Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. Welcome back, everyone, to the 07/23/2025 meeting of the Redmond Planning Commission. I'd like to call this meeting to order. We'll start with the roll call. Commissioner Aparna?

Present.

Commissioner Coleman?

Present.

Commissioner Copely?

Present.

Commissioner Gagne? Present. Commissioner Van Nyman? Present. And I am chair Weston. Vice chair Woodier is excused. I'd like to thank the following staff for being present tonight, Jeff Churchill, Glenn Coyle, Ami Corconi, Mike Despin, and Chip Cornwell. I look for a motion to approve the agenda.

So moved.

Second. All in favor.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Alright. And before we approve, previous minutes, just want to note that there was a typo in the June 25 summary. Header on page two should be updated with the correct date. Are there any other corrections? No. Okay. In that case, I look for a motion to approve the meeting minutes from July sorry. 06/11/2025 and the meeting summary from 06/25/2025.

So moved.

Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Thank

you. That's approved. Now it's time for us to hear public comment and items for the audience. A reminder that RCW forty two seventeen a five five five prohibits any public comment in support of or opposition to ballot propositions, measures, or candidates. Who do we have tonight?

Hi. We have one public comment tonight from David Morton.

Alright. If you could keep your minute comments to three minutes and start with your name and address.

Good evening, planning commissioners. I'm David Morton, Redmond 98053. I'd like to speak in support of agenda item five, the twenty twenty five to twenty fifty Redmond fire functional plan. This plan is a critical strategic road map designed to ensure that the Redmond fire department can continue its vital mission of compassionately, proactively, and professionally protecting life, property, and the environment through 2050. It directly addresses Redmond's evolving needs, The city's increasing population vertical development and the emergence of new risk areas demand a modern resilient and highly effective fire and emergency services system.

The fire functional plan is not a standalone document. It's deeply integrated with existing city frameworks. It aligns seamlessly with the Washington State Growth Management Act or GMA and with the Redmond 2050 comprehensive plan, particularly its capital facilities element. This integration ensures that fire station locations, apparatus capabilities, and service models are synchronized with projected growth patterns and population shifts across the city, providing a cohesive framework for future development. A key benefit of this plan is its forward thinking approach to capital investments and long term fiscal sustainability.

It identifies critical needs such as the completion of Fire Station 17, the essential modernization of Station 11, the establishment of a centralized logistics and support facility, and the strategic relocation of Fire Station 12 into city limits for improved response. Critically, this plan enables Redmond to utilize fire impact fees for the first time under the GMA. This innovative approach allows the city to recover a portion of infrastructure costs from new development and ensures that growth contributes to the essential public services that the city relies upon. The plan also emphasizes equity, sustainability, and resilience, Prioritizing inclusive facility design, actively addressing potential response time disparities, and incorporating green building practices and the transition to electric equipment. Your recommendation to adopt this plan is vital.

It will strengthen the city's compliance with call concurrency and adequate public facilities requirements aligned with vision twenty fifty's emphasis on livability and infrastructure readiness and support integrated capital planning for essential public facilities and services. This plan is a proactive and essential step towards ensuring that Redmond remains a safe, resilient, and future ready community for generations to come. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. So next we will move on to our study session on the 2025 fire functional plan. I'd like

to bring up Ami Corconi and Mike Despin. Thank you very much, commissioners. Appreciate being here this evening. Nice to see you all again after our introduction. Again, for the record, my name is Ami Corconi, deputy fire chief in the Redmond Fire Department. I have with me this evening, our interim deputy fire chief, Mike Despain. Tonight, we're going to be introducing a major milestone in our department's long range planning, our 2025 through 2050 Redmond Fire Functional Plan. This plan is the first of its kind for the Redmond Fire Department, and we're excited to share what it means for the city's capital future. So this slide outlines our three goals for tonight with you. One is to introduce you to the fire functional plan and its purpose.

We are also going to help confirm how it aligns with both the Growth Management Act and the Redmond 2050 plan. And we're gonna request your recommendation to formally adopt this plan into the capital facilities element of the comp plan. And again, this isn't just a document we're talking about tonight. It's our strategic lever that supports our future readiness and our capital alignment. This amendment will give the Redmond Fire Department a seat at the long range planning table.

By referencing the fire functional plan and the comprehensive plan, we improve our ability to proactively plan for growth, assess our infrastructure needs, and align with the GMA's adequacy requirements for public services. This plan is a bridge between our operational reality and the citywide planning vision. The amendment brings real benefits across multiple domains. It's gonna strengthen our concurrency. It aligns with Redmond fifty and the Vision twenty fifty.

It's gonna help advance equity, and it improves our capital planning discipline. Importantly, the plan is not a green light for construction. It's simply a policy tool that will continue to guide how we plan, prioritize, and communicate with transparency, especially when we start to experience more growth in our areas like the downtown and Overlake neighborhoods. So this slide connects the plan directly to the capital facilities policies. CF one and CF two require that functional plans assess service needs, provide an inventory of what we currently have, and then forecast growth adjusted needs.

The FHIR functional plan delivers on all of those fronts, especially through chapter four in the analysis of our current conditions and our future demands. Chapter seven of the plan helps us align with the capital facility requirements seven through 13, which focus on a capital investment strategy and demonstrating fiscal responsibility. We've integrated long term forecasting. We've coordinated with our CIP teams, and we've established that a fair share of the impact fees will help contribute to the cost of construction to implement a lot of these measures. This framework is critical to responsibly growing our fire and EMS system as Redmond continues to evolve.

We've also built alignment with the city's environmental sustainability action plan. Chapter five assesses our facility's readiness for electrification and green infrastructure. And at the same time, we've embedded equity principles, which we demonstrate in both chapters four and six, where we identify service gaps and we ensure that we're prioritizing and maintaining historically underserved community with our fire services. Finally, we've made sure that the plan supports regional goals as well. We've integrated projections and policy direction from the King County CPPs, particularly related to the population and employment growth.

Chapter five reflects this system needs assessment so that our planning supports Redmond's role in the broader metro ecosystem. So to reiterate what's at stake, adopting the FHIR functional plan by reference allows us to stay proactive, prepared, and policy aligned. It ties together response times, our staffing, our facility conditions, and our community expectations under one cohesive plan. Our technical review shows that the proposal meets all of the criteria for a comprehensive plan amendment. The Staff Report and Technical Committee Analysis that's in your packet supports the approval.

And we're asking for your recommendations to move forward with this adoption. The plan ahead is tonight our study session with you all, and we're here to answer any questions you have. And then the public hearing on August 13. We are anticipating to then receive your recommendations at the meeting on October I'm sorry, August 27. And then finally, we'll be bringing our plan to city council in October with the hopes of having it adopted in early November.

So what we're doing is we're moving at a pace that allows for input and transparency from the public and you, and then allowing us to be able to line up strategically with a lot of the other planning activities that are coming down the pipeline right after us. So thank you. We are available now for your questions And happy to provide any further details you may have about the plan. Mike is our guru when it comes to some of the fire service things. And so we open it and turn it back over to you.

Alright, thank you. So I think what we're going to do is we're going to start an issues matrix. So commissioners can go around, ask their questions. If you can record them with the commissioner who

Ask the question.

Ask the questions, so that they have a chance to come back and sign off when they get a response. And then also for commissioners, if there are any things where you just want clarification, but it doesn't necessarily have to go to the matrix, as always, feel free to ask that way. So opening it up, any comments or questions from the commission? Commissioner Copely.

Thank you guys for being here. In 2023, SB 5,491 was passed, which, allowed for single stairwell structures in multifamily buildings. That, however, won't require cities to adopt those types of buildings. How does the plan think about the pros and cons of those types of buildings as it relates to safety, but also changes and, you know, how we're going to be able to build the city.

Yeah. The fire functional plan is gonna focus on our fire capital facilities. To what you're talking about, actually, will fall within the range of our prevention team. I do know that our fire marshal has been active down in Olympia and being able to stay apprised of some of those changes and looking at it. We also do work with the planning, department to be able to make our recommendations on on things like that.

I think it's fair to say that single story, access points in buildings, especially multi family, does make us concerned about that because as our plan does demonstrate, our level of service is already at a is degrading. So, if you go through that chapter in there, we talk about how the growth has already impacted us. So, if you take a multifamily building, for example, and you only put one staircase in there, it means those numbers actually get worse. So it's a conversation to be had probably with counsel if something like that is acceptable. So the way we address in the functional plan is we're we're telling you where we are in terms of our performance, our level of service standards, But we're not making any declarations or forming any opinions on what developers or, you know, what what the code will ultimately be. Does that make sense?

Yes.

Yep. Thank you for asking that.

Yep. Commissioner Aparna.

Thank you so much. I I love reading the plan, and I think it I'm I'm shocked that we didn't have it before, so I'm really glad that we have it now. So I had a question on the 2011 data, which was, like, these many projects are gonna be funded at these levels and none of only one got partially funded. How do we make sure that moving forward? I know there's monitoring, but how do we have a sort of a a budgetary cycle performance review on are we funding these projects as you need them?

Because you bought a detailed plan. So I'm just trying to figure out how we're gonna monitor that. Also, the risks associated with the reliance on impact fees if construction slows down. Any thoughts on that? And FEMA grants as well. So it's basically how we're gonna meet it and how we're gonna monitor.

Okay. So that's two separate questions for the issues matrix?

Yes. I think that will be good. Right? Because they're sort of slightly different, but they're connected. Yeah.

Absolutely.

And do you want me to answer the the questions right now? So the first question that you asked was about the fact that in 02/2011, there were some projects identified, but they didn't get built. The only one that came off of that list that was actually completed was Station 17 up on the up on the hill from here. The biggest reason the rest of those projects didn't move forward was because fire was directed to create a functional plan and never did. So it is hard to connect.

We can have aspirationally what we know we need to do, but that's why this is an important part of, the whole planning process is that you can't just you can't collect impact fees, and you can't use impact fees unless you actually have a formally adopted functional plan. So, fire, you know, and we don't know why. None of us were here at that time, but we do know what the evidence tells us that the plan didn't exist. Without the plan, you can't take it any further than that. So this is huge. We have it. Now it's actually there. We've got a team of people. And then the implementation and monitoring chapter. Chapter eight talks about how we'll make sure that doesn't continue to happen ever again.

But having a plan is a first step. It's hard to put the cap back in the bag once it's actually out there and people have interrogated it and talked about it, and now it's expected to be a part of the planning process. What happens after us in six, seven years when a plan needs to be updated? You know, ideally, have a fire department that is operating at a level of sophistication to understand that the capital planning process is an inherent part of running a fire department. So, to your second question, you talked about, the concerns like impact fees.

Right now, based on our capital financing strategy or the fiscal strategy we have identified, impact fees represent about one third of the cost recovery or kind of helping pay for the development. We're anticipating about twenty six to twenty seven million dollars worth of projects. About 11,000,000, we're looking at bonds. So if other revenue sources start to go down in terms of, like, we don't have as much as we expect in impact fees, then we'd have to be able to adjust. What's important is the commitment to doing that.

And so, now, I feel like we're good on that standpoint. We did intentionally remove grants off of our funding opportunities. They're something that would be great to get, but because of what you've expressed concern on whether or not there's any viability. We know a really key grant called the BRIC grant is actually currently completely suspended. We just found out today the state of Washington is joining other states in suing the administration for doing that. But that is a that's a great grant that if it comes back, we'll definitely go for it. But we've already anticipated that we can't expect that kind of money to help fund projects like this.

Thank you.

Thanks for the question.

Other commissioners? Commissioner Gagne.

These are clarifying questions. Don't need to be in the matrix just to help me understand.

Yep.

For the impact fees, you talked about a fair share. Is there a sense of does that mean a percentage of what's collected total, like 5% of the impact fees?

I don't know if there's a metric on it, but I'll I'll defer to my planning front here. So

city municipal governments have the authority, if they have an ordinance, to collect impact fees. That's actually through our municipal code, not through our zoning code. But ultimately, there has to be an impact fee study that looks at the capital projects and just using a formula that's not fully defined. There's a couple of different ways to do it. A lot of times consultants hire, but ultimately it looks at what percentage of that project is attributed to growth.

And it it could be different for different types of facilities. Now we can we can collect impact fees on parks, transportation, and fire. They usually do an impact fee study and they develop a formula in order to determine what that percentage is. And it looks like Jeff also wants to add something to that.

Yeah. I see him.

Thanks, Glenn. Yeah. It is what Glenn said. And, also, I would add that this impact fee statute in state law gives cities and counties a lot of discretion about what their share really means. Like, what it what it says in the statute is that it can't be a 100% of the impact attributable growth, so it needs to be below that.

But beyond that, it's really the city council's discretion to figure out what what what are the funding mechanisms we want to use, and how do we want to balance that? What do we think is going to be an effective and sustainable financing strategy, and that's some of what Ami was starting to talk about is what the mix of funds that are going to be sustainable over a long period of time. So there's there's not a specific, percentage defined in the statute or anything like that. There's a there's a lot of discretion given to cities under the law.

And we are actually gonna be doing one of the important parts of having the functional plan adopted is that we actually have concurrently started to look and redo our impact fee study because our impact fees haven't been able to have been updated. And so the functional plan is the first step because what happens is that list that's in there on chapter seven, it has the projected projects that goes into the study, and then they actually take a look at what we're charging or what we could charge based on what we've projected. So that's part of, I think, the fair share too is to take a look at what have you identified in terms of the total cost of capital growth related projects, and then how can you equitably ask and recoup some of that from the community. So to Jeff's point, we can't ask them to pay for everything that we've got out there because that's not fair, right? Does that help with the clarifications?

Okay. Thank you.

So I'm going to jump in with a question here. So first of all, I really appreciate this step towards something that's actually going to drive progress. I thought this plan, especially chapter six, did a really good job explaining kind of how we got where we are today, and also just in general quantifying the need. The question that I had reading was I understand where we are on the ground now according to the plan, but I couldn't tell how much when you're looking forward to growth, like how much review there was of other cities, say like a 120,000 to a 150,000 population? Like, what's working well in some of those cities or what to avoid?

Because what it kind of felt like to me is we have a very old like a kind of '70, nineteen seventies, nineteen eighties system that's been incrementally improved. And then possibly, as we switch to much more dense, much more urban, like firefighting settings, that that might not like, the incremental improvements might not be the right thing. That it might be, like, that we figure out what we need and then work back. Mhmm. And, I couldn't tell how much that was happening behind the scenes in this plan, and this was capturing the end of that process. Versus, no, we really are looking at, we're being pragmatic. We have what's on the ground now, and we're working with what we have.

Yeah. I'm gonna actually turn it over to this gentleman, because that's his area of expertise. And he'll I think he's gonna do a great job walking you through the methodology of measuring level of service and then determining how to forecast that.

Chief. Yeah. So level of service is one of those things where it's really kind of an agreement with the community of what level of service. And that's not always just response time because that's a piece of it, but there's this larger piece. So we designed our strategic plan with outcomes like how often can we stop a fire so the person is not displaced and economically devastated. So that's a percentage. Now we actually measure a little more detail than most other agencies do. So we're a little ahead of the curve. The system that is in place right now is actually a very well run system. So to say it's the 1970s version,

I think

the infrastructure stations are definitely a little dated and need some work. But the technology that we've deployed and the training and the mechanisms that we use to deploy are actually with code enforcement and fire prevention. It's there, it's just struggling to keep up with growth, exactly what you said.

If I can jump in, that's a great clarification. So what I meant is in terms of this capital facilities plan. Yep. Not in terms of the overall operation of the fire department. That's a very separate.

Yeah. It is the vertical. So trying to get to people that are above the Third, Fourth, Fifth Floor, because we designed the system based on everything below three stories and now it's a higher story. So that's what the plan is trying to put together. But the plan should identify the lowest cost or the best return on investment to make those improvements, whether it's infrastructure, code enforcement, new equipment and training to maintain that.

And I would just say we are, even though the city's only what 80,000 something in population, we actually serve district next door. So we're really a hundred and seven hundred and ten is kind of what we're trying to service combining those two sides. So we're right in the mix. I think we're competitive in that, but it is trying to keep up with infrastructure is the problem.

And then do you feel like going forward, like as we're looking to that 2050 plan growth, do you feel like continuing to evolve the system that we have now is the right sense? Or being like, if we are here, then we should work backwards and find best practices at other places, etcetera? And even just in terms of number of stations, I couldn't tell if that

Well, again, level of service is up to the local community. Contrary to what people say, there's not like this level that if you're below it, you're bad. And if you're above it, you're good. You know, that kind of stuff. It's whatever the community wants. If the community wants, they want one firefighter to show up an hour after the 911 call. It's America. They can do that. There's no law that says you can't do that. What we look at is say, okay, based on historical experience of the community, there was a certain level of service.

Now, unfortunately, it was only measured in response time. And so we've done a good job of trying to add the things that should be, you know, 09:11 call processing time and fire prevention to stop the fire from happening, cardiac survival, those kind of things. So we put that in there. So where I think the plan where it's identifying the service gaps is, for example, know, where we have a station on the Bellevue side of the street down at Station 12. That's fine.

There's nothing wrong with it being on that side of the street. But when you look at the service level of that unit, what happens is it's servicing Bellevue quite nicely, which is fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But it's at the detriment of response time and performance in like Idlewood area. So like getting down to the lake. So it's one of those things whereby moving that station, we're gonna improve the service level. We're not gonna take away any service from Redmond. It might pull a little bit from Bellevue. But we might be actually over servicing Bellevue because the stations are too close. So by pulling it away, we're not necessarily taking service away from anybody in Bellevue, but we are gonna improve it somewhere else.

Now the system is the way we've designed it right now is we'll do the best we can with the stations where they're at. I mean, we'll do the best we can with whatever the city gives us. But if we were to identify how do we maintain the ability to address the service gaps? Then that's where the station movement and the accommodations and the specialized like tractor drawn aerial, some of those kind of specialty things that we're working on. So we'll work through it as fast as we can, but the plan identifies this is the gap.

If you can find funding for it and we can do it, then we can maintain the service level. Otherwise you will see a reduction. Now it's not the world's gonna end tomorrow, but a good example is the travel time to get from point A to point B in the city hasn't changed considerably over the last few years. But the time it takes to get to a patient to put hands on chest with a patient or to put water on fire is now considerably longer because they're higher up. And so even though we the curb time is the same, the time for intervention is much different.

And that's where we're seeing the impact. So now if we looked at what those impacts are today, they are worse than they were yesterday. But if I compare them across The United States, they're not horrible. They're just less than they were before. So it's really where does the city want to set that parameter and where do we want to maintain that level of service.

And if you want to maintain level service in lieu of the growth, in light of the growth that's coming, then what you do is you add the station, you reconfigure so that you lessen the response time. So the travel from point A to point B is less. And then you're making that extra time up. That gives you more time for the vertical. So climb seven stories or eight stories or 14 stories, depending on what building comes in.

Right. So I think what I'm asking what I specifically want to get into the matrix is much more when we're looking forward at having, for example, much taller buildings in Overlake. If we're in the 20 plus story building territory, how, where we don't, it sounds like the data in Redmond gives us a really good sense of what's happening the ground now. But when we're into this is a plan that's gonna cover some of that growth.

Yep.

How are you building comps, best practices, like an idea of what that level of service actually looks like or like could look like so that you know what to staff station to, or like build a station to.

Yeah, so the way the plan's designed, so you'll see where it talks about moving those stations. So we're adding a station and then kind of moving. Station 12 will move.

It's detailed in one of the appendixes where he goes through the siting. The station siting is one of the appendix where it goes, we take it out of the narrative. And then we say, if you really want to go deep on it, there's a whole appendix that will go into the modeling that's actually used in those neighborhoods where the growth is anticipated. I'll let you continue.

So in short, it's moving two stations, adding one. And that'll probably establish a well deployed unit. It's in the right location for the next fifty to one hundred years. But now when you get units that are calls that come in back to back. So let's say the stations in the right location, but we get too many calls, the calls are back to back. The unit that's there is not available. They're on another call. So now we're waiting for someone else to come in. So by increasing that number of stations in the downtown, there's a little bit of overlap. So when there's call concurrency, two calls at the same time, there's another unit that's a reasonable amount of time to back them up.

And also when you design the stations big enough to say, hey, this unit, we need to add two units into the station now or a dedicated ambulance and engine like we do at Station 11 And 12. Maybe another station at some point in time will need that. So when you design the stations right, you're designed for growth and you're in the right location. So you handle call concurrency, you call workload, you have, the ability to kind of grow. Even if you don't need it today, the station's just designed in the right way to allow that growth down the road.

Thank you. Other commissioners? Commissioner Gagne.

Clarify clarification questions don't need to be put in the matrix. And I'm gonna be greedy. I have a couple. You talked about the equity side of it, wanting to make sure that historically underserved communities have better. Where are those communities that are traditionally underserved in Redmond? And does the plan is it just about infrastructure? Is it about education? Or what does that mean to increase service to underserved?

So I do wanna clarify that we don't have gaps in the in the city as like, there isn't, like, a neighborhood no one's going to or anything like that. And the fire service is covering everybody really well as as chief had covered there. Where we identify the plan does I believe it's done in the Overlake neighborhood. Like and when we say historically underserved, we're talking about neighborhoods or or communities that actually can get overlooked quite easily. But, you know, here in Redmond, Redmond across the board is doing a really good job of taking care of it.

So when we're doing the analysis, it is first. And again, like chief said, the, you know, good fire station design is that you've got coverage and overlap everywhere. And you're looking at it really, I think part of his analysis is we do, you know, look at, like, commercial versus residential, and you want to make sure you're cited for that. But it's done irrespective of the value of the property or the people that are living in it. We just need to see it spatially on a map that there's an overlap in there.

Then the next layer is to go back and go, okay, within those areas, did we or is there a gap within there? Like, wherever it's not perfectly aligned or there isn't any double, have we left anybody out? And that was the next level of to look at it and like, no, we've got that covered. And it's particularly, like I said, down in the Overlake is where they're expecting a lot of that, you know, more of the affordable housing, more of the, you know, the multi families that address all of that. Some of the other neighborhoods that we do know of that exist are in the downtown area, so we know where they're adjacent to, another station. So, again, we look at it and go, okay. We're we're we're covering everybody. But we didn't want to infer that, oh my gosh, we found a whole community of people are not getting service from us. We actually do an excellent job of getting everybody every need that they need filled. Does that help with the clear?

And when I ask is it help, I I I need to make sure that I understood questions. I'm not saying that like, so yeah.

Can add a little bit to it. As an example, Northeast so Northwest Redmond's like up Willows Road. That's an area that there's a big gap. Now Kirkland's been nice to handle that for us. There's really not an underserved area. It's pretty affluent. It's a lot of commercial, industrial office, high-tech up there. So they're covered. They're covered by Kirkland. And Kirkland's been gracious of helping that.

Now we want to make sure that we don't overextend ourselves in the sense that we borrow too much from our neighbors unfairly without being able to give something back. And so that's part of the plan is to make sure if there's ever a relationship breakdown for whatever reason. We've seen a couple of things that that could have happened. COVID was a good example where some different policies could have slowed that down a little bit. But just like chief Caracone said, the plan we designed, it covers everybody now. So we're finding the areas that we would call underserved. And we have a map that we use from the state of Washington that identifies those zones. But they're all covered now. By doing what we're doing, we're actually covering it better. So if we do do this, it's better.

But we're not sacrificing anything. We're not opening a gap anywhere else. It's literally just covering more territory.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Coleman.

Just going echo what the Commissioner said. Thank you for all of this. I had a specific question like around this, I think, is 8.5 ongoing monitoring and evaluation? And I sort of read it, and I kind of went through it, I went, I don't quite know what that means. I don't know if this is a question for the issues matrix.

It may be. But when I read it, it kind of suggested, well, we've got to move and change as an adapt as we need to. And I thought I was expecting it to be more, if we do x, we expect y, simplifying it down to the basics. Like, hey, if we implement these things on an ongoing basis, we expect y in terms of whatever those outcomes are, which are in here. When I read through it, it feels like there isn't a from and to necessarily. So I was just curious, like how are you thinking about the monitoring evaluation goals and setting those if you're gonna change them each time, if something changes. I understand why that would be the case, but what's the process of thinking about that?

So that chapter is outlining, which was like the first question that we had, like how did we create a plan in 2011 and nothing got done off it, or one thing got done of it? So that chapter's intended to say, how do we hold ourselves as a department, the city, and everybody that's involved accountable to this plan? So it's not really on each of the specific measures. It's on the activities that we've taken to identify what our needs are, and then what are we gonna do to make sure that that we don't, you know, drop everything off and everybody walks away with their hands up in it. So that's one part of what chapter eight's intent is to do.

The other part of chapter eight is intended to also be able to say, listen, we also need to be flexible. So while we've gone out as best as we can in the next six years, we still can't even predict what six years is gonna look like. We have a good plan that we're working towards. We're trying to put some money down on it. We're trying to come up with a strategy. But as you guys know, things can change very quickly. COVID's a perfect example of how everything can change tomorrow on this. So what what the implementation and monitoring part, the monitoring part of it is is we are saying, how are we going to make sure that if level of service changes dramatically? Like, what chief is just saying is we think everything should work right. We're modeling it based on not necessarily best practices, but part of its best practices.

It's his experience. It's looking at science and data. But what if it turns out that our science and data is giving us different information? Our level of service is now not six minutes. You know, that's what the level of service standard is. But now it's taking us ten, fifteen minutes. What chapter eight says is you have permission to put a time out on it and to actually go back to the plan, and you can reorder all of this. But your priority should be, you know, like that near term, midterm, and long term. Like, they should relatively fall in those buckets in there. And so that's it's not intended to say that the outcome will be if we do this, we we expect these results.

It's to say, if we need to be flexible, how are we gonna do that? And what are the guidelines and parameters and framework we use for that? And then how do we make sure that you don't just put a plan on a shelf and nothing follows up with that and it doesn't get implemented and it's not being tracked and watched? And that's where part of that is accountability on the part of the fire department staff and how we get integrated into the capital planning process.

If it helps, you know, we created a strategic plan with some outcome measurements. So think of it as like, I don't know what happens behind the curtain, but I want to survive a cardiac event neurologically intact. Like, that's what I want. And everything else, like, if it takes a different nine eleven system, great. If it takes a different firefighter coming from Kirkland to do it, great. Whatever it takes. So we look at that outcome and some of those outcomes are in the budget document. So every other year when the council goes through budget adoption, some of those outcomes are in there. So when those outcomes start going into the red, then you have to look back at all those different pieces that we're trying to put together to say, did something go wrong? So response time is not the end all of a good performance for a fire department.

I would say, I know agencies that have maybe not as good response times as we do and their cardiac survival is very good. Our cardiac survival is very good. And I know agencies that are faster than us and theirs aren't. So the point is we don't want to over rely on just any one element, but we knew for sure that best practices right now says the right station and the right configuration, the right location solves about eighty percent of your problem. And then the rest of it, you have to work through technology and pulse point and a different nine one system and alternative destination.

There's all kinds of different things that we can do. And we will continue to look at that because we're always trying to tweak it to look a little bit better. But that core piece is what we're trying to identify in here and how the accountability I think comes back is when those outcomes get when you go into the red on those outcomes, that's where it's really bad. Because again, response times may or may not be meeting it, but if the outcomes are in the green, then we're okay. It's our job to look at the whole thing.

But from the elected officials standpoint, we try and keep it to where they don't have to look at all the little tiny stuff, but they do look at the big stuff. And I think between strategic plan and the budget, that's the every year annual report. That's the every year accountability. Capital improvement, would, you know, the the actual budget in the capital improvement, I would have to defer to Chief Coricone on

that So yeah, so the functional plan, like the chief mentioned, we do have other planning documents that get down into the operational performance. The capital functional plan isn't that. What it is, again, is it's aligning the level of service with then us expressing what our needs are from a capital facilities and a capital equipment thing. So, again, they they start to mesh together that we're not just requesting fire engines because we love them, that there's actually a reason for it that's data supported. So that's why that chapter probably looks a little different than maybe what you expected because what we're talking about and what he's talking about is we have a standards of cover process. We have a strategic plan process. That's where we get in the operational side, and that's outside of the scope of the CFP or outside the scope of our functional plan.

Yeah. I just thought of just one last comment here. I totally get what you're going through. Again, to me, it just it's still we're therefore not kind of I'm not quite sure why it's written the way it is because I don't feel like it it the way it's sort of described, it doesn't feel like it's outcome based. It's sort of a here's our approach to to monitoring versus necessarily setting when you would set some particular target or when you would review. So what you said that made sense, like, hey, we're gonna try this. We're gonna see if this works, and maybe we'll be more successful than we thought we might be or less successful. Why is that? And so looking backwards to look forwards makes sense, but I don't didn't really read that into you.

So I think so I hear you. So we'll put that in the issues matrix and and take a look at it. I know that there is a planning process. We're a part of a bunch of other teams and programs. So, you know, when planning or finance comes to us and says it's that time of year, that's the other trigger point to it. So we're not trying to restate all the systems that already exist. We're trying to say this is our role in it. We acknowledge our role in it. So when somebody says, hey, fire, you need to update your functional plan, we follow through on it. And we've assigned accountability within the fire department to where that activity So think of it as is, again, we're a piece of all the plans.

Like section two goes into all the things that are connected together. We are a part of that. So when it's applied everywhere, we just fold right in. So it can be clarified a little bit, like, in that chapter. Happy to to be able to do that or try to answer it to address it.

Also remember this is citing our community risk assessment standard of coverage. There's another document that's a 100 pages long. That's all the science behind what we're doing. So how often a how often a unit is tied up on a call on average? And then how much per day do they spend on emergency and not available for another call?

Know, commitment factors, those kind of things. So very deep, maybe a little academic at times, but it does go into that deep and that's where the little dials that we're looking at. So we pull that data at least every year, if not every 90 days. We actually have a dashboard that we kind of look at it once a month because we report some of the data to Fire District thirty four for compliance with that contract. But when we, if you really want to get deep, then that's the document we've cited that you can go into. And we're happy, I could talk about that one all day long, so let me know.

So maybe let's not talk about that one all day long. Yeah. If we could if you could ever add a link to it in the memo for the public hearing, that would be great. Okay. So anyone who's interested, we'll have a direct link. And then then we'll get the background. And if there's still gaps, then you'll have a transcript or

a guide.

I do know that, so where our functional plan is on the Redmond website, is actually in the key report section in the standards to cover is list there along with our annual reports. And so all of our data is already publicly available. But it's in the same location as where you'd find the functional plan already. Great.

Thank you.

Commissioner Parnam.

So, thank you. I had one comment on the previous one and then a separate question. In the monitoring section, the reason I asked the first question was because for me, I couldn't make out I I understood who's going to be doing the monitoring, but I didn't know what and at what frequency and what cadence. So if we are monitoring the plan and the efficacy of the plan, the strategic plan, are we measuring the efficacy of the function plan? It'll be nice to have some kind of, like, you mentioned some of this already, but it will be nice to capture it in the section saying this will go in cadence with the other functional plans at two year frequencies or whatever that is.

And the budgets will be looked at in every year or whatever that is. It'll be nice to have that because then it ties it up and says, hey. We're gonna be accountable in these periods of time. That was a comment. My question actually was about construction costs and projections.

I was quite appalled, frankly, by the condition of the facilities, especially the seismic ratings of the buildings, and it it's quite terrifying, really. So I was just wondering, I know that you've put an average cost of thousand $300, I believe, per square foot. Now is that taking into account inflation as we go along, or is it just the current costs? Because it is expensive, but it's also terribly needed. Mhmm. And we should know what we're in for because we did not do this for a decade right now.

Yep.

So I know we are paying the cost, but we just need to know is it accurate?

So we did use in the in the functional plan, did a a comp with other very new fire stations being built in the area. Did not take the highest end because the high end is quite extraordinary. But even then, I'm sure if you're familiar with construction costs, when everybody any looks at the cost of a fire station, they're just astounded. They're like, jeez. It doesn't seem like there's much in it, but they have to be pretty well built, you know, and they get used, differently as we say in the functional plan.

So we did account for some degree of inflation. However, again, it's, you know, it's like 5%, and that's a standard kind of upsize on it. But in the next six years, again, this twenty seven to thirty two timeline, we are actually starting a study already. Us facilit facilities and the finance department are actually engaging in a study to be able to do feasibility so that the number that we have right now, we actually get much closer to what the reality could be. Because while we can use an average cost, you know, for what it is to build a new station or remodel it from a thousand to $1,300 a square foot, there are some conditions that we need to know as we know from doing, renovations or rebuilds of existing buildings is that they tend to creep up and surprise you with some unknown things.

So we're not banking on that. What we're doing is we're putting it in as a placeholder so we have an order of magnitude that we can start planning for. And then what we are doing, and again, it's outside of the capital facilities plan, like it's not a CIP project per se, but we are definitely, when I get back, I I'll be out for a couple weeks. But when I get back, the first meeting I have set up is with that team so that we can start to look at an RFP process or whatever we need to do to engage a consultant to come in and and firm that up better for us. We're doing that just for the Station 11 project because that, again, that's the priority for the city in the next in the next process.

And then we still have placeholders that are out there that may go up or down depending on real estate and, you know, if we build new stations or anything like that. But they are you know, we do look and account for the fact that there is inflation and cost of, you know, living adjustments that happen.

Thank you. It would be nice to have these articulated. Like, I think you've got it in, but it would be nice to have this articulated in the plan. So the reading public will understand that, hey. This is account this much has been accounted for inflation because I'm I'm sure I'm not the only one gonna be thinking of this. Mhmm. Especially for the midterm and the long term projects to know that these are placeholder numbers pending further study or something like that.

Great. Great comment. Thank you. Yep. So

another question that I had. This was alluded to there being a difference, but I would love if there was either an appendix or something to spell it out. When we're looking at the climate goals and requirements for buildings, what exactly is required in a modern station if we're starting from scratch? I really couldn't tell the difference of the report mentioned that, like, the state has a pretty high floor on what's required at this point. But I wasn't clear, is Redmond planning to hit that?

Are they planning to exceed it? So when you're just looking at either retrofitting or expanding or building from scratch buildings, What is the, like, the climate finish level of these buildings?

So the clean building standards, will so the chapter two, I believe, is our regulatory framework. Right? And so it defines any starting at legal requirements all the way down, you know, from the federal down to the state level, and then the clean building standards, it's in there. And those are those are mandates, like, we have to do. So we'd already allocated nearly $5,000,000 to Station 11 just to meet because it's the only station that we have right now that has a must meet, you know, timeline coming up.

And that's why it became important to figure out how to fold that in with, well, gosh, if you're gonna go 5,000,000, you might as well go 20, to be honest with you, because the whole thing needs more than that to go into it. Then the next standard after that, like, that's that's the main one right there, clean building standards. And they're not they're nonnegotiable. So, but it only does right now at this time impact, Station 11. Because Station Eleven's actually larger than our other stations because it happens to be headquarters as well as a fire station.

So it exceeds the square footage thresholds. The rest of our stations stay under that right now. When we build new, so imagine we're relocating Station 12, it'll still be under the threshold, But then we have to we'll be following suit with what our own climate goals are in the city of Redmond and the climate pledge, which was actually LEED gold standards for our buildings, which do have embedded into it, not only the materials, but also its energy consumption and energy uses. So that's the standard that goes, like, next in line in effect. And that's gonna happen because that's what the city says all their buildings are gonna do, including their fire stations. So is that

Yeah. That's actually that's a great answer. So it the only thing that I would then follow-up question on that, the diesel generators were an interesting piece. I know that they are cheaper and if you're worried about long term power outages, the reliability. But I was wondering over the twenty year window of this plan, like if there's a point at which you would consider like either some sort of battery. Would that be considered when would that come into a plan?

I I think the technology would have to like when does the technology evolve to a place where that's a a serious consideration? And I and, again, that goes back to the the intent of chapter seven implementation and monitoring gives you the flexibility to say, you know, we're doing our best with what we know today, but we don't know what we don't know. Right? Because also on the table is is what if we start building fusion power plants to provide backup power and we don't need you know, I mean, there's a whole lot of things that we just will be shocked and awed by, you know, here in about ten or fifteen years. Right now, what we do know is that those diesel generators are our backup power.

They're required because we are an essential building. That's a part of as we talked about in April when I came here and, you know, we discussed that. And they are reliable at this point. And so we have to make sure that within, like, the next six six, seven years, we actually do get those updated because nothing exists at this point. We know that through the work that Jenny's done with the with the environmental sustainability and looking at solarizing, you know, that's for Station 17, for example, not even an option.

There's so much carbon load out there that we can't offset it through a solar program. So, I think to answer the question is is everything's on the table for us. And I think Redmond Fire has demonstrated, like, we're the first fire station in Washington with an electric fire engine. So if there's something cool that we can do that actually has not only an environmental benefit, but reducing diesel actually has a huge firefighter benefit as well because diesel exhaust is poisonous and toxic. So, on the other hand, lithium batteries or, you know, large battery storage systems, We did talk about it with Park's facility.

There was some promising technology, but none of it has been sustainable yet or, you know, companies haven't been able to develop it to a point to where it would be reliable. We were talking about with our EV charging of having a battery backup or EV charger that was large, but that's a big storage system. It comes with its own hazards, it comes with the fact that it just we can't rely on it as an essential facility. But we know dang for dang sure that diesel does get us there, and it will be our kind of, like, backup until we find something that will fit that.

Great. Thank Commissioner Van Nyman.

This is more of an observation. I guess a question. I mean, I'm just surprised to hear about like, oh, Kirkland was gracious in providing those services. What is the agreement between the districts? And is there financial compensation?

He's typing your question, and then he's going answer that.

Good question. So every year we analyze mutual aid. It's automatic aid, but our assistance to each other. We look at everybody in the zone who's doing what, who's sharing where. So what we see is that we provide a lot of assistance to Bellevue and then Kirkland provides a lot of assistance to us.

And so we're hoping that Bellevue and Kirkland have an agreement. So that's kind of this three way agreement, but it is one of those things where we help each other with so much other items that if we just look at calls for service, it's kind of it's a big piece of what we do. But as an example, we all join together for hazardous material response or technical rescue. And so we all help each other out administratively. They were great in helping us with both agencies with getting our EMS fee program up to speed.

So at the end of the day, we have a great relationship with both those agencies. They help each other right and left. But we do keep an eye on that to know how far off does it get. And there's just some areas of Redmond up on the ridge that we just cannot get to without station in the right location.

It's just interesting to think about I mean, it sounds like we're in an amazing location and we don't have to worry about it. But you could find yourself with maybe some neighbors that weren't pulling their own weight, like, that that don't have the budget. Right? Cle Elum just declared bankruptcy. You know? Are their neighbors gonna have to take care of them? And how does that work? It's just an interesting we're we're fortunate, it sounds like.

Yes. Yes. The relationships are good. We're all in the same dispatch center. We all train together. So in in a sense, we wear different patches, but we're almost the same agency today. So it's fine. But as an example, during COVID, there were agencies surrounding us that said, we're gonna accommodate every firefighter no matter what. And there were agencies says, we're not gonna accommodate anybody. And so we were in the middle thinking, well, if they accommodate, but we don't, what does that look like?

And if they accommodate everybody and we and so this whole the whole thing was almost over overnight. We were trying to struggle to kind of make sure we covered that issue. I've seen this with agencies before. So I always say part of the design of the plan is to say, let's make sure our house is clean as possible and we can cover the most of our stuff. It's great to ask each other for help.

We get breaks on our insurance costs when we have those agreements and training and stuff in place. So we all enjoy a lower insurance rate for your property than you would have otherwise because we have those system. We prove that those systems are in place to the insurance industry when they set those rates. But it is one of those things where when we look at it long term, they're growing like we are. So they're getting pulled into the vertical just like we are. So we're all under the same pressure.

I was just gonna say it's also interesting to think about the idea you said that the community is the one that basically kinda sets the level of service. Mhmm. I mean, everybody wants as much as they can have for no cost.

What What I say

is everybody wants you to show up quick, solve their problem, be nice, and don't cost a lot of money. Well, we have to put measurements to all that. So we know, are we getting there fast? What's fast? Because if you have a problem, it's never enough. We could exceed, we could be there way faster than the response time performance measure is, and it still feels like forever because it's your emergency. So we try and put as much kind of data behind it to prove what we're doing. So that way, we change something, we add a new ambulance or we move a vehicle or move a station, we can see how that works in the system in terms of the outputs and the outcomes.

Commissioner Copeley.

At Derby days, my family was cheering your guys' electric fire trucks, or fire truck as it went by. So first of all, just wanted to say thank you guys for being a visible leader in the sustainability front. And as part of that, how are we thinking about the electrification of the fleet? How are we thinking about the pros and cons of probably what is a more expensive product than just a standard, you know, engine? And how are we thinking about potential outlier situations like the bomb cyclone when, okay, now maybe electrification is a liability? Mhmm.

Thank you for that question. So in the functional plan, so we have identified, like, are needs assessment that, you know, the stations presently do all need require they they need upgrades, and we're working on that with stations eleven and twelve right now in order to be able to accommodate that. You bring up another good point that we do contemplate, which is as we do our fleet purchasing, we've already been looking towards getting another electric fire engine. So it's you know? But there has to be balance as we talked about with the generators here that you have to have some diversity in your power supply and power sources because, if there is a a widespread power outage, we're not in control of the energy around here.

It's not, you know, it's not like it's a utility that's owned by the city of Redmond. It's regional. And, and we can't make them help us if it goes out and, you know, so it's it is a vulnerability, and you can compensate by that by having something other than electrical. So the within the entire ecosystem here in Redmond, again, we're a part of many plans. We're a part of a lot of planning, I guess, is what I wanna say. And so there is the fleet plan, the fleet study, citywide electrification. We're we're right in there with that with them. So as the city does that widespread, it's not just a Redmond fire thing. It's the public works vehicles. It's the police department.

It's everybody that's in it, and we're we're aligning with what they the city's goals are for that for the decarbonization of our city and also making sure that our primary mission is to serve the community in an emergency. And if electricity is not viable, then we have a we have our ways of still being there so that the community doesn't see an impact that we can't send out all of our vehicles because there's no electrical. That's why the generators are and I know it seems counterintuitive. We're gonna charge our electric vehicles with our diesel generator. I get it.

It doesn't sound good, but it's also how you do make sure that you've again, that you saw that capacity. But we have to balance that. Right? It's you know, if you're gonna put diesel into something, it's sometimes better to put it just in the truck than it is in the generator to the to power the thing. So it's it's complicated. We're at a place where it is a complicated time to be to try to figure out how to merge this stuff. And and again, not over not overdo it. Do it tactically and strategically so that you don't overinvest in something like a beta tape versus VHS, right, or, you know, Zooms versus iPods. So, I mean, you gotta be very strategic, and that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to make sure that we're, innovative, proactive, and we're we're we're lockstep with what the city's goals are and what the community wants cause we want it to.

But at the same time, we don't go so overboard that we create a vulnerability downstream. Yep.

Question that I would love to see answered that I might have just missed, but I would love to know what happens to the existing station twelve, the existing station eleven, everyone working in the station eleven annex. Like, I just said, there were parts of that that I was like, after we build or rebuild, then what happens? With that, Lynn, would that be recounted by the city?

So in the capital facilities planning, that's probably we're getting into a detail that we would need to address in our functional plan, you know, because that's a finance department activity on what they would do with the building after like, Station Twelve's the example. We rebuild it, and then there's the Station 12. Well, it could stay in our real estate portfolio. Again, that's a finance department to answer, not necessarily something that we would answer in the functional plan. And if you're talking about, like, Station 11, again, our functional plan identifies that as a rebuild.

So there's a temporary operational thing. Again, something that we wouldn't address in the functional plan, which is we'd have to relocate everybody into another space or, you know, figure out how to build around them. But, that's getting down into a detail that isn't something that, you know, necessarily needs to be identified there. But, again, if we go with the the beyond 2050 plan, which is, listen, if you find that the level of service and that the community is saying, you know, community communicates through council, council represents the community, and if they're coming back and saying, we're at a place that's fifteen years in, and we're not happy, we actually do need or, again, our numbers and data tells us that, you know, the story is much more dire out in the you know, in terms of our level of service. We're seeing outcomes and impacts that, you know, that are disfavorable to Redmond.

Maybe we need to rethink building that extra station in there and stuff like that. Well, then, again, whatever happens to the old station is a is a real estate answer for what they would do. Sell it, keep it, you know, variety of options.

Okay. I would love to see that answer just, like, captured in here somewhere. Because it even if it's not an answer, it's still or, like, this exact thing will happen, then it says which part of the city you're handing off that decision to.

Where the decision for that lies? Okay.

So just kind of preventing those gaps.

Yep. Okay. Good point. Thank you.

Commissioner Aparna.

I come back to my favorite topic, water. Now the commission's kinda grown, I know. But I I noticed that there was a little bit of a a small section which talked about how water storage and water access is we're not we're not sure if the projections will meet. So I have two questions. One, would that be addressed in this plan? And two, are these part of the converse is the water storage problem part of the discussions with our neighbors? Because I know we share those tanks. So is that part of the service agreement, or is that a separate functional plan or place that we talk about it?

And I remember you brought this up when I was back here in April as well. So we did and I I made sure that there there was some specificity to that because part of the WSRB rating and part of our level of service. Right? Like, you can't put the fire out if the water isn't there, the sprinklers don't work if the water's not there. So, yes, it does have a a relationship to operationally our needs.

However, where it exists is actually in the water functional plan. So if you go to the chapter where I outline our relationship to all the planning documents and and other policies that we follow in there, the water functional plan is actually listed on there. And what that means is is that we're not telling them what to do, but we are helping them understand what those needs are. And the public works department is quite aware of that demand need. And our functional plan helps quantify for them what they should be able to expect and what they'll be requesting in terms of their own infrastructure changes and improvements that they need to be able to do.

So what we did in the functional plan is we directly linked us to the water functional plan, saying when you change that, you change us. When we change, that changes. And that's a lot of the relationship structure that we that, you know, what I wanted us to do with our functional plan was to identify that we aren't just in an isolation, that if the transportation plan undergoes a major renovation, hey. We need to actually see what the downstream impacts might be to fire and because we drive on the roads to get to the scenes. There's, you know, we don't commute.

And, you know, if there's a change to the water functional plan that it triggers a review, and this goes back to the implementation and monitoring part. So it's not in chapter seven, but it is in there that the this family of plans that exists out there, they all do have impact to us in some capacity. Either it's gonna make us it will impact our level of service, or it will be something that we'll have to, address, or we'll have to engage with whoever that department is and give them feedback on. And they and we do. And we've been building that relationship through this activity.

I think it's gotten better because I don't know that there's been always a really good kind of thinking about our outside of our own silo. Fire, and claiming this for fire, you know, thinking about what our needs are as a department, but then realizing that we do have to fold in with what other departments need from us and being collaborative with them, providing them the information to make those really good decisions. So to your question, it's the water functional plan. We'll address it. But we are mentioning it in our plan so that the reader of our fire functional plan understands that, you know, there is infrastructure outside of just the buildings and the trucks.

But it's also the roads, and it is the pipes, and that it's important to invest in all of our infrastructure in the city of Redmond because, you know, we're influencing it actually influences the fire department. So

Thank you for that answer. It makes me feel good. I I really like the the whole connected plan thing. So thank you.

Cool. Thank you.

Commissioner Coleman.

I I don't know, again, if this is the right place for this question. I'm just curious about as we move to kind of an electrified system, you know, I think in a world where there's no diesel, there's no gas, we've gone in the right direction. How do you think about the increase in potential for electric fires where water and stuff is not necessarily the appropriate thing to put on it, I think. How do you think about in planning for a change in the nature of what's needed when things are, like Bob did, what's it, which is he went and he's gone electric. That kind of stuff. How do we think about it? How do we

if and if I could, hone that just a little bit for tonight specific to the capital facilities. Yeah.

So if you look at the, so the appendix, so we identified 27 through 32 in the body of the of the plan because that's our capital you know, our fiscal strategy is on the next six year CIP. But in the appendix where there's actually the broader plan that goes out to 2050 and and beyond, there is an earmark. We are anticipating that what we'll have to do is we'll have to watch and see what happens. We're prepared to be able to address it now. We do know it's an emergence emerging threat.

It is also identified in the plan as emergent risks, which is not only EV battery storage, but also our rail transportation. We we kinda know what it's gonna be based on today, but we don't know what it's gonna be in ten or fifteen years. And so what the capital functional, you know, what our functional plan does is we, we memorialize it and we identify it. By having it there, now we know we're watching it. And we're watching it anyways, but we just want you all to know we're also watching it as well.

And then what we need to do is we need to then make sure that, like, hey. We don't know how much it's gonna be, we don't know what it's gonna be, but we know it's coming. So let's make sure there's a million dollars out there that allows us to use that broad description because it could be this. It could be that. But we wanna make sure you all know that there's a line item that we're bringing for the things that we don't know today, but we know they're coming, we just don't know exactly what they are. That's part of what I had said that this is discipline. You know, creating this plan for us in the fire department allows us to think long term of like, we're fine today, but in ten, fifteen years, we may not be. Five years, we may not be. To your question, we already do see the risks that come with battery storage and electrical fires, and it is a little bit different. We talk about that.

That's our operational life every day. What this plan needs to do is we need to tell you that like, hey, we need to make sure that from that capital planning perspective, and if it's growth related, bringing it back to the functional plan, if it's growth related, that's impact fee eligible. That's why it's mentioned in this plan is to relate it to if there's growth and demand in that, and it changes, it allows us through this mechanism to be able to have impact fees to help cover it.

Yep.

I wanted to raise something that reflects many years of community feedback that I've heard, just about the locations of the fire department, especially downtown. I've heard a lot of concern that the downtown station is in a liquefaction zone. Are hazards part of the selection criteria?

They are. Yeah.

Can

you talk to that a little bit?

I can talk to it a little bit. That's gonna be part of the feasibility study will be to to take another look at that. There's a lot of areas that are downtown that are in it, like, you know, other people's buildings are also in the same issue. When you're talking about, ideal situations for fire station construction and you could move it, that's why we have an analysis that shows that if it's an untenable situation, then here's where it could go that would actually but if you move it, you also need to build another station. Because where it's at, don't have to build any new station.

So what we're confronted with in city planning is, well, it may not be ideal, but if I move it now instead of moving one fire station, I'm building two fire stations. And so now my $35,000,000 problem's a $70,000,000 problem, and it may be more if I don't have the property. Right? And it's an unfortunate thing that we have to budget and think of money in terms of outcomes, right, and risk. Right? So the feasibility study will help us identify, you know, how treacherous that actually could be. Rebuilding it will improve its seismic capabilities, which we need it to do. If it's liquefaction, we've got a whole lot of problems. I mean, I mean, you know, to be honest with you. And so there is that, yeah.

I mean, yeah. But yeah, it does come into it. Like it's not ideal. But the, it's, do we not do anything with our Station 11 because it's not ideal? Or do we rebuild Station 11 so it is robust and maybe it is one of those threats that we never worry about in our lifetime, in our children's lifetime, and whatever. Mean, that's the nature of seismic activity. Right? We plan for it. It could be tomorrow, and then it may be a thousand years. Right? And I know that's not great planning, but it's that kind of that risk analysis that you have to do. Yeah.

Okay, thank you. Does anyone have other questions for right now? No. Okay, so what I think we'll do is if anyone comes up with more, we'll do the typical path of you can email them in, hopefully before the weekend, so that there's enough time to like bring it in and think about it. And then we will see you at the public hearing

Sounds good.

In our next meeting.

Yep. Thank you very much.

For being here.

Yep. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Next up is staff and commissioner updates. Glenn.

Good evening. Just one update we wanted to provide on the 2526 annual docket. Council held a study session last night, and they agreed to include both the transportation master plan and the Redmond Flex land use map rezone on the annual docket. So, there will be an ordinance established in the docket will be which will be considered at the August 4 council business meeting and that's on the consent agenda. Otherwise, as noted, our next meeting is August 13 and there will be a public hearing on the fire functional plan.

So respectfully ask if folks are not going to be able to make that meeting, please let us know so we can ensure that we have a quorum. Otherwise, our next meeting after that just is August 27. We'll have the fire functional plan there, see if we can wrap up things on that. But also want to note that we'll also be introducing our updated capital facilities plan. We did kind of a phase one of that as part of the comp plan that goes up to 02/1930.

This plan will actually go out to the year 02/1950. So that will be introduced. And we'll also be having Jenny Liebeck, our environmental sustainability manager, who will be providing an update on the environmental sustainability action plan, which is going through a refresh process. So she'll provide a briefing on that. So that's all I have.

Thank you. Any commissioner updates? No. Okay. Well, in that case, I look for a motion to adjourn.

So

moved. Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Then we are adjourned.