►
From YouTube: Bellevue Council Meeting - March 15, 2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
C
D
A
You
so
we've
had
a
lot
of
incidents
of
asian
hate
crimes
and
messaging,
that's
just
not
tolerable
anywhere
and
particularly
not
in
bellevue,
and
so
we
are
doing
a
proclamation
tonight
to
renew
our
commitment
to
our
community
and
I've
asked
council
members
on
to
read
the
proclamation
quest.
E
Yes,
thank
you
mayor,
I'm
I'm
so
honored
to
read
this
proclamation,
especially
since
we've
had
a
number
of
rallies
in
our
community
to
make
sure
that
we
are
daylighting.
These
incidences
that
are
happening
in
our
community,
whereas
bellevue
is
the
one
of
the
most
diverse
cities
in
washington
state,
with
40
of
the
population
identifying
as
part
of
the
asian
american
and
pacific
islander
community,
a
group
that
has
contributed
and
continues
to
contribute
to
our
country's
progress,
culture
and
success.
E
F
Good
thing
mayor,
I
pledge
allegiance
to
the
flag
of
the
united
states
of
america
and
to.
A
A
B
Yes,
thank
you
mayor
this
evening.
There
are
seven
pre-registered
speakers
for
oral
communications.
However,
five
of
those
speakers
are
here
to
speak
in
support
of
the
mfte
program
item
10a,
so
only
the
first
three
speakers
will
be
allowed
pursuant
to
council
rules.
With
that,
I
will
call
the
first
speaker
who
is
elaine
fouche.
I
I
However,
as
the
city
goes
about
creating
a
mental
health
response
team,
they
should
include
mental
health
professionals,
not
armed
officers.
In
fact,
there
are
already
mental
health
professionals
in
our
community.
You
could
hire
to
do
this.
Work
who
are
already
trained
and
have
the
correct
expertise
and
skill
set
designated
crisis
responders
are
the
only
people
in
washington
state
who
can
involuntarily
detain
someone
for
mental
health
treatment.
This
means
they
know
how
to
assess
mental
health
crises
and
determine
what
is
needed
to
support
that
individual.
I
I
I
J
Oh,
thank
you
hi.
My
name
is
christian
dorsett
I
live
in
bellevue.
I
also
own
a
landscaping
business
dorset
landscaping.
I
suffered
from
a
traumatic
brain
injury
february
2020.
I
am
now
recovered,
miraculously
I'm
also
the
one
council
person
robertson
called
a
troll
on
twitter.
I
am
not
a
troll
just
so
you
know.
I
also
just
read
a
seattle
times
article
on
sunday
about
a
2017
incident
where
it
turns
out
one
of
the
same
cops
that
committed
perjury
and
he
did
in
my
case,
has
kept
attacking
people
along
with
other
cops.
J
This
time
it
was
a
mother
and
father
protecting
their
son
a
year
later
officer,
dowsing,
choked
a
female
driver
out
and
that's
not
the
start
or
the
end
of
this
problem
is
it.
I
told
all
officials
in
the
city
of
bellevue
in
2015
the
police
would
keep
violating
their
oath
and
that
I
wanted
the
behavior
to
stop.
Instead,
chief
milot
has
kept
a
q
on
cop
on
the
payroll,
while
the
chief
himself
wants
to
move
to
colorado
near
the
denver
area
not
to
retire,
but
because
he
doesn't
like
it
here.
J
I
might
be
a
little
late
to
the
party,
but
I
think
it
is
beyond
clear.
In
2021
the
current
u.s
criminal
legal
system
needs
to
be
abolished,
not
reformed.
This
professional
professionalism
excuse
me
of
where
you
will
sit
and
let
me
speak
is
simply
to
provide
cover
for
a
dehumanizing
process.
You
don't
change,
you
don't
care!
You
deal
in
real
estate,
you're,
not
even
in
charge
of
anything.
The
city
manager
won't
hold
the
bad
actors
responsible,
and
for
that
I
would
like
brad
miyaki
to
be
replaced
with
someone
who
lives
in
a
bellevue
zip
code.
J
At
least
the
police
department
clearly
must
be
completely
reformed
before
another
person
gets
hurt
or
killed
chief,
please
don't
come
and
try
and
arrest
me
for
talking
or
try
to
beat
my
parents
up.
Okay,
thanks
bud.
Thank
you
guys
and
good
night.
K
You
good
evening,
mayor
robinson
and
members
of
the
city
council,
I'm
prolonged
with
amazon
and
tonight,
I'd
like
to
comment
on
the
multifamily
tax
exemption
program.
Update
amazon
is
committed
to
working
with
the
city
council
and
the
city
of
bellevue
to
plan
for
growth
that
we
know
will
be
coming
to
downtown
and
we
so
appreciate
your
partnership
and
collaboration.
K
Listening
to
the
council's
thoughtful
questions
and
comments.
During
your
study
session
last
week
on
the
affordable
housing
strategy
implementation,
we
heard
excellent
points
made
about
the
need
for
setting
data
in
form
housing
goals
based
on
the
current
and
projected
need
for
housing,
and
this
is
where
we
believe
there's
an
opportunity
to
make
the
city's
mfte
program
one
of
the
most
productive
and
efficient
tools
to
generate
affordable
workforce
housing
when
calibrated
correctly
and
to
set
the
meet
the
right
goals.
K
Mfte
can
be
that
win-win
unicorn
holy
grail
of
tools
that
leverages
modest
tax
incentives
not
paid
by
the
city
of
bellevue,
to
harness
private
investments
for
the
public
good.
We
have
an
opportunity
to
go
big
and
enable
the
program
to
meet
more
aggressive
housing
goals
this
year.
So
how
do
we
know?
The
program
is
calibrated
to
maximize
results
and
what
changes
should
be
considered
to
improve
the
program.
I'd
like
to
quickly
offer
a
few
points
for
your
discussion.
K
Second,
we
have
heard
consistently
from
market
rate
developers
that
the
primary
barrier
to
the
program
participation
is
that
all
mpt
units
must
provide
free
parking
and
the
best
way
to
ensure
that
mft
yields
more
units
is
to
remove
this
requirement
and
removing
it
doesn't
mean
that
there
won't
be
any
parking.
It
simply
allows
for
more
flexibility
for
the
program
for
the
project
to
pencil.
My
third
and
last
point
is
around
income
levels.
K
So
I'd
like
to
wrap
up
by
expressing
my
sincere
gratitude
to
the
council
and
the
city
for
your
work
on
this
important
issue.
We
know
that
the
mfte
program,
what
what
what
it
can
do
and
we're
excited
for
it
to
have
this
opportunity
to
work
with
you
to
make
this
program
successful
in
producing
thousands
of
workforce
housing
units
in
bellevue
for
years
to
come.
Thank
you.
L
May
robinson
and
council
members
for
the
record
chris
johnson,
with
the
bellevue
chamber
of
commerce,
we're
located
at
3301
12th
avenue,
northeast
suite
100
bellevue
9804,
thanks
to
both
council
and
staff
for
including
the
business
community
in
the
city's
mft
update
stakeholder
outreach
process.
Now
the
chamber
has
had
a
number
of
consultations
with
staff
on
both
programmatic
and
technical
matters,
all
with
one
goal
in
mind
to
maximize
the
number
of
affordable
workforce
units
which
will
be
produced
with
30
000
new
jobs
on
the
way
to
bellevue.
We
simply
cannot
settle
for
anything
less.
L
I
think
tonight
you're
going
to
hear
from
a
number
of
speakers
on
this
topic,
so
I'm
just
going
to
offer
a
few
high
level
points.
First,
no
matter
how
well
conceived
an
incentive
program
is
not
fulfilling
its
purpose.
If
it
is
underutilized,
that's
why
we
recommend
establishing
a
threshold
of
80
ami
for
all
land
use,
districts
or
mfte
is
authorized.
This
is
the
single
most
important
step
that
can
be
taken
to
ensure
mfte
is
actually
used.
L
B
M
Good
evening,
council
members
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
comment
this
evening
on
the
changes
to
the
city's
mfte
program,
I'm
abigail
dewees,
I'm
a
land
use
attorney
at
the
hillis
clark
firm
and
tonight,
I'm
speaking
as
the
chair
of
niop's
east
side
task
force.
Nyap
is
washington,
state's
commercial,
real
estate
development
association,
and
we
have
about
a
thousand
members
statewide,
the
majority
of
which
are
here
in
the
puget
sound
region.
M
An
mfte
program
that
works
well
can
generate
hundreds
of
middle-income
housing
units
right
now.
Bellevue's
program
is
generating
only
a
few
dozen
a
year.
This
is
far
too
few,
especially
in
light
of
the
existing
unmet
need
in
the
city,
which
is
estimated
by
microsoft
and
zillow
to
be
nearly
13
000
units
at
60
to
120
ami.
M
M
We
have
been
actively
engaged
with
the
city
and
the
bellevue
chambers
plush
committee,
for
nearly
a
year
on
what
issues
might
be
with
the
current
program
and
how
it
could
be
changed
to
resolve
them.
Our
work
has
been
tested
with
market
rate
developers
who
are
building
now
or
in
the
near
future
in
bellevue,
to
make
sure
it
will
work
for
various
pro
formas
and
sites.
M
M
We
thank
staff
for
reflecting
this
approach
in
the
1a
and
1b
recommended
approaches,
and
we
support
those
consistency
across
the
city's
urban
areas
is
very
important
and
we
do
not
support
approach
number
two
that
would
lower
amis
to
50
if
combined
with
land
use
incentives.
This
has
not
yet
been
studied
to
verify.
B
B
N
Good
evening,
mayor
robinson
and
council
members,
I
have
one
item
to
report
under
the
city
manager's
report,
and
that
is
an
update
to
the
community
crisis
team
effort,
which
has
been
initiated
by
our
bellevue
police
department
as
a
result
of
recent
community
feedback,
as
well
as
internal
feedback
within
the
police
department
itself.
N
Just
by
way
of
background,
this
effort
is
focused
on
responding
to
emergency
calls
involving
people
in
crisis
who
are
suffering
from
mental
issues.
Before
we
provide
you,
this
update,
I
wanted
to
give
chief
mullet
an
opportunity
to
induces
introduce
his
newest
member
of
the
bellevue
police
department's
executive
leadership
team.
So
steve
would
like
to
do
that.
D
Good
evening,
mayor
and
council,
sometime
over
the
summer
chief
clinic,
decided
to
retire
and
we
started
the
process
of
filling
his
position.
D
D
He
served
in
the
santa
monica
police
department,
for
I
think,
close
to
26
years
retiring
as
a
captain,
but
also
serving,
I
believe,
is
a
deputy
commander
or
deputy
assistant
chief
wendell
brings
years
of
experience,
and
I
have
no
doubt
that
he's
going
to
be
very,
very
effective
in
bellevue.
O
Thank
you,
chief.
First
of
all,
I'd
like
to
thank
the
chief
for
this
opportunity
for
selecting
me.
I'm
humbled
at
this
exciting
opportunity
to
work
in
this
great
city
of
bellevue.
O
I
also
look
forward
to
working
with
the
city's
leadership
team.
I've
met
several
of
you.
I've
met
several
city
council
members,
the
city
manager
and
the
welcoming
could
not
have
been
better.
So
I
thank
you.
I
also
want
to
say
something
to
the
bellevue
community.
I
look
forward
to
meeting
you
listening
to
you
and
working
side
by
side
with
you
to
make
bellevue
an
even
better
city
to
live
to
work
and
visit.
So
thank
you
very
much
at
this
opportunity.
I
look
forward
to
rolling
up
my
sleeve
and
getting
to
work.
O
N
Thank
you
very
much,
chief
shirley.
So
with
that,
I'm
going
to
turn
this
presentation
over
to
chief
milad,
as
well
as
chief
hagan.
D
Council
tonight,
staff
will
be
providing
a
very
brief
update
on
the
police
department's
community
crisis
assistance
team.
As
already
mentioned,
the
purpose
of
the
program
is
to
better
serve
those
in
our
community
suffering
from
mental
health
crisis
and
substance
abuse
issues
joining
us
tonight
is
our
fire
chief
jay
hagan.
D
The
development
of
the
program
continues
to
be
a
work
in
progress
during
this
development
phase.
Staff
has
evaluated
similar,
similar
programs
from
across
the
country
and
have
adopted
certain
aspects
from
these
programs
into
the
ccat
program.
D
D
D
I'm
hopeful
that
we
will
have
a
pilot
project
program
ready
to
be
launched
sometime
in
q2.
At
that
time,
staff
will
provide
another
update
to
the
council.
This
is
going
to
be
a
really
brief.
Brief
brief.
So
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
continued
support
of
the
men
and
women
of
both
the
police
department,
the
fire
department,
as
we
all
continue
to
serve
the
public
and
mr
miyake,
I
will
turn
it
back
over
to
you.
N
Thank
you
and
chief
milette
so
more
to
come
in
the
future,
another
update
for
sure
in
q2.
So
with
that
I'll
turn
it
back
to
you,
mayor.
A
Thank
you,
mr
miyaki,
and
we've
gotten
lots
of
feedback
on
the
concept
of
this
program
and
we'll
have
council
available
to
provide
what
it
formulates.
So,
let's
move
on
to
the
consent
calendar.
Is
there
a
motion
to
approve.
A
A
We
have
a
nice
presentation
first,
but
I'd
like
to
ask
that
everybody
limit
their
comments
and
questions
to
three
minutes
at
a
time
and
we'll
be
able
to
go
around
numerous
times
I'll,
be
sure
that
everybody
has
an
opportunity
to
weigh
in
so,
mr
miyake,
would
you
like
to
introduce
this?
Please.
N
Sure
mayor,
thank
you,
council
members,
as
you
mentioned,
we
are
our
first
study
session.
Topic
is
on
the
multi-family
tax
exemption
program.
This
is
an
update
and
just
by
way
background,
this
update
was
launched
and
late
last
year
in
october
of
2020.
N
Tonight
is
the
first
of
up
to
two
planned
council
study
sessions
on
the
mft
update
staff,
if
we'll
be
planning
to
return
back
sometime
in
april
with
a
program
update
recommendation
in
response
to
direction
and
feedback
received
from
council.
N
So
again
this
evening,
staff
is
seeking
feedback
and
a
possible
policy
direction
in
the
various
areas
that
were
outlined
in
your
agenda
packet
this
evening
and
joining
us
this
evening
is
matt
cummins,
director
emile
king
assistant,
director
and
elizabeth,
the
regret
senior
planner
of
the
community
development
department.
With
that,
I'm
going
to
hand
it
off
to
mac
to
start
a
presentation.
P
All
right,
thank
you,
city
manager,
miyaki,
mayor
and
council.
It's
good
to
be
back
with
you
here
this
evening.
Talking
about
the
multi-family
tax
exemption
program.
I
thought,
as
we
get
into
this,
we
might
want
to
put
this
in
context
for
the
public
and
some
other
folks
on
tv.
This
is
one
of
many
programs.
P
Some
of
the
speakers
mentioned
this,
but
I
will
mention
it
as
we
thought
about
this
and
brought
this
idea
back
to
you.
The
idea
of
better
utilization
for
the
mfte
program
was
a
core
principle
that
everybody
was
thinking
about
and,
as
we
started
to
think
about,
that
there
are
a
whole
bunch
of
different,
topical
areas
that
come
up.
So,
for
example,
is
better
utilization
mean
more
unit
production?
Does
it
mean
serving
different
populations,
lower
amis
higher
amis?
P
How
does
this
tool
work
with
other
programs
that
the
city
has,
for
example,
and
we
have
studied
quite
a
bit
and
heard
from
a
number
of
folks
about
what
what
this
program
can
or
should
be,
vis-a-vis
thinking
about
workforce
housing
and
the
missing
middle,
and
how
does
all
that
work
together
and
we're
gonna
walk
through
all
those
conclusions
with
you,
but
by
way
of
history?
P
So
we
are
going
to
be
recommending
that
this
program
in
in
very
high
level
terms,
becomes
more
of
a
workforce
program,
particularly
as
a
standalone
program,
and
then
I
think,
maybe
the
most
difficult
part
of
the
conversation
is
to
explain
how
this
program
at
city
of
bellevue
layers
in
with
what
we
also
try
to
do,
which
is
the
land
use
incentive,
language
coding,
incentive
program.
Sorry
there
that
offers
financial
incentives
to
developers,
and-
and
I
mentioned
that-
because
many
many
cities
don't
do-
that
they
don't
allow
the
layering
so
effectively.
P
What
we
are
we
do
is
we
allow
for
the
potential
for
a
double
bonus
on
the
same
units
getting
produced,
and
so
what
are
the
financial
metrics
around?
That
is
a
values,
discussion,
you're
all
going
to
be
taking
up
tonight
and
then.
Lastly,
of
course,.
P
P
This
is
just
a
a
cost
question
and
access
relative
to
utilization
and
or
need
so
I'm
going
to
hand
it
off
to
elizabeth
direct,
our
senior
planner
and,
of
course,
I'll,
be
able
to
comment
at
the
end,
along
with
emil
king,
our
assistant
director,
about
all
these
different
policy
and
values,
comments
and
we'll
be
breaking
the
presentation
up
into
chunks
for
you
to
take
take
action
on
questions
around
citywide
versus
not
the
different
affordability
things.
P
R
Mack
and
good
evening,
mayor
robinson
and
members
of
council,
as
matt
just
said,
there's
a
lot
that
we'll
be
covering
today,
so
we'll
be
breaking
this
up
a
little
bit,
but
we're
going
to
start
out
with
some
background
information
and
just
laying
the
stage
and
then
we'll
just
kind
of
take
this
one
bite
at
a
time.
R
So
this
tells
you
a
little
bit
about
what
we'll
be
looking
through
today
as
city
manager,
miyaki
mentioned,
we
are
hoping
to
get
direction
on
a
number
of
these
issues
that
we
are
planning
to
return
with
another
study
session.
R
So
we
will
be
able
to
dive
into
some
of
the
details
at
that
study
session,
but
are
hoping
to
get
some
pretty
good
direction
on
some
of
these
items
today
and
you'll
see
through
the
agenda
we'll
we'll
start
with
some
background
material,
just
reminding
everybody
what
the
program
does
how
it
works
today
and
then
some
analysis
we've
done.
Some
outreach,
we've
done
looking
at
the
existing
program
and
and
what
needs
to
update
which
really
led
to
these
different
policy
discussions.
R
So
we'll
start
with
looking
at
geographic
expansion,
our
family
sized
unit
requirement
and
a
potential
alternative
that
we've
come
up
with
and
then
really
diving
into
the
affordability
levels
where
that
need
is
how
the
program
could
be
adjusted
and
then
also
looking
at
layering,
the
different
programs
and
then
wrapping
up
with
a
quick
touch
on
potentially
looking
at
an
opportunity
for
life
of
project
affordability
or
extending
the
affordability
timeline
of
the
projects
and
then
ending
with
that
parking
question.
R
So,
just
to
remind
everybody
of
how
the
mfte
program
works.
This
is
all
based
off
of
state
legislation.
So
there
are
certain
things
we
have
to
follow.
We
have
to
designate
residential
target
areas
which
are
basically
these
gray
areas
in
the
city
on
the
map
here
where
the
mfte
program
is
permitted,
but
we
have
quite
a
bit
of
flexibility
in
where
those
can
be.
We
have
to
require
that
at
least
20
percent
of
the
units
be
affordable
in
order
to
utilize
the
12-year
tax
exemption.
R
So
in
bellevue
it
ranges
from
50
to
70
percent
ami
depending
on
location,
and
a
lot
of
that
depends
on
this
conversation
about
layering
and
what
other
incentives
are
available
in
these
different
areas
and
just
as
a
reminder,
the
ami
is
the
area
of
median
income,
and
this
is
really
based
off
of
looking
at
tenants,
incomes
and
and
what
the
average
is
for
the
county
and
looking
at
making
sure
that
these
tenants
are
not
spending
more
than
30
percent
of
that
income
on
rent.
R
So
that
is
how
these
rents
are
calculated
and
that's
based
off
of
decades
of
of
kind
of
how
this
has
been
done
in
general
and
we'll
be
touching
on
that
a
little
bit
later
as
well.
We
also
have
a
requirement
that
very
small
units
have
deeper
affordability
requirements
and
that
15
of
units
in
any
mfte
project,
not
just
the
mft
units,
but
all
of
the
units
have
to
be
two
bedrooms
or
larger.
R
So
there
might
be
some
flexibility
that
that
we
get
if
some
legislation
passes
and
we
would
be
able
to
come
back
in
april
with
that
information.
And
then
we
are
required
by
state
law
to
have
a
public
hearing.
But
this
is
also
an
opportunity
for
us
to
really
get
community
feedback.
The
public
hearing
is
only
required
to
talk
about
any
change
to
the
geographic
target
areas,
but
we
are
hoping
to
actually
ask
for
feedback
on
the
program
update
as
a
whole.
At
that
point
and
then,
following
that
up
with
code
adoption,
hopefully
in
the
summer.
R
So
what
we
did
when
we
first
launched
was
really
look
at
our
current
program
to
understand,
what's
happening
today,
understand
what's
working,
what's
not
working
what
needs
changing,
but
also,
as
part
of
that
we
reached
out
to
individual
developers
who
have
worked
in
bellevue
in
the
past
five
years
since
mfte
was
first
adopted,
and
also
those
who
are
currently
working
on
projects
and
and
will
be
bringing
projects
through
the
process
in
the
next
few
years
to
understand
their
thought
process,
how
mft
is
working
for
them,
but
also
how
it's
changed
over
time.
R
So
you
know
when
we
launched
in
october,
we
were
looking
at
about
a
15
to
20
utilization
rate,
depending
on
kind
of
how
you
look
at
it,
since
we
did
update
the
program
in
2018.,
but
what
we've
actually
found
is,
even
since
october,
we've
had
two
more
projects:
totaling
around
100,
affordable
units
be
approved
for
this
program
and
so
we're
already
seeing
increased
utilization
under
current
regulations.
R
We
still
think
there's
a
lot
of
things
we
should.
We
should
update
and
you'll
hear
about
all
of
those
today,
but
it's
we've
actually
been
seeing
quite
a
bit
of
increased
utilization
and
expect
closer
to
40
to
50
percent
of
projects,
even
under
the
current
program,
to
be
able
to
use
mfte
and
and
really
follow
through
on
that.
It's
just
as
people
start
becoming
more
familiar
with
the
program
and
as
staff
has
really
increased
outreach
efforts
as
well
we're
seeing
that
that
utilization
increase
on
its
own.
R
So
I
already
kind
of
mentioned
this.
This
first
row
here,
where
we've
talked
kind
of
one-on-one,
with
a
lot
of
different
developers,
heard
about
individual
project
constraints
and
and
whatever
feedback
they
had
for
us.
We've
also
been
working
very
closely
with
the
bellevue
chamber.
You
heard
comments
at
the
beginning
of
the
session
today
from
that
group
and
we've
been
working
really
collaboratively,
having
monthly
meetings
with
them,
and
that
will
continue
after
this
session
as
well
and
and
getting
really
down
into
the
weeds
on
all
the
finances.
R
This
is
really
as
far
as
developers
are
concerned.
As
to
financial
balance,
we
need
to
make
sure
that
our
model
really
reflects
all
the
decisions
and
all
of
the
you
know,
performance
and
everything
that
they
to
have
to
think
about,
and
then
we've
also
worked
quite
a
bit
with
the
bda
as
well.
Those
conversations
have
been
a
little
bit
more
high
level
and
policy
focused
thinking
about
that
family
size
unit
requirement.
Thinking
about
what
the
affordabilities
need
to
be
in
order
to
target
where
that
that
need
is
for
some
of
our
downtown
employees.
R
That's
the
group
that
we've
been
working
quite
a
bit
with,
and
basically
we're
able
to
put
in
different
inputs
that
would
reflect
different
project
situations,
different
locations
in
the
city
and
different
potential
variables
for
updates
to
the
program,
different
ami
level
requirements,
different
percentages,
different
unit,
mixes,
etc
and
understand
what
that
would
do,
and
so
the
way
we
we
analyze.
This
and
you'll
see
this
in
a
little
bit
when
we
start
looking
at
some
of
the
scenarios
is
develop
a
feasibility
index,
and
this
was
fairly
complicated,
math
and
doing
a
lot
of
different
things.
R
On
the
other
hand,
there
are
costs
that
that
they
have
to
to
pay,
because
they
are
lowering
market
rents
down
to
affordable
rents
and
that
rent
gap
costs
them
money,
and
so
they
balance
these
two
and
they
want
the
exemption
to
be
bigger
than
the
rent
gap
or
they're,
obviously
not
going
to
use
the
program,
and
so
this
feasibility
index
represents
what
that
balance
is,
and
what
that
return
is.
So
if
that's
20,
it
means
that
they
get
about
a
20
return.
R
That's
good,
because
we
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
a
buffer
there,
because
there
are
a
number
of
risks
which
are
outlined
in
some
of
the
packet
materials
around.
You
know
guessing
what
this
tax
exemption
is
going
to
be
and
exactly
how
those
affordable
rents
will
change
over
time.
Things
like
that,
so
this
is
just
a
high-level
way
of
looking.
Basically,
when
you
see
a
feasibility
index,
it
should
be
targeted
somewhere
between
20
and
40.
R
R
So
this
one
is
something
that
was
specifically
mentioned
when
we
launched.
Currently,
these
blue
areas
are
the
existing
residential
target
areas
or
rtas
where
the
program
can
be
used
and
each
of
them
has
slightly
different
requirements
under
our
current
program,
and
we
were
asked
to
take
a
look
at
expanding
this
to
all
of
the
multifamily
zones.
City-Wide,
so
you'll
see
all
these
red
areas
are
multi-family.
Zoning
and
the
kind
of
pinker
areas
are
office.
R
Zoning
that
do
allow
multi-family,
but
it's
somewhat
limited,
and
then
this
hashed
area
with
the
diagonal
lines,
is
really
trying
to
tie
this
to
transit
access
and
understanding
who
has
good
access
to
frequent
transit.
And
so
all
those
stated
areas
are
within
a
half
mile
of
a
frequent
transit
station
and
so
you'll
see
a
lot
of
our
multi-family.
R
Zoning
in
the
city
has
pretty
good
transit
access,
and
that
was
something
that
we
were
asked
to
look
at,
and
so
staff
kind
of
took
this
and
said:
let's
look
at
expanding
the
program
to
all
of
these
multi-family
zones
so
that
we
aren't
excluding
any
potential
projects
that
that
might
come
up
in
the
coming
years.
In
any
of
these
areas,
so
this
isn't
changing
any
existing
zoning.
This
isn't
going
to
make
any
different
types
of
buildings
get
built
and
would
otherwise
be
built.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
I
need
to
change
my
view,
so
I
can
see
everybody
excuse
me
just
a
sec.
There
we
go
okay,
I'm
going
to
go
in
this
order,
starting
with
council
members
on
then
robertson,
barksdale,
lee
stokes,
deputy
mayor
and
then
myself
so
council
members
on.
E
Yes,
thank
you
mayor.
I
just
want
to
clarify
so
right
now
we're
only
addressing
this
particular
question
about
expanding
it.
Citywide
is
that
right
just
want
to
make
sure.
A
E
Where
multi-family
is
allowed
within
the
city?
Sorry,
let
me
clarify
that.
Yes,
so
I
would
say
that
I
I
support
this
approach
because
when
I
think
about
our
retreat
and
our
vision
where
we
talk
about
housing,
choices
abound
and
that
there's
affordable
housing
city-wide
that
as
we
look
at
the
map
of
the
areas
and
the
overlap,
it
makes
sense
to
me
that
we
make
this
approach
available
so
that
we
actually
have
the
ability
to
have
housing,
affordability
at
many
different
levels
in
many
areas
throughout
the
city.
Thank
you.
S
Thanks
yeah
to
this
question,
absolutely
I
support
expanding
it
to
all
multi-family
zones
in
the
cities.
I
think
I've
been
advocating
for
that
for
about
three
years.
That's
all
I'm
going
to
say
so,
just
let's
do
it.
A
Thank
you,
councilmember
barksdale.
I
support.
F
A
Thank
you,
okay,
councilmember
lee.
A
R
So
this
next
issue
is
about
our
family
size
unit
requirement,
and
our
current
requirement,
as
I
mentioned,
is
that
15
of
the
units
be
two
bedrooms
are
larger
and
in
our
outreach
efforts
we
found
that
this
roughly
matches
the
the
market
today.
So
most
projects
that
are
multi-family
projects
going
in
bellevue
have
about
15
or
more
units,
our
two
bedrooms,
and
so
we
we
didn't
get
really
pushback
on
lowering
that
that
that
number
are
changing
it
much.
R
So
we
recommend
retaining
that
requirement,
but
we
also
found
that
there
are
a
couple
projects
out
there
that
are
kind
of
a
different
typology.
They
aren't
typical
projects
with
a
mix
of
studios,
one
bedrooms
and
two
bedrooms:
they're
really
focused
on
studios
and
maybe
some
one
bedrooms,
not
necessarily
micro
units,
since
we
already
have
a
requirement
that
those
are
deeper
affordability,
but
but
really
something
in
the
middle
there.
R
And
for
these
projects
they
wouldn't
consider
using
mfte
right
now
because
they're
nowhere
near
the
required
minimum
number
of
two
bedrooms,
and
so
we
want
to
make
sure
that
that
projects
like
that
are
still
able
to
provide
affordability,
but
because
they
have
slightly
smaller
unit
types,
we
might
actually
be
able
to
push
it
so
that
they
get
either
more
more
quantity
of
units
at
the
same
affordability
levels
or
that
those
units
could
be
deeper
affordability
and
so
staff
is
recommending,
adding
an
alternate
pathway
for
projects
like
that
which
really
focus
on
studios
and
one
bedrooms
to
still
be
able
to
utilize
the
the
program,
but
with
slightly
different
affordability
requirements,
and
so
today
we
are
just
asking
for
direction
on
whether
this
is
a
type
of
of
change.
R
A
Thank
you,
so
this
would
be
across.
Oh
sorry,
I'm
going
to
count
on
me
I'm
going
to
call
on
me
first
and
then
we'll
we'll
do
the
deputy
mayor,
councilmember,
stokes,
lee
barksdale
and
robertson
and
zahn,
so
this
would
be
across
the
board
for
all
the
areas
every
it
would
be,
the
same,
whether
it's
downtown
or
crossroads,
etc.
Right,
I'm
wondering
if
that
is
realistic
for
downtown
development.
You
say
that
currently
they
people
tend
to
developers
tend
to
put
in
the
two-bedroom
anyway.
Is
that
true
of
downtown
as
well
yeah.
R
We've
we've
looked
at
projects
that
have
been
coming
in
recently
downtown
and
they're
coming
right
at
around
15
to
20
percent
and
we've
also
been
working
with.
The
plush
committee
asked
them
about
this,
and
they
said
they
don't
really
have
have
a
problem
with
that.
You
know
in
a
couple
instances
they
might
need
to
add
one
two-bedroom
unit
or
so,
but
there
really
wasn't
too
much
conversation
about
that
issue.
R
A
I
would
say
that
the
original
intention,
when
coming
up
with
this
requirement,
was
to
create
housing
for
families,
and
so
I
think
that
it
has
been
successful
in
doing
that,
and
I
would
like
to
continue
to
provide
that
as
well,
and
I
know
there's
going
to
be
other
opportunities
to
emphasize
smaller
units
development
later
on
tonight.
So
I'm
I'm
comfortable
with
this
myself,
deputy
mayor
nunes.
H
Thank
you,
mayor,
yeah,
I'm
fairly
comfortable
with
this
as
well,
retaining
that
existing
requirement
and
then
also
adding
an
alternate
pathway
of
either
more
units.
H
What
concerns
me
a
little
about
the
deeper
affordability,
so
that
would
be
the
the
ami
requirement
being
lowered,
where
I
think
we've
heard
from
quite
a
few
stakeholders
tonight
and
about,
and
that
actually
leads
me
a
question
about
a
national
standard.
That
80
is
that
kind
of
sweet
spot
that
we've
heard
from
a
lot
of
these
stakeholders.
So
actually,
can
you
confirm
that,
for
me,
elizabeth
is:
is
that
almost
like
a
national
standard
or
I
don't?
H
H
R
But
you
know
the
mfd
programs
vary
across
the
state,
a
lot
and
most
of
them
have
requirements
lower
than
80
ami,
but
they
do
vary
quite
a
bit
and
it
really
depends
on
how
you
layer,
with
other
things
and
what
the
other
details
of
programs
are.
Okay,.
A
Right
now
we're
looking
at
direction
about
amending
the
existing
the
existing
requirement,
the
15
of
any
any
mfte
projects
units
be
two
bedrooms
or
larger.
Do
you
want
to
retain
that
or
do
you
want
to
add
to
it
or
amend
it?
So
that's
what
we're
looking
at
right,
this
minute
and
you're
saying
what
deputy
mayor
I'm.
H
Saying
that
I
am
in
favor
of
the
staff
recommendation
to
retain
the
existing
requirement,
but
I'm
also
willing
to
look
at
it
to
have
staff
look
at
an
alternate
pathway
as
well,
for
either
more
units
or
more
affordable
units.
A
Okay,
okay,
council
member
stokes.
T
I
was
going
to
stay
the
same,
but
I'm
not
quite
sure
that
the
extent
of
what
the
deputy
mayor
is
saying
on
the
the
ex
the
thing
he
wants
to
get
into
so
I'll
just
say
I
I
agree
with
this
proposal.
As
stated.
C
I
agree
to
the
15
percent
unit
at
two-bedroom
or
larger.
The
reason
is
that,
though
the
market
seems
to
say
that's
the
case.
You
know
when
we
talk
to
the
developers
and
they
agree,
and
I
think
this
is
where
I
really
appreciate
the
amazon's
speaker
saying
that
we
need
to
look
at
data
look
at
needs
and
unless
something
else
tells
me
that
15
is
not
the
right
number,
which
I
don't
know.
C
With
lack
of
any
of
that,
you
know
there
seems
to
be
a
number,
that's
working,
so
I
will
stick
with
this.
However,
because
of
what
I
said,
I
haven't
heard
from
the
staff
saying
that
this
is
the
right
number.
So
if,
if
we
can,
the
staff
can
prove
that
this
is
not
the
right
number.
C
There's
a
better
number
to
use
based
on
data
based
on
you
know
needs
then
I
would
be
happy
to
look
at
alternate
pathway,
but
I
would
look
at
also
alternate
pathway
of
maybe
more
or
less
units
based
on
data
based
on
needs,
but
at
this
moment
liking
of
all
those
I
was
live
with.
Fifteen
percent
of
units
at
two
bedroom,
four.
F
S
Thanks
so
I'm
I'm
a
little
confused
as
to
the
direction
we're
giving
tonight.
So,
as
I
understand
it,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand.
Staff
is
recommending
that
we
keep
the
15
for
of
the
mfte
units
being
two
bedrooms
or
larger,
but
they're
asking
that
we
also
consider
having
a
different
alternative
for
buildings
that
have
no
two
bedrooms
right.
So
you're,
not
asking
in
this
alternative
that
we
allow
people
who
are
building
a
mixed
building
with
two
bedrooms,
one
bedrooms
and
studios
to
have
no
two
bedrooms
as
the
mfte.
S
It's
just
if
people
are
building
a
building
with
only
one
bedrooms
or
studios,
or
a
mix
of
only
one
bedrooms
and
studios,
that
they'd
be
allowed
to
still
have
an
ability
to
use
mfte
and
that
we
either
compensate
for
that
by
having
deeper
affordability
or
a
higher
percentage.
Is
that
correct.
P
Yes,
councilmember
robertson,
that's
exactly
right!
We
think
we're
missing
an
opportunity
to
get
people
into
the
mfte
program,
because
their
buildings
just
are
never
intended
to
be
a
traditional
apartment.
Building.
S
Okay,
I
just
I
was
hearing
my
colleagues
talk
about
this
and
I
wasn't
getting
that
that's
what
we
were
weighing
in
on.
So
I
do
support
that.
I
think
that
if
there
are
no
two
bedrooms
and
a
building
is
one
bedroom
or
studio
or
both
that
we
should
still
allow
those
developments,
because
we
want
affordability
and
we
want
more
workforce
housing
to
you
still
use
mfte,
whether
it's
a
deeper
affordability
or
a
higher
percentage
of
units
being
the
80
or
whatever
number
we
land
on.
S
I
would
really
like
to
leave
that
up
to
the
developer.
So
if,
if
we're
doing
this
in
the
code,
it
would
say
you
know
that
they
can
shoot.
If,
if
the
number's
25,
they
can
either
do
25
or
they
can
keep
it
at
20
and
have
it
be
it?
You
know
60
or
70,
I'd
like
to
leave
it
optional
for
the
developer,
because
we're
going
to
get
more
units
if
we
make
it
flexible
for
them
to
be
able
to
utilize
this.
S
A
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
personally,
I
wasn't
sure
if
we
were
covering
that
one
right
now
or
if
we
were
going
to
get
to
that
so.
S
A
Got
you
so
yeah
if
deputy
mayor,
councilman,
councilmember,
stokes,
lee
or
barksdale
want
to
change
anything
I'm
in
agreement
with
councilmember
robert
robertson's
assessment
of
this
personally,
so
any
other
okay,
so,
council
members
on,
would
you
like
to
make
a
comment.
E
Yes,
I
support
staff's
recommendation
to
retain
the
15
for
those
buildings
that
have
two
bedrooms
and
also
to
create
that
alternative
pathway.
I
did
have
one
question,
and
that
is
that,
when
we
have
these
units,
are
they
are
they
designed
for
ada?
E
So
I'm
thinking
about
our
seniors
and
the
ability
to
right
move
out
of
their
home
and
have
the
ability
to
perhaps
move
into
a
slightly
smaller
unit
that
has
all
the
ada
features
so
that
you
know
grab
bars
and
not
falling
and
various
things
so
does
does
our
code
or
does
the
design
allow
for
that,
because
I'm
thinking
that
you
know
these
the
units
that
maybe
studios
or
one
bedrooms
may
very
well
be
housing
that
our
seniors
would
very
much
be
interested
in.
A
I
think
the
question
is,
you
know:
could
you
make
the
requirement
to
make
all
those
units
ada
without
ruining
the
calculation
for
the
developer?
I
don't
know
what
the
cost
differential
is.
E
P
No,
I
I'm
very
comfortable,
I
think,
as
you're
all
throwing
out
some
potential
options
and
policy
considerations
we're
gonna.
Just
so
you
know
we're
gonna,
bring
you
back
a
range
of
options
and
the
pros
and
cons
of
all
of
them.
So
what
we
needed
was
some
direction
on.
Are
you
interested
in
a
pathway
for
these?
You
know
different
types
of
buildings
and
so
yeah
we'll
bring
that
back
to
you.
We're
good
tonight.
R
All
right,
the
next
topic
is
looking
at
the
affordability
levels,
this
topic
and
the
next
one
are
intertwined,
and
so
this
one
is
kind
of
the
high
level
discussion
about
what
we're
trying
to
target
with
this
program
in
a
general
sense,
and
then
once
we
bring
in
the
next
topic,
which
is
looking
at
layering
it
with
the
other
programs,
we'll
be
diving
into
the
actual
ami
levels
and
that
chart
that
you
have
in
your
packet
materials
and
so
just
letting
you
know
that
this
section
is
kind
of
high
level
and
then
we'll
we'll
dive
deeper.
R
R
What
is
the
point
of
mfte,
and
so
that's
kind
of
what
this
slide
is
going
to
go
over
currently
our
program
targets
between
50
and
70
ami,
and
we
are
looking
at
upping
that
and
you'll
hear
that
in
the
next
section.
R
But
we
wanted
to
understand
where
our
gaps
are
and
and
how
this
program
fits
into
that
and
so
you'll
see
on
this
chart,
looking
at
in
bellevue
how
many
households
we
have
and
how
many
units
we
have
at
each
of
these
ranges
of
ami
levels
and
the
50
to
80
ami
tends
to
be
the
ranges
where
most
cities
have
their
mfte
programs
and
where
ours
currently
fits
in
that
category
and
you'll
actually
see
that
today
in
bellevue,
we
actually
have
more
units
than
we
have
households
in
that
kind
of
range,
and
a
lot
of
that
is
because
we
do
have
quite
a
few
regulated
units.
R
R
We
have
recently
added
information
that
that
this
is
also
pretty
true
across
bellevue
units,
specifically
in
an
80
ami
arch
unit.
On
average,
the
households
that
are
in
those
units
are
actually
at
55
ami.
So
there's
a
pretty
big
gap
there,
where
these
55
ami
households
are
really
cost
burdened,
even
when
they're
in
an
80
ami
unit,
and
so
that's
really
showing
that
our
needs
are
for
some
of
these
deeper
affordability
units.
Now
mfte
is
not
meant
to
target.
You
know,
30
ami,
no.
R
That's
not
how
this
program
works,
but
there
aren't
really
other
programs
that
target
between
you
know
60
and
80
ami.
We
have
kind
of
our
our
subsidy
programs
and
programs
that
that
might
come
out
of
things
like
1590,
are,
are
required
to
target
60
or
below
and
usually
target
the
kind
of
lower
bands
of
that
range,
whereas
our
incentive
programs
that
are
in
our
land
use
code
target
80.
So
between
those
two
things,
mfte
is
really
the
only
program
that
can
target
those
ami
thresholds,
and
so
that's
really
our
sweet
spot.
R
And
then
we
also
wanted
to
just
kind
of
give
a
little
bit
of
grounding
in
who
you
know
what
what
jobs
qualify
for
different
ami
levels
so
that
people
understand
what
ami
means
instead
of
just
numbers.
These
are
people.
You
know
as
an
example.
I
know
this
text
is
really
small,
so
I'm
just
going
to
pull
out
a
couple
of
these.
R
R
And
then
this
is
where
we
get
into
some
of
the
scenarios:
we're
not
going
to
be
talking
about
the
specific
ami
levels
associated
with
these
until
the
the
next
section,
because
that
depends
on
how
the
layering
happens.
But
we
wanted
to
introduce
this
concept
of
now
that
you've
seen
where
the
need
is
and
kind
of
how
mfte
fits
in
with
our
other
programs.
R
What
kind
of
opportunities
there
there
are
for
creating
different
different
program,
update
scenarios,
and
so
we
don't
really
have
to
look
at
exactly
what
what
what
these
axes
mean
or
anything,
but
in
general.
The
concept
here
is
that
if
we
raise
the
ami
level
it'll
be
closer
to
market
rate
development,
which
means
it
costs
less
for
the
developer
to
use
mfte,
which
means
that
they're
going
to
be
more
excited
about
using
it
and
we're
probably
going
to
get
more
utilization
more
units
produced
under
mfte.
R
That's
a
general
trend.
It
depends
on
what
other
requirements
we
have,
but
along
those
trends,
we've
we've
created
three
different
sort
of
basic
scenarios
and
you'll
see.
Our
existing
program
is
down
here
where
it
is
aimed
at
deeper
affordability
and
all
of
the
options
that
we've
brought
forth
really
do
increase
that
of
that
ami
level.
Quite
a
bit
in
the
intention
of
increasing
our
program
utilization,
quite
a
bit
so
you'll
see.
R
This
is
just
laying
out
that
the
scenarios
that
we'll
be
going
over
next
range
from
three,
which
is
somewhat
similar
to
existing
program,
but
definitely
fixing
a
few
of
the
of
the
issues
that
that
were
brought
out
in
our
outreach
and
raising
the
ami
level,
some
kind
of
sits,
it's
close
to
existing
program,
but
definitely
increasing
utilization
and
then
scenario,
two
bumps
it
up
even
more
and
then
scenario.
One
is
really
getting
it
pretty
close
to.
R
You
know
as
as
much
utilization
as
you
could
possibly
get,
but
also
at
the
expense
of
potentially
not
getting
as
much
affordability
for
that
tax
exemption,
since
the
tax
exemption
is
the
same
for
all
of
these
options,
so
I'm
going
to
pause
here
for
some.
Some
general
discussion
we'll
be
getting
to
the
exact
ami
levels
of
these
different
scenarios
next,
but
we
wanted
to
kind
of
get
some
discussion
going
about
which
which
direction
you
all
are
leaning
and
and
which,
which
kind
of
target
area
mfte,
should
really
be
going
for.
R
But
we
are
asking
for
a
general
outlook
on
you
know.
Is
it?
Is
it
more
important
to
get
more
units
at
really
high
ami
levels,
or
is
there
a
balance
that
we
we
want
to
find
or
do
we
want
to
be
really
focusing
on
not
further
cost
burdening
people
and
getting
deeper
affordability
that
really
meets
that
need
so
somewhere
in
the
middle.
R
So
the
staff
recommendation
is
to
go
for
is
to
go
for
option
number
two
here.
This
isn't
necessarily
tying
you
to
the
exact
ami
levels
that
are
in
option
number
two
in
the
in
the
next
section,
but
this
general
concept
of
basically
option
number
two
target.
R
Most
buildings
working
for
mft,
so
utilization
would
be
much
closer
to
100
percent,
but
there
might
be
a
few
projects
that
are
really
targeted
at
luxury
market
rents,
they're,
a
really
high
rent,
so
that
rent
gap
is
is
really
big
where
we,
we
might
not
be
targeting
mfte's
use
for
those
particular
projects
in
order
to
really
be
able
to
make
an
efficient
program
that
meets
our
needs
for
the
other.
You
know
90
or
so
of
projects.
R
A
Got
you
so
you've
got
option
one
option
two,
which
is
your
staff
recommendation,
option
three
and
then
e,
which
is
the
existing
program
exactly
okay.
I
will
call
in
this
order
council,
member
barksdale
lee
stokes
deputy
mayor
noon,
house
myself,
son
and
councilmember
robertson,
so
councilmember
barksdale.
F
F
Thinking
about,
I
guess,
thinking
about
the
comment
earlier.
I
think
that
mac
made
that
we
have
other
tools
for
the
deeper
affordability,
but
acknowledging
that
we
have
the
gap
between
the
60
and
80
that
the
mft
program
really
helps
to
to
fill.
I
think,
wherever
that
fits
here,
I
guess,
is
sort
of
what
I'm,
what
I'm
thinking
about,
I'm
not
exactly
sure
how
to
respond
to
this
particular
prompt.
But
I
guess
it
because
to
me
it's
not
so
much
about
quantity
versus
affordability.
F
R
C
Well,
we
all
support
more
more
of
more
affordable
housing.
That's
everybody
agrees
and
we
have
tools
as
mccarmen.
You
know
mark
mentioned,
and
you
know
this
mfte
is
one
two
okay
and
we
all
recognize
it's
the
tool
for
unit
production,
okay
and
to
do
depth
of
affordability.
That's
also
true.
We
want
that
as
well,
but
that
requires
a
different
tool.
C
Let's
not
use
the
butcher
knife
to
cut
a
a
a
a
little
chicken.
You
know
I
mean
something
you
want
to
use
for
a
cow,
don't
use
it
for
a
chicken
and
I'd
rather
find
the
right
tool
that
is
designed
for
the
right
purpose
and
work
on
it
and
focus
on
it.
You
get
much
better
result
doing
that
other
than
just
getting
a
big
big.
You
know
big
butcher's
knife
trying
to
kill
a
little.
C
You
know
chicken
for
for
dinner
that
doesn't
make
sense
number
one
you're
utilizing
one
two
one
you're
not
being
effective,
then
you're
not
being
efficient.
So
I
I
think,
unless
we
become
so
desperate,
we
we
want
to
throw
atomic
bomb
on
on
killing
a
chicken.
In
that
case
we're
desperate,
we're
not
there.
I
think
we
want
to
find
the
right
tool
use
it
for
the
maximum
purpose
that
we
can
get,
and
I
believe
we
it's
not
to
minimize.
You
know,
what's
last
one
more
important,
it's
all
important,
that's
affordability
and
unit
production.
C
We
don't
have
enough
unit.
We
recognize
that
we
need
to
do
everything
we
can
to
do
that.
If
we
compromise
it,
we're
not
going
to
get
accomplish
one
or
the
other,
we're
not
going
to
have
the
right
unit
and
we're
not
going
to
have
the
right
depth,
then
we're
not
going
to
get
where
we
want
to
go
to
we'll
be
nowhere.
So
I
fully
support
you
know
using
for
the
80
or
more
because
that
creates
more
units
that
creates
more
option
more
availability.
C
People
can
try
to
you
know
we
can
meet
100
anyway,
but
we
need
to
do
the
best
we
can
so
that
we
have
the
opportunity
and
space
and
and
to
meet.
You
know
whatever
to
satisfy
one
piece.
Then
we
use
the
other
tools.
You
mentioned
that
we
layer
them.
Yes,
if
they're
appropriately
use
them.
If
they
are,
they
fit
use
it.
But
you
know.
A
Member
lee,
may
I
ask
questions
if,
when
you
look
at
the
the
visual
here
and
you
see
the
options
of
one
two,
three
and
e,
which
one
are
you
leaning
toward?
Do
you
see
it
on
your
screen?.
C
I
will,
I
would
go
with
you
know
they
actually
have
one
a
and
one
b,
okay,.
C
C
A
T
T
We've
had
these
conversations
in
buckets
or
in
in
kind
of
silos
in
a
sense,
and
I
think
what
we're
getting
to
what
the
staff
is
really
getting
us
to
think
about.
Is
that
the
issue
of
affordability
and
how
we
approach
it-
and
you
know,
we've
all
been
saying
this
in
different
ways-
is
that
it's
there
are
many
things
many
ways
to
do
this.
T
So
what
we're
looking
at
now
is
how
is
the
mtft
the
best
produces
the
best
and
and
and
makes
a
balance,
and
I
think
that's
important
for
the
community
and
other
people
who
are
advocates
understand
because
sometimes
you
know
people
want
to
use
the
mtft
in
a
way
that
you
know
without
understanding
it
really
doesn't
produce
the
level.
So
I
think
what
is
good
about
what's
being
proposed,
and
I
I
think
number
two
balance
between
quantity
and
affordability
is:
is
the
the
smart
way
to
go
on
this?
T
That
gives
us
an
opportunity
to
probably
have
a
better
program.
All
the
way
around,
but
I
think
it's
important
to
really
focus
on
that,
so
that
we
maximize
the
utilization
of
this
and
you
get
the
balance
between
you
know.
The
the
quantity
and
affordability
is
is
important,
and
you
know
just
going
for
eighty
percent
enough
and
and
no
lower
is,
I
think,
is
not
using
it
in
the
in
the
wisest
way
either
and
talking
about
going
down
to
50
or
lower
is
not
feasible
either.
So
I'm
comfortable
with
that.
T
But
what
I
think
we
really
what
I'm
hoping
we'll
do
next
in
this
is,
is
really
look
at
the
broader
picture
and
at
some
point
come
to
an
understanding
of.
We
have
all
of
these
tools,
and
this
is
how
they
all
work
together.
T
Some
sometimes
we
kind
of
we
look
at
this,
and
each
piece
is
little
silos,
and
I
really
appreciate
the
fact
that
we're
looking
at
this
a
little
bit
differently,
so
I'm
very
comfortable
with-
and
I
think
the
smartest
the
most
productive
way
is
to
go
with
number
two
balance
between
quantity
and
affordability.
T
H
Thank
you,
mayor
yeah,
you
know
again,
I
guess
I
have
to
go
back
to
what
we've
heard
from
the
stakeholders
in
this
analysis,
where
you
know
constantly
referred,
that
and
and
and
my
thought
on
this
is
that
mfte
is
a
unit
production
tool
and
therefore
I
would
be
leaning
towards
as
councilmember
lee
had
towards
that,
that
maximizing
the
the
quantity
I
mean
we
can
look
at
and
I'm
and
I'm
open
to
looking
at
those
different
options
and
the
affordab
and
and
lean
a
little
more
towards
some
of
those
affordability
options.
H
You
know,
then,
then
we're
gonna
have
to
look
at
this
again,
and
you
know
this
is
a
real
unique
time
in
in
our
city
and
we
need
to
maximize
as
many
units
as
possible.
So
therefore,
because
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
pencil
out
any
other
way
as
it's
currently
structured.
I
think
the
mfte
does
need
to
be
at
that.
80
percent
ami.
So
again,
therefore,
I
would
be
looking
at
that
that
that
maximize
the
the
quantity,
as
it's
illustrated
here
now,
our
our
pack-
we've
got
some
different
nuances
here.
H
You
know
kind
of
between
one
and
two,
and
I
hope
we're
gonna
have
that
that
that
discussion,
but
based
on
the
the
the
slide
that
we're
looking
at
right
now
I'll
be
leaning
more
towards
number
one.
A
Okay,
great,
so
I
see
this
as
one
of
many
tools
and
I
really
appreciate
that
this
can
be
layered
with
the
incentives,
and
I
know
it
is
a
balance
as
everybody's
described.
A
You
know,
of
course
we
want
as
many
units
as
possible,
but
we
also
want
this
to
be
utilized,
and
I
think
that
if
staff
feels
we
can
get
deeper
affordability
below
80
percent
ami
and
still
create
quite
a
few
units-
and
that's
going
to
be
my
my
choice
because
it's
really
easy
to
get
80
percent
ami
with
other
tools,
it's
hard
to
get
lower
than
that,
and
so
any
chance
we
have
an
opportunity
to
get
deeper
affordability.
I
think
we
should
take
it.
So
I'm
I'm
gonna
go
with
option
two
council
members
on.
E
Yes,
thank
you
mayor.
You
know
I've
been.
I
was
thinking
about
the
charts
that
you
showed
with
just
how
many
55
ami
households
are
renting
at
the
80
level,
because
we
don't
have
enough
affordable
units
and
that's
just
heartbreaking,
because
I
can
only
imagine
what
they're
giving
up
in
order
to
pay
their
rent.
E
So
when
I
think
about
it,
I
do
think
about
using
the
the
maximizing
the
tools
that
we
have
in
the
best
way
that
the
tool
within
the
range
it
allows,
and
so
to
the
degree
that
we
can
really
understand
the
financial
analysis
and,
what's
possible,
I
agree
with
the
mayor.
We
we
need
to
get
to
the
slightly
deeper
affordability
than
the
80
percent.
E
E
So
I'd
like
to
understand
a
bit
more
about
how
this
and
the
1590
might
kind
of
form
a
tapestry
of
how
this
works,
and
so
to
the
degree
that
this
can
get
down
to
60
percent.
What
are
the
kind
of
of
terms
we
would
need
to
have
in
order
to
look
at
getting
there
so
that
we
can
have
that
that
full
range
of
of
housing
units
that
are
able
to
be
built?
But
I
also
understand
that
if
the
tool
isn't
used,
then
we're
not
actually
getting
enough
any
affordable
housing.
E
So
it
does
have
to
be
that
right
balance.
I
guess
my
question
would
be
this.
When
you
talked
about
the
feasibility
index,
did
you
were
you
able
to
find
out
from
the
people
that
we
interviewed,
whether
our
analysis
aligned
with
where
the
developers
think
that
affordability
is
or
and
and
the
feasibility
index?
So
we
talked
about
the
20
to
40
percent
of
feasibility?
E
I
would
I
would
like
to
have
that
outreach
if
it
hasn't
already
happened,
to
make
sure
that
our
analysis
aligns
with
where
the
developer
community
thinks
we.
It
is
as
well
just
so
that
we
understand
thanks.
R
Thank
you.
That
definitely
is
how
we
developed
our
financial
model,
and
so
we
actually
passed
over
our
financial
model,
our
big
excel
spreadsheet,
to
members
of
the
development
community.
They
took
a
look
at
it
and
said
it.
It
does
reflect
the
the
numbers
and
the
kind
of
feasibility
that
that
they're
seeing
and
they
were
definitely
essential
to
kind
of
picking
that
20
to
40
range
saying
you
know
around
30
is
really
where,
where
they
would
feel
really
comfortable
using
the
program.
At
that
point,.
A
So
councilmembers
on,
I
wasn't
clear
as
to
what
your
recommendation
ultimately
is
here.
E
I'm
I'm
recommending
too,
if
we
can
better
if
we
align
with
where
the
development
community
is
to
make
sure
that
our
tool
of
determining
feasibility
index
aligns
with
what
they're
seeing
and
if
there
are
some
tweaks
that
we
need
to
make
to
the
feasibility
index
to
better
reflect
that
alignment.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
happens
because
we're
using
data
to
form
inform
our
decisions,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
that
data
and
the
analytics
is
the
the
most
reflective
of
the
financial
picture.
Thank
you.
E
S
Thanks,
I
think
we
need
to
keep
in
mind
the
purpose
of
this
tool.
The
purpose
of
this
tool
is
to
get
us
more
housing
and
use
it
for
develop
fee
developers.
If
you
will
not
non-profits
they,
although
they
might
use
it
too.
S
This
really
effectively
is
important
to
me.
I
don't
want
to
go
through
this
exercise
of
trying
to
fix
this,
and
have
it
be
something
that
is
not
used,
so
the
data
that
that
is
on
slide
16
that
talks
about
this
gap
between
51
and
80.
That's
four
years
old
and
the
data
that
I'm
hearing
about
in
the
community.
Microsoft
has
been
looking
at
the
data
as
part
of
their
housing
initiative.
S
They
show
gap
in
every
gaps
in
every
income
level,
so
we
need
more
housing
at
every
level
and
this
tool
is
the
one
that
will
get
us
some
affordability
on
fee
developers,
not
you
know,
for-profit
developers.
So
for
me
that
means
making
sure
that
they
use
it.
So
I'm
on
number
one
here:
can
you
put
up
slide
22,
please.
I
know
we're
not
there
yet,
but
that's
the
one
that
really
lays
it
out
more
carefully.
S
S
Then
we
should
look
at
how
they're
stacked,
but
right
now
I
want
to
look
at
this
tool
as
a
tool
in
and
of
itself,
and
that
means
80
ami
to
me,
because
I
want
to
get
more
affordability
and
I
know
there's
a
gap.
We
need
the
lower
levels
as
well,
but
the
really
low
levels
are
generally
built
by
nonprofits
with
government
funding,
and
that
is
something
that
the
fee
developers
are
never
going
to
build.
They
are
never
going
to
build
those.
S
So
if
we
don't
have
the
mfte
correctly,
then
what
we're
going
to
have
is
we're
not
going
to
get
the
80
units
and
then
the
people
who
might
be
at
60
affordability
as
far
as
their
income
won't
have
any
units
to
go
into.
Yes,
80
is
not
ideal,
but
it
beats
the
median
average
rent
of
110
of
ami.
So
I
think
that
it's
we're
better
off.
S
S
If
we
are
not,
if
our
for
profit
developers
aren't
cranking
out
units,
we're
not
going
to
have
housing
for
those
folks,
so
making
sure
that
we
are
staying
ahead
of
this,
I
think,
is
really
important
and
that's
why
I
support
scenario
one
and
one
a
in
particular.
I
know
we're
gonna
get
to
that
more,
but
I
think
that
that's
the
sweet
spot,
that's
what
we're
hearing
and
I
support
that.
A
Thank
you.
Okay,
let's
go
back
to
the
slide
we
are
on
and
I
will
ask
staff
to
respond
to
council
member
robertson's
comments,
because
she's
saying
that
the
mfte
has
been
underutilized
because
it
doesn't
pencil
out
for
the
developers
and
I'm
reading
something
different
from
staff.
So
can
you
please
weigh
in
on
what
her
comments
are?
Please.
P
Thank
you
mayor.
How
about
I
jump
in.
I
think
there
are
a
number
of
things
that
are
kind
of
getting
out
on
the
table
now
and
it's
going
to
be
really
instructive,
as
we
get
into
the
next
section
when
you
are
starting
to
make
some
decisions
or
give
us
some
direction
on
the
various
affordability
levels.
P
P
The
bonus
is
given
in
the
form
of
value
added
to
the
developer
through
extra
far
and
a
variety
of
other
things
that
occur
in
the
land
use
code,
and
the
question
is,
if
you
apply
mfte
to
those
very
same
units
that
are
already
being
created,
you
know,
is
there
something
else
or,
or
you
just
get
the
financial
incentive
of
the
nfte
so
at
any
rate
we're
going
to
get
into
all
the
metrics
here
right
now,
but
we
are
in
fact
proposing
that
mfte
as
it
goes
city
wide,
be
it
a
higher
income
level,
ami
wise.
P
So
really
it's
it's.
The
layering
effect
that
I
think
you're
all
making
most
of
the
comments
on
and
then
I
think,
councilmember
robertson
made
some
very
accurate
comments
there
about
overall
housing
production
and,
as
you
know,
we're
we're
working
on
that
for
you,
and
there
are
a
lot
of
factors
that
go
into
creation
of
housing
a
lot
around
how
we
do
zoning
just
in
general
and
and
land
uses,
and
competition
to
buy
land
and
all
the
different
construction
factors
and
so
forth.
So
I
think
for
this
discussion.
P
What
we're
trying
to
do
is
drive
to
what,
if
you're,
going
to
build
housing,
how
can
we
make
mfte
a
program
that
is
very
attractive
to
you
and
has
enough
of
a
financial
incentive
that
you're
going
to
use
it
and
therefore
provide
affordable
housing?
The
question
of
whether
we're
getting
enough
housing
is
a
very
big
question
that
we're
going
to
be
coming
back
to
you
on,
because.
R
R
So
we've
talked
a
lot
about
layering
and
we're
going
to
walk
through
a
couple
different
ways
of
looking
at
that.
It's
a
it's
a
fairly
complicated
idea
and
so
we're
going
to
look
at
a
chart
and
we're
going
to
look
at
some
graphics
and
hopefully
that'll
that'll,
speak
to
kind
of
how
everybody
thinks
about
this.
R
But
there's
really
just
kind
of
three
basic
options
about
how
you
look
at
how
programs
can
layer.
Now
in
our
land
use
code,
we
have
a
number
of
different
incentives
for
density,
where
developers
would
provide
affordability
at
varying
percentages.
It
does
vary
quite
a
bit
by
location,
but
always
at
eighty
percent
ami
in
order
to
get
additional
density
on
their
sites,
and
so
those
are
a
variety
of
different
incentives
that
are
available
in
the
land
use
code
across
different
areas
of
our
city,
because
those
vary
so
much.
That's
why?
R
Our
current
program
actually
has
very
different
ami
requirements
in
the
different
locations
because
we
allow
a
layering.
So
you
know
letter
a
here
saying:
retain
existing
layering
and
that
allows
programs
or
projects
to
use
both
programs
and
actually
have
one
unit
work
for
both
programs,
so
that
you
can
actually
overlap
them
and
we'll
we'll
explain
that
in
a
little
bit
more
detail
with
a
graphic
here,
but
that's
how
our
current
program
works.
You
could
also
remove
that.
So,
instead
of
having
you
know,
some
units
satisfy
the
incentive
and
some
units
satisfy
the
the
mft
program.
R
You
could
keep
those
separate
so
that
you
actually
have
more
total,
affordable
units,
but
that
does
have
the
downside,
where
a
lot
of
projects
aren't
going
to
want
to
use
both
programs,
because
that
ends
up
being
a
lot
of
units
in
total,
and
so
that
might
disincentivize
using
one
of
those.
If
you
don't
let
them
overlap
and
then
option
c
here
is
the
kind
of
complicated
one,
which
is
what
staff
is
recommending,
which
allows
layering
and
simply
requires
that
any
of
those
units
that
are
already
affordable
through
another
program
instead
of
having
it.
R
You
know
get
a
free
double
bonus.
Basically,
those
units
would
would
have
deeper
affordability
requirements,
and
this
allows
us
to
keep
the
the
utilization
high,
no
matter
what's
happening
with
with
other
programs
around
the
city,
but
it
also
allows
us
to
get
deeper
affordability
in
the
instances
where
there's
already
affordable
units
happening,
so
we're
going
to
walk
through
what
that
means.
R
This
is
the
chart
that
council,
councilmember
robertson
had
us
bring
up,
I'm
going
to
show
this
again
after
we
show
some
graphics
so
that
we
can
kind
of
revisit
it
but
walking
through
what
these
means.
What
these
mean
you'll
see
at
the
bottom
is
our
existing
program
and
then
walking
up
that
scale.
Number
three
would
would
increase
the
ami
level
and
therefore
increase
utilization,
but
not
as
much
as
number,
two
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
So
that's
kind
of
how
this
is
laid
out
and
you'll
see.
The
second
column
is
the
potential
ami
levels.
R
R
Basically,
the
target
is
to
have
this
be
between
20
and
40,
in
order
for
a
project
to
100
of
the
time
choose
to
use,
mfte
and
so
you'll
see
that
our
current
program
has
a
real
issue
where,
if
they're
not
using
a
land
use
incentive,
these
numbers
are
negative,
which
means
in
most
instances
the
project
is
not
going
to
work.
It's
not
going
to
use
mfte.
R
It's
just
going
to
be
it's
just
going
to
keep
everything
at
market
rate
because
it
doesn't
pencil
for
them,
and
so
that's
really
this
issue
that
we
wanted
to
fix,
whereas
we're
actually
seeing
increased
utilization
of
the
program
when
projects
are
using
the
incentive
because
it
actually
does
work
pretty
well.
You'll
see
these
numbers
of
15
to
45,
that's
pretty
sweet
spot,
pretty
good
target
and
we're
seeing
a
lot
of
utilization
of
the
program.
R
Is
this
layering?
Most
of
these
instances
are
looking
at
permitting
the
the
overlap,
because
we
heard
from
our
stakeholders
they
really
like
being
able
to
overlap
programs
it
would,
it
would
be
kind
of
complicated
for
them
if
they
can't
overlap
them,
because
they
want
to
use
both
programs.
They
need
more
units
in
total.
So
most
of
these
are
letting
a
per
the
overlap
happen,
but
our
staff
recommendation
is
something
that
I'm
going
to
explain
here
with
some
with
some
graphics
and
then
jump
back
to
this
slide.
R
So
this
is,
you
know,
really
simple
graphics,
showing
that
the
two
different
scenarios
we
see
today
we're
using
downtown
numbers
just
as
an
example,
so
that
we're
focused
on
one
piece
here
on
the
left
is
a
market
rate.
Building
that's
at
about
110
ami
and
on
the
right
is
a
building
that
is
also
using
the
incentive
that's
available
downtown,
which
means
some
of
those
units
are
already
affordable
at
about
80
ami
and
that's
going
to
be
about
eight
percent
of
the
units,
though
it
can
vary,
and
so
this
is
buildings
that
aren't
using
mft.
R
Now
these
two
kind
of
project
scenarios
cost
the
developer
different
amounts
to
use
mfte,
but
we're
giving
them
the
same
tax
exemption,
and
that's
why
these
projects
over
here
really
aren't
using
mfte
as
much
because
it's
not
penciling
for
them
and
so
staff
is
recommending
changing
this
a
little
bit.
So
this
is
scenario
two
the
approach
where
we
still
allow
layering,
but
it's
tweaked
a
little
bit.
R
R
Am
I
just
like
you
heard
at
the
beginning,
there's
a
real
interest
in
moving
that
number
up
to
80,
not
just
in
downtown
but
across
all
areas
of
the
city,
and
so
that
is
what
scenario
2
is
recommending
that
our
baseline
be
moving
it
up
to
80
ami
and
that
that's
great,
it
pencils
a
lot
better
than
the
previous
program.
But
what
about
this
other
project?
R
And
so
we're
we're
recommending
that,
because
this
other
project
already
has
units
that
are
affordable
rather
than
just
giving
them
those
affordable
units
for
free
in
in
this
calculation?
We're
saying
well
what?
If
you
make
those
units
that
are
already
affordable
to
this
other
program,
deeper
affordability
at
50
ami,
it
would
cost
the
same
as
this
other
project,
but
we
would
get
some
variety
in
the
affordability
levels
you
still
in
total.
Have
20
of
the
units
are
affordable,
but
you
get.
R
Some
portion
of
them
are
at
50,
ami
and
the
rest
are
still
at
that.
80
ami-
and
I
know
mary
you,
you
did
ask
us
earlier
about
what
happens
when
mfte
ends
and
so
basically
when
mfte
ends.
These
buildings
revert
back
to
these
these
top
kind
of
scenarios,
because
the
the
12
years
of
mft
affordability
ends,
but
the
land
use
incentive,
affordability
remains,
and
so
they
would
just
revert
back
and
you
would
still
have
some
units
be
available
at
80
ami.
R
R
No,
that's
basically
what
what
we
have
so
basically,
this
is
just
saying
that
now
this
is
the
same
cost
to
the
owner,
and
you
know
our
baseline
is
moving
everything
up
to
80,
but
we
are
making
it
cost
the
same,
but
still
have
have
kind
of
getting
affordability
for
that
exemption.
So
and
then
this
is
just
kind
of
bringing
this
back
up
for
your
discussion
here.
We
also
have
a
slide
on
on
direction,
but
I
think
it'll
be
helpful
for
you
to
have
this
up
for
your
conversation.
P
And
mayor,
I
guess
just
as
you
pose
the
questions
question
one
we
think
is:
is
the
council,
okay,
with
standalone
mfte
being
an
80
ami
program,
because
that
will
heavily
influence
financial
metrics
around
the
layering
effect?
So
and
I
know
number
council
members
have
already
posed
their
thoughts
on
that.
But
it'd
probably
be
good
to
get
some
clarity
on
that
and
then
move
into
the.
What
does
everybody
think
about
a
layering
conversation.
A
Okay,
so
I'm
going
to
start
and
we'll
go
councilmember
robertson,
stokes,
deputy
mayor
noon,
house
on
leigh
and
bartsdale.
So
thank
you
for
the
clarification
at
the
end
there.
I
I
think
this
is
great.
A
So
it's
got
to
be
really
easy
for
a
developer
to
come
in
and
say
I'm
I'm
doing
this
residential
project
and
for
staff
to
say
have
you
thought
about
using
the
mfte
and
all
these
incentives
that
are
possible
and
and
really
make
it
clear
the
scenario
you
know
what
the
outcome
in
is
and
what
what
is
expected
of
the
developer
and
how
that's
going
to
work
with
his
project.
Otherwise,
it's
going
to
be
way
too
confusing.
P
So
mayor,
maybe
I
can
comment
on
that,
because
I
think
that
will
likely
come
up
in
your
next
conversation
about
parking.
As
I
think
everyone
on
the
council
knows,
we
use
arch
as
our
implementing
agency,
and
one
of
the
things
we
have
identified
here
is
that
we
would
like
to
be
much
more
overt
about
communication
around
how
our
program
in
bellevue
works,
so
that
answers
are
going
out.
P
You
know
in
a
way
that
everybody
understands
and
is
easier
to
understand,
so
we
are
doing
some
thinking
about
different
tools
to
accomplish
that
and
we'll
be
ready
to
report
back
to
the
council,
just
in
general,
about
our
affordable
housing
strategy
and
how
we
can
tell
our
story
of
what
we
do
in
bellevue,
because
it
is
very
different
than
some
of
the
other
arch
cities,
and
so
we'll
do
a
better
job
at
that.
And
so,
but
we
want
to
talk
to
you
about
that
separately
too,
with
the
affordable
housing
update.
A
S
Thank
you.
I
absolutely
agree
with
mayor
robinson
about
making
this
easy
and
clear
and
understandable.
I
think
that
that's
really
good
direction.
Can
you
please
go
back
one
slide,
because
I
have
a
question
about
how
this
is
going
to
work
so
the
incentive
system,
when
someone
utilizes
a
land
use
incentive
for
affordable
housing,
they
get
something
right.
They
get
higher
height
higher
far
more
units
right
okay.
S
So
this
is
not
really
the
same
cost
to
the
owner
on
the
left
and
on
the
right,
because
in
the
first
one,
if
they
have
market
rate
without
the
land
use
incentive.
So
maybe,
let's
just
use
round
numbers,
they
can
build,
say
a
hundred
units
on
that
site
when
they
get
use
the
land
use
incentive.
So
they
can
build,
say
108
units
on
that
site.
The
eight
extra
units
have
to
be
forever
at
80
ami.
S
So
then
the
first
building
has
100
units.
The
second
has
108
and
then
you
take
20
percent
of
that.
That
would
be
20
units
under
the
first
scenario
on
the
left
would
be
80
ami
and
what's
20
percent
of
108
I'd,
be,
I
guess,
it'd
be
about
22.
You
might
get
22
units
under
the
second
scenario,
because
it
wouldn't
it
be
20
of
the
full
building.
Isn't
it
under
mft?
S
They
both
would
get
the
mfte,
but
but
under
the
stacked
incentive.
The
benefit
to
the
public
is
that
you
would
have
not
just
the
20.
You
wouldn't
just
have
20
of
the
base
scenario.
You'd
have
20
of
the
increased
unit.
Count
scenario,
so,
if
you
take
say,
take
a
500
unit
building,
it's
even
more,
that's
you
have
100
units
under
scenario,
one
and
you
have
you
know
120
or
something
under
scenario.
Two.
S
S
I
support
allowing
people
to
build
bigger,
denser
units
by
providing
affordable
housing,
and
I
support
allowing
them
to
use
mfte
to
build
even
more
so
that
said,
I'm
not
sure
if
this
50
going
it
to
50
on
those
8
of
the
units
is
really
the
right
number
or
not
I'd
like
to
so.
S
I
personally
would
like
to
see
the
stacking
decoupled
from
the
mfte
and
as
we
bring
forward
land
use
plans,
we
take
those
up
one
by
one
because
they're
just
different
across
the
city,
and
I
think
it's
going
to
slow
down
the
implementation
of
mfte
and
potentially
slow
down
the
east
main
wilberton
and
bell
red
look
back.
If
we
try
to
put
these
all
together
right
now.
I
think
that
we
should
definitely
keep
working
on
that.
A
T
T
You
know
to
work
too
much
worried
about
complications
down
the
line
or
something
instead
of
which,
which
gives
us
a
little
in
inaction
on
something
I
I
think
we
should
go
forward
on
the
combination
and
it's
going
to
take
a
little
time
to
get
together
in
place,
but
if
we
put
it
off,
we
we
may
not
even
get
back
to
that.
So
I
I
think,
that's
that's
what
we
should
concentrate
on.
I
don't
see
any
real
difference
in
the
two
in
terms
of
working
with
the
developers.
T
T
I
like
the
direction
I
like
the
more
information,
and
I
guess
I
would
have
liked
to
see
this
kind
of
the
beginning
because
I
think,
but
I
think
you
put
on
something
that
will
really
make
a
difference
and
with
this
tool,
and
it's
not
everything
of
course,
but
I
think
this
is
much
more
in
in
the
long
run
better
for
the
community
better
for
the
people
who
need
the
housing
to
have
this
layering,
as
as
this
is
set
up
and
and
work
on
that
again,
I'm
just
concerned
if
we
say
well
we'll
look
at
that,
some
other
time
down
the
line,
that's
what
we'll
do
and
five
years
now
we'll
say:
oh
guess,
we'll
get
around
to
it.
H
H
In
fact,
even
during
some
of
the
briefings
that
we've
had,
I
mean
that
was
part
of
the
issue
with
mfte
as
well,
where
you
know
elizabeth
detailed,
you
know
part
of
the
complication
or
the
education
of
what
the
program
is,
what
it
is
and
how
you
can
use
it
when
you
can
use
it
etc.
But
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
most
of
the
time
when
they
did
pencil
out
it
didn't
work
so,
and
that
actually
leads
me
to
a
question
elizabeth
when
you
were
doing
your
outreach
with
these
developers.
R
Yeah,
I
think
that
you
know
a
lot
of
our
outreach
was
towards
the
the
developer
community
and
we
really
worked
with
arts
to
understand
some
of
that
question.
So
we
actually
have
arts
here
to
answer
questions
if
they
want
to
jump
in
on
that
question
and
kind
of
how
often
that
happens,.
U
H
U
H
To
the
meeting
my
question
was:
how
often,
when
you
reached
out
or
when
you're
working
with
with
developers,
how
often
did
they
see
scenarios
where
someone
was
or
a
family
was
occupying
a
70
ami
unit
but
were
actually
below
70
percent
ami
meaning
they're
at
60,
ami
50
or
maybe
even
below
50
ami.
U
Well,
that's
what
we're
finding
to
be
more
often
the
case
than
frankly
than
we
expected.
U
The
data
that
elizabeth
mentioned
earlier
early
in
the
presentation
is
that
we
find
it's
it's
very
common
for
people
in
80
ami
units,
for
example,
to
be
or
70
to
be
have
incomes
that
are
more
in
the
50
to
60
percent
of
ami
range,
and
so
even
if
they
enter
those
units
with
75
percent
ami
income,
they're
already
cost
burden,
so
the
lower
their
income
goes
the
more
cost
burden
they
already
are.
H
Got
jim
okay?
Well,
that's
good
information!
Thank
you,
but
it's
still
good
to
see
folks
that
are
able
to
acquire
those
inter
or
be
in
those
units,
even
if
they're
below
that
70
percent
so
yeah
well,
I
have
to
again
agree
with
my
council
member,
my
colleague,
councilmember
robertson,
in
terms
of
just
keeping
this
simple,
not
over
engineering.
This
maximize
the
the
quantity-
and
you
know
as
far
as
the
layering
or
the
stacking,
whatever
we're
going
to
end
up
calling
it.
H
R
Yeah,
the
existing
layering
is
basically
if
we
go
back
this
way
where,
where
either
project
has
the
same
requirement,
and
so
the
projects
that
are
already
using
the
incentive,
it's
going
to
be
a
little
bit
easier
to
use
mfte
and
that's
represented
in
scenario
1a.
I
believe
in
your
packet.
R
P
P
Well,
if
that's
the
action
you
take
and
then
discussing
what
to
do
about
the
the
value
of
the
tax
exemption
itself
with
the
housing,
so
the
housing
itself
is
being
created
by
two
different
programs
in
the
scenario
you're
discussing,
and
so
the
question
is:
do
both
programs
work
if
they
stand
alone
separately?
P
We
believe
the
answer
to
that
question
is
yes,
if
you
make
changes
to
mfte,
to
make
it
an
80
program
and
then
question
b
is
since
those
same
units
are
in
fact
being
created,
you're,
giving
a
bonus
in
the
form
of
not
just
density
but
also
far
or
other
kinds
of
things
in
the
land
use
code
process
and
a
financial
bonus
through
the
tax
exemption
process.
A
P
Correct,
yes,
so
we've
tried
to
design
design
it
so
that
both
programs
could
work
independently
and
work
very
well
together.
Should
someone
choose
to
do
that?
Gotcha.
E
Yeah
I
really
appreciate
this
table
and
those
examples
I
mean.
I
think
it
would
be
it.
It
would
be
helpful
to
also
have
the
example
with
actually
numbers
of
units,
but
you
know
I
can
do
the
calculation
in
my
head
with
percentages,
so
I
do
understand
that
what
I
like
about
what
you're
proposing
is
that
each
of
them
can
act
alone,
but
with
the
layering
we
actually
get
more
because
at
the
end
of
the
day,
what
I
kept
thinking
about
is
this
is
a
values
discussion.
E
E
I
do
want
to
confirm
one
thing,
which
is
that
I
thought
I
read
in
the
packet
that
even
with
the
existing
mfte
we
are,
we
thought
we
were
only
getting
about
15
to
20
usage,
but
with
these
two
additional
projects
were
at
more
of
40
to
50
percent
of
the
projects
are
using
mfte.
Can
you
talk
about
that?
Because
if
there
seemed
to
be
this
implication
that,
with
the
current
mfte
program
that
we
modified
a
little
over
a
year
ago,
that
we
were
not
actually
getting
units.
R
Yeah,
thank
you
for
for
pointing
that
out.
Council
members
on,
I
think
that's
a
really
important
point
that
you
know
all
of
these
options.
One
a
one
b,
two
and
three
are
all
increasing
our
ami
levels
and
making
this
program
much
easier
for
developers
to
use
and
our
existing
program
is,
is
getting
better
utilization
than
I
think
the
assumption
was
when
we
first
launched
we,
you
know
a
lot
of
our
outreach
was,
was
learning
about
where
the
clarity
could
come
in
how
much
you
know
better
outreach.
R
E
Yeah-
and
I
I
had
to
write
this
down
because
in
these
three
different
areas,
the
mfte
was
different
for
each
one,
and
so
what
I
really
like
about
what
you're
recommending
is.
It
is
streamlining
and
simplifying
and
making
things
much
more
clear,
mfte
alone
80,
which
is
actually
higher
than
the
70
percent
and
and
sometimes
50
and
sometimes
60-
that
we
currently
have
to
try
to
navigate.
So
all
of
them
would
be
the
same.
E
And
then
I
also
like
the
fact
that
when
you,
when
I
look
at
this
chart,
what
I
appreciated
about
it
is
that
whether
you
go
with
mfte
alone
or
you
do,
the
layering
the
feasibility
index
is-
is
reasonable.
It's
fair
that
we're
looking
at
a
level
of
profitability
that
still
makes
sense
without
having
the
balance
tip
so
far
that
we're
we're
talking
about
75
to
160.
E
If
we
look
at
1a
and
I'm
not
sure
that
that's
the
value
balance
that
we're
trying
to
to
get
to
in
the
city
and
then
to
the
point
about
taking
up
the
the
streamlining
and
looking
at
the
mfte
differently
in
each
place,
that
was
recommended
earlier.
E
If
we're
trying
to
go
to
streamline
and
clear,
I
don't
know
that
that's
really
streamlining
clear
and
I
also
don't
think
that's
acting
with
urgency.
So
if
we're
really
serious
about
this,
then
let's
get
going
with
number
two,
which
actually
is
the
right
balance
of
making
sure
that
developers
have
the
profitability
that
they
want
and
that
if
they
want
to
use
the
layering
that
we
at
the
city
are
getting
the
benefits
to
building
the
kind
of
affordability
to
the
levels
that
are
really
important
for
our
community.
E
So
I
appreciate
all
this
extra
work
that
you've
done
to
really
make
clear
about
what
we're
looking
at
and
the
fact
that
you've
spent
the
time
developing
the
financial
model
vetting
it
with
the
developer
community
to
make
sure
that
we're
doing
the
right
thing.
I
think
the
tougher
question
we're
going
to
have
which
is
later
on
is
the
parking
and
how
we
really
look
at
how
parking
plays
into
this.
E
C
Oh,
thank
you
madame,
as
we
all
know
this,
you
know
this
is
a
very
interesting,
complex
issue
and
you
know
that's
the
reason
why
I
think
it's
important
that
you
know.
I'm
appreciate
the
staff
talking
to
the
stakeholders,
the
developers
and
business
folks
and
so
on,
and
I'm
not
sure
if
you
had
gone
through
all
this
discussion
past
you
did,
but
you
know
I'm
not
privy
to
all
the
detail.
You
have
gone
through
with
them.
You
know
we
just
spent
now
the
last.
C
You
know
hour
talking
about
this
and
you
know.
The
first
thing
I
heard
is
there
are
many
many
tools.
Okay
and
each
tool
does
something.
C
We
know
that
f
m
fte
production
and
then
the
others
you
know
then
use
incentive
whatever,
for
maybe
you
know
in
depth
steps
deeper,
I
think
they're
all
good.
They
all
this
all
our
goal.
The
city
council,
wants
to
do
adorable
all
of
them.
The
key
to
me
is
still
I
said
earlier.
Is
we
have
a
tool
and
we
need
that?
We
know
what
is
useful
and
we
don't
have
a
simple,
easy
answer.
C
C
We
need
to
talk
to
the
stakeholders,
so
I'm
not
sure
if
you
have
and
obviously
they
they,
they
may
have
told
you
what
they're
comfortable
with
so.
My
question
is:
when
you
mention
option
two:
you
you
talk
about
layering,
you
know,
that's
a
very
complicated
mac
said
earlier
too,
when
you
talk
about
layering,
you
are
complicated
at
the
whole
process.
C
You
know
one
two
works
well
for
this,
but
if
you
add
another
two
on
you
know
what
is
it
which
one
is
actually
working
to
get
you
the
result
you
want
you
want
to
get
you
don't
know,
so
you
never
give
each
two,
you
never
refine
it.
You
never
test
it.
You
never
make
a
better
tool
to
get
what
you
wanted,
and
I
always
believe
that
you
know
we
are
providing
you
policies,
so
we
need
to
know
just
the
tool.
You
have
make
sense.
I
like
that.
But
how
are
you
going
to
apply
it?
C
That's
the
crux
of
the
whole
thing:
if
you
apply
it
wrongly,
it's
not
going
to
get
you
the
result.
You're
just
going
to
complicate
it
you're
just
going
to
compromise
what
you
want
to
accomplish
at
the
end
of
the
day,
whether
you
get
the
result
or
not,
you
don't
know
which
two
actually
works
in
what
combination
you
don't
know
just
layering
it
on
it
gets
really
messed
up.
So
my
suggestion
is
we
got
it
too.
We
know
what
to
do
with
it.
C
Let's
use
it
and
see
how
well
it
does
work
and
then
you
can
emulate
yes,
I
agree
we,
we
can
try
different
things.
If
it
doesn't
meet
whatever
goal,
we
can
match
them
up,
then
we
know,
but
you
are,
at
least
you
know.
The
two
you
got
is
getting
what
you
wanted
to
you
know,
because
we
need
all
of
these.
All
of
these.
C
We
need
so
my
my
I'm
leaning
so
number
question
I
have
is
what
do
the
stakeholders,
if
you
have
discuss
all
this
with
them,
and
do
they
think
that,
yes,
this
will
work
and
from
their
experience
they
will
work
if
they
haven't
done
that
they're
just
guessing,
or
they
think
that
you
know.
I
heard
this
that
economically,
it
would
not
work.
You
know
with
this
empty
fmfte
as
a
as
a
as
affordability
tool.
C
So
so
so
don't
mess
it
up
using
trying
to
use
that,
and
if
you
layer
something
on
it,
you
don't
know
whether
it
does
work,
it
doesn't
work.
So
I
think
I'd.
Rather
you
focus
on
that
and
two
I
think
it's
important
you
mentioned
about.
You
know
you
using
the
you
know
using
the
tool
we
have
now.
We've
been
trying
to
use
bellringer
corridor
we're
trying
to
use.
C
You
know
multi-family
tax
exemption
too,
but
it's
not
working
right,
because
we
know
that
certain
things
we
haven't
got
many
units
built
in
bell
record.
So
I
think
we
need
to
focus
on
that.
How
do
we
make
that
work?
First,
let's
figure
it
out
once
we
know
it,
works
then
apply
it.
Then
if
it
works
to
what
we
expected
or
maybe
it
doesn't
then
put
other
two
on
it
later
on,
then
we
can
see.
How
is
it
gonna
make
make
it
work
or
not?
C
At
least
we
know
what
works
and
what
doesn't
and
how
we
can
test
it
or
we
can
figure
it.
It's
gonna
take
step
by
step,
proving
that
we
can
do
it
and
we
know
what
we
have
and
then
what
we
can
expect
to
get.
Otherwise,
how
can
we
make
policy
decisions
just
say?
Well,
we
don't
really
know
it
hey.
Maybe
it's
all
good.
Let's
throw
atomic
bomb
drop
it
on
there.
Everybody
goes
away
happy,
no,
it
doesn't
you've
got
to.
We
have
to
be
deliberate.
C
Stop
let
me
just
finish
up
by
saying:
I
will
support
council
member
robertson's
thought
and
proposal
and
that's
the
way
we
should
go
about
it.
Thank.
A
You
so
that's
80
ami
and
it
maintaining
the
existing
layering
program
that
we
have
now
but
councilmember
lee
made
a
lot
of
statements.
Do
would
staff
like
to
comment
on
any
of
those.
P
Thank
you
mayor.
I
think
I
will
weigh
in
and
then
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
if
elizabeth
or
emil
could
weigh
in
a
little
too.
So
a
question
was:
how
did
we
engage
with
our
stakeholders,
and
I
think
an
important
part
of
this
discussion
is
is:
is
this
gonna
work?
P
Is
it
gonna
get
used
and
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
reached
out
to
a
number
of
different
communities
that
are
involved
in
this
business,
both
at
the
chamber
of
commerce
and
their
plush
committee
and
the
developers
themselves
is
to
find
out
what
kind
of
return
they
would
really
want?
P
I
mean
what
are
the
real
financial
metrics
that
would
make
this
program
effective
for
them,
and
it
was
a
combination
of
our
staff
and
that
group
that
looked
at
this
feasibility
index
and
started
saying
what
would
it
take
for
this
program
to
be
effective
for
you
to
want
to
use
it
so
that
that's
how
we
landed
on
those
numbers
between
20
and
40.,
and
I
think
I'll
stop
there
and
ask
elizabeth
and
emil
they
were
really
spearheading.
P
This
effort
for
us
put
those
different
groups
on,
because
I
think
we
had
a
slide
up
earlier.
There
was
20,
somewhat
different
developers
and,
of
course,
monthly
plush
meetings.
Maybe
you
can
speak
to
a
few
of
the
actual
individuals
and
how
that
went,
which
I
think
answers
council,
member
lee's
questions
about
how
engagement
occurred.
V
Yes,
I
can
weigh
in
there
thanks
mack,
so
we've
we've
been
meeting
with
the
plush
group
on
a
monthly
basis
since
back
in
october,
as
well
as
significant
meetings
with
the
development
community
and
the
bda.
V
I
think
we
view
our
role
as
the
staff
is
to
bring
the
the
policy
discussions
and
policy
issues
for
for
council
consideration
as
as
has
been
discussed
tonight.
There
is
a
trade-off
between
the
affordability
levels
and
how
much
the
system
is
going
to
be
used.
So
that's
why
we
wanted
to
have
this
kind
of
methodical
discussion
through
those
trade-offs.
R
I
would
just
add
in
there
that
when
you
look
at
the
feasibility
index
numbers
for
scenarios,
one
a
one
b
and
two-
the
minimum
is
pretty
similar
for
all
of
these.
These
scenarios
and
the
feedback
we
got
from
the
development
community
is
that
if
it's
over
20
that's
going
to
trigger
use
of
mfte
and
so
raising
this
up
to
160
or
75
you're
anywhere
in
there,
that's
not
going
to
get
more
use
of
mfte.
It's
just
going
to
give
a
bigger.
R
You
know:
ratio
between
the
attack
exemption
and
the
number
of
units,
so
the
the
ultimate
utilization
we
get
between
these
three
options
will
be
relatively
similar.
There
will
be,
you
know,
minimal
additional
utilization
for
scenarios,
one
and
a
it's
just
really
what
that
ratio
is
changes.
A
Okay,
can
we
move
on
to
council
member
barksdale,
go
ahead,
councilmember.
F
All
right,
thank
you,
so
mac
actually
took
the
words
right
out
of
my
mouth
about
the
the
feedback
on
the
model,
because
when
it
I
I
get
the
reaction
to
the
to
the
different
scenarios.
F
But
if
there's
feedback
from
the
development
community
that
the
model
works
and
the
model
was
used
to
come
up
with
these
scenarios,
then
to
me
that
it
it
makes
sense
that
we
can
in
in
some
ways
at
least
earlier
on
and
then
test
it
like
in
the
wild.
If
you
will
trust
the
scenarios
here.
So
I
really
like
this
creative
approach
that
staff
took
to
come
up
with
these
scenarios
and
creating
the
model
to
inform
the
creation
of
the
scenarios
and
help
us
better
get
an
idea
of
different
options.
F
I
would
say,
obviously
the
next
steps
are
like
getting.
You
know,
putting
you
having
this
available
for
developers
to
use
and
testing
it
like.
When
I
say
in
the
wild,
I
just
mean
having
developers
start
using
it
so
similar
to
what's
been
said
already
in
terms
of
support
for
making
it
available
for
use
and
start
using
it
and
seeing
how
it
performs
in
terms
of
making
it
easier
for
developers.
F
I
think
it
would
be
awesome
to
provide
that
the
model
or
the
spreadsheet
as
a
calculator
on
the
website,
so
that
they
can
get
an
idea
similar
to
what
you
were
mentioning
there,
but
making
that
available.
So
they
can
run
scenarios
with
that
calculator
themselves
and
decide,
and
the
last
point
I'll
make
is
you
know
we
talk
about
flexibility,
and
I
think
the
fact
that
it
is
optional
for
developers
to
choose
whether
or
not
to
use,
mfte
and
or
layer
on
land
use.
Incentives
is
providing
a
flexible
option
for
developers.
A
S
Thank
you.
So
you
know,
I
think,
what's
getting
a
little
bit
lost
in
this
because
we
don't
have
any
actual
examples
is
what
will
happen
if
we
allow
layering
without
this
deeper
affordability
and
how
functional
this
will
be.
If
we
require
the
deeper
affordability
for
the
overlap
in
some
parts
of
the
city,
you
cannot
build
a
reasonably
sized
development
for
multi-family
without
using
the
land
use
incentive
like
belrad,
you
have
to
unlock
that
zoning
with
the
affordability.
S
If
we
then
start
making
those
be
at
50
percent,
we
may
have
people
just
not
develop
there,
and
so
my
understanding
is
is
that,
while
the
development
community
did
bless
the
model,
it
had
nothing,
this
layering
was
not
part
of
what
was
blessed,
and
so
the
80
ami
is
kind
of
where
everyone
landed
on
that
I've
been
working
on
a
little
bit
of
calculations
myself,
as
we've
been
sitting
here
to
figure
out
okay,
what,
if
we
layer
everything's
at
80
percent,
so
on
a
500
unit
building,
if
it's
just
an
eight
percent
land
use
incentive,
you
get
540
units
instead
of
500
40
of
those
units
are
affordable
for
the
life
of
the
project.
S
If
you
lower
bmi
at
whatever
the
land
use
incentive,
is
it's
87?
Well,
it's
not
eighty
percent
everywhere
in
belrand.
I
think
it's
70..
So
whatever
the
percentage
is
under
the
land
use
code,
so
you'd
get
those
for
the
life
of
the
project
and
if
then,
they
used,
mfte
of
the
540
units
would
be
affordable
at
80,
so
you'd
have
108
units
affordable
at
80
percent
for
or
whatever,
whatever
the.
If
the
land
use
incentives,
less
would
be
less
for
those
units
for
12
years
and
then
forever
for
the
land
use
incentives.
S
If
you
only
use
mfte,
you
would
get
100
units
out
of
500
at
mfte
they're
good
for
12
years.
So
instead
of
108
units,
you
get
100
but
they're,
not
they're,
not
affordable
forever.
If
you
stack
them
with
only
the
land
use
incentive
without
stacking,
you
just
get
40
units
so
we're
talking.
We
need
more
units.
We
need
more
workforce
housing
for
all
the
people.
S
Coming
to
me,
it's
a
you
get
more
if
they're
allowed
to
stack,
even
if
we
don't
do
the
deeper
affordability
and
because
our
land
use
code
in
different
parts
of
the
city
is
different
for
the
incentive
system
and
because
that's
going
to
be
changing,
I'm
comfortable
with
stacking
under
the
incentives
that
are
there
now
without
having
to
fiddle
with
them
and
as
we
update,
because
I
don't
want
to
slow
things
down
as
we
update
those,
then
we
can
deal
with
the
incentives
that
makes
the
most
sense
to
me.
S
It
may
not
be
perfect,
but,
as
one
of
my
former
colleagues
used
to
always
say,
is:
let's
not
make
perfect
the
enemy
of
the
good
and
let's
get
more
units,
we
need
more
units
and
we
need
more
units
that
are
affordable
for
all
these
workers
that
are
coming
to
bellevue.
I
mean
that
to
me
is
the
thing
we
need
to
have
this
project
program
utilized
both
that
we
want
them
to
utilize
incentives
and
mfte,
because
that's
how
we
get
number
one
more
units
and
number
two
more
affordable
units.
S
So
that's
that's
my
comments,
thank
you
and
when
it
comes
back,
I
guess
I
would
just
close
with
when
it
comes
back,
because
I'm
not
going
to
ask
everyone
to
check
my
math,
although
I
did
it
in
excel.
Can
we
have
staff?
Give
us
some
actual
scenarios
of
developments
that
if
they
use
the
land
use
incentive
it's
this
if
they
use
the
landing
use,
incentive
plus
mft,
it's
that
if
they
just
use
mfte
it's
you
know
this
other
thing.
S
A
You
I'm
gonna,
go
ahead,
councilmember
stokes
and
then
you
and
then
councilmember
lee.
So
I
agree
it
would
be
nice
to
have
a
visual
of
what
these
scenarios
look
like.
A
But
I'll
tell
you
the
one
thing
that
we're
missing
in
bellevue
is
housing
circulation,
we're
missing
the
opportunity
for
people
to
get
in,
to
move
up
and
down
more
expensive
properties
and
to
move
down
into
least
less
expensive
properties,
we're
missing
the
opportunity
for
people
to
downsize
from
their
single
family
homes
and
we're
missing
the
opportunity
for
people
to
buy
in
first
time
home
buyers
and
then
move
up
the
ladder
into
maybe
a
single
family
home,
and
we
have
to
have
a
whole
range
of
affordability
in
order
to
have
that
that
that
housing
ecosystem
that
makes
a
city
healthy.
A
And
so
when
you
talk
about
how
many
cost
burdened
individuals
are
living
in
80
percent
ami,
but
really
can
only
afford
for
50
percent
ami
and
I
think
about
creating
more
50
ami
housing
making
that
available
to
people.
I
see
those
people
dropping
down
the
ladder
into
something
they
can
better
afford
and
freeing
up
the
80
ami,
therefore
increasing
the
the
amount
of
80
ami
stock
in
the
city.
So
I
to
me,
what's
being
recommended
here,
serves
all
the
all
that
I
think
we
need
to
have
in
bellevue,
councilmember
stokes.
T
First
thing
I
want
to
say
is:
I
agree
with
what
you
just
said.
I
I
appreciate
that
very
much.
I
think.
That's
that's
the
way
we
need
to
look
at
it.
We
talk
about.
You
know
our
role
is
to
to
do
policy
not
to
micromanage
or
figure
out
how
to
do
these
things.
Our
policy
is
exactly
what
you
talked
about
mayor,
it's
to
maximize,
affordable
housing
for
our
residents
and
the
way
to
do
that
is
not
to
stick
to
something
and
say:
well,
we've
done
this.
T
Let's
just
keep
plugging
away
at
that
we're
being
innovative,
and
we
we
talk
about
this
all
the
time
about
bellevue
and
innovation
and
moving
forward
and
taking
taking
risk
trying
to
serve
things
the
best
you
know,
people
the
best
we
can
and
we've
had
a
strong
incentive
and
and
policy
for
a
long
time,
at
least
since
you
know
newman
in
2017
to
do
more,
affordable
housing
and
we
asked
staff
and
we
have
staff
to
help
us
do
that
and
put
together
a
program
and
figure
out
how
to
do
this
and
staff
has
done
that
they've
talked
with
the
community.
T
You
know
we
can
pencil
this.
We
can
pencil
that
the
fact
the
matter
is
what
the
staff
has
recommended
has
been
worked
with
the
community
and
is
not
a
you
know,
there's
a
lot
of
flexibility
in
it
and
it's
a
program
that
can
go
forward.
I
have
full
confidence
that
the
staff
can
take
this
program
with
the
target
number
two
put
it
together,
and
I
appreciate
that
councilmember
robertson
is
seems
to
be
saying
that
you
know.
Okay,
we
can
make
this
work
and
it's
not
an
either
r.
T
It's
a
combination,
I
I
think
actually
it's
a
very
well
thought
out,
very
bold
and
and
thing
to
do
and
again
it's
one
of
these
things
that
you
know
we
can
go
bigger
or
we
can
just
sit
on
our
status
quo
and
and
kind
of
worry
about
it,
and
so
I
think
we
come
up
with
a
really
good
way
to
implement
the
policy,
and
that's
that
means
that
the
city
government
is
working
well.
T
So
I'm
I'm
I'm
happy
with
this
and
I
think
they
can
make
it
work
and
we
just
you,
know
it's
kind
of
fun
to
agonize
through
these
things
and
take
it
apart
and
everything
else.
But
I
think
when
it
comes
down
to
it
good
presentation,
we've
done
our
job,
the
staff's,
doing
its
job
and
working
together.
We
can
do
the
job
for
all
for
all
our
citizens.
C
Thank
you
very
much.
I
think
we
all
can
agree
that
affordable
housing
is
important
and
we
talk
about.
C
You
know
how
we
can
accommodate
all
types
of
housing
for
all
types
of
people,
and
we
know
that
the
you
know
the
lower
wage
people
need
to
be
very
much
a
part
of
it
and
so
are
others,
and
the
key
is,
though
you
know
we
are
going
to
have
25
30,
000,
employee,
new
people
coming
to
bellevue
to
live,
and
so
no
matter
how
many
we
build.
You
know
we
we
need
more,
it's
not
enough.
C
So
it's
a
providing
a
you
know
a
variety
of
housing
so
and
we
started
many
years
ago.
Like
you
know,
mr
stoke
mentioned,
we
came
up
with
great
great
programs
and
ideas
and
mfte
is
one
of
which
and
we
tried
it
and
we
find
out
it
hasn't,
worked
the
way
it
is
the
way
it
is
built,
it's
a
great
tool.
We
still
know
it's
a
good
tool,
so
we
have
involved
engaged
with
the
development
community.
C
Excellent,
I
think
that's
all
the
right
thing
and
they
have
actually
given
their
input
and
they
have
made
a
suggestion.
You
know
they
prefer
one
and
all,
and
then
there
are
maybe
other
ways
we
can
do
it
so,
the
first
of
all.
In
order
to
actually
have
this
program
as
a
viable
program,
we
got
to
have
housing.
First,
we
got
to
unit
first
without
unit,
and
we
just
talking
we
can.
If
we,
if
we
don't
have
a
unit
for
anybody,
nobody
can
live
there.
C
Whether
they'll
be
you
know
whatever,
and
I
think
the
mayor
said
very
well.
We
need
to
provide
lower
wage
housing,
but
that
may
it's
not
this
particular
tool
to
talk
about.
This
is
not
what
we
are
talking
about
here
as
what
is
appropriate
the
cities.
I
thought
we
can
do
it
because
I
think
councilman
robertson
mentioned
you
know
we
we
have
to
have
non-profits,
we
have
other
programs,
we
have
the
real
subsidies
to
provide
for
people
to
live
in
certain
of
these
housings
which
are
not
economically.
C
You
know,
I
think
I
remember
way
back
when
somebody
said
this
is
really
a
economic
balance.
You
know,
if
you
don't
give
the
developers
the
right
numbers
they're
not
going
to
build
it.
So
it's
a
reality
right
and
we
cannot
force
them,
but
we
can
do
it
so
to
do
is
developing
a
tool.
We
have
a
tool.
This
the
tool
is
to
build
more
units.
When
you
have
units,
then
we
can
work
with
the
units.
Like
I
agree
with
councilmember
robertson,
then
we
can
start
looking
at
layering
the
way
you
well
whatever.
C
Then
we
can
say
well,
we
have
a
unit
there
now,
but
it's
not
quite
right.
We
have
numbers,
but
we're
not
going
deep
enough
to
get
the
people
who
are
low
income.
What
do
we
do,
then?
We
can
come
up
with
other
tools.
We
can
use
land
use
incentives.
We
can
use
other
things
that
are
designed
specifically
to
work
together.
So
at
least
we
have
a
basis
have
the
housing
stock
to
work
with
otherwise,
like
now
you
know
we
don't
have
a
single
unit
built
with
this
program.
Then
that
means
it
does
doesn't
matter.
C
We
can
toss
all.
We
need
to
provide
the
lower
income
folks,
but
there's
no
unity
there,
because
people
are
building
it.
So
what
can
we
do?
We
have
to
sitting
in
the
building
ourselves?
Well,
maybe,
but
that's
the
decision
we
have
to
make
as
policy,
but
at
this
moment
we
have
waiters.
So
I
agree
that
we
will
look
at
we'll
make
the
units
then
we'll
look
at
other
tools
how
to
make
the
unit
work
better.
Some
of
the
suggestions,
the
development
community
has:
let's
look
at
parking.
C
I
know
I
know,
but
I'm
just
saying
that
it's
it's,
you
cannot
look
at
this
eye
on
its
own.
It's
we're
talking
about
layering
we're
already
talking
about.
So
it's
not
easy.
It's
complicated!
Thank
you.
So
we
need
to
make
sure
in
order
to
avoid
you
know
unnecessary
mistakes
and
decisions,
we're
making
that's
not
we
don't.
We
haven't
thought
through.
We
got
to
see
the
bigger
picture,
and
so
I'm
sticking
out
this.
Let's
work
on
what
we
know
what
this
works
and
then
work
the
other
tools
and
then
we
can
layer
them
up.
A
I
understand.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
just
want
to
give
staff.
You
know
we
keep
hearing
some
of
the
council.
Members
say
that
the
existing
mfte
program
is
not
working,
that
it's
not
being
used,
that
we
haven't
created
any
units
with
it
and
I'm
hearing
staff
say
something
different.
Can
you
please
clarify
how
about
that
or
reiterate
what
you
said
in
the
presentation
at
least.
P
Sure,
mayor
yeah,
the
existing
program
is
not
getting
as
much
utilization
as
we
all
would
have
hoped
for
and
in
a
big
reason,
as
a
standalone
mfte
requirement
right
now
is
much
deeper
affordability,
so
proposing
changes
to
the
base
mfte
program
to
raise
it
to
80
percent
is
going
to
have
a
very
substantive
impact
on
utilization
of
the
program
overall.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
council
members
on.
E
Yeah,
thank
you.
You
know.
I
just
keep
thinking
about
the
fact
that
bellevue
is
a
great
place
to
live,
and-
and
I
do
as
I
was
thinking
about
the
comments
that
have
been
made-
you
know,
mfte
is
not
new
to
bellevue.
We've
already
tweaked
it
once,
and
we
are
now
looking
at
based
on
what
we've
learned
as
max
says,
making
adjustments
so
that
it
can
be
better.
So
this
is
not
new
and
untested.
E
We
are
learning
all
the
time
and
I
would-
and
I
was
also
thinking
about
the
fact
that
you
know
earlier
there
was
discussion
about
the
fact
that
we
need
to
have
data.
We
need
to
do
outreach
and
we
do
need
to
do
analysis,
and
I
would
say
yes,
yes
and
yes,
staff
has
done
an
amazing
job
of
gathering
data,
of
doing
outreach
of
creating
the
financial
models
of
reaching
out
and
showing
the
developer
community
those
models
to
make
sure
that
their
analysis
is
sound.
E
That
has
been
done
so
if
we
are
going
to
do
more
analysis,
paralysis
that
is
not
going
to
move
us
in
the
direction.
We
need
to
go
about
going
big
and
acting
with
urgency
about
building
all
levels
of
housing
and
when
I
think
about
what
makes
an
effective
mfte
program,
we've
gotten
the
feedback
on
the
model,
and
I
believe
that
what
staff
is
recommending
in
option
two
is
is
a
yes
and
that
is
going
to
get
us
both
the
workforce,
housing
at
the
80
percent,
as
well
as
the
deeper
affordability.
E
What
I'm
hearing
is
that
we
are
asking
questions
about
whether
the
data
was
gathered
right,
whether
we've
done
analysis,
whether
we've
done
outreach
and
I
believe
the
answer
to
all
of
those
have
been.
Yes,
yes
and
yes,
I
will
just
say
that
I
appreciate
council
member
robertson
asking
for
some
examples,
because
I
do
think
examples
are
helpful
for
us
to
to
understand,
and
yet
I
still
believe
that,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
number
two
is
the
right
balance.
E
A
Okay,
thank
you
councilmember
zahn.
So
at
this
point
we
have
four
council
members.
Well,
every
council
member
supports
a
baseline
of
80
of
my.
We
have
four
council
members
liking
option
two
and
three
council
members
liking
option
b.
I
think
all
the
council
members
would
like
to
see
some
jewels,
but
those
stiff
look
next
time
you
can
bring
some
scenarios
for
us
to
see
going
back.
A
We
have
a
majority
of
the
council
who
wants
to
want
to
expand
mfte
into
all
areas
that
allow
multifamily
have
a
member
who
want
to
stick
with
the
family
size
unit
requirements,
but
extend
the
fpe
to
also
one
bedroom
and
studio
developments.
A
And
that's
where
we
are
right
now
we
still
have.
I
know
that
the
I
think
that
mfte
is
a
little
bit
of
a
moot
point.
Maybe
we
should
go
over
that
and
then
the
last
thing
we
have
to
discuss,
I
believe,
is
the
parking
requirements.
A
I
think
we
should
do
a
hard
stop
at
nine
o'clock
onto
their
session
items,
knowing
that
we
have
another
study
session
where
we
can
do
the
parking.
So
if
we
can
do
some
of
the
parking
and
get
some
questions
so
that
you
can
bring
them
back
to
us
at
the
next
study
session,
we'll
do
that.
But
would
you
like
to
go
ahead
and
just
go
over
the
length
of
the
mfte.
R
Or
mayor
that
sounds
like
a
good
plan
this
one,
it
should
be
pretty
quick.
This
is
really
just
in
your
council
packet.
You
may
have
noticed
that
staff
came
up
with
a
potential
option
that
could
be
added
on
top
of
any
other
tweaks
that
that
we
just
discussed
to
allow
for
affordability
for
the
life
of
the
project.
That
was
something
that
council
had
expressed
some
interest
in
just
knowing.
If
that
was
a
possibility,
and
under
the
current
state
regulations,
the
way
that
that
would
be
completed
would
be
in
introducing
an
eight-year
program.
R
We
would
maintain
our
12-year
program
with
with
any
of
the
other
changes
per
council
direction,
but
we
could
introduce
an
eight-year
program
which
gives
us
a
lot
more
flexibility,
around
affordability
requirements,
and
so
we
could
say
as
an
example
of
what
that
might
look
like
that.
R
A
developer
could
get
an
eight-year
tax
exemption
in
exchange
for
providing
about
eight
percent
of
the
units
to
be
affordable
at
similar
levels
to
what
we
were
just
discussing
for
the
life
of
the
project,
and
so
that
this
is
an
option
we
haven't
delved
into
in
a
lot
of
detail.
We're
interested
in
you
know
if
this
is
something
that
council
is
interested
in,
but
we
do
recommend
that
we
revisit
this
at
the
next
study
session,
because
there
is
state
legislation
that
is
moving
through
the
system
right
now.
R
That
might
provide
an
alternative
similar
to
this,
but
that
that
would
be
a
little
bit
different
to
extend
the
affordability.
So
we
wanted
to.
Let
council
know
about
that
as
well
as
kind
of
just
present.
This
eight-year
option
as
food
for
thought
so
direction
on.
This
is
really
just
requesting
that
council.
Let
us
know
if
this
is
something
that
you're
interested
in
us
bringing
back
once.
We
have
a
little
bit
more
information
on
the
state
legislation
as
well.
A
A
I
was
going
to
give
a
thumbs
up
oh
thumbs,
up,
okay,
great,
so,
okay,
we
will
have
you
bring
that
back
when
we
get
some
current
information
on
what's
going
on
at
the
state
level,
and
so
we
have
half
an
hour
left
that
we
could
delve
into
the
parking
and
I'm
hoping
that
you
can
do
a
presentation
that
we
can
get
a
taste
of
what
you're
proposing
here
and
then
we
can
offer
some
questions
or
comments
tonight,
but
have
some
time
to
think
about
it
further
for
when
you
bring
it
back,
I'm
assuming
that
we'll
need
another
session
on
this.
R
I
think
we
can
certainly
do
that.
Okay,
let's
try
it
so
what
we've
actually
put
together
in
our
slides
here
is
following
that
that
general
approach,
we
knew
that
this
is
a
complicated
topic
and
that
there
were
a
lot
of
things
to
cover.
So
our
recommendation
is
to
give
you
a
high
level
of
what's
happening
with
parking
today.
R
What
what
our
general
recommendation
is
and
then
really
dive
into
the
details
of
what
that
would
look
like
and
and
once
we've
gotten
a
little
bit
of
direction
from
from
you
today,
and
so
this
was
definitely
meant
to
be
a
two-parter
from
the
start,
so
to
kind
of
ground
us
in
in
what's
happening
today
with
parking,
it's
really
important
to
differentiate
between
two
things
that
I
think
we've
heard
confused
a
lot
when
we're
talking
about
parking
costs
with
mfte.
R
The
existing
land
use
code
is
where
the
the
total
number
of
parking
stalls
that
a
development
must
build
is
defined.
Mfte
does
not
impact
that
in
any
way.
So
when,
when
we
hear
about
the
expensive
construction
of
stalls
which
are
very
expensive,
especially
below
grade
mft,
doesn't
impact
that
those
stalls
have
to
be
built
to
a
certain
minimum
based
on
the
on
the
land
use
code.
And
the
mfte
program
is
really
just
asking
whether
we
should
be
charging
the
affordable
tenants
for
use
of
those
stalls.
R
Of
that
here,
but
I'll
gloss
through
it
a
little
bit
as
a
matter
of
time,
but
we're
really
asking
whether
these
tenants
that
that
have
cars
and
need
them
to
get
to
work
should
be
paying
for
for
the
parking
on
top
of
their
their
affordable
rent
and
therefore
increasing
their
their
overall
kind
of
cost,
above
that
that
30
threshold
or
even
further,
if
they're,
already
further
cost
burdened
or
if
we
should
find
kind
of
a
middle
ground
where,
where
potentially
some
of
those
costs
are
covered.
And
so
that's
really.
R
What
the
heart
of
this
discussion
is.
It's
not
a
matter
of
how
many
parking
stalls
need
to
be
built,
but
really
who's,
paying
the
monthly
cost
for
that
parking,
which
tends
to
be
around
150
dollars
a
month.
And
it's
also
worth
noting
that
that
150
dollars
a
month
is
equivalent
to
about
seven
to
eight
percent
of
ami
level.
R
R
So
this
is
the
slide
that
that
looks
at
the
need.
It
was
laid
out
in
a
little
bit
more
detail
in
your
packet,
but
really
what
we're
showing
here
is
that
we've
reached
out
and
really
looked
at
bellevue
tenants
who
are
in
the
affordable
income
ranges
and
looked
at.
Do
they
need
cars?
What
percentage
of
them
need
cars?
R
Is
it
for
working
etc,
and
what
we
really
found
is
that
these
tenants
need
their
cars
they're
very
important
for
them
generally
to
get
to
work
about
three
quarters
of
employees
that
are
earning
less
than
fifty
thousand
dollars
in
bellevue
drive
to
work,
and
a
lot
of
these
households
have
more
than
one
adult.
So
if
you
have
two
adults
and
they
both
drive
to
work,
there's,
it's
really
likely
that
that
household
is
going
to
need
a
car.
R
And
we
see
that
because
you
know
91
of
the
households
on
the
arts
list
who
are
looking
for
housing
specifically
in
bellevue,
have
checked
the
box
that
says
that
that
they
need
parking
as
as
part
of
that
housing.
So
we're
seeing
that
this
need,
and
so
our
baseline
is
that
these
tenants
have
cars.
And
that's
not
going
to
go
away
immediately,
and
so
the
question
is
who's
paying
for
for
that
parking.
And
how
is
that
that
handled.
R
And
so
you
know,
it's
also
worth
pointing
out
that
we
as
staff
do
recommend
a
change
to
our
current
approach,
which
generally
allocates
one
affordable
par
one
parking
stall
for
each
affordable
unit,
because
our
land
use
code.
Minimum
parking
ratios
are
decreasing
in
a
lot
of
cases
and
so
on.
For
a
lot
of
these
buildings,
there
aren't
enough
parking
stalls
for
every
unit,
whether
market
rate
or
affordable,
to
get
a
parking
stall,
and
so
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
have
a
higher
ratio
of
stalls
allocated
to
the
affordable
tenants
than
to
the
market
rate.
R
Tenants
we're
looking
to
get
some
sort
of
more
even
distribution,
and
then
we're
also
asking
for
for
direction
for
council
on
on
how
that
might
be
achieved
and
where
that
cost
comes
from,
and
so
it's
it's
worth
kind
of
thinking
about
the
history
of
affordable
housing
and
and
thinking
about
the
fact
that
when
these
ami
levels
and
this
approach
of
limiting
housing
costs
to
30
of
a
household's
income
was
developed
federally,
that
was
when
parking
was
always
incorporated
into
housing
costs,
and
so
that
30
was
calculated
based
on
including
parking.
R
R
But
one
thing
to
note
is
that,
in
order
to
partially
associate
those
two
things,
we
could
actually
tie
it
to
the
access
to
transit
so
that
developments
that
have
you
know
good
access
to
transit,
maybe
don't
get
as
much
parking
portion
to
the
affordable
tenants
as
developments
that
have
you
know
less
access
to
to
transit,
and
then
that
could
be
achieved
by
you
know
linking
it
to
that
that
overall
parking
ratio
and
that
this
is
really
the
approach
that
arches
is
moving
towards
for
all
the
other
art
cities.
R
The
one
benefit
to
doing
this,
in
addition
to
lowering
costs
for
the
developer,
is
that
this
would
mean
that
that
that
we
could
potentially
rebalance
the
the
ami
levels
a
little
bit
to
to
account
for
that
that
that
difference
in
cost,
because
the
the
developers
saving
money
on
not
providing
that
parking.
So
it
basically
just
changes
some
of
the
inputs
in
that
in
that
financial
model,
but
that
approach
would
also
be
inconsistent
with
what
other
art
cities
will
be
doing.
R
P
You
know
you
know
mayor.
I
might
just
add
one
more
comment,
because
I
think
there
is
still
some
misunderstanding
out
in
the
community
about
this
part
of
the
program.
The
city
has
approved
multiple
development
projects,
mfte
applications
with
less
than
one
stall
per
unit
assigned,
so
so
that
that
is
true,
and
I
think
what
we're
seeking
from
the
council
here
is
because
to
elizabeth's
point,
as
we
look
at
a
lot
of
things,
our
transportation
policy
and
our
what
we
call
modal
split,
getting
people
out
of
cars,
city-wide
making.
P
You
know
the
whole
city
function
better
from
a
utility
infrastructure
standpoint,
we're
reducing
the
amount
of
parking
we're
allowing
to
be
built
in
these
buildings.
So
the
question
then
is:
under
what
circumstances
would
we
allow
the
affordable
owners
to
not
have
access
to
parking?
P
P
A
Okay,
thank
you
so
we'll
go
with
council
member
robertson,
followed
by
zan
deputy
mayor
new
in-house
councilmember,
stokes
lee
barksdale,
and
then
me
so
councilmember
robertson.
Thanks.
S
So
I'm
going
to
go
back
to
why
we
have
the
mfte
and
what
our
goals
are.
For
me,
my
goal
is
to
get
more
of
the
missing
middle
housing.
We
have
at
least
five
thousand,
no
sorry
30
000
new
jobs
coming
in
the
next
few
years,
and
if
we
want
those
folks
to
not
drive
in
from
far
away
and
clog
our
streets,
we
need
to
have
housing
for
them
to
live
here,
so
they
can
work
in
the
city
in
which
they
can
live
in
the
city
in
which
they
work.
S
So
from
that
perspective,
I
think
we
should
be
looking
at
this
program
not
for
what
we,
the
people
that
we
have
in
bellevue
today,
but
for
the
people
that
are
going
to
live
in
bellevue
tomorrow
and
so
the
data
that
was
provided,
which
is
from
14
to
18,
it's
a
little
stale
and
it's
nationwide
it
looked
like
so
I
think
that
what
would
be
more
relevant
would
be
the
data
from
the
multi-family
housing
in
seattle,
where
it's
a
dense
city,
lots
of
tech
workers
coming
into
these
jobs
and
see
what
utilization
of
parking
they
have.
S
So
people
who
want
to
live
here
it's
because
they're
working
here
I
mean
the
the
people
we're
planning
for,
and
so
if
they
are
being,
if
these
units
are
being
developed
right
near
transit
and
they
can
jump
on
a
bus
to
go
to
their
job,
I
think
that
the
need
for
the
parking
is
going
to
be
diminished
and
that's
reflected
by
the
fact
that
we
are
reducing
the
parking
for
multi-family
in
general,
especially
when
they're
on
high
capacity
transit
lines.
S
So
for
me
I
don't
think
that
parking
should
be
something
that
is
included
in
housing
cost,
because
one
of
the
goals
that
this
council
has
had
from
an
environmental
from
a
transportation
from
a
land
use
is
to
get
people
out
of
their
cars
and
get
them
onto
transit,
get
them
walking
biking.
I
mean
we
can't
do
that
perfectly,
but
we
need
to
plan
for
ways
to
implement
the
goal.
The
other
thing
that
I
think
so
I
don't
think
that
parking.
S
I
think
it
should
be
completely
decoupled
that
that
is
the
deal
killer
and
why
a
lot
of
people,
a
lot
of
developers
have
not
utilized
the
mfte
is
because
of
the
parking.
So
I
was
also
working
up
I'd
like
to
if
we
come
back
on
this
I'd
like
to
see
this,
but
I
was
look
working
up
an
example
of
this
and
if
you
had
a
100
unit,
building
that
had
us
0.75
stalls
per
unit
parking
that'd
be
75
stalls.
Okay
and
20
of
20
of
those
units
are
affordable,
housing
under
the
mfte.
S
So
I
I
just
think
that
that's
a
problem.
It
makes
it
harder
to
lease
the
market
rate
units
because
they
wouldn't
have
access
to
the
parking
it
may
not
be
utilized
by
the
affordable
units
and
there
just
wouldn't
and
it's
not
affordable
to
build,
because
the
cost
of
that
parking
is
about
a
million
and
a
half
dollars
to
build
that
parking.
So
just
for
the
20
stalls,
so
for
me,
let's
decouple
it
completely.
S
I,
for
my
understanding,
is
no
other
city
requires
this
as
part
of
the
affordable
using
mfte.
So
while
I
don't
mind
bellevue
going
alone
on
a
lot
of
things,
I
don't
think
this
is
the
where
we
should
do
that,
so
I'm
in
the
completely
decouple
category.
Thank
you.
Okay.
Thank.
E
Yes,
thank
you.
I
was
I've
been
thinking
about
what
you
just
brought
up
in
terms
of
right.
It
is
both
about
how
many
parking
stalls
are
built
and
then
who
pays,
and
they
are
two
separate
discussion
topics,
and
then
I
was
also
thinking
about
aligning
our
approach
with
parking
to
better
align
with
the
arch
approach
so
that
we
don't
end
up
with
a
whole
bunch
of
different
things.
E
So
I
guess
it
gets
to
the
question
I've
been
thinking
about,
which
is
it
feels
to
me
like.
There
is
a
short-term
parking
need
that
may
be
more
cars
that
folks
have,
and
then
we
have
this
more
long-term
goal.
Where,
hopefully
we
become
that
15-minute
city,
where
people
are
able
to
walk
to
where
they
they
work,
where
they
can
buy
groceries.
E
And
so
I
I'm
still
thinking
about
exactly
where
I
want
us
to
be.
But
I
do
have
a
slightly
different
question
related
to
parking,
and
that
is,
it
seems
to
me
if
we
could
make
sure
that
whatever
parking
is
built,
that
that
space
could
potentially
be
designed
to
be
repurposed
for
other
uses.
So
if,
ultimately,
we
have
20
fewer
cars
that
are
needed
in
a
building
that
maybe
we're
building
flat
plates
for
parking
so
that
they
could
be
repurposed
with
slightly
higher
ceiling
heights.
E
So
we
can
have
hvac,
and
I
just
wonder
whether
we
are
seeing
that
discussion
when
developers
are
coming
in
in
building
that.
Maybe
today
we
need
x
number
of
parking
stalls,
but
that
over
time
we
are
actually
able
to
potentially
see
repurposing
of
those
parking
for
other
uses.
That
may
be
more
higher
value.
E
I've
just
seen
that
happen
in
other
in
other
cities
and
other
places.
I.
H
Thank
you,
mayor
and
yeah
lots
of
good
questions
and
again
good
conversation
tonight.
I
guess
for
me
the
overriding
question
and
staff
can
get
back
to
get
back
to
me
on
this
later,
but
you
know-
and
I
appreciate
the
extensive
outreach
that
staff
has
done.
But
again
I
think
the
the
emails
that
we've
seen
and
the
interactions
that
we've
had
with
with
developers
over
the
years
is
that
they
have
a
hard
time
making
this
pencil
out
if
parking
is
a
requirement.
H
H
A
Okay,
that's
a
good
question
and
again
we
will
get
an
answer
for
next
time.
Thank
you.
Councilmember.
T
Stokes,
I
don't
know
that
I
have
a
lot
to
add
to
the
to
the
prior
comments
and.
T
I
mean
it's
this.
This
is
a
hard
one
I
think,
to
to
figure
out.
So
I
don't
have
any
question
to
ask
I'll
I'll
just
think
about
it
and
talk
about
it
next
time.
I
think
I
think
it's
a
hard
question
here
and
I
don't
don't
know
if
we
have
all
the
information
we
need
to
kind
of
make.
That
decision.
That's
and
that'll
take
some
more
conversation,
so
I'll
pass.
A
If
you
come
up
with
something
during
the
week
or
be
before
we
meet
again
on
this,
please
feel
free
to
send
an
email
to
staff,
and
they
can
include
the
answer
in
their
next
presentation:
councilmember
lee
and
councilmember
lee.
I'm
going
to
remind
you
to
please
keep
this
to
three
minutes
at
most.
A
C
C
A
Okay,
we
will
get
back
to
council
member
lee
he's
one
minute
into
his
his
discussion.
So
we'll
give
him
two
more
minutes
when
he
comes
back
when
he
refreshes
councilmember
barksdale.
F
Thank
you
mayor.
I
I
think
this
is
a
tough
one
as
council,
as
as
everyone
has
sort
of
mentioned,
our
council
member
stops
mentioning
most
recently
just
given
the
points
that
have
already
surfaced.
I
would
I
guess
I
have
a
question
kind
of
building
on
deputy
mayor's
question.
There
was
some
sentiment
around
going
for
the
deeper
affordability
instead
of
providing
money
for
parking.
So
I'd
be
curious
about
the
sentiment
of
that
among
the
developers
in
terms
of
prevalence,
I
mean
how
proud
that
sentiment
was.
F
The
other
question
I
had
was:
is
there
an
opportunity
to
explore
something
like
they
pay
for
transit
or
something
like
that
or
you
know,
I'm
not
sure
how
realistic
that
is,
but
it's
just
as
many
employers
in
the
region
will
pay
for
like
an
orca
card
for
employees.
Is
there
some
alternative
here?
Maybe
there's?
Maybe
it's
not
an
either
or
but
maybe
it's
like
an
option,
or
I
don't
know.
A
That's
a
great
question:
do
you
have
any
more
questions?
I
just
wanted
to
say:
councilmember
lee
we're
gonna
get
right
back
to
you.
Okay,
so
just
a
moment
go
ahead
and
finish
council
member
barksdale.
F
I
think
that's
that's.
I
think
that
covers.
A
C
I
don't
know
what
happened
yeah
I
was
finishing
up
well.
I
would
like
to
see
that
the
staff
have
explored
other
ways
to
help
the
situation
either.
If
the
developers
cannot
do
it
because
the
money,
let's
figure
out,
how
can
we
help
them
to
you,
know,
make
the
gap
smaller
or
bridge
the
gap?
If
the
people
who
want
to
live
there
and
they
have
problems
coming
up
150
a
month,
let's
figure
out
what
else
can
we
do?
C
You
know
we're
talking
about
other
tools,
other
layering
that
you're
talking
about
so
there's
not
just
a
dead
end.
No,
it
isn't.
But
this
is
my
my
concern
number
one.
I
want
to
have
more
units,
okay,
and
if
we
have
more
units,
then
we
have
to
figure
out
how
to
help
the
people
who
are
going
to
be
living
there.
So
we
need
to
have
more
ideas
from
the
staff.
A
Okay,
thank
you
all
right.
I
guess
I
actually
have
a
lot
to
say
so,
I'm
going
to
time
myself
here,
okay,
so
I
know
that
we've
seen
incidences
in
redmond,
where
you
have
a
affordable
housing
development
right
at
a
transit
center
and
every
tenant
is
provided
an
orca
pass
and
they
didn't
need
nearly
as
many
parking
stalls
as
required
for
that
development.
A
So
I
think
that
that
is
worth
looking
at.
I
don't
like
talking
about
parking
any
differently
affordable,
causing
the
market
housing
market
rate.
Either
people
need
a
parking
lot
or
a
parking
space
where
they
don't.
So
I
think
we
need
to
be
looking
at
this
kind
of
more
holistically
and
I
don't
agree
with
the
one
stall
per
unit
requirement
per
se,
but
I
isn't
the
state
requirement
that
we
just
adopted
a
a
half
stall
per
unit
in
tod.
I
I'm
trying
to
remember:
does
anybody
recall
that?
A
Well
whatever
the
state
requirement
is,
I
think
we
should?
We
should
stick
with
that
and
then
we
also
put
a
provision
that
said,
if
you
do
a
parking
study,
you
can
lower
that
amount
of
parking.
If
you
improve,
you
don't
need
as
much
so
I
I
totally
agree
with
that.
A
But
I
don't-
and
I
think
what's
going
to
really
make
a
difference
in
this
whole
equation-
is
having
more
opportunities
to
have
affordable
housing
right
now.
It's
so
limited
that
people
end
up
living
in
a
neighborhood
that
doesn't
really
suit
their
needs
because
they
can
get
a
unit
there,
and
I
think
that
when
we
have
affordable
housing
throughout
the
city,
wherever
there's
multi-family,
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
more
choices
and
people
can
choose
a
unit.
Maybe
that
is
larger
for
their
family.
A
It
has
more
parking
or
they
can
minimize
and
and
be
somewhere
where
there's
no
parking
and
that's
going
to
work
for
them.
But
I
think
that
the
key
is
to
have
choice
and
to
have
a
variety
in
all
over
bellevue.
So
I
I'm
just
gonna
underscore
that
I
think
we
should
look
at
downtown
a
little
differently
than
the
rest
of
the
region
and
I
don't
think
we
should
look
at
parking
requirements
for
affordable
housing
any
differently
than
we
do.
Market
rate
housing.
But
I
love
council,
member
barksdale's
idea
of
a
norca
card.
A
If
you
don't
have
a
stall
so
anyway,
food
for
thought.
When
will
you
be
coming
back
to
revisit
this.
P
Thank
you
mayor,
we're
going
to
be
back
in
april,
we're
still
working
with
the
clerk's
office
on
the
exact
date.
We
can
probably
be
pretty
ready,
but
we
know
some
of
the
council
members
are
in
and
out
on
different
weeks
there.
So
we'll
we'll
have
it
we'll
have
that
date
in
the
next
week
or
so.
A
Okay,
and
so
I
think,
it'd
be
really
helpful
to
try
to
answer
the
questions
that
we've
given
you
and
maybe
provide
the
answers
in
advance.
If
that's
possible
and
council
members,
we
have
lots
of
time
to
ask
more
questions
to
staff
in
the
in
the
time
before
the
next
meeting.
So
I
think
that'll
work
great.
So,
if
everybody's
okay,
with
that,
we
will
pause
here
and
take
a
seven
six
minute
break
and
reconvene
at
nine
o'clock.
A
A
A
N
Sure,
thank
you
mayor
from
council
members.
The
next
study
session
topic
is
about
the
bellevue
botanical
garden
society,
specifically
the
creativity
and
innovative
kind
of
things
they
did
and
undertook
to
successfully
achieve
its
mission
during
the
time
of
this
pandemic.
N
No
formal
direction
is
being
requested
this
evening
and
joining
us
this
evening
to
to
provide
a
presentation
is
to
us
about
what
how
the
the
garden
society
pivoted
during
the
pandemic
is
nancy
nancy,
cardis,
the
manager
of
the
bellevue,
botanical
garden
and
she's
joined
by
cleo
rollerson,
the
co-president
of
the
bellevue
botanical
garden
society,
so
nancy
I'll
turn
it
on
over
to
you.
Q
Q
Me
my
presentation
is
not
advancing
there.
We
go.
Excuse
me
for
a
moment
there,
as
you
may
know,
10
organizations
partner
with
this
city
at
bellevue,
botanical
garden.
They
all
contribute
in
different
ways,
and
each
organization's
mission
aligns
with
the
garden's
mission
and
vision.
I've
always
enjoyed
managing
this
governance
model
and
I'm
especially
grateful
for
it.
Now
together,
we've
shared
the
challenge
of
responding
to
the
covid
pandemic,
and
this
has
led
to
greater
resilience
for
all
of
us.
Q
When
we
realized
that
we
would
be
in
this
pandemic
for
the
long
haul,
I
asked
staff
and
partner
group
leaders
to
consider
how
we
might
continue
to
safely
serve
the
community.
We
applied
state
and
local,
coveted
safety
guidelines
to
our
operations,
and
this
led
to
the
limited
return
of
our
horticulture
volunteers
last
summer.
Q
Thanks
to
their
efforts
along
with
our
frontline
ground
staff,
the
garden
remains
a
safe
and
beautiful
place
of
respite
for
the
community.
The
bellevue
botanical
garden
society
is
our
primary
partner
group.
They
offer
programs
and
community
events
in
support
of
our
mission
and
I'm
pleased
to
introduce
society
co-president
cleo
rollerson
to
tell
you
how
they
accomplished
their
goals
in
these
challenging
times.
W
I
am
cleo
rollerson.
I
have
been
involved
with
the
bellevue
botanical
gardens
society
for
seven
years.
I
am
currently
co-president
of
the
board
and
co-chair
of
garden
delights.
The
society
has
met
the
challenges
of
the
pandemic
and
has
proven
that,
with
innovation,
creativity
and
technology,
we
can
exceed
our
goals
and
go
beyond
the
status
quo.
W
Our
staff
and
volunteers
have
become
zoom
experts
and
the
city
of
bellevue
I.t
department
has
helped
our
staff
make
working
from
home
smooth
sailing
a
special
thanks
to
the
it
team.
Early
on.
We
started
offering
our
adult
education
program
via
webinars,
and
we
have
reached
a
larger
audience
than
would
have
been
possible
with
in-person
classes.
W
Between
april
30th,
of
2020
and
january
31st
of
this
year,
society
offered
36
webinars
and
served
over
3
600
people
since
living
lab.
Our
on-site
field
trip
learning
program
for
elementary
school
youth
cannot
take
place
the
garden
right
now.
We
are
providing
resources
for
educators
and
parents
on
our
website
under
virtual
field
trips.
W
These
resources
are
considered
extensions
of
our
living
lab.
The
society
is
also
reaching
out
to
underserved
populations
and
groups
that
normally
cannot
come
to
the
garden
through
the
schools.
We
connect
our
teacher
with
the
students
on
their
virtual
platform.
We
also
have
teachers
providing
a
fun
science
activity
on
facebook
live
each
week.
W
Our
trillium
store
shifted
to
an
online
storefront
with
curbside
pickup.
It
is
now
open
with
limited
hours
following
all
covid
protocol
for
retail
operations
in
king
county
in
2020,
we
offered
our
annual
garden
delights
event.
Virtually
this
annual
community
event
is
almost
entirely
powered
by
volunteers
and
unfortunately,
we
could
not
have
our
volunteers
install
the
lights
for
2020
or
work
at
the
event
due
to
covid
restrictions.
W
Virtually
through
a
video
of
past
garden,
delights
images
we
connected
with
garden
delights
attendees
from
earlier
years.
We
recognized
sponsors
in
the
piece
on
the
society
website
and
on
the
garden
delights
pages.
The
video
was
viewed
3
900
times
on
vimeo
and
facebook
and
the
garden
delights.
Page
itself
was
viewed
32
759
times
this
holiday
season.
Yes,
isn't
technology,
fun,
our
garden
delights.
2020
sponsors
included
amazon,
home
street
bank
and
bernstein
porter,
our
thanks
to
these
local
businesses
for
their
support.
W
The
society
membership
is
growing
and
is
a
testament
to
the
value
importance
of
the
bellevue
botanical
garden
and
the
programming
that
the
society
offers.
We
picked
up
over
435
new
members
over
the
past
10
months.
New
members
frequently
share
with
us
how
much
they
appreciate
the
bellevue
botanical
garden,
not
closing
down
during
covid
how
much
they
enjoy
the
webcam
educational
webinars
when
we
are
all
at
home
and
how
they
are
most
grateful
to
have
a
peaceful
respite
from
the
daily
challenges
of
the
pandemic
when
they
visit
the
garden
garden.
W
W
W
W
W
W
A
Thank
you
so
much.
I
will
just
say
that
I've
always
been
such
a
fan
of
the
garden
and
have
watched
it
over
the
years,
adapt
and
grow,
and
it's
just
always
a
relevant
part
of
bellevue.
I'm
curious.
I
know
that
you
are
very
popular
with
national
programs
and
people
coming
from
all
over
the
country
to
come
visit
the
garden
and
have
programs
in
your
conference
facilities.
W
A
Terrific
any
other
questions
or
comments,
councilmember
barksdale,
followed
by
council
members
on
and
deputy
mayor
newinghouse.
F
Thank
you
mayor,
thank
you
to
cleo
and
nancy
for
the
presentation
and
also
really
enjoyed
the
botanical
gardens
as
well,
and
it
was
a
it
was
an
awesome
place
to
hang
out
during
cove.
It's
just
a
place
to
get
out
and
get
some
inspiration
from
the
from
the
garden.
F
I
was
curious
in
terms
of
programs.
Do
you
all
have
sort
of
a
visiting
gardener
or
type
of
program?
And
then
my
second
question
is:
I
saw
the
list
of
partners
there's
a
there's
another
garden,
not
too
far
away
from
you.
That's
it's
the
bellevue
urban
garden
and
I
was
curious.
If
you
all
ever
have
a
chance
to
partner,
I
think
it'd
be
a
really
a
really
good
opportunity.
Q
I
think
that's
what
we're
referring
to
here
and
it
would
be
great
to
do
more
cross-pollination
with
them,
because
we
don't
grow
edibles
and
they
do
and
there's
a
high
interest
in
edibles.
So
I
think
there
are
some
opportunities
there.
W
But
but
there
are
a
number
of
people
that
volunteer
at
the
bellevue
botanical
garden
that
are
also
master
gardeners
and
are
involved
in
the
bellevue
demonstration
garden.
So,
even
though
the
only
formal
connection
is
master
gardeners
answer
questions
normal
times
at
the
bellevue
botanical
garden,
there's
a
lot
of
interaction
among
the
volunteers.
W
Most
of
us
wear
multiple
hats.
In
terms
of
the
visiting
gardeners
we
have
volunteers
working
at
the
garden
and
so
both
contributing
their
skills
and
learning.
Are
you
also
talking
about
having
classes
where
we
have
gardening
experts
come
in
and
teach
people
how
to
garden?
We
have
that
too,
both
both
edibles
and
and
pretty
things
like
flowers,.
Q
Q
Funny
that
you
asked
that
question,
though,
because
I'm
working
with
some
people
on
the
national
level
to
we're
talking
about
trying
to
have
an
actual
visiting
horticulturalist
program
where
we
visit
each
other's
gardens
and
learn
best
practices
from
one
another.
So
that
was
a
very
forward-thinking
question.
Q
A
E
Council
members
on
yeah,
so
just
actually
going
to
clarify
the
bellevue
urban
garden,
is
actually
a
kitty
corner
from
the
demonstration
garden.
So
it's
not
the
same
thing.
Thank
you
and
I
would
really
encourage
you
to
reach
out
to
maven
who
is
the
working
on
that
urban
garden
and
look
at
that
connection,
and
I
also
want
to
just
echo
what
councilmember
barksdale
talked
about
it's
it's
just
an
amazing
place
to
a
respite
to
walk
around.
E
E
I
enjoy
the
fact
that
we
also
have
the
tea
ceremonies
that
when
we
were
able
to
have
events
to
be
able
to
have
that
at
the
garden,
I
did
have
a
question
as
we
think
about.
I
know
we've
had
you
know,
music
in
in
the
garden
in
the
past,
have
we
had
things
like
tai
chi,
which
it
just
seems
like
that
garden
and
kind
of
the
serenity
of
that
space
would
lend
itself
to
things
like
tai
chi,
where
you
know
having
come
from
hong
kong,
where
a
lot
of
the
parks
have.
E
You
know
seniors
that
are
doing
tai
chi,
and
it's
just.
I
just
wonder
about
those
kinds
of
programs.
Q
We
have
individual
practitioners
at
the
garden
come
and
just
do
tai
chi
on
their
own.
We
have
not
had
organized
classes
yet,
but
that's
something
we
can
look
into.
We've
also
had
requests
to
look
into
yoga
and
other.
We
do
wellness
walks
and
forest
bathing,
and
so
there's
more
and
more
interest
in
wellness
and
those
kinds
of
programs
at
the
garden.
E
Yeah,
I
think
that
would
be
great
and
and
so
and
then
potentially
programs
for
for
children
to
do
scavenger
hunts
and
things
like
that
in
the
garden
that
we
do.
Oh
great,
okay.
Well,
thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you.
Definitely,.
H
Thank
you
mayor
and
nancy
cleo.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
the
update,
the
botanical
garden
is
such
a
such
a
jewel
for
the
entire
community
year
round.
Although
my
daughter
did
ask
if
garden
delights
would
be
back
next
holiday
season
like
so
many
families,
it
is
a
mainstay
as
part
of
our
holiday
traditions.
Now,
in
fact
she
might
have
missed
that
more
than
snowflake
lane.
So.
H
H
W
We're
looking
at
timed
ticketing,
figuring
out
how
we
can
do
this
without
any
contact
still
following
all
the
rules
that
are
in
place
now,
assuming
that
we
might
have
to
deal
with
that.
I
have
a
team
of
volunteers
absolutely
chomping
at
the
bit
to
to
to
get
involved
because
we
reuse
so
many
of
the
lights
and
different
arrangements
each
year
we
can
actually
still
put
it
on.
If
we
get
a
yes,
you
can
go
as
early
as
as
late
as
october
1..
So
yes,
we're
planning!
G
H
W
One
of
our
longest
standing
volunteers
has
been
surviving
the
coveted
restrictions
building
a
blue
penguin.
That's
looking
lost,
oh.
Q
W
Q
H
Nancy,
thank
you
for
sharing
some
of
those
great
testimonials
in
your
presentation
as
well.
Those
are
those
are
fantastic
and
it
shows
what
incredible
community
treasure
this.
This
really
is,
but
sorry
nancy,
I
didn't
mean
to
interrupt
you
go
ahead.
Please.
Q
W
T
T
It's
I
want
to
add
to
whatever
everybody's
been
saying
about
it
and
one
one
thing
on
the
the
bellevue
urban
garden
and
I'll
get
in
touch
with
you
and
we'll
talk
about
that
because
it's
it's
on
some
city
land
on
you
know
just
across
from
there
on
that
area,
and
it's
it's
an
educational
thing
and
I
think
there'd
be
some
good
ties
in
and
they
get
a
lot
of
elementary
kids,
school
kids
coming
there
and
people
go
out
and
have
I
even
planted
a
apple
tree
out
there
and
things
like
that.
T
So
it's
it's
a
great.
The
whole
thing
of
the
gardening
is
with
that
is
really
neat,
and
I
think
we
could
have
some
synergies
there.
The
other
thing
is
that
again
to
thank
you
for
being
open.
The
the
cafes
really
worked
out.
Well,
I
think
that's
and
the
food
is
really
good
in
the
drinks.
So
that's
nice,
but
it's
just
nice
to
have
that
respite
and
be
able
to
go
out.
T
You
know
there
and
people
have
been
really
good
about
wearing
their
mask
and,
being
you
know
going
following
all
the
the
coveted
requirements
and
everything.
So
it's
just.
I
think
it's
helped
us
have
some
normalcy
and
and-
and
it's
been
really
good,
the
other
thing
that
one
to
mention
is
that
I'm
on
the
east
rail
corridor
advisory
committee
and
working
on
that-
and
you
know,
of
course
that's
coming
closer
there.
T
Yeah
again,
I
think
just
having
the
botanical
gardens
is
fantastic
and
really
appreciate
all
the
work
that
that
you're
doing
on
it
and
keeping
it
going
and
looking
forward
to
the
gardens
of
delights
out
there.
I
I
bet
we
can
do
it.
W
We
hope
so
and
we're
looking
forward
to
having
that
connection.
We
think
it
will.
It
will
bring
more
visitors
to
the
garden
and
give
people
more
ways
to
to
get
from
the
garden
to
downtown
and
vice
versa,
so
we're
real
excited.
C
Thank
you,
madame
bilby,
but
indigo
garden
has
been
such
a
jam
in
the
middle
of
a
big
city,
and
so
it's
a
it's
a
treasure
you
have
had
always
you
know
very
many
international
visitors.
You
know
people
who
come
here
and
they
appreciate
all
the
you
know:
emphasis
on
the
plants,
trees,
vegetations
and,
of
course,
the
yellow
garden
and
the
tea
house.
C
So
have
you
noticed
continuing
people
from
the
from
from
outside
the
country
come
to
see
the
garden
during
the
cover
19,
because
I
know
that
all
the
tourism
everything's
being
affected
drastically,
but
I'm
just
curious
about.
You
know
what
how
did
that
affect
the
international
visitors?
That's
first
question.
Second
question
is
the
wilberton
elementary
school
is
now
close
by
and
of
course,
whether
that
has
any
impact
to
the
programming
of
the
belvedere
garden
with
the
school.
Q
I'll
take
the
first
question
and
you
can
take
the
second
one
cleo
how's,
that
okay,
okay,
so
regarding
the
international
one
of
the
things
that
we
lost
during
kovid,
was
the
ability
to
have
you
know
pens
and
our
visitor
sign
in
book.
That's
where
we
got
the
information
about
where
people
were
coming
from.
So
we
can't
measure
that
now
prior
to
cova,
though
I
think
we
were
up
to
something
like
52
countries
were
represented
by
our
visitors,
we'll
we'll
put
that
back
out
as
soon
as
it's
safe
to
do
so,.
W
And
we
really
find
it
a
plus
to
have
the
wilberton
school
so
close
by.
We
watch
parents
walk
their
children
to
and
from
school
now
that
they're
back
at
least
a
little
bit,
and
we
think
long
term
that
there
will
be
more
and
more
opportunities
for
interactions
between
the
school
and
the
garden,
especially
with
living
lab
and
some
other
programs.
But
I
I
think
that
will
be
a
long,
great
long-term
partnership
nancy.
Any
other
thoughts
on
gilberton.
A
N
Yeah
so
mayor
and
customer
is
the
last
item
on
your
study
session
agenda
is
an
update
on
the
northeast
king
county
regional
communications
agency,
also
known
to
many
of
you
as
norcon
this
by
way
background
norcom
was,
was
formed
back
in
2009
as
a
non-profit
corporation
that
serves
14
fire
and
medical
agencies
as
well.
Six
police
agencies,
I
believe
an
overall
goal,
was
to
ensure
intraoperative
interoperability
between
the
various
regional
agencies.
N
So
we
have
an
update
for
you
tonight
which
will
focus
on
governance,
structured
governance
structure,
some
of
the
accomplishments
and
some
of
the
future
initiatives.
The
agency
will
take
on
no
formal
council
directions
being
requested
this
evening.
This
is
really
informational.
An
opportunity
to
ask
question
so
joining
us
this
evening.
Is
the
bill
hamilton,
the
executive
director
of
northcom,
with
that
I'll
turn
it
over
to
bill
yeah.
X
Thank
you,
city
manager,
ryaki.
That's
a
hard
act
to
follow.
I'm
not
nearly
as
beautiful
as
those
gardens
are.
X
Mayor
robinson,
deputy
mayor,
newan,
aus
and
members
of
council,
thank
you
for
the
privilege
of
being
here
tonight
as
data.
My
name
is
bill
hamilton,
I'm
the
new
director
here
at
norcom
prior
to
norcom,
I
spent
32
years
in
public
safety.
Four
years
in
new
jersey
and
28
years
with
the
kirkland
police
department.
X
X
I
will
say
quite
candidly:
it
remains
a
privilege
and
honor
to
serve
our
agencies,
communities
and
the
outstanding
nurcom
team.
X
X
As
a
much
younger
police
officer
in
early
2002-2003,
I
responded
with
the
fire
department
on
a
report
of
a
swimmer
in
distress
on
lake
washington.
Both
9-1-1
centers
were
receiving
9-1-1
calls
related
to
the
swimmer's
location.
I
was
standing
alongside
a
cookman
firefighter
working
together
to
better
define
the
swimmer's
location.
X
Our
efforts
were
significantly
hampered
because
different
witnesses
had
called
into
two
different
911
centers
and,
as
such,
we
are
receiving
conflicting
and
delayed
information
from
both
centers.
This
bifurcation
of
police
and
fire
9-1-1
services
was
inefficient
and
did
not
provide
for
rapid
coordination
and
deployment
of
information
and
the
proper
resources.
X
Norcom
is
one
of
the
largest
911
centers
in
king
county
and
one
of
three,
which
provides
for
both
police
and
fire
services
is
governed
by
an
interlocal
agreement
and
managed
by
our
governing
board.
Comprised
of
one
representative
from
each
user
agency
or
municipality
deputy
city
manager.
Mccommon
is
your
representative
on
the
governing
board
and
I
will
say
he
is
an
excellent
partner
and,
I
believe,
he's
an
amazing
ambassador
for
the
city
of
bellevue.
X
X
This
public
trust
is
sacred
and
we
treat
it
as
such
norcom
staff
values.
This
partnership
with
our
communities
and
our
agencies,
and
these
particular
pictures,
the
center
picture
and
the
one
to
the
right
are
some
of
our
dispatchers,
who
were
invited
by
the
fire
department
and
the
bellevue
police
department
to
one
of
your
community
events,
and
they
were
very,
very
excited
to
have
participated
and
it
provided
a
mechanism
for
us
to
build
stronger
relationships
in
the
field
with
the
community
that
we're
serving.
X
X
X
X
X
Applicants
are
carefully
screened
and
undergo
an
in-depth
background
process
similar
to
that
of
a
fire
or
police
applicant
upon
hire.
They
progress
through
a
lengthy
series
of
skills,
development,
beginning
with
classroom
curriculum
and
then
proceeding
to
9-1-1
call
taking
police
dispatching
and,
finally,
fire
dispatching.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
However,
such
a
decision
requires
significant
research,
subject,
matter,
expert
input
and
strong
stakeholder
input
in
this
case,
that
being
nor
our
fire
customers,
as
well
as
our
police
customers,
in
an
effort
to
explore
this
and
perhaps
reduce
or
mitigate
future
user
agency
costs.
Nor
common
is
working
closely
with
our
partner
agencies,
our
chiefs
and
our
governing
board
members
to
explore
the
fiscal
and
operational
feasibility
of
migrating
to
one
of
the
two
existing
cad
systems.
X
X
A
Thank
you
very
much
appreciate
the
presentation
and
I
especially
appreciate
the
compliments
on
our
staff
and
deputy
mayor.
I
mean
deputy
city
manager,
nathan
mccommon,
really
appreciate
that
any
I'll,
I'm
looking
at
everybody,
I
see
councilmember
barksdale.
I
see
council
members
on
and
council
member
lee.
So
let's
start
with
councilmember
barksdale.
F
Thank
you
mayor.
Thank
you
bill
for
the
presentation
and
thanks
to
the
call
takers
of
dispatchers
for
the
work
that
they're
doing,
especially
during
copet
kind
of
kind
of
building
on
an
earlier
conversation
about
the
mental
health
or
crisis
assistance
team.
F
What's
what's
happening
in
norcom,
in
terms
of
maybe
having
a
mental
health
professional
as
part
of
the
norcom
staff
to
help
with
so
there's,
obviously
a
need
for
mental
health
professionals
in
the
field,
but
also
some
of
the
calls
that
you
get
maybe
to
benefit
from
a
mental
health,
professional
and
I'll.
Ask
my
second
question
and
then
open
it
up.
F
Given
that
the
dispatchers
and
call
takers
had
to
work
through
kobe
and
are
indoors,
and
I
know
you're
taking
this
the
safety
precautions,
what's
the
status
in
terms
of
vaccinations
for
call
takers
and
dispatchers,
especially
given
that
they're
considered
emergency
workers.
X
Thank
you
I'll
start
with
the
first
part
of
the
question
we
are
we're.
We
are
watching
the
conversation
regarding
behavioral
health
and
mental
health
efforts
very
closely.
I'm
aware
that
there's
a
lot
there's
many
many
types
of
legislation.
Legislation
that's
currently
before
our
representatives
we
are
engaged
with
several
of
our
departments-
are
also
pursuing
either
a
navigator
grant,
which
is
usually
on
the
police
side.
We
are.
We
are
also
engaged
with
the
bellevue
police
department,
as
they
bring
I
say,
work
on
their
crisis
intervention
team
model.
X
We
currently
do
not
have
a
mental
health
professional
on
staff,
24
7.,
we
not
not
for
the
purposes
of
assisting
with
calls
for
service.
I
I
do
believe
that
there
will
be
an
opportunity
in
the
near
future
to
have
this
conversation
in
a
more
robust
manner
manner.
I
believe
that
some
of
the
societal
issues
are
going
to
drive
us
there
very
quickly
and
we're
watching
that
very
closely
and
we're
staying
engaged.
X
X
Right
now,
many
of
the
many
of
the
cities,
many
of
the
programs,
are
funded
through
an
ems
levy
and
the
in
that
program
is
designed
around
around
a
what
they
call
a
referral
model.
So
it's
an
after
after
after
action
after
contact
triaging
getting
people
help
and
home
and
housing
and
things
along
those
lines.
X
The
only
model
that
I'm
aware
of
in
our
area
now
is
doing
more
of
a
response
model
or
are
getting
very
close
to
response
model
is
the
belly
fire
cares
program
when
they,
when
they
check
into
service,
they
notify
norcom,
that
they're
in
service
and
available
and
when
a
police
or
firefighter
responds
to
a
call
for
service.
If
they're,
not
the
right
tool
and
careful
bellevue
carriage
bellevue
fire
cares,
I'm
sorry
is
is
available.
They'll
request
that
resource
and
that's
been
very
effective
and
they've,
been
a
pleasure.
X
Regarding
your
second
part
of
your
question,
I
must
admit
I
don't
remember
what
the
second
part
of
your
question
is.
So
can
you
please
restate
that.
F
Yeah
sure
so,
just
noting
that
the
acknowledging
that
the
call
takers
and
dispatchers
are
working
through
covet-
and
you
know,
as
you
mentioned
in
your
presentation-
have
to
show
up
and
they're
in
that
internal
environment
or
in
closed
environment.
What's
the
status
on
vaccinations
for
call
takers
and
and
dispatchers
and
other
staff
that
are
working.
X
I'm
very
glad
you
asked
that
question
I
apologize
for,
I'm
not
writing
it
down.
The
the
status
is
actually
very
good.
We've
been
working
closely
with
the
zomling
fire
chiefs,
which,
which
includes
chief
hagen
and
through
a
regional
partnership
with
the
snoqualmie
indian
tribe.
X
They
provided
vaccines
for
all
of
our
employees.
As
of
this
saturday,
we
were
the
county
system
for
first
responders,
broke
it
down
to
an
a
b
and
c
category
as
far
as
when,
when
dispatchers
become
eligible
and
right
now,
the
eligibility
was
only
for
dispatchers
50
years
or
older
and-
and
I
believe,
that's
only
one
or
two
of
our
staff.
So
if
not
for
our
fire
chiefs
and
their
partnerships
outside
of
our
region,
we
wouldn't
have
been
able
to
get
our
staff
vaccines
at
this
juncture.
So
I'm
happy
to
report
nearly.
E
It's
such
a
stressful
time
for
norcom,
even
before
kovid
right,
you
have
such
an
important
role
in
our
community
saving
lives,
as
you
were
talking
about-
and
you
know
I
was
thinking
about-
you
know
just
how
stressful
it
can
be
for
both
the
call
takers
and
the
dispatchers,
because
our
police
and
fire
rely
on
the
information
that
norcom
provides
them
as
in
terms
of
situational
awareness
before
they're
they're
going
out
on
a
call
and
then
what
you
mentioned
about
you
know:
66
000
calls
to
our
police
and
then
16
000
to
fire.
E
I
really
appreciate
the
fact
that,
from
looking
at
the
training
that
they
have
both
academy
training,
one-on-one
training,
de-escalation,
implicit
bias-
I
think
that's
so
important.
What
I
do
wonder
about
is
in
that
training.
Are
they
and
so
I'll
kind
of
put
out
my
questions
and
then
have
you
answer?
E
Are
they
scenario-based
training
so
that
it
really
is
is
gives
them
that
interactive
opportunity
to
really
look
at
how
you
would
respond,
depending
on
what
the
scenario
is
and
the
nuances,
and
then
how
do
they
deal
with
multiple
languages
and
culturally
appropriate
interaction,
because
different
communities
may
describe
things
differently?
E
So
how
do
you
account
for
some
of
those
differences
and
and
then
in
determining
what
level
of
crisis
it
is
and
and
who
gets
the
response,
because
I
think
that
we've
been
talking
a
lot
in
our
community
about
what
calls
fire
may
be
responding
to
versus
police
versus,
perhaps
wellness
checks
being
done
by
perhaps
another
entity.
So
I'm
wondering
if
you
could
comment
about
that.
Thank
you.
X
Absolutely
and
I
may
have
misunderstood
the
previous
question
regarding
a
mental
health
professional
at
norcom,
I
thought
that
was
to
assist
with
the
screening
of
9-1-1.
X
It
was
okay,
we
also
have
we
have
a
peer
support
program
and
we
have
a
mental
health
professional
on
staff
to
assist
our
employees
as
they
go
through
traumatic
calls
for
service
and
things
along
those
lines.
As
far
as
lang
dealing
with
different
cultures,
helping
and
assisting
different
different
cultures
and
language
barriers,
we
have
contracts
with
outside
agencies.
If
we
have
a
caller
that
we
we
don't
truly
understand
their
need
or
we
believe
it's
a
language
barrier,
we
actually
have
the
ability
to
get
an
interpreter
on
the
phone.
X
These
are
all
certified
interpreters.
The
second
portion
of
your
problem
regarding
just
just
being
more
aware
of
different
different
cultures
and
and
communications
and
things
along
those
lines.
I
believe
that's
an
area
that
we
we
certainly
could
do
better
in
and
that
some
of
the
societal,
some
of
the
conversation
occurring
now
in
our
communities
has
brought
that
to
light.
So
that's
that's
something
we're
actually
looking
further
into
and
wish
to
pursue
in
a
more
robust
manner.
E
Yeah,
and
so
perhaps
that
scenario
training
might
be
one
way
to
get
at
that.
I
was
just
trying
to
understand.
You
know
when
you
look
at
the
training,
that's
being
provided
to
the
dispatcher
and
call
takers.
How
do
you
account
for
these
nuances
and
and
the
scenarios
I
mean?
Are
they
getting
the
kind
of
of
of
that
type
of
training,
because
sometimes
it
may
not
always
be
that
you
know
training
is
one
plus
one
is
two.
It
may
be
that
one
plus
one
plus
some
nuance
might
get
you
to
three.
Instead
of
two.
X
Yeah,
I
I
understand
that,
and
I
don't
believe
I
had
enough
enough
of
an
informed
answer
to
speak
to
that.
But
I
will,
I
will
certainly
get
to
get
you
an
answer
and
provided
you
through
the
city
manager's
office.
We
do
training
starts
out
with
a
straight
curriculum
and
then
there
is
a
explorer
immersion
in
which
they
listen
to
real
9-1-1
calls
and
they
they
work
through
that
scenario
as
a
training
class
and
then
then
they
move.
They
move
from
that
curriculum
to
actually
just
spending.
X
Several
weeks,
just
listening
to
other
911,
calls
to
see
how
an
experienced
dispatcher
handle
those
calls
but
specific
to
your
question,
some
of
those
nuances
that
may
be
cultural.
I
don't
have
that
answer
for
you,
and
but
I
will
get
you
one.
X
C
Good,
I
want
to
congratulate
you
very
lucky
to
join
such
a
wonderful
organization.
Norcon
lockham
is
another
good
model.
Example
of
what
bellevue
has
provided
as
a
leadership
for
regional
projects.
You
know
such
as
you
know,
cascade
water
alliance.
You
know
german
projects
such
as
arch.
You
know
I
mean
these
are
the
things
issues,
bodies,
institutions,
the
city,
bellevue
institute,
because
there's
a
regional
need
and
regional
body-
and
you
mentioned
how
important
it
is
to
have
regional
collaboration
on
these
issues.
C
So
it's
indeed
one
of
the
very
proud
you
know
accomplishment
spell
you
come
up
with,
and
I
also
thank
you
for
coming
up
and
talk
to
us.
You
know.
I
think
this
is
very
good
to
know
that
you
have
been
thinking
about
some
of
the
very
creative
innovative
things,
one
of
which
is
the
technology
you're.
Talking
about
you
know
like
this.
Cad
system
makes
sense,
unified
system.
You
know
number
one.
It's
for
safety,
you
have
one
system
two,
you
know
it's
fiscally
responsible
right.
C
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
very
good
yeah
and
your
training,
how
you
pick
the
people
that
work
with
you
and
I
think,
that's
excellent,
because
nothing
replaces
the
importance
of
personnel.
You
know
that
are
dedicated
to
what
they
do
and
being
responsible.
I
think-
and
you
mentioned
about
you're
more
sensitive
now,
to
hiring
your
diversity
and
all
that
you're,
more
responsive
thinking
about
diversity
and
answering
you
know
what
transfer
member
giannis
I
was
talking
about.
C
So
I
think
this
is
very
good,
so
I
really
appreciate
you,
you
know
adapting,
maybe
some
of
the
more
you
know
important
relevant
social
issues
that
we
have.
Finally,
I
want
to
also
say
that
you
you
you
mentioned
about
how
you
know
as
a
whole.
You
know
how
you
can
work
with
all
the
local
jurisdictions
and
maybe
there's
more
ideas
and
thinking
that
you
you
know.
I
know
that
you're
thinking
about
it.
I
think
we
we
just
mentioned
to
you.
C
I
think
knowing
bellevue
the
city
manager,
we're
very
open,
and
I
think
this
collaboration
communication
cross-departmental
city
is
very
important,
so
keep
up
the
good
work.
We
look
forward
to
hearing
more
from
you
coming
to
tell
us
what
great
and
more
things
that
you
are
going
to
do
you
know
for
the
region.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
sir.
T
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
take
a
couple
of
minutes
to
thank
you
and
appreciate
the
comments
I
made
before
it
just
reminded
me
when
I
was
mayor,
I
went
to
these
meetings
and
it
was
very
interesting.
I
mean
I,
I
really
appreciate
the
work
that's
done
and
then
it
was
good
to
get
to
know.
Personally,
you
know
a
lot
of
the
people
that
were
involved
in
norcom
and
all
and
that's
yeah.
It's
an
amazing
organization.
T
It's
one
of
those
that
we
don't
know
much
about
people
in
the
community,
don't
know
until
they
need
you.
You
know
you're
there,
but
thanks
very
much
and
and
really
appreciate
that
and
glad
you're
working
with
nathan,
yeah
he's
a
jewel.
A
Well,
thank
you
so
much
for
the
presentation
and
I
think
that
wraps
up
our
questions
here
and
we
are
at
the
end
of
our
meeting
and
we
are
seven
minutes
early.
So
I
will
adjourn
and
thank
everybody
very
much
for
the
excellent
conversation.
I
look
forward
to
getting
together
again
next
week,
meeting
interned.