Almost every week this is the "What's on the city council's plate this week" review. I don't cover everything, so if you want the full rundown, read the packet and agenda yourself.

Why hold an election on whether to conduct a study on the proposed ithmus park when just doing the study costs a lot less? City staff wonder:

Approximately $30-70,000 for just the feasibility analysis.  The source of funds for the feasibility analysis has been referred to the finance committee.

...the City Council would have to submit the measure to a vote of the people at the next election, in February 2009.  The February 2009 election would be considered a “special election.”  A special election typically costs the City between $100-120,000 depending on the number of issues on the ballot.   This is significantly higher than our costs for a general or primary election.  Special elections typically have few ballot measures as compared to a primary or general election.  Therefor; the costs are only shared with the jurisdictions that have ballot measures. 

I wonder too.

Almost every week this is the "What's on the city council's plate this week" review. I don't cover everything, so if you want the full rundown, read the packet and agenda yourself. 

Here's a pretty distrubing note for next Tuesday's city council meeting next Tuesday. The city staff will give a presentation on the budget woes, but won't give any details in written form befor or after.

From here (pdf):

Due to the very difficult budget situation, staff will be presenting the operating budget in October rather than the normal first Tuesday in November. Tonight is a presentation only. There will not be any handouts or budget documents available for the Council, press or public. The written documents will be provided as statutorily required in November.

Almost every week this is the "What's on the city council's plate this week" review. I don't cover everything, so if you want the full rundown, read the packet and agenda yourself.

The only interesting thing out of the very thin council packet before the big show public hearing next week was this little nugget:

We would be willing to entire into a developer agreement proposed by City Staff ... The proposed developer agreement would be used to ensure that the additional height that we are requesting will, in fact, produce a mixed-use project that will not only accommodate street level retail, offices and parking, but also provide the highly desirable housing element on the floors above.

That came from a response to an Environmental Impact Statement from one of Triway's outside consultants. Full letter here.

What is sounds like to me is that Triway is willing to let the city dictate exactly what they want the project to look like, in exchange for the rezone.

Almost every week this is the "What's on the city council's plate this week" review. I don't cover everything, so if you want the full rundown, read the packet and agenda yourself.

EDIT: Just called down there, the exact dates of the closure are October 6 until December 14. Can't wait until after the remodel, should be cool.

From the staff report discussing the city spending $60,000 on a carpet replacement at the library (which the library district will repay):

...the City and Timberland Regional Library have several projects already planned for the library building, including carpet replacement, installation of a new information desk and a new circulation desk, the addition of a new sit-down desk for people receiving library cards, new seating and tables in the atrium below the skylights, cleaning of public computer workstations and removal of an underground storage tank, in which the facility will be closed to the public for up to two months.

I've heard a bit about this closure before (not sure about the dates), but apparently, you'll still be able to pick up and drop off books, but the library itself (shelves and all) will be shut down for awhile.

More from the staff report:

Almost every week this is the "What's on the city council's plate this week" review. I don't cover everything, so if you want the full rundown, read the packet and agenda yourself.

The city council will consider how they're going to run the most popular public comment period of the year next week.

And, the lengths to which city staff are suggesting to accommodate public testimony for the Comprehensive Plan amendment that would allow higher buildings downtown, I think, illustrate the political and social mood in Olympia.

We're "(A) Split House." (from city staff report)

Rhenda Strub, one of the newest city council members, blogged about this recently:

Almost every week this is the "What's on the city council's plate this week" review. I don't cover everything, so if you want the full rundown, read the packet and agenda yourself.

A very important negotiation between the city of Olympia and the state government relates to where the state will focus its efforts to lease office space throughout the capitol city. Right now, those so called  "Preferred Leasing Areas" include downtown Olympia and the county courthouse area.

The city is considering asking the state government to expand those preferred leasing areas to one section of the west side and another on the east.  The westside location would be a yet unbuilt business park off of Mud Bay Road near Kaiser. The other would be a currently residential area south of I-5, north of Pacific and east of Lilly.

From the staff report:

All four Council goals speak to the issue of siting state offices:
• Focus on Olympia as a Capitol City to preserve and enhance our identity and economy.
• Improve effectiveness of government so that we deliver a high quality service that satisfies citizens at a reasonable price.
• Put sustainability into action so that we do our part to make our community more livable.
• Invest in the downtown so that more people live, work, learn, shop, play, and enjoy Downtown Olympia.

Almost every week this is the "What's on the city council's plate this week" review. I don't cover everything, so if you want the full rundown, read the packet and agenda yourself.

While the topic of one particular multi-family development is on everyone's lips, another more exciting one is about to get approval from the city council.

From Woodard Lane Co-housing:

Our plan is for a total of 19 living units (referred to as “homes”) in 6 buildings of 2 to 4 units each. One of these buildings will also contain a shop and garages. The seventh building will be the Common House for everyone’s use.

Almost every week this is the "What's on the city council's plate this week" review. I don't cover everything, so if you want the full rundown, read the packet and agenda yourself.

How bad is the situation down in the South Capitol Neighborhood? The council's land use committee will find out early next week.

Residents of the area south of the capitol campus have been complaining for years that their neighborhood is slowly being bought up by lobbyists, turning old historic homes into offices and event/party locations.

Even still, houses that should be houses for people to live in are apparently used for other uses:

Among others, the primary problems identified include residences being used as offices, houses being used for large public/private gatherings, and commercial off-street parking tied to the legislative session. The Planning Commission received a briefing, conducted a public hearing and forwarded recommendations to the Council in October 2006.

Here is a summary of the 2008 investigation of the South Capitol Neighborhood by city staff:

• 3 were determined to have no violations
• 5 were in violation of the Residential Parking program
• 4 were in violation of “commercial lots” leasing of on-site parking spaces
• 1 had non-permitted dwelling unit that requires permit
• 2 were in violation of Home occupation permit ordinance

Here is a more complete run-down of the anti-lobbyist dragnet.

Almost every week this is the "What's on the city council's plate this week" review. I don't cover everything, so if you want the full rundown, read the packet and agenda yourself.

Pretty light schedule for the city council, so the most interesting thing I could find was a proposed $4,000 project by the East Bay Neighborhood Association to improve shoreline habitat along East Bay Drive (where else?).

The assocation requested a $4,000 grant, but the city had just over $2,500 in that particular grant account. Good project, so the city wants to help out, but first the council's finance committee has to find out what particular cookie jar to pull the money out of.

From the staff report:

The East Bay Neighborhood Association submitted a Sustainability Grant Application requesting $4,000.00 for a project, which is the maximum amount awarded. Staff recommended awarding the balance of grant funds to the Association, which totaled $2,547.00. At the May 20th meeting, the Council awarded full funding of the application and directed the Finance Committee to find the appropriate monies.

Here's some fun reading from the neighborhood association's application:

The goal of this project is to replace the invasive Scot's broom and Himalayan blackberry on the shoreline near the East Bay Drive View with healthy native shrubs in accordance with existing City of Olympia planning.

...

Almost every week this is the "What's on the city council's plate this week" review. I don't cover everything, so if you want the full rundown, read the packet and agenda yourself.

Remember that event down at Washington Center where we spend $25,000 to hear a forum on climate change? I'm a big fan of Terry Tempest Williams, but it didn't seem much like a forum (more like a sermon) to me.

Now it looks like the city council is ready to shelve the eventual end result of that forum, which would have been a city committee to look at climate change.

Staff report:

In April 2008, the General Government weighed all the climate change work already moving forward and contemplated whether establishing a Citizen Advisory Committee is the most effective use of City resources at this time. Attachment 3 summarizes the General Government Committee’s discussion. Their recommendation is that the City Council not move forward with the taskforce at this time and instead reserve the money for sustainability efforts yet to be define.

The original proposal came from former city councilmember TJ Johnson: