City Council - Regular Meeting

Great. Good evening, everyone. We can start the meeting. Welcome. Thank you for being here. We are so honored that you are here and engaging with your city. City clerk, are you ready for the roll call?

Here. Deputy Mayor Hamilton? Here. Councilmember Barcaba? Here. Councilmember Breyer? Here. Councilmember Newhouse? Here. Councilmember Robinson? Here. Councilmember Suma Doria?

Here. Councilmember Yard, would you please lead us in the flag salute?

With pleasure. Please stand if you can. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which

it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you so much. We do have three proclamation tonight. The first one is National Safe Boating and Paddling Week. Council member Robinson will read that. I I'm going

to

invite Dale Vodicka to come and sit on a table. And after council member Robinson finished the proclamation, we would love to hear from your comment. I appreciate you all for all of your proclamation, but please keep it short to three minutes no matter how many people are sitting on the table. Please go ahead.

Bellevue is home to a vibrant community of recreational boaters and paddlers who enjoy the city's numerous lakes, rivers, and waterways, and National Safe Boating Week observed from May 16 to the twenty second twenty twenty six serves as the official launch of the year round safe boating campaign. And National Safe Boating Week promotes reasonable boating practices and highlights important life saving measures that help recreational boaters and paddlers stay safe while enjoying Washington's waterways, and the safe boating campaign, including initiatives such as wear your life jacket at workday on 05/15/2026, promotes the consistent and voluntary use of properly fitted US Coast Guard approved life jackets. And US Coast Guard statistics show that drowning remains the leading cause of recreational boating fatalities, and the vast majority of those who drown are not wearing life jackets. And in Washington state, paddlers represent a significant portion of recreational boating fatalities, highlighting the continued need for education, awareness, and safe paddling practices. And the city of Bellevue recognizes the importance of boating and paddling safety and supports efforts to educate the public on best practices to prevent accidents and save lives, including promoting the use of life jacket loaner stations where individuals can borrow properly fitted life jackets at no charge.

Now therefore, I, Lynn Robinson, on behalf of mayor Malikuchian of the City Of Bellevue, Washington, and the city council, do hereby proclaim May 2026 as national safe boating and paddling week in Bellevue and encourage all residents and visitors to practice safe boating and paddle paddling habits, including wearing life jackets, taking boating safety courses sorry. Boating safety courses and staying informed about local water conditions.

Thank you so much, Councilman Robinson. Please go ahead.

Okay. So good evening. Dale Bodica, immediate past division captain for division two, which is the Greater Seattle area. Thank you for recognizing National Safe Boating and Paddling Week. Also the great livability provided by the recreational boating opportunities in the city of Bellevue.

With your miles of shoreline within the city. I think your city has more shorelines than any other city in the East Side including possibly Mercer Island. We welcome you to this we welcome we come to you with this request at this time of the year to remind the residents of the inherent dangers of those activities. And while the air may be warmer, the water is still cold. To prevent incidents and to reserve life, the Coast Guard has established minimum carriage requirements for all vessels, including paddle craft.

And the most important of those is the life jacket for everyone aboard or towed by the vessel. Thank you. Would encourage the City of Bellevue to take a look at what other cities have done to in the way of a city ordinance to encourage the wear of life jackets. It's a great step forward towards lowering the likelihood of death or injuries on those vessels, which is now pushing forty percent nationally. Paddle crafters just don't get it.

I would also like to highlight the requirement to carry a sound producing device on all vessels, including paddlecraft, which can be accomplished by simply attaching a whistle to your life jacket. This can be sounded to prevent collisions like a horn on your car and to summon help in an emergency. You know, our efforts in the past decades of educating boaters on safe boating practices and the requirement in Washington State to have a boater education card to operate a motorized vessel has driven the incidence numbers down. But recent increases in uneducated paddle craft operators has resulted in the continuance of our unacceptable numbers of deaths, injuries and property damage in the state of Washington. Hopefully the residents of Bellevue will hear our message tonight and adopt safe operating procedures to enjoy their recreational boating activities.

We look forward to continuing partnering with the city of Bellevue into advanced water safety activity and voting organizations within the city.

Thank you so much. If you hang out around after the third proclamation, we take a I think Dave also showed up, so Dave, stay if you wanted to take a picture. We have the second proclamation, Habitat for Humanity, Seattle, King and Kititas Counties Days. Councilmember Sumatu Varia will read the proclamation. I invite Sahar Amini, Ryan Donahue, Christina Star, and Alicia Ruyes. I'm sorry if I'm pronouncing your last name wrong. And after council members Murphyria is done, we would love to hear from you all. Go ahead, please.

Whereas Habitat for Humanity Seattle King Kiritas Counties is part of global movement dedicated to building strength, stability, and self reliance through shelter in communities across The United States and more than 70 countries. And whereas Habitat for Humanity Seattle King Kititas Counties has been transformed lives, strengthening communities since 1986 and will celebrate its fortieth anniversary in 2026. And whereas since its founding, the organization has constructed or renovated 458 homes, completed 650 home repairs, and served more than 2,700 individuals and families Whereas, where while also advocating for policy that have helped generate generate millions of dollars in affordable housing investment across Washington state. And whereas, Habitat for Humanity Seattle King Kittitas Counties has mobilized more than 600,000 volunteer hours, created significant economic impact, and expanded permanent affordable homeownership, commit opportunities for working families throughout the region, and whereas the organization continues to advance housing opportunity and expand its impact with plans to serve appropriately 200 families annually in the coming years. And whereas the city of Bellevue recognizes the important role of affordable home ownership, volunteerism, and community partnership toward to building stronger, more inclusive, and more connected communities.

Now therefore, I, Claire Sumadhirariya, on behalf of Mayor of Bellevue, Washington, and the city council do hereby proclaim 05/19/2026 as Habitat for Humanity Seattle King Kittitas Candies Day in Bellevue and encourage our residents to recognize and celebrate the organization's lasting impact on families, neighborhoods, and communities throughout our region.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you, mayor, council member, the city of Bellevue for this incredible honor and proclamation recognizing Habitat for Humanity Seattle King and Kititas County's fortieth anniversary to the day. Today is the day. On behalf of Habitat for Humanity, I want to express our deep gratitude for your partnership, support, and shared commitment to strengthening our community. For forty years, Habitat for Humanity has worked alongside families, volunteers, donors, and community leaders to advance our mission, to build a world where everyone has a safe, decent, and affordable place to call home.

This mission is about more than building houses. It's about creating stability for families, opportunity for children, and stronger, more connected neighborhoods for all of us. We believe that when families have access to affordable homeownership and safe housing, entire communities thrive. This milestone anniversary is a reflection of thousands of people who have given their time, resources, and hearts to this work. Volunteers swinging hammers, homeowners investing in their futures, and partners like the city of Bellevue who understand that affordable housing is essential to a vibrant and equitable community.

As we celebrate the past forty years, we also recognize that the need remains urgent. Together, we must continue working toward future where everyone, regardless of income or background, has the opportunity to live in a safe and stable home. Thank you again for this proclamation, for your leadership, and for standing with Habitat for Humanity in building hope, dignity, and affordable housing for generations to come.

Thank you so much.

And since I have one minute and thirteen seconds left, I will take a point of personal privilege and say thank you to all of you. I am leaving Habitat in August, as all of you know, since my last time testifying before you, so I wanted to say thank you. We will continue Habitat will continue to be an incredible partner for you, and I appreciate all of you and all the work that you've done. You we all count on all of you and your partnership. So it's been great to work with you. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Just hang out after the third one. We are going to take a picture. Our last proclamation is Taiwanese American Heritage Week, read by Deputy Mayor Hamilton. I am inviting Shong Young and John Cho to the table. And then after deputy mayor finish the read, we would love to hear from you and your comments. Please go ahead.

Whereas Taiwanese American Heritage Week recognizes history, culture, and contributions of Taiwanese Americans in Bellevue, across Washington State, and throughout The United States, and whereas members of the Taiwanese American community have made meaningful contributions in science, technology, education, medicine, business, the arts, and public service, helping strengthen and enrich communities throughout the region and nation, and whereas Bellevue's Taiwanese American community contributes to the city's vibrant multicultural identity by sharing cultural traditions, languages, cuisine, values, and perspectives that help make Bellevue a welcoming and globally connected city, and whereas Taiwanese American Heritage Week provides opportunities for residents to participate in cultural and educational events, learn about Taiwanese history and traditions, and strengthen community connections through shared experiences and cross cultural understanding, and whereas the city of Bellevue recognizes the importance of celebrating the diverse cultures, histories, and communities that contribute to the city's identity and civic life and acknowledges the shared values of democracy, freedom, resilience, and community engagement reflected through the Taiwanese American community. Now, therefore, I, Dave Hamilton, on behalf of Mo Malakoutian, mayor of Bellevue, Washington, and the city council, do hereby proclaim May 2026 as Taiwanese American Heritage Week in Bellevue and encourage all residents to participate in cultural and educational activities, learn more about Taiwanese American history and heritage, and celebrate the diversity and contributions that strengthen our community.

Thank you

so much, deputy mayor. Please go ahead. Welcome.

Thank thank you so much. So we are really honored to be here today. Hold on. I have to. Okay. So thank you for the Major and Deputy Major and all the council members here. So yes, and thank you for all the friends here today with us to celebrate it. So my name is Judy. In our language, my name is Shongyong Dan. I'm really happy to hear someone read my name in Taiwanese.

It's very honored. So I'm the President of Formosan Association for Public Affairs. Bellevue holds a very special place in my family's story. When we first arrived in Washington State just before the pandemic, Bellevue was the very first place we residing as a home. So we aren't residents here anymore, but we come back here almost every day for my children's piano class, fencing class, and of course, for wonderful Asian markets and restaurants.

So Taiwanese Americans across Bellevue contributes every day in technology, medicine, education, and the arts. And we bring something more, the democratic values we carry from Taiwan, shaped by Taiwan's journey from martial law to one of Asia's most vibrant democracy. So the same spirit anchors the long friendship between The United States and Taiwan supported for over four decades by the Taiwan Relation Act and the Sixth Assurances. So okay, so what's what this proclamation means to us is something deeper. So as a minority community, we are seen over here.

So we are recognized. We can say our name by out loud in our own language and be heard exactly as we are. My children will grow up knowing they are right here today, so they would know they can say their name like I am Taiwanese American, and that is enough. So they won't have to explain, they won't have to translate who they are. So tonight, this city says our name for us and that matters more than words can express.

We celebrate this nation side by side with all of you who make Bellevue what it is. Thank you so much. And I have thirty seconds. So actually, the Taiwanese American Heritage Week was last week, but we still have a celebration on '24. So if you are you have some time, welcome to see the performance. So thank you so much.

Thank you so much. And we would love to come and take a picture with you all. So we are coming down. Absolutely. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda?

I move to approve the agenda. Second.

It's been moved by deputy mayor and seconded by council member Newhouse. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. City clerk, favorite portion of the meeting. For all communication, please.

Yes. Thank you, mayor. This evening, there are eight preregistered speakers. So, first, I wanna mention that the council does appreciate members of the public engaging and contributing perspectives and supports everyone's right to express themselves. But comments shared during oral communications do represent the views of the individual speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views or the values of the council or the city.

So a couple of the rules before I start calling names, the total time for oral communications is for a period of not more than thirty minutes and all topics must relate to city of Bellevue government. People speaking to items on tonight's agenda will be called first and then if time remains, people speaking to items not on tonight's agenda will be called. In both of those categories, the presiding officer is authorized to give preference to those who have not spoken to counsel within the last sixty days or who will be speaking on topics that will come in front of the counsel within the next sixty days. Each speaker is allowed a maximum of three minutes to speak and only a maximum of three speakers are allowed to speak to any one side of a particular topic. And one final reminder that in compliance with Washington State campaign laws regarding the use of public facilities during elections, no speaker may support or oppose a ballot measure or support or oppose a candidate for election and that includes one's own campaign.

So anyone beginning to speak on those topics will be asked to stop. And with that, I will call our first speaker who is Brady Nordstrom.

Welcome.

Thank you, counsel, for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Brady Nordstrom, and I'm the associate director of government relations and policy at the Housing Development Consortium. I'm here to comment on the multifamily tax exemption discussion for HOMA areas. So in the lead up to the meeting today, there was a lot of conversation, and I am pleased to share that the ESET housing roundtable reached agreement on a with the catalyst being considered for the super for the MFTE, which is four year NFTE catalyst with, no unit cap. This would allow the NFTE supercharger to be used in HOMA areas during a transition period before reverting back to the existing NFTE program, which allows double counting of NFTE and those mandatory units, but with a 15% AMI reduction.

We urge, that that as you consider this compromise agreement that you also consider, direction for staff to study the implementation of pathways to expedite permitting incentives for the first 1,500 units in the Houma sub area. This is meant to build critical urgency around creating just a robust pipeline of housing units. So instead of waiting, the projects will move forward. And I think it's also good to note that project expedition must be subject to the city's ability to meet the affordable housing expedited permitting. So with the time left, I just want to share a little bit more of our rationale here.

This there's a lot of complex trade offs. So in the city analysis shows that in most economic scenarios that the cost of providing affordable housing is offset by the up zone itself. This was affirmed in HOMA specific analysis. With that being stated, however, MFTE is an important tool that we support pairing with mandatory units. This can help smooth out feasibility over economic cycles and keep that pipeline moving forward.

And so it matters though how the MFTE program is paired with these inclusionary units. And we think that it's important to to just carefully balance that stronger incentive with the affordability elements. And so the additional analysis shows that the NFTE program in Bellevue continues to function as a strong incentive on its own in most economic scenarios. However, there are ongoing economic headwinds that make this difficult, and so that's why we've come to support a catalyst period where this limited time and then the permit expedition can create urgency for these projects to move forward. So after this catalyst period ends, though, we do celebrate the city using the existing program.

So thank you for the consideration and support for the Eastside Housing Roundtable position. We know it's late coming, but lot of conversation was happening. So thank you for your careful consideration.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Diana Leo.

Welcome.

Good evening, mayor Malakoutian, deputy mayor Hamilton, and fellow council members. My name is Diana Leo, and I'm the vice president of government affairs for the Bellevue chamber. And I'm here to testify on behalf of our plush committee in support of the MFTE supercharger and in opposition of the proposed 1,500 unit cap. The core problem is simple. MHA without an offset kills projects.

Pro form a analysis on an actual Bellevue mid rise shows that MHA alone compresses yield on cost below where the institutional investors will finance a project. Just like in Wilburton where new allocations for permits are breaking records, MFTE supercharger is the solution. The twelve year supercharger partially funds the cost of mandatory housing. It offsets the tax burden during those critical early years when debt service is highest and the building isn't yet stabilized. This is not a developer giveaway.

It is partially mandatory affordable housing which still doesn't go as far as the Portland's fully funded requirement it imposed in 2024 that Oregon made statewide in 2026 after years of depressed housing starts. Please remove any MFTE unit cap. A developer starting site selection today faces a three to five year runway before permit. They cannot know whether 1,500 units will be exhausted by then. That uncertainty is not a minor inconvenience.

It's an underwriting risk that sends capital to other cities. A six year time limit is sufficient. We recognize that HOMA is a somewhat unique rezone and the chamber supports the four year MFT alongside 1,500 units of expedited permitting as a feature of the specific context. But a unit base cap on the MFT program itself would not be acceptable as projects move toward financing. The supercharger must remain a permanent, reliable fixture in any rezone that adopts a mandatory affordability requirement.

Unfunded mandates don't create affordability. They stop housing from being built. This is the experience across the region which is why Seattle is currently considering a massive change to their MHA program and fees. Thank you again for your leadership and for your willingness to dig into the details of these housing tools. The chamber and plush committee are eager to continue collaborating to make sure Bellevue remains a vibrant, inclusive, and attainable place to live. I yield the floor.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jessie Claussen who I believe is joining us virtually. Miss Claussen, can you hear me?

I can. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. If you could hang on for one second, we're gonna adjust.

Ahead. Better?

A little bit. Yes. Go ahead. Thank you.

Okay.

Mayor and council members, this is Jessie Clawson. I urge council to recommend moving forward on a usable MFTe supercharger with no unit cap. First, the supercharger must include a four year option time timeline with no unit cap. A cap undermines feasibility at exactly the time when we need to accelerate rate production. Staff's proposed cap is based on a misunderstanding of HOMA's geographic scope and would apply to only a small portion of potential units.

It should be removed. Second, the MFTE Supercharger should be available anywhere MHA applies. The data is clear. The passage of mandatory housing affordability turns projects that pencil into projects that do not. And if a project does not pencil, it does not get built. That means the housing you are planning for simply never materializes. This is a policy failure. Bellevue is not ahead of the game here. The state of Oregon recently required tax exemption tools to offset mandatory affordability because they found mandates without offsets suppressed housing production. That is the lesson here.

Without MFTE, MHA reduces housing output. Third, developers build the city's housing and they also build its fiscal base. A typical multifamily project generates about 51,000 per unit in taxes and fees during construction or roughly $15,600,000 for a 300 unit building. This does not include real estate taxes, good paying construction jobs, and ongoing taxes. Property taxes for 888 Tower, which participates in MFTE, totaled over $11,000,000 last year.

So even with MFTE, multifamily projects are strongly net positive to the city. These positive contributions were unfortunately not included in the fiscal analysis in the staff report. Finally, from a policy perspective, Bellevue does not operate in a vacuum. We are already in a high class, highly regulated environment. State level policies and regional politics have made capital harder to attract and housing harder to build and operate even in Bellevue. That means local decisions matter more. When you add mandates without offsets, those costs compound. And in this environment, bad policy choices are amplified. They stop affordable housing from being built. If we want 35,000 homes in twenty years, we must make it easier, not harder to build.

The MFTE supercharger with no cap is the tool that does that.

Thank you

very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is David Spaniard.

Welcome. Thank you.

Mayor and council members, my name is Dave Spaniard. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the Greenwich Crest neighborhood working group representing approximately a 140 households and over 240 residents. We support Bellevue's efforts to address homelessness and the safe parking program. Our concern is the suitability suitability of this specific site, Newport Presbyterian Church, and the processes that have been used to advance it. The church is located on a narrow residential street with no sidewalks.

The roadway is the neighborhood's sole ingress and egress route. Last week, during Sunday's services, overflow parking on the church surface excuse me. Overflow parking on the surface streets narrowed the roadway travel clearance to just over 10 feet. The international fire code generally requires 20 feet of unobstructed width for fire apparatus access. Residents have repeatedly requested a joint safety review with stakeholders.

However, that request has not yet been granted. In an emergency, delayed access affects real people, including children, seniors, and medically vulnerable residents. Unresolved environmental concerns also remain. Two priority wetlands sit adjacent to the proposed parking area. Bald eagles, barred owl, bobcats, and coyotes are frequently seen on or near the property.

Residents have raised questions regarding wildlife impacts, rodent control practices, and environmental mitigation measures, but these concerns have not been meaningful meaningfully addressed. Public record requests revealed incident reports at the current center current site at Lincoln Center, which included theft, harassment, trespassing, child endangerment concerns, and juvenile mental health crises. Lincoln Center operates in a fenced and gated commercial setting with professional security. The proposed church site will not have the same physical buffering and is directly surrounded by homes. The Office of Housing has confirmed in writing that there will be no memorandum of understanding governing this site and that operational conditions will instead reside within the developmental services permit process, which does not provide the same formal public review structure many residents expected.

We appreciated the city's May 16 open house, but the drop in format did not allow for substantive public dialogue that many residents had requested. Tonight, we respectfully ask the the council to do three things. First, request a formal staff briefing regarding the process, site selection criteria, and safety evaluation used for this proposal. Second, direct staff to improve communication and engagement with the neighborhood, including conducting the previously requested joint fire and emergency surface safety review. And third, ensure that programs of this scale in residential neighborhoods are evaluated against the actual physical, environmental, and emergency access conditions of the specific site. Thanks for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Janice Clark. Looks like she was going to be connected virtually but I do not see her. So Ms. Clark if you're connected if you could raise your hand so I can see you.

Okay, no hand. I'll move on to the next participant who's Grace Lando. Thank you. Go ahead and come forward.

Welcome.

Hello. Hi. Good evening. My my name is Grace Landau and I'm parent of a Bellevue student in elementary school here. I've been a long time resident and I am in front of the board today trying to seek help from city council members.

So, on 11/02/2023, my seven year old child boarded his yellow school bus number 28 from his school to return to his usual stop in downtown Bellevue. That was also the last stop on his elementary school route. When all remaining students lined up to exit, bus number 20Eight's driver, Lin, singled on my child by name telling him that he's not allowed to leave. He listened to this figure of authority as any seven year old would would with a trusted adult. My child later recounted to me that the driver told him explicitly that he was not allowed to leave the bus at that particular stop, which is his usual stop where I came to pick him up, or any other bus stops thereafter, even when the bus finished the elementary school route onto a middle school route and onto another elementary school route hours later.

So that day, from my side, had an his younger sibling was sick. So I had his younger sibling with me and I drove to the downtown Bellevue stop. I parked my car and my child was nowhere in sight. He has been trained by me carefully for two years already. He's already a second grader as a seven year old at the time. You know, where he's supposed to stand to wait for me in case of rain, if

he gets

cold, You know, this is the stop right next to Safeway. So, but it is a busy intersection. So, got really worried. Even though he has been doing this for almost two years and he's a very responsible, reliable child, I have someone here that knows my child for support. I was just worried because this is a downtown busy intersection. So, I can't leave my other child in the car. So, I got in the car, drove around those couple of downtown streets. And then, I started tracing the bus route. I know what the bus route was. And then, back every single stop one at a time.

And then, I looked around all the neighborhoods there all the way until his school. And, his school had a power outage that day. That's why his school is shut down at that moment. There's no staff in the building whatsoever. And, because of the power outage and have the phone log to prove this as well as the parent group's log to prove this, their school staff was required to contact all the parents to confirm after school return plan. When they called me, I told her, the school staff that my child is to be put on his usual bus and to be dropped off at his usual bus stop, which again is the last bus stop.

Miss Landau I apologize your time has expired but I would encourage you to email your comments to the council@councilatbellevwa.gov.

Yeah. Basically, I'm asking state council to help me facilitate investigation with Melville Police Department.

Please email your concern to us. Thank you. Thank you. The

next speaker on our list is Brian Dixon.

Welcome. How you all doing?

I'm speaking on behalf of myself. I wanted to know, like, how could I receive wraparound services as far as, you know, housing, food and gas being that I'm American taxpayer and they've been working in American slavery for the system for so long and it seemed like nobody cared about the Americans. So how could I get kind of assistance with that? Because things is being ran. I mean, I talked to different mayors at Fife, Federal Way, Pierce County, King County.

The governor never answered the phone. The legislator never answered the phone, which they say they open eight to five. It's just like we've been slaving for the system for so long because it's like strings being pulled, of course, from BlackRock, State Street, and all that. It's just like, I don't know why y'all it's like y'all not nobody's not doing anything. The governor never answered the phone.

Representative just, like, not doing their job. So it's like, what can be done about this right away just like taxes being taken out of our check? You all not able to answer? I know that's probably you all not able to do that.

Yeah, we don't engage with you right now, but we are listening to you and we can follow-up with you

Okay, after so you all listening, I just want to see if something is going to be done because there's no way we should be living like this in America. I mean, y'all up there, y'all probably take trips to the White House, y'all probably take trips to the Pentagon where everybody pulling strings, gas is high, food is high, they've taken seeds out of it. Seeds out of food is like ridiculous. Nobody should be able to live like this. You've got certain people that can go in certain areas, certain people can go it's a lot of buildings.

This is my third time in Bellevue. I went in some of the buildings and some people can go inside buildings and some people can't go inside buildings and that's just that's kind of ridiculous. I just would appreciate if y'all have more integrity or something. I don't know if y'all are afraid of who y'all order into office society or anything, but I definitely would appreciate it if y'all would have more integrity. It's nothing against neither one of y'all. It's just something should be done, you know, and I would appreciate if it would be done. My name is Brian Dixon. If I have to send like an email or something or a letter, I would.

And I will ask staff to tell you what resources we have right now and please email us. We follow-up

with you.

Okay. Thank you so much.

I do appreciate it. Y'all have Thank good you.

Our final pre registered speaker is Carly S.

Welcome.

Okay. I just wanna make sure you hear me.

We can hear you.

So last week most of you conflated harassment with the right to assembly and freedom of speech. Harassment as defined by the code of Washington is one in which actually involves threats of physical harm and or physical restraint and confinement. Note the word physical. It's not some imaginary thing that you make up in your heads and give it the term of captive audience. Just because you don't like speech that you may hear on public sidewalks does not make it harassment.

There is no such thing as a captive audience here in Bellevue. We all know that you can get in your Teslas and go to Bellevue Square. However, right here, this is what a real captive audience is.

Children's sense of safety has been ripped away. It's a constant reminder of

This is the sound of drones armed with grenades and sniper bullets that have killed thousands, including hundreds of children, many who have been shot directly in the head simply while they were looking for firewood to survive. These drones are operating twenty four seven in Gaza and Southern Lebanon. For these children, there is no escape from this sound of terror night and day. This is the sound of their childhood. And one of the people who has facilitated this terrorism and torture of entire populations is Adam Smith, who for nearly thirty years has voted to give our taxpayer dollars directly towards funding weapons of war and genocide and now ICE over and over and over again despite the vast majority of his constituents being against the use of our taxes being spent on the killing of millions of women and children in the most horrific ways.

So Claire, Len, Dave, Jared, Moe, when your kids and grandkids ask you what you did during the genocide of our lifetime, you can tell them that you actively worked to silence those speaking out for children being slaughtered and terrorized. You can tell them you actively worked to silence those speaking out against having their taxes used to fund ICE, to fund wars, to fund genocide. You could proudly tell them that in these times where there's unprecedented levels of corruption steeped at every level of government, including here in Bellevue City where the police are currently under investigation for concealing child sex trafficking and destroying evidence, you can proudly tell them that you contributed to the erosion of our democracy.

Thank you. Thank you, everyone, who take the time to share their comments. Again, as I mentioned, we are listening, and staff will, follow-up if necessary with you all. On that note, we have another amazing blessing the city of Bellevue has is our volunteering and our appointment for art commission. Council member Sumada Verio, do you want to talk about that segment of our agenda?

Thank you. I'll talk briefly. So we have the honor finding the the next come next art commissioner, Brandon Fripp, and he is I think the perfect mix of public and private sector experience. He loves art. He has expertise working with art realm and also he works from with the Costco as a private sector. So I think that we are really glad that we can appoint him and hopefully he can bring something to our community together. Thank you. And I move to the motion. Is that okay? Okay. I move to a point of Brandon Fripp to serve a full term on the arts commission expiring on 05/31/2028.

It's been moved by council member Sumada Veria and seconded by council member Robinson. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. There is no opposed. The motion passes. Consent calendar. Do I have a motion to approve the consent calendar?

I move to approve the consent calendar. Second.

It's been moved by deputy mayor and seconded by Councilman Newhouse. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. We can jump to the public hearing. City manager, would you please tell us what is that about?

Yes. Thank you, mayor, deputy mayor. Jamie Robinson, our assistant director for municipal planning and delivery in the finance and asset management department is here this evening with a surplus easement proposal for council consideration. Jamie will describe the proposed release requirements or proposed release and also the requirements for a sidewalk and trail access prior to you turning it back to you to open the public hearing there. With that, Jamie.

Thank you. Am here in Lauren Matluk's absence. He had an emergency today. So good evening mayor and council members. Our staff report this evening is on a request to release a sidewalk and utility easement located at 16035 Northup Way on April 14. Let me pass. Let me get to the yes, there we go. On April 14, council declared this easement as surplus to the city's needs and set today as the date for holding the public hearing. The purpose of tonight's hearing is to allow the public an opportunity to comment on this release. The property is located on Northup Way between 1 60th And 1 61st just south of Inner Lake High School.

The subject property is currently being developed into 15 market rate townhomes. The requested release of sidewalk and utility easement is shown outlined in red. The developer is requesting this easement be released in order to accommodate the new development at this location and avoiding the new building layout. The existing easement will be replaced with the public access easement shown in yellow which will remain the connection from Northup Way to the existing pathway shown in orange And a right of way dedication for sidewalks shown in blue. The area and utility of both the easement being released and the new rights transferred to the city are essentially equivalent and actually offer improvements to the existing public access.

Following the public hearing staff request council action on the proposed resolution authorizing the release of

the easement and this ends our staff report. Will be available to answer any questions. Basically what we are getting in this release is more than what we currently have. What I mean by that is some of the improvements are additional open area, some plantings, better lighting, wider sidewalk and a wider trail.

Thank you so much. Let us open the public hearing. Do I have the motion?

I move to open the public hearing. Second.

It's been moved by Deputy Mayor and seconded by Councilman Newnhouse. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. We are in the public hearing.

Thank you, mayor. There are no preregistered speakers tonight, so I will do a call out for those. But before I do, I will mention that the council did receive one written comment that I forwarded to you earlier this morning on this public hearing. So at this point, if anyone is joining us tonight who would like to make a comment, please raise your hand. That goes for those online as well.

Okay. No hands, mayor. I'll turn it back to you.

Thank you so much. Let's close the public hearing. Do I have the motion?

I move to close the public hearing. Second.

It's been moved by deputy mayor and seconded by council member Newnhouse. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. There is no opposed. The motion passes. Can I get the motion?

I move to adopt resolution number one zero six three four, authorizing the execution of documents necessary to release an existing sidewalk and utility easement, which has been declared surplus to the city's needs and is no longer required for providing continued public service. Second.

It's been moved by deputy mayor and seconded by councilman Newnhouse. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. Thank you so much. We can have our first study session, Sound Transit Enterprise Initiative. City manager, please introduce that to us.

Thank you, mayor, deputy mayor and council. I'm welcoming Lacey Jane Wolfe, our intergovernmental policy adviser, and Andrew Singulakis, our transportation director to the table. They're here to provide you with another update on the enterprise initiative that Sound Transit's effort to close a $35,000,000,000 revenue gap in the Sound Transit three program. Staff will share their assessment of how the chair's proposal, addresses the council established principles from several weeks ago, and they're seeking your input and direction to guide a new communication to the Sound Transit Board prior to their decision. So with that I'll turn it over to Lacey Jane Wolfe.

Actually it gets turned over to me. Well thank you City Manager Carlson, Mayor Malakutian, Deputy Mayor Hamilton and the City Council. Tonight you'll hear about Sound Transit Board Chair and Sonoma County Executive Dave Summers proposal to resolve the $35,000,000,000 funding gap in Sound Transit three. It's a compromise proposal and each of the five Sound Transit sub areas will make sacrifices including us here on East King Bellevue sub area. Bellevue staff feels that the Chair Summers proposal is a good compromise.

It is a compromise. It funds the South Kirkland to Issaquah Light Rail line or the Line 4. However, it does regionalize the agency's debt interest. And as you'll hear from Lacey Jane, Bellevue staff recommends advocating for greater certainty around the Line 4 and other components of the proposal. And with that, I'll turn it over to Lacey Jane.

Thank you, Andrew. Good evening. As city manager Carlson mentioned, tonight we're asking council to consider directing staff to prepare a letter to the Sound Transit board members based on Bellevue's guiding principles for the enterprise initiative or attachment a. As part of our presentation tonight, I'll give counsel a brief reminder of the Enterprise Initiative and South Kirkland to Issaquah Link or four line. Then we'll review Chair Summers' proposal in light of the guiding principles adopted by council and finally finish up with the staff recommendation.

As a reminder, Sound Transit is facing a $35,000,000,000 revenue gap due to lower than expected revenues, rising construction costs and continued uncertainty related to tariffs and federal funding commitments. Sound Transit is going through a cost cutting measure called the Enterprise Initiative and will decide by May 28 whether to delay or reduce in scope certain ST three projects, Sound Transit three projects. On March 18, Sound Transit staff released three illustrative approaches that demonstrated the magnitude of potential capital program changes. Out of the three approaches, two would have fully or partially deferred the four line indefinitely. Stride Bus Rapid Transit and the Cross Lake Connection or East Link are not impacted by this process.

The only Bellevue project impacted is South Kirkland Issaquah Link otherwise known as the future four line. As a reminder, Sound Transit's district is divided into five sub areas. Bellevue is located as Andrew said in the East King sub area. Sound Transit's policies require the agency to revise its plans when forecasted costs exceed available sub area revenue and funding sources by more than 5%. Currently, every sub area is falling below that threshold including East King.

So the Sound Transit three plan must be revised in every sub area. As planned in Sound Transit three, the South Kirkland to Issaquah light rail project will build two new stations in Bellevue, an at grade station adjacent to the East Gate Park And Ride and an elevated station at Richards Road in Factoria. The project includes a provisional or unfunded at grade station at Lakemont. This will need a future funding measure in order to be built. New parking would be built at Issaquah and South Kirkland Park And Ride only a total net of seven thirty new stalls.

No new parking is planned for the Bellevue stations. This project is currently planned for delivery by 2044. In 2016, when Sound Transit three plan went to voters, the estimated project cost was 1,700,000,000 to $1,900,000,000 in twenty fourteen dollars. No design work has been done on the project since then. However, Sound Transit took the cost escalation for projects that have been through design like West Seattle and applied it to this project.

And as a result, Sound Transit has updated the cost estimate to $9,800,000,000 in year of expenditure dollars. This to illustrate why East King Sub area is facing a revenue shortfall. On May 7, Sound Transit staff presented Sound Transit Board Chair and Snohomish County Executive Summers proposal that seeks to balance transit needs across the Sound Transit District. I want to reiterate that under this proposal as Andrew said, every sub area must make sacrifices to overcome the revenue gap of 35,000,000,000. Let's review the chair's proposal for the other sub areas.

West Seattle Link would proceed without the Avalon Station. The T Line to Tacoma Community College would be delayed. The North Sounder would be discontinued in 2033, eight years before Everett Link comes online. And a number of projects are deferred which means that they are removed from the financial plan entirely and have no associated delivery date. That includes three Ballard stations, the Graham Street Infill Station in Seattle and the Boeing Access Road Infill Station in Tukwila, additional South Sounder trips and platform extensions, and the South Sounder extension to DuPont.

On March 17, Bellevue City Council received a presentation from Sound Transit about the enterprise initiative and council directed staff to send a letter to Sound Transit based on guiding principles. Bellevue's number one priority was maintaining Sound Transit sub area equity policy. This policy states that revenue generated in East King sub area will be proportionate to the revenue spent on projects that benefit East King. Also among Bellevue's priorities were to connect East Side cities with high capacity transit, minimize project delay and avoid deferment, retain Bellevue's four line stations. We asked Sound Transit to preserve access to transit via the four line parking garages in Kirkland and Issaquah and conserve regional bus service, Sound Transit Express.

We felt it was important to have these guiding principles so we could have robust and targeted advocacy. Bellevue's overarching number one priority was maintaining Sound Air Sound Transit sub area equity policy. Under the chair's proposal, debt interest is regionalized. Sound Transit's current practice is that each sub area pays the debt interest associated with that sub areas projects. For example, we're paying the debt interest on East Link.

Starting in 2027 under the Chair's proposal, debt interest would be pooled and allocated system wide. Contributions from each sub area would be calculated based on its proportion of total tax revenue across the five sub areas rather than the sub area that incurred the debt. Regionalizing debt interest is part of the balancing that was done across sub areas. The next guiding principle is about maintaining a high capacity transit to connect East Side cities which is done under the chair's proposal. The project is funded but it is capped at $8,400,000,000.

So Issaquah, Kirkland, and Bellevue would need to work together with Sound Transit to find $1,400,000,000 in cost savings. As a reminder, Bellevue has experience in working with Sound Transit to identify cost savings which we did for Eastlink. The next guiding principle is stations. Bellevue told Sound Transit that both the Richards Road and the Eastgate stations are important as is the provisional Lakemont station. We didn't want any of our stations to be deleted.

The Chair's proposal maintains Bellevue stations as well as the Kirkland and Issaquah ones. Based on our guiding principles, we asked Sound Transit to minimize delay and avoid deferment. In the chair's proposal, the entire four line project delivery date is extended from 2044 to 2050. However, there is near term funding for the first phase of design which is the alternatives analysis. In terms of access to transit, the next guiding principle, Bellevue advocated for sound transit to retain upstream parking and the four line parking is continues to be included in this project under the chair's proposal.

Finally, Bellevue advocated for regional bus service to be maintained. The chair's proposal would analyze and assess changes to Sound Transit Express for potential cost savings and greater cost certainty. These are the major milestones of the compromise proposal. As I mentioned before, in March, Sound Transit staff released three illustrative approaches to demonstrate the magnitude of potential capital program changes with two of those three approaches would have fully or partially deferred the four line project indefinitely. On May 7, the Chair's proposal was released and on May 28, the Sound Transit Board plans to adopt a revised Sound Transit three plan.

Substantial advocacy has gone on to up to this point and I want to thank all of you for your work on this. Mayor Malikudian sent a letter on behalf of Bellevue City Council on May 25 explaining the city's priorities for the enterprise initiative and many of you have testified to the Sound Transit Board or advocated for Bellevue's interests to board members in elected to elected conversations or meetings. Bellevue staff worked closely with staff from East King board members staff and staff from other East Side cities and I credit this combined advocacy to the reason that we aren't on the unfunded list. Lastly, coming to the staff recommendation. I want to say that chair Summers proposal creates a delicate balance across sub areas.

At board meetings, we've been seeing strong campaigns to fund the deferred projects especially Ballard and the infill stations. This puts a lot of pressure on the board. Bellevue staff feel like our East King board members really advocated for maintaining the four line and we want to make sure that we don't erode that support. Therefore, based on the guiding principles and other information, staff recommend writing a letter to the Sound Transit Board and communicating with East King board members about the following points. First of all, acknowledge that the proposal kept the four line whole and maintained it as a light rail project.

Advocate to define alternatives analysis timeline. Provide greater certainty around when and how projects like the four line can be accelerated, prioritize maintaining high quality service on existing transit and maintain multimodal access to transit service. So I'll just finish here with a reminder again about the direction that we're requesting tonight, which is related to preparing a letter to Sound Transit Board members based on the guiding principles for the enterprise initiative. That concludes my presentation.

Thank you, both Andrew and Lacey Jen and the whole team. You gave us a compliment about we are not on unfunded lease because of us. And of course, my colleagues get some credit. Of course, Sound Transit staff and our representation and Sound Transit Board and other East Side city would get some credit. But I also wanted to give you and your team, KT, Genesee, Andrew and everyone else credit for your very, very nice work that keep us away from the unfunded list. Let's just start with our deputy mayor.

Thank you, mayor. Thank you, Lacey Jane, Andrew. I see Katie has joined us as well. Appreciate you walking us through the presentation. Definitely in favor of sending another letter to the Sound Transit Board that reinforces the importance of our guiding principles and our strong commitment to ensuring they are clearly included in the final proposal.

I'm struggling a bit to see enough evidence that our last letter had impact on the current enterprise initiative proposal like we had hoped. Hopefully, the next letter, if we do decide to send one, is a bit more effective. Along with requests for greater clarity in our next letter on things such as defined alternatives analysis, certainty around a four line acceleration, and maintaining multimodal access to transit service, we should include a specific ask or two. What do we want to see from the defined alternative analysis and a possible four line acceleration, for example? Let's help them with their answers when we ask the questions.

Perhaps our insistence that the promise of sub area equity remains a nonnegotiable, but the proposal lacks enough specificity to allow us to know for sure. I would like to see the next letter place an even greater emphasis on sub area equity and make it even more clear that we just can't support any proposal that doesn't reflect a strong commitment to sub area equity from the board. And while the entire four line is thankfully not being removed from the plan, parts of it are. The proposed $8,400,000,000 project cap represents a $1,400,000,000 haircut from an estimate that could already be lower than the likely cost to build. I bet the $8,400,000,000 cap represents a much bigger gap than is currently projected.

In addition to cuts to the four line, as you mentioned, the current proposal requires us to shoulder more of the system debt as the board considers spreading the debt obligation across the system, which is a significant departure from current practice. Our willingness to accept some of the proposed trade offs, like other subareas are going to have to do, while difficult and disappointing to Bellevue residents, to be accepted for the build out to continue. But as the enterprise initiative process is completed, we have to honor the promises made to our residents. Bellevue and Eastside voters were promised that local tax revenues for projects and services in each sub area will be proportional to the level of revenues each sub area generates. And while I appreciate the difficulty the board has in closing the revenue gap, I feel obligated to stand up for Bellevue residents and the Eastside sub area.

It's clear to me that we have to accept some trade offs, but we need some additional clarity and commitment from the board to fully understand the proposed trade offs. And while it's not great news, it's not all bad. Things could actually be worse. And while I don't think the proposal in its current state is good enough, it has gotten better since the mayor's March 25 letter, and it can get better yet. I appreciate all of the effort and expertise that you, Lacey Jane, and others, have brought to the enterprise initiative process.

I also very much appreciate our sub areas representatives on the Sound Transit Board. I don't want to think where we'd be without them. And the Board itself has done an admirable job of making necessary adjustments to the Sound Transit build out. Not only is it incredibly difficult to build such a vast and complex project in normal times, but in current conditions, even harder. I think what you are proposing for the next letter includes all of the important points we want to make.

I think the tone of the letter should convey appreciation for all of the progress that has been made and a firmness as we continue to press on our priorities and state our nonnegotiables. Again, thanks for all the advocacy for Bellevue residents and for your support, Lacey Jane, of me and my colleagues as we work with the Sound Transit Board to achieve the best outcomes for Bellevue and the Eastside residents. I'm ready to move forward. Thank you, mayor.

Thank you, deputy mayor Hamilton. Councilmember Robinson.

Thank you, mayor. Councilmember Hamilton, I appreciate your comments, and I I support you in that. But I struggle with even the proposed line four. Do you do you think that most commuters from Issaquah heading west are going to Seattle or Bellevue?

I'm not a certain council member, but I would assume a majority would be going to Seattle.

I would too. And I just don't believe that commuters are going to want to get on a train, take a detour through Bellevue to East Main Station, get off, get on another train, go back through Bellevue, and head on to Seattle. I just don't think they're gonna do that. I think what we're gonna see are people driving their cars to South Bellevue Park And Ride and getting on the train and heading to Seattle. So here's my cost cutting recommendation.

I totally support the four line going from East Main to Kirkland and back. That makes total sense. And then BRT going from Issaquah, and we should include North Bend and other communities up there to South Bellevue Park And Ride where they can make that switch they're going to make anyway and go directly to Seattle. And also continue to support, and I think it's not even a question, the BRT north and south along I-four 05. That's what I would like to include in a letter.

Mayor, I think that's consist sorry, council member. Yes. I think that's consistent with the guiding principles that council endorsed on March 17 where we really asked Sound Transit to provide additional information about the trade offs between bus rapid transit and light rail many of which you named just now. And so that is the sort of question that will be investigated as part of the alternatives analysis which is the first phase of design of the project. And they be looking at issues like mode, alignment, station locations, those sorts of decisions.

And so, don't think that is inconsistent with what counsel has previously endorsed.

Do we need to modify the letter in any way to include considering this?

The letter can certainly yes, at counsel's direction, we can certainly include this in the letter.

Okay. Well, that would be my ask of the counsel to support that kind of a change. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Robinson. I will go next to Councilmember Newnhouse, but please say, in general, all of you support Councilmember Robinson's direction for the changing and adding something to the letter too while you are talking.

Thank you, Mayor. Yes, would approve that, council member Robinson's comment. Lacey Jane and Andrew thank you for being here this evening. The proposal shifts the debt interest to the debt interest cost to a regional model right beginning in 2027. Do I have that correct? Correct. Okay. So does that not violate the core principle of sub area equity that Sound Transit has affirmed for decades?

Well I can tell you what we heard from Sound Transit which is that currently the agency issues debt as a whole agency. The individual sub areas do not issue their own debt. The agency issues debt promising against future revenues from the entire agency and the other reason that Sound Transit, this is part of the proposal, is that under the current practice where each sub area is responsible for its own debt interest and principle, individual sub areas subject to the interest rate that is available at the time their project goes to looking for to take on the debt and so that and the current grant funding environment are things that the individual projects are subject to but they have no control over when they're going to be issuing debt. So that is why Sound Transit as a proposal is bringing forward this idea of regionalizing debt interest?

Okay. Well it feels like they're violating one of our core principles right from the start. I think I understand what you're trying to say there but it's just concerning that it just feels again in contrast to one of our core principles so have an interest that.

Council member may I add one thing? Sure. I forgot to recognize that current under the current sub area equity policy there are costs that are shared such as operational costs, the cost of light rail vehicles, things that all sub areas benefit from. And so what they're proposing to do is move debt interest from one category to another.

Okay. Alright.

I apologize for interrupting you.

No, that's okay. I appreciate that additional context. So what will be the total additional financial burden placed on East King County sub area under this new debt interest allocation plan?

That is an excellent question and one that I have asked Sound Transit since the proposal was published on May 7. They have not been able to provide us with an answer to that question.

I would suggest that that's something we include in our letter that we need to understand that.

Absolutely.

Thank you. As well as I would ask that why should East King taxpayers which is the second highest revenue contributor to this subsidize the interest cost for the other sub areas projects?

I don't think that's a question that I can answer.

Okay. Andrew you're nodding your head so either you agree or you have the answer or maybe both.

It's very difficult to articulate. I think that you are it is sort of stretching the subway area equity with regard to that one variable, which is really part of the compromise of the entire thing. Okay. Fair enough.

That is another thing that I would still like to consider getting sent an answer to. I'm not sure that one needs to be included in the letter but I certainly would like to have that one answered as well as we continue to move forward. So the chair's proposal also delays the four line right if I understand it So from 2044 to 2050. What analysis has been done in terms of justifying that six year delay for one of the fastest growing corridors that needs this type of transportation option?

So chair's proposal was evaluated against certain metrics including advancing regional connectivity, supporting future growth, prioritizing the passenger experience, and protecting public investments with fiscal integrity. And those four principles were turned into metrics. The Supporting Future Growth principle uses the metrics 2,050 ridership projections, populations and jobs with access to rail and zero vehicle emissions households zero vehicle households with access to rail. So the entire chair's proposal was evaluated against those metrics. My understanding of the timing of the four lines delivery really comes down to when the funding is available and when Sound Transit's debt capacity is sufficient to take on the project.

Okay. Well that leads to my next question in terms of the criteria that Sound Transit is going to use to give the four line a haircut here right as the Deputy Mayor mentioned going from 9,800,000,000 to 8.4. So what criteria are they going to use to cut that total cost down?

My understanding is that they're going to work collaboratively with the cities involved to identify the criteria for making cuts and will be looking to stakeholder for consensus building among the stakeholders as to what should be cut.

That

has come forward with a number of cost savings ideas including forgoing their parking, keeping the guideway in the right of way of I-ninety. And Kirkland similarly has put forward some ideas. I heard Councilmember Robinson put forward an idea know foregoing parking garages is one. There's going to be a lot of options on the table and we're going to want to be heavily involved in those decisions.

But are we all I've heard and have seen at times that it looks like these the parking garage is already being used at capacity. In fact, isn't Sound Transit now charging people to park or you have to reserve a spot now? In your estimation, maybe this is a question for Andrew, how critical are the parking lots for the successful continuation and rollout of the four line for having the parking lots there, especially when you're servicing like the city of Issaquah, which is out, not everybody can just walk to get on light rail? What are your concerns on that?

Like I said, if the parking was in Isequois, people wouldn't be coming into Bellevue to park, which is not a likely outcome, but something that could happen as a result of it which is why we advocated for it.

Okay. Okay, thank you. Really appreciate that. Supportive of the letter, of Councilmember Robinson's addition as well but would like to see mine in there as well. My colleagues will support that. Thank you. That we get some better understanding of the financial burden that will be placed on East King County contributors. Based on the interest? Based on the interest, yeah, the new debt interest. Thank you.

Of course. Councilwoman Berger, you are.

Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to begin by saying that Lacey Jane, it's not often you meet someone like yourself who knows everything about what they work in, and it's rare and it's such a pleasure to work with you. So thank you to you, to our director, to Katie, and everybody else on the team who's done just such a tremendous job in this. I wanted to, say that I am supportive of council member Newnham House's proposal in the letter. I too support emphasizing sub area equity like deputy mayor Hamilton mentioned.

I I guess the the 9,800,000,000 cost scares me, and I'm trying to understand. I know that council member Newnhams answered this or excuse me, asked this and, you answered. But is there any way to speed up this six year delay? I mean, it's 2050 that we anticipate this being built. I think it'll be '52 by then, I would really love to enjoy this. A little bit younger if that's okay.

Understandable. There are two ways I want to respond to that. First of all about the $8,400,000,000 funding cap. I want to just reemphasize that the project hasn't gone through any sort of design yet and so we don't know yet what the project what will be composed of. Will there be BRT elements?

Will there be parking? Where will the guideway go? So, we get to work with Issaquah, Kirkland and Sound Transit to build out a project. And so what we would be doing is looking to build out a project that lives within its means on that $8,400,000,000. I don't want to say that I hear Deputy Mayor Hamilton's concerns that 8,400,000,000 might not be enough and that and yet I also think that using the cost escalation that has gone on in West Seattle might not strictly apply to a project over here where the area is less built out.

So I just wanted to mention that. As for the timing, the project is currently scheduled for delivery in 2050 because that's when the funding becomes available. However, Bellevue staff believe that Bellevue, Kirkland and Issaquah can find creative ways to expedite project delivery and conserve funding such as innovative project delivery methods or financing strategies and that's why in the letter we're recommending calling for greater certainty around how projects can be accelerated. We'd like Sound Transit to commit to positioning the four line and other delayed projects to support potential acceleration of their timelines. We want clear established criteria for advancing delayed projects when new funding or cost savings become available.

So I too hope that you will get to ride before twenty fifty ride this new service.

Thank you for the clarity. It seems I misconstrued and misspoke about the numbers as well so I apologize for that. No, no. But okay and one last question I had is because since we're not getting to the design phase where it seems like there's an opportunity for cities to partner and iterate on various components, Is there a difference in the efficacy of mentioning what council member Robinson had provided us in the letter now versus later on during the design phase so it's more fresh or do you think the effect is the same either way?

I think it's a great idea in the letter to mention potential strategies for cost savings and that Bellevue is looking is ready to get creative and think about how we can make this project work and keep it in the funded column.

Okay. So it makes us look more proactive then. Okay. Then I would so. I'd like to mayor, I'd like to mention that I'm supportive of council member Robinson's proposal.

Great. Thank you so much, council member Brouillard. Council member Bargava.

Thanks, mayor. Again, thank you for the great work. It's been said well, I'll say again. Appreciate all the work that's going on in the advocacy that has gotten us to this point and all the work that the board and the East King board members are also doing on behalf of East King County. Let me start by saying that I appreciate council member Robinson's approach and sort of innovative strategy to try and at least suggest a clear point of view on what might be sort of cost saving approach that aligns with commuter wants and desires and behaviors.

So that idea and maybe iterations of that can develop over time and become more sustainable like more customer focused strategy for cost saving measures. So I would be supportive of inclusion, including that. Council member Newnhouse's comments actually resonate with me strongly as well. My I don't believe that the proposal that the board has laid out or the chairs data meets the criteria for sub area equity right now, primarily because I'm not convinced. Maybe this is the question, my first question to you.

Is there any sort of even high level math or rationalization that you believe is suggesting that sub area equity principles are being met with the new proposal for regionalization of debt? Is the revenue and the impacts, which are not fully quantified, truly commensurate? It doesn't feel like that to me because the prior presentations did not suggest that. Unless I'm misunderstanding this or there is really a better rationale that has come across over the last couple of presentations and the discussions that I've had, I'd like to at least know what your point of view is on that.

That's a difficult question to answer. In my opinion, I do think that there is some merit to Sound Transit's argument that the agency takes on debt as an agency and guarantees against future debt as an agency against the entire agency's revenues and so I do see that perspective. Do I think that this is the best possible outcome for Bellevue and the East Side? No. But I do think that it is part of a compromise proposal.

Yeah. I I appreciate that that the agency takes on debt and all sub areas contribute the debt and the reasons for debt and the allocation of the the projects that are actually getting used to getting built as a to use the debt or to generate the debt may not be as equally distributed is my thinking here. And so to help us move this process forward, I am supportive of the letter going another letter going out. I'm also supportive of making sure that we are emphatic about the lack of clarity or at least, at minimum, the lack of clarity or potentially the lack of resonance on Savira equity principles being met adequately as we regionalize the debt. We should very clear and state that upfront in my mind and that is actually following deputy mayor's suggestion to be, you know, we need to have backbone here in this process and state up front that we don't think this is adequate and equitable and doesn't meet that principle in its entirety or its essence.

The second thing, I do agree that over time, this cost that we're being allocated and being asked to sort of find value engineered solutions or more sort of cost constraint solutions to build out what we need, whether it's removing parking or rerouting or staying within rights of ways are things that we will eventually start to compromise. And I think that's an area where those solutions can be worked out as long as they meet the requirements for our residents. But what we shouldn't be doing in that situation is eroding the level of service that we believe really is needed for our our community. So that's a balance that we will have to be very careful about. And I think we should state that or frame that from that lens when we push out our communications.

And the only other couple of things that haven't been said, I'll say, is that the six year delay in this project, we sort of agreed because that is when the money is available and it allows for all of this to happen. But on the flip side, and I appreciate that our investments have been kept above the line here, there is in your initial presentation also you talked about Ballard and some of the costs that are actually outside stations that are outside and there's a lot of lobbying and advocacy to get them included. As this process comes together, I'm fearful that this will further exacerbate our debt position and our equity position in this process. And we have to be very, very firm that at the very minimum, this doesn't get any worse than we are, although we are going to suggest that we are not happy with the current position either. And so there's a lot of resonance from what I heard in some of the comments before, but I would encourage us to be emphatic now because post this process, it is a question of value engineering and the responsibility is being shifted to sub areas to come and cities to come up with that value engineered plan with a much smaller amount of money available than would have been estimated.

I sure as hell don't want to be I'm sorry. Sure don't want to be in the situation where what we estimated in 2015 turned out to be grossly underestimated the total cost, and what we're getting now is also a gross underestimation when we get ten years out from now. And that's the fear that think that we share.

Thank you, Council Member Borgabo. Council Member Sumada, where are you?

By the way, thank you for the letter. I think you find a really good balance, and I'm I'm glad we are proactively pursuing what's right for the community. And I agree with all my colleagues. I agree with council member Robinson and councilmember Newhouse and also councilmember Bragua too and also the deputy mayor and councilmember everybody. I just have two comments to add to the I think, aligned with the guiding principle.

One of them is that I believe that the sub area equity is the right heel that we should be standing on just because the East Side residents really invest in this initiative. So I believe that they deserve to see where the investment go to. So I think the com clear communication with East King and also the Town Transit. So knowing where it's going to, it'll be really helpful for our residents feels, I think, justifiable for the investment they're putting to make this work for the region, not just for us. And I believe that that's not a technical issue, it's more a trust issue.

Right? So I think that's the base of how we build a community to be behind it. And my last comment is with the evaluation between the full line and the library versus BRT, I wonder I think it to me is less of a I mean, cost and speed is import are important, but also it's the people who are using it. That's the more important issue. Like council member Robinson said, you know, are we I think we need to understand, like, how does it working for the people who are going to be using for transit to work to school to the places they want to be.

So I think we need to keep in mind for that. Last comment I want to say is I would say that because as a partnership, I believe transparency and partnership should be two way street. So we have to make sure that we are holding the not holding, but we are expecting them accountable for the commitment they are making for the whole region. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Sumadhavaria. I think my colleagues said everything that I think I was going to say, and I think you saw the agreement of both Councilmember Robinson and Councilmember Newnhouse kind of modification or add to the letter that you are sending. I just have one question. It's kind of built on what Councilman Newnhouse asked about the debt sharing and what does that mean. I just wanted to give you an example.

If in the scenario that their interest rate would be shared and regionalized, if, for example, West Seattle Link just built tomorrow magically, we are going to pay for the interest of that project.

All sub areas would pay for the interest of that project.

Everyone is going to pay it.

Everyone.

And if our project doesn't build in another ten years for some reason, no one else the interest rate for our project, because it has not built. So the next ten years, we are going we and everyone else is going to pay for the interest rate for the West Seattle link. And our project may be the four line would not even happen Yes. For some

And my understanding is that starting in 2027 the debt that we have already started to pay back for, for example, East Link that would be regionalized or Downtown Bellevue excuse me, Downtown Redmond Link the debt that we took on the East King sub area took on for that that would also be regionalized and so during that time all sub areas would be paying all of that debt interest.

So from 2027 this is going to be implemented like all of the interest rate that has occurred or is going to be occurred is going to be regionalized 2027 moving forward?

Yes. All the interest moving forward would be regionalized. Yes.

Great. Great. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Ola. Councilmember Robinson.

Go ahead. Oh,

yeah. Go ahead.

Are you ready?

Yeah. Please.

Okay. I move that we direct staff to prepare a letter to Sound Transit board members based on Bellevue's guiding principles for the enterprise initiative and including support for Line four between Bellevue's East Main and Kirkland, BRT between Issaquah and Bellevue's South Bellevue Park And Ride, and BRT North South along I-four 05. Also, a thorough analysis of the financial impact on Eastside taxpayers with the new debt package and a focus on catalyzing the project. Second.

It's been we have a motion moved by Councilmember Robinson, seconded by Councilmember Briard. Any discussion? All those in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed? There is no opposed. The motion passes. Thank you so much for everything. I know it's a very hard topic. Probably we don't have all of the answers, and you are answering all of the questions in the best capacity that you can. So we appreciate you both. Thank you so much.

You. It

is 07:38. Let's have a twelve minutes break and come back by 07:50. Thank Thank you, mayor, deputy mayor, and council members.

Staff from our parks and community services department have been working with Isan Bellevue to identify sites throughout the city potentially for a legacy project that honors our Japanese American residents and history in Bellevue and their contributions. I'm very pleased to welcome Cameron Parker, our assistant director Betsy Anderson, our senior planner, and Susan Ullip from the who's our capital projects coordinator. They're here to give you a little bit of an update on the process and the concept plans and next steps and a potential partnership with ESAN Bellevue to advance fundraising efforts to lead towards future implementation of those concepts. And with that, I will hand this over to Cameron.

Great, thank you And good evening, mayor, deputy mayor, council members. Our presentation this evening, we are definitely pleased to join you to provide an informational update for you and the community on this impactful partnership that we are working toward to interpret and commemorate a very important part of Bellevue's heritage and history. Our presentation will cover some elements of context and background. You'll get to see some initial concepts of the proposed installation. We'll talk about the fund raising partnerships that has been developed and also provide some information on a concurrent park naming process that is underway as well.

So starting with that project background. For some context, this installation is proposed at the park site that is at the corner of Main Street and 112th. This was land that was acquired by Sound Transit initially as part of the East Link or two line project. They developed the South Tunnel portal at this area and then capped on top of the tunnel portal a collaboratively designed park space that was transferred to the city in 2024. Concurrently with that, city staff had worked for several years with the Isom Belvieu Group to evaluate different sites for this commemorative installation and identified this site as the feasible and preferred site also in 2024.

This is a location map and an aerial view of the site here. And from here, Betsy will take us through with more detail.

Great. Thank you, Cameron, and good evening, mayor, deputy mayor, and council members. You can see, on this slide the park site, centrally located at the corner of Main in 112th. It's just north of the East Main Light Rail Station and just on top, you know, as Cameron noted, of the South Tunnel Portal. The park itself is about 1.75 acres.

It's been open to the public for a couple of years, and it provides a peaceful route through neighborhoods. You also may note, its location on Main Street means that in this location of the city, it's part of the Lake To Lake Trail, and it's not far, from the connection to East Trail just on the East Side Of 405. The other element to point out is that there will be a future, rapid riot Rapid Ride k line stop on the north edge of the park, so very accessible to transit, very centrally located. The site photos that you see here give a feel for what it's like to be in the park for for if anyone hasn't experienced it yet, and you can see that it offers expansive territorial views toward Wilburton. And on a clear day, you can see, Mount Rainier quite clearly to the south from the park site as well.

Another key element of the park that you can see in these images is a very prominent accessible pathway through the site, which which provides, you know, ADA compliant access and wraps around a central lawn gathering area. This image shows kind of more clearly from above what that space feels like and and shows the prominent path, central gathering space, and plantings. The 2023 to '24, mid biennium budget update, through that council provided funding to parks and community services to work with Easton Bellevue, to analyze the feasibility for potential sites, as Cameron mentioned, and also develop a concept plan that Eason Bellevue could use to support private fundraising for the project. That concept plan was completed in 2025 at the end of the year, so just this past December. And the image that you see here shows, a view of the proposal, and this is a view completely from above.

And it shows the primary, primary element on the site is a large scale map of Bellevue in a plaza in that central gathering area. You can see the lakes on two sides. It also indicates the location of historic Japanese American farms just to demonstrate the extent to which those existed across the city in the years before World War two. There is a a shelter structure proposed. The white circle that you see is is just a placeholder.

It's a symbol for that, but that will provide, weather protection, an opportunity for additional interpretation, potentially artistic elements to help tell this story. And you can also see there are additional placeholders located throughout the site to draw community members and visitors up in into into the site and learn more about the key elements, of Bellevue's history and heritage related to the Japanese American story. The other thing I'd like to point out is you can see how the central curbing pathway is still here. We still have a gathering area. These key elements of the park are remaining.

And this is just an additional new park amenity that's intended to inspire reflection and provide education. Here are we've got a couple of additional rendering views from within the site. So this shows what that plaza experience is like. And the water in the plaza is not literal water, but it could be provided either through etching or colored paving. So that can be used in a lot of different ways by large groups of people if needed.

And then another view, I'm showing a stone storm water feature that will allow water to move naturally through the site and can offer additional opportunities for inscription, for example, family names or other, historical information, to support interpretation. So as Cameron noted, the city, has been working with Isan Bellevue for quite some time to identify a place where the story can be commemorated. And as part of Ysan Bellevue's commitment to telling the story, they have committed to raising funding for all design and construction of the project. And to guide, the next phases of the partnership, staff have developed a memorandum of understanding that outlines key fundraising targets and timelines and also describes the roles and responsibilities of of each group, in in completing and delivering the project. And we understand that fundraising is incremental, and so working with Isan Bellevue, we've identified these three core phases for fundraising.

The first is dedicated to design. The second two are dedicated to construction. In addition to Ysan's fundraising contributions, the city and the MOU is committing to providing the project site, also project management for the effort, and long term maintenance for the installation. And with that, I'm going to hand the floor over to Susan to continue.

Thank you, Betsy. So concurrent with the partnership work with Easton Bellevue, Parks and Community Services staff are conducting a naming process for the new park. This public process was initiated with a presentation council back in 03/04/2025. During that meeting, council directed staff to proceed with with an open public naming process for the park. This slide provides an overview of the city's process for selecting new park names.

A public survey to solicit potential park names was conducted back in the 2025. Staff have reviewed the list of names suggested by the community and have screened those names using the city's naming policy. Staff will be presenting those short that short list of options to the Parks and Community Services Board during the meeting tomorrow. We'll be returning this summer to share the park and board to share the park board recommendations with council who will make the final naming decision. And now we'll talk about next steps.

In summary, our next steps are to proceed with MOU with Easton Bellevue so that Easton Bellevue may begin fundraising. And once phase one funds are raised, we will be able to continue the next steps in the design process. At the same time, staff will continue the park naming process. The Parks and Community Services Board will review the short list of names during the meeting tomorrow evening and will recommend a name to counsel later this summer. Thank you very much for your time this evening. We'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you so much, Susan, Betsy, Cameron. Great, great and meaningful project. It is very interesting that we are telling the whole story of Bellevue and who helped to shape our community. We start with you, council member Boudreaux.

Thank you, mayor. It's a tremendous honor to be the council liaison to the Parks Board. I wanna first thank you for your diligent work and for the work conducted by the commission as well. I I wanted to say that I remember studying the works of Vertrivius, the first ever Roman architect, and Frederick Law Olmsted, and and you know other famous American planners and architects. One of the core guiding principles that was pretty fundamental to to all of these planners across various centuries was that residents have to have access to public spaces.

Not only do they need access, but it needs to incentivize residents to reflect and to witness the cyclical nature of the leaves falling and growing and changing colors and feeling a sense of unity with the earth despite living in an urban area. I I really love the metaphysical aspects of the park, in particular the map that shows you exactly where you're standing and exactly where the history was where the history prevailed. And so I I, you know, my expertise aside, I'm certainly not an expert in this area, but I do believe that it checks off all of the fundamentals of the greatest architects and planners of US history and it's it's just so exciting that we here in Bellevue are recreating that and echoing it. And so I think this is a good way for us to honor our past and work together to look forward. So thank you so much, and thank you, mayor.

Thank you so much. Councilman Robinson.

I am so excited about this. It's just great. Love everything about it. I have a question, two questions, well a question and a suggestion. I would love to see more flowering cherry trees at that site. I don't know if that is consistent with what the people who are planning it want to see, but I know that the UW is such a destination, international destination, because of theirs, and I would love to have something similar. On the aerial map in our packet, you have these lots. And there's a lot 104. And I'm just curious I don't know if you have it in your PowerPoint. I'm just curious.

I think we own that. And it's kind of above the tunnel. And I don't think it's part of this. There you go. So can you see where I'm looking at?

I am familiar with that property. Is it on the other side of the street, the Dead End Street on the south end? Yeah. Is that correct? Yes. That was acquired as part of the project. It's a large landscaped area, there's a parking space in there for maintenance vehicles as well as part of the Hammerhead.

I just wonder if does the city own it or South Yes. I just wonder if we can contemplate that for a smaller lot for housing to maintain the parking spot that somebody could put a detached dwelling unit size house there.

Yeah, I'll take that back and evaluate that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much council member Robinson. Council member Sumadu, are you?

Thank you for this project. I'm really excited. Actually, we I'm pretty close to the Japanese American community on one area and I think this project is just because, you know, not only they built our this not only Japanese, but I think the API community, they they built the past. And then, you know, they are present. They're contributing quite a bit to community.

And also, I believe that, you know, they are gonna be the future of our community building with us. I just had one question about the naming process. When we're doing the engagement, is it possible to include, I think, input not only with the family that initially built Bellevue was, you know, the I think the family that used to be here, but also, like, maybe the dominant Japanese American community who's currently in our city as well. So we can have some, like, intake. So make sure there's bridges from, I think, Japanese American who was born outside of The US and also people Japanese who was born here.

Because I think there's like a level of integration of intergenerational, I think intergenerational connection in that sense. So it'd be pretty special. That's all my questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Councilman Smodavirya. Councilman Bhargava?

I don't have a lot of questions. I just want to say thank you for the update and really appreciate the quality of the design work and the imagination and the vision you're putting into it. Also really agree with my peers, customers from the very on celebrating the Japanese American community and the contributions. It speaks volumes for our city to have public spaces that are so deeply rooted in our diversity, in our you know, shared ideologies and that celebration speaks and resonates strongly with me. Really appreciative and the only suggestion not a question I would have is you know, I would just encourage us to think about sort of collaborative design processes and the use of Charettes in the process to bring the community in.

The broader the spread, the better, but definitely what you're trying to celebrate. So that might be part of your process already, but that really creates an engaging and eventually a design that people take a lot of ownership for.

Thank you so much, Councilman Bargobo. Councilman Newhorn House.

Thank you, Mayor. Excuse me. Love this project. I think it aligns perfectly with with our goals in terms of celebrating local history, advancing cultural place making, and building partnerships that really enhance our parks and our public spaces. So well done Betsy, Cameron, and Susan, thank you for being here tonight and giving us a sneak peek of what this can look like in the future.

I think the concept design is thoughtful, it's compelling. I think the inlay map, I just love that honoring the historic Japanese American farms. That is wonderful to see along with the opportunities for the interpretive art. Are we going to be working with the Arts Commission as part of this process in selecting whatever these art installations might look like? Is part of this process or not?

That's an excellent question. The design phase of the project, once the design funding is raised, will determine whether it heads more in an art route or more in an interpretation route. But if we head in an art route, we would certainly be working with our solution.

Okay. Fantastic. But I also love the way that it preserves the park's existing pathways. I think that's really great. I love the shelter there.

I think it's a space that's really going to educate but as well as inspire and be just a real destination for those either visiting or living in Bellevue. And I really want to acknowledge ICE and Bellevue's leadership when it comes to this project and their generosity. This feels like very similar to the inspiration playground in which we worked with I think it was Rotary to create that space. So it's just amazing. And we're so blessed as a city to have groups like this willing to work with us and work with the city, but also raise the funds for construction, etcetera, to make this a reality.

So really wanna thank them and, again, their leadership to make this a a reality. But, very excited about it, and thank you so much for, for the update this evening.

Thank you, councilman Newhouse. Deputy mayor Hamilton.

Thank you, mayor. Love this project. Love the collaboration with Nissan Bellevue. We're really lucky to have them leading with us on this amazing project, honoring the contributions of Japanese Americans here in Bellevue, building greater understanding of the impact of the unconscionable incarceration of our Japanese American community members, and remembering the sacrifices of Japanese American soldiers in World War two. Our noble goals, certainly ones I support. I do have a question. I wanted to follow-up on council member Robinson because this slide caught my attention as well. That little space there that's to the south of the main park, is anything contemplated for that space in the work that's gonna take place at the park as a part of this project?

No, currently not.

Okay. All right. Find it interesting. Maybe something at some point could occur there. So something to think about. I think the final concept looks amazing. Certainly agree with council member Newn House on many of the elements that are being considered right now. We're really lucky to have such a great partner, Nissan Bellevue. Their desire to raise all of the necessary funding for design and construction, certainly very fortunate. So I think it's gonna be a beautiful, impactful park. Can't wait to be there to try it out in person. Thank you, mayor.

Of course. Councilwoman Brewer, please.

Forgive me, mayor. I just wanted to say really quickly, I know that we have this incredible tradition of consulting our residents here in Bellevue to name a park together, which is, I think, increases civic participation, one of the best ways to do that. I would be curious if we could consult our partner org, Isan Bellevue, just to ensure that they have great say in this as well because the park does reflect their history and the work that they're conducting too. Would just want to make sure that they're brought along the entire process. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you all. Thank you everyone who is involved in this work, including Issun Bellevue and we appreciate you being here and presenting this to us. Thank you. Thank you. We can move to our last study session. City manager.

Yes. So our third study session tonight is for our multifamily tax exemption catalyst program for the housing opportunities in mixed use areas. So this evening, staff is returning with analysis and recommendations and some options for a limited term catalyst or supercharger adjustment to the city's MFTE program. This comes back to you based on direction that council provided to staff at the time of HOMA adoption. And staff has made recommendation.

They will also weigh in on options that have been proposed or put forward in terms of how those options meet the objectives of affordable housing production, fiscal impact to the city, and also distribution of benefits. So, we can welcome back here Bianca Siegel, director of our office of housing, and Hannah Bon Miller, senior affordable housing planner, both from the, office of housing. With that, I'll turn it over to Bianca.

Thank you. Good evening mayor, deputy mayor council members. Glad to be back before you talking about this additional consideration for the city's MFTE program in Houma areas. I'm gonna turn it right over to Hannah for the presentation.

Well thank you Bianca. I will start with our ask tonight which is for direction to return with a strike drop code. And for our presentation today we do plan to start with some program background to cover the MFT analysis and staff recommendation and then close with our next steps. For the benefit of the public at home, we'd like to remind folks that the multifamily tax exemption program is a limited property tax exemption that is provided to qualified multi family properties for a certain portion of units that are set aside as affordable for the duration of the exemption. So this is a locally authorized program but it is established and authorized within the state RCW.

Tonight we will be focusing on the non downtown areas of Houma and discussing an option for a multi family tax exemption supercharger catalyst program within that geography. We wanted to start by defining those terms for the public. The term supercharger, it refers to an exemption for from the existing requirement in MFT to reduce the affordability of units that are counted to both satisfied MFT and land use affordability requirements. A catalyst program refers to a limited term benefit that's provided on a case by case base or provided in this case for the non downtown Houma geographies. We also wanted to provide an overview of the current MFT environment.

Our base program is available citywide. It provides a twelve year tax exemption for providing at least 20% of your units as affordable to 80% AMI. This program does include a requirement to lower the affordability of units that are overlapped with other affordable housing programs. In addition, we also have citywide exemption options for affordable homeownership and conversion from commercial to residential. Newly adopted provisions in Wilburton also created additional MFT options in that area.

It created the Wilburton Supercharger program. This is a non term limited MFT supercharger and within Wilburton, we also established a new eight year tax exemption option for more affordable units for affordable units and anywhere where those inclusionary requirements are put in place. This eight year exemption requires permanent affordability of a lower percentage of units either at 50% or 60% AMI. Excuse me, HOMA as an area with recently adopted mandatory provisions, it's subject to that right most column. So, it currently has available our existing twelve year program without any supercharger and that eight year program as incentives to provide on-site affordable housing.

In early February, staff did bring that eight year program to council for consideration and adoption and later in February, we returned with the HOMA land use code amendment to said to staff recommendation on MFT alongside that Luca. At that time we did not recommend a supercharger option like Wilburton. This is because the staff analysis showed that a supercharger is not strictly needed to offset the cost of the mandatory program. But we did recognize that it could help spur production and provide another incentive for developer returns. At that meeting, stakeholders did present varied views.

The Bellevue Chamber of Commerce suggested a six year catalyst term and ultimately council did provide direction to staff to explore a catalyst options, its impacts and then come back for further consideration and direction. That does bring us to our staff analysis tonight and before jumping into that analysis, we just wanted to briefly compare the requirements that would be in place under different scenarios. So, what you're seeing here is a comparison of existing HOMA with mandatory inclusionary zoning not participating in the MFT program that's in the left most column. The middle column would be a project within HOMA areas that did participate in MFT. These are existing requirements and then that right most column would be the change that we would be exploring today through a supercharger program.

So as you can see under the baseline requirements, you have that 10% affordable at 80% AMI from the inclusionary program under a project with MFT requirements. We would ask that you provide 10% of those another 10% affordable at 65% AMI and then under the supercharger as we're discussing today that would exempt projects from that drop in AMI allowing them to provide all those income restricted units at 80%. So with our analysis and staff recommendation, we had three primary policy considerations. The first is affordable housing. Historically, we have done well at producing units at 80% AMI and have the most need for more deeply affordable units.

And so through this recommendation, we wanted to preserve tools that do encourage deeper affordability. We also wanted to be cognizant of production and be responsive council's direction to provide an additional incentive to help development move forward a missed very challenging conditions. And then finally, we also looked at cost factors and wanted a recommendation that balance that fiscal task shift impact from the multi family tax exemption program. So our staff analysis started by comparing our existing twelve year program against the six year catalyst option. We looked at the number of affordable units that would be created, the amount of shifted or foregone revenue as well as that cost benefit ratio between developer and renters in terms of total savings.

You'll note that the analysis period does extend to 2044 that captures the fiscal impacts of that tax exemption but the unit differences you'll see later in the presentation are really incurred during that catalyst period. Analysis findings do demonstrate the trade offs that are within the six year proposed catalyst option. Under this option, we would expect to see more total units including more total affordable MFTE units, but fewer of those affordable units would be at that 65% AMI level. In terms of cost, because more units are exempted, we do see a greater financial impact overall. And finally, while the baseline program is calibrated to fairly evenly distribute benefit across developers and renter savings, the Catalyst program does shift the benefit towards developers making it a compelling development incentive, but less of an incentive for affordability.

The projected unit impact is illustrated through the charts on the slide. You can see that under the catalyst scenario, those orange 65% AMI units don't begin to come online until after the catalyst expires in 2032. But overall, there are more income restricted units produced under that scenario. The policy objectives and that analysis did inform our staff recommendation, which is to advance a catalyst program that includes a combination unit and time limit so that the supercharger option would stay in place until the earlier of 1,500 total units in MFT projects or six years. For context, the 1,500 units, this is very much in line with our historical MFPE production.

We generally see about one to two MFPE projects a year and this would accommodate as many as six two fifty unit projects in that six year time in Houma areas. Secondly, this also represents a significant portion of the areas planned growth. It's about 20% of the growth that we plan for within Houma areas in the comp plan. And so the rationale for the addition of the unit limit is informed by two considerations. First is that a unit limit does provide a known ceiling on the cost of a catalyst program and it allows the city to better plan for those financial impacts.

And second, it further incentivizes development to come in as soon as possible so that they are able to qualify under the unit limit. We want to acknowledge we have heard some stakeholder discussion and feedback on the unit limit and have heard an external suggestion to consider a shorter four year catalyst option. We do believe that that four year catalyst option achieves many of the same goals as the 1,500 unit cap by effect of a shorter time period. It likely will have a more limited fiscal impact and it will also incentivize developers to come in sooner. So, while not our formal staff recommendation, we have included it on the following slide as an option B for consideration.

And on this slide, you'll see a comparison of the impact against the baseline and this is for that previously overviewed six year catalyst. The staff recommended 1,500 units or six year and then that option B, the externally suggested four year catalyst. And, in this comparison, you'll see that the staff recommendation and option B do have less overall impact on the number of affordable units produced, but do better balance those fiscal and affordability considerations. The four year option does this to the greatest extent given the shorter timeframe which based on our assumptions would limit participation to fewer than 1,500 units. And so, is our summary analysis and staff recommendation.

We will close with how we'll proceed pending council direction, which is we would first return with that code amendment language. The objective of this would be to first establish that catalyst supercharger program, next to establish vesting provisions for that program. And then thirdly, a separate item that we'd like to incorporate into the strike draft is to revise rules to allow the MFTE program to be used alongside fee and lieu payments in cases projects satisfy those on-site requirements. So we are asking for your direction tonight so that we can come back at a future meeting with that strike code draft and then following adoption we would work to establish a process to track and report back on Catalyst to program usage. And that concludes our presentation.

Thank you so much, Hannah and Bianca. Amazing job trying to tell us what reality is. Even when we do the zoning change, still there is some difficulties, and you are trying to address that. I also really appreciate all of your analysis and showing all of the real trade offs between taxes, affordability levels and who received the benefits of the program. So great job. We'll start with you, Councillor Robargava.

Thank you, Mayor, for this. And I want to thank the staff team for I reiterate the gratitude for the analysis you have done, the depth, the level of stakeholder engagement and the clarity you bring forward despite changes in staffing against this very complex and difficult program and taking such a lot of stakeholder input, complex information and synthesizing it for our consumption in all but 10 slides or so. So that's really great and really appreciate that. Also really appreciate the iterations that you've gone through this process on the journey with your stakeholders. One of the things I'll start by saying is, I've said this before on this task and I'll say it, I do believe our housing crisis in Bellevue is very real.

And Bianca, you were there at an event yesterday where you probably heard me say this that the most expensive housing in Bellevue is the housing that we will not build. And that is the biggest impact that we have on our residents. So it is very, very important for us to continue to find ways to address the housing gaps, to drive affordability deeper into this AMI buckets and balance that with feasibility in these difficult times. So that is how I'm thinking about when I approach this as my set of comments and suggestions on how to think about it. Housing policy, I think, must balance housing goals with what is actually feasible to build, as I said.

If affordable requirements are too high without actually creating funding support for those projects, we will stop housing production or slow it down significantly. At the same time, unlimited tax exemptions without accountability are not sustainable over time, and we have to be very watchful of that. Incentives should reflect market conditions and be tied to clear and measurable results. The supercharger should not be viewed as just a tax incentive. It is a housing production and affordability financing mechanism that connects affordability requirements to project feasibility while maintaining long term fiscal sustainability and has to deliver clear public benefit.

I think when we think about this from my standpoint, we have to increase the production of housing, measurable outcomes for affordability, clear predictability for developers and for the public, create urgency in the housing delivery because we have a gap without distorting the market, and ensure clear and durable public benefit. And so based on that and the analysis that you presented, trying to find a balance, my thinking is that we move forward with a four year sunset for the catalyst rather than a six year. It reduces the authorization period, but it also creates faster project action potentially and allows for policies to be reviewed that keep pace with possible changes in the market because six years might be too long for that. The second thing is I, in conjunction with that, think that removing or moving away from a unit gap is I think the right approach here because it can create, and this is maybe an unintended consequence of that, is it creates, of course, uncertainty for what can be and cannot be built in this process because you can go down that path and realize I'm outside the unit cap, and now it creates friction right up front someone to think about whether they can develop or not.

It also creates sort of a lottery like process, which we don't want to be in, which is one of the things. And it can slow down housing production because financing uncertainty goes up. The one thing I do also think it does, it can concentrate the production of housing in areas where we are most ready for development and limit broader housing growth in other parts of the city in that period of time, that short period of time during the catalyst. So with that, those are my two primary sort of based on the synthesis, my suggestions on where to go with this. I also think in addition to this, I think it's really important that we continue to calibrate our incentive structure to keep pace with the market as well as what we are getting as outcomes within the city.

And my suggestion is we consider maybe a formal look back period in two years after the program implementation. And the review will help us assess how much housing is built, whether affordability goals are being met, what's the overall financial impact, whether it's to the tax shift, but also to additional revenues generated through this process and construction activity. And we can recalibrate and define our incentives based on that. But one of the other things, the last thing I'll say is this is where I stand on the MFTE part, but I also think there is an opportunity and I agree that the biggest challenges lie in going deeper in our affordability buckets below the 80%. And this doesn't really help us go much deeper than that.

And so creating sort of a work program that will allow us to assess what we can do to go deeper and also create higher urgency, including we've heard from our stakeholders as well in some of the public comments today, but fast tracking the process for permitting for projects that meet the affordability criteria that we're establishing. And even go a step further and say, can we look at simplifying the design review process or other incentives like reduced fees that allow us to go deeper into these AMI buckets to try and achieve the 65%, which will be one of the more challenging numbers to achieve, could be done. And I'm fully conscious when I say this that those are part of the affordability housing strategy affordable housing strategy that you have laid out. So my nudge would be my recommendation would be to consider some acceleration there so we can look at that when we come into an update and see how this complements the program. So that is sort of the summary of my where I'm at.

Thanks, Mayor. Thank you so much, Councilor Mubaragawa. Would you mind to go to the previous slide that you have the comparison between four years and six years and a cap? So Councilor Mubaragawa, to just summarize, you are kind of recommending Option B, adding the two year look back. And then you have outside of this, then you have some recommendation. How can we address deeper affordability at 65%?

So create increased incentives to drive urgency in this process for housing production.

Great. Thank you so much. Deputy Mayor Hamilton, you are next, sir.

Great. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, Bianca, Hannah. Linda's here as well. Appreciate the presentation. Really good work. Much appreciated. I'm really happy to see you back here so quickly from our request to to take a closer look. So thank you for that. Thank you for bringing the options to us so that we can consider adjusting the MFTE program rules in support of the HOMA land use code.

I think we're looking at these options because it's understood they can be helpful in promoting residential development in our current difficult market conditions. We need and want more housing now, so our approach has to work in the market conditions as they currently exist. I think what we're considering here will be just what many projects need to be able to move forward. And considering how difficult the market is and how many housing units we want to produce, we need to continue to be bold and reasonable in support of housing production. We need to keep our foot on the gas, and we need to continue to add to our housing pipeline.

I'm very much aligned with Council Member Bargava, support the Option B, the four year catalyst, the no cap. I think the two year look back is going to be very important and to have some detailed review criteria. We're not going to have all the data that we want and need at that time, but I think that's the right time to take a look at the data that is available. This option provides the community with significantly increased housing unit production outcomes overall, strong average monthly savings for renters, and all at the lowest cost of the options under consideration. Also agree with Councilmember Bhargava's desire to see how we can move affordable housing development projects through the permitting process more quickly.

Look forward to having you back later this year to take a look at our affordable housing strategy and how we're doing. When we were I do have a question for you. When we were seeking support for our TIF plan for the Grand Connection Crossing, we reminded King County specifically that the construction that was going to occur as a result of building the crossing would result in additional sales tax revenue to the county. And that sales tax revenue would offset some of the property tax revenue that they would be foregoing with TIF. Just curious how much sales tax revenue will the new construction in Houma areas generate to offset the property taxes we will forego with the MFTE catalyst program, if you know.

Thanks. We don't have a precise number on that, but the development that we would expect to see in the HOMA areas would pay sales tax at the same rate we would expect from development in general. And so there is some general positive economic impact from that development.

Okay. Well, if at any point you do kind of come across a number, I'd love to be able to do a little math and just have a little bit more context overall. Again, I'm in favor of the four year option, option B, for the reasons I've stated. It just makes the most sense to me overall. I appreciate all of the collaboration that we've had with our market rate and affordable housing suppliers in support of this effort. EHR members get our housing built, so without them, we really can't do much. Bianca, Hannah, and your team, you guys have been amazing as always. And thank you to council member Bargava for leaning in and his leadership ready to move forward with the four year plan, mayor. Thank you.

Thank you so much, deputy mayor. Council member Smadavirio.

Thank you, mayor. Thank you for the presentation. And I I think, you know, thank you for being the patience when we ask questions during the briefing and back and forth and trying to identify and listen to every stakeholder in this policy. And then the next step, I just have a few questions, clarify questions before I can say which options I'm preferring. One question is if we are going with the cap, what is the tracking mechanism we're gonna be using? And like how would the council be notified?

So we do currently track MFT applications as they go throughout the process. As we draft the code amendments that we would bring forward to you, we would need to establish some vesting criteria. We would likely be able to at after an application is received, we issue a summary of decision that really puts MFT projects within our pipeline. At that time we'd be able to start understanding how many units may be eligible for the catalyst program. We would likely not count those units as vested until they do record a covenant on the property which is a little bit later.

But we would have some early indication of what's within the queue because of that summary decision, and that's how we would begin to track those units.

So how soon can we actually track the application? Can you like show me like how does it take? How long does it take usually?

We normally get our MFT applications when projects are seeking entitlement. They do need to record that covenant before issued a building permit. I would say we looked at the average time between when an application comes in our door and when we issue what's called a conditional certificate which is about when that covenant is recorded. It's approximately two years or just not there.

Two years, okay.

And then what is the, I guess with the current market condition and then how the path, the speed of building buildings, like, what is the, like, realistic range of actually a, like, multi family building that's tailored to doesn't matter which level. Like, where what's the realist time frame that's actually being built from the time they put the application or the permit? Like, what does it look like right now? Like a range of number.

Looking at our past MFTE projects, the average timeline from application to final certificate or occupancy is about three years.

Three years, okay. My next question is, let's see. And then there's a slide we're talking about, we are identifying 7,700 units from the comp plan that from the HOMA. And then what do you think the percentage of that is going to be able to unlock from the Catalyst program?

So our recommended 1,500 unit cap would represent about 20% of that planned growth and so we would be potentially unlocking about a fifth of that planned growth through our staff recommended 1,500 units. Under the six year catalyst and the four year catalyst we wouldn't have unit certainty but our assumptions are around for a six year catalyst, we assume about 2,100 units would be participating in that time period and under a four year catalyst scenario about 1,200 units. So that's about the range that we would expect to see under those different scenarios.

Would there be like a really, I guess if magic could happen and people are applying and we are building so fast, would it be, do you think there's a possibility that we might build over 1,500?

I think, go ahead. Under the four year Catalyst program, there are some time constraints with as we said, the process to get an application in review, the project covenanted and issued a conditional certificate. So we do believe that that six year time constraint will in effect have some impact on the number of units that come through, but that is not certain and we may see an additional influx of projects that would impact those outcomes that you see.

Okay, my last question. I'm just wondering, have we modeled what happens after catalyst period ends? Like do we expect the MFT participation like drop sharply if the market condition does not improve at all? Because that's something really outside our control right now.

So we did do that analysis and in our initial analysis and recommendation on the MFT Supercharger, the Supercharger option is not necessarily needed to offset the costs of mandatory requirements within HOMA. We do recognize we're in very challenging market conditions and so there may be an incentive needed to further make development feasible during this part of the market cycle. We did speaking to your question council member, we did incorporate some assumptions about participation in MFT under the catalyst program. We do assume because it is more beneficial, there will be higher participation. Still we do find that our baseline MFT program does provide a pretty significant incentive especially under more positive market conditions that it would still be very attractive to most developers or to many developers.

Okay, thank you. So I think thank you for answering all my questions by the way. Yeah, thank you, counsel, being really patient with me. So I will say I think that with the limited year, I'm hoping that's gonna really encourage builders and developer able to build faster for the community that needs the most. Right?

And I like I said, I just I think having a cap about the unit, it's almost like chipping our wings because I feel like there's could be possibility that we could build way more within the time. And with the four year, I know it's shorter than we hope for, but I was wondering if I mean, maybe there's a way that we can collaborate with the builders and with the housing authority and also with your department thinking about way that we can prioritize and expedite the process so we can build housing because it is it is a very serious, like, the the gentleman was in in the audience earlier. Right? So there is individuals, humans that are dealing that every single day. Even with the program we talk about safe parking, that's because the family doesn't have a place to live.

The children doesn't. So I think that have shorter time would be a really, positive reinforcement, but also it's gonna be take all of us to be part of that. How making the process more seamless and making sure that we can be proactive about, you know, the two year suggestion tracking. Even if we can be even more closely tied to exactly where it's leading and then where we are, I think that's gonna be really helpful for us to see if there's anything we need to pivot fast. Because I think peep the kids that are gonna be living on the street because they don't have a home, this is a matter of nights. It's not in years. We don't have time for that. So thank you.

Thank you so much, council member Smadeberia. So are you kind of saying that you are more aligned with option b or you have an No. Thank you so much. Council member Robinson.

Thank you, and thank you for your indulgence. This is like one of the most complicated things we've ever had at the council, and I really appreciate the work that you've done as staff and that my colleagues have done to try to understand this. So I'm going to start with three questions. We have an MFT downtown that is 10% at 80% AMI and 10% at 65% AMI. Is that correct?

The current citywide MFTE program would require 20% of units at 80 AMI if projects downtown were participating in another affordable housing incentive such as the FAR amenity bonus program and we're choosing to select affordable units under that program and count them the same units with MFTE, that is when they would need to shift to that lower affordability level.

Okay, but in the past haven't we had an MFT as I described downtown?

Yes.

I can't speak to prior policy on that, but what Hannah described is the current situation.

All right.

Okay. So I mean, it's always hard for developers to develop. It's always a challenge. There's never a green light for people. There's either a supply shortage, a worker shortage, lack of funding, politics. There's always difficulty developing. And it's a huge risk for the people who take it on, but that's why they earn the big bucks. Because they do take it on and they take that risk. And sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. And I really worry about this setting a precedent in Bellevue.

Like, when do we say no? It's always going to be a risk. And so do you have any concerns about setting a precedent or just doing this citywide just carte blanche?

Well, I mean, we already have the citywide MFD program, which is both an incentive for multifamily development and particularly for development that includes some of the higher end of the affordability spectrum.

I'm talking about the catalyst.

Yeah. And for the catalyst, we're not right now proposing that citywide. We're proposing it specifically in response to the I conversation around know I'm saying what you already know. And yeah, I think if there were interest in applying a catalyst program citywide, that would be a very different conversation about impact and benefit.

Do you worry about setting a precedent?

Well, I think there's already been some conversation around we've and already committed to evaluating potential changes to the MFTE program in parallel with council consideration of mandatory inclusionary requirements. So we're prepared to do that analysis moving forward and would do that. Our analysis in this case was that as a offset to the cost of providing the mandatory inclusionary units, MFT was not necessary to offset that cost but it has other benefits which I think is why we were asked to look at the catalyst program. So we would prepare that same analysis in any other situation that came up regarding mandatory inclusionary.

Okay, thank you. So I've heard that people think that these HOMA areas are the same as Wilburton, and I will argue that they're not at all. We had our TIF tied to Wilburton. We had to have development there. I think a catalyst really made sense there. I don't see that same need in the other areas of Bellevue. And, you know, we have a natural development cycle. It's been typically every seven years. And so that's just the nature of the beast. And I worry about giving false security to development because it's not always a good time to develop.

And we've used those tax revenues that we collect to add police officers, to improve our public safety, to have solid infrastructure, good transportation. And so losing those taxed revenues really concerns me. We have incentives to development. We did a huge recent up zone. I really don't have concerns about people wanting to redevelop at this point.

And we do have the MFT already. I do agree that mandatory inclusionary housing should always be paired with double counting with the MFT. I think that should just be a rule that we don't have to discuss. You know, my goals with housing, with affordable housing, is to increase housing that's less than 80% AMI and not increase the tax burden for our residents. And this recommendation doesn't match my goals.

So it's really it's hard for me to support this. But I kind of see where the tide's going here. So I like Vishal's or Councilmember Bhargava's amendment. But as long as it automatically reverts back to 10% at 8010% at 65% after four years, I don't want that to be up for discussion. This is kind of I feel like this is a deal we're making, and I want it to automatically revert.

And then I also like his addition of a two year look back, just to see if we're meeting our goals. And if it, if your third goal is to stimulate housing development that wouldn't happen otherwise, we'll see. If that works, that's good. That's a good thing. So I can support Council Bargava's amendment with that addition to it, the automatically reverting back. Thank you.

If I can just clarify on that point, when we bring the draft code back, if that is the direction of the council, it would automatically sunset at four years the catalyst program. And the only way that would change is if council gave direction to change the underlying code.

I don't want to be able to give direction. Okay. And then include the two year look back. Thank you.

Councilor Bruniu, no.

You. You know, what I appreciate is that I'm sitting here amongst some real champions of housing and affordable housing. I really appreciate Councilmember Bhargava and Councilmember Robinson and Hamilton your passion around this issue because as previously stated we need more housing and we need all types of housing and that is I think a major concern for all of us and has been for many many years. I'm very happy that we're having this conversation again tonight and appreciate the presentation and all the great analysis and data that you have provided. A couple of questions to start, and actually just one question based off Councilor Robinson's comment about revenue.

Because I start thinking about the more units we have, the more projects there are. The more projects there are in the city, the more construction sales tax into the city. Have we looked into what that revenue stream can look like based on the number of units or the amount of projects currently or in the future there might be?

We haven't conducted that analysis as part of this project.

Okay. Have we ever looked at that? If not, why?

The Office of Housing hasn't looked at that recently. I'm sure that we, broadly speaking, have looked at that as a city in terms of the economic impact of development, yes.

Well, think that's an important data point to see what that looks like, especially when we're talking about funding public safety, funding other real important projects. Would be great to see what that benefit looks like now and going forward. So how does restricting because the 1,500 number and I'd love you to tell me how we got to the 1,500 number, because it does feel I know it's not arbitrary, but I need to understand how you got to that 1,500 number. But then also, just any kind of unit count. And I'm just thinking about the competitiveness that we are in a region.

So how do we remain economically competitive when our job growth continues to outpace our housing supply here in Bellevue.

Yes I can speak to the unit cap. So council did direct us to explore catalyst options. We heard that six year recommended term from the chamber and in our considerations we wanted to try and find some way to balance some of the trade offs. That 1,500 number comes from mainly two sources. The first is looking back at our historical MFT production as we talked about.

We normally get one to two projects a year. We do think that that 1,500 is above what we would normally expect in Houma areas. That being said, we also looked at it in terms of a portion of the amount of growth that we do plan for in those Houma areas. I believe our slide reference that we are planning for about 7,700 units within those geographies by 2044 and this would be about one fifth of that growth. And so our intent here was to be able to catalyze further development but still you know balance some of those fiscal and affordability trade offs and those policy objectives that we are presented with.

Okay so So you're taking all those things in consideration but you're trying to somehow try and make a balance there in terms of okay. So second part of the question is more important though And if you need me to repeat that, I will. But how do we remain economically competitive with a number of jobs and the companies that we continue to attract? And I want those employers to allow for their employees to live in this city as much as possible. So how does that help us remain competitive?

Sure. That's a good question. Mean, think we've seen from especially from some of our major employers a real commitment to supporting housing and affordable housing in Bellevue. And that's been a huge asset to the development pipeline in that area. I think also a lot of the actions that the council has taken recently in Wilburton and with HOMA and other land use actions that increase density in alignment with the In the

context of capping units, how does it keep

us competitive? It was a more focused question. Apologies. In the context of capping units. So yeah, in that context then, I think it helps us be competitive because we're taking what is in Bellevue compared to the rest of the region a more positive development environment than a lot of other communities are seeing, layering onto our existing incentives. Having caps makes it more Sorry, I'm getting there.

Okay.

So we are generally more competitive. There's a lot more development happening here than in other parts of the country. And we have these existing MFTE programs. The cap is intended to, as part of a six year catalyst, encourage more multifamily projects to come in quickly, sooner in that catalyst period. It's not saying we don't want development beyond that. It's just providing an additional incentive for folks that get in early

accelerate. So why would we want to limit that opportunity then?

Well, we are also mindful of some of the fiscal impacts and public cost of the program, including tax shift. And so we wanted to offer an option that has the ability to have some known impacts in that area. Those are the primary reasons why we were looking at a unit cap in addition to a catalyst.

The cost of the program, though, is that also referring to policing the number of units or keeping track of all the number of units?

No the cost of the program I was referring to is the taxes foregone by the city and taxes shifted to other property taxpayers within the city.

Okay then how does that work with the Office of Housing in terms of tracking the program? I appreciate the Councilor Sumiduwari's question which touched on that a little bit but what other touches and what other things are or is the Office of Housing tracking as part of this program once it gets initiated?

Yes. So primarily the Office of Housing's role plays as a liaison during their entitlement and construction process. So through that we help Shepherd their application issue the summary of decision, help them get their covenants recorded and then at the time of lease up, the project does really turn over to Arches compliance and monitoring rental program. So they do that compliance and monitoring work for land use and multi family tax exemptions for cities across the East Side and they have a pretty standard approach that includes annual reporting from the participating properties, rent roll information, etcetera.

Okay. And I'm just curious as to how many people do we need to be managing the program to do that? Is that one person? Is that multiple people? I'm just curious about the time and effort and the resources.

It's shared across a couple of different staff members. It's hard to say exactly. It also varies. There's more work that's required as projects are newly covenanted and those agreements are put in place. The monitoring does take some ongoing work and maintaining relationships with property owners and management. We could get back to you with more information about this specific Okay, yeah.

I'd like to know the full extent in terms of the time, effort, and the resources needed for us to really operate this program. So I am in favor of option B, the four year catalyst. I do like the two year look back as well. I wasn't 100 sure based on Councillor Robinson's question. What is it after the four year? Does it do what Councilor Robinson mentioned already or was she describing something different than what I thought would happen automatically already but maybe you can just describe that just so I'm clear.

Yep. We're going to bring up the slide that shows that. That one. Yep. Okay. So the right hand column shows what the situation would be under this catalyst supercharger, so during that four year period.

Yep.

After that catalyst program expires, projects would be able to take advantage of all of the existing MFTE programs that are available citywide and in areas with mandatory affordability. And so that's that middle column. So we would expect to see in projects participating in MFTE that have the 10% of units at 80% AMI and an additional 10% at 65 AMI.

Okay. Gotcha. All right. Well, thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate that.

Because to me, the broader issue is I don't want to unintentionally kind of handcuff the very type of density and housing that we're trying to create in Bellevue that is so important for us to remain competitive, sustainable, accessible, all these important features as we continue to grow. As I mentioned, Bellevue's job growth continues to outpace our housing supply. And with employers expanding, families want to live here, all the great transportation investments are really designed for a future that more people can live near transit, not fewer. And these areas I think are so critical as we question through my lens this entire process is why would we want to restrict the very housing types that really support our economic engine? I don't think anyone wants to, but again, it's the unintentional perspective that I'm most concerned about and hence why I am more in favor of the option B.

Because if we limit units, I just think we're limiting opportunity. I think we limit the abilities of workers to live near their jobs. We limit the ability of seniors to downsize in our community. And we limit the ability of young families to get a real foothold here. We need more units, period. So I'm just not in favor of any caps whatsoever. I'm really happy to hear that it sounds like the majority of my colleagues are moving in that direction. So that is good. I also think there needs to be more predictability around this too. And I think with getting rid of the unit caps, I think that helps create more predictability.

But I don't want any arbitrary limits to what we're doing with infrastructure capacity, with design quality. They all force staff, I think, focus on not what I think we should be focused on in terms of getting those units developed and built, but rather really get into the weeds of tracking where everything is. Not that some of that is not important. It is. But I would rather want to focus on the speed, the predictability, and getting units built, period.

I mean, we've all talked about so often as a council over the last well, before I was even on this council about permitting taking too long, too expensive, and we don't get to those units. So so bottom line for me, next four years, we should move forward without unit caps. Again, I'm in favor of the two year look back and really appreciate the commitment that all my colleagues have to creating more housing by getting out of the way of developers and allowing them to build in our city. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman Newhouse. Councilwoman Brouillard.

Thank you, mayor. I have new council member privileges, so I ask facetious questions. On the following table, I I think it was two or three slides, the last table that we were just looking at. Yes, this one. My understanding correct that under plan B, the four year catalyst, the taxes that we shift, okay, don't know how to articulate this, the least burden for lack of eloquence would be under option B onto our residents. Is that correct?

Correct under the assumptions that we built into our analysis option B would have the least total fiscal impact. I'll note that we did build in participation and growth assumptions that you know may play out differently in reality and so those actual impacts may be different.

But theoretically this is what we're anticipating?

Correct, it's based on what we believe are solid assumptions.

Okay, thank you. And this question maybe is orthogonal but I'd be interested to know if there were rent increases projected in the models that said inclusionary zoning affordability was viable. Do we have that information on hand by any chance?

I think we would need to look back at that original analysis and get back to you councilmember.

Okay no worries I think fundamentally I just wanted to understand if increases in rent are a part of that analysis.

I would likely say so but would want to confirm.

Okay absolutely. I appreciate that. So then what I'd likely say here is that I think alongside my colleagues I'd agree in supporting plan B. I think moving away from the unit cap is can provide better certainty as well. I would also like to reiterate what council member Bhargava mentioned which is supporting a two year look back just so we can ensure that we're meeting the key policy priorities we had laid out. And I'd also like to ask which plan and it's a little bit hard for me to disseminate here and I'm sorry but which plan creates the most net new units?

Under these options the six year catalyst would create the most total units and the most 80% AMI affordable units.

Okay and so we'd be looking at a total increase of supply versus the trade off which of plan BU the four year which could provide deeper affordability versus just net supply?

Yes the trade off is the deeper affordability and financial impact against the total supply and production.

Okay Well, I've said on the diocese several times wanting to reduce the impact on our residents in terms of tax burdens in that regard. So mayor, I'll also be supporting option B.

Thank you so much. Quick question on this slide on the screen. The Option B is not four year catalyst plus two year going back to the default. It is just four year catalyst. So in reality, we cannot compare these three columns because the first two columns is six years production. The last column is just four years production?

I do think these are comparable because they are all measuring difference against our existing baseline and because they are all being compared to that baseline scenario, they are in fact I think being able to show the difference in overall impact during our analysis period which extended out to 2044. No, we did exclude it for readability purposes. It is on a previous slide when we compared it to just that six year program. I'd be happy to return to that.

No, no,

no, it's perfect. So these are all comparable because they are all separately compared to the baseline that would see 2026 to 2044?

Yes, correct. So they are not being that plus or minus difference isn't against the other columns, it's against the baseline which is not shown on the screen.

And then you have these total fiscal impact $12,000,000 $7,600,000 $9,800,000 That is a shift from the exempt property tax to the other property owner. Is that correct understanding?

The total fiscal impact does include two elements, a portion and the majority is that shifted burden to other ratepayers. There is also a portion that is foregone city revenue that and those two together total to that fiscal impact that you're seeing.

And both Deputy Mayor and Councilwoman Newhouse brought this topic that there is a sales tax that can help with that. Is that something that at some point in future you can come back with some analysis and see if that's the truth in that? Is there any of the sales tax or any other benefit of development can offset this total fiscal impact?

Yeah, I think we can look at that as part of future analysis. I would also offer though that the if we assume that development is happening that sales tax and other revenue happens regardless of the option that you choose, if development is moving forward. But yes, generally, I think it would be helpful for all of us to have an understanding of the economic benefits of housing development.

So you are saying it's not going to be impact that much because in all of the scenarios, there are going to be some development?

Right. We assume there's going to be some development regardless of the option that's chosen here.

Okay. And then, again, the baseline is not here. The 65% AMI MFD units creation, that is one of the goal of the city, to create that. If I'm correct reading this correctly, if we go to Sixers Catalyst, it's going to be 179 units less than the baseline. And that was like 400 something, 500 something. What was the baseline? Do we have that number?

Six fifty.

600, okay. And then the option staff recommendation is minus 147 and then minus 116. Great. And then the last two rows is talking about how much these different programs helps renters versus helping developers. Is that correct? Can you tell me what does that number mean for the first six years Catalyst, $3.68 minuteus plus $3.68? Can you tell me for me what does that how should I read those two rows?

Yes. So this is really looking at overall savings between renters in a project and the developer. So renter savings is looked at the difference between what the rent would have been at market price and what that restricted rent is and that difference is totaled into renter savings. Developer savings is really that exempted property tax bill that is not being paid. What you're seeing here is those figures represented as a per unit cost and being able to see how that benefit shifts over time.

As we've spoke to the program baseline is set up to have fairly even benefit distribution between renters and developers And under the catalyst scenario, we do see more benefits shifted to developers indicating it is a strong development incentive.

Great. Two more questions. The total fiscal impact, both the shifted and forgone maybe forget about the forgone the shifted tax. How much is on average per taxpayer household? Do we have that number? Like, because of this policy, how much we are asking our average people pay extra tax?

Yes, we did look at that for the six year catalyst period and it was between $6 and $7 per year for a median homeowner in Bellevue. I will recall the exact decimal alludes me at this moment, but it was between $6 and $7 per year on average for a median homeowner.

And if you go with option B, that is like maybe 80% less or sorry, 20%, 30% less basically. It's like $4 or $5 per year, per household median.

We did not calculate that, but yes, it would be a proportional reduction.

The last question, between the two column that you have here on the right side, the staff recommendation and option B, in all of the metrics the option B looks better for as a trade off. Like, we have less shifted tax, like average taxpayer pay less. We have basically less negative impact on the goal of the city that is more 65% AMI MFTE. And I understand the total MFTE unit is different a little bit. And even the average monthly renter saving looks better.

And I really appreciate you all that you first came and said, hey, there is no need for supercharger. There is no need for doing anything. We gave a lot of density in Houma, and I think that should be enough to ask for mandatory affordability. But now you did all of the study, I think some of our stakeholders said six years catalyst, you came up with CAP, and then now you have on the screen four year catalysts. What is the ration to recommend the middle column instead of the right column, although all of those metrics, the tradeoffs that you have clearly did your analysis and looks amazingly, say, a lot of stories looks better on the option B for your catalyst.

Yes, thank you for that observation, Mary Malakoutian. The primary downside of Option B is there is less certainty in terms of impacts. So as you can see under our assumptions that we're making that our standard across those different catalyst programs, we do see less production overall which may be a trade off against some of the other programs. But the actual program participation within those four years may vary. We may see fewer units come online within that four year period than we assumed or we may see greater units come online during that period.

Fewer units would have the effect of moving us less towards those production outcomes that council outlined and more units would move us towards or move us away from some of those fiscal and affordability outcomes that council had outlined. And so while we believe that option B is a good compromise, still achieves many of the goals of the 1,500 unit cap. There is still at least on the city side a little less predictability in terms of impact. I think conversely, we have heard from stakeholders that the four year catalyst provides predictability on their end for financing and construction.

I appreciate your answer. The comment that Councilmember Bargava brought over the two year look back. And then you mentioned on average it takes three years to produce something. What are the metrics that we can physically track that can guide us that you think we can realistically gather?

Yes. So at a two year look back, we will be primarily looking at program participation and unit outcomes both in terms of total unit production and affordable units produced. At that time, we're not going to have a lot of certainty in terms of fiscal impact from the catalyst program. This is primarily due to the fact that the property tax exemption is not issued to a property until they've received their certificate of occupancy which as I had mentioned earlier is often three to four years after application. So at the two year look back period, we'd expect to be able to let you know how many projects have expressed interest, have applied, have moved through our queue and how many total units and affordable units we'd anticipate seeing from that catalyst program.

Thank you, awesome. Again, proud of this council, of you all as a staff and all of the stakeholder I forgot the acronym, EHR?

Yes.

EHR, HTC, PLUSH, and all of them. They are all amazing. Let's just make the motion Can ask one more question? Yes, yes, please.

Great conversation again. I just spurred another thought in my head. Just wanted to ask you. So in your analysis, if we and I'm not sure you did that. I know you mentioned it in the agenda memo, but I'm not sure you looked at the data that if we took the MFT Supercharger and applied it citywide to those areas that have mandatory affordable housing requirements based on what perhaps seen in Seattle or I know that Oregon recently passed some legislation there so maybe that data is not even available yet but maybe other areas.

What could we expect in terms of greater number of units to come online and come online more quickly in the city of Bellevue? Did we ever look at that?

We haven't looked at that citywide. Our commitment was to do that by geographic area when code changes are made for inclusionary housing, if they are made. So yeah, I can't give you a number on citywide impact. But I think we generally, that kind of incentive is understood to spur additional program interest, perhaps encourage projects to come in sooner, also has the offset of then reducing the affordability of the units that are created or moving them to that higher level.

But did we not look at the impact of the supercharger in Seattle? I thought we did that analysis, didn't we? Wilburton, I think that was part of the conversation too, but I know that the supercharger has come up numerous times, and I just assume that we looked at the data in Seattle and used that as a bit of a baseline to see what the impact could be in Bellevue, correct?

We have looked at the Seattle data. It's a very different program So from yes, so we have done that.

Okay. So having looked at that though, and I know can you not come to some type of understanding of what that possibly could mean in terms of overall increase of number of units in Bellevue? I know it's not exactly apples to apples, but could we not look at that and say, we might be able to increase it by 2x, 3x, or something in that range. Do we not have that data available?

Well, we don't because the supercharger we looked at it for Wilburton, and we've looked at it for HOMA. Right. The supercharger concept so far only applies when mandatory inclusionary is adopted. And so we know other areas of the city where that we're not assuming that citywide, I guess is what I would say. So we look at it like that will certainly be part of the analysis for BellRed code updates and we would look at it there. But I don't have a citywide projection for you.

Okay, well I guess maybe then we can look at it in terms of something that we can track and maybe even look back on maybe during the two year look back, look at how many areas of the city we do have the mandatory, and then with that, look at potential additional units that we could have created. That kind of data would be interesting, at least for me, to understand and see if we're leaving, you know, units that potentially could have been developed and they never were.

Just to clarify, right now it's just Houma area and Wilburton has and then we are thinking about Bell Red. Am I right? Right. Okay.

Thank you.

Councilor Mubar Gabo.

Two really quick things I want to touch base on. One is that we could amend or propose a motion for inclusion of or making the change to a no cap four year sunset period. And it seems there is a residence for a two year look back. Should that be part of the motion? Or should the two year look back be something that we just provide guidance or direction from council?

So that's my first one. And what the parameters of that look back are, it's also important that it's not just a compressed view, but there has been obviously interested in understanding the sales tax and other revenue cycles that construction can generate to offset some of the tax shift. And I think that's not an element we should ignore. And to the best extent possible, given the information we will have in two years, there may be directional indication on that possibility. That's one thing, whether that should be part of the motion or not or something just direction from council.

And the second thing is, I truly believe that there is value in urgency we create with assessing some of the affordable strategy actions for fast track permitting for affordable housing and moving that at a clip in terms of assessment, at a good clip in terms of assessment and feasibility for implementation, just an assessment. And we should understand that for other incentives like fee adjustments or design review changes structurally to accelerate the affordability outcomes in the city for places that we have very been very intentional about upzoning to drive housing production. And so those are my two questions in terms of what is the process for us to give guidance on those.

Those questions, for the first question and then I ask you to make a motion, we don't need to put the two year look back, but you say it as your motion and add it to your line to be complete motion. And then after the motion, we address your second part of the question. So can you on that term with the motion?

Sorry, coming up from here. Sorry if I I do think there's a question about whether if you are adding to the motion the request for a two year look back, which I think we're hearing that there's a desire to do that from the council and we'd support that. But that it not be included in the actually in the MFT code. So give us the direction per the motion but

Not in the MFT code.

Not in the MFT Yes. Thank you.

Okay. Would you able to make the motion?

So just read the motion as was initially proposed and then

we can talk about those two elements separately. Or you can even just say as part of your motion that this is not part of the MFT, but you are requesting for two year feedback, something like that.

Okay. Okay. So I move to direct staff to finalize amendments to the NFTE program, including a four year catalyst program with no unit cap in Houma areas outside of downtown for consideration and final action at a future meeting and not part of the NFTE program, establish a two year look back, which should include the level of housing production achieved, affordability outcomes and overall financial impact, including foregone taxes and tax shifts and any additional revenue such as sales tax generated from construction activity as a second and the supercharger effect.

Yes. That is Wait, what's that?

They are basically just a detailed two year look back. Okay. Yes. They are Second.

Quick question.

Let me just go to the discussion, and then I could so there is a motion on the table. It's been seconded a motion by Councilor Baragawa, Seconded by, I don't know, councilor Breyer or Robinson. We go with Robinson. Any discussion? And councilor Robinson, go ahead.

So can we put in the code that after the four years it reverts to a baseline HOMA with MFTE requirement?

Yes, it won't be stated that way in the code, but that is what the code will specify.

It seems that's a default. After four years, some said they are going back to the original baseline.

The time limit would be included in the code.

So if we wanted to change that, we'd have to change the code?

You would.

Okay, Thank you.

Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? There is no opposed. The motion passes. So now back to Councilman Baragaba. He had some three recommendations for removing fee, fast tracking, design guideline, design What review do you think? When can you come back to tell us what that's entailed?

Yep. Those items and others that look at reducing cost for development and speeding development for affordable housing are included in the affordable housing strategy that you recently adopted as part of the action plan. We are already planning to come back to the council in Q4 of this year as part of what will be a regular biannual cadence of updates on implementation of the affordable housing strategy. And so at that point we can let you know how and when those are anticipated to be incorporated into work plans and what steps would move them forward.

Councilor Borgavo.

A couple of questions on that just to make sure that we're thinking about the same way, Bianca. Is that when you talk about that as part of the affordable housing strategy, is that going to be assessed as a incremental incentive for fast tracking supercharger projects for HOMA projects outside of downtown. Because that's what will create the urgency, not just a broad citywide approach, because it can be citywide, but there's value in us piloting that or assessing that at a smaller scale that can give us the dynamics of how that works, the operational structure and the dependencies that the city is going to have to work through. And so that is my first question.

Yeah, I think as we look at the potential expansions to evaluate impacts to the current affordable housing permanent streamlining and fee waivers, We would look at a range of possibilities. We could certainly explore this specific one as part of that, but it wouldn't necessarily be the focus of the analysis, if that makes sense. We'd be looking need at

to be part of that so that we can get clarity on what we can do and move quickly to create the increased urgency for these housing like, they're moving away from a unit cap for many reasons. But the idea of urgency still remains.

Yeah. I think expanding the potential projects that could be part of that expedited permitting process. I don't know that creating urgency is necessarily the focus of that. It just helps projects be more predictable and move through the pipeline faster.

Incentive for faster development. Sorry. Yes. The second question I have is, can we also try to see if these can be incentives we use to drive deeper affordable outcomes to achieve 65% AMI production at a larger scale?

Absolutely, think that would be part of the analysis, yes.

Okay, great. Any other comments? One quick question, because all of this topic brought that to up, permitting and AI, do we as maybe as a city manager question, when are we getting that debrief? I know do you have any timeline for that?

It sounds like we're coming back in June.

June? Great. That's awesome. Great. You got whatever you wanted? Great. I have some announcements before we adjourn tonight. We have a special one subject council meeting tomorrow at 04:30 p. M. To consider taking action on an ordinance establishing a tax increment financing area to finance a portion of the Grand Connection Crossing project.

That meeting will be here in council chambers. Additionally, the regular council meeting scheduled for May 26 is canceled. Our next regular meeting will be on June 2, and maybe we have some AI and permitting conversation at some point in that month. With that, we are adjourned. Thank you so much.