable housing?

15:48>> Well, that's another great great

15:49question.

15:51It's a very active discussion and

15:54increasingly in the last

15:56really starting last year but even

15:58picking up more of this year.

16:00We are starting to see proposals from

16:03developers to pursue acquisition

16:06preservation projects

16:08that required much more minimal

16:10investment up front compared to new

16:12construction.

16:14So we do have new construction projects

16:16that we're also reviewing that are

16:18currently in our funding round and

16:20seeking funding to to advance,

16:24um, but we obviously have limited

16:25dollars and can only fund so many of

16:27those and the the gap is has grown

16:30significantly in what those projects

16:31need. So, we're excited that there's

16:33this other avenue opening up that might

16:36be another way to maybe not, um,

16:39produce a lot of new units, but to

16:41preserve the affordability we have or

16:43deepen it slightly in some of the

16:45projects that are already out there and

16:47serving, um, serving residents.

16:49>> Great. Thank you.

16:51Councilmember Kirtzer.

16:53>> Thank you so much, um, and I'm happy to

16:56see this go to consent. I I think that

16:59especially for the city of Redmond that

17:01ARCH is is a a really great investment.

17:04We get a great return on investment, um,

17:05in terms of the amount that we pitch in

17:07and being able to be with our regional

17:09partners to be able to support this work

17:10not only for the work that has been done

17:13for projects here in our city, um, as

17:15well as uh, adding more housing capacity

17:18in neighboring areas, but also some of

17:20the things that show up in here around

17:22uh, really supporting what we've already

17:24built and and providing some of that

17:25navigation for our residents who are

17:27looking to get housed, um, within ARCH

17:30housing. So, just want to express my

17:32appreciation there. Um, one question

17:34that I have for you, um, under the state

17:36and and regional policy and and funding

17:38engagement section, um, it mentions

17:42about, um, the support for subregional

17:44collaboration and I think some of the

17:46conversations that have been going on,

17:48um, around, uh, incentive encouraging

17:52and incentivizing subregional

17:54collaboration such as giving credit to

17:56jurisdictions that pull resources. I'm

17:58curious if you can tell us a little bit

18:00about where that conversation is at

18:02currently and what you're anticipating

18:05that that might evolve into in the

18:07future or how you'll kind of be

18:10following up on that.

18:11>> Mhm.

18:12Um, thanks for the question. So,

18:15it has been a very lively topic this

18:17year. Uh, we have tried to be responsive

18:20to a number of members who brought that

18:23forward

18:24as a significant concern for them that

18:28with as was just noted with really

18:29limited local resources and a lot of

18:32pressure to show progress towards each

18:36city's individual goals

18:38that they needed to you know maybe see

18:40some clearer connection between the

18:44dollars they invest in Arch and their

18:46responsibilities under growth management

18:48and act to try to

18:50create a nexus between those two things.

18:51So we developed some general policy

18:55briefing papers. We shared kind of some

18:58different thoughts on potential

18:59legislative angles.

19:02I'd say there was not probably unanimous

19:05agreement about what an easy legislative

19:07fix would be

19:09on that issue and so I think we've

19:12committed to providing general support

19:15for the goals.

19:17As far as we know there isn't specific

19:19legislation that's being

19:21proposed directly to address that issue

19:25but we're also tracking potential other

19:27amendments that might come forward that

19:29could be an opportunity to touch on this

19:32and at least create a way for

19:34the state to recognize this model in a

19:37more explicit way.

19:39So that's sort of where we're at. I'd

19:40say there are individual members who are

19:42much more concerned about it and may

19:44want to advocate for things on their own

19:47but as a kind of overall coalition we're

19:50sort of trying to stay a little bit in

19:51the in the background and track the

19:53issue closely.

19:56>> Fantastic. Thank you.

19:59Any other questions or comments?

20:02All right. Seeing none.

20:04This is being asked to be put on consent

20:06on November 17th. Thumbs for approval

20:09for moving that way. Great. We will see

20:12this back on the 17th. Thank you all so

20:14much.

20:15>> Thank you.

20:15>> Thank you Lindsey.

20:16>> Thank you.

20:17>> Thanks Lindsey. Have a good night.

20:19>> Great.

20:19>> Approval up next is our approval of

20:22Redmond paired watershed study contract

20:24amendments in the amount of $73,546.

20:31>> All right.

20:32>> Turn it over to Aaron. Thank you.

20:33>> It's great to be here tonight. I'm Aaron

20:35Moldver, environmental services manager

20:36in public works. And along beside me

20:38tonight is Jessica Alexson, senior

20:40environmental scientist. So, what we

20:42have tonight are two amendments. They're

20:43both related. One The first is to the

20:45Redmond paired watershed study itself to

20:48extend the time for the study out to

20:50September 2027. And also add some

20:53additional funding to fund interactive

20:55dashboard that will be used across the

20:57region to share the results of the

20:58study. So, that second amendment is for

21:00the the consultant contract with Herrera

21:03to actually do the work. But Jessica can

21:05tell you a little bit more detail about

21:06that. And then if you all have any

21:07questions afterwards, we're happy to

21:09answer them.

21:11>> Great. Thank you, Aaron. I'm Jessica

21:13Alexson, senior environmental scientist.

21:16So, as Aaron mentioned, we're here to

21:18talk about the contract amendments. And

21:20I'm really excited because this is the

21:21final amendment for this 10-year study,

21:23which is a really big milestone here.

21:26So, as Aaron mentioned, these contract

21:28amendments will work to develop a data

21:30dashboard for that 10-year study.

21:34The data dashboard will be hosted by the

21:35Department of Ecology. And that will

21:38really support visualization

21:40and an interactive interpretation of the

21:42data collected so that our regional

21:44partners all can understand what lessons

21:47the city learned from this study.

21:50All of this funding is through the

21:51stormwater monitoring fund action excuse

21:54me, stormwater action monitoring program

21:57that's administered by Department of

21:59Ecology and is funded by phase one and

22:02two stormwater permittees including

22:04Redmond.

22:05These The amendments with Herrera will

22:07help develop the data dashboard. And

22:09then the Washington Ecology amendment

22:12will provide the funding.

22:14As a reminder, the goal of this project

22:16is to measure the effectiveness of

22:18actions taken by Redmond stormwater

22:21utility as well as King County to

22:24restore urban streams on a watershed

22:26scale. Uh, this 10-year monitoring

22:29program started in water year 2016 and

22:32recently wrapped up, um, in water year

22:342025.

22:36We're currently working on the 10-year

22:38trend analysis report for all of this

22:40data that we collected and we plan to

22:42come back to council in first quarter of

22:43next year, uh, to present those findings

22:46including the findings on the the street

22:48sweeping study.

22:49Um, so thanks to council everyone for

22:51the interest in this project over the

22:53the years. We really appreciate that and

22:55we're requesting this final amendment

22:57beyond the November 17th consent agenda.

23:00>> Thank you so much. Questions of from

23:03council.

23:05Council member Krizan and then council

23:06member Percy.

23:07>> I'll just say I'm I'm really excited uh,

23:09to support this and and have have really

23:12enjoyed being able to watch the

23:13development of this and also see read to

23:16hear that that we could develop a data

23:18dashboard to make it even easier to

23:19share out the learnings already I've

23:22I've seen uh, in some of of the regional

23:25meetings that I've been in

23:26uh, other jurisdictions that have found

23:28it helpful to learn from what we've

23:30already learned so far in this study. So

23:33I'm glad we can can make an even easier

23:35to share tool.

23:37>> Council member Percy.

23:40>> I was wondering if you can share some of

23:41the lessons that have stood out to you

23:44um, from the study that we've done so

23:45far and then uh, second part of my

23:47question is if we've made any decisions

23:50differently based on those decisions

23:52those learnings so far.

23:55>> Yeah, those are great questions. Thank

23:56you. Um, so the one thing that stands

23:58out for me are the street sweeping

24:00studies that we've done. We did one in

24:02Monicello Creek watershed and a second

24:04one in the Tasha Creek watershed. Um,

24:07with the first one in Monicello we found

24:10that we were actually saw a decrease in

24:12several uh, contaminants in in the

24:14surface water

24:16uh, total suspended solids as well as

24:18copper.

24:19Um, when we repeated that study in the

24:21Tasha watershed we didn't see those

24:23results unfortunately. Um, we did a

24:26little bit more digging and what we

24:27found was in the Monticello watershed

24:29where we did see improved water quality.

24:32There's approximately 3.5 stormwater

24:34outfalls per 1,000 ft of Creek and in

24:37Tosh Creek there's only eight outfalls

24:40per 1,000 ft of Creek. So there's just

24:41less connectivity between the streets

24:44and this the stream in Tosh as there is

24:46in Monticello. And so because of that,

24:49we decided not to do increased street

24:52sweeping in Tosh anymore and instead are

24:55diverting that to High School Creek that

24:56has a higher connectivity such as

24:58Monticello. So I think that is a really

25:00helpful lesson learned that other

25:03jurisdictions can learn from, too.

25:06>> I just add one other thing to that is

25:09not only what we learned in the street

25:10sweeping but also what we learned about

25:12large stormwater capital projects and

25:15their acceptance in the community.

25:17The Tosh watershed was the first place

25:19we tried to do a large vault and we

25:22thought it might be a slam dunk and it

25:23turned out there was a lot of opposition

25:25to that. And so it kind of stalled the

25:27program for a while but we did was we we

25:29became more innovative and so instead of

25:32building large new projects we looked at

25:34what we can do to our current

25:35infrastructure. So stepping in and

25:37looking at the ponds that we have

25:38already and how can we make them work

25:40better. So that's where we shifted and

25:41went with the

25:43called continuous monitoring adaptive

25:45control. It's a smart valve so we

25:47retrofitted four of our ponds with smart

25:49valves in the Monticello watershed and

25:51then King County did two others in

25:53Monticello out in King County. So great

25:55partnership there so we're we're

25:57actively

25:59managing 35% of that watershed now

26:02to reduce impacts high flows to the

26:04streams and and protect the watershed.

26:06So that to me was kind of a lesson

26:08learned that you know smarter not harder

26:10sometimes that costs a lot less and you

26:12can get a lot more done.

26:15>> I'd also sorry like to add on to that.

26:17In addition we did a lot of outreach in

26:20Monticello as we were doing those C Mac

26:22projects where we attended some of the

26:24science nights at the elementary school

26:27and talked to everybody about why

26:28surface water is important and what

26:30these projects were doing. Um so I think

26:32that really helped gained the community

26:34support as well.

26:37>> Thank you.

26:39Uh Council member Prochera.

26:41>> Thank you. Um is this dashboard going to

26:44be embedded or linked directly into a

26:46redmond.gov city website? I think just

26:49in general the more data we give back to

26:50our residents the the better.

26:53>> Um yeah, that's a great question.

26:54Because this is funded through the SAM

26:56program, it's going to be housed by

26:58ecology. However, we have a paired

27:01watershed website, so we'll directly

27:03link to that from our website.

27:06>> Okay, great. Thank you.

27:07Council member Sony.

27:13>> I had the same question with Council

27:15member Parsie asked, but just to follow

27:16up on that, is there a way for us to

27:19also show on the dashboard itself some

27:22of these failed projects? Because these

27:24are good lessons that I think

27:25neighboring cities may want to use it

27:27for future.

27:29>> Yeah, that's a great question. So the

27:31data dashboard will have lessons learned

27:33on it. We've created fact sheets for

27:35some of these and so they'll be directly

27:38linked on that data dashboard.

27:41>> Great. Thank you. And thank you for the

27:42lessons learned. It was very exciting to

27:43hear some of that as been around I knew

27:46about the Tosh Creek and knew that it

27:48didn't get the results and very exciting

27:50to hear what we have learned through

27:52this process. So looking forward to

27:54approving this. Council, are we good to

27:57put this on consent on the 17th?

28:00Fantastic. We will see this back on the

28:0117th. Thank you.

28:04Next up we have septic septic to sewer

28:07feasibility program discussion.

28:11And handing it over to Ernie Fix.

28:17>> All right.

28:19Good afternoon Council.

28:21I'm Ernie Fix. I am our water and waste

28:23water manager in public works and I'm

28:25happy to introduce Shilpa Mehta

28:28who is our water and waste water

28:29engineering supervisor who joined us

28:30about 6 months ago. So she's getting

28:32right up to speed on this um and and

28:34everything else.

28:36Um so this item will be an informational

28:38presentation to provide an update on the

28:40septic to sewer uh study work that

28:42council initially funded in the

28:442025-2026

28:46budget. Uh we're scheduled to come back

28:48to council uh with that presentation

28:50next week uh quick turnaround on

28:52November 10th the study session.

28:54Um at this time we want to give you a

28:56quick preview of what we'll be covering

28:57at the presentation on the 10th and

28:59collect questions and prepare that we

29:01can prepare answers for for that uh

29:03for that presentation. Um so this

29:05presentation will provide a summary on

29:07the current state uh including the

29:09number of parcels served by septic

29:11within the city's wastewater service

29:12area as well as a quick rundown on the

29:14current regulations pertaining to sewer

29:16connections and the trends in

29:18conversions that we're seeing. Um our

29:21presentation will continue by reviewing

29:22some of the options for incentivizing

29:25and providing property owners with

29:26resources to convert from septic systems

29:29to city sewer service.

29:31Uh these will include planning level

29:33cost estimates and some of the

29:34challenges and considerations associated

29:36with each.

29:38Um finally we'll go over some of the

29:40next steps we'll be taking in the

29:42upcoming biennium.

29:43Uh as we'll discuss in that

29:44presentation, we'll work with uh

29:46internal partners to do uh a deeper dive

29:48into the specific tools and programs

29:50that the city determines are the best

29:52suited to the current uh landscape. Some

29:54of some of the key factors that need to

29:56be considered um include the

29:58effectiveness at assisting property

29:59owners to make the conversion to sewer

30:02um and determining the approach or as

30:05the case may be multiple approaches that

30:07um equitably provide financial resources

30:10without um unintended consequences such

30:13as gifting public funds or compromising

30:15the city's ability to to deliver other

30:17capital and operational projects

30:20unintentionally.

30:22>> [snorts]

30:22>> Um one thing I'll add as council may

30:24recall a question in the budget matrix

30:26uh asked staff if additional funding was

30:28needed to in the upcoming budget. Um

30:32um to implement some of the next steps.

30:34Um so after reviewing internally, public

30:36works has been working with finance to

30:38carry over funding that was unspent

30:40from the original amount allocated for

30:42their project.

30:44Additionally, there's an enhancement in

30:46this this budget

30:49in the proposed budget to update the

30:50city's general wastewater plan and

30:52incorporate the findings of the study if

30:55that is funded.

30:56So, between those two mechanisms, we

30:58feel that we're

30:59we'll be well positioned to continue the

31:00work and achieve the outcomes intended.

31:03So, we'll work to update the

31:05presentation with that information that

31:07was published before before that that

31:09change was implemented.

31:10With that, we are looking forward to

31:12coming back to present to council next

31:15week and are happy to answer any

31:17questions you may have at this time.

31:19>> Thank you and I believe that was my

31:20question. So, I appreciate the answer to

31:22that.

31:23Council President Stewart.

31:25>> Yeah, thank you so much. Really

31:26appreciate the team and Ernie and I were

31:28able to have a quick sidebar.

31:30It sounds like the report itself will

31:32also be attached so council will have a

31:34chance to read that prior to the study

31:36session next week. So, really appreciate

31:38that.

31:39I think that the slides that are offered

31:43in the packet materials do hit on some

31:45of the big questions. Some of them I ask

31:47in a slightly different way

31:49just to kind of reorient the framing. I

31:52do think that we should discuss what is

31:54the and I look forward to reading the

31:55report to to find out

31:58where it's most critical for public and

32:00environmental health to find the

32:01remedies fastest. For instance, are at

32:04what which of these 433 properties are

32:07in watersheds or on the CARA for

32:09instance?

32:10What regional partnerships will be

32:12needed to provide a solution on our

32:14borders? We know that on the border with

32:17Kirkland, we are talking about a very

32:20large long-term partnership needed and

32:24the first few steps of that

32:27I'm hoping by the end of the year or

32:29next year that we're able to have a

32:31little bit more clarity on what those

32:33first couple steps will look like

32:35particularly because as a council we are

32:38trying to balance

32:40um a few different needs. The uh we

32:42talked about this a lot during Redmond

32:442050.

32:45Our hopes and dreams for the future are

32:48a lot of um balancing competing

32:50priorities and polarities, if you will.

32:53Um a couple of those include the need

32:55for middle housing redevelopment, but

32:57also the need to preserve existing

32:59housing stock. And in the neighborhoods

33:02um along 132nd with Kirkland, we have

33:06families that at the moment the only way

33:09to convert would be to sell the whole

33:11neighborhood to a single developer. Um

33:14and while that may eventually deliver

33:16middle housing stock, that's not

33:17preserving a housing solution for those

33:19families. So, we are looking out for

33:21that. Um and and the last I will say

33:24just as we move forward with um this

33:26conversation, we're talking about 433

33:29properties. So, I'm very curious how we

33:32can um specifically engage these

33:34property owners um and and tenants in

33:38the conversation about the solutions

33:40that um we can build together. Thank

33:42you.

33:44>> Councilmember Kirtzer.

33:47>> [clears throat]

33:47>> Thank you. Um and I would uh plus one on

33:50the um request to to talk about the

33:53strategy of

33:55planning with other jurisdictions um in

33:58in addition to Kirkland's border, which

34:00is a significant portion. There's also

34:02quite a bit of uh unincorporated King

34:04County on the borders here as well. So,

34:07just would be interested to to hear a

34:09little bit more on that. Um and I I

34:11would also add I think I'd be interested

34:14when we're looking at yeah that the last

34:16um appendix slide that you have and and

34:18some of the options that you lay out. It

34:21seems like it is very kind of a a binary

34:24or a jump from either

34:27either you know, um property owner

34:30reimbursement program at $0

34:34to then a $60 million uh jump. So,

34:37whether there's some in between, what

34:39does it look like if we were to you

34:41know, fund this over time? I imagine

34:43you'll be coming to to share some of

34:44that, but and also the clarity on how

34:47how much of this map $60 million would

34:50get us. Is that Is that the entire map

34:52or is that just for one project? Um it

34:54was a little hard for me to tell what

34:55the the scale is on that. So, that would

34:57be um

34:58helpful to to understand.

35:01Um and and I guess

35:04how we might be able to prioritize if

35:06so.

35:08That's all. Thanks.

35:10>> Council Vice President Noisette Commena.

35:12>> Thank you, Chair.

35:13>> Um

35:13>> Ernie, thanks. Good to see you. Always

35:16great to to see you and Shilpa, welcome

35:18to the team.

35:19Um

35:21>> Uh

35:21>> Going back to what President Stewart had

35:24mentioned about preserving um

35:27preserving our inventory that we already

35:28have. Uh I appreciate the slide uh slide

35:3211 on implementation considerations

35:35in uh options that could be bundled with

35:38the preferred program. And I appreciate

35:39it because, of course, it's going to be

35:41speaking to equity.

35:43Um

35:44and my my question is

35:47Ernie, you had mentioned uh

35:49unintentional consequences such as

35:51gifting of public funds.

35:53And when we get to this conversation, I

35:55would love to make sure that we also

35:57have examples of what that could look

35:59like so that we stay out of

36:02those unintentional consequences. So,

36:04then we don't bring those forward.

36:06Thank you.

36:07>> Council member Prokhorov.

36:10>> Thank you, Ernie, and thank you, Shilpa.

36:12Welcome to the city and thank you for

36:13the quick turnaround. Um I am interested

36:15in in a couple of things, one of which

36:17uh Council member Kritser touched on,

36:19but um seeing more options than just the

36:22the $0 and the full reimbursement for

36:24$60 million. Uh but I'd also like to see

36:27uh if possible, if there's a

36:28differentiation between the clusters of

36:31uh septic to sewer conversions and then

36:33kind of the individual uh disparate

36:35houses that are that are structured um

36:38all all throughout the city. Right? I

36:40was I was very surprised actually to see

36:41a small cluster of

36:43um houses right next to Northeast 51st

36:45Street, which is near where I live. Um I

36:47I I didn't realize that they were not

36:49converted to sewer yet in that area. Um

36:51so I'd be interested in seeing um you

36:54know, when we when we change things at

36:55scale, are there cost savings? Like is

36:57it significantly more expensive to

37:00um convert these disparate um

37:02like kind of spotty um households

37:05throughout the city than um than the big

37:07groupings.

37:09>> Councilmember Sawant.

37:15>> Uh I I know Council President Sawant

37:17touched upon some regional um

37:20you know, partnerships. I'm very curious

37:23to know are there any grants uh that are

37:25available that we can use for some of

37:27this purpose? And I know that there is a

37:30low-interest

37:32um

37:33uh what's that known as? Like EPA's

37:35Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Any of

37:38these things that can be utilized for

37:40some of this purpose rather than you

37:42know, thinking of the entire 60 million

37:44and the other expenses.

37:49>> Yeah, there's definitely um a range of

37:51resources available and that's something

37:53that we can we can come back and kind of

37:54give you a an overview of of what those

37:56are and if we wanted to create our kind

37:58of own programs as well um

38:00through the city um kind of what those

38:02could look like. So so we'll be able to

38:04provide you a update on both of those.

38:07>> Councilmember Pedersen.

38:09>> Um really appreciate the analysis. I am

38:11I'm curious that we um covered some of

38:14the incentives that we can potentially

38:16provide. I'm curious if we can look at

38:18the on the opposite of incentives and

38:21look at disincentives for continuing

38:23with septics. If that's options that we

38:25can also consider just for, you know,

38:28other tools in this toolbox to consider

38:30um as options and that would be

38:32interesting for me given that in one of

38:34the slides it says that it states that

38:37um converting from septic to sewer can

38:40increase the uh the property value

38:43anyway. Uh so that could be an

38:44interesting area for us to evaluate to

38:47see if um this could um potentially

38:49increase the property value if we could

38:51kind of have other avenues of looking at

38:53this problem as well. Um so that I think

38:57is my only question on this. Thank you.

39:00>> All right. Thank you. And oh, Council

39:02Member Cortes, do you have another one?

39:04>> You can you can ask your question. I had

39:05a

39:06>> That's okay.

39:06>> follow-up.

39:08>> Um I just wanted to follow up maybe

39:10through the chair just to ask since we

39:12also heard an update on budget and I

39:14know we had this as one of our our

39:16pending budget items

39:18um for deliberation um whether council

39:21members feel that the explanation that

39:23was offered here would be sufficient to

39:25close out that item or whether we want

39:28to revisit it at Thursday's um

39:31uh budget deliberations.

39:34>> Do council members need um more

39:36conversation around the item that was

39:38brought forward for deliberation or was

39:41the explanation of money being moved

39:43forward into this budget

39:45adequate?

39:47Council President Stewart.

39:49>> Thank you. I believe um I added this to

39:50the matrix to make sure that we would

39:52have some dollars to continue this work.

39:54Um the the general uh sub uh sewer plan

39:58is also important, but this is a little

39:59bit different. It makes a lot of sense

40:01to me um that we still have money left

40:04over from work we didn't quite get to

40:05this biennium and we could pull that

40:07forward. So for my part um I do believe

40:10that this um I'm comfortable closing

40:12this item. Thank you.

40:14>> Other thoughts? I'm also comfortable

40:16closing this item.

40:19>> I guess I would just ask hopefully this

40:21will appear in our budget matrix the

40:23information that you shared, but if we

40:24could have that included in the issues

40:27matrix so that it's documented um the

40:29answer to to that concern then just save

40:32us a little time on on Thursday.

40:34>> [snorts]

40:34>> Right.

40:35>> I know we prepared a we had a in

40:37response in the matrix itself that

40:39touched on on many of those same points,

40:41but I'll review that make sure that's

40:42covered there.

40:43>> Wonderful.

40:44>> Thank you.

40:46>> All right. Um I don't have any other

40:48questions that weren't already brought

40:49up, but I really am excited to dig into

40:52this next week. Um, this has been one of

40:54the things that's been nagging at me for

40:56a long time since talking to a lot of

40:58those neighbors along 132nd and they

41:00want to convert. They just need a little

41:02assistance. So, I look forward to

41:03digging in on this.

41:05Um, we will see you on the 10th.

41:07>> Thank you.

41:07>> Thank you so much. Moving on to our last

41:10item for this meeting is the update to

41:13elected official pay plan for mayor's

41:15salary.

41:16And we have uh COO files joining us.

41:24>> Good evening, Council.

41:26Um, for the mayor's salary update, I

41:28just want to point out two pieces of

41:30information that you didn't have before

41:31that you have now.

41:33Um, so based on our discussion last

41:35time, I sent the council an email about

41:38what the 2026 CPI would do to the

41:40mayor's salary. It was 2.3%.

41:43Um, the second thing is the draft

41:46ordinance is now in your packet. So, um,

41:48if you got a chance to look at that, but

41:50I'm happy to answer any other questions

41:52that you might have on this item.

41:55>> Questions from Council?

42:01Give you all a minute to find that and

42:03open it.

42:07Council member Pearcy? Yeah.

42:09>> I shared this feedback earlier today

42:11with the mayor, but I also feel like um,

42:14it, you know, this was 30 attachments in

42:17one item and it was really difficult for

42:21me to read and comprehend and be able to

42:24search and go through all of that. So, I

42:26had personally a very difficult time

42:29with this item on our agenda with how it

42:32was structured. My preference for it

42:34would be if it was all just in one

42:35document that we could search through.

42:37That would have made my life a lot

42:39easier. So, this is a structural

42:41question, but

42:43>> So, I don't know if you're looking at

42:45um,

42:45the committee agenda or actually on the

42:47last item. We skipped the pay plan cuz

42:49that's going to be on Thursday. No

42:52problem.

42:53Um but we are on the item two under that

42:56section, which is the the mayor's

42:57salary.

42:59Yeah.

43:00Give you a minute to check that out. But

43:02thank you for the feedback on that.

43:04>> [laughter]

43:04>> I'll pass it along.

43:06Other comments or questions on this? Uh

43:09we are seeking direction for how we want

43:12to proceed with this item. So we are

43:14going to need to talk about it.

43:17Council member Prokopiak. Thanks.

43:18>> I just want to say I don't see it either

43:20in my packet, but I'm using Legistar um

43:23online.

43:27>> Okay.

43:28Was it a It was through an email, right?

43:30>> Um the Yes, so I sent Council an email

43:34the day after we discussed this item

43:36last week, I think.

43:38Um

43:39>> Yeah, so if you look at Wednesday, the

43:4128th.

43:42>> Mhm.

43:43>> Uh the email is from Wednesday the 20th.

43:47Ah.

43:47Thank you, Council President. Council

43:49President is going to pull that up on

43:50screen for us so we can all view

43:53the same document.

44:01Oh, sorry. Council Council member

44:02Krizan.

44:03>> I also linked to the just the Legistar

44:05um

44:06uh item in that has the attachments in

44:09in the chat. Um

44:11yeah, I I would say it seems to me that

44:13we should

44:15the the main question would be to

44:16provide direction on whether we want to

44:18go with 2.3, 4.1, or something else. And

44:22curious to hear

44:24>> Yes. So

44:25the item is on screen now. So the the

44:28decision before us is how we would like

44:30to proceed with this item.

44:33Um we have information around an

44:35increase of 2.3%, an increase of 4.1%,

44:39um and the last bullet um shows the 2.3

44:45and the increases.

44:47Um

44:48anyone want to kick us off for

44:52how they're feeling about this item.

44:54How to proceed?

44:56Councilmember Prokopiak.

44:58>> Um I would be in favor of the 4.1%

45:01increase commensurate to

45:03um the increase uh proposed for um the

45:06rest of our city employees.

45:08>> Thank you.

45:10Other thoughts?

45:21Councilmember Soni.

45:24>> Actually, even

45:25even I do agree because if we are doing

45:27a cola adjustment at 4.1% for the rest

45:30of the staff and

45:31>> Can you get Can you get a little closer?

45:33Sorry.

45:33>> Uh

45:34if we are doing uh

45:364.1% cola adjustments uh

45:39for the rest of the staff, I think I

45:40would be in favor of that.

45:42Unless we also want to see this thing

45:44along with the budget deliberations. I

45:46don't know if that works.

45:48>> Thank you.

45:51Other thoughts?

45:58Council Vice President Weaver Kamiya.

46:00>> Uh

46:01for for me, it is it's going

46:04back and forth between the two and the

46:06the reason for that um to kind of

46:10the the the thoughts with it is that

46:14it's an interesting position because it

46:16is an elected position and it is not a

46:20uh a typical city employee position. So,

46:24that that for me as an individual has uh

46:30a a a bit of wrestling between the two.

46:35>> Understood.

46:36Other thoughts?

46:38I'm going to go around one round.

46:43Councilmember Kretzer.

46:45>> I yeah, I think I can see an argument um

46:48both ways and I do know that the council

46:50did spend quite a bit of time looking at

46:52this issue um several years ago and we

46:55came to the uh

46:56the the rates that that has have now

46:59increased um which would align with the

47:02the 2.3 um but I I

47:05if my other colleagues want to go with

47:07the 4.1 to be at parity with the other

47:10increases that are happening uh COLAs um

47:13then I could support that.

47:17Other thoughts?

47:20Council President Stewart.

47:21>> Thank you. I spoke on this last week um

47:23but I do think that

47:26um using the same rate citywide makes a

47:28lot of sense to me and so um

47:31I think this process has reminded us

47:32that while council worked on the

47:34ordinance a couple of years ago, we

47:35didn't decide how the COLA would be

47:37decided and maybe we put that on the

47:39work plan for next year so that this

47:42item the whole goal of the work that we

47:43did 2 years ago was to make sure um that

47:46we did a systemic upgrade and update to

47:48everything so that it could be a little

47:50bit more automatic moving forward. Um so

47:53um

47:55the ordinance as currently presented uh

47:58satisfies my expectations but looking

48:00forward to hearing from my colleagues.

48:02Council Member Percy.

48:04>> I oh oh

48:05my

48:07my mic just fell apart.

48:09Um

48:10so I think we had a very interesting

48:12discussion about um cost of living

48:15adjustment and what it would mean for

48:17different salary brackets. Um that's

48:20something that really stood out from the

48:22conversation that we had last time for

48:25me and I did some research to see uh

48:27generally how that can be modeled

48:30differently and if it could be like a

48:32fixed percentage for everyone, if it

48:34could be a dynamically um

48:37chosen uh ratio based on the kind of

48:39lowest salary to highest. And what does

48:41cost of living adjustment really means

48:44um for different rate

48:46as we think about it truly cost of

48:48living what it really means for salaries

48:50to be adjusted. So I think um again if

48:53my colleagues are uh comfortable with

48:554.1, I'm happy to keep things consistent

48:57for this year but I do think that it

48:59would be a good idea to put um this as

49:03an item on our work plan to see in the

49:05future years how we want to think about

49:07this differently if we want to have a

49:09flat rate for everybody or if we want to

49:11see a more dynamic um way of applying

49:15this across the board um to make sure

49:17that the growth is relatively

49:21So So we make sure that one a few

49:23salaries at the higher end don't grow at

49:26a faster pace than others. So I think

49:29that would be a

49:31That would be a way that we can be a

49:32little bit more um

49:35Yeah, [snorts]

49:36I I I would like to see that in the

49:37future work plans. Thank you.

49:40>> Thank you. Um I will jump in with my

49:42thoughts. Um that has been a concern of

49:44mine for many years, so I really

49:46appreciate you articulating it so well.

49:48Um

49:49and for my um

49:52view on this,

49:54I I'm still very nervous about the

49:57the large increases that a 4% um

50:01provides at at such a high salary. So

50:03I'm really I'm leaning towards the 2.3.

50:07Um so I'm still hearing a lot of

50:09differing opinions around the table. So

50:12uh for sake of time, I'm going to ask

50:14who would be comfortable with the uh

50:162.3?

50:18Do you have one more question? Yep.

50:20>> Um I just wanted to ask um and

50:23forgive my ignorance, but do we have any

50:25city employees who are getting

50:28um a cola increase of less than 4.1?

50:32>> No, all of the union contracts are a 2%

50:37floor and a 5% ceiling, so the 4.1 cola

50:40from June to June CPIW

50:43fits within that um range and typically

50:46non-rep goes with that as well.

50:52>> Council member Percy, do you have a

50:53follow-up?

50:54>> So if I understand that correctly, um I

50:56guess could you Could you explain that a

50:58little bit more? You mentioned between

51:00two to five if

51:02>> Yeah, so the union contracts that the

51:04council has um already approved have a

51:07floor of 2% and a ceiling of 5% um based

51:13on CPIW from June to June. So, whatever

51:16that number is

51:18um that comes uh from the state, then

51:22that's what we use and that is 4.1% this

51:25year. So, as long as it falls within

51:27that range, then we're good.

51:29>> Yeah.

51:30Okay. Same question. Um those in favor

51:34of moving forward with the 2.3

51:39and those in favor of moving forward

51:41with the 4.1.

51:44Okay. And it sounded like most people

51:46were in favor of studying this next year

51:49as an overall topic for the work plan.

51:52All right. We have an answer. Thank you

51:54so much.

51:57And that brings us to the end of our

51:59agenda. If there is nothing else, this

52:02meeting is adjourned. Thanks everyone.

```*