Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.
The Public Safety and Human Services Committee of the Whole met on Tuesday, October 20, 2026, at 4:30 PM. Councilmember Vivek Prakriya presided, joined by Council President Melissa Stuart, Council Vice President Angie Nuevacamina, and Council Members Jessica Forsythe, Vanessa Kritzer, Sayna Parsi, and Menka Soni. The committee discussed action items on a noise code SEPA appeal, a housing and human services plan, and the SCORE jail contract, provided feedback for a study session on a drone coordination office, received the Q3 police activity report, and deliberated on a fire impact fee phase-in.
Jeff Churchill (Planning) outlined the quasi-judicial process for the appeal filed by the Interlake Sporting Association. The hearing examiner issued a recommendation on October 19th. The City Council will hold a final hearing on November 2nd, with each side limited to 10 minutes of argument and no new evidence permitted. The committee had no procedural questions.
Director Allen, Ian Lefcourt, Alaric Bean, and Brooke Buckingham presented the updated plan, incorporating council feedback on nutritious food access, healthy aging, teen mental health, child care, domestic violence, and safety concerns. Councilmember Soni asked about protections for mobile home parks. Staff stated these are covered under broader anti-displacement and natural affordable housing preservation strategies within the plan and Redmond 2050. Council President Stewart praised the creation of Action 6 (tenant stability) and requested quarterly updates to the committee. Director Allen noted a new Community Health Manager would begin the following day. The committee voted to move it to the November 2nd consent agenda.
Chief Darrell Law requested authorization to guarantee 22 beds for 2027, with the annual cost rising to approximately $2.13 million. Council Vice President Nuevacamina noted the increase from the $1.65 million budgeted in the current biennium and asked if alternatives to SCORE were being sought. Chief Law stated that a potential partner (Kirkland) was not viable due to lack of remote court access, and that the corrections system is in a crisis of liability, reducing options. Councilmember Soni raised the issue of recidivism prevention; Chief Law stated this falls outside the direct scope of law enforcement, suggesting the council could direct support to community-based organizations. Councilmember Forsythe expressed discomfort voting without seeing Attachment D, which details SCORE's policies relating to the Keep Washington Working Act. Chief Law agreed to circulate the document.
Chief Law briefed the committee on a proposed Drone Coordination Office to serve as a community ombuds for drone-related questions and complaints, initially housed within the police department. Hardware costs for low-altitude radar may be covered by a pending federal appropriation. Councilmembers provided feedback for the November 10th study session:
Chief Law reported key metrics. The drone (DFR) program conducted over 2,300 flights for the year, allowing ground units to be cancelled 15.5% of the time. Year-to-date arrests increased 21.6%. Significant crime reductions included auto theft (-56%), residential burglaries (-30%), violent crime (-53%), and property crime (-28%). DUIs increased 58% due to increased traffic unit staffing. Assaults increased 16.8%, with 48% of those being domestic violence-related. Traffic collisions increased 7.5%. The department is fully staffed for the first time since the late 1990s. A new domestic violence co-response pilot program, Project B Free, is launching in Redmond.
The Deputy Chief presented phase-in options for the fire impact fee schedule. Staff recommended a uniform three-year phase-in at 50% in 2027, 75% in 2028, and 100% in 2029. Council debated options. Councilmembers Kritzer and Soni initially leaned toward a slower 33/66/100 option. Councilmembers Forsythe and Parsi, and Chair Prakriya, expressed support for a two-year phase-in (50% in 2027, 100% in 2028) to bring roughly $350,000 in additional revenue into the city sooner or to invest elsewhere. Council President Stewart supported the three-year 50/75/100 recommendation, balancing development community impacts with funding needs for fire stations. The committee reached consensus on the three-year 50/75/100 option for the November 17th consent agenda.
Zach Hovener (Executive) presented a contract with Granicus for fully managed video production for public meetings. The cost includes a $71,000 one-time implementation fee and a $99,000 annual subscription. Council asked for the item to return with more information. Councilmember Forsythe raised concerns about physical technical issues, staff support burden, and cost justification relative to current staff time. Councilmember Parsi requested a list of comparable cities using the service. Councilmember Kritzer asked for a clear contingency and transition plan. Chair Prakriya requested a direct comparative analysis between the in-house option (costs, pros, cons) and the proposed contract.
Hello and welcome. It is 4 32 p.m. and this is the October 20th public safety and human services committee of the whole. Council members in attendance are myself, uh presiding officer, Councilmember Prokria, uh Council President Stewart, Council Vice President Nueva Camina, and Council Members Kritzer, Parsi, Forsyth, and Sony. We have three action items on the day. The first one is the Noise Code CEPA appeal, uh, presented by Jeff Churchill of the planning department. Good afternoon, Council members. Uh, today I will provide some background on this item focusing on the process to date and the process going forward. I can answer process questions that come council members may have. Uh, but because this is a pending quasi judicial matter before the council, I cannot discuss the substance of the record or the hearing examiner's recommendation. Um background on May 13th, 2026, the city issued a state environmental policy act or CEPA threshold determination of non-significance for amendments to Chapter 6.36 of the municipal code concerning noise standards. And the city reissued that determination on June 10th, and on June 24th, the Interlake Sporting Association appealed that determination. Uh the Reb and Zoning Code, specifically 2170 190 F2B calls for such appeals to be heard by the hearing examiner in an open record hearing and for the examiner to make a recommendation to the city council following the hearing, and the city council is the decision maker. That open record hearing was held on September 1st and 2nd. You have the materials submitted via the hearing examiner's uh webpage, and the hearing examiner issued a recommendation yesterday, October 19th, and that uh uh recommendation is also posted on that same webpage that is linked in your packet. So going forward, as I said, this kind of appeal uh the city council makes the final decision, and the city council rules uh procedure describe what that process will look like. So I'm just gonna quote from it a little bit. It says whenever a quasi-judicial matter pending before the city council has been the subject of a public hearing before the hearing examiner or planning commission. The council shall allow each side, proponents, and opponents to speak for a maximum of 10 minutes each. No new evidence may be presented by either speaker and testimony shall be limited to argument based upon the hearing examiner's or planning commission's record. All quasi-judicial items shall be noted on the agenda as being quasi-judicial, and a statement shall appear on the agenda indicating that each side may speak for a maximum of 10 minutes each. This item is scheduled for the city council's special meeting on November 2nd. Uh, after any presentation or arguments from either the Interlake Sport Sporting Association or the City, the City Council has the responsibility to decide the appeal. Uh the council's decision will be done uh by motion and without any without introduction of any ordinance or resolution. That concludes my overview of the process. I'm happy to answer process questions. My goal is to help you feel comfortable about the process since it's relatively unusual. Thank you, Jeff. Uh so do we have any procedural questions from my colleagues? Perfect. I do not see any. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next action item is uh our housing and human services action plan presented by Brooke Buckingham, Ian Lefcourt, and Alaric Bean of the Planning Department. And actually, we're joined by um uh director Allen. Thank you. And I am joined by um Alaric and Ian Enbrooke online. Um so we are coming back to you today after the discussion and questions we had on September 22nd from the study session.