City Council Committee of the Whole · Monday, January 8, 2024 · City Council Digest

2. AGENDA ITEMS

Public Comment Public comment on individual agenda items will also be accepted following Council Q&A

▶ Watch from 1:57

Public Records Policy & Fee Schedule AB 8553

30 min · Tammy Mueller, Public Records Analyst · packet pp.149

Topics: Budget

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 9, 2023

▶ Watch from 3:17 Open packet at p.149 ↗

Staff report:

 Approve resolution adopting public records policy and public records fee schedule  Adopt ordinance repealing conflicting and redundant sections of the Issaquah Municipal Code

Enhancing Permit Review ID 1547

90 min · Minnie Dhaliwal, Community Planning & Development Director Gene Paul, Management Analyst · packet pp.151

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 9, 2023

▶ Watch from 11:21 Open packet at p.151 ↗

Staff report:

An update on the planned permit process improvements was shared with the City Council on October 9, 2023. At that meeting the goals and priorities identified for permit process included timeliness, quality-efficiency/clarity/consistency and cost recovery. Additionally, an initial list of planned and completed process improvements was shared with a commitment to report progress on an ongoing basis along with the adoption of a continuous improvement model. Further to align with SB5290 reporting requirements it was decided to transition from tracking time for first round of review to total in-house review time from application to issuance and also include the number of review cycles. Lastly, CPD will continue to seek customer input via annual survey and make any adjustments based on survey feedback.

Good of the Order

▶ Watch from 35:31

1976 segments .txt ↗

0:03 ↗ good evening everyone I council

0:06 ↗ president Walsh call the January 8th

0:08 ↗ special Committee of the whole meeting

0:10 ↗ to order at 6:31 p.m. as a reminder life

0:15 ↗ just continues being remote hybrid all

0:18 ↗ of that um so both staff and members of

0:21 ↗ the public may be participating with us

0:23 ↗ remotely

0:25 ↗ tonight uh there are multiple public

0:27 ↗ comment opportunities at tonight's

0:29 ↗ meeting Mee there's going to be a first

0:31 ↗ general public comment opportunity at

0:34 ↗ the beginning or you can make comments

0:36 ↗ after the presentation and Council

0:38 ↗ question and answer period on tonight's

0:41 ↗ agenda

0:42 ↗ items so members of the public May

0:45 ↗ address council at this time in person

0:47 ↗ or virtually those who signed up in

0:49 ↗ advance to make comments will be called

0:51 ↗ on first if you're joining us virtually

0:54 ↗ and would like to make comments please

0:55 ↗ raise your virtual hand if you're on the

0:57 ↗ phone you're going to press star three

1:00 ↗ if you're on a computer or smart device

1:02 ↗ you're going to look for the hand icon

1:04 ↗ or you can send the host a chat message

1:08 ↗ so if you're in the room and I will note

1:10 ↗ we do not have any members of the public

1:11 ↗ in the room though our lovely staff has

1:14 ↗ taken up some of the seats we love that

1:18 ↗ um but I will ask for other speakers

1:21 ↗ before closing the portion of the

1:23 ↗ meeting so I'm going to see if anyone

1:27 ↗ wishes online to raise a hand

1:30 ↗ we actually don't have any members of

1:32 ↗ the public with us online tonight okay

1:34 ↗ well as I will always say we will take

1:37 ↗ your emails uh you can reach all seven

1:39 ↗ of us by emailing city council isqua

1:43 ↗ wa.gov and we'll actually read them you

1:46 ↗ know we're not we're not too big we'll

1:49 ↗ we'll take any emails you guys want to

1:51 ↗ send us really um okay so I guess we

1:55 ↗ will go on

1:57 ↗ to our agenda item so we've got two

2:00 ↗ items on the agenda tonight we've got AB

2:03 ↗ 8553 public records policy and fee

2:05 ↗ schedule and then we've got ID 1547

2:09 ↗ enhancing permit review efficiency so we

2:12 ↗ will start with the public records

2:15 ↗ policy and Fe schedule presented by

2:16 ↗ Tammy Mueller our public records

2:20 ↗ panelist

2:28 ↗ go

2:44 ↗ thank you so much for having me again um

2:46 ↗ today we are talking about the public

2:48 ↗ records policy and primarily the fee

2:51 ↗ schedule um so if you want stop me at

2:54 ↗ any time to uh ask any questions

2:56 ↗ otherwise um hopefully this will be

2:58 ↗ pretty short um there will be plenty of

3:00 ↗ time at the

3:02 ↗ end um tonight we are asking for your

3:04 ↗ direction on um whether to move forward

3:07 ↗ with um uh uh having us uh provide the

3:12 ↗ uh it's a new proposal uh for the

3:14 ↗ January 16th council meeting where we

3:16 ↗ would hope that uh we would approve the

3:18 ↗ resolution and adopt the uh the public

3:21 ↗ records policy and the newly proposed

3:24 ↗ public records Fe schedule and then

3:26 ↗ adopt the ordinance and uh that would

3:28 ↗ repeal the conflict in redundant

3:30 ↗ sections of the municipal

3:32 ↗ code oh and the fees would go into

3:34 ↗ effect on February

3:38 ↗ 15th uh excuse me during the December

3:41 ↗ 4th council meeting uh there was a

3:44 ↗ motion to adopt the resolution and the

3:46 ↗ ordinance approving the public records

3:48 ↗ policy and fees but um it was referred

3:50 ↗ to this meeting uh to discuss it further

3:53 ↗ so that's what we we hope to

3:57 ↗ do um at the at that meeting we heard a

4:01 ↗ variety of feedback uh there was some

4:02 ↗ support for body warn camera foot um

4:04 ↗ redaction fees uh ranging all the way

4:07 ↗ from charging no fees so

4:14 ↗ um not sure what else to say but it was

4:16 ↗ um we we did get a lot of feedback and I

4:18 ↗ do want to say we do appreciate it and

4:20 ↗ we've we've tried to take that um and

4:22 ↗ come to you tonight with a with a new

4:26 ↗ proposal but first we wanted to just um

4:29 ↗ talk about how we did use to charge fees

4:31 ↗ prior to

4:33 ↗ 2017 um in 2017 there was a change in

4:36 ↗ legislation that required that even

4:38 ↗ cities who had been charging fees and

4:40 ↗ you wanted to continue charging those

4:41 ↗ same fees that you had to have a public

4:43 ↗ hearing and have it uh approved by

4:45 ↗ Council to charge those fees they

4:47 ↗ provided um some optional fees in the um

4:51 ↗ the legislation that you could choose to

4:53 ↗ adopt um and those are what we call the

4:56 ↗ the the statute defaults are the RCW

4:58 ↗ fees uh alternatively you could conduct

5:00 ↗ your own cost study to determine your

5:03 ↗ actual costs and either of those methods

5:05 ↗ um had to go through uh public hearing

5:07 ↗ procedure before

5:10 ↗ adoption so at that time the city

5:12 ↗ stopped charging fees um excuse me prior

5:15 ↗ to

5:16 ↗ 2017 uh we used to charge for police

5:20 ↗ reports and collision reports uh for $6

5:23 ↗ of report and I found this interesting

5:26 ↗ because we my notes Here we were

5:33 ↗ charging uh from starting in 1978

5:37 ↗ through 1992 we were charging $3 per

5:39 ↗ report and then in 1992 um they realized

5:43 ↗ cost had changed and went up to $6 and

5:46 ↗ it's been that price since uh from 1992

5:48 ↗ to

5:49 ↗ 2017

5:51 ↗ and uh so that's um just to highlight uh

5:56 ↗ based off our new calculations we're

5:57 ↗ calculating $8 per report

6:00 ↗ same thing with the clearance letter it

6:02 ↗ was $6 per new calculations we're seeing

6:05 ↗ that it's $15 per letter and that's

6:07 ↗ primarily the additional time required

6:09 ↗ in reviewing it by supervisor and having

6:11 ↗ it notorized

6:13 ↗ photoc copies wore 15 cents per page uh

6:17 ↗ and then we were charging uh we're

6:19 ↗ proposing to charge 30 cents per

6:21 ↗ page plan sets again I don't want to go

6:24 ↗ into all the details but I believe our

6:26 ↗ actual costs calculated and our new

6:28 ↗ method of calculating those will be

6:30 ↗ cheaper digitizing was at no cost again

6:33 ↗ we didn't have an ability to calculate

6:36 ↗ that prior to

6:37 ↗ 2017 um so primarily most of the jobs

6:40 ↗ were outsourced and then with the

6:42 ↗ agreement of the person requesting those

6:44 ↗ records to have them scanned they would

6:46 ↗ reimburse us those those actual costs

6:48 ↗ that we paid the vendor to have those

6:50 ↗ scanned um we're proposing something not

6:52 ↗ too different except that we would be um

6:55 ↗ still doing uh the 83 cents average uh

6:58 ↗ staff time per minute spent scanning

7:00 ↗ those if we estimate that it's going to

7:02 ↗ take us two hours or less but I really

7:04 ↗ think this is a moot point because so

7:06 ↗ many of our records now are digitized we

7:09 ↗ we've been working very very heavily on

7:11 ↗ for the past two years um so we really

7:13 ↗ have very little left in paper um that

7:16 ↗ isn't already also

7:18 ↗ digital um and then the actual cost for

7:23 ↗ anything requiring us to you know send

7:25 ↗ records or put records on a storage

7:28 ↗ device

7:30 ↗ um I won't go over them now but if you

7:32 ↗ have any questions I do want to

7:33 ↗ highlight that um we did take a

7:35 ↗ comprehensive look at the um police fees

7:38 ↗ and what other agencies uh throughout

7:40 ↗ King County are

7:42 ↗ charging and so that was in your packet

7:45 ↗ excuse me and so we looked at the police

7:47 ↗ body warn camera redaction costs um and

7:50 ↗ we looked at the clearance letters and

7:52 ↗ the police reports and collision reports

7:54 ↗ and um what we found was that there's

7:57 ↗ everybody has their own way of

7:58 ↗ calculating them they they pay their

7:59 ↗ staff differently um and some of them

8:02 ↗ use just uh some of them just take the

8:04 ↗ the cost of the lowest paid person doing

8:06 ↗ the redution some of them take an

8:08 ↗ average like what we're proposing so

8:10 ↗ they're really all over the place but

8:11 ↗ consistently we were um more or less in

8:14 ↗ the middle of the pack on uh when we did

8:17 ↗ those comparisons of the agencies at are

8:18 ↗ charging fees for all of those

8:23 ↗ costs So based off of all the feedback

8:26 ↗ that we received um our updated

8:28 ↗ recommend ation would be to remove the

8:31 ↗ proposed $9 electronic records

8:33 ↗ transmission cost that's at $9 go QA fee

8:36 ↗ so there would be uh no cost for uh

8:41 ↗ basically use of that of that system um

8:44 ↗ and in Li of that we would charge just

8:47 ↗ the staff time that takes to copy the

8:48 ↗ records which is what we calculated and

8:51 ↗ then rounded down to 25 cents per record

8:54 ↗ um we would wave fees for any requests

8:57 ↗ that total $3 or less

9:00 ↗ so if you only get 10 electronic records

9:02 ↗ you would pay

9:04 ↗ nothing um all of the fees we're

9:06 ↗ proposing to remain the same and we are

9:08 ↗ still proposing that we adopt the

9:10 ↗ low-income waiver program where you get

9:12 ↗ 20 records for free if you can attest

9:14 ↗ that you're at at or below 50% of the

9:20 ↗ Ami okay um so there's still uh options

9:25 ↗ to um get copies of records at no cost

9:29 ↗ um and in fact we've we've added um one

9:32 ↗ just via the the waiver of $3 or less so

9:36 ↗ you can still view them at City Hall at

9:38 ↗ no cost um you can uh get them online or

9:42 ↗ printed uh $3 or less will be free their

9:45 ↗ low-income waiver program uh we're still

9:47 ↗ proposing and you can still go through

9:49 ↗ the discovery method uh if you need your

9:52 ↗ records for a police case um or for

9:54 ↗ anything going before court if you're a

9:56 ↗ party of that case you can get the

9:59 ↗ records via the discovery process and

10:01 ↗ that's for free and um and then if you

10:04 ↗ are involved in a police incident uh you

10:07 ↗ do not have to pay for the police body

10:09 ↗ warant camera

10:13 ↗ redaction so one of the questions that

10:15 ↗ we received uh and we just needed to try

10:17 ↗ to do more research on was um what

10:20 ↗ percentage or how much are we looking at

10:22 ↗ recovering um with the proposed costs so

10:25 ↗ um looking at the month of November I

10:27 ↗ went back and I looked at all of the

10:28 ↗ request that we' um closed in that month

10:31 ↗ and then applied the fee schedule um

10:34 ↗ retroactively to those requests as if

10:36 ↗ you know what would we charge for each

10:38 ↗ of these

10:39 ↗ requests and um obviously we don't have

10:41 ↗ police body warn cameras yet so that's a

10:43 ↗ factor we couldn't estimate but um

10:45 ↗ assuming that November was typical of

10:48 ↗ any other month um so taking the

10:50 ↗ November numbers and multiplying by 12

10:53 ↗ we estimated it be around $20,000 that

10:55 ↗ we would recover uh the median cost for

10:58 ↗ request was $9 .50 and that's primarily

11:00 ↗ just um because most uh requests are

11:03 ↗ police requests and they typically have

11:06 ↗ at least one police report or Collision

11:10 ↗ report so I should say that's roughly

11:13 ↗ about 10% of uh cost recovery based off

11:17 ↗ of the the total cost of the public

11:19 ↗ records request

11:21 ↗ program uh I think this this this should

11:25 ↗ hopefully look a little familiar this is

11:26 ↗ the same uh example we've been using um

11:29 ↗ um throughout the presentation so if

11:31 ↗ somebody were to request the blueprints

11:33 ↗ for their house uh assuming that it's 20

11:36 ↗ pages and it's over 1 Gigabyte um which

11:40 ↗ admittedly most house plans are not

11:42 ↗ commercial plans sometimes are because

11:44 ↗ they're very very large plan sets um but

11:48 ↗ just as an example they could still view

11:49 ↗ it at City Hall for no cost if they

11:51 ↗ receive that electronically it would

11:53 ↗ total 35 cents because it's 25 cents

11:56 ↗ because it's one record and it's 10

11:57 ↗ cents because it's more than a gigabyte

11:59 ↗ however it's under $3 so the fee would

12:01 ↗ be waved so they would get that at no

12:02 ↗ cost if they did want us to print it um

12:05 ↗ it would honestly be to their advantage

12:07 ↗ to probably get it electronically for

12:08 ↗ free and try to find somebody to print

12:10 ↗ it for cheaper but we could do that

12:11 ↗ that's a service we could offer at $81

12:14 ↗ which is still cheaper than the I would

12:17 ↗ say the $5 per page that we were

12:18 ↗ previously charging um we could get it

12:22 ↗ to them via flash drive looking at what

12:24 ↗ it would cost to order that flash drive

12:27 ↗ at the time that we would need it it's

12:29 ↗ very infrequent that we need them um and

12:32 ↗ then if they wanted us to mail it to

12:34 ↗ them again very infrequent but we would

12:36 ↗ estimate the costs and uh if they were

12:38 ↗ willing to pay it then then uh we would

12:41 ↗ go from

12:43 ↗ there for police reports um if somebody

12:46 ↗ requested a police case File that

12:48 ↗ included one police or Collision report

12:51 ↗ and 10 additional files usually those

12:53 ↗ are um maybe some additions uh to to the

12:57 ↗ report or uh just some photo photos

12:59 ↗ photos are pretty typical um if this

13:01 ↗ total 20 Pages again they would pay

13:03 ↗ nothing if they viewed the records at

13:04 ↗ City Hall uh if they were to receive

13:06 ↗ them online again this is looking at um

13:09 ↗ 10 additional records it would be $8 for

13:11 ↗ the police report and then 25 cents per

13:13 ↗ uh additional record so they would pay

13:16 ↗ $10.50 um at least that's assuming that

13:19 ↗ they they didn't um take advantage of

13:21 ↗ the low-income waiver program or the um

13:24 ↗ opting to go through Discovery uh we

13:26 ↗ could certainly print those copies for

13:27 ↗ them it would uh total $14 and that's 30

13:31 ↗ cents per page and then the $8 for the

13:33 ↗ police uh the police report um and then

13:36 ↗ again electronically via USB drive or

13:39 ↗ what whatever else comes after USB uh

13:42 ↗ you know we used to charge for CDs and

13:43 ↗ those are just not really much of a

13:45 ↗ thing anymore um and we can certainly

13:47 ↗ mail

13:52 ↗ them so we've been talking about um the

13:56 ↗ newly proposed option which is what we

13:58 ↗ are recommending tonight we could

13:59 ↗ proceed with that uh and charge 25 cents

14:03 ↗ per electronic record and then we would

14:05 ↗ wave fees for request totaling $3 or

14:07 ↗ under we could proceed with the original

14:10 ↗ proposal to include the $9 $9 electronic

14:13 ↗ records system transmission fee uh with

14:16 ↗ that you would uh we would provide the

14:18 ↗ first 10 records for free uh and then um

14:21 ↗ charge 25 cents for every record after

14:24 ↗ the 10 um and with that the police

14:27 ↗ report and collision report wouldn't

14:29 ↗ count towards that um we could also

14:32 ↗ proceed with dis charging the police

14:35 ↗ fees uh as we've calculated them and

14:37 ↗ then adopting the state default

14:40 ↗ fees

14:42 ↗ um or we could choose to adopt no fees

14:45 ↗ um we we are not recommending that uh

14:48 ↗ but it is of course an option I

14:53 ↗ think yeah with that we are looking for

14:56 ↗ your

14:57 ↗ direction

14:59 ↗ we'll start with questions council

15:01 ↗ member

15:02 ↗ Ray um two and they're kind of um highly

15:05 ↗ related and they they they're regarding

15:08 ↗ the $3 or less provision um the first is

15:13 ↗ so that's per request so can I chain

15:16 ↗ together a bunch of $3

15:20 ↗ request that is a good question is

15:22 ↗ something we've anticipated um the

15:23 ↗ public records act does allow the agency

15:26 ↗ to split request t s um or combine them

15:31 ↗ depending on if it's uh if the subject

15:34 ↗ matters are um very similar and you the

15:36 ↗ same requestor or if they are very

15:38 ↗ different and we need to just

15:39 ↗ organizationally separate those out so

15:42 ↗ we do have a mechanism in place

15:44 ↗ to um either assist customers who've

15:46 ↗ made many separate requests and we can

15:48 ↗ say okay we're just charging you once

15:50 ↗ because this is this is just one request

15:52 ↗ the indust just got bullet points versus

15:54 ↗ a request that's submitted that's you

15:57 ↗ know 20 bullet points but they're all

16:00 ↗ very different I would say those are

16:01 ↗ rare um but for those we we could look

16:05 ↗ at that and say we we do need to process

16:07 ↗ these separately um so could you do that

16:12 ↗ absolutely you could you could try to

16:14 ↗ bundle as many uh requests into one

16:16 ↗ request as you can but we would probably

16:18 ↗ separate those out if they are very

16:19 ↗ different if you're asking for police

16:21 ↗ records here and you're asking for the

16:22 ↗ mayor's emails here and then you're

16:23 ↗ asking for the budget and then you're

16:25 ↗ asking for traffic report and you're

16:27 ↗ asking for data on something and it's

16:28 ↗ like okay what's the common theme here

16:30 ↗ like we don't we're not seeing it

16:32 ↗ they're all very different um you know

16:35 ↗ that doesn't really happen occasionally

16:37 ↗ but um yeah I think more than more often

16:39 ↗ than not sometimes people will

16:41 ↗ request basically the same thing or like

16:44 ↗ you know within several different

16:45 ↗ requests um and we would we tend to

16:48 ↗ merge those together so if I were to

16:50 ↗ send you a request and ask for the

16:52 ↗ mayor's emails from January and then

16:54 ↗ another one for the mayor's emails from

16:56 ↗ February and another one from March you

16:59 ↗ would probably be inclined to lump them

17:03 ↗ together well let me let me let me let

17:06 ↗ me go to go to the point which is um

17:09 ↗ what's the basis of the $3 I mean it

17:11 ↗ seems like a pretty small number and so

17:14 ↗ I can get around it by breaking up a

17:15 ↗ request into a bunch of $3 requests um

17:18 ↗ and I was just kind of really curious

17:20 ↗ why we just settled on three versus 10

17:22 ↗ versus

17:23 ↗ 25 that's my really underlying question

17:26 ↗ no no no that that is the a good

17:29 ↗ question and a very good example um no

17:30 ↗ you're right there there certainly could

17:32 ↗ be people that want to circumvent um

17:35 ↗ that and and makes many small requests

17:39 ↗ so that they keep getting their fees

17:40 ↗ waved um and honestly it's not really

17:46 ↗ worth their time um on I think

17:49 ↗ personally but if they wanted to they

17:51 ↗ could and we would we would look at the

17:52 ↗ request and we would discuss it at that

17:53 ↗ point I I don't see that happening in in

17:56 ↗ in too often if ever based off of what

17:59 ↗ I've seen so far with the city over the

18:02 ↗ past few years um but that is always a

18:04 ↗ possibility and I think we would deal

18:06 ↗ with it if we get that point for the

18:08 ↗ mayor's emails I guarantee that that

18:11 ↗ there's more than 12 in a month but we

18:15 ↗ we'll we'll we'll have to take those one

18:16 ↗ at a time as they come um as for why we

18:19 ↗ chose $3 um or why we proposed that it's

18:23 ↗ really a variety of factors and um part

18:26 ↗ of it was looking at what other agencies

18:27 ↗ were doing

18:29 ↗ uh and the other part of it was looking

18:32 ↗ at what number makes it worth our while

18:35 ↗ to even go through the process of

18:38 ↗ creating an invoice creating an estimate

18:40 ↗ um and just going back to kind of our

18:43 ↗ original thought process was that we we

18:46 ↗ we wanted to make sure that the the

18:48 ↗ average requestor the person who makes

18:50 ↗ maybe one request in their lifetime

18:51 ↗ maybe one request a year that they can

18:53 ↗ just get the handful of records that

18:54 ↗ they're looking for um with little to no

18:57 ↗ hassle and so this would cover

19:02 ↗ that the end of my

19:04 ↗ question do we have any other

19:08 ↗ questions okay uh council member Hall

19:12 ↗ just really quickly um I can't remember

19:14 ↗ uh where we landed on so if we go

19:17 ↗ through the redacting of body W camera

19:21 ↗ video for let's say a media Outlet or

19:23 ↗ something and then another media Outlet

19:25 ↗ requests the same footage did we figure

19:27 ↗ out what what happens there yet or is

19:29 ↗ that still an

19:31 ↗ evolv I will check Michelle are you

19:35 ↗ online okay Michelle if you're able to

19:38 ↗ unmute have we received any updates on

19:41 ↗ that um from the other police

19:44 ↗ departments I'm I'm sorry say the

19:46 ↗ question one more time for me uh in an

19:48 ↗ in an instance where

19:50 ↗ um uh somebody would have to pay for a

19:54 ↗ uh redacted police body cam video and um

19:58 ↗ then somebody else requests it

19:59 ↗ afterwards it would also have to pay um

20:01 ↗ in this instance we're using a media

20:03 ↗ outlet and then another media Outlet

20:05 ↗ asks for that same um uh video footage

20:08 ↗ we were looking to see if there was a

20:09 ↗ best practice um among police

20:11 ↗ departments for handling this type of

20:13 ↗ situation um do you charge the first

20:16 ↗ person that makes the request and then

20:18 ↗ not the others or um it just if there's

20:21 ↗ any best practice around

20:23 ↗ it yeah we're still actually working

20:25 ↗ through that um in finding that answer

20:29 ↗ specifically um so at this time I do not

20:32 ↗ have a response for that um but we've

20:36 ↗ been looking into it to try to find what

20:38 ↗ agencies are doing right

20:41 ↗ now I think part of the hurdle that we

20:43 ↗ found is that it doesn't really happen

20:44 ↗ all that often um but when it does

20:49 ↗ um from what I've from what I've heard

20:52 ↗ in my my training um was just that it if

20:55 ↗ it's already been out the door and

20:57 ↗ somebody's already paid for it and you

20:58 ↗ just have that file sitting there and

21:00 ↗ someone else request it that would need

21:01 ↗ it redacted in the exact same way that

21:04 ↗ they can just have it because it's

21:05 ↗ already available um however I I would

21:09 ↗ anticipate that if multiple news outlets

21:12 ↗ were requesting the same footage at the

21:13 ↗ same time we could try to come up with

21:15 ↗ some way to split those costs between

21:17 ↗ those agencies since they're getting it

21:18 ↗ redacted in the same way but um this is

21:21 ↗ something that just doesn't occur very

21:22 ↗ frequently um typically if multiple

21:24 ↗ people are requesting it uh that the

21:29 ↗ one of the things that I found most

21:31 ↗ interesting and maybe most frustrating

21:32 ↗ with um police redactions uh just in in

21:35 ↗ the little exposure that I've had to it

21:37 ↗ is the way that you you redact the

21:40 ↗ records is going to be so different

21:42 ↗ depending on who's requesting it um if

21:44 ↗ it's the parent of a juvenile that's uh

21:46 ↗ been involved versus if it's um you know

21:49 ↗ an an estranged relative or if it's um

21:51 ↗ if it's Media or um you need to know if

21:54 ↗ anybody's requesting anonymity you need

21:56 ↗ to know how old people or at the time of

21:58 ↗ the incident if this is something that

22:00 ↗ happened in the past because if they

22:01 ↗ were juvenile then even though they're

22:02 ↗ not now those redactions um still apply

22:06 ↗ so uh it's it's very comprehensive um

22:09 ↗ and there's a lot of information that

22:10 ↗ you need to understand about the whole

22:13 ↗ situation um and uh and and then you

22:16 ↗ need to also understand who's requesting

22:18 ↗ the record what's their relationship um

22:20 ↗ to the to the others involved in the

22:21 ↗ incident and um gets uh quite nebulous

22:26 ↗ sometimes um so very infrequently would

22:31 ↗ you actually have something that you

22:32 ↗ would redact the exact same way for

22:35 ↗ different people requesting the video um

22:38 ↗ the one of the few exceptions that I

22:39 ↗ could think of is a news media Outlet

22:41 ↗ because that's it's just media and

22:43 ↗ actually the media is privileged to some

22:44 ↗ things that even other members of the

22:45 ↗ public don't

22:48 ↗ get no thank you very much and um you'll

22:52 ↗ indulge me I guess if if we haven't

22:54 ↗ found best practice my guess would be

22:55 ↗ that there isn't one and people will

22:57 ↗ actually be looking to isqua and what we

22:59 ↗ do so my only request would be that

23:01 ↗ we're very thoughtful with kind of the

23:02 ↗ process that we that we lay out there

23:04 ↗ because I imagine other agencies will

23:06 ↗ look and yes I would think so and

23:09 ↗ actually this is um as I've been calling

23:11 ↗ around and and checking with all of my

23:13 ↗ peers it's interesting that you know

23:16 ↗ through the few months that we've been

23:17 ↗ working on this now they're starting to

23:19 ↗ check back in with me and say what what

23:20 ↗ did you end up doing because now we're

23:22 ↗ looking to do something similar can we

23:24 ↗ use your analysis can we use this so um

23:27 ↗ I think in in many ways we are leading

23:28 ↗ the way regardless of what we adopt

23:30 ↗ tonight the research that has gone into

23:31 ↗ this um and the just the partnering with

23:33 ↗ the other agencies um and opening up

23:35 ↗ this dialogue has been really

23:38 ↗ helpful excellent so I'm not seeing any

23:41 ↗ other questions I will see if there's

23:44 ↗ anyone online at this point for public

23:48 ↗ comments okay we'll skip over that next

23:51 ↗ point so we're looking for Council

23:54 ↗ Direction and so the options kind of up

23:57 ↗ on on the screen that are generally

24:00 ↗ suggested is oh I was going to go to the

24:03 ↗ other one but I guess in this case so we

24:07 ↗ can go with the updated recommendation

24:09 ↗ we can proceed with the original

24:12 ↗ proposal including the

24:14 ↗ $9 um electronic record system trans

24:17 ↗ transmission fee um or we can look at

24:21 ↗ actual costs for police fees only or not

24:24 ↗ charging any public records fees who

24:27 ↗ wants start

24:30 ↗ council member R I'm happy to start um

24:35 ↗ so thank you for the work you did I I

24:37 ↗ think taking away the the $9 electronic

24:40 ↗ records um um system transmission fee

24:44 ↗ was was a good move that that kind of

24:46 ↗ sat weird with me um I like the idea and

24:50 ↗ I appreciate the work that went into

24:51 ↗ establishing what the cost for uh

24:54 ↗ creating the various um public records

24:56 ↗ is um

24:59 ↗ but I I guess I'm I'm I'm kind of bowled

25:01 ↗ up in the $3 thing I think um in just

25:05 ↗ from A administrative point of view that

25:08 ↗ is a very small number to you know you

25:12 ↗ can't do anything for $3 so um I'm I

25:14 ↗ would be really happy and from two

25:17 ↗ perspectives one if that the that a

25:19 ↗ request for less than $25 was he was

25:22 ↗ waved or something like that because

25:24 ↗ it's going to cost us $25 to do the

25:26 ↗ invoicing and handle the cash or the the

25:27 ↗ payment anyway so we're not really all

25:31 ↗ that much out and I don't want to create

25:33 ↗ any kind of barrier to people wanting to

25:35 ↗ do public records requests that are

25:38 ↗ within reason and um so so that's the

25:41 ↗ only um change I would like to for us to

25:44 ↗ consider is maybe it's not $3 maybe it's

25:46 ↗ not 25 but it's some somewhere between

25:48 ↗ those two numbers

25:51 ↗ thanks okay next one I saw was council

25:53 ↗ member Hall followed by council member

25:56 ↗ hunt thank you you um thank you very

26:00 ↗ much to uh the clerk's office and the

26:02 ↗ staff that have worked very diligently

26:03 ↗ on this I appreciate your thoughtfulness

26:06 ↗ um and uh I I support the updated

26:09 ↗ approach um I think actually seeing the

26:12 ↗ Lost um potential lost annual revenue of

26:14 ↗ around $20,000 was actually meaningful

26:17 ↗ to me um you know that's a cost that's a

26:19 ↗ policy choice that we set and um you

26:23 ↗ know that money could be spent on City

26:25 ↗ initiatives important Community

26:26 ↗ priorities as well part of our job as

26:28 ↗ City Council Members is to be

26:30 ↗ fiduciaries in this in this chair right

26:32 ↗ and to manage costs responsibly so while

26:34 ↗ I agree some concerns that came out at

26:36 ↗ the last meeting ensuring um government

26:39 ↗ accountability and transparency that

26:41 ↗ those are important um and I think this

26:43 ↗ update approach actually allows us to um

26:47 ↗ both honor that but also use City

26:49 ↗ resources on what the majority of our

26:50 ↗ community wants us to use CD resources

26:52 ↗ on um so again I appreciate the

26:54 ↗ thoughtfulness that's gone into this um

26:57 ↗ as for the $3 issue maybe that could be

26:59 ↗ something we just continually Monitor

27:00 ↗ and maybe that's something we morph in

27:02 ↗ the future but this is a good starting

27:04 ↗ point in my so thank

27:06 ↗ you council member hunt followed by

27:08 ↗ council member

27:09 ↗ Joe thank you I agree with council

27:12 ↗ member Hall I raised the issue that the

27:16 ↗ previous proposal seemed to me uh that

27:20 ↗ it sort of incentivized it didn't

27:23 ↗ incentivize narrowing the request to

27:25 ↗ specifically what the requestor

27:28 ↗ wanted um which was one of the stated

27:30 ↗ goals of this policy and so uh and

27:33 ↗ that's that's good from a customer

27:36 ↗ satisfaction perspective as well because

27:38 ↗ then you're providing the person exactly

27:39 ↗ what they need um so I think that in

27:42 ↗ contrast this proposal does that it

27:45 ↗ gives you a uh first couple records for

27:49 ↗ free so if those are the things you want

27:51 ↗ then you request those specific things

27:53 ↗ um so I'm I'm generally in favor I like

27:55 ↗ monitoring but I think that the

27:57 ↗ Direction um the direction that this has

28:00 ↗ gone takes into account our feedback

28:02 ↗ from last time which was diverse but I

28:04 ↗ think it does a good job um taking into

28:07 ↗ account that feedback and also taking

28:08 ↗ into account that this I think would

28:10 ↗ have the impact that people specify what

28:13 ↗ exactly they need um and then if they

28:16 ↗ have specific things in mind then we are

28:18 ↗ providing that at um at no cost for them

28:22 ↗ um and then uh I was last time and

28:25 ↗ continued to be in support of the body

28:28 ↗ warn camera redaction um fees that seems

28:31 ↗ like that's very important and there's a

28:34 ↗ a particular skill set skill set that is

28:37 ↗ necessary for that so um I'm still in

28:40 ↗ favor of that and um again just

28:43 ↗ appreciate the changes that were

28:46 ↗ made Council m

28:48 ↗ Joe thank you uh Tammy appreciate all

28:53 ↗ the work you've done on this and kudos

28:55 ↗ to the clerk's office um

28:58 ↗ I don't know if the clerk's office

28:59 ↗ remembers or not but we had a

29:01 ↗ conversation about how diligently the

29:05 ↗ clerk's office analyzes these requests

29:08 ↗ for records sometimes you'll get a very

29:10 ↗ broad request for um a lot of

29:13 ↗ information and I know that our staff

29:16 ↗ takes time to really ask the person what

29:18 ↗ are you really looking for and it could

29:20 ↗ end up being under that $3 Mark just

29:23 ↗ because you've communicated with the

29:25 ↗ requestor you've figured out what they

29:27 ↗ really want and it turns out they only

29:28 ↗ want seven pages that apply to a certain

29:31 ↗ specific um little incident or one

29:34 ↗ meeting or one uh piece of public

29:37 ↗ information so um I think the $3 request

29:41 ↗ uh you know uh having those fees wavered

29:44 ↗ waved makes sense um because it does

29:48 ↗ give an incentive to both the requestor

29:50 ↗ and our staff to work together to get

29:52 ↗ that under the wire if they can when

29:55 ↗ they're just trying to figure out

29:56 ↗ exactly what the person is is requesting

29:58 ↗ um so I'm really in favor of of that um

30:01 ↗ policy Choice um I'll just comment on

30:05 ↗ the request from um media um when I was

30:10 ↗ a prosecutor uh we were U Prosecuting a

30:14 ↗ Seahawk for DUI and I got a ton of

30:17 ↗ requests from the media for that

30:20 ↗ particular police report and they were

30:22 ↗ all the same after we looked at them and

30:24 ↗ all the all the IDS were verified Etc so

30:28 ↗ we only made one file we had all the

30:31 ↗ redactions in there that were the ones

30:33 ↗ for media and then as long as it was a

30:36 ↗ media request I was able to just get

30:38 ↗ those out really quickly and not charge

30:41 ↗ over and over again because I had done

30:43 ↗ the work just one time so um just a

30:46 ↗ comment to to uh the staff there and is

30:49 ↗ as you're looking at those um it can be

30:52 ↗ a a a labor saving um method to to to

30:56 ↗ meet those

30:57 ↗ uh requests as well so thank you very

31:02 ↗ much uh Deputy council president D

31:06 ↗ Michelle there we go there we go thank

31:09 ↗ you um so generally I I support this uh

31:12 ↗ going forward to um for adoption um but

31:16 ↗ I have a question that I didn't have

31:18 ↗ until council member Ray uh raised the

31:21 ↗ issue so uh so I didn't ask it because I

31:24 ↗ didn't know I was going to have to so I

31:26 ↗ just clarifying uh I believe that we are

31:30 ↗ currently spending about

31:32 ↗ $250,000 a year and so we're estimating

31:36 ↗ that um this will counter uh or bring in

31:41 ↗ about 21,000 to offset that

31:43 ↗ 250,000 right so um I think that I agree

31:48 ↗ with council member Ray that maybe we

31:49 ↗ need to look at uh uh a little bit

31:52 ↗ higher than the

31:54 ↗ $3 um and see if we can

31:57 ↗ uh offset that just a little bit more it

32:00 ↗ does seem like it's very very reasonable

32:02 ↗ at this point um and we're not coming

32:05 ↗ close to the actual cost of of the

32:07 ↗ redactions and uh the things that need

32:10 ↗ to be done um and uh in that regard

32:14 ↗ we're going to find out when we have our

32:17 ↗ police officers uh begin wearing body

32:20 ↗ warn cameras uh how much more expensive

32:22 ↗ it might be after that uh after that uh

32:26 ↗ uh practice begins so but generally as

32:30 ↗ everyone else has said thank you so much

32:31 ↗ this has really been a lot of work and a

32:34 ↗ lot of compromise that you've come up

32:36 ↗ with and so I would support sending this

32:39 ↗ forward for adoption uh and then perhaps

32:42 ↗ we can have a discussion about whether

32:43 ↗ or not we would like a little bit higher

32:46 ↗ fee than the $3 fee so thank

32:50 ↗ you so I want to take a moment and just

32:52 ↗ clarify because I think the comments I

32:55 ↗ just heard from you Deputy council

32:57 ↗ president are different from the

32:59 ↗ comments that I heard from council

33:01 ↗ member Ry I believe your intent with a

33:04 ↗ $3 fee was to raise the

33:10 ↗ potential waiver period so we would

33:13 ↗ actually bring in less Revenue whereas I

33:16 ↗ believe what I just heard from you is

33:18 ↗ you would like to recoup more Revenue

33:22 ↗ which would require charging more per

33:25 ↗ fee or

33:28 ↗ charging actually having a cost on more

33:33 ↗ of the small cost fees

33:36 ↗ right yes that was my intent so sorry

33:39 ↗ that I

33:41 ↗ misunderstood just wanted to clarify on

33:43 ↗ that okay where are we going council

33:46 ↗ member Mars do you have any comments

33:48 ↗ okay I will just go through um generally

33:51 ↗ I think we have pretty good records

33:56 ↗ requests we're not dealing with a

33:58 ↗ situation like some of our neighboring

34:00 ↗ cities um so I'm not overly concerned by

34:03 ↗ this I think my goal of applying any

34:07 ↗ records costs are one to deal with any

34:10 ↗ of the body wararmed camera issues

34:13 ↗ because that can be a much greater cost

34:15 ↗ um and also to discourage looky L types

34:21 ↗ of large scale um commercial requests

34:25 ↗ that just waste our staff's time and

34:29 ↗ aren't really truly in service of our

34:32 ↗ community and so I think this um with a

34:35 ↗ $3 fee does that because it does start

34:40 ↗ to charge at a point where if somebody's

34:42 ↗ a commercial firm and they're just

34:44 ↗ looking for where can I get free records

34:46 ↗ from we're now off their list and they

34:49 ↗ would actually have to go through um

34:50 ↗ spending a little bit of money um so I

34:54 ↗ think I'm comfortable with this updated

34:56 ↗ proposal proposal but I'm wondering

34:59 ↗ whether we have a sense of agreement cuz

35:03 ↗ I I've heard a few

35:05 ↗ different commentary points here I think

35:08 ↗ I've

35:09 ↗ heard four in favor of the updated

35:14 ↗ recommendations but then some commentary

35:17 ↗ back and forth does anybody want to

35:19 ↗ chime in as a kind of secondary

35:22 ↗ Point council member a I I'm just gonna

35:26 ↗ so

35:27 ↗ I only have the one one kind of uh

35:30 ↗ modification and that is really around I

35:32 ↗ think $3 is way too low um I went to the

35:35 ↗ source of all truth and I googled what's

35:37 ↗ the cost of an invoice and and um I can

35:39 ↗ find a lot of different numbers anywhere

35:40 ↗ from about $60 down to about nine but

35:43 ↗ nowhere can I find anything as low as

35:45 ↗ three so my big thing is um we're trying

35:48 ↗ to recruit the the most amount of money

35:50 ↗ maximize return but we're going to spend

35:52 ↗ more money invoicing than we're going to

35:54 ↗ actually get at some point so if we move

35:57 ↗ forward with this I think I could

35:59 ↗ probably um be okay with that but only

36:03 ↗ if we say like let's figure out really

36:04 ↗ what it costs us to invoice and that we

36:07 ↗ don't um be

36:10 ↗ pound Penny pound what's the expression

36:14 ↗ Penny wise and pound foolish thank you I

36:16 ↗ always count on um council member Mart

36:19 ↗ so I mean you know in practice it makes

36:21 ↗ sense but in in uh in the large scope I

36:24 ↗ think we're probably going to be

36:25 ↗ spending more than $3 invoice for

36:27 ↗ $3 so that's that's my only

36:31 ↗ thought okay

36:33 ↗ so nobody else wants to chime in second

36:37 ↗ time anything I always look back at

36:39 ↗ council member hall because he always

36:41 ↗ brings that last minute commentary uhhuh

36:44 ↗ no uh staff do we have the uh feedback

36:49 ↗ you need yes the only other question is

36:51 ↗ consent or regular business does anybody

36:54 ↗ have a problem with it being on consent

36:57 ↗ it's got to be bu because it's a fee

37:03 ↗ okay okay well that answers that because

37:06 ↗ we have Fantastics clerks and they know

37:09 ↗ the answers to all your questions uh Ray

37:13 ↗ um we talked a little bit about public

37:15 ↗ hearing was did we do the public hearing

37:17 ↗ at the last meeting or do we need to do

37:19 ↗ a public hearing for

37:22 ↗ this council member wait we uh conducted

37:25 ↗ the public hearing at the November 20th

37:28 ↗ or was it the nove was it the November

37:30 ↗ 6th council meeting either the November

37:33 ↗ 6th or November 20th council meeting and

37:36 ↗ um we uh this was within the range of

37:39 ↗ options that was presented uh the 25

37:41 ↗ cents per record so we don't need to

37:43 ↗ conduct another hearing I just wanted to

37:44 ↗ mention that the reason this needs to go

37:46 ↗ under regular businesses if you recall

37:47 ↗ the council had actually moved the

37:50 ↗ resolution and ordinance and so at the

37:52 ↗ January 16th meeting what we would be

37:54 ↗ doing is off offering substit itute

37:57 ↗ legislation that would replace um what

38:00 ↗ was moved that night with the uh what

38:02 ↗ the majority of the council seems to be

38:04 ↗ supporting

38:07 ↗ tonight

38:09 ↗ okay fantastic so regular business thank

38:13 ↗ you Tammy appreciate it um and with that

38:18 ↗ I think we will go on to our next item

38:20 ↗ of business which is ID 1547 enhancing

38:24 ↗ permit review efficiency presented by

38:27 ↗ Minnie Dolly wall Community planning and

38:29 ↗ development director and Jean Paul our

38:32 ↗ management

38:34 ↗ analyst online good evening council

38:37 ↗ members um and any members of the

38:39 ↗ community that may be online uh so uh

38:42 ↗ tonight uh it's me and from our team we

38:46 ↗ have three members in attendance um

38:49 ↗ Christian gets our planning manager

38:51 ↗ James Gray our building official and

38:54 ↗ Emily Appleton our engineering manager

38:56 ↗ manager also online we have uh Jean Paul

39:00 ↗ he'll be presenting a portion on the

39:02 ↗ data um that he worked on um so I am

39:06 ↗ going to share my screen real quickly

39:25 ↗ here

39:42 ↗ um so as you mentioned uh we're going to

39:45 ↗ talk about permit review efficiency um

39:48 ↗ and the purpose tonight is really to

39:50 ↗ come back to you after our discussion in

39:52 ↗ October last year and um and to check in

39:55 ↗ and seek your feedback on uh our plan to

39:59 ↗ make our process more efficient uh and

40:01 ↗ how we we intend to comply with the

40:04 ↗ target timelines um just a quick

40:07 ↗ refresher of what we discussed in

40:09 ↗ October on in October with you all uh

40:12 ↗ the first was to present you know you

40:14 ↗ all asked us to present the data uh and

40:17 ↗ show how we measure against ourselves

40:19 ↗ over time and also how we compare with

40:22 ↗ our peer cities um the second item I

40:25 ↗ think we had discussion about about the

40:26 ↗ root causes we shared some um items we

40:29 ↗ had proposed to uh start implementing to

40:32 ↗ identify and you asked us to identify

40:35 ↗ the barriers and connect how the

40:37 ↗ improvements address those uh root

40:39 ↗ causes and barriers and the third item

40:42 ↗ was really there was some questions

40:43 ↗ about the state mandated uh permit

40:46 ↗ timelines um there was some concern

40:48 ↗ about how are we going to be able to

40:50 ↗ meet them uh some clarification of those

40:52 ↗ requirements and um you asked if we

40:55 ↗ needed any resources

40:57 ↗ uh to meet those permit timelines so

41:00 ↗ since October we've been working on

41:03 ↗ identifying a few of these items and uh

41:05 ↗ tonight we're going to go through each

41:07 ↗ one of these items uh and the direction

41:10 ↗ we're seeking is really uh this is more

41:13 ↗ of a check-in today but uh and seeking

41:15 ↗ any feedback on how we plan to implement

41:19 ↗ the process improvements that we

41:20 ↗ previously shared uh we're also planning

41:23 ↗ to select a consultant to facilitate uh

41:26 ↗ some of these process improvements with

41:28 ↗ um with our staff uh using the the lean

41:32 ↗ analysis lens and then we would report

41:34 ↗ back to you all in uh June of uh next

41:38 ↗ this

41:39 ↗ year with that I'm going to turn it over

41:42 ↗ to Jean um Jean since I'm sharing my

41:44 ↗ screen I'm happy to kind of keep going

41:47 ↗ um I think Tisha said it's easier for

41:50 ↗ one person to to share um but you can

41:53 ↗ tell me when to move the

41:55 ↗ slides

41:57 ↗ sounds great thank you Minny uh good

41:59 ↗ evening members of the council my name

42:00 ↗ is Jean Paul I'm the management analyst

42:01 ↗ in the executive office and tonight I'll

42:03 ↗ be presenting on how the city permit

42:05 ↗ times measure against the city's own

42:07 ↗ historical performance as well as how

42:09 ↗ the the city measures against pure

42:12 ↗ cities I'd like to begin with how the

42:14 ↗ city's permit times have changed over

42:16 ↗ the last six years and briefly explain

42:18 ↗ our methods before covering the

42:20 ↗ conclusions found on the slide the

42:22 ↗ administration looked at the data for a

42:24 ↗ select number of permit types and this

42:26 ↗ handful of permit types are the ones

42:27 ↗ that CPD deemed as both important and

42:30 ↗ the best candidates to compare to other

42:32 ↗ cities so while the data is certainly

42:34 ↗ relevant it's only a slice of all the

42:36 ↗ activity performed by

42:37 ↗ CPD we organized the data through the

42:39 ↗ lens of issued permits based on the year

42:42 ↗ those permits were issued it's important

42:44 ↗ to note that while we use the

42:45 ↗ perspective of the year the permit was

42:47 ↗ issued generally work on those permits

42:49 ↗ occurred in multiple

42:51 ↗ years with the data organized in that

42:53 ↗ manner we then examined two aspects

42:55 ↗ first first on average how long it took

42:58 ↗ for a permit from application to issue

43:01 ↗ second how many days on average staff

43:03 ↗ spent reviewing the

43:04 ↗ application we found the conclusions

43:06 ↗ that are presented on this slide I'll

43:08 ↗ summarize the conclusions here and then

43:10 ↗ the following slides will present the

43:11 ↗ information graphically and in greater

43:14 ↗ detail first building permits such as

43:17 ↗ single family and commercial

43:18 ↗ construction that were issued in 2022

43:21 ↗ and 2023 took longer on average than

43:23 ↗ permits issued in 2018

43:26 ↗ this was the case for both in-house

43:28 ↗ review and overall application to issue

43:31 ↗ time second engineering site work

43:34 ↗ permits like clearing and Grading or

43:36 ↗ site development had a considerable

43:38 ↗ increase in processing time from 2021

43:41 ↗ through

43:42 ↗ 2022 this seemed to correlate with a

43:44 ↗ staffing shortage for this discipline

43:46 ↗ however with increased resources in

43:48 ↗ place those permits showed return in

43:50 ↗ 2023 to the previous

43:53 ↗ times finally land use permits like sea

43:56 ↗ and preliminary plats generally occurred

43:58 ↗ in such small numbers that it was

44:00 ↗ difficult to identify clear Trends there

44:02 ↗ was also an issue with the accuracy of

44:04 ↗ the in-house review times data being

44:06 ↗ pulled from the system future analysis

44:08 ↗ will include cleaning up this data and

44:10 ↗ categorizing land use permits by the

44:12 ↗ groups designated in Senate Bill

44:15 ↗ 5290 next slide

44:19 ↗ please this slide shows the data for new

44:22 ↗ single family building permits the green

44:25 ↗ line across the top shows the average

44:26 ↗ total days from application to issue for

44:29 ↗ the group of permits issued in each year

44:32 ↗ the Gray Line shows the average number

44:33 ↗ of total days that staff spent reviewing

44:35 ↗ the permits that were issued that year

44:38 ↗ while the overall total time for permits

44:40 ↗ issued in 2023 was roughly the same as

44:43 ↗ 2018 you can see there was a steady

44:46 ↗ increase in the total days that staff

44:47 ↗ spent reviewing applications after a dip

44:50 ↗ in

44:50 ↗ 2019 the administration is still in the

44:53 ↗ process of evaluating the potential root

44:54 ↗ causes of these increased times so while

44:57 ↗ we can see them in the data at this

44:58 ↗ point we're still working through the

45:00 ↗ potential reasons why they're happening

45:03 ↗ next slide

45:06 ↗ please this slide shows the data for the

45:08 ↗ combined new commercial and multif

45:10 ↗ family building permits the green and

45:12 ↗ gray lines show the same type of

45:14 ↗ information as the previous graph for

45:16 ↗ these permits you can see a plateau in

45:18 ↗ the overall time from application to

45:20 ↗ issue after an increase in 2020 there's

45:23 ↗ also an increase for in-house review

45:24 ↗ days for permit tissue in

45:27 ↗ 2023 next slide

45:31 ↗ please this slide shows the data for

45:34 ↗ tenant Improvement permits that have a

45:35 ↗ total construction value of less than

45:38 ↗ $100,000 you can see both a general

45:40 ↗ increase over time for the day spent

45:42 ↗ reviewing and the total days from

45:44 ↗ application to issue for this permit

45:46 ↗ type next slide

45:50 ↗ please while those previous slides

45:52 ↗ covered building permits this slide

45:54 ↗ shows the data for the engineering site

45:56 ↗ work permits related to clearing and

45:58 ↗ Grading a parcel of land as I mentioned

46:00 ↗ in the summary these permit types had a

46:02 ↗ distinct increase in 20121 and 2022 that

46:06 ↗ can generally be explained by a staffing

46:07 ↗ shortage for this discipline with

46:09 ↗ increased resources in place the trends

46:11 ↗ are returning to the average times from

46:14 ↗ 2018 next slide

46:18 ↗ please for land use permits like sepa

46:21 ↗ and short plats when we looked at what

46:22 ↗ we thought were key permit types they

46:24 ↗ were generally in such small numbers

46:26 ↗ that there were large fluctuations in

46:28 ↗ the data over time with no clear Trends

46:31 ↗ as I mentioned earlier there was also a

46:32 ↗ concern with the accuracy of the

46:34 ↗ in-house review times data being pulled

46:36 ↗ from the system the Administration has

46:38 ↗ future plans to clean up this data and

46:40 ↗ analyze land use by the groups

46:42 ↗ designated in senab Bill

46:44 ↗ 5290 next slide

46:49 ↗ please in addition to comparing current

46:51 ↗ performance against historical data the

46:53 ↗ council expressed a desire to see how

46:55 ↗ permanent timelines compare against

46:56 ↗ nearby cities the administration

46:59 ↗ requested data from the 10 cities listed

47:01 ↗ at the top of the slide for building

47:03 ↗ engineering and land use permit

47:05 ↗ processing times and we received only

47:07 ↗ partial data from four cities Auburn

47:10 ↗ Belleview Kirkland and North Bend that

47:13 ↗ data was almost entirely building permit

47:15 ↗ data and even the cities that provided

47:17 ↗ their data indicated they're largely

47:19 ↗ just beginning to collect and analyze

47:21 ↗ aggregated data and are only now trying

47:23 ↗ to sort out how to collect that data

47:25 ↗ required for reporting on the Senate

47:27 ↗ Bill 5290

47:29 ↗ requirements based on the limited data

47:31 ↗ and the different ways that cities

47:32 ↗ classify their permit types it was

47:34 ↗ particularly challenging to make broad

47:36 ↗ comparisons between isqua and nearby

47:38 ↗ cities while in the future the data

47:41 ↗ collected for Senate Bill 5290 will

47:43 ↗ allow for much easier comparison between

47:45 ↗ cities the only true Apples to Apples

47:47 ↗ comparisons from the current available

47:49 ↗ data were for two permits those are new

47:52 ↗ single family and commercial or multif

47:54 ↗ family construction permits which are

47:56 ↗ presented on the following

47:58 ↗ slides next slide

48:01 ↗ please uh this is the single family

48:03 ↗ building permit data for 2022 and

48:06 ↗ 2023 you can see for each year the

48:08 ↗ number of permits issued as well as the

48:10 ↗ average number of days from application

48:12 ↗ to issue for those permits for this

48:15 ↗ batch of data you can see that isqua is

48:16 ↗ about in the middle of the pack Auburn

48:19 ↗ and Northbend issued permits in fewer

48:20 ↗ days than the city in 2022 but isqua

48:23 ↗ permits averaged less time than

48:24 ↗ Kirklands

48:26 ↗ in 2023 Auburn maintained its shortest

48:29 ↗ permit times while Isa was isqua was

48:32 ↗ about on par with Belle both bellev and

48:34 ↗ isqua had shorter average times in

48:36 ↗ Kirkland and North Bend much like the

48:39 ↗ building permit data from earlier while

48:40 ↗ we have some initial data we don't quite

48:42 ↗ have the next level next level of

48:44 ↗ analysis yet that indicates why some

48:46 ↗ communities like Auburn are able to

48:48 ↗ issue permits in a shorter time

48:51 ↗ frame next slide

48:54 ↗ please and this is is a comparison of

48:56 ↗ the combined new commercial and multif

48:59 ↗ family building permits just like the

49:01 ↗ previous slide it shows the number of

49:02 ↗ permits and average times for 2022 and

49:06 ↗ 2023 I'd like to point out that bellw

49:08 ↗ only provided 2023 data and they

49:11 ↗ classify their permits slightly

49:12 ↗ differently they differentiate between

49:14 ↗ buildings under 4,000 square feet and

49:16 ↗ over 4,000 square fet when they

49:18 ↗ categorize their permits so you can see

49:20 ↗ two rows for their data for

49:23 ↗ 2023 overall the trends for these types

49:25 ↗ of permits were very similar to the

49:27 ↗ single family permits in 2022 Auburn and

49:30 ↗ North Bend had the shortest times while

49:32 ↗ the city times were shorter than

49:34 ↗ Kirkland's War 2023 Auburn again had the

49:37 ↗ shortest timelines while isqua were

49:40 ↗ slight slightly better than the under

49:42 ↗ 4,000 foot category of Belleview permits

49:45 ↗ but considerably better than Kirkland

49:46 ↗ Northbend and bellevue's over 4,000

49:49 ↗ square foot

49:51 ↗ category and that concludes my portion

49:53 ↗ of the presentation and director wall is

49:55 ↗ going to take over for the

49:58 ↗ remainder thank you Jean um should we

50:00 ↗ pause here for some questions about the

50:02 ↗ data or should I I'm not seeing any

50:06 ↗ okay um thank you Jean um so as Jean

50:10 ↗ explained you know that was looking at

50:11 ↗ the slice of data with one perspective

50:15 ↗ which is the permits that were issued in

50:17 ↗ that year and as he explained some of

50:20 ↗ those permits that were issued had

50:23 ↗ straddled multiple years so the review

50:25 ↗ may have started in 2018 it just

50:28 ↗ happened to get issued in 2022 so um you

50:33 ↗ know because there were multiple rounds

50:34 ↗ of reviews and and all of that uh this

50:37 ↗ team is going to continue looking at

50:39 ↗ data with the idea of what's in the

50:41 ↗ hopper today so that was looking at what

50:44 ↗ was issued and approved we're looking at

50:46 ↗ what we're actually you know currently

50:49 ↗ reviewing which um is our Focus for the

50:53 ↗ upcoming year uh to get a better hand

50:55 ↗ hand Le on um on on that segment of of

50:59 ↗ where we can actually make a difference

51:01 ↗ um so it's it's helpful to look back

51:03 ↗ it's Al also helpful to look where we

51:05 ↗ are today and to have a goal of where we

51:08 ↗ want to be in the future um so this

51:10 ↗ slide uh really shows what happened in

51:14 ↗ 2023 um so this isn't taking a look at

51:17 ↗ by different types of permits it's

51:19 ↗ looking at all construction permits did

51:22 ↗ we meet our targets or did we not meet

51:24 ↗ our targets for the reviews that started

51:26 ↗ that year so the permits may have been

51:29 ↗ in process or not it's not looking at

51:32 ↗ issued permits it's looking at

51:34 ↗ everything that was accomplished um in

51:37 ↗ terms of review lines so 4,000 review

51:40 ↗ lines for all the reviewers uh on

51:42 ↗ average everyone seems to have met their

51:45 ↗ targets um it but again it the the

51:48 ↗ variability based on the type of permit

51:50 ↗ and everything else can really uh make a

51:53 ↗ difference the other thing I think we

51:55 ↗ focused on is looking at uh you know is

51:59 ↗ average a good measure uh because if

52:01 ↗ there's you know but coupling it up with

52:04 ↗ standard deviation as to be

52:06 ↗ statistically correct because if you

52:08 ↗ have few outliers that may skew your

52:10 ↗ data if we graph it and we get here's

52:13 ↗ our Target and we get 90% or more within

52:17 ↗ Target maybe perhaps that's uh where we

52:20 ↗ need to focus on and figure out what's

52:22 ↗ happening you know some some of the

52:23 ↗ permits may get approved the next day

52:25 ↗ some of them may Linger on for a long

52:27 ↗ period of time um the other thing I

52:30 ↗ think I would be remiss in saying here

52:32 ↗ we still have a few Legacy projects that

52:35 ↗ uh are in the hopper that were not

52:38 ↗ applied for in the last couple of years

52:40 ↗ have been in the city's review process

52:42 ↗ back and forth for a number of years

52:44 ↗ we're trying to land them to a

52:46 ↗ conclusion uh and get issues resolved so

52:48 ↗ we can either uh you know make a

52:50 ↗ decision on those so for 2024 we're

52:53 ↗ going to be dealing with that uh that

52:56 ↗ segment of our permits as well um so

52:59 ↗ that may make the the data look uh you

53:02 ↗ know we we capture those Legacy projects

53:06 ↗ the other part I think I want to make a

53:07 ↗ point here is

53:10 ↗ um um obviously the new projects that

53:12 ↗ are coming in we're going to tell people

53:14 ↗ you have 90 days to respond otherwise

53:17 ↗ the the code requires that you know you

53:19 ↗ have to reapply to kind of move things

53:21 ↗ along as well as so that it's moving

53:24 ↗ along from the perspective it's also

53:26 ↗ moving along from the applicants

53:28 ↗ perspective and the focus is going to be

53:31 ↗ on cities in-house review time not

53:33 ↗ necessarily the total review time

53:36 ↗ because some some applicants can turn in

53:38 ↗ the next day and resubmit others rely on

53:41 ↗ their Consultants who can drag it on for

53:43 ↗ six months to resubmit so there's

53:45 ↗ nothing that the city can do in those

53:47 ↗ kind of situations State Bill 5290

53:50 ↗ focuses on in-house review time only so

53:54 ↗ I think that's uh where the focus is in

53:57 ↗ terms of collaboration with our peer

53:58 ↗ cities um there are a lot of groups uh

54:01 ↗ that are set up uh that are discussing

54:04 ↗ we will share what we learn we will

54:05 ↗ learn from what they are doing um uh in

54:08 ↗ terms of the data collection the true

54:10 ↗ Apples to Apples comparison will come

54:12 ↗ after Department of Commerce gives some

54:14 ↗ guidance on how to calibrate this data

54:16 ↗ how to measure it and all that kind of

54:18 ↗ stuff so more to come from Department of

54:21 ↗ Commerce as well um as we had previously

54:25 ↗ shared uh some of our um planned

54:28 ↗ improvements that we have actually made

54:30 ↗ good progress on are updating our

54:32 ↗ application materials uh including

54:35 ↗ checklists so that's a tool for the

54:37 ↗ applicants where we try to find the

54:38 ↗ balance of not uh making them so

54:42 ↗ intensive that nobody uses them but but

54:45 ↗ have having a majority of our items

54:47 ↗ listed so they know ahead of time what

54:49 ↗ what to submit some of the these

54:51 ↗ checklists needed to be updated for a

54:53 ↗ long period of time uh where working on

54:56 ↗ completeness checks at intake and really

54:58 ↗ making that uh focus of customer

55:01 ↗ friendly so as we tell them your invoice

55:03 ↗ is x amount of you know you need to pay

55:06 ↗ we're also telling them you're missing

55:08 ↗ these two things or you're uh you know

55:11 ↗ whatever the case may be um up website

55:15 ↗ we've updated some of the forms and

55:17 ↗ things but it's still a process in the

55:19 ↗ works we hope to accomplish that in the

55:21 ↗ next few months uh We've migrated all

55:24 ↗ our permit files to SharePoint that has

55:26 ↗ been completed um so thanks to Our IT

55:28 ↗ staff and and uh their work in helping

55:31 ↗ us get to that and uh city clerk's

55:33 ↗ office uh also um the other um item that

55:38 ↗ this uh team is uh working on is really

55:42 ↗ you know to a point of daily to weekly

55:45 ↗ monitoring uh but we're going to be

55:47 ↗ creating monthly reports and sharing

55:49 ↗ with our review team because ultimately

55:51 ↗ our success depends on the reviewers who

55:53 ↗ are actually doing this review but

55:55 ↗ sharing where what the data looks like

55:58 ↗ what you know graphically in the permit

56:00 ↗ Center um and digitally um so all of

56:03 ↗ that um is our big Focus um and then uh

56:09 ↗ Target timelines for land use

56:10 ↗ applications so what's happening with

56:12 ↗ the state Bill 5290 is uh Department of

56:16 ↗ Commerce will be reporting the data in

56:18 ↗ March of 2025 so we are collecting the

56:20 ↗ data in 2024 it doesn't go into effect

56:24 ↗ until the beginning of 2025 so we have

56:26 ↗ next year um you know and that next

56:29 ↗ year's data is going to capture some of

56:31 ↗ these Legacy projects that we are trying

56:33 ↗ to land and get get to a Finish Line um

56:36 ↗ but um the true effective date of this

56:40 ↗ section 7 of this bill takes effect

56:42 ↗ January of

56:43 ↗ 2025 um so we do think we have a lot of

56:46 ↗ work to do on the land use side to get

56:48 ↗ us uh to a good point um but we're

56:51 ↗ making good progress there um yeah we

56:55 ↗ were talk you know this is the slide

56:57 ↗ that's uh talking about updated

56:59 ↗ timelines um so at this point um State

57:02 ↗ Bill had these three tiers um so

57:05 ↗ projects that don't require a public

57:06 ↗ notice that require a public notice and

57:08 ↗ the ones that require a public hearing

57:10 ↗ so we are triaging them in those three

57:13 ↗ categories and uh setting up our review

57:16 ↗ Target timelines we've readjusted to

57:18 ↗ reflect the reality that we need to meet

57:21 ↗ we used to give 10 weeks for all types

57:23 ↗ of permits bigger small for land use so

57:26 ↗ that's shrunk down to um four weeks I

57:29 ↗ think or six weeks uh at at the front so

57:32 ↗ that we have more time as as planners

57:34 ↗ prepare the staff reports and others

57:37 ↗ that we're not going to run into a

57:38 ↗ situation of uh running over those

57:40 ↗ timelines um I think there was some

57:42 ↗ questions about refunding land use fees

57:45 ↗ um so the bill has Provisions for if you

57:49 ↗ do these three things that uh the cities

57:52 ↗ are not subject to that refunding one of

57:54 ↗ them is optional

57:55 ↗ pre-application the other one is if you

57:57 ↗ can hold um um you know offer uh a

58:02 ↗ meeting with the applicant after two

58:04 ↗ rounds to so to cut down the rounds of

58:06 ↗ review and that is a big Focus because

58:09 ↗ sometimes it's Lost in Translation you

58:11 ↗ know the the the comments go out the

58:13 ↗ applicant reads them a different way

58:15 ↗ they are meant to be in a different way

58:17 ↗ so having a face-to-face meeting or a

58:19 ↗ zoom meeting um can help alleviate some

58:23 ↗ of the confusion in that so uh we will

58:25 ↗ be working with our staff um to promote

58:27 ↗ that more more so instead of just

58:30 ↗ writing up the uh the written comments

58:32 ↗ but when we send them comments we offer

58:34 ↗ up if you want to discuss please you

58:36 ↗ know reach us and and we can schedule a

58:39 ↗ meeting um and the refunding is only 20%

58:43 ↗ of the fees not the entire fees so

58:45 ↗ there's some more uh clear you know

58:47 ↗ guidance from Department of Commerce and

58:50 ↗ that um and then last bullet point I

58:53 ↗ think From council's perspective you

58:54 ↗ asked um you know what do you want what

58:57 ↗ what does staff what does CPD uh how how

59:00 ↗ can Council support us um so we're not

59:03 ↗ asking for any additional Staffing at

59:04 ↗ this time uh we are going to be looking

59:06 ↗ for an external facilitator to uh to

59:10 ↗ have these work shops and really get to

59:12 ↗ the nitty-gritty a a lot of Permitting

59:14 ↗ is very nuanced it you know if you want

59:17 ↗ to really make a difference it it is

59:19 ↗ getting those checklists getting all

59:21 ↗ those things uh figured out and um

59:25 ↗ so and then we'll come back to council

59:27 ↗ uh to report back and check in in uh mid

59:30 ↗ year um and we just need a little bit

59:32 ↗ time uh to check the effectiveness of of

59:35 ↗ a few things that we've implemented and

59:37 ↗ that we plan to implement in the coming

59:39 ↗ months um so that's it uh in terms of

59:44 ↗ here's the slide that you know if you're

59:46 ↗ seeking feedback if Council has any

59:48 ↗ input at this time uh on the

59:51 ↗ improvements that we' previously shared

59:53 ↗ or if you have any um other feedback for

59:57 ↗ us until we see you back in

1:00:03 ↗ June okay so I think we are looking for

1:00:06 ↗ questions as a first point do we have

1:00:09 ↗ any Council questions at this

1:00:12 ↗ time I am not seeing okay council member

1:00:16 ↗ Hall true to my through to my Forum

1:00:20 ↗ there um thank you very much for all the

1:00:22 ↗ work that's gone into this all of you um

1:00:26 ↗ I want to know why you and Jean and I

1:00:30 ↗ think in the previous meeting too have

1:00:32 ↗ have reiterated the fact

1:00:34 ↗ that

1:00:37 ↗ um a permit was issued and work happens

1:00:40 ↗ over several years and that's part of

1:00:42 ↗ the reason why we're seeing kind of an

1:00:43 ↗ upward Trend I mean to me yeah if

1:00:46 ↗ something you work on something for

1:00:48 ↗ several years you work on something for

1:00:50 ↗ several years so I guess I'm not

1:00:51 ↗ following what that distinction is that

1:00:53 ↗ you're making and why you're why you're

1:00:55 ↗ clarifying that why should I um take

1:00:58 ↗ that as meaningful yeah um I think that

1:01:00 ↗ was just a clarification of the data

1:01:02 ↗ it's you know it's not as simple as 2022

1:01:05 ↗ timelines are this generally there's an

1:01:07 ↗ upward Trend however it's not this all

1:01:11 ↗ the permits in

1:01:12 ↗ 2020 you know what whatever was issued

1:01:15 ↗ in 2021 saying for instance some of that

1:01:18 ↗ stuff got started in 2016 not all of it

1:01:21 ↗ some permits were were kind of going

1:01:24 ↗ back and forth on on that so it's hard

1:01:26 ↗ to parse out data and and you know if

1:01:29 ↗ you start slicing the permits that were

1:01:31 ↗ applied that year and issued that year

1:01:32 ↗ then then it's not a complete picture

1:01:34 ↗ either it's not giving you everything

1:01:37 ↗ but it's really looking at a segment of

1:01:38 ↗ data that's issued that year so it

1:01:42 ↗ straddles three years two years in some

1:01:44 ↗ cases but it's the issuance that's

1:01:47 ↗ capturing all of that that time frame so

1:01:50 ↗ it's not the bar is just for that

1:01:52 ↗ particular year so it's a it's a Nuance

1:01:55 ↗ but I wouldn't get caught up on that and

1:01:56 ↗ generally yeah you help make that

1:01:58 ↗ connection then so there's really no

1:02:00 ↗ perfect way to analyze this data anyway

1:02:02 ↗ there multiple ways to analyze data to

1:02:05 ↗ get to the root causes so you know the

1:02:07 ↗ the the chart that we showed you really

1:02:10 ↗ looked at by discipline so for all types

1:02:13 ↗ of construction permits did we meet our

1:02:16 ↗ Target data or not if there was a

1:02:18 ↗ consultant you know that was kind of the

1:02:20 ↗ hold up we've kind of implemented we did

1:02:23 ↗ an RFQ we added more to the roster of

1:02:25 ↗ the consultant so we're not you know

1:02:28 ↗ backing up to the same consultant for a

1:02:30 ↗ lot of uh work uh so the the you know

1:02:33 ↗ the selection is more broad um but also

1:02:37 ↗ you know we are routing them earlier a

1:02:39 ↗ lot of times the the reviewer would

1:02:42 ↗ start looking at their plans six weeks

1:02:45 ↗ into it they determine oh well this

1:02:47 ↗ requires a consultant like a Geotech or

1:02:50 ↗ a wetland consultant to also look at

1:02:52 ↗ that so we want to frontload that that

1:02:54 ↗ that happens simultaneously when the

1:02:57 ↗ when the reviews are routed so those are

1:02:59 ↗ some of the things by analyzing data in

1:03:01 ↗ different ways has led to actual

1:03:03 ↗ identification of the problem and coming

1:03:06 ↗ up with a solution to solve that so by

1:03:08 ↗ discipline by issuance date by the type

1:03:11 ↗ of the permit um so there are multiple

1:03:15 ↗ ways of slicing and dicing the data and

1:03:17 ↗ then looking at it from uh you know a

1:03:20 ↗ average

1:03:21 ↗ versus our um majority of the permits

1:03:24 ↗ are here but you've got a few outliers

1:03:27 ↗ you know taking a look at what is what

1:03:28 ↗ are these outliers can we how can we Rin

1:03:31 ↗ them in as

1:03:36 ↗ well any other

1:03:38 ↗ questions okay I will again look to our

1:03:41 ↗ clerk see if there's anybody online that

1:03:44 ↗ I should ask for public comment okay so

1:03:47 ↗ we are looking for feedback at this

1:03:50 ↗ point and do you want to go ahead and

1:03:53 ↗ put that slide back up so that we have

1:04:04 ↗ it okay so just generally looking for

1:04:10 ↗ feedback on what the administration has

1:04:12 ↗ proposed and put together in their memo

1:04:15 ↗ and their

1:04:17 ↗ presentation um and then they have

1:04:19 ↗ detailed down here next steps um that

1:04:23 ↗ they have planned including reporting

1:04:25 ↗ back to City Council in June of 2024 so

1:04:29 ↗ who would like to start in on

1:04:36 ↗ feedback a thanks for starting out

1:04:39 ↗ Council Ray somebody has to get it going

1:04:41 ↗ I'm just going to talk about your um

1:04:44 ↗ proposed next steps because I think

1:04:45 ↗ they're right on um implementing the

1:04:48 ↗ identify process improvements the second

1:04:50 ↗ one is where I'm really excited in my

1:04:53 ↗ brief tenure working for King County we

1:04:55 ↗ did a review and a a a lean process for

1:04:59 ↗ their permitting process and it really

1:05:02 ↗ did generate some pretty staggeringly

1:05:04 ↗ good results um so I I believe that if

1:05:07 ↗ done right and done with somebody who

1:05:09 ↗ really knows what they're doing um we

1:05:11 ↗ can really find ways to make a much more

1:05:14 ↗ effective process and drive a lot of

1:05:17 ↗ waste out of the system so I'm like two

1:05:21 ↗ thumbs up for

1:05:23 ↗ that

1:05:25 ↗ okay does anybody want to follow after

1:05:27 ↗ two thumbs up uh council member Joe

1:05:29 ↗ thank you uh director I appreciate the

1:05:32 ↗ hard work that's been put into this by

1:05:34 ↗ you and all of your staff um I do like

1:05:37 ↗ the fact that the report is coming back

1:05:39 ↗ to City counil from the from the U

1:05:42 ↗ consultant by June of 2024 I would

1:05:45 ↗ encourage you that if there are any

1:05:46 ↗ budget impacts or you see that there are

1:05:49 ↗ places where we can put $100,000 and

1:05:52 ↗ make a big difference in the permitting

1:05:54 ↗ process to please come back with those

1:05:56 ↗ even before that final report is done so

1:05:58 ↗ that we can start talking about those

1:06:00 ↗ things and putting them into the budget

1:06:02 ↗ um for the the the next year pardon me

1:06:04 ↗ excuse me so um appreciate the work and

1:06:08 ↗ uh we I think on the council are looking

1:06:10 ↗ for ways to improve the process and the

1:06:12 ↗ service to our customers and the

1:06:14 ↗ citizens so um if there are budgetary

1:06:17 ↗ things that we can put in there please

1:06:18 ↗ let us know thank

1:06:21 ↗ you who's next

1:06:28 ↗ council member

1:06:30 ↗ hunt thank you uh I agree there are lots

1:06:34 ↗ of ways to slice and dice the data I

1:06:36 ↗ also agree there were some earlier

1:06:38 ↗ comments about maybe the average isn't

1:06:40 ↗ best and if you think about it if half

1:06:42 ↗ the permits were too taking too long and

1:06:45 ↗ half of them were taking too short that

1:06:48 ↗ would average out to about the right

1:06:49 ↗ time but that leaves half the people

1:06:51 ↗ probably un unsatisfied so um I and then

1:06:56 ↗ if everybody was right on time that

1:06:57 ↗ would also be an average of right on

1:06:59 ↗ time and everybody would probably be

1:07:01 ↗ satisfied so I think that um average is

1:07:03 ↗ probably not the right way as you said

1:07:05 ↗ to look at it um we in our strategic

1:07:10 ↗ planning did a lot of work um also with

1:07:14 ↗ all of the Departments and staff and

1:07:16 ↗ community members to identify targets

1:07:19 ↗ that we would track over time and um and

1:07:22 ↗ so I keep going back to those because so

1:07:24 ↗ much feedback went back went into those

1:07:26 ↗ targets which are on our website and

1:07:29 ↗ which are really our high level how do

1:07:31 ↗ we determine if we're going in the right

1:07:33 ↗ direction for these

1:07:35 ↗ core um core issues that we identified

1:07:39 ↗ as important for the Strategic plan and

1:07:41 ↗ so for that we have um we have

1:07:45 ↗ 11 goals with targets and um I keep

1:07:49 ↗ coming back to that we are currently

1:07:51 ↗ meeting two of the 11 um so I and there

1:07:56 ↗ are goals about the time of review

1:07:59 ↗ permits being met and I think that um I

1:08:03 ↗ think that thought went into those they

1:08:05 ↗ may not be perfect in which case be open

1:08:07 ↗ to adjusting them but at the same time

1:08:09 ↗ they're they're a pretty good measure of

1:08:11 ↗ where we wanted to go as a community um

1:08:14 ↗ when we took that big comprehensive look

1:08:16 ↗ so I I appreciate the thought that has

1:08:19 ↗ gone into this I also wonder if there

1:08:21 ↗ could be a check-in um

1:08:24 ↗ to make sure that uh the changes that

1:08:28 ↗ are being made also address the concerns

1:08:32 ↗ that have been raised by Council sooner

1:08:33 ↗ than June just to make sure that this is

1:08:35 ↗ on track and so I'd be interested in if

1:08:37 ↗ there have are have been um discussions

1:08:40 ↗ or if there's any feedback from the

1:08:42 ↗ administration about what a earlier

1:08:44 ↗ check-in might look like to make sure

1:08:46 ↗ that this is on track to um make these

1:08:51 ↗ improvements the administrator

1:08:54 ↗ uh thank you council president members

1:08:55 ↗ of the council um we think June's a

1:08:58 ↗ realistic time frame um to do that we

1:09:01 ↗ don't suspect that we'll have meaningful

1:09:02 ↗ information for you prior to that so

1:09:04 ↗ that's why we picked

1:09:08 ↗ June okay thank you

1:09:12 ↗ okay um anybody else coming

1:09:16 ↗ in comments

1:09:20 ↗ feedback council member

1:09:22 ↗ Hall um

1:09:24 ↗ thank you again ditto I haven't heard

1:09:26 ↗ anything I disagree with so far um I

1:09:28 ↗ appreciate um in your planned

1:09:30 ↗ improvements that you have kind of

1:09:31 ↗ improvements that are more applicant or

1:09:33 ↗ customer facing and then also internal

1:09:35 ↗ kind of service improvements I think

1:09:37 ↗ last time this was at Council I talked

1:09:40 ↗ about making sure we're doing everything

1:09:41 ↗ we can to make sure um applications are

1:09:45 ↗ complete and ensuring the completeness

1:09:47 ↗ of those so it seems like that was part

1:09:49 ↗ of the planned improvements and having

1:09:51 ↗ those sufficiency checks and then having

1:09:53 ↗ these uh internal process improvements I

1:09:56 ↗ think that's um good and then also

1:09:58 ↗ having the time necessary to to be able

1:10:00 ↗ to measure Effectiveness on whether

1:10:01 ↗ those are doing anything I had mentioned

1:10:03 ↗ this in in the email um and I think it's

1:10:06 ↗ okay to continue focusing on this but I

1:10:08 ↗ personally want to know when we get to I

1:10:10 ↗ want to know what point at

1:10:12 ↗ which um we need as a council to start

1:10:15 ↗ thinking maybe these process

1:10:17 ↗ improvements aren't getting us to

1:10:18 ↗ exactly where we need to in Staffing

1:10:20 ↗ Resources and and when that happens I

1:10:22 ↗ want to I want to know that because I

1:10:24 ↗ think that's an important Council

1:10:25 ↗ conversation but I buy um that this

1:10:29 ↗ needs to happen first we're managing

1:10:31 ↗ assets and resources efficient

1:10:33 ↗ efficiently here at the city and so

1:10:34 ↗ first internal process improvements

1:10:36 ↗ comes first but I just wanted to say for

1:10:38 ↗ the record that I I think it's really

1:10:40 ↗ important still that that we are um kept

1:10:42 ↗ aware of if there are any actual

1:10:45 ↗ Staffing Resources that need to change

1:10:47 ↗ um to affect outcomes that we are aware

1:10:49 ↗ of but but otherwise thank you very

1:10:52 ↗ much

1:10:56 ↗ okay I'm going to take my time because

1:10:59 ↗ I'm not seeing anybody oh council member

1:11:03 ↗ marks yeah I continue to um I I think I

1:11:09 ↗ think it's good to monitor things

1:11:11 ↗ closely but just monitoring is

1:11:14 ↗ insufficient um my own personal

1:11:17 ↗ experience um was with St Michaels and

1:11:20 ↗ the permitting of the parking lot which

1:11:23 ↗ uh moving from a gravel parking lot to a

1:11:26 ↗ paved parking lot and it was like go fix

1:11:28 ↗ a b c d and e right and you go and do

1:11:31 ↗ those things and they come back and it's

1:11:34 ↗ fghh I and J and then it's KL MN o and

1:11:39 ↗ it cost us you know twice as much and

1:11:41 ↗ took twice as long as we thought it was

1:11:42 ↗ going to take so those are the kinds of

1:11:44 ↗ things that are harder to uh I mean and

1:11:47 ↗ and and those add up into that how long

1:11:49 ↗ it takes to get permitted and so uh I'm

1:11:51 ↗ all for this I think we need to to I

1:11:54 ↗ think we need to be better um so I'm I'm

1:11:57 ↗ all in favor of this today but I I think

1:11:58 ↗ that the challenges are really um uh

1:12:03 ↗ some of the things there's no lwh

1:12:04 ↗ hanging fruit here um just just

1:12:07 ↗ monitoring it more closely um isn't

1:12:09 ↗ going to drive those times down what's

1:12:11 ↗ going to drive the times down is uh more

1:12:16 ↗ uh changing the the the communication

1:12:19 ↗ tools that we're using with apple and

1:12:21 ↗ changing the you know it talks about

1:12:23 ↗ checklist whatnot but you know we it's

1:12:27 ↗ going to take it's going to be a heavy

1:12:28 ↗ lift to get a substantial Improvement in

1:12:30 ↗ the time but I look forward to the

1:12:31 ↗ effort so I'm supportive of this today

1:12:33 ↗ but but just cautious it's a it's not a

1:12:36 ↗ no low hanging fruit on this

1:12:40 ↗ one Deputy council president D Michelle

1:12:43 ↗ yes I'll be I'll be brief because I

1:12:45 ↗ agreed with a lot that's been said uh I

1:12:47 ↗ do like the idea that we're searching

1:12:49 ↗ for root causes and uh sometimes that

1:12:52 ↗ takes uh an outside consultant somebody

1:12:55 ↗ coming in with fresh eyes to help uh a

1:12:58 ↗ staff or a team uh to do that and uh I

1:13:02 ↗ have a feeling that that's going to

1:13:03 ↗ yield a lot of positive results so I too

1:13:06 ↗ support what's uh the suggestions and

1:13:09 ↗ the ideas going forward uh and I look

1:13:12 ↗ forward to the report in June um I will

1:13:15 ↗ also plus one uh council member Hall's

1:13:18 ↗ uh thoughts that uh if it does turn out

1:13:21 ↗ that one of the root causes is we need

1:13:23 ↗ more people uh we'd like to hear that um

1:13:26 ↗ and know that before the budget uh start

1:13:28 ↗ so but generally I think we're on a good

1:13:31 ↗ track here I was very fascinated uh by

1:13:34 ↗ the by the information that was

1:13:36 ↗ presented so thank

1:13:39 ↗ you

1:13:42 ↗ okay so my comments first of all I've

1:13:45 ↗ heard a lot of hey if you need more

1:13:48 ↗ resources please tell us and I think

1:13:51 ↗ that's important for both staff and

1:13:55 ↗ management to recognize is that we're

1:13:58 ↗ really committed to getting this done

1:14:00 ↗ and we're willing to put the resources

1:14:02 ↗ in to make sure that we're making a

1:14:05 ↗ significant change not just a okay we're

1:14:10 ↗ going to tweak a few knobs here and

1:14:13 ↗ maybe we'll see a little Improvement in

1:14:14 ↗ the

1:14:15 ↗ data I'm looking at this and I don't

1:14:18 ↗ want to speak for any of my colleagues

1:14:20 ↗ but I'm looking for a big change like I

1:14:24 ↗ want to beat Auburn and know that we can

1:14:27 ↗ do that regularly and be able to come

1:14:32 ↗ out of this and say we're not just

1:14:36 ↗ changing and making improvements because

1:14:38 ↗ SB 5290 said we had to we're doing it

1:14:42 ↗ because we have a commitment

1:14:45 ↗ to making the process easier for groups

1:14:49 ↗ like St Michaels that are trying to just

1:14:52 ↗ get a new

1:14:54 ↗ um parking lot that will serve their

1:14:57 ↗ their group or people that are looking

1:15:00 ↗ to make a small change on their home and

1:15:03 ↗ don't want to have to wait 60 80 90 days

1:15:06 ↗ to get a response or have to do five

1:15:09 ↗ responses I I want to look at this

1:15:12 ↗ process as something that's like no this

1:15:14 ↗ is a culture shock change for the city

1:15:18 ↗ of isqua and so I really appreciate that

1:15:22 ↗ in looking at root causes recognizing

1:15:25 ↗ that hey we'd like to bring in a

1:15:28 ↗ consultant and have a facilitated

1:15:31 ↗ conversation and I hope that makes a

1:15:35 ↗ difference and I hope that that does

1:15:38 ↗ what we're seeking to

1:15:40 ↗ do I still feel like 6 months is a

1:15:44 ↗ really long time to wait and

1:15:47 ↗ so I would really hope that we could

1:15:51 ↗ choose one area and I would probably

1:15:54 ↗ choose those small tenant improvements

1:15:56 ↗ or something like that where we can just

1:15:59 ↗ go at something hard and maybe it

1:16:01 ↗ doesn't take waiting for a consultant to

1:16:06 ↗ put something big in place for one

1:16:10 ↗ segment so that we start to get a little

1:16:13 ↗ bit more Improvement and I think that

1:16:15 ↗ would also be helpful to showing the

1:16:18 ↗ business and development Community hey

1:16:20 ↗ we're serious about this and then being

1:16:23 ↗ able to interact on ways to make an

1:16:26 ↗ improvement so I would just hope that

1:16:29 ↗ maybe we can choose out a segmented area

1:16:33 ↗ um I would be really interested if we do

1:16:36 ↗ that in maybe taking a commitment to

1:16:39 ↗ come back to Council in three months on

1:16:42 ↗ that potentially to just a committee to

1:16:46 ↗ talk about hey we've made some of these

1:16:49 ↗ changes and this is how we're

1:16:51 ↗ approaching things um and then the other

1:16:54 ↗ thing is I really want to know what

1:16:56 ↗ Auburn does um so if we can make sure to

1:17:00 ↗ have that conversation and go how do you

1:17:03 ↗ guys approach things differently or is

1:17:05 ↗ your Staffing different um you know what

1:17:09 ↗ what makes a difference there yeah we

1:17:11 ↗ expected you would probably have that

1:17:12 ↗ question so that's why I think we asked

1:17:14 ↗ um James Gray to reach his counterpart

1:17:17 ↗ the building official there who they

1:17:18 ↗ have an interim building official you

1:17:20 ↗ know there's some still caution about

1:17:23 ↗ how they're measuring first it was just

1:17:25 ↗ a number for the first round of review

1:17:27 ↗ so we don't know exactly but you know

1:17:29 ↗ every city is trying to do their

1:17:31 ↗ business and all that and so we're

1:17:33 ↗ pinging them for more information that's

1:17:34 ↗ very suited to ours so we respect uh

1:17:38 ↗ them not give you know dropping what

1:17:40 ↗ they're doing and giving us what we need

1:17:42 ↗ um sort of a thing so but we'll we'll

1:17:45 ↗ continue to share you know the planning

1:17:46 ↗ directors can County Planning directors

1:17:48 ↗ meet on this topic on the state Bill

1:17:50 ↗ 5290 there's information sharing in

1:17:52 ↗ those Avenues so we'll continue to to

1:17:55 ↗ share with each other what you know if

1:17:57 ↗ someone's figured out then sure we can I

1:17:59 ↗ mean we're fully supportive of that from

1:18:01 ↗ a customer side perspective and that's

1:18:03 ↗ why we participate in the mybuilding

1:18:05 ↗ permit.com so the contractors have one

1:18:08 ↗ portal that they're familiar with

1:18:10 ↗ whether they're getting a permit in

1:18:11 ↗ Kirkland or you know on isqua they have

1:18:14 ↗ one face that they you know they can log

1:18:17 ↗ in and apply for a water heater removal

1:18:19 ↗ it's the same sort of thing so

1:18:20 ↗ Consortium of cities is buying together

1:18:23 ↗ to come up with these sort of uh

1:18:25 ↗ customer focused um things so we'll

1:18:29 ↗ we'll continue to work with our peers

1:18:31 ↗ and share what we learn with each other

1:18:33 ↗ and also with

1:18:35 ↗ Council and I would just say you know

1:18:39 ↗ we're one city out of tens of thousands

1:18:43 ↗ in the US

1:18:46 ↗ um somebody's gotten this right somebody

1:18:50 ↗ has a process plan or a checklist and

1:18:52 ↗ you know there are certain states that

1:18:54 ↗ there's a requirement that you have to

1:18:57 ↗ get a a permit back by 60 days or it's

1:19:01 ↗ free or they can do anything so I

1:19:06 ↗ really I don't think we have to reinvent

1:19:09 ↗ the wheel I just there's an answer out

1:19:11 ↗ there somewhere and I I hope we aren't

1:19:14 ↗ limited to just what the best practice

1:19:17 ↗ is in King County as well City

1:19:20 ↗ administrator and and council president

1:19:22 ↗ members of the Council I hope you've

1:19:23 ↗ heard nothing tonight that would

1:19:25 ↗ indicate otherwise um you know the only

1:19:28 ↗ other context I'll put to this is our

1:19:31 ↗ land use code our land use code is

1:19:34 ↗ different than other communities it's

1:19:36 ↗ different than other states um and we

1:19:38 ↗ have to reconcile how to do things

1:19:41 ↗ expeditiously but also to observe what

1:19:44 ↗ has been years of community work saying

1:19:48 ↗ that we are not

1:19:50 ↗ Auburn that we have buffer zones we we

1:19:53 ↗ have natural environment issues um and

1:19:55 ↗ so that is part of of the challenge it's

1:19:59 ↗ not meant in any way to be an excuse but

1:20:01 ↗ it is part of our Challenge and as we

1:20:03 ↗ look at other communities that are able

1:20:05 ↗ to say We'll turn around a permit in 60

1:20:07 ↗ days in an area that is flat has no

1:20:11 ↗ vegetation and no waterways if issaqua

1:20:14 ↗ was such a community my sense is that

1:20:16 ↗ we'd be having a different kind of

1:20:17 ↗ conversation uh but we have to balance

1:20:20 ↗ uh those requirements and we are

1:20:22 ↗ absolutely committed and I think you've

1:20:24 ↗ heard from director Dolly wall and her

1:20:26 ↗ staff to do that um but I think the the

1:20:29 ↗ context of our land use uh code is a

1:20:33 ↗ important element of this so we will

1:20:35 ↗ continue to focus on this I think what's

1:20:37 ↗ been suggested with the Consultants uh

1:20:40 ↗ looking at process improvements are

1:20:42 ↗ important but all this is within that

1:20:43 ↗ context of a very aggressive uh uh code

1:20:48 ↗ that has a number of constraints on that

1:20:50 ↗ for nearly every piece of property in

1:20:52 ↗ the

1:20:54 ↗ commun and I will just um say I I think

1:20:59 ↗ that's great and that is one of those

1:21:02 ↗ answers to a root cause and it can be

1:21:06 ↗ then up to council and Community like

1:21:08 ↗ hey if we see this takes a certain

1:21:11 ↗ amount of time because we have these

1:21:13 ↗ requirements are there any adjustments

1:21:15 ↗ that we would want to make so I think

1:21:18 ↗ knowing that information and being able

1:21:20 ↗ to

1:21:21 ↗ synthesize you know why are certain

1:21:24 ↗ things taking longer well we've got

1:21:27 ↗ environmental constraints and our code

1:21:29 ↗ has these requirements are very

1:21:31 ↗ important parts of the analysis sure and

1:21:35 ↗ we want to be cautious to not have that

1:21:38 ↗ be any kind of crutch to say well gosh

1:21:41 ↗ we've got all these requirements we

1:21:42 ↗ can't possibly do this quickly so we're

1:21:44 ↗ trying to be very thoughtful uh have the

1:21:47 ↗ data to bring forward um because if if

1:21:50 ↗ it it does lead to that sort of

1:21:51 ↗ discussion uh the community will demand

1:21:54 ↗ it and will not I don't think this

1:21:56 ↗ Council I don't think the the active

1:21:58 ↗ members of our community will even want

1:22:00 ↗ to have a discussion because they will

1:22:01 ↗ automatically feel that this is a a

1:22:04 ↗ right

1:22:05 ↗ Herring and so we want to be very very

1:22:08 ↗ thoughtful as we move forward so that

1:22:10 ↗ those discussions are ever broached they

1:22:12 ↗ have much much data behind

1:22:15 ↗ them okay yeah and our focus is you know

1:22:19 ↗ the customer so we do an annual survey

1:22:22 ↗ we have a link on the survey we read all

1:22:25 ↗ of those comments that anyone has on how

1:22:27 ↗ to improve because they're the people

1:22:28 ↗ we're serving and they know best what

1:22:31 ↗ worked and what didn't work how could we

1:22:33 ↗ have done better so that it's extremely

1:22:36 ↗ important for us that we take that

1:22:37 ↗ feedback from the people that we

1:22:39 ↗ interact with you know was it the

1:22:41 ↗ service was it the communication was it

1:22:43 ↗ the time you know what how can we

1:22:45 ↗ improve that customer uh experience is

1:22:49 ↗ part of this process Improvement

1:22:51 ↗ definitely

1:22:53 ↗ okay so I made a whole bunch of back and

1:22:55 ↗ forth comments so I'll just turn to the

1:22:58 ↗ council do we have any other feedback

1:23:01 ↗ coming in on

1:23:03 ↗ this nothing coming down okay does the

1:23:08 ↗ administration have what you guys need

1:23:10 ↗ to move forward on

1:23:12 ↗ this council president we do and thank

1:23:15 ↗ you and thank the many and the

1:23:17 ↗ management team from Community Planning

1:23:18 ↗ Development uh I would like to take a

1:23:20 ↗ moment as we conclude uh to recogn Gan

1:23:23 ↗ Paul uh Gan is leaving us uh this week

1:23:26 ↗ uh to go to the King County Council he

1:23:29 ↗ is going to serve on their legislative

1:23:31 ↗ staff to support uh uh the the full

1:23:34 ↗ council with legislative matters so Jean

1:23:36 ↗ I want to uh on behalf of the

1:23:38 ↗ administration thank you for your

1:23:40 ↗ outstanding work and wish you all the

1:23:41 ↗ best as you move forward with your

1:23:43 ↗ career in King

1:23:46 ↗ County thank you very much man lose the

1:23:50 ↗ good ones moving on up thank you thank

1:23:53 ↗ you and thank you City administrator for

1:23:55 ↗ that

1:23:57 ↗ recognition um okay well that it

1:24:00 ↗ concludes our um items here I guess we

1:24:04 ↗ have good of the order anybody have

1:24:05 ↗ anything to bring up mention we're not

1:24:08 ↗ telling any scores or anything like that

1:24:12 ↗ we're just keeping it secret because

1:24:13 ↗ some people have it being

1:24:15 ↗ recorded uh so with that I will say we

1:24:19 ↗ are adjourned at 7:56 p.m. thank you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Barbara de Michele

Zach Hall

Victoria Hunt

Russell Joe

Tola Marts

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh