City Council - Regular Meeting

that loud enough it is now 6 30 and the meeting will come to order good evening and welcome to the september 15 2026 kennewick city council meeting council meetings are streamed live on our website go to kennewick.com viewers can enable closed captioning by accessing this feature this setting feature in their preferred web browser either during the live broadcast or when watching the recording will the city clerk please state who is present and whether a quorum is established

Good evening, Mayor McShane. All council members are present and a quorum is established.

Thank you. Will Council Member Anderson please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? No one is registered this evening to provide tonight's invocation. Persons interested in giving the invocation can find information on our website or through the city clerk's office. We'll now do some proclamations and a recognition, and I would ask if Deputy Fire Marshal Ethan Bishop will join me at the podium. All right. Whereas the City of Kennewick is dedicated to the safety of its residents and visitors, and whereas fire poses a significant safety risk, heightened by lithium ion batteries in household devices, and whereas common rechargeable electronics like smartphones, tablets, laptops, and e-bikes use lithium ion batteries that can overheat and explode if mishandled, And whereas the National Fire Protection Association reports a rise in battery-related fires, emphasizing the need for public education on safe use. And whereas proper charging practices can help prevent home fires. And whereas safe charging involves using the correct charger, charging on a flat surface, monitoring for overheating, unplugging when full, or charging large devices like e-bikes outdoors. And whereas residents are urged to make safe charging choices consistently. And whereas the Kennewick Fire Department is committed to fire prevention through education outreach. And whereas the 2026 Fire Prevention Week theme, Charge into Fire Safety, safe charging is a superpower, highlights the importance of safe charging and reducing fire risk. Now, therefore, I, Jason McShane, Mayor of the City of Kennewick, on behalf of the Kennewick City Council, do hereby proclaim October 4th through 10th, 2026, as Fire Prevention Week, throughout the City of Kennewick, and urge all residents to learn about practice and practice safe charging habits. Thank you. Will April Martin, GEAR UP Regional Manager, please join me at the podium? Whereas gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs, GEAR UP, is a federally funded competitive grant program designed to increase the number of low-income students who are prepared to enter and succeed in post-secondary education. And whereas GEAR UP serves low-income, minority, and disadvantaged students and their families from underserved communities who might be the first person in their family to go to college. And whereas GEAR UP provides six- and seven-year grants to states or partnerships to deliver support and resources to students and their families starting no later than the seventh grade, middle school, through high school, and onward to fulfill their dreams of attaining a post-secondary education. And whereas Gear Up includes interventions such as tutoring, mentoring, rigorous academic preparation, financial education, and college scholarships to improve access to higher education for low-income, minority, and disadvantaged first-generation students and their families. And whereas WSU Tri-Cities Gear Up serves over 15,000 students in grades 6 through 12 and has enabled thousands of students to achieve the dream of going to college as a result of Gear Up grants awarded since 1999. and whereas the week of September 21st through 25th, 2026 has been declared National Gear Up Week, and whereas WSU Tri-Cities Gear Up is committed to providing quality education for all students, helping them to achieve their highest potential. Now, therefore, I, Jason McShane, Mayor of the City of Kennewick, on behalf of the Kennewick City Council, to hereby proclaim September 21st through 26th, 2026 as Gear Up Week in the City of Kennewick, and I urge everyone to join us in this special observation.

I just want to say on behalf of all of our students, thank you so much for recognizing this week. We love the students that we serve, and it's such great work. So thank you for supporting us to help equip students to continue to break glass ceilings in the Canary School. So thank you, everybody.

Thank you.

Next, we'll have a recognition, and I would request Council Member Milbauer to please join City Manager Aaron Erdman at the podium.

Good evening. I am pleased to recognize Councilmember Jim Milbauer's achievements in earning the Advanced Certificate of Municipal Leadership from Association of Washington Cities. Since joining the Kennewick City Council in November of 2019, Jim has shown exceptional commitment to our community. The AWC program recognizes officials trained in five essential areas. Legal requirements, budgeting, infrastructure, community building, and leadership. Achieving this advanced certificate requires over 60 hours of training and notable community service, which Jim has accomplished with distinction. Just one short year after obtaining his first certification, he has reached this advanced level, a testament to his dedication to continuous learning and service excellence. Working with Councilmember Milbauer, I've seen his profound impact on our city and his passion for public service. So please join me in congratulating him on this well-deserved recognition. So we have a certificate from AWC as well as an advanced lapel thing.

Yeah, congratulations.

Yeah, I was just going to ask if Council Member Wilbel ever had anything you wanted to say.

I'll just say thank you to everyone. I think AWC does a wonderful job in the 281 towns and cities in our state with everything they do in representing us, so I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, and congratulations, Jim. Well done.

Next on the agenda is visitors. This is the only opportunity for visitors to comment at tonight's meeting. Visitors are welcome to state their opinion on any topic except for election matters, quasi-judicial matters, and items under a pending or previous public hearing. The city clerk has informed me there are no online visitors signed up to speak. All right. Are there anyone that would like to make public comment this evening?

Okay.

The public comment period is not an opportunity for mutual conversation with council members or for posing questions with the expectation of an immediate answer. Council members will listen closely to your comments but will not directly respond to you. The city clerk's business card is by the door. If you need to follow up after the meeting, please reach out to her and she will connect you with someone who can help you. When it's your turn, please come to the podium and state your name and city of residence before beginning your remarks. Each person is permitted to speak once for a maximum of three minutes. A three-minute timer will be displayed on the screen and will start when you come to the podium. A total of 30 minutes is allocated for visitor comments. And the city clerk will please start that 30-minute timer now. And if I could see hands again, I'll call on you to come up. Why don't we start right here in the front row.

I believe you asked me to state my name. Cheryl Braithwaite.

And City of Residence, too, Cheryl.

And Kennewick, Washington. Thank you. The City of Kennewick appears to have ignored Washington State standards for the oiling of the roads that was recently done. As a past owner of Rockman Products, Inc., my company handled a million tons of rock a year. which was crushed for A&B Asphalt in Benton City, Washington. For that million tons of rock we handled, we were paid for half a million tons because of state specifications. I spoke with the city inspector, Austin, who stated that this company who did the work put too much rock on the road, and I'm curious what company runs up the cost of a job. My experience points to the fact that either the oil or the rock is a problem. And during the application, I'm wondering if state certified labs did any testing of the rocks that were being put on. When I examine the situation, I wonder, did city employees fail to act in something? I can see that the rock has partial covering of oil and is extremely loose, and we keep getting more that tracks in my house, and it has oil on it that gets on my rugs and my flooring. I want to know if there's a legal possibility that this job was improperly done. And I, as a contractor, understand that the fix would have to be a redo. The bottom line is, who will pay for roads that deteriorate quickly from questionable products used? I was told the engineer would call me, and he did. He, Malad, called me yesterday morning, and I can be satisfied if a state-certified lab answers the questions, and I wanna know if city inspectors allowed any consideration for these tests. I know justice and accountability only happen when a citizen speaks up for those that are in charge or of what's going on. Please don't disregard this request.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

Thank you. Next? Yes, please.

Hi, my name is Kristen and I'm from Pasco. On a completely unrelated note, if you drive a Mitsubishi Montero, your headlights are on. I'm here tonight to speak about the Tri-Cities Animal Services. I know there is some discussion about potentially policy change, whether it should continue to operate as a shelter or go towards a pound model. I'm absolutely not in favor of it operating as a pound. Simply collecting and holding stray animals will unequivocally not cut it for our community. We need to continue to work towards reunification, fostering adoption, partnering with rescues, and fixing the ongoing dysfunction at the shelter. That only happens if we can continue to operate as a shelter. Our community expects a level of animal care that simply will not be met if the shelter moves to operate as a pound. While discussions are occurring, it would also be a great time to address some ongoing concerns and suggestions there. We would like to get a complete review of the vague shelter policies as they lack detail in key areas that still allow dysfunction and continued public distrust. While policies are reviewed and hopefully clarified, an immediate pause of the current non-standard adoption needs to also happen. We need to examine the standards and procedures used to evaluate animals that may ultimately end up on the euthanasia list. And finally, creating an advisory or oversight board has been a desire among most of the animal community for years. It would be an important way for community members, volunteers, advocates, and people with animal welfare experience to provide input and oversight to the shelter. We need something in place where the community members can review policies, listen to residents, and help make sure the shelter is operating in a manner expected by our community. This would be a great start towards earning back public trust. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

You can come up, please, yes.

Christy did a beautiful job. My name's Christy.

Hold on. Oh, sorry. There you go.

My name's Christy, and I live in the city of Kennewick. I've been a foster for the local community since 2015, and I've been formerly an animal control officer as well. So I just want to speak mostly to the advisory committee. Some of you may or may not know that we've been attending all these council meetings since 2019. when the previous shelter managers had 48 counts of animal cruelty on them and almost $300,000 of funds embezzled from our community and from animals in need. So we need a community oversight committee, okay? So it's... We need people who can speak to the animals and be an advocate for them. Right now, we have city employees in Pasco who are the shelter employees, and their best interest is not being met through those employees. They are just employees. They are not animal advocates. They're not anything like that. So right now we're seeing a huge increase in euthanasia because animals are behavioral issues, have different things, when they're not being evaluated by an actual trainer with credentials that have been verified and evaluated. So what we're asking for is we're asking for a community oversight committee made up of people from different walks of life, animal control advocates, the trainers, things like that. And we just would ask that you guys support that. I know a lot of you do. council member Trumbo I know you helped us in 2019 get the bully breed ban lifted so I know there's a care for animals but really again I've been coming to council since 2019 begging for assistance and we're looking to you guys we elect you we trust you and now we need you to do what we've asked you to do and support us be good stewards of our money care about our animals and care about us thank you thank you all right

Warren.

Warren Hughes, Kennewick. Today, I got to thinking about it. Just about last year, about this time, I was opening my second store in downtown Kennewick. Today I have worked about 600 consecutive days, no weekends, no vacations, in pursuing developing two retail outlets in downtown. In that time, just a little more than that, because I started attending council before that, I think I've attended 100 council meetings and workshops, if you put them together. And part of my investment over these past two years has been to help work on pushing a community forward that I want my kid to grow up in. And that's been a lot of work. That's showing up to a lot of meetings, talking to a lot of people, advocating for a lot of folks, and trying to bring to council's attentions things that pop up that y'all don't see. But the more I do this and the more meetings I've come to and the more folks I've talked to, the more it starts to look like council could do a little bit better job getting out and talking to people. Some of these issues, I'm going to have a meeting with Aaron tomorrow about the building owners downtown. And I'm certain that on the council, there are folks that are very familiar with what we need to do for remodeling and restoring old buildings and how we could do a better job of that. And they may have not invested their own money down there because they know better. I'm very certain that there are lots of opportunities for folks to go down and talk to the 30 or 40 some business owners in downtown and figure out how to make a better retail environment down there. When we were at the workshop two weeks ago and talking about the buying the budget and shortfalls in city revenue, there's that cool pie chart and about a quarter of that pie charts property taxes and a quarter of that pie chart is retail. And retail is shifting away from big box stores making big money on sales tax. Most of your sales tax is going to come from small retailers in the future because the big stores just use them for warehouses. They're just passing product through. They don't pay sales tax on product. They're warehousing and transporting out of Walmart anymore. So as the economy shifts, as consumer trends shift, I would encourage council to think a little bit more about reinstating the Department of Economic Development. to help develop and foster these small entrepreneurs and retailers, to help build that sales tax back up. We get a ton of tourists downtown, and there are a lot of opportunities to bring in outside money and outside retail. Thank you.

Thank you. Excellent.

Good evening. My name is Ben Woodard, and I'm a resident of Pasco. I am here tonight representing the Kennewick Irrigation District. I'm the engineering and operations manager with the Kennewick Irrigation District. I'm here regarding the city's future land use map, and specifically K&E-owned property identified in Benton County tax parcel number as 107893000001002. noted as area number 34 in the future land use designation map. KID respectfully requests that this parcel not be designated as public facility on the future land use map. The district is currently in discussions with adjacent property owners regarding portions of the property that may ultimately be exchanged or sold as surplus property. KDE is also evaluating additional concepts for how portions of this property may be used in the future. Given that these discussions and planning efforts are still ongoing, we believe it would be appropriate to maintain flexibility in the future land use designation for this property, rather than designate the entire parcel as public facility at this time. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Yes, please, in the back. If you'd like to speak, you're welcome to speak next. We have one on their way.

My name is Craig Mills, a Kennewick resident. And I want to reinforce some of the previous speakers on the issue of the Tri-Cities Animal Services. I've clarified some of those points in an email to each one of you prior. So if you haven't read it already, then I encourage you to do so. And I want to thank Chuck for responding to it earlier. I appreciate your response, rapid response. I support and reinforce the statements that have already been made, but I want to make one clarification. I am a climate migrant who came here from the Sonoran Desert about six years ago. And prior to that, I was a volunteer for the the Sonoran Desert Labrador Rescue Program. And so Desert Labs had processes in place for rescuing animals and ensuring that they had proper placement, foster care, and also adoption practices. Those practices are not really in place at Tri-Cities Animal Shelter. They need an adoption coordinator that really has a broader view of how to find good homes. We get dogs returned after a day or two with a possible adoption. They're not good matches. It's obvious. And their policy, as quoted to us, is that they can't deny anybody an adoption. Well, it's not helping the animal, and it's not helping the process. It's not helping the shelter. to have this rapid turnaround and recidivism in terms of the dogs. That's one statement. I also want to clarify the issue of the previous speakers talked about euthanasia. What they're doing in non-standard adoptions is killing dogs that have behavioral issues. Euthanasia is typically reserved for animals and humans that are at the end of life who have medical issues that are no longer treatable. the end result is near. So they're taking animals that have behavioral issues, animals that we've worked very hard with outside rescues and rehab programs to get those animals rehabilitated so that they can be safely placed at home. So I just wanted to clarify that issue, and I thank you all for your time and your service.

Would you like to go next? Yeah.

My name is Pamela Hughes, and I'm from Kennewick, Washington. I want to speak about the, or I have questions about the 20-year plan you guys have for Highlands. I'm worried about irrigation. I currently don't have enough irrigation. I can't even run low pressure sprinklers. I have dug and I have had people out and I'm 71 years old. I'm done. It's going back to weeds, I guess. I looked at all the maps and it appears to me, anyway, that most of the Platts already have homes on them but they're acreage and so I'm wondering is what they're doing is wanting to have a business on their property or if they want to build another home or what schools what about that we're going to have more people roads anyway I'm done I don't have anything more to say thank you

Any additional comments? Yes, please.

My name is Terry McCann, and I've been a Kennewick resident for about 56 years. I want to speak about animal, Tri-City Animal Services. I work there under Angela, and I work there under Deb. I have never been more proud of a job. And to say that I was an employee of Tri-City Animal Shelter, we were actually, that's what we were called, not services. We had dogs come in that bit, usually little white poodles. We had big dogs that came in that were so scared and all they wanted to do was hide in the corner. But you know what we did, not just me, Every single person in that shelter sat with those dogs, loved on those dogs, hand-fed those dogs. Because it wasn't just a job for us. When you do that kind of work, it's not a job, it's your DNA. DNA. And when I look over there now, and I take dogs for animal control, I volunteer with Mikey's Chance. So I get the old ones, get the ones that are on their last legs, and I give them a year, year and a half of absolute warmth and love and fat, full bellies because I love what I do. That didn't start when I worked there. That started about 25, 30 years ago when I did it for others. I'm 71. It started about seven years ago. I want people to be proud of that shelter. And right now, how can you be? A dog in a shelter, in a cage, that's all they have. They have maybe 30 minutes a day where someone comes in and takes them out. But most of the ones with behavior issues now, they don't even get out. You sit in a cage and you listen to barking for 24 hours, seven days a week, 365 days a year. We need someone over there who has a love for the job, a love for the animals, and a love for the people that come in and want to help. The volunteers, you can't live without them. I appreciate you listening to me. I didn't write any notes. I just talked from my heart. Please help us. Please. And thank you, Mr. Trumbo, for taking away that pit bull law.

Or helping. Thank you, Terry. Additional comments this evening? All right. This comment period is closed. Oh, did I miss one? All right. There we go.

My name is Lisa Dukes, and I'm not a Kennewick resident, but I'm on the board of Tri-Cities TNR. Our mission is to trap, neuter, and return stray and community cats to the colonies they came from. I've been working with them about five or six years now, and I think like everyone else, I'd like to encourage that the shelter model remain. There have been lots of problems in the past. Over the last few years, I've had several cats from the shelter. And there's a lot of data that shows that a good TNR program and collaboration with rescues and nonprofits, there are many, many in the Tri-Cities, is a much more effective way to reduce stray cat populations. Right now, I think we estimate there are at least 50,000 stray and community cats in the Tri-Cities. We serve as many as we can, but we're very underfunded. We probably this year have spayed and neutered 300, 320 animals. If we had better funding and an ability to collaborate with the shelter, we'd be able to do far more. And I know finances is a huge issue. But there's lots of data that shows over a period of two years, rather than just in a single budget year, the numbers of cats brought in are reduced significantly. And over a period of three to four years, the numbers drop astonishingly. And I have data that I can provide, reports that I can provide from other shelter organizations around the U.S. But again, I would just encourage to stick with the shelter model, collaborate with some of the nonprofits and rescues in the Tri-Cities, create a citizens or expert advisory board to help discuss and look at the data and make sound decisions that keep keep animals treated humanely, and reduce the stray animal populations in the Tri-Cities. It's really quite out of hand now. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, any more comments, final comments this evening? All right, so this comment period is closed. Thank you all. This next item is approval of the agenda. If the council member wants an item removed from consent agenda, please be recognized by the mayor and state the item number you want to remove. For further discussion, this item will be considered separately. I will entertain a motion.

Mayor McShane.

Mayor Pro Tem Torelli.

I move to approve the agenda as presented.

Is there a second?

Mayor, I second.

It has been moved by Mayor Pro Tem Torelli and seconded by Council Member Anderson to approve the agenda as presented. The floor is open for discussion. There being no further discussion, it has been properly moved and seconded. To approve the agenda as presented, will the clerk please start the vote?

Vote aye.

Okay, it didn't come through. So Mayor Pro Temporelli, you're voting aye? Aye. Yes. And Council Member Trumbo? Aye. Thank you.

That motion is passed unanimously.

Next item is the approval of the consent agenda. All matters listed within the consent agenda have been distributed to each member of the Kennewick City Council for reading and study and are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion of the council with no separate discussion. I'll entertain a motion. Mayor McShane? Mayor Pro Temporelli.

I move to approve the consent agenda as presented.

Is there a second? Mayor, I second that. It has been moved by Mayor Pro Temporelli and seconded by Council Member Anderson to approve the consent agenda as presented. Will the clerk please start the vote?

Mr. Mayor? Yes. You know what, I just started looking at that. I do have a question. On the consent agenda on H, as I went through that, I did not see that. I am one of the owners of Desert Sands on that plat. So I probably should refrain from that vote. even though it's a consent agenda item.

Okay, so I think you could abstain. I think you can abstain from this vote. That would be the appropriate action. Thank you for bringing that to our attention.

Mayor McChain?

Yes, Council Member Trumbo.

I am unable to review anything on my screen.

We have assistance on its way.

In the meantime, Council Member Trumbo, do you wish to vote on this matter? It's the consent agenda. Sure.

May I have a couple of moments, please? Yes, you may.

Great, thank you.

All right, that motion is passed six to zero with one abstain as noted earlier. Next on the agenda, we'll consider the adoption of ordinances and resolutions. The city clerk has published each ordinance title with the agenda and does not need to read those aloud. That's right. Thank you for that. So items 5A, 5B, and 5C are dockets containing multiple items. All items listed in the docket have been made available to each member of the Kennewick City Council for their review and consideration. All items in a docket can be approved with a single motion from the council. A staff report will be presented for each docket. A council member has the option to request the removal of any docket item for individual consideration and vote. After each staff report, council will have an opportunity to ask questions or to request clarifying information of staff. General discussion and debate must wait until after a motion has been made. And first tonight is the docket with one ordinance and two resolutions pertaining to the 2026 comprehensive plan periodic update. Mr. Maui, may we have a staff report, please?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I may clarify real quick for the first three items, the first three dockets, there will be one presentation and staff report covering all of them. That would be fine. So tonight we have before you the 2026 comprehensive plan periodic update and then associated code changes related to that. We have with us tonight Scott Bonjoukian of Makers Architecture and Urban Design. Makers Architecture and Urban Design was the prime consultant assisting the city with periodic update. Additionally, we have members of the consultant team online as well in the event there are topic-specific questions that arise from council. They'll be available to assist. And so at this time, I think I'll go ahead and turn time over to Scott, and Scott will be providing the presentation.

Thank you, Anthony. Thanks again for having me, Mayor and Council. I'm going to basically do a very similar presentation that you saw at the workshop last week, but for the benefit of perhaps some new folks in the room, we have a couple of minor updates to the comprehensive plan since it was last presented to you. Let's see if I can get the clicker working here. I'll do a quick overview of the public engagement that informed the plan, a quick element summary, and then a review of the other associated products that are in the packet before you tonight. As Anthony mentioned, we have our full consultant team online in the meeting. If any technical questions I can't answer, I need to go to them. So this has been a two-year, roughly two-year process. We're at the very end of it with the final deadline to be adopted by the end of 2026. We're a little bit ahead of schedule there, which is great. Kennewick is working in concert with Benton County and has a similar deadline of other central Washington jurisdictions update their deadlines. comprehensive plan and development regulations. In the Washington state now, there's kind of a cycle of every 10 years that these comprehensive plans need to be updated, both to account for changes in conditions and population, but also to integrate new state law updates and other best practices and the latest community preferences. Some of the technical aspects that need to go into the comprehensive plan are very practical, and that is planning for continued job and population growth. In Kennewick, you can see about 89,000 residents today, and expected to increase by a little over 25,000 residents over the next 20 years. So pretty healthy growth, roughly consistent with what you've seen in the past, but does represent impacts to infrastructure, necessary new housing and services that need to go along with that population. including over 12,000 new housing units that need to be built or preserved. Since the plan is for the people of Kennewick, obviously it's important to hear from people and what their loves and concerns and hopes are for the future of the city, what their vision is. And so we've done that from the beginning with a pretty robust public engagement process, working with staff and getting the word out and getting feedback from both the general public, everyday residents and business owners, but also some targeted stakeholder groups who have specific expertise or interest in certain areas of the plan or in the future of Kennewick. We had several surveys. There was a couple of items that were focused on housing since some of the state law updates and some of the quality of life issues in Kennewick recently have focused on costs and quality and affordability of housing. There was a draft plan open house presented back in May. And then, of course, we've had multiple progress updates with the Planning Commission and the City Council. The plan consists of seven elements, land use, housing, economic development, climate, utilities, capital facilities, and transportation. And each of these basically form a chapter in the plan in addition to an introduction element as well. So I have a couple slides on each of these coming up on what's in there. The plan itself is composed of two volumes. Volume one, or I should say the old plan was one large single document. It's now been split into two, given the documents getting larger and larger with the necessary background information and analyses and report that go into it. So volume one is really the core of the plan. It has your goals and policies, the primary maps, and a little bit of key background information that informs the plan. Volume two, appendices, has all that extensive background information, extra maps, infrastructure inventories, and et cetera. the land use element is the heart of the plan and it really affects how can it be shaped how it looks for the long term and mostly most directly relates to the work of your many city departments and staff it establishes a framework for growth by with a key tool being the future land use map of which we'll have here in a moment ensures adequate supply for both housing and jobs and it connects to all the other elements in planning for economic developments, parks, open space access, and also has a few policies on efficient governance and administration of land use development permits. The key part of the land use element is the future land use map. So this is what it currently looks like. It's basically a color-coded map. Roughly yellow and the browns and oranges represent residential areas, and the red colors represent commercial areas. In most cases, the map represents not necessarily what's in the future, but also just what's there on the ground today. And in a lot of cases, things won't change very much over time. The draft proposed map makes a few changes, and I'll switch back and forth as I talk to highlight those. One of the key ones is that compared to the old map, the medium and high density residential areas are combined into one designation. That's kind of a dark orange here on the new map. And that was proposed because on the ground, the medium high density designations typically result in very similar development patterns with multifamily housing. And then a couple of aesthetic changes. We changed mixed juice to orange and the industrial designation to purple. The areas specifically highlighted on the map here propose areas that are not just those medium and high designation areas, but other areas that are proposed to change from one category to another. In a lot of cases, you'll see they are some areas that were originally low density residential are proposed to be changed to those new medium to high areas, and those are often near commercial centers, public amenities like schools and parks, and near Kennewick's higher quality transit lines. There's a number of other administrative changes that are outlined in blue that are more kind of neutral because they're just redesignating parks or schools or cemeteries or utility sites to more accurately reflect what those properties are used for. I will note we did remove what was previously called, I think it was Areas 11 and 12 off of Highlands Drive. That was removed with the consensus of City Council last week. The land use element also has a slight focus on Southbridge, just given there's kind of a blank slate down there. There's a lot of development in the pipeline and a lot of plats that are underway. It's also the city's largest bank of undeveloped land. So there's a few policies in there promoting and responding to some community feedback about access to commercial services, a need for open space and parks, and other amenities that are needed in that neighborhood. And there's some examples of how that could be done, kind of centered in a and our corridor approach focused on Baubles and Parkway. Another piece that informs the land use element is the land capacity analysis, which was done very early in the project, looking at those population targets and also the job targets developed in collaboration with the state and Benton County. Overall, based on the current zoning, it found that Kennewick has overall adequate land capacity to accommodate its projected 20-year growth. including for housing capacity. But when you break that housing capacity down by income level, there is a gap and a deficit for zoned land that can accommodate lower income households earning below 80% area median income. So there are some proposed code updates and zoning map updates to propose to expand that capacity for those lower income households, which could come from changing density limits, come from accessory dwelling units, and other regulatory updates. And to get into quickly the details of what that deficit looked like, this chart again shows that in the second from the right column, you can see that Excuse me, the third column, the 12,626 number is what we highlighted earlier for what Kennewick needs to accommodate 20 years of population growth. When that's broken down by different income levels, there was a deficit in that low income category, but there was adequate capacity for middle and lower density housing, which respectively sure is kind of moderate and higher income households. For the most part, where these changes could happen are the remaining vacant landings in Kennewick and rural-sized lots where the owners have the option, not forced to do it, but they could have further subdivisions and potentially some underutilized commercial land, maybe where you have some vacant storefronts or retail space that has been languishing and the property owner wants to do something different. Kennewick, of course, has also recently updated your zoning code to allow more middle housing units, smaller housing buildings with two to six units in your residential neighborhoods. But in your established older neighborhoods, you will only see incremental change over the next 20 years. So that will be a part of the equation, but not a huge part. And of course, if we're concerned with providing affordable housing, that is housing that is affordable at 30% of your income for lower income households, oftentimes you'll need some public subsidy to support that segment of the market that can't be served by the private market and private landlords alone. So the plan doesn't guarantee all of that, but it does provide some framework for how that can be done. So some of the zoning code updates, just as not all of them, obviously you can see it all in your packet tonight, but a few of the key ones are allowing multi-family use in two of your commercial zones. This partly comes out of the planning process that we looked at, but also more recently it was handed down from the state level. as a new preemption. So coincidentally, it did align with some of the direction we're going in, but the state forced the city's hand a little bit there as well. Updating the mixed use requirements for commercial zoning with height limits lower than 85 feet, another provision in state law that encourages flexibility for those property owners. A key one is removing your maximum density limits in the medium and high density residential zones, and basically allowing other controls you already have, like building heights, setbacks, open space, and other provisions to control the building form and size, reducing parking requirements, and clarifying regulations and code barriers around emergency transitional and permanent supportive housing, which often is targeted to the folks who have the biggest needs and are transitioning out of homelessness. So once those and other code updates are made, we reround the numbers and found that that deficit of around 2,400 units for lower-income households would have a slicer plus of 79 units. So that meets the requirements under state law there. In concert with that, the comprehensive plan is at a 10,000-foot level. The housing action plan is maybe at the 1,000-foot level. It looks at roughly the next five years and has a lot more detailed strategies and ideas for regulatory tweaks, cutting red tape and streamlining regulations in the permitting process, promoting staff capacity, and potentially some funding tools like reducing permitting costs or looking at new options to fund affordable housing in concert with other either going alone or working with other regional jurisdictions. There's a whole grab bag of ideas in there, and it's basically presented as a menu of options. Kennewick's not obligated to check the box on every single one, but there's a lot of good research and feedback from our team, the housing task force we worked with, and we also built in feedback from some of the other general community engagement that we had on different ideas that Kennewick can look at. So that pairs with the housing element or the housing chapter of the comprehensive plan, which again is at the higher level, establishes a strategy for increasing housing supply, diversity, and affordability. It also has a couple of more specialized goals and policies around special needs populations, such as seniors and people with special needs who are not served by the general market. The third chapter is the economic development elements, which is the city's long-term strategy to improve Kennewick's economic environments and quality of life, both for residents and workers, and attracting visitors. Provides policy direction on maintaining, expanding, and attracting economic activity across Kennewick, but also has a focus on promoting your existing commercial centers like downtown, the mall, Clearwater Avenue, et cetera, and promotes a thriving, stable, diversified, and resilient local economy. The climate elements is a new chapter developed at the regional level in coordination with other tri-cities, cities and county governments. It was borrowed and adapted to fit the local Kennewick context as well. And their overall objective is to prepare Kennewick for current climate hazards such as extreme heat, droughts and wildfire and reduce the impacts of those hazards, the people, animals and ecosystems. It consists of two large sub-chapters or sub-elements related to greenhouse gas emissions reductions and climate resilience as well. And then the last few here all focus on transportation. The transportation element, in concert with the transportation systems plan that you are also looking at tonight, this identifies improvement projects, programs, and policies that guide the development of the transportation system to serve that future population and job growth. and it helps the city prioritize which projects it should do as development continues and the system needs to be maintained and reinvested in over time. Capital facilities focuses on utilities and built vertical facilities owned by the city governments, such as water, irrigation, sewer, and stormwater, and facilities for parks and rec, police, and fire. And although the city does not control the school system, it is a required part of the element, so it has information for Kennewick's public school systems as well. The key part of this is it identifies level of service standards, often tied to X feet of pipe or X capacity per number of populations. So as Kennewick built out, it has a rough plan for how to provide an adequate level of infrastructure to support new residents and jobs. The utilities element is similar, but it focuses on other public agencies and private companies that operate your electric telecommunications and natural gas systems. And it also has a few new goals and policies focused on solid waste reduction. So the critical areas ordinance is a third piece that our team worked on. The critical areas are, actually I'll skip to the next slide here. Critical areas are special environmental areas such as wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, which help supply groundwater, certain fish and wildlife areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas, which are typically steep slopes. These are all natural areas that are constantly changing and evolving over time, and they have been deemed by the state as important for protecting for their ecological purposes and also their benefits to natural systems and to human populations as well. For this project, we actually made fairly minor updates to the actual ordinance, which is required to be updated as well every five to 10 years. There's some updates based on best available science and academic research on how to manage these areas, some added clarifications for both staff that are permitting development applications and applicants to understand what their requirements are, and adding new methods for buffer reductions for wetlands and streams, and an added requirement for habitat assessments within shrub steppe habitat, which is a key interest in this part of the state. Just a quick example of what these areas look like on the left is these fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas in Kennewick, which are scattered throughout the city but are concentrated in the undeveloped land in the south. And on the right map, the green areas are the And the north parts of the city are wetlands. And the blue shades are critical aquifer recharge areas. As a team, we decided to not put static maps in the plan or the code because natural areas are constantly evolving. But we are anticipating this type of data will be available on the city's public interactive GIS website. So anyone can look at it online. With that, I'm happy to take questions or throw questions to my team online. Thank you. Yes, Mayor Pro Tempterale.

um i guess it would be maybe for anthony so we're hearing kid wants to change spot 34 i don't know what to call it district 34 don't make it public facilities did kid get a chance to put input earlier and on in the process or Because this, I mean, I know at the last workshop it was discussed real quickly, but apparently it never went before the planning commission. So what was the timeline for making this last minute change, I guess?

I think you explained it. I mean, we heard about it at the workshop. Did KID have an opportunity earlier? They did, yeah. We provided notice to them and documentation well in advance of that. I don't know what their timeline was with discussing development in that area. It could have been that they turned in comments prior to having discussions about that particular area. That part I don't know. You'd have to ask KID about that. Okay, thank you.

Yes, please. Anthony, following up on that, it seems to me it's an interesting designation change going from residential. I would normally assume that the facility or whoever owns that property has requested to go to public facility because that becomes a very limited land use. I guess number one is why would that change take place without the request from the landowner?

We reached out to all public entities early on in the process, asking, we're looking at publicly owned lands, ones where you have operations of some kind. We've already received requests from several other, like Ben Pudi proactively approached us, Ben County is another one that actively approached us about changes and so we put it out there to our public entities as well as our utilities if they needed to make changes to the map to facilitate future development of their infrastructure or projects that they had going forward or that they knew of in the future. let us know what changes you want to have made. We're looking at designating public facility on those that are for public facility purposes. And so we didn't hear back that that change wasn't wanted. I'd have to look into exactly what we got in response to the request for comments from KID. I can't say one way or the other whether they asked for it or didn't ask for it without looking into it. But generally speaking, the ones, most of them are like, yeah, we want that change of public facility. That's what we do. It provides us flexibility with our operations and the things that we do as public facilities, whether it was Bend County, Bend PUD, Kennewick School District. So the opportunity was given. And like I said, I don't know the court, like the timeline for KID's discussions with the neighboring property owners. Those could have happened after comments were turned tonight. That part I can't answer, so.

Do we have the opportunity tonight to pull that from this?

Yeah. you can make that change i i would specify as the request was worded that's probably the direction you need to go because area 34 contains two parcels one owned by a kennewick irrigation district the other is owned by the kennewick school district and the kennewick school district wants that to be designated public facility so you'd have to be more specific about the parcel itself as mr woodard

indicated during the public comment period the visitor portion of the meeting just to ensure that we don't change kenwick school district's property as well one quick follow-up i might on that not knowing well enough with school is there something in the code that would allow for a school just a school to build on that in residential low or any other other than public facility

It does. There's a conditional use permit required to go through that process. There is not when you're designated public facility.

So it wouldn't limit them if that was to still, if this cell was to fall apart and didn't go public facility, they could come in, ask for the conditional use, move forward with their other parcel to build the school exactly where it's at?

Yeah, they just have an additional layer of requirements they'd have to go through. Okay, thank you. Please.

And I'm just looking for protocol here. And so for the city clerk is the way this would go then is after we get done asking questions, we would have a main motion to approve the comp plan items docket 5A1 through 5A3. Then there would be another motion to modify that with a pulling of parcel or designation 34, and that would be voted on first, and then we'd go back to the main motion. What is the protocol? How do we handle this in the correct order of things? Because when we're dealing with the comp plan, I don't want to do Bob's Rules order on this.

So one of my thoughts is that we could make a motion to adopt the docket with a modification to exclude Benton County parcel number as indicated on the screen from the future land use map.

Okay, just make it one main motion then. Okay.

And then I've got it on the screen. So this is what I'm kind of coming up with. And then I'll flesh it out with the rest of the docket items. in that sentence, and then I'll have this on the screen if somebody wants to read it.

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that we had a path forward for this.

Should that say exclude, or should it say exclude from public facilities designation? Exclude from, okay.

Yes, Council Member Mulvara. Would that be the whole Section 34, just the KID portion of that?

That's identifying the KID parcel. That's why it's not just stating Section 34, because that includes the school district parcel.

Thank you.

Just so I can be clear on this, I don't know who the question is really directed to, but with this change, so the change to public facilities was decided by the consultants, the city staff, requesting input but not necessarily receiving input from the landowners. So this one, number 34, we're looking at, is that something that was made, the decision was made with or without landowner input? but it kind of makes sense with who owns it, and so the city said, let's go ahead and make this designation. Am I understanding that correct?

That was the proposition. I'd have to look at the actual response that we got from Kennewick Irrigation District to verify whether they agreed with that or not.

But no objection was made until last week? Correct. Okay. And with that objection...

uh is there any concern on your parts that this wouldn't match the area and that this would wreck everything and cause trouble uh no there's there's no concern with with that right now it's it's designated low density currently it has a residential low zoning it's zone residential low i believe um and so

It goes back to the potential added layer of. So there might be an added layer for the landowner. Correct. But it's not going to adversely affect the city. No. Zoning or anything else or what can be done on the property. It's just, it would be a benefit to them according to what they are requesting. And so we just make this modification and everyone's happy. Is that?

That's what it sounds like. Okay. Yeah. As far as I can see.

Thank you.

Yes, Council Member Clipper. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Sorry, I'm trying to find your presentation and I can't. So could you speak just very quickly, again, on minimum parking requirements that were reduced or eliminated?

I'll have to defer to staff on what the actual ordinance says, but they're probably responding to the state legislation, which reduces the minimum amount of parking that can be required for most types of residential and commercial development.

Reduce it, but does not eliminate. Because I remember the presentation last Tuesday, I think they used both words. So I just want to make sure we're not eliminating zero, so that there's no parking requirements whatsoever. You could build and not have any parking requirements. That wouldn't work.

Right, yeah, not entirely eliminated. That's correct.

Follow-up question, please? Yes, please. Greenhouse gas emissions, can you tell me about that portion of your presentation again? What's the plan there? What are we seeing?

I'm going to just defer that one to our consultants from Cascadia who are online, who worked on the greenhouse gas inventory. Catherine or Andrea?

Sure, I can start off, and Catherine, feel free to. chime in. So the climate element was informed by analyses of greenhouse gas emissions from the community of Kennewick. The greenhouse gas analysis was based on a regional greenhouse gas inventory effort that was done for the Tri-Cities region and then that effort was downscaled using more locally specific information to provide a picture of greenhouse gas emissions from the Kennewick community. And we used the results from that analysis to identify the major sources of emissions that could be reduced through the policies that are presented in the climate element. And we also conducted a forecasting analysis that looked at how those greenhouse gas emissions could change into the future and how potential different policy areas could reduce those emissions to work toward the greenhouse gas emission reduction goal that is required by the state and is the impetus for the greenhouse gas emission reduction sub-element that is required within the climate element. And so the policies that are presented in the climate element are intended to provide a pathway toward reducing emissions consistent with that state goal.

Can you speak to at all what type of requirements or will we be putting on the citizens of the city of Kennewick in the future with these standards that we would be voting on tonight? I mean, are we all gonna have to drive electric cars within a certain amount of time? Are we gonna have to shut down our nuclear reactors? What are we saying with all these state requirements to the citizens of Kennewick?

Yeah, the state doesn't prescribe anything to that level of specificity. It's more just requiring that local governments have a plan toward reducing those emission sources that are quantified through the greenhouse gas inventory. It doesn't prescribe how you do that, just that it identifies emission-reducing policies and activities.

And last question, critical land. management and buffer zones and stuff like that, had dealt with that a lot in the state legislature. What specificity, once again, what type of requirements were we putting on the citizens of Kennewick in the future with these type of restrictions?

Maybe Claire from our team at Parametrics can respond to that one. I'm sorry, we also have Andrea from Parametrics, I think, as well.

Hi, Andrea Bachman. We did not increase buffer width substantially. So we did address some minor comments from ecology, but the changes were very minor. So it's my understanding that the buffers did not change that much. Did that answer your question?

No, but that's okay. I'll not press for another interesting time. Thank you.

Councilman Clifford, I can probably speak to that just briefly. Please.

Thank you.

So the changes that were made were to align with what the state requirements are to provide some clarity towards them as well. We did not increase buffers beyond what the state requires. And I don't recall any specific buffers being really increased. If there were, they're quite minor and only to meet what's required by the state. And so those were typically around wetlands. I think that's where the bulk of the work related to buffers were at and a lot of it was more clarity language as opposed to actually increasing the buffer widths.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.

Additional questions? I have a follow-on question, Anthony, regarding these maps in critical areas. How defined are these maps that the state used, and are they really looking at actual areas where – you know, there's some critical use for habitat, or are they really just, you know, using some type of, and I hate to say, AI to determine where these may or may not have been, or some analysis of aerial imagery to try to determine where this is, rather than actually boots on the ground, recognizing whether habitat is actually there or not.

Yeah, the maps are definitely not boots on the ground in every aspect. Most of it is... It's coarse GIS data that's being utilized, whether that's a land use model or LIDAR or some other comparable geographic data set. They're utilizing those. So it's fairly coarse. It's not specific. What the maps do is provide a guide for staff to say, okay, It looks like there's likely habitat there. And in that case, you need to go and perform a study to determine what's there. And then we decide based on what's in the code, how you address that. With that said, just because it's not on the map doesn't mean if it's present on – it could be present on a site without it being present on the map. And the way that the codes and the state laws are written, you're still required to address it, even if it's present on the property but not on the map. So it's really a guide. They're not 100% accurate in any way because none of it's ground truth, but it provides a fairly good – I guess, guidepost when trying to address these regulations that are established.

I might contest whether fairly good is the accurate depiction or not, but we'll leave that for a second. Depends on what you're looking at. What I appreciate is that this is not something that we've designated. This is something that's come to us from the state. We're applying the principles in the narrowest way we can and ensuring that boots on the ground actually determine the actual condition of the property and what needs to happen. I think that's about as narrow as we can get. Correct. Okay. Any additional questions of staff?

All right.

Okay.

Does council wish to pull any item from the docket for individual consideration? Not hearing any, I'll entertain a motion.

Mayor?

Yes, Council Member Anderson.

I move to approve the comprehensive plan I move to adopt docket items 5A1 through 5A3 with a modification to exclude Benton County tax parcel ID 10789-300-0001-002 from the public facilities designation in the future land use map.

Is there a second?

Mr. Mayor?

Yes, Council Member, or Mayor Pro Tempore.

I second it.

It has been moved by Council Member Anderson and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Torelli to adopt docket items 5A1 through 5A3 with a modification to exclude Benton County Tax Parcel ID 10789-300-0001-002 from the public facilities designation in the future land use map. The floor is open for discussion.

So I had a call from a constituent and they were concerned about this because the appearance was at the last second a change is being made on behest of an organization. The same thing happened at the workshop. It was only on the behest of the community. The comp plan is cast in yellow until this point. Anybody can ask for a change. Now, the preference for orderly process is to do it in a timely fashion. That doesn't always happen. We all know that. So, I want to emphasize, if this was a comp plan amendment and it was already casting concrete and was trying to be changed, this process would not be this. would be something entirely different and wouldn't happen but as it is right now we see an initial problem we're trying to head it off at the past you know and it could have been prettier yes is this a undue influence or anything like that no it just means that when organizations are contacted people have to people in those organizations have to pay attention they When things go out on our website, when they go in the newspaper, we have to pay attention as a community as far as kind of knowing what's going on in our city. Comp plans are a big deal. They are your land. How is it going to be used? I know everyone's bandwidth is pretty narrow, but just check on the website, and this has been out there for two years, not the details, but at least this process has been out there for two years. So anyhow, I don't have any problems supporting this. I appreciate the fact that we caught it before it was a major problem, and I will be supporting and voting for yes when it comes time. Thank you.

Additional comments? Additional discussion? All right. It has been properly moved and seconded to adopt docket items 5A1 through 5A3 with the modification to exclude Benton County tax parcel ID 10789-300-0001002 from the public facilities designation in the future land use map. Will the clerk please start the vote?

Questions? We're just voting on this one motion, correct? This is not on the comprehensive plan.

So this is the docket, which includes... Well, I'll defer over.

Yeah, this docket includes the comprehensive... Let me make sure. The ordinance that adopts the comprehensive plan, the housing action plan, and the land use map. It's...

It's the ordinance and the two resolutions under docket 5A1. All wrapped up into one. All wrapped up into one.

Okay, understood.

All right, that motion is passed six to one. All right. Next is a docket with 18 development, and thank you for the presentation. Thank you. Don't go too far. All right, next is a docket with 18 development code amendment ordinances pertaining to the 2026 comprehensive plan periodic update. And we don't need to read those because they have been previously done as part of the agenda.

And Mayor, I believe that Mr. Mawai indicated we could just proceed to the vote for the motion. Is that correct, Anthony?

Yeah, these items were covered during the presentation. These are code amendments that implement goals and policies related to the housing element in order to meet the state's requirement for... Let me get the wording right. how they worded it in the bill, for planning for and accommodating housing at all income levels.

So are there any questions of staff regarding these ordinances that we're considering under this docket? Does any council member wish to pull any item from the docket for individual consideration? I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Pro Temporelli.

I move to approve the development code amendment docket supporting the comprehensive plan periodic update as presented, adopting docket items 5B1 through 5B18.

Is there a second?

Mayor.

Council Member Milbauer.

I'll second the motion.

It has been moved by Mayor Pro Temporelli and seconded by Council Member Milbauer to approve the development code amendment docket supporting the comprehensive plan periodic update as presented. adopting docket items 5B1 through 5B18. The floor is open for discussion. There being no discussion, it has been properly moved and seconded to approve the development code amendment docket supporting the comprehensive plan periodic update as presented, adopting docket items 5B1 through 5B18. Will the clerk please start the vote? That motion is passed six to one. Our final docket with 32 ordinances pertains to the 2026 critical areas. Mr. Mwai, do you have anything you'd like to add to this item?

Just so this was covered in the presentation as well, it's an update to our critical areas regulations. As required, we're required to go through this update at the same time we do our comprehensive planning. Periodic update, the two are not necessarily tied together, but other than the requirement to review them and update them at the same time.

Does council have any questions of staff on these items? Does any of council wish to pull an item from the docket for individual consideration? I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Mayor Pro Temporelli.

I move to approve the development code amendment docket supporting the comprehensive plan periodic update as presented adopting docket items 5B1 through 5B18. I'm sorry.

I see.

5C1 through 5C32.

Do you mind if we restate that really quick? If I can read it back to you just to make sure we're on the same page, would that be okay?

Yeah, maybe I'll read it back.

Thank you.

So a motion to approve the 2026 critical areas ordinance docket supporting the comprehensive plan periodic update as presented in adoption docket items 5C1 through 5C32.

Yes. That is that presentation of this is how little errors are made and it happens.

Is there a second? Mayor? Yes, Council Member Milbauer. I'll second that motion.

It has been moved by Mayor Pro Temporelli and seconded by Council Member Milbauer to approve the 2026 Critical Areas Ordinance Docket. Supporting the comprehensive plan, periodic update is presented. Adopting docket items 5C1 through 5C32. The floor is open for discussion.

Okay.

There being no discussion, it's been properly moved and seconded to approve the 2026 Critical Areas Ordinance Docket. Supporting the comprehensive plan, periodic update is presented. Adopting docket items 5C1 through 5C32. Will the clerk please start the vote? That has passed 6-1. Next on the agenda is a resolution regarding the 2046 transportation system plan. Mr. Malott, may we have a staff report, please?

I'll just be glad I don't have a 30-minute PowerPoint presentation. Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Council Members. Tonight, I'm presenting to you a resolution adopting the 2046 Transportation System Plan. This plan was presented to council last week at your workshop by Transpo engineers out of Kirkland, Washington. This plan will provide a long-range vision for the city's transportation system and will help guide the city's decision on its transportation priorities over the next 20 years. The plan will replace the current plan, which was adopted in June of 2018. Once adopted, staff will work with Transpo engineers to develop strategies for implementing the plan's vision into actual policies. Any questions?

Do we have any questions of staff? When will the next update of this most likely occur? In around eight years. So around eight years.

It'll be a new person. It'll be a new person.

Okay. So if there are things that were not quite what we expect and things change, what happens?

Well, it is somewhat of a fluid plan. and they do have high-level goals in place. But what it will do, it will help staff guide our six-year transportation plan, which you guys will see every year. And so, again, this is a high-level plan. We'll help guide us through that. And so that's where we can really get into the nuts and bolts of adjusting what projects come out of this. but and then also with our transportation benefit district too uh... we'll be able to discuss further projects which will present to you at the beginning of each year as well does this uh... adoption of a plan like this help in achieving federal grant awards or state grant funding uh... yes it does i mean working with transpo uh... they help guide us with our Where our federal money really goes to is our major and minor arterials, not really the residential roads. And then also as far as non-motorized, we've got pathways identified in here as well and pedestrian facilities. And so that will also spur into our six-year transportation plan. Once we get these projects into our six-year transportation plan, that's where we can look at those for potential funding opportunities once we get into that plan and then Once we do get money for that, that will roll into the state six-year tip. So it all starts at the ground level from this plan. Thank you.

Any other questions of staff? Yes, please. Yeah, please. Council Member Clipper.

So I'm looking at 1.8 environmental impact policy. This is intended to minimize the transportation impacts on the natural environment, air quality, noise quality and fuel consumption. Having served in the legislature for 14 years, a lot of these policies are written by people who live in the I-5 corridor, Seattle, Tacoma, Bellingham, Vancouver, and have no idea what it's like to live in eastern Washington in our agrarian community. So when we are adopting these environmental impact policies, the reason why I voted no on the last section was for the same reason. Are we going to be constraining ourselves to I-5 corridor ideas, policies, and values, or will we have the freedom to grow and prosper here in Kennewick and eastern Washington as we're able to because of our much greater land mass and open area?

I will have to pass that on to, I think, Transpo is online.

Yes. Can you hear me? I can't. Yes. So as far as the policies go, I mean, we do have to match what's state regulations, and a lot of those are trying to match what's in the comp plan. So a lot of those policies are trying to make sure that we're aligned with other elements of the comp plan. So that's usually why we have that in there. It's not necessarily something that...

we put in there it's more like what the state is trying to encourage for the um the city okay thank you very much appreciate it thank you mr mayor thank you uh mr marriage yeah quick comment on this uh he says with the fires we saw up in spokane one of the biggest problems they had were emergency evacuation routes and people got really really lucky And I know our transportation plan doesn't include emergency evacuation routes at this point, but for our upcoming plans, if there is a way to start looking at that and start planning for that, because that is going to become a bigger and bigger reality for communities, particularly as Councilmember has said, We live in an agricultural area and fires are a reality here anymore. So just a heads up on that. That was my only comment.

Okay. If there's no additional questions of the staff, I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor?

Mayor Pro Temporelli.

I will do it right this time. Motion to approve the Development Code Amendment docket supporting I'm in the wrong place again. Dang it. Too many screens.

I move to ban Chuck Turelli. I'm just kidding. You have not been recognized by the chair.

I'm turning over my motion-making machine. I move to adopt the resolution as presented.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem Turelli. Is there a second? Mayor? Council Member Anderson. I second that. It has been moved by Premier Pro Temporelli and seconded by Council Member Anderson to adopt the resolution as presented. The floor is open for discussion. I'd just like to comment on what Mayor Pro Temporelli talked about with his emergency evacuation. I do think it's something that's important. We don't see a lot of this in our community, but the fire that happened on Inspiration Point, we happened to be out as a family and observed some of the evacuations that happened off of that. I thought our first responders did a fantastic job. I thought our community responded well on that particular item. It could be worse in the future, and understanding that would be part of that. So I think that's a good suggestion as we move forward. Any additional discussion? All right, it's been properly moved and seconded to adopt the resolution as presented. Will the clerk please start the vote? That motion is passed six to one. Next is new business. We will have a staff report, please, from City Manager Erin Erdmann concerning a potential park surplus.

Thank you, Mayor McShane. Just to kind of give a little background on this before we move into the questions at hand, during our council retreat in February of 26, council directed staff to analyze park property usage and determine if there are any parks available in the system that we could look at potentially surplusing. In June of 2026, I passed along the results of that study to City Council in identifying parks that may warrant further review as potential surplus options. That study was based off of some PLACER AI data for adult visitation to those parks from the period of 2023 to 2026. As part of that analysis, Yelm Park was identified as a park that we should continue to monitor. So we had some high priority parks, some medium priority parks, and then those that should be monitored. This park was below the 15,000 annual visits threshold. However, it did show some slight increase in visitation. It had 11,151 visits in 2025, which was a 16% increase from 2024. So since the delivery of that report, the city has received interest from a neighboring property owner to purchase Yone Park. So the purpose of tonight's discussion is to determine if city council would like to move forward with the surplus process, which would include potentially holding a public hearing regarding this matter, passing a resolution to declare the property a surplus, and completing an appraisal and then negotiating terms of the sale. So to give you just a little bit of background on Yelm Park itself, its address is 324 North Yelm Street. Madam Clerk has pulled that up on the Google Maps so you can take a look at that. Parcel size is roughly three acres in size. It's currently zoned for open space. As I indicated before, it's roughly 11,000 adult visits in 2025. We do, out of all the parks that we did look at that were potential for surplus, this is the only one that we do program events at. We do 16 youth T-ball practices and 16 T-ball games annually at this facility. In talking with our Parks and Rec staff, this is something that we could easily program in a different park by simply adding a backstop. So we could transfer that if you choose to move forward with this. A life-to-date investment in the park is about $133,000. When looking at kind of analyzing what we're spending from parks maintenance staffing on a yearly basis, it's costing us around $37,500 to maintain this park annually. From an irrigation standpoint, it's utilizing about 13,435 gallons of water, and those numbers are based off of 2025. This property acquisition was given to us through statutory warranty deed. It was a public gift from neighboring church. After our attorney review, there is no legal restrictions and the city does hold the clear unrestricted title to this property. We are doing a little bit more research. It appears that we had some HUD funding to build a bathroom facility on that as well. So we have to do a little bit more analysis to figure out if we would have to pay a portion of that value back to that fund. But we can report back on that should you choose to move forward with this. So the questions in front of you tonight would be, first, are we interested in moving forward with that surplus process of this? And then second, if you choose to do that, would you like to hold a public hearing prior to adopting a resolution? So with that, I will turn it over to council for any questions.

Any questions, staff? Mayor McShane? Mayor Pro Temporelli.

I guess it would be for Chief Carrero. What type of law enforcement traffic is there around Neon Park?

We do, thank you for the question, we do have some transient traffic that works in that area that we deal with. But outside of that, there's not a lot of calls for service from us there.

Council Member Klipper. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Mayor Prokofian. I have the exact same question, so thank you for getting that answered for me. And then for our city manager, have we, you know, When a piece of property is gifted, have we spoken at all to that church that gifted the property to us, their feelings on this matter?

We have not spoken to them directly. Usually when a property is gifted, there's usually a deed restriction put on that should they care if we keep that within that use. That is not present on this deed.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor. You know, it's not on the high priority, but I understand what you're saying. I hate to see, once we have a green space go away, we lose it forever. But I don't have a problem with proceeding, and especially having a public hearing on it to find out what the public believes. But still, at that point, if I understand it, we can still say no, we're not doing it. Is that correct? That is correct. Thank you.

We're zoned open space right now.

The adjacent neighbor, do we have any idea what they're looking to do with that property? Would they be looking for a zone change on it, or do we know?

We do not know at this time.

And with that in the process, as we go through that, does that automatically, if we decide to move forward, enter into an agreement with them, or does that just go on the market for an open bid, or do we negotiate openly with them? with anybody to receive a bid on that property, or how does that process work?

So that would be another policy direction from council. You could go direct negotiations with the person offering up, or you could go out to bid or put it on the market.

Thank you.

Council Member Trumbull.

Thank you, Mayor McShane. Just a quick question. I don't think, can you tell me how long this park has been in the city's possession?

I knew there was going to be a question I didn't have right in front of me. Yeah, we'll have to.

Related to that, is the donor church still in existence in the neighborhood?

Yes, it's across the street.

So as a follow-up to that, the church building is there. Is it the same church as was at the time it was donated? I guess we don't know when it was donated, so it'd be hard to answer that.

I know the age of the playground equipment is 46 years, but we're looking at the teat piece.

In line with my question, I would be firm about calling for a public hearing.

Okay.

That's all. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor?

Yes, please.

It looks like on the deed from what I can read, it looks like July 24th, 1956. That's what I have as well.

So a couple of questions for me.

So the amount that we've invested in the park, are those in today's dollars or just total dollars invested since 1956 or whenever we started putting the play around?

I believe the life-to-date investment is total dollars since, and then the salary and benefits is $20, $25 amounts. Yeah.

How did the neighbor come to discuss with the city the potential of this? Had they heard it at council meeting and had come to find us, or had they come unsolicited and said, hey, you should consider giving this?

I think they were looking to expand, and so they were reaching out to see if there would be interest. Okay. This is my understanding. Chief may correct me if I'm wrong because he's had further discussions.

Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I know this has been on their radar for many years, so I think it was just continued conversation, and they were aware of the earlier conversation in the year about potential surplus, and it came back up.

Do we think it's a reality that we could relocate the backstop to another park, or is that a...

Yeah, that was a question that we posed to our rec staff, and they felt like they could do that at a reasonable cost and we'd be able to program. We have other parks with enough open space to be able to accommodate that.

But would it need that capital investment if it was to be relocated?

I believe so.

That's why I asked. Okay. All right. So as we're talking through this council, the question, you know, Are we going to continue to proceed with the surplus evaluation first, and then should we hold a public hearing? And I've heard a couple people say yes to a public hearing. Mayor Pro Temporelli?

I would say yes to both. Proceed on, and we should hold a public hearing. Okay.

Do I have any – I'm going to suggest that based on what I'm hearing that There's a desire to proceed with the surplus evaluation and to hold a public hearing related to this potential surplus. If any member of council has a disagreement with that, please be recognized and stated.

Okay. Yes, Council Member Beecher. I don't disagree with that. I just want to make sure. Those can run concurrent at the same meeting. You can have the public hearing the night that we'd be voting on it, correct? Is it a planning thing? I'm just trying to get staff involvement on something like that. It'd just be one public hearing at our city council meeting.

Yes, we can do them concurrently. We can hold the public hearing and we can have the resolution ready for you to adopt to declare this a surplus property that same evening.

Yeah, I'm fine with that.

The public hearing based on our KMC is an option. It's not required, so we can do them both.

Is there additional questions or comments? Sure. I think, not having surplus to park before, I would suggest that I recognize what Council Member Beach was saying about the expedition, being expedient about going through it. I also think it's important we make sure that the public has an opportunity to comment and we have a chance to listen to that and think about that before we necessarily take action. So although I want to be expedient, I think I would prefer to not have a public hearing and take action in the same meeting. just so that there's time to consider what has been said. Again, I'm maybe pre-decisional in that concept that we were gonna have people coming and wanting to express that opinion and maybe hearing about it for the first time. That's just my opinion. And I think that's something we could talk through later, but I think otherwise we've heard to proceed forward, okay?

All right, we will, I think Clerk and I discussed this earlier, so if we're planning on moving forward, we'll schedule that public hearing for October 6th and we'll move along.

October 6th, okay. Okay. All right. City Manager Erdmann, you're still up. Next will be a staff report regarding the Tri-City Animal Control Facility.

All right, thank you again. so a little bit of background here the aca provides animal control and sheltering service on behalf of the cities of kennewick pasco and richland under an interlocal agreement staff is bringing this item forward to have council discussion at a policy level on how the three cities want the regional facility to operate going forward We're trying to determine what mix of services it should provide and to what standard and at what cost. So we're looking for that direction this evening. And then once given that, then we'll dive more into the legal and the budget mechanics of implementing that direction. So the roadmap for tonight is to kind of get a shared understanding of where we are and how we got here, looking at what the regional role is, the history of the shelter, the cost of the shelter, how it currently operates, and then some policy directions and options moving forward.

We've kind of talked about the Animal Control Authority already.

So animal service structure. So currently we have kind of twofold that are operating out of the facility. One is the animal control and stray hold. So that's upholding all three cities' municipal codes. It is basically the collection of animals at large. It's a collection of any dangerous animals, any public safety assistance. So for example... If our medics transport a patient that has an animal in the home and somebody needs to care for that or we make an arrest and there's animals left on site, animal control comes in and takes those. It also includes any sick or injured animals and then any animal cruelty cases. With those, the code requires that we do legal holds, so 72 hours for dogs and 48 hours for cats, and that is to hold those animals to ensure that we can find their owners and return them safely to their homes. If not, then that's where the sheltering side of things come into play. And that is basically care beyond that legal hold requirement of that 72 hours and 48 hours. That then moves into including medical assistance, so any treatment, medication, or procedures for those animals. More animal care and enrichment, that's where the volunteer programs come in, where they're doing the walking and caring for the animals. And then the intent behind the shelter is to try and adopt out as many dogs as possible and get them into new homes. So a little bit of a financial overview of that structure. Again, we talked about kind of the two processes that are happening. So on the animal control and the stray hold side, currently to manage that, we have a manager, an administrative assistant, animal control officers, which there are currently three that represent the Tri-Cities area, the intake techs, customer service techs, kennel techs, And then the minimum standard of care, especially with those stray holds, is 15 minutes per animal per day. The long-term animal shelter includes the staffing required for the stray hold, plus then we bring on vets, medical techs, foster program, and then the transfer or adoption programs for that. That also includes the extended care, so any treatments or medications, if applicable, while holding those animals in that shelter facility. And again, as discussed, the volunteer programs for the enrichment piece of it. A little bit of history on the Tri-Cities Animal Services. So prior to 2022, we contracted and paid for animal control and stray hold services only. After the stray hold, the animal ownership transferred to the contractor who was allowed to use that lease facility, which was the older facility at the time, for unclaimed animals at their expense as space remained available for strays and ACO animals. We ran that model from about 2024 to 2021, and then in November of 21, due to the conditions and the treatment of animals and claims of embezzlement, as was previously discussed in visitor comments, the ACA implemented an emergency termination of that existing contract. At that time, the Benton Franklin Humane Society became the emergency contractor for both animal control and the sheltering piece. so they stepped in to assist with that in that timeline here's a little glance at the costing so this is the prior contracts so prior to um us terminating the contract and having benton franklin step in under that emergency contract from 20 from 2004 to 2021 We went from about $430,000 in annual costs to about $875,000 in annual costs, which given that period of time is a good reflection of just inflation costs. after we turned the facility over for the emergency contract with the humane society we then started managing the facility in-house with pasco city employees there was never really clear direction that we were operating as a pound or a shelter we kind of turned it kind of morphed into being both at that time and that's where you see the cost here under benton franklin was about 1.5 million to 2025 actual costs of about 2.34 million in operational costs.

Does any of this include debt service on the facility, or is this just operating costs?

This is operating costs, yes. The capital investment made by the three cities is outside of these numbers. Just a cost comparison. So from a staffing standpoint, from the prior contracting model to the current staffing model, when we had the contracts previously, we had about 17 employees in total at about $466,000. Under the current model, we have 16 employees at around the $783,000. So just kind of give an idea of the differences there. From a funding standpoint, we are under the same interlocal agreement that we have been under. As we're all aware, we built a new facility that opened in 2024, I think the end of 2024. As part of the ILA, when we moved into that new facility, I guess it was March of 2025, it was right after we moved it, or... directly after moving into the new facility, that ILA shifted. So we used to pay, all three jurisdictions paid all costs 1 3rd evenly split. The ILA shifted in March of 2025 and moved to all three jurisdictions split evenly the base costs. So anything that is required to run the shelter, the director services, office supplies, HVAC, any additions or needs for the building. So those costs are split evenly. And then the usage cost is based on a rolling average of intakes. So, for example, based off this, in 2026, uses costs were developed off the two-year average of intakes, Kennewick being 39%, Pasco being 44%, and Richland at 17%. So just to kind of give you guys a little bit more in-depth picture of what the city of Kennewick is paying based off of these contracts as we've moved through the series in 2020 under the hybrid model with the contractor we were about 267 000 2021 is when we shifted to the humane society it was about 372 and then the jurisdiction of the city of pasco has been managing that facility basically since 2022 and on and you can see our cost escalation our 2026 costs are 1.1 million dollars coming from just the city of kennewick Given that the costs are kind of escalating at a very rapid rate, there has been some cost containment strategies that have been implemented within the facility. We do have a good volunteer program. They spend a lot of time, and that was based for the enrichment of the animals. From January to July of 2026, we've had 3,600-plus volunteer hours. They take on morning and afternoon walking shifts. and training programs to help reduce risk and liability we have brought in on-site medical services so we do have an in-house vet now that's just reducing our use of external services and medication as well as transporting the animals back and forth we do with the new facility have x-ray and dental machines on site again limiting those transport needs and then we do obtain medical and supply discounts Some programs and policies. As a municipal shelter, we do not provide rescue-type interventions, so board and training or fostering for long-term animals. We do have a foster program in place to reduce the risk and the liability of having those animals long-term within the facility, but they do still remain the property of the ACA while they're in that foster facility. So some 2025 outcomes, just these next couple of slides are some details of the numbers. Total intake for dogs was 1,243 in 2025 and cats was 1,814. We can see how many were returned after adoption, 59 dogs and 21 cats. We had 618 dogs adopted and 855 cats adopted. redeemed 284 cats 38 transferred to other facilities 233 dogs for her for cats Owner came back and claimed the animal, yeah. And then from a euthanasia aspect, we had 39 medical euthanasias for dogs and 217 for cats. Municipal code, which means a dangerous animal where they were deemed dangerous, was seven for dogs and then behavioral, too.

Mayor, what's the difference between the municipal code and the behavioral? Behavioral.

So municipal code would be any dog that's deemed a dangerous animal. That could be through the court system or as it's coming into the facility. And then behavioral would be if they are in the facility and have presented behavioral issues and after assessment have been deemed that they would not be acceptable for adoption.

Thank you.

From a dog intake standpoint, this slide kind of just lays out costing for day one intake, the staff time, the treatment, and the animal supplies, and then what day two through four look like for that stray hold. So the average animal care cost is about $124. The average spay-neuter costs about $70. So in 2025, with the dog intakes at $1,195, the estimated cost was about $232,000. Cat intake, same thing. Day one, looking at staff time, treatment, and animal supplies. So with an average animal care cost of $71, average spay-neuter cost of $38. And in 2025, with the 1,597 cat intakes, we were estimating $174,000. Euthanasia costs average about $50. So with the 217 cats, it was about $11,000. Maximum kennel capacity at the new facility for dogs, we have 75 kennels. Our average daily capacity from June through July was 54 dogs in the facility. Cat kennels, we have 68. Average daily attendance from June to July is 200. With cats, they could be housed together. So it gives us a little bit more flexibility there. The next set of slides really identifies some issues that we've been discussing as a committee and prior to coming forward to the councils. We've recognized that we have some length of stay issues, some behavioral issues, some costing issues. And so as we started kind of looking at some different policies to help implement Not only the health and safety of the animal, but the costing as well. It really came apparent that we needed to identify how we're running this facility so then we could set up the appropriate policies moving forward. So length of stay was one of them. There currently is no policy for length of stay in the facility. The committee feels that this should be addressed mostly for the well-being of the animal. There was some comments made earlier during visitor comments, you know, that these animals are in a kennel facility. The longer they're in that facility, the more stressed they become and as well as, you know, the more financial burden it is to the taxpayers as well. So this slide just kind of lays out the dogs with 14 plus day length of stay. We had a total of 301. And it kind of lays out the number of animals that were there or dogs and cats that were there from 14 days to 29 days and the cost of those from 30 to 89 days, 90 to 179 and 180 plus. It kind of goes through some costing there.

Aaron, on that chart. So is this a, does it continue on? So like, is the 301 inclusive of the 154? Right, so they were in there, and now they're moving here, and now it's getting smaller and smaller. Yes, that's correct. Thank you.

One of the other things is the non-standard adoption. This policy was implemented in mid-2023. The shelter currently says all animals, unless they have significant non-repairable medical injuries, are adoptable upon intake, which includes anything that requires medical care, spray, neuter, shots, and microchips. We've had eight dogs in the process of the non-standard adoption, so this is essentially an animal that initially presents, or over time, may present a trait that triggers the or triggers that could affect the staff or the volunteers or may not make it a viable option to put back into the public. So the process is, the request comes from the manager of the facility indicating that they're recognizing these traits in the animal. We then order an animal behavioral consultant to perform an assessment. If they also agree that there are behavioral issues, then we get another assessment by another trainer, mostly from a rescue behavioral looking at what their rehab potential may be. the tca manager reviews and determines um if this is a this should fall under that non-standard adoption policy and then if that is the case they publish a case file and notify shelters of the opportunity this animal is coming forward that stays out to the public for 72 hours and then if there is a shelter or a non-profit that steps up then the transfer of that animal starts to take place If not, then we start looking at other options, which may include the euthanasia process. This is a very lengthy process. A lot of times it starts over and over again, so that's where you see the length of stay continue to increase, and the care for the animal is not getting better at that time. So this is one thing we definitely need to take a look at, depending on what path we take.

Aaron, these eight dogs, are they the ones represented with the 180-day stay in the table above?

I would have to double check on that.

But a lot of the cost associated with their care is the length of time they're staying? There is a lot of it, yes. Okay, thank you.

The city of Pasco did have their legal team kind of take a look at this, especially from a Washington state standpoint of what we are required to do and what are the differences between a pound and a shelter. So there's no legal distinction in the state. It's left up to local control. However, if the service is provided, then there are the applicable legal requirements that must be met. So as you can see in our municipal codes, if we're taking in animals at large, we have the holdover that is required. So it goes back to that 72 and 48 hours. Some services create related care and optional obligations, as we've indicated. Obviously, reducing the regional services may shift some of these responsibilities back to member cities. So, for example, if we were to look at a different model for providing animal control based on the way our KMC is written out, we would have to take those on in-house rather than doing it in this manner. So the key points is reducing any services or sheltering does not eliminate responsibility, but it does change who provides that service and how it may be funded. Okay.

Oh, you're ahead of me, look at it go.

So as mentioned at the beginning, we are looking for policy direction today on how we want this facility to operate. Once we have that determination from council, as I indicated before, that's when we'll really start to dive into what these policy decisions are and then determine who takes the helm. So the three different models to consider this evening are do we operate this as just an animal control facility which would be the intake or the intent would be to keep animals for a minimum amount of time. So this would include that intake of those animals at large, dangerous animals, public safety assistance, sick and injured, and animal cruelty cases. We would just bring them in, do the holdover for the 72 hours for dogs and 48 hours for cats. then they would no longer be the responsibility and we would be looking to do we then have a separate contract with a nonprofit that would transfer those animals to a sheltering or a shelter facility A couple of items that we would have to address under this model would be, do we want to contract with a nonprofit for that shelter? Do we want a policy that we would continue to spay and neuter and microchip those animals as they're in there for that hold? And then what does the management committee look like in this regard? There's been a lot of comments and questions about the ACA management committee, which is currently made up of the three city managers. Given if we were just to operate as an animal control facility, there's been discussion that maybe that committee makes sense, but if we are to move more into the shelter option and looking at trying to foster out animals and have the ability to deem them dangerous or address other behavioral issues, then we think that committee needs to be broadened. So that would be something that we would look at should we move down the shelter facility option. So the shelter facility would have the intent of rehoming as many animals as possible and would provide a longer length of stay. So again, still covers the services of all the intake of at-large animals and then moves them into that shelter facility, so providing additional medical assistance for them, additional care, and looking to rehome those animals through adoption and fostering programs. Some, as we discussed, we would be looking at policy changes to the non-standard adoption policy. We would be looking for policies for dangerous animals that would be owned by the ACA. And then also looking at policies that would expand that management committee should we go down that path. And then the last option is the animal control shelter facility hybrid and this kind of mirrors what we had done prior to the jurisdictions taking this over. So the intent is that the jurisdiction would keep animal. would basically cover the cost and keep the animals for the minimal amount of time so that the animal control services, but then would retain, so we would retain that and then contract with a non-profit to care for during the stray hole period and then the animals would transition to the ownership of the non-profit at the end of that period. No funding from the ACA for sheltering and use of the facility. The contractor would be required to maintain certain capacity in that facility for those intake needs. And then what would the ACA committee look like in that regard? So essentially, do we operate as a strict animal control facility pound where we just hold the animal for the holdover time period? Do we operate as a full-blown shelter facility? under the current model that we're doing? Or do we do a hybrid where we are funding and paying for animal control services and contracting a nonprofit to run our facility and take on the sheltering side of things? So those will be what's in front of you. And then also just really quickly from an animal control services discussion, as I indicated before, we currently have three officers covering the Tri-Cities area. One question we wanted to kind of put in front of council is the service level. Are you hearing from the community that those expectations for those animals at large and so forth are not being met? And then the other things that we would like to take a look at as part of this process are consistency between the three cities' municipal codes in regards to how we're treating animals and dangerous animals and so forth, as well as reviewing and looking at owner redemption and boarding fees to kind of help recoup some of the costs that we're putting out for these animals that we're collecting at large. So with that, I will turn it over for questions and be looking for some direction on the type of model that council is interested in providing to the community.

Mr. Mayor?

Mayor Pro Tempore.

Erin, on slide 10, the ACA funding issue, so it shows our 26 as $1.1 million. Of that $1.1 million, how much of that is the base cost and how much of that is that 39%? Do you have those numbers?

I don't off of hand, but I can get that for you.

Oh, okay. Yeah, I'd just be curious.

Yeah, I do have a monthly bill here, so that might help. So for example, April of 2025, we paid 27,900 in base fee and 36,600 in the usage fee. So the base fee for that month was $83,000 and usage fee was 102 total for the facility, if that helps.

That does, thank you. Council Member Anderson.

I think this is a no-win situation regardless of how we look at it because you've got the sort of an opposing viewpoints. A good friend has animals and he's very basic in the animal hiccups and they're eight years old, let's put them down. And his wife is the exact opposite, mortgage the house, sell everything, spend unlimited dollars on the animals. And I think people are the same way. I mean, I think you're going to have one extreme and the other extreme. I think we as a council have to steward the city resources and say, how much are we spending and how is that relative to the rest of our budget and how much money can we spend? And I think, you know, as a city, we ought to look at spending the minimum amount of money on something like this. When you look at the other programs that the city will forego in 2020, in lieu of this, you know, I mean, pavement preservation is not a lot more than what we're spending on this, and that's for 800 miles of roads. So I think we have to look at this, and I like the hybrid model because I think for animal care, I think you really should have a lot of volunteers and you should have nonprofits and the people who have the, you know, greatest interest in doing the good deeds and taking care of these animals i think that's a good thing for the community to have volunteerism so i think you have a combination of the municipality providing the basic level of services and then we contract out number one contracting out saves a lot of money they're able to do it cheaper than the city can do it but then it requires volunteerism which i think is a good requirement for a facility like this i think it's a great thing you know i've taken my kids and In years past, when they were younger, we would go and take animals for walks, and it was a great thing for our family. So that would be my support, is to look at a hybrid model.

Thank you. Other comments? Council Member Cooper?

My question is similar to what was just spoken. Is there a cost difference breakdown of the three models at this time, or no? I wouldn't think there is, but if there was, I'd love to see it.

Yeah, the only thing we have is the history that we kind of went through. So we basically ran a hybrid model from 2004 to 2021, and those costs ranged from $430,000 to $875,000. When we went to the jurisdiction running the facility as kind of a full-on shelter facility, we're at $2.34 million right now. I don't have numbers for what just a pound facility because we haven't ran one of those before.

Thank you. Yes. Council Member Millar. Thank you, Mayor. We're running this. You're looking for a consensus or a vote on one of those three. I would assume the other two jurisdictions, cities, are doing the same thing.

Yes. The city of Pasco and Richland will be discussing this at their next week meetings.

So... if we say we're going to go with the animal control facility here the other two jurisdictions pick one picks the animal shelter one picks the hybrid are we looking for consensus from all three cities too because if that's the case i think we ought to go with a different format to do this because we're not going to get through it the other thing would be uh as councilman anderson said this is probably an emotional subject financially speaking we got to deal with it because budget-wise i don't know how we will What are we doing by whether we pick one of these three options or not? I mean, are we really addressing the issue at hand? I don't think we are. I think we're putting a bandaid on a situation through a facility versus addressing why do we have stray dogs, why do we have stray cats, and why do they keep coming back? Is it because people get a pet because their kids want it and I don't want it to let it loose in the desert? Maybe we need to look financially to spend our money a little bit better direction to answer those type of questions. Similar to what we're doing for people, if you will, whether it's through the recovery center or homeless or affordable housing, I don't think we spend enough money to deal with affordable housing or homelessness to address the issue that's happened to people versus pets. So, I mean, I'd be more of an animal control facility, but I'd have to put some more thought into this before I can make a decision, to be honest with you. And I think that perhaps if there's some way of handling one council member with the three, or one council meeting with the three cities, I don't know, but to discuss it in some manner or another, whether it's through a, I don't know how you go about doing that.

We've actually had that discussion, and so I think this is our initial attempt to present to all three councils and kind of see where consensus or where opinions lie, and then we will have to figure that out and see what next steps we'll need to take.

Thank you.

Council Member Vito. So this isn't new. Obviously, we've been talking about this for six and a half years since I've sat here for different reasons, I think, throughout. And I don't even fully say that I can remember all the different reasonings and how it's all changed. And there's been a lot of different organizations. And I don't have them all clear in my head. I think I understand how we operate this currently. With that being said, if we said, hey, the city's responsibility is to do an animal control facility. I think in the past, on this hybrid model, the problem was the nonprofit, right? Isn't that where we fell into and had all of the major problems? I don't know if that was the embezzlement side or the animal care side, or I think it was all the above, right? So do we have anybody in mind as a nonprofit that's saying, yeah, we're ready to step up and take that, and it not only lowers our cost, but we have somebody that is available to do that?

I think there are entities and nonprofits out there that are available to do that. We have not gone down the path of seeing who would be interested. Our first step is determining how we want to manage the shelter. And then before we would move into that model, we would get some policies in place so that we're setting up how we want that to function before going out for the request for a proposal.

My opinion is we probably have a duty for the animal control facility as a city. and we're obviously just looking at this very quick slideshow. We're not very good at taking the other side of this, um, city staff stepped up and I think it's doing the best we can, but there's probably people out there. This is what they do and they have a passion for it and get them involved much more than what we are able to do. Um, I'd much prefer to see that. Let us do, this will sound bad. I have multiple dogs. I've had dogs forever and ever. So, um, The city should do the minimum amount to get it over to the people who know what they're doing. And we should get out of the animal care business. I don't think we do a very good job of it. We throw a lot of money at it, and I would say it sounds to me like a lot of the people that have the knowledge aren't super happy with how it's running anyway.

So let the professionals do it.

So hopefully there's an organization to step up, but that would be mine. The animal control side, do what we have to, and then let them take over and do it. that would be the first one for you well i guess it's the third one yeah the hybrids well i'm saying the only part that we i don't want to have any part of the the hybrid side i'm saying for me i'm just saying we do we just offer the animal control facility i don't know in the hybrid side are we still involved with the non-profit side i mean i'm trying to cut ties saying we're going to participate in this and they can

Yeah, so on the hybrid side, the nonprofit would manage the facility side, so the intakes, which would be under ownership of the ACA until that holdover is done, and then they would transfer to the nonprofit for the sheltering side. But utilizing the facility. Under the facility piece, we would operate the facility for the holdover and then look to find a place to transfer them out to another shelter facility.

I would love that. I mean, we just spent a lot of money building a big facility that I don't know is underutilized at that point. Now you're telling a nonprofit to step up and, you know, we've got this big, beautiful building and now go operate out of the kind of building we just tore down. That's tough for me. I would prefer to do it. Yes, just what number one says, operate ours as an animal control, but I can see there's some huge problems. But that would be my first one, yes. We just have an intake and then we do our hold and they're gone to somewhere else. not not utilizing that facility for that yeah in a perfect rainbow world yeah that would be i'm just i'm just asking for i don't i don't see how that works but if there was an organization i would assume that that organization would already be talking to us if there was a big facility that was out there able to take that i would assume that we'd already know about it but that's where i would start down um number two would be the hybrid version that they could operate within our building

That would be option three. To the right.

I should have numbered them, that's my bad.

By the prioritization, okay, I got you. Council Member Trumbo, did you have anything you wanted to add?

I don't think it would be very helpful, but let me just say that I think that the problem that exists here is the same problem that existed the last time I had to be face-to-face with this. which is, it's not animals, it's the owners. It's the owners who have created the crisis. And that's a tough one, but I would like the owners to be smothered with guilt. That's what I would like. Understand that they are the problem. And having expressed my frustration, finding a solution for that is difficult. You're asking for peace in the Middle East. Yeah, right. The best probable, I don't know, but the best probable answer for this is the animal shelter facility for the animals. But we have a problem here, and it's real, and it's money. And I have a question that relates to that. Without changing my screen here dramatically, we have something well over a million dollars for 2026, right?

That's correct.

I presume that's not an estimate, that's where we are.

Pretty much where we'll land for next year.

So the two years prior, 25 and then 24, it's odd. is a larger number than 24, and I'm just wondering why that is.

You mean 24 is a larger than 25?

That's not what I'm thinking. 24 is a higher number.

24 is a little bit higher. It's 859,025.

Let me see if I can find my way back there so that I don't make things stupid. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Slide 10.

Well, I don't have slide 10. It's right behind you. It's also on the big screen behind you there, Jonathan.

Okay. Yeah, 24. I misspoke. I'm sorry. 24 is 859 and 25 is 844. Is there a reason why I can?

I would attribute it to intakes, how many animals were put through the facility.

Originated in Kennewick. So the usage, right?

Yeah, the usage, yeah.

Going back a little farther, just roughing them out, we got 100,000. getting from 20 to 21. We've got 180, whatever it is, to 2022. We've got about the same to 23. And then we have less than 100 to get to 2024. And then we have a drop. And then we see this huge leap, and I don't understand why.

Part of that, too, is the interlocal agreement shifted on how they charge the jurisdictions in 2025. So in 2025, it shifted to usage.

Yeah, it shifted to the usage thing.

And it's based off of, right now, it's based off a two-year rolling average because that's all the data we have. The ILA states that it will be a three-year rolling average, excuse me, going on into the future as we have that data.

Well, I heard some things tonight that talked about the value of volunteers and why volunteers bring love, compassion, and all the good things that animals need. And I don't know if the volunteers understand this, but they just got themselves a lifetime job. And, of course, they know that already. I think the best way for us to go is to try to balance all the pieces by saying, if at all possible, go with the animal shelter model and build into it as many volunteers as you possibly can. I don't know what else to do because the dollar signs are significant enough in light of the other dollar signs that we are looking at here in the city for other things, swimming pools, museum stuff, All these kinds of things, fire stations, some of that is not coming out of the pot here. But the point I'm trying to make here is we have to be prudent with the money. We really do. I don't know what to say about that beyond that. You know, my heart goes out to people who have pets and love animals. But you can't do everything. And to be honest, you can shoot me later. People are more important. Sorry about that.

So essentially under the hybrid method, if we don't find a contractor, we are defaulting to an animal control facility just by definition, right? So I would favor the hybrid method because that at least is for doing the outreach. And I understand what Council Member Beecham was saying, but I think at this point, because it's so new in the process, nobody's had time to reach out to us. So there can be entities out there that truly would be interested in this. And as far as coordinating three city councils, I understand what Council Member Milbauer is saying, but I'm thinking if we get at least some sense of consensus from one of the councils, you end up kind of leading the charge, and then the details are going to be hammered out by staff as opposed to council, where we kind of end up with our compromise, what this looks like. And it could be another interlocal agreement that changes the cost structure.

I think whatever path we take, we're probably going to end up having to redo an interlocal, which would come back to councils based on those policies and directions. Okay.

So just a couple of things. You know, Aaron, you'd asked a few other questions about service level. And I think it has a question for me on the usage rate. The number one complaint I have about animal control is they never show up. And I'm not trying to exaggerate, but I have not had a single person that I've talked to that has said that they've ever had animal control actually come and deal with an issue in Kennewick. all of the calls that I receive are complaints that they haven't. Now I recognize that that might mean that the people that are getting help are not calling, right? But I would just say that the majority of people I talk to have had that same experience. A couple years ago we had the experience with a couple of dogs in and around Canyon Lakes. We've had other experiences across the area. And so one of the questions I guess I have is, is the usage rate based on the number of phone calls or the number of resolved cases? Because if our Kennewick residents, and I have heard this complaint, I'm not just bringing this tonight, but I have heard this complaint that Richland seems to get control, actual response, and people in Kennewick are not actually having animal control show up. I have family that live in Richland, have heard this from other people, and so it's part of the reason that the Richland usage rate lowered. that animal control is actually over there and not in Kennewick and not responding to calls as well in Kennewick. I just am curious as to what that is. Is it actual resolved cases or is it calls for service that may or may not have been resolved?

Calls for service, so this is based on intake of animals.

Okay, so this is not based on telephone calls that come in. I recognize the differences there, but I would say from a service level perspective, though, I think there is a problem where we're not getting animals resolved. And like I said, I've heard that consistently. I've heard concerns that animal control says their hands are tied, they can't help with certain things, and so on. And so your second question about consistency between the jurisdictions I think is critical, and I think your recommendation that we get to a point where all the jurisdictions have similar rules. And I don't know how you do that with different councils, but I think we try to do it. I think we need to express effort to do that. The other question you asked was in regards to fee recovery from owners, and I'm supportive of looking at a model where if we have an owner that a dog has gotten out, And I don't know if it's a first one's free, the second one is cost or whatever that model looks. But I think it's important that if we have an animal that's getting loose because the owner is not being responsible, that they're paying for that cost. I don't think their neighbors should have to pay for that cost. As far as the different models, it seems to me like the animal control facility, as we state, is probably the least expensive, but I'm not quite sure I understand. If we intake an animal and there isn't a resolution for the animal, do we have a responsibility to find a home for the animal or are we able to go and just put the animal back where it was? How does that exactly work?

So that's all policy-level decisions that can be determined based on KMC. Currently, we just have the animal control services with the required holdover to find owners. There is really no direction at this point or requirement to shelter that animal.

And so what would happen in the event of an animal control? I'm going to call it option one because it's on the left because it's priority. Okay. option one that's on the left what what's the result of this i mean i i'm not i'm just trying to wrap my head around if we say okay we're going to do the 72 hour hold but then we choose not to do the other things what happens to these animals at the end of that 72 hours so that's where we're looking to have a non-profit or a shelter facility step up and take these animals or we have to start looking at euthanasia of these that would be the alternative yes And so just looking at the three alternatives as they're presented today, it sure seems like, and we've heard some comments this evening, I've received some comments via email and otherwise leading up to this meeting, it does seem like some type of nonprofit or other agency that has a real passion for this may be better suited than hired city staff. And so I think the animal control slash shelter facility especially seemingly as we've already made the major capital investment in building the facility seems like the best option to me i do want to recognize other comments that council members have made about control being our responsibility and that's we need to be judicious with the funding that we have and so in the event of the shelter facility hybrid are we actually or would we be paying for the non-profit to use the facility and provide some services or in that idea is that We've provided our share, the animal control side, and then we're allowing someone else to utilize the facility on their own accord to do the rest.

That's correct. And within that hybrid model, they would basically be doing the holdover piece. They would be managing that, and then once that holdover time, then it would transfer ownership to the nonprofit or the contractor at that point. They would be able to utilize the facility and manage it in both ways. Some of the things that we've talked about is making sure that there is enough kennels that would stay open for animal control needs. So we would have to figure out how many could be utilized for shelter services versus animal control needs.

No, I think it makes sense to me. So we would not have any... city staff right pasco would be in the administrative city at this point but we would not have any city staff operating in that facility would all be a contractor and we would be overseeing supervising i mean i heard some of the things that were brought to concerns obviously providing oversight and ensuring that the contractor is fulfilling all the obligations that they need to

Exactly. So basically, we are still holding the policies and how that animal control and those stray holds would be managed, but we would be contracting with a nonprofit or an outside organization. party to do that and so we have a contract we're writing which could which could then require them to have on-site veterinary services you know the other x-ray you know all the different things we talk about that kind of moves into the shelter facility so that would be the part that we wouldn't control in the hybrid model that would be up to how that contractor wanted to do that we would be controlling the holdover and the animal control operation side but then transferring that animal to the contractor

Could we not, though, require minimum activities? If you're going to use the facility, you have to provide these things.

We could, and some of that, when we look at the animal control side, we need to look at policies. Are we going to move down the spay and neuter side when they're in that holdover, and do we require them to be spay and neutered before they move into a sheltered facility? Those are all policies that we'll have to take a look at depending on what model we decide to go with.

Okay. Mr. Mayor? Yes, Mayor Pro Temporelli.

Just for clarity, for my own sake, the animal goes through intake, put it in a kennel, and after 48 hours, in the case of a dog, he doesn't necessarily move out of the kennel. He's just designated you're now a shelter animal instead of an animal control animal.

Essentially, yes.

It's not shifting animal bodies around.

Not in the hybrid model.

It's just shifting designations. So somebody else is going to look after you tomorrow because they work for the volunteer and I'm out kind of thing.

Well, it would be the same people, but it would just be under different ownership at that point.

It's the way I understand it. Thank you.

So we're looking for some level of consensus as a council for you. Erin, do you feel like you've received enough information from council this evening, or do you want kind of an up and down priority? What would you like to have tonight?

I've heard from three the hybrid, so that seems to be the winning model. Beecham was facilitated with a second option of hybrid, so if he goes hybrid, then we can count to four. Mr. Trumbo, you had indicated animal shelter facility with a lot of volunteers. Did you mean the jurisdictions run a full shelter facility, or would you like the hybrid model approach?

Obviously, I'm not specific enough for you, but what I'm really counting as valuable is heavy reliance on volunteers. It would probably be best if it was hybrid.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

The other thing that I failed to mention is, and I don't know, could be asking for more trouble, because people can sometimes be as much trouble or more than animals. But having this, expanding the committee is, I've had plenty of contact in the community about that's necessary. It's like holding the system accountable. Apparently, there have been issues that have come up that have made people very unhappy, and it would be better if there would be a representative from the council of each city sitting on this panel. I'm not sure I agree with that. but oversight apparently has not been good enough in the past. I just wanted to give you that as a talking point when the three city managers get together to make sure that things don't fall apart inside like they apparently have in the past. Thank you.

All right, so it looks like we have a leading towards hybrid.

Is mine included in that forer?

I have Anderson hybrid, Trumbo hybrid, Torelli hybrid, McShane hybrid.

Okay. I was just making sure I was included with that. I will say that as part of the ACA Management Committee, and I would just ask you to think about this, if the city manager's focus is not, because you have so many other things, if it makes more sense to have that be focused through a parks director or someone else, I wouldn't mind seeing that not be a city manager required activity. I think that could be delegated to somebody that, perhaps has additional focus on those things. So that's just my opinion of that. And if we wanted to have additional council type or other appointed additional assistance, that's not shown on option three, but I think that that would be something I would be open to talking through.

Yeah, and as we indicated before, I think whatever path we go down is probably going to require an update to the ILA, and that is where that is indicated. So we can take a look at that.

Okay.

All right, well, I will report back to the other cities. We'll see how their meetings go next week, and then we will determine next steps. So thank you very much.

Mr. Mayor, I think Lisa was blinking at me that she wanted to be that in charge, but I couldn't tell what her blinks meant just throwing that out there. I wasn't going to make it easy. Did you see it too? Okay, I'm sorry.

I think it is an important thing that we provide in our community. As we're parting from this conversation, I think something that was said somewhere along the way is really important, and that is that if we don't prioritize this, this problem will get worse. As we looked at some of the numbers of animals, I mean, there was a mention here this evening of 50,000. I didn't know if I got it right, is it 50,000 stray cats in Tri-Cities? And we have touched just a small fraction of those. And so that number I'm sure multiplies very rapidly as I remember from my youth and childhood having cats with kittens. One particularly productive kitty that I think had something like 20 kittens by the time she was done having cats. So anyway, I do think it's important that we don't just focus on the shelter and animal side of this. I think we need to focus also on resources towards dealing with the problem more closely at its source if we can. And I don't know if that's a one-time funding thing to help try to slow the progress of, again, I'm picking on cats at this point, but slow the progress of additional cats propagating or something. I had a call just this evening as we were getting ready for this meeting for someone that there's 27 cats in their neighborhood being fed by one of the neighbors, and these cats are all over their house and things that they aren't any part of, and wanted to make sure that we were addressing some of those issues. And so I think it's important we recognize it's not just about the shelter side, right? It's about the prevention side as well.

Okay.

All right. Next for consideration is the 2027-2029 IAFF Collective Bargaining Agreement. And Chad, will you give us a staff report, please?

Yes. Thank you, Mayor. So first of all, I would just want to address two things real quick. Number one, I just want to, on behalf of the city, express our appreciation to the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1296. As we entered into this negotiations, we had a very collaborative approach to this where we were able to put out our interest. and have difficult, complex conversations, but keeping the professionalism and the respect of listening and communicating to one another was just really above bar and above standard. So appreciate that to the local 1296, specifically the negotiations team. Number two, I want to make a quick correction that is listed here in the summary page. Under motion for consideration, it labels this as the 2026-2028 collective bargaining agreement. It should be 2027-2029. That is my error, failed to correct that. So I apologize for that and wanted to make the correction on record. Jumping into the staff summary here, I'll go through some of these highlights. The first thing is the proposed 2027-2029 CBA between the City of Kennewick and the local 1296. represents a three-year labor agreement. This agreement does address changes to wages, benefits, and working conditions. In addition, I just want to point out that the agreement's intention was to provide a labor stability through December 31, 2029. I want to point out a key financial component of this agreement is a series of 3% general wage increases in the year of 2027, 2028, and 2029. And then we have some ancillary compensation changes as well, specifically to assignments and certifications. Probably one of the most significant operational change that we agreed upon was the implementation of a 24-day FLSA work cycle, changing to a 4896-style work period. schedule shift for these personnel under the revised schedule employees work two consecutive 20-hour periods followed by 96 hours off with kelly days incorporated into the work cycle i also want to point out that the agreement also restructures the city's employees medical premium cost this is one of the difficult conversations we had in appreciation to Local 1296 for understanding the burden that we have as a city as we have the incurring of the high medical costs that everybody's experiencing in every field of work. And their ability to come to the table and really see the burden in our budget and have these difficult conversations. We were able to increase their burden from 5% to 10%. With that, we were able to provide an option that would be beneficial both to the employee and the city as well through a high deductible health plan where the employer will receive a contribution to their health savings account and they will not have to pay a premium share in this lowers or maximum out-of-pocket cost. This also reduces tremendously the cost to the city. So this is beneficial both to the employee and the employer. Also want to point out that effective January, 2027, we're making a change to the sick leave accumulation. It will be reducing from 644 hours to 1,296. That's a significant move on the part of the IAFF to reduce the liability that is on the city to hold those type of hours for each firefighter. So appreciate that. The agreement further updates several fire department organizational and specialty assignments. Probably the biggest one I want to point out is the administrative captain provisions are being substantially revised to address the EMS, the logistic in the fire training captain positions. This is going to open up the opportunity to allow more firefighters to have the ability to go into these positions than what was normally in the prior being restricted only to hard bar captains. I also want to point out that in addition to that, we were also able to agree to allowing firefighters who are certified paramedics at the time of their promotion to battalion chiefs to be able to keep that paramedic certification. This was a contention for a long time standing at the city. We were having a tremendous time of trying to fill these vacancies. And with this change, we will be able to fill these vacancies as immediately upon ratification, we have two individuals that will be stepping into those positions. In addition, I just want to point out again that the proposed agreement provides the city and the IAFF local 1296 with three years of labor stability while making meaningful changes to the fire departments, scheduling, employee benefits, leave administration, specialized assignments, and compensation. From a management perspective, the agreement provides a greater definition around several administrative and specialty positions while also modernizing our health plan options and certain payroll and leave practices. And with that, I would be willing to answer any questions.

Does Council have any questions of staff? If there are no questions, I'll entertain a motion. Mayor? Council Member Anderson.

I move to authorize the execution of the 2027 to 2029 collective bargaining agreement with the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1296, as presented.

Is there a second?

Mr. Mayor, I'll second it.

Okay. Mayor Pro Temporelli. I was going to say, he's fast. All right. It has been moved by Council Member Anderson and seconded by Mayor Pro Temporelli to authorize the execution of of the 2027 to 2029 collective bargaining agreement with the International Association of Firefighters, local number 1296, as presented. The floor is open for discussion.

Mayor McShane.

Yeah, Council Member Trumbull.

I think there's been good progress with this contract agreement. I'm aware that it was... done through a new strategy of negotiations. It was kind of a change up to a new way of doing things. I believe I'm right in saying that. And I think that that has shown itself to be beneficial. I'm appreciative of it. I am going to vote against this. because with this changeup and with these apparent positive dialogues that occurred, I see absolutely no reason why this could not continue with open, observable negotiations involving members of the fire department through this labor union group and the public and the council and the news media for observation purposes only, not for conversation, but just to be able to see how smoothly this kind of negotiation system works. There's pluses, and I'm voting no as I am objecting to this. I'm voting no because I think it can be improved upon in the next round, if that makes any sense to anyone. Thank you. That's all.

Additional discussion? All right, if there's no additional discussion, it has been properly moved and seconded to authorize execution of the 2027 through 2029 collective bargaining agreement with the International Association of Firefighters, local number 1296 as presented. Will the clerk please start the vote? That motion is passed six to one. I just want to express appreciation as we depart from this for all the work that's been done both by staff and as was recognized by the local as well who work collaboratively to do this. This is a lot of work to do these collective bargaining agreements and to come out with an outcome like this I think is really great. So a lot of effort's been done. I want to make sure to express appreciation for those efforts. Now we're on to council comments and we will start with Council Member Trimble.

I do not have anything I wish to share. I have, as the council knows, had a difficult several weeks in which I have missed some meetings, and I'm just trying to catch up. Thank you. Council Member Klipper.

Just having attended the flag-raising ceremony on the morning of 9-11-2026, I just want to thank all the first responders, everybody who made the events that took place that day in Kennewick, recognizing what happened 25 years ago. Just thank you, and thanks to all the first responders, the veterans. Appreciate you all.

That's all. Mayor Proctor-Trolley.

for the sake of brevity nothing yes thank you mayor I just want to thank everyone that came in as visitors and spoke to us about your concerns appreciate hearing from you I want to thank city manager urban for kind words at the podium for my certificate thank you very much I disagree with Council Member Trumbo's rendition of the negotiations and open public. I think it just was proven today and that what they did between the two parties was collaborative, worked well together, no harm, no foul. So I appreciate everyone's involvement from the union to the staff and working together to get that done. Mr. Jeremy, if you have a minute for a question afterwards, I'd appreciate it. With that, I wish you all a fair night. Thank you. Council Member Anderson, did you say you did have something?

I did have something. I was trying to be fast like Chuck. On Friday, just as a reminder, there is the focus group, the police officers. It's a tailgate party at the high school, but it's the collaboration between the SROs and the Kennewick Police Department and the Kennewick School District. And there's the football game. It is Kennewick-Camaican? I cannot remember. Who knows? Anyway, there's a tailgate party at Lampson.

Lampson Stadium starts at 4.

And the Tri-Tech students put on the meal, and it's fantastic, and it's a fundraiser for the police department that they use to help fund the kids' year-end parties and some other things. So I can't remember the price. We were debating what the price is. That's for next year. But anyway, it's $4 for students and $10 for a family or $15 for a family or something like that. And so go there, take your family, take your kids. It's always fun. The band will be playing. There'll be music and things like that. Thanks.

Thank you. I just wanted to say thanks to the planning staff. and we don't have to hear about the comp plan for a while more, so I'm super excited. So they're more excited than I am, so don't get – no, I know that's a tremendous amount of work. It goes unsaid, but, you know, that is a lot of stuff we've heard for a long time. So I appreciate everybody that's in the playing department doing that and getting through it. So that's it. All right. Mr. Erdogan.

Yes, I just want to let Council know that there is Art in the Park this weekend, Friday and Saturday, the 18th and 19th, Cowayton Park, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. It celebrates regional artists and will also serve as a fundraiser for the SoCo District. As Warren mentioned earlier, we do have a meeting to meet with some downtown businesses and our planning staff tomorrow to kind of help with that process. And then I just want to quickly thank our police department, fire department, our parks and rec department, as well as council for putting on the great 9-11 ceremony last Friday. And thank you to the mayor for speaking.

Thank you. Yeah, it was a great activity on Friday. If you didn't get a chance to come up and see the Field of Remembrance, it was really quite something to see. It was really quite something to see. Again, got a lot of compliments from others about the way that we'd run that program and what a wonderful opportunity it was to hear the stories and to share our experiences with folks, both from our community and not from our community. With that, I think that the only other thing I was gonna add is that I do have a speaking engagement at the WFOA, that's the Washington Finance Officers Association starting tomorrow, kick off tomorrow here in Kennewick. I'm so excited to provide representation for our city at that. I do wanna express appreciation also for all the time this evening and for all those who stuck it out with us all the way to the bitter end. I appreciate the opportunity to hear from people tonight. And there's no further business on tonight's agenda. It's now 9-19, and the meeting is concluded.