City Council Committee of the Whole · Tuesday, May 13, 2025 · City Council Digest

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Recognition of Sergeant Fairbanks COM 0145

5 min · packet pp.5–326

▶ Watch from 0:40 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Since 2015, the City has conducted a community survey every other year to assess resident perspectives on local government services, policies, and quality of life. For the past three surveys, the City has contracted with ETC Institute to conduct this survey. For each of the past three surveys, ETC has conducted the survey between the end of February and the end of May.

2025 Community Survey COM 0095

45 min · Dale Markey-Crimp, Assistant to the City Administrator Derek Harvey, ETC Institute · packet pp.327–358

▶ Watch from 5:40 Open packet at p.327 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of this informational update is to provide the Issaquah City Council with an annual update on the Citywide Performance Measures, specifically providing the data and performance from 2024, presenting trends and analysis of performance, and sharing planned changes for 2025.

Informational Update: 2024 Citywide Performance Measures COM 0146

20 min · Dale Markey-Crimp, Assistant to the City Administrator · packet pp.359–418

▶ Watch from 50:40 Open packet at p.359 ↗

Staff report:

Based on the analysis below, the most cost-effective near-term option for the City is to continue to operate the jail and implement operational improvements and safety enhancements to decrease the likelihood of future jail losses and litigation. The Administration recommends that the City concurrently explore future regional options for housing misdemeanant inmates that would move jail operations to its own entity that is better built and equipped to handle the increasingly complex medical needs of the misdemeanant inmate population. The Administration does not recommend closing the jail and contracting with another jail to house its inmates at this time.

Jail Operations Financial Analysis COM 0096

60 min · Dale Markey-Crimp, Assistant to the City Administrator

▶ Watch from 1:10:40

4887 segments .txt ↗

0:06 ↗ Good evening everybody. Uh I Council

0:08 ↗ President Walsh call the May 13, 2025

0:12 ↗ committee of the whole meeting to order

0:14 ↗ at 6:35 p.m. As a reminder, we continue

0:18 ↗ to have a remote aspect to our meetings

0:20 ↗ and both staff and members of the public

0:23 ↗ may be participating in tonight's

0:24 ↗ meeting remotely via WebEx. There are

0:28 ↗ multiple public comment opportunities at

0:30 ↗ tonight's meeting. There's a general

0:32 ↗ public comment opportunity at the

0:34 ↗ beginning of the meeting or you can make

0:36 ↗ comments after the presentation and

0:38 ↗ council question and answer period on

0:40 ↗ any of tonight's agenda items. And so we

0:43 ↗ will start with public comment. Members

0:45 ↗ of the public may address council at

0:47 ↗ this time in person or virtually. Those

0:49 ↗ who signed up in advance to make

0:51 ↗ comments will be called on first. Um

0:54 ↗ before I go into the

0:56 ↗ rest, I guess we do have member of

0:58 ↗ public here, so I'll go through. Um if

1:00 ↗ you're joining us virtually and would

1:02 ↗ like to make comments, please raise your

1:03 ↗ virtual hand. If you're on the phone,

1:05 ↗ you're going to press star three. If

1:07 ↗ you're on a computer or smartphone, look

1:09 ↗ for the hand icon or send the host a

1:12 ↗ chat message. If you're in the room and

1:15 ↗ did not sign up, I will ask for other

1:16 ↗ speakers before closing that portion of

1:19 ↗ the meeting. And so seeing if anybody

1:22 ↗ would like to make public comments at

1:25 ↗ tonight's meeting. And do we have

1:27 ↗ anybody online? No. Okay. And nobody in

1:30 ↗ the audience wants to make public

1:32 ↗ comments at this time. Okay. Fantastic.

1:34 ↗ As a reminder, written comments can

1:36 ↗ always be submitted by emailing city

1:39 ↗ council

1:43 ↗ isawwah.gov. Okay. So, we have a special

1:47 ↗ start to our meeting uh this evening and

1:50 ↗ then we will we have a recognition and

1:53 ↗ then we've got uh the 2025 community

1:56 ↗ survey, anformational update on the 2024

2:00 ↗ citywide performance measures and then a

2:02 ↗ jail operations financial

2:05 ↗ analysis. But we will start with com

2:09 ↗ 0145 recognition of Sergeant Fairbanks.

2:12 ↗ if you'll join me at the lect

2:22 ↗ turn. Okay. It is not often that we get

2:25 ↗ to recognize someone with such a long

2:29 ↗ long period of service. That is not

2:31 ↗ meant as a bad thing. That is absolutely

2:33 ↗ a phenomenal experience for us as a

2:36 ↗ city. Um, and so, Chief Schwan, do you

2:40 ↗ have a few words you want to say about

2:42 ↗ Sergeant Fairbanks?

2:44 ↗ Yes. Thank you. Thank you everyone for

2:46 ↗ allowing me to speak. I'm I appreciate

2:48 ↗ the opportunity to appear virtually

2:50 ↗ tonight. Um, Sergeant Fairbanks, just to

2:53 ↗ give you an overview, was hired on May

2:55 ↗ 11th of

2:56 ↗ 1998. Um, he went into detectives in

2:59 ↗ September of 12. He in December of 13,

3:03 ↗ he was promoted to sergeant. September

3:06 ↗ 16th of 2020, he was acting commander.

3:09 ↗ August 23rd of 23, he was an

3:12 ↗ administrative sergeant, administrative

3:14 ↗ and traffic

3:15 ↗ sergeant. His training, he has over

3:17 ↗ 1,800 hours of training. They're

3:20 ↗ probably a lot more hours, but our

3:21 ↗ system doesn't go back that far. U and

3:24 ↗ so he's had many different positions.

3:26 ↗ He's been a firearms instructor, crisis

3:29 ↗ intervention trainer, an EVOC, which is

3:31 ↗ evasive driving techniques for our

3:33 ↗ officers, a drone operator, motorcycle

3:36 ↗ operator, and a mentor to so many in our

3:39 ↗ department. He's an instructor in active

3:42 ↗ shooter, firearms, building search,

3:44 ↗ radar, taser, Lesley the shotgun, to

3:47 ↗ name a few. He's been the IPD range

3:50 ↗ master for 25 years of his 27 years of

3:53 ↗ service. He's a member of the firearms

3:55 ↗ cadre. The school zone cameras were his

3:58 ↗ project from conception to

4:01 ↗ implementation. He wrote a grant for

4:02 ↗ school zone flashing lights on Newport.

4:05 ↗ He served in traffic on a motorcycle for

4:07 ↗ seven years. He was an SOT, which is our

4:10 ↗ special operations team leader and peer

4:14 ↗ support team that he's currently still

4:16 ↗ on. He will retire on June 3rd of 2025

4:19 ↗ after 27 years of law enforcement

4:21 ↗ service. all have been with Isiqua

4:23 ↗ Police Department in the service to the

4:25 ↗ community of Isiqua. All the leadership

4:27 ↗ and experience that will we be losing um

4:29 ↗ with this retirement is a a blessing um

4:32 ↗ for him, but it will be a huge loss for

4:35 ↗ our department and our city. And we

4:36 ↗ thank you for all your service.

4:41 ↗ Sergeant Fairbanks. Oh,

4:46 ↗ would you like to say a few words? Oh, I

4:48 ↗ never missed the opportunity to talk. Do

4:50 ↗ it. Go for it. Um, like the chief said,

4:54 ↗ I've been here for 27 years. Uh, the

4:56 ↗ city has changed drastically in that

4:58 ↗ time. When I got here, uh, the Highlands

5:03 ↗ basically ended at 15th and Park and was

5:05 ↗ a gravel road the rest of the way up the

5:07 ↗ hill, which made it very challenging

5:08 ↗ chasing people on our motorcycles. Um,

5:12 ↗ but it's been a great city to work for.

5:15 ↗ Uh through all those hours that the

5:17 ↗ chief talked about training, I've

5:18 ↗ trained with uh local agencies, other

5:21 ↗ agencies throughout the state, some

5:23 ↗ Canadian agencies, some federal

5:26 ↗ agencies, and even some military groups.

5:29 ↗ And I've got to tell you, the people in

5:31 ↗ the building next door, uh the

5:33 ↗ dispatchers, the records, the

5:35 ↗ corrections, the police are topnotch.

5:38 ↗ I know that it's your job to look at

5:40 ↗ them and make sure everything's going

5:42 ↗ right, but when I hear from other

5:45 ↗ agencies and what they're going through

5:46 ↗ and dealing with it, you guys have it

5:49 ↗ pretty easy. Um, you got a great group

5:52 ↗ over there. Um, I know that the people

5:54 ↗ that are taking my positions are going

5:56 ↗ to take the job further than I ever

5:58 ↗ imagined and that they're going to be in

6:00 ↗ very great hands going

6:03 ↗ forward. Thank you. Yeah.

6:06 ↗ [Applause]

6:33 ↗ Oh, always wonderful to see somebody who

6:36 ↗ has served the city so long and hard to

6:38 ↗ see them hard to let them go and that

6:42 ↗ experience but appreciate the ability to

6:44 ↗ recognize. Um so like I said we have

6:47 ↗ three pretty meaty items on our docket

6:50 ↗ tonight. So we will start out with comm

6:53 ↗ 0095 the 2025 community survey presented

6:57 ↗ by Dale Marky Crimp the assistant to the

7:00 ↗ city administrator and you're bringing

7:02 ↗ with you Derek Harvey from the ETC

7:06 ↗ Institute.

7:11 ↗ Okay. Excellent. Thank you, Council

7:14 ↗ President Walsh. Good evening, city

7:16 ↗ council members. I am thrilled to have

7:18 ↗ the evening with you. Um Dale Marky

7:22 ↗ Crimp, assistant to the city

7:23 ↗ administrator. And the first item I'll

7:25 ↗ be introducing will be the 2025

7:28 ↗ community

7:29 ↗ survey. The purpose of tonight's

7:31 ↗ presentation is to provide the city

7:33 ↗ council with an overview of the results

7:36 ↗ of the 2025 biionial community survey.

7:39 ↗ There is no immediate direction needed

7:41 ↗ this evening, but there will be

7:43 ↗ plentiful chance to ask questions um

7:46 ↗ throughout this presentation.

7:49 ↗ By way of a bit of background, um, since

7:52 ↗ 2015, the city has conducted a community

7:55 ↗ survey every other year to assess

7:57 ↗ resident perspectives on local

7:59 ↗ government services, policies, and

8:02 ↗ quality of life. This commitment to

8:05 ↗ gathering, analyzing, and incorporating

8:07 ↗ data into decision-m is a key element of

8:11 ↗ the city's strategic process. You can

8:13 ↗ see in our beautiful green wheel here,

8:15 ↗ performance evaluation and community

8:17 ↗ survey. Since 2021 or for the last three

8:22 ↗ surveys, the city has contracted with

8:24 ↗ the ETC institute based out of tha

8:27 ↗ Kansas to conduct our

8:29 ↗ survey. ETC has conducted this survey by

8:33 ↗ annually between February and late

8:35 ↗ March, early April in each of those

8:37 ↗ years, ensuring that we're gathering

8:39 ↗ feedback in a consistent window.

8:44 ↗ The city uh made the decision in 2021 to

8:48 ↗ move to ETC as our vendor for a number

8:50 ↗ of reasons, including more flexibility

8:53 ↗ in our survey structure and the ability

8:55 ↗ to add questions that was not previously

8:57 ↗ available with our previous vendor. And

9:00 ↗ in 2021, as you might expect or

9:02 ↗ remember, we were especially interested

9:04 ↗ to understand the impacts and the

9:06 ↗ experience of our residents and

9:08 ↗ community members during and emerging

9:10 ↗ from the CO 19 pandemic.

9:13 ↗ In addition to the many services listed

9:15 ↗ here on the slide, ETC has also been

9:18 ↗ able to supply two other important tools

9:20 ↗ with their service. Tools that you'll

9:23 ↗ get a preview of this evening. Their

9:25 ↗ important satisfaction matrix, a matrix

9:28 ↗ that identifies where the community's

9:30 ↗ level of satisfaction intersects with

9:33 ↗ its perceived importance for each

9:34 ↗ service. So, for example, is there

9:37 ↗ something the community is particularly

9:39 ↗ dissatisfied with that they find to be

9:40 ↗ very important? Um, is there something

9:43 ↗ that they're incredibly satisfied with

9:44 ↗ that they find to be very important? And

9:47 ↗ the city would pursue different

9:49 ↗ strategies as a result of that

9:51 ↗ intersection of importance and

9:54 ↗ satisfaction. And additionally, an

9:56 ↗ interactive PowerBI dashboard. This

9:58 ↗ allows for all interested parties,

10:01 ↗ staff, city leadership, uh the public to

10:04 ↗ take a deeper dive into the data

10:05 ↗ available and specifically and as a data

10:09 ↗ nerd myself, um I think especially

10:12 ↗ helpful to be able to look at and

10:14 ↗ understand responses by the different

10:16 ↗ demographic characteristics within our

10:18 ↗ community.

10:21 ↗ To provide an idea of what this process

10:23 ↗ looks like during a survey year, we

10:25 ↗ first start out in the December or

10:28 ↗ January time reviewing previous survey

10:31 ↗ questions and making revisions and

10:32 ↗ adjustments um prior to finalizing the

10:36 ↗ survey in February. ETC then tests the

10:40 ↗ survey uh amongst their team to make

10:42 ↗ sure that our estimates of the time it

10:44 ↗ takes to take the survey are as accurate

10:46 ↗ as they can be and that all questions

10:48 ↗ are easily understandable. um even to

10:51 ↗ folks unfamiliar with Isiqua. The survey

10:54 ↗ is then distributed in March and April

10:56 ↗ and results are analyzed and reports and

10:59 ↗ tools are generated. We find ourselves

11:02 ↗ together here in May where the results

11:04 ↗ are presented. The administration has

11:06 ↗ already begun to take a look at these

11:08 ↗ results and determine how they can be

11:10 ↗ used and inform um modifications and

11:13 ↗ adjustments to current projects and

11:16 ↗ projects that are coming up in short

11:18 ↗ order. And in July, the city council

11:20 ↗ will further consider this information

11:22 ↗ as part of policymaking and budget

11:24 ↗ conversations at your

11:26 ↗ retreat. Before I turn it over to Derek,

11:29 ↗ um, our project manager from ETC to

11:31 ↗ present on the results, I want to share

11:33 ↗ a couple what I would say are notable

11:37 ↗ decisions and then one notable

11:39 ↗ observation from the survey this

11:41 ↗ year. First and foremost, we worked very

11:44 ↗ hard to shorten or streamline the survey

11:46 ↗ for 2025. We've gotten feedback multiple

11:49 ↗ years in a row that while it was great

11:50 ↗ that we were able to ask additional

11:52 ↗ questions, goodness gracious, this is a

11:54 ↗ long survey. So, we both worked to cut

11:57 ↗ and combine some questions where we felt

11:59 ↗ like we had asked the same thing

12:00 ↗ multiple times. And we also noted a

12:03 ↗ longer predicted survey time in the

12:05 ↗ introductory language to the survey. So,

12:07 ↗ being a little more realistic that it

12:09 ↗ will not take you 15 minutes, but will

12:10 ↗ likely take you closer to 30 or even

12:13 ↗ more. We also made some changes to some

12:15 ↗ questions. So I I noted this just a

12:17 ↗ moment ago, but we wanted to make sure

12:19 ↗ that the questions of the survey aligned

12:21 ↗ to the updated priorities and objectives

12:23 ↗ within the strategic plan and also that

12:26 ↗ it aligned to our 2025 priorities. So a

12:29 ↗ chance to get some baseline data on the

12:31 ↗ performance specifically around a topic

12:33 ↗ that I came to you last week to talk

12:35 ↗ about which is social connection,

12:36 ↗ loneliness and

12:38 ↗ isolation. You'll note and I'm sure

12:40 ↗ you've seen in the report where these

12:42 ↗ changes were made. It was sort of noted

12:44 ↗ with a little asterisk and this is

12:46 ↗ because we felt in many cases that the

12:48 ↗ questions even though modified were

12:50 ↗ still comparable or could be benchmarked

12:53 ↗ against previous years. I like to think

12:55 ↗ about it not as apples and oranges but

12:57 ↗ cosmic crisp and honey

12:59 ↗ crisp. And then last but certainly not

13:01 ↗ least significant respondent turnout. In

13:05 ↗ previous years we've set a goal of 600

13:08 ↗ surveys. um that level of survey return

13:11 ↗ from our statistically valid sample um

13:14 ↗ for a community of our size gives us a

13:17 ↗ 95% confidence interval that the results

13:19 ↗ that we're getting are within about four

13:21 ↗ to 5% on either side of the

13:25 ↗ percentage. We decided to up that goal.

13:28 ↗ Uh maybe we were a little uh intimidated

13:30 ↗ by the uh the light rail survey and all

13:32 ↗ the responses they got, but we decided

13:34 ↗ let's set a goal this year of 700. Um,

13:37 ↗ and we were pleasantly um why would that

13:40 ↗ that's selling ourselves a little short.

13:42 ↗ We were excited to see that we had 825

13:45 ↗ responses from our statistically valid

13:48 ↗ sample. We have a theory about a few

13:50 ↗ things that were probably happening that

13:52 ↗ led to this. One of which is that we

13:54 ↗ changed our outreach um a bit this year

13:57 ↗ to be more robust and that our outreach

13:58 ↗ to the general public, not just the

14:00 ↗ random sample, started earlier in the

14:03 ↗ survey process. Also, we have a feeling

14:06 ↗ that likely um our community is feeling

14:09 ↗ very activated right now that if there's

14:11 ↗ a government listening, they'd like to

14:13 ↗ be able to share their their thoughts

14:14 ↗ and responses. And we think that

14:15 ↗ probably led to a higher response rate

14:18 ↗ than we've seen in previous years. All

14:20 ↗ that to say, we're very excited um about

14:22 ↗ the the turnout and the results that

14:24 ↗ we're going to share. And I'm going to

14:26 ↗ stop sharing my screen here in a moment

14:27 ↗ to be able to turn it over to Derek

14:29 ↗ Harvey from the ETC Institute to present

14:31 ↗ a bit more about what we found.

14:54 ↗ Okay, Derek, I think we've got the

14:56 ↗ presentation up and so we are ready

14:58 ↗ whenever you're ready to start.

15:06 ↗ Can you hear me? Yes. Sorry about that.

15:09 ↗ I couldn't find the mute button. Um,

15:12 ↗ thank you Dale for that introduction to

15:13 ↗ the survey. Um, like you said, my name

15:15 ↗ is Derek Harvey. I'm a project manager

15:17 ↗ here from ETC Institute. Um, thank you

15:20 ↗ council for having me tonight virtually

15:22 ↗ to present the results.

15:27 ↗ Um, there we go. Um, Dale did a great

15:31 ↗ job introducing ETC Institute. Um, this

15:33 ↗ slide just goes over more of our

15:35 ↗ background. We're one of the nation's

15:36 ↗ leading provider of market research for

15:38 ↗ local governments. Um since 2012, we've

15:41 ↗ surveyed more than,200 communities

15:43 ↗ around the world and have have and have

15:45 ↗ done surveys in all 50 states. As of um

15:48 ↗ this spring, we finally got Hawaii

15:50 ↗ crossed off our list. And we've been in

15:52 ↗ business since 1983. And really since

15:55 ↗ the last 30 years or so, we've really

15:56 ↗ been focused on these community surveys,

15:59 ↗ parks and recck surveys, um, and really

16:01 ↗ focusing and working with local

16:03 ↗ governments, cities, and counties as

16:09 ↗ well. U for the presentation tonight,

16:12 ↗ um, I'm going to go through several of

16:14 ↗ the major topics that we had on the

16:16 ↗ survey. um overall perceptions of

16:18 ↗ Isiqua, major city services, public

16:21 ↗ safety infrastructure communication

16:23 ↗ and then finally opportunities for

16:25 ↗ improvement. And at the end, I will

16:27 ↗ leave time for um questions if there are

16:30 ↗ any. Um the purpose of the survey, like

16:32 ↗ Dale mentioned, was we wanted to

16:34 ↗ objectively assess the city's programs

16:36 ↗ and services. We wanted to gather that

16:38 ↗ input from the residents to help city

16:40 ↗ leaders set priorities for the

16:42 ↗ community. And we was al also wanted to

16:44 ↗ identify those areas of improvement for

16:46 ↗ the community. We administered the

16:48 ↗ survey by mail, phone, and online. Um we

16:52 ↗ mailed the survey to all the residents

16:54 ↗ that were randomly selected um to take

16:56 ↗ the survey. Once they got it, it had a

16:59 ↗ cover letter that explained the purpose

17:01 ↗ of the survey. It told them they could

17:02 ↗ go online and take the survey. There was

17:04 ↗ phone numbers on there they could call

17:06 ↗ to take the survey if they had any

17:07 ↗ questions. It also pro uh we also did

17:10 ↗ follow-ups by text, email, and social

17:13 ↗ media. Um the sample was designed to

17:16 ↗ ensure results were statistically valid

17:18 ↗ and representative. Um we took your city

17:21 ↗ shape files when we selected the sample

17:23 ↗ and then we took all the residential

17:25 ↗ addresses within your city's shape files

17:28 ↗ and that's what we drew the random

17:30 ↗ sample from. So everybody in the city

17:32 ↗ had the same percentage chance of being

17:34 ↗ selected for the survey when we did

17:35 ↗ that. Um like Dale said, our goal was

17:38 ↗ 700. It was higher than the last time we

17:40 ↗ did that, but we did receive um a great

17:44 ↗ turnout when it came back to the survey.

17:46 ↗ 825 completed surveys um I think was

17:49 ↗ higher than even what ETC would expect

17:52 ↗ or anybody expected here. And that gave

17:54 ↗ us a margin of error about 3.4% at the

17:57 ↗ 95% level of confidence.

18:04 ↗ I like to include this slide as a

18:06 ↗ general overview slide of the results.

18:09 ↗ Um I pull I like to pull out um three

18:12 ↗ key numbers here. Um first one's the

18:14 ↗ 96%. That's the percentage of

18:16 ↗ respondents who rated Isiakiqua's

18:18 ↗ overall quality of life as excellent or

18:20 ↗ good. That's extremely high um compared

18:23 ↗ to other communities nationally and

18:25 ↗ regionally. And we'll get into that a

18:27 ↗ little later. And then 96% of also rated

18:30 ↗ Isiqua as an excellent a good place to

18:32 ↗ live. And as you can see below plus 46

18:36 ↗ points. That's the difference between

18:37 ↗ the national average and Isqua's rating

18:40 ↗ as a place to live. So you Isiqua is

18:42 ↗ doing very well in that area. Couple

18:45 ↗ other things. Perceptions of the city

18:47 ↗ remain high. Um like I said when

18:50 ↗ compared to ETC Institutees Northwest

18:52 ↗ and national averages for core services

18:55 ↗ is performing above the averages in most

18:57 ↗ of the areas assessed. And when we look

18:59 ↗ and when we looked at the trends since

19:01 ↗ the last survey the trends have

19:03 ↗ stabilized from

19:05 ↗ 2023. Overall satisfaction with major

19:07 ↗ services is strong. Overall is

19:09 ↗ performing well in key areas such as

19:11 ↗ fire and ambulance service, parks and

19:13 ↗ recck facilities and police services.

19:16 ↗ And then finally the opportunities for

19:18 ↗ improvement. Um we designed the

19:20 ↗ instrument to um to develop priorities

19:22 ↗ for the city. Flow of traffic, land use

19:25 ↗ and planning and how how well ISQUA is

19:27 ↗ planning for the future growth were

19:29 ↗ highlighted as areas for improvement as

19:35 ↗ well. Um like I said when uh we selected

19:39 ↗ the sample, we took your city shape

19:40 ↗ files. This is um what those shape files

19:43 ↗ look like when we get them. and then we

19:46 ↗ select all the residential addresses

19:47 ↗ from within that for the sample. Um

19:50 ↗ while we're collecting responses, we're

19:52 ↗ monitoring the distribution of the

19:54 ↗ responses to ensure that each area of

19:56 ↗ the city is being heard from. Um this is

19:59 ↗ something ETC does on the back end once

20:01 ↗ we're receiving surveys. If we see an

20:04 ↗ area that is not sending back surveys in

20:06 ↗ a way we thought, we would follow up in

20:08 ↗ that area more. We might send us a

20:10 ↗ postcard to that area. we might try to

20:13 ↗ um focus more follow-ups in that area to

20:15 ↗ make sure that we make sure that all

20:17 ↗ areas are being heard from. And as you

20:19 ↗ can see, we did a great job here,

20:21 ↗ especially with 825 respondents. Um

20:24 ↗ these dots are to the block level for

20:27 ↗ each one. So this is not their actual

20:29 ↗ address. It goes to the nearest block

20:30 ↗ level. That's why some of these blocks

20:33 ↗ are some of these dots are stacked very

20:35 ↗ closely together.

20:39 ↗ Um the first topic is the perceptions of

20:42 ↗ Isiqua. Um as you can see Isiqua

20:45 ↗ received ratings above 50% in nine out

20:48 ↗ of the 10 areas assessed here. We are

20:50 ↗ already pointing out the overall quality

20:52 ↗ of life and as a place to live. Um but

20:55 ↗ as a place to raise children also

20:57 ↗ received 91%

20:59 ↗ um of your respondents rating it as

21:01 ↗ excellent or good place to raise

21:03 ↗ children. Um, your lowest areas were

21:06 ↗ Isqua as a place to retire, but that

21:08 ↗ still received ratings above 50%. And

21:10 ↗ we'll look at the benchmarking there in

21:12 ↗ a little bit. And then Isqua as a place

21:14 ↗ to open business was the lowest one, but

21:16 ↗ that was still very close to that 50%

21:19 ↗ mark that I usually look for for these

21:22 ↗ services. Um, on this side, the big ones

21:25 ↗ I typically look at when I get any

21:27 ↗ survey results are the as a place to

21:29 ↗ live and as a place to raise children.

21:31 ↗ If those areas in the survey are high,

21:34 ↗ most likely residents are going to be

21:36 ↗ very satisfied with the area. If they

21:38 ↗ like to live in the city and they like

21:40 ↗ to raise their children there, they're

21:41 ↗ most likely happy with where they live.

21:44 ↗ Um, now the opposite is true. If they

21:47 ↗ don't, if they're not happy where they

21:48 ↗ live and they're not happy to raise

21:49 ↗ their children there, we're going to see

21:51 ↗ that in the results as well, but we did

21:53 ↗ not see that with

21:55 ↗ Isiqua. When we looked at the trends, um

21:58 ↗ trends for Isqua remained stable from

21:59 ↗ the last survey in 2023. Only a few

22:02 ↗ areas saw

22:04 ↗ decreases. Um but they weren't big

22:07 ↗ decreases. Most like most of everything

22:09 ↗ stabilized into a um what I would like

22:13 ↗ to see for most of these since some of

22:14 ↗ these areas are very highly rated. Um

22:18 ↗ going much higher is not um really an

22:20 ↗ option in some of these areas. So as

22:22 ↗ long as they're stable, I think we're

22:24 ↗ going in the right direction.

22:29 ↗ And then when we looked at benchmarking,

22:30 ↗ ETC has our own benchmarking services.

22:33 ↗ We have a national benchmark of a survey

22:35 ↗ we send out nationally and we do that um

22:38 ↗ every summer um to 5,000 residents

22:42 ↗ nationwide. And we keep that database

22:44 ↗ for core questions and core services.

22:46 ↗ And then we also have a regional

22:48 ↗ database that's um developed by

22:51 ↗ targeting states and different areas. So

22:53 ↗ for Isiqua, we had the Northwest average

22:56 ↗ um and that's the two or the Northwest

22:58 ↗ region and that's the two that we

23:00 ↗ compared Isqua's service or results

23:02 ↗ with. And as you can see, Isqua's

23:04 ↗ leading away in all the areas assessed

23:06 ↗ here. Uh they're above the regional

23:09 ↗ national averages in almost all the

23:12 ↗ areas. The only one that is right there

23:14 ↗ with the national averages as a place to

23:16 ↗ retire. um that comes and goes with the

23:20 ↗ overall news and how people are feeling

23:22 ↗ about the economy. I find if uh news

23:25 ↗ with the economies going trending

23:27 ↗ upward, we start seeing the retirement

23:29 ↗ trend up. If it's going down, we see it

23:31 ↗ trend down. And that's usually why uh

23:33 ↗ most scores are right there with the

23:36 ↗ national or benchmarks and the northwest

23:39 ↗ benchmarks.

23:43 ↗ When we looked at the major city

23:45 ↗ services, uh more than half of the

23:47 ↗ respondents were satisfied in 14 out of

23:49 ↗ 17 areas assessed, um as mentioned

23:52 ↗ earlier, fire and ambulance services at

23:54 ↗ 92%, parks and wreck programs and

23:56 ↗ facilities at 87% and police services at

24:00 ↗ 80% were your three highest rated um

24:03 ↗ services with respondents being very

24:06 ↗ satisfied in those areas. Um the bottom

24:09 ↗ areas were public transportation at 47%

24:12 ↗ still pretty close to that 50% number

24:14 ↗ that we like to see and then land use

24:17 ↗ planning and zoning at 38% and flow of

24:20 ↗ traffic at 26% was the

24:27 ↗ lowest when we looked at the trends um

24:30 ↗ for major city services. some areas such

24:32 ↗ as public art and arts programs seen big

24:35 ↗ increases since

24:36 ↗ 2023.

24:38 ↗ Um public arts and arts programming's up

24:41 ↗ almost 9% since the last survey. That's

24:44 ↗ a very significant jump in the results.

24:47 ↗ And then as um Dale mentioned earlier,

24:49 ↗ some of the um answer options were

24:52 ↗ changed and as you can see on the slide

24:54 ↗ towards the bottom um those changes from

24:57 ↗ previous years have been noted in the

24:59 ↗ results. So you can see what they were

25:01 ↗ before and what they were turned to. Now

25:03 ↗ when you're analyzing

25:06 ↗ these, when we looked at benchmarking

25:08 ↗ for major city services, Isqua once

25:11 ↗ again is above the regional and national

25:12 ↗ averages in almost all the areas

25:15 ↗ assessed. Um the only one being lower

25:18 ↗ was the flow of traffic on streets in

25:19 ↗ Isiqua when looking at the um national

25:23 ↗ regional averages. And I always like to

25:26 ↗ include the note that um though some of

25:28 ↗ the services may have rated lower than

25:30 ↗ expected when put into context with

25:32 ↗ benchmarking Esqua's doing very well um

25:35 ↗ without the benchmark and we don't

25:37 ↗ really know where we stand up or how

25:38 ↗ other communities are doing. It kind of

25:40 ↗ gives us a picture of where um the

25:42 ↗ results stand in the bigger format or

25:47 ↗ area. And then finally opportunities for

25:50 ↗ improvement for major city services. Um

25:53 ↗ we had our important satisfaction

25:55 ↗ assessment. Um we designed a survey to

25:59 ↗ be able to create these opportunities

26:00 ↗ for improvement. By doing this we asked

26:03 ↗ um respondents to rate their

26:05 ↗ satisfaction with all those services

26:07 ↗ that we list. I think there was 17 of

26:09 ↗ them. And then immediately after that um

26:12 ↗ we asked them all right now which are

26:14 ↗ your uh the most important services for

26:17 ↗ you or your household or for the city of

26:18 ↗ Isqua to focus on over the next three

26:21 ↗ years. And then using this we're able to

26:24 ↗ create our important satisfaction matrix

26:27 ↗ which identifies areas for improvement

26:29 ↗ um for major city services that was flow

26:31 ↗ of traffic um no surprise there that

26:34 ↗ being our lowest satisfaction level and

26:36 ↗ the importance rating was quite high

26:38 ↗ there. Land use planning and zoning also

26:41 ↗ had low satisfaction numbers and then

26:43 ↗ economic fatality um was also an area

26:49 ↗ identified. You can also see on here um

26:52 ↗ you have can see your areas where you

26:54 ↗ were exceeding expectations

26:57 ↗ um uh from your residents. This just

27:00 ↗ means that there was lower importance

27:01 ↗ there when they selected that but there

27:03 ↗ was higher satisfaction there than what

27:06 ↗ residents were on the importance level.

27:09 ↗ And then continued emphas emphasis areas

27:11 ↗ are areas of higher importance and

27:14 ↗ higher um satisfaction as well. So

27:17 ↗ residents are satisfied with parks and

27:19 ↗ wreck and programs and facilities,

27:20 ↗ police services and maintenance of city

27:22 ↗ streets, sidewalks and infrastructure,

27:24 ↗ but that's also an important thing to

27:27 ↗ them that they want to maintain and it's

27:29 ↗ very important to them. So that's why

27:31 ↗ those would show up

27:35 ↗ there. When looking at public safety,

27:38 ↗ um, Isqua received ratings above 50% in

27:41 ↗ eight out of the 11 areas assessed. Um

27:44 ↗ fire and EMS services were in the top

27:47 ↗ area as you can see um how quickly they

27:49 ↗ respond to emergencies and the overall

27:51 ↗ quality of fire and EMS services.

27:54 ↗ Overall feeling of safety was the third

27:56 ↗ highest and then police response times

27:59 ↗ were the fourth

28:01 ↗ highest. Um the lowest rated one is

28:04 ↗ availability of information about police

28:06 ↗ programs and activities. Um that comes

28:09 ↗ down to communication that we'll get

28:11 ↗ into later. um communication sources and

28:14 ↗ or sources of information that um

28:16 ↗ residents are looking to as well and

28:18 ↗ we'll jump into that a little

28:22 ↗ later. When we looked at the trends,

28:24 ↗ Isqua's public safety trends have

28:25 ↗ remained consistent over the last four

28:28 ↗ years.

28:30 ↗ Um, pretty much all the numbers have

28:32 ↗ stayed the same or have reverted back to

28:35 ↗ the 2021 trends as well, especially in

28:39 ↗ four out of the five areas, they've gone

28:41 ↗ back to the 2021 numbers after a slight

28:44 ↗ dip in

28:49 ↗ 2023. When we looked at benchmarking,

28:51 ↗ Isqua is leading the way in several of

28:53 ↗ the areas assessed. Um the only one

28:56 ↗ being uh the fire education programs in

28:59 ↗ your community where the northwest

29:01 ↗ region is slightly above you guys

29:07 ↗ there. And then when we looked at the

29:09 ↗ important satisfaction assessment matrix

29:12 ↗ for public safety only one public safety

29:15 ↗ area was assessed as a category uh as an

29:19 ↗ area of improvement and that was

29:20 ↗ response to property crime. Um so very

29:24 ↗ important to the um residents and

29:27 ↗ satisfaction was lower in that area. Um

29:30 ↗ areas where continued emphasis are

29:32 ↗ needed or the overall feeling of safety

29:34 ↗ in Isiqua. How quick quickly police

29:36 ↗ respond to emergencies and the

29:38 ↗ visibility of police around the city.

29:44 ↗ When we looked at infrastructure

29:46 ↗ services, um respondents rated all the

29:49 ↗ areas um here assessed over 50%

29:52 ↗ satisfaction. Um these are extremely

29:54 ↗ high scores. Um I rarely see very many

29:57 ↗ communities with infrastructure scores

29:59 ↗ this high. Um adequacy of street

30:03 ↗ lighting and street repair were the

30:04 ↗ lowest rated items and even street

30:07 ↗ repair was at 55% satisfaction which is

30:10 ↗ very high.

30:14 ↗ When we looked at trends, trends have

30:16 ↗ remained stable over the past few years.

30:18 ↗ Only a few areas have seen slight drop.

30:20 ↗ Storm drainage being one. Um, adequacy

30:25 ↗ of street lighting in your community has

30:26 ↗ seen a drop since 2021. And then street

30:30 ↗ repair has also gone down, but it's

30:31 ↗ stabilized in the past two

30:36 ↗ years. When we looked at benchmarking,

30:39 ↗ ISQA's leading the way again in almost

30:40 ↗ all the areas assessed. um the only area

30:43 ↗ that is adequacy of street lighting in

30:45 ↗ your community and you're right there

30:47 ↗ with the benchmarking. So though it was

30:49 ↗ the lowest rated item when you look at

30:51 ↗ other communities you're doing

30:54 ↗ um right with them when it comes to

30:56 ↗ that. So when once again when we get

30:58 ↗ benchmarking in the picture it makes the

31:00 ↗ numbers um get more context to

31:05 ↗ them for the important satisfaction

31:08 ↗ assessment matrix for infrastructure.

31:11 ↗ um three areas were categories as areas

31:13 ↗ of opportunity for the city, street

31:15 ↗ repair, adequacy of street lighting, and

31:17 ↗ condition of sidewalks. Um those are

31:20 ↗ three big areas for all communities. Um

31:23 ↗ I think I've only

31:26 ↗ seen two communities in my two years at

31:29 ↗ ETC Institute that haven't had street

31:31 ↗ repair or road condition or road repairs

31:34 ↗ is one of the top areas for opportunity.

31:37 ↗ Everybody um always thinks the roads

31:39 ↗ need to be better. So that's no

31:41 ↗ surprise. And adequacy of street

31:42 ↗ lighting was the lowest rated item. So

31:44 ↗ that's also not a surprise

31:47 ↗ there. Continued emphasis was the

31:50 ↗ maintenance of local parks, condition of

31:51 ↗ city parks and drinking

31:57 ↗ water. And then uh last topic here is

32:01 ↗ communication.

32:03 ↗ Um when we asked respondents to identify

32:08 ↗ um which sources of information they

32:11 ↗ used to get information about the city

32:12 ↗ and its activities, events and services.

32:15 ↗ The top sources or major sources of

32:17 ↗ information was the city website, word

32:20 ↗ of mouth and city digital newsletters.

32:23 ↗ Um the last one being the local

32:25 ↗ government cable channel and city

32:27 ↗ council and other public meetings.

32:34 ↗ We also asked the question in the

32:36 ↗ survey, if the city were to print and

32:37 ↗ mail a paper or quarterly newsletter,

32:39 ↗ would you find this to be a valuable s

32:41 ↗ source of information about the city and

32:43 ↗ its activities, events, and services?

32:47 ↗ 72.4% of respondents said yes, that

32:49 ↗ would be valuable to them. Um, but as

32:53 ↗ you can see, we did leave an open-ended

32:56 ↗ response so that respondents could

32:59 ↗ um uh leave comments about this. And as

33:02 ↗ you can see, um, a digital newsletter

33:04 ↗ would be good. Email newsletter would be

33:06 ↗ best. Some people miss the Isiqua Press.

33:09 ↗ Um, some said include the newsletter

33:12 ↗ update with utility bills. Um, of

33:15 ↗ course, some people want the old paper

33:17 ↗ still. And then a website for what's

33:19 ↗ happening in the city. Um, there's also

33:22 ↗ a comment that was thrown in there as

33:27 ↗ well. When we looked at opportunities

33:30 ↗ for improvement for every section on um

33:34 ↗ that we covered in the survey,

33:36 ↗ um these were the following areas that

33:38 ↗ were categorized or was uh

33:40 ↗ opportunities. The major city services

33:42 ↗ we discussed the flow of traffic, land

33:45 ↗ use, planning and zoning, economic

33:47 ↗ vitality and development, infrastructure

33:49 ↗ with street repair, adequacy of street

33:51 ↗ lighting in your community, and

33:53 ↗ condition of sidewalks. When we looked

33:55 ↗ at mobility, traveling by car in Isqua

33:58 ↗ was the top rated one, ease of public

34:01 ↗ transportation to or from Isqua and ease

34:04 ↗ of public transportation in Isiqua. When

34:07 ↗ we looked at growth and development,

34:09 ↗ availability of affordable quality

34:11 ↗ housing and how well Isiqua is planning

34:14 ↗ for future growth were the two that came

34:17 ↗ up there. And social and economic

34:19 ↗ vitality, cost of living in Isqua and

34:21 ↗ support for those in need were the two.

34:24 ↗ City leadership and services, value

34:26 ↗ received or your local tax dollars and

34:28 ↗ fees, and support for those in need was

34:30 ↗ also um highlighted there. And then

34:33 ↗ public safety we discussed was response

34:35 ↗ to property crime.

34:46 ↗ Thank you once again for inviting me

34:48 ↗ virtually tonight. It was an honor to

34:50 ↗ present to the council. Um if you have

34:52 ↗ any questions, I can take them now.

34:57 ↗ Okay, I will look around. Wealth of

35:00 ↗ information that we get every two years.

35:03 ↗ And so starting out, do we have any

35:07 ↗ questions? I know a lot of this is about

35:10 ↗ absorbing the information and then kind

35:12 ↗ of talking it over, thinking it through.

35:15 ↗ Um, so I'm not Okay, Council Member Ray,

35:20 ↗ for that two people who are watching on

35:22 ↗ TV tonight,

35:24 ↗ um, can we get um the uh a link to where

35:30 ↗ the PowerBI is so we can uh do some uh

35:33 ↗ our own deep sea diving? I think that

35:35 ↗ would be amazing. And then this is kind

35:39 ↗ of a philosophical question, but there

35:41 ↗ are some things that uh end up in the

35:43 ↗ upper left quadrant, the exceeds

35:46 ↗ expectations, which is their importance

35:48 ↗ rating isn't as high as some others. And

35:51 ↗ and I don't know if if if this is

35:53 ↗ something that we've seen

35:55 ↗ u before or if this is I'm just making

35:58 ↗ this up, but things that we really do

36:00 ↗ well on tend to get discounted a bit.

36:03 ↗ And so it's not as high in the important

36:06 ↗ trading. And I I I'm just looking at

36:08 ↗ quite honestly I was looking at fire and

36:09 ↗ ambulance which I can't believe is not

36:11 ↗ like like rated as super important but I

36:14 ↗ think it's because it's rated so highly

36:16 ↗ that it's it's it's discounted. So I'm I

36:18 ↗ guess I'm looking for some some insights

36:21 ↗ um on um if if that is there something

36:25 ↗ to that or am I just uh making stuff up?

36:30 ↗ Yeah, that's a great question. Um, so

36:32 ↗ what you have to remember about those

36:34 ↗ matrixes is that the importance rating

36:38 ↗ though fire and emergency is lower, it's

36:41 ↗ only being compared to the ones that are

36:43 ↗ on that

36:44 ↗ matrix. So um, and we only allowed the

36:48 ↗ people to select four when they selected

36:50 ↗ that. So that's why that because the

36:53 ↗ city is performing so well in that area,

36:56 ↗ that's where it could be sliding down

36:58 ↗ that importance rating compared to those

37:00 ↗ other options that went over into the

37:03 ↗ continued

37:04 ↗ emphasis. Um, and that's just something

37:07 ↗ to remember when you're looking at it's

37:09 ↗ only being compared to what's on that

37:10 ↗ screen and not to every service that is

37:14 ↗ in the city.

37:20 ↗ that that I and that that kind of

37:22 ↗ confirms what I was thinking. I'm just

37:23 ↗ looking at the continued emphasis has

37:25 ↗ parks and wreck programs and facilities

37:27 ↗ as um in that box where um fire and

37:31 ↗ ambulance is not. And that just I mean

37:33 ↗ I'm not saying that people didn't uh

37:35 ↗ vote with their hearts or didn't

37:37 ↗ honestly do it, but that just seems me

37:39 ↗ to be some skewed by some other in

37:42 ↗ influence.

37:45 ↗ No. You mean you don't want us to cut

37:47 ↗ everything that's in the less important?

37:50 ↗ Yeah. Well, I don't think that's what

37:51 ↗ the uh data is telling us. But but but

37:54 ↗ one could argue that that the that the

37:56 ↗ exceeds expectation means we are putting

37:58 ↗ too many resources into those things. Um

38:02 ↗ and because we were it's not as

38:04 ↗ important. So um and I don't think

38:06 ↗ that's right. So I I guess you know I

38:08 ↗ appreciate the the insights and then

38:10 ↗ it's really a question of how do you

38:13 ↗ interpret that and and understand that

38:16 ↗ there are some limitations to every

38:18 ↗ study. So thank you for that. Great.

38:21 ↗ You're welcome. Any other questions

38:24 ↗ coming through? Okay. And so

38:29 ↗ um we have an opportunity for public

38:31 ↗ comment. Do we have any interest in the

38:34 ↗ audience or is there anybody online for

38:37 ↗ public comment? We do have a member of

38:39 ↗ the public with us online. Okay. So, if

38:42 ↗ you're online and want to make a

38:44 ↗ comment, you can press star three if

38:46 ↗ you're using the phone or if you're on a

38:48 ↗ smartphone or computer uh device, you

38:51 ↗ will look for the raise hand icon, or

38:53 ↗ you can send the host a chat message.

38:56 ↗ And so, for each of our items tonight,

38:58 ↗ we have an opportunity for public

38:59 ↗ comment. And so I'll just wait a moment

39:02 ↗ and see if there are

39:03 ↗ any interest in public comments on this

39:08 ↗ item.

39:10 ↗ Okay, see none. We will continue on and

39:14 ↗ make the same request after each of the

39:16 ↗ other two items. So council direction, I

39:20 ↗ think at this point it's a lot of absorb

39:23 ↗ the information, but is there anything

39:25 ↗ specific you're looking for from us?

39:29 ↗ There is nothing specific at this time.

39:31 ↗ I will just take a moment briefly to

39:33 ↗ share with you timing and next steps so

39:36 ↗ you have an idea of where this is

39:37 ↗ headed. Um so Council Member Ray

39:40 ↗ anticipated one of the next steps which

39:42 ↗ is to share with you the updated

39:43 ↗ interactive dashboard.

39:46 ↗ Um we'll also share the survey results

39:49 ↗ the Oh goodness brought me all the way

39:51 ↗ back to the beginning. I should have

39:52 ↗ known. There we go. Um, we'll also share

39:55 ↗ the survey results, the report and the

39:57 ↗ interactive dashboard to the public on

39:59 ↗ our website. Um, where we have previous

40:02 ↗ year's reports as well. It will also go

40:04 ↗ out in the insider um, and over social

40:07 ↗ media. I've been in communication with

40:09 ↗ our communications team about some

40:12 ↗ opportunities to highlight certain parts

40:14 ↗ of the survey results through uniquely

40:16 ↗ Isiqua. So, be on the lookout for some

40:18 ↗ of that sharing in upcoming weeks. Um,

40:22 ↗ the administration and city staff will

40:23 ↗ also continue to to take a dive into

40:25 ↗ this data, especially at some of the the

40:28 ↗ crosstabulation with the demographic and

40:30 ↗ geographic. Um, which I I think I

40:32 ↗ through the nods I'm seeing is is the

40:34 ↗ place where we all really want to dig

40:35 ↗ in. Um, and then you will have of course

40:38 ↗ time with this information at your

40:40 ↗ upcoming council retreat in July. Um,

40:42 ↗ and so that's a little bit about where

40:44 ↗ this is headed in the near term.

40:47 ↗ Yes. Go ahead, council member show.

40:51 ↗ Thank you for all your hard work on

40:52 ↗ this. I had a idea that kind of came to

40:56 ↗ me. Do we give the citizens an

40:59 ↗ opportunity to comment on the results?

41:03 ↗ Um I I don't know if you've ever done

41:05 ↗ that before, but you know, we put the

41:07 ↗ results up there and we just assume

41:11 ↗ everyone's going to read it and agree

41:12 ↗ with it or, you know, if they really

41:14 ↗ want to disagree with it, they can write

41:16 ↗ an email to us. But if we gave them an

41:19 ↗ opportunity to comment on the results

41:20 ↗ like you know yes, no, I agree with this

41:23 ↗ one or I don't and why um it could give

41:25 ↗ us more valuable feedback uh in terms of

41:28 ↗ uh the information that we're able to

41:30 ↗ receive. I thought the information that

41:31 ↗ we had there was very robust and uh the

41:33 ↗ comments were intriguing but um perhaps

41:36 ↗ opening up to everybody might give us

41:38 ↗ even more information. Have you ever

41:40 ↗ seen that in a process you've done

41:42 ↗ before? I've I've seen it in other

41:44 ↗ processes. Um, I've especially I've

41:47 ↗ often seen it not necessarily through

41:49 ↗ like I'm imagining what you're saying as

41:51 ↗ sort of a social media campaign or some

41:54 ↗ other way to sort of engage. I've seen

41:56 ↗ it done where you take a survey and then

41:57 ↗ you bring it to a focus group and you

41:59 ↗ get responses in that focus group on how

42:02 ↗ how real does this seem? Um, and we do

42:04 ↗ have a mechanism in the survey. We do

42:06 ↗ invite anyone that's interested in

42:08 ↗ engaging further to give us their

42:09 ↗ contact information and that information

42:11 ↗ is not associated directly with their

42:14 ↗ responses on the survey. Um ETC does a

42:16 ↗ great job making sure that's pulled out.

42:18 ↗ I love that idea and I'll definitely

42:21 ↗ relay that as I meet with communications

42:23 ↗ about how we might communicate out to

42:25 ↗ the community on this one. Yeah, I'm

42:27 ↗ entrusting you with kind of forming it

42:30 ↗ in a correct way where we just don't

42:32 ↗ open the floodgates, but we actually get

42:34 ↗ some um you know important and relevant

42:37 ↗ information. So, thank you for that,

42:41 ↗ Council Member Hall.

42:44 ↗ I did that. I think that's an

42:45 ↗ interesting idea um to be able to

42:47 ↗ communicate out with the community about

42:48 ↗ this. Um so, thank you um and thank you

42:53 ↗ um ETC very much. Um

42:56 ↗ um I know we're going to I'm going to

42:57 ↗ probably be chewing on this and

42:59 ↗ digesting it for um months to come until

43:01 ↗ the retreat. So a couple kind of highle

43:04 ↗ takeaways that I had just from reading

43:06 ↗ over the weekend was

43:08 ↗ um you know there's this big desire for

43:11 ↗ emphasis with regards to infrastructure

43:13 ↗ including sidewalks, road maintenance,

43:16 ↗ um street lights, um public transit. I

43:19 ↗ think that'll be something meaningful

43:21 ↗ that we'll need to watch over time too,

43:23 ↗ especially because we did have to find

43:24 ↗ cost savings in pavement management and

43:27 ↗ concrete management uh in the last

43:29 ↗ budget cycle. So, um, thought that

43:32 ↗ should be something we should put a pin

43:33 ↗ in, especially because it it does seem,

43:37 ↗ um, both just from our experience being

43:39 ↗ out in the town and also now that people

43:42 ↗ are still just driving around by

43:44 ↗ themselves primarily, um, and over

43:47 ↗ biking, over busing, over walking. So,

43:50 ↗ um, something to be mindful of.

43:53 ↗ Um, planning for future growth. Um I

43:57 ↗ think this was the first survey where I

43:59 ↗ really community survey where I really

44:01 ↗ had a good grasp on what

44:04 ↗ uh we were asking. I mean sometimes like

44:06 ↗ they'll prioritize things like land use

44:08 ↗ and zoning and it'll be like that's not

44:10 ↗ a very commonly understood concept in

44:12 ↗ community like what are we really trying

44:14 ↗ to get out of there. this survey um and

44:17 ↗ your memo Dale too seemed to indicate

44:19 ↗ like it was really a want wanting a

44:22 ↗ focus on affordable housing. Um and um

44:27 ↗ so that kind of came through there. Um

44:29 ↗ and then also planning for future growth

44:32 ↗ was a phrase that came out a lot. Um it

44:35 ↗ reminds me of um a phrase I hear from

44:38 ↗ community members um daily when I'm out

44:41 ↗ in community or just in meetings that

44:43 ↗ why doesn't growth pay for growth,

44:45 ↗ right? And so it makes me think, okay,

44:47 ↗ we need to be doing some more messaging

44:52 ↗ ourselves when we're in community and as

44:54 ↗ a city around how challenging that is.

44:57 ↗ There are so few tools for us to

44:59 ↗ actually um accomplish that. I mean,

45:01 ↗ people think, well, if there's a bunch

45:03 ↗ of housing coming in, why isn't there

45:05 ↗ major road development and

45:06 ↗ infrastructure going in first to be able

45:07 ↗ to do that? Um, you know, there's a lot

45:09 ↗ of state laws that um limit our ability

45:11 ↗ to do anything like this. So, anyways,

45:13 ↗ that was just something that came to

45:14 ↗ mind. Um, emphasis on property crime.

45:17 ↗ Um, we have this kind of policy question

45:19 ↗ or um just kind of exploration of what

45:23 ↗ would it look like if we only did

45:25 ↗ mandatory offense bookings later in the

45:28 ↗ meeting today. This um goes to show, at

45:31 ↗ least for me, that we should continue

45:33 ↗ booking both, right? Um property, crime,

45:37 ↗ I think, fits into that non-mandatory

45:39 ↗ offense category. So, um and that's

45:41 ↗ really one of our only tools um that we

45:44 ↗ have to really dissuade um organized

45:46 ↗ retail theft um at a high level. Um and

45:51 ↗ uh yeah, so anyways, just wanted to say

45:53 ↗ that I think it lends support to kind of

45:56 ↗ potent potential additional resources

45:58 ↗ around emergency management that we um

46:01 ↗ heard about a few weeks ago. Um I think

46:04 ↗ we need to take this paper newsletter

46:05 ↗ idea kind of seriously and kind of chew

46:07 ↗ on it. Like what was it? Three out of

46:09 ↗ four people said, "Yeah, we'd find value

46:11 ↗ in a paper newsletter." So um I'm going

46:13 ↗ to rely on kind of the communications

46:15 ↗ team and the administration to kind of

46:16 ↗ chew on chew on that idea a bit. Um and

46:20 ↗ then I think it's clear that cost of

46:22 ↗ living I mean every survey we get it's

46:24 ↗ clear cost of living rises

46:27 ↗ um very close to the top you know people

46:30 ↗ are struggling it's it's challenging

46:32 ↗ time people are stretching every dollar

46:33 ↗ they earn um even the task force um on

46:37 ↗ facilities is wanting to have a broader

46:40 ↗ conversation around cost of living right

46:42 ↗ now is this a good time so um anyways

46:45 ↗ those are just kind of some of my highle

46:47 ↗ reflections on it Well, and thanks

46:49 ↗ again,

46:51 ↗ Council Member Bray. I have one more

46:53 ↗ question. Um, so in addition to the

46:56 ↗ statistically valid survey done by ETC,

47:00 ↗ we also did a Hey everybody, if you want

47:02 ↗ to fill out the survey, um, we'd love to

47:05 ↗ hear from you. I'm kind of curious if

47:07 ↗ you have looked at, uh, the two sets of

47:09 ↗ results and how do they compare? I I

47:13 ↗ have the raw data. Um, I have not yet

47:16 ↗ put them side by side quite yet. So, we

47:18 ↗ have a we we received an additional 146

47:21 ↗ responses. Um, it will be interesting to

47:24 ↗ see similarities and differences

47:26 ↗ geograph geographically and

47:27 ↗ demographically because that has often

47:29 ↗ been a real driver in the difference in

47:32 ↗ the priorities, but that is a that is a

47:34 ↗ later this week activity. So, it will be

47:36 ↗ ready for you for July. That'll be cool.

47:37 ↗ Well, I mean, I'm just really curious

47:39 ↗ because one uh population opted in and

47:42 ↗ so they they had a different kind of

47:44 ↗ motivation than the survey showed up and

47:46 ↗ I was asked to participate and so I'm

47:48 ↗ just curious to see if they're um

47:51 ↗ similar, dissimilar, how they vary. So,

47:54 ↗ um thank you for doing that. That'll be

47:55 ↗ just fascinating to see.

47:59 ↗ Deputy Council President D. Michelle.

48:03 ↗ Thank you. Um, just following up on

48:05 ↗ Council Member Joe and Councelor Nar

48:07 ↗ Hall's uh, comments, uh, if we were to

48:10 ↗ have a focus group, the one area when I

48:12 ↗ was looking at it that I had more

48:13 ↗ questions was, um, this idea of flow of

48:16 ↗ traffic was like my first impression

48:19 ↗ was, oh, that's front street in Newport

48:21 ↗ and in the Highlanders Drive. Uh, and

48:23 ↗ then I thought, well, you know, I don't

48:25 ↗ know that for sure. It would be really

48:27 ↗ nice to sit down with a group of people

48:29 ↗ and what what did you mean when you said

48:32 ↗ flow? Uh, and are we talking about great

48:35 ↗ big construction projects? Are we

48:37 ↗ talking about little fixes like uh

48:40 ↗ making it easier to take a right-hand

48:41 ↗ turn? You know, those little fixes that

48:44 ↗ sometimes get the flow working. Great.

48:46 ↗ So, uh, yeah, I think I think the idea

48:49 ↗ that we ask people their further

48:52 ↗ thoughts about what they uh were

48:54 ↗ thinking when they filled out the the uh

48:56 ↗ survey would be actually very

48:58 ↗ enlightening. Um, the other thing I

49:00 ↗ noticed is only 2% of the people said

49:02 ↗ that they actually take transit, but

49:04 ↗ then it would ended up with one of the

49:06 ↗ lowest scores in

49:08 ↗ satisfaction. And so it um, yeah, it it

49:12 ↗ does make sense, but it also says to me,

49:14 ↗ are there a lot of people out there that

49:16 ↗ if we had better transit services, they

49:18 ↗ would be uh potential customers? And so

49:21 ↗ again, uh, sitting down with people and

49:23 ↗ and going a little bit deeper, delving a

49:25 ↗ little deeper into what the, uh,

49:27 ↗ responses were, I think would be, uh, a

49:30 ↗ really good idea. So I I just want to

49:32 ↗ plus, uh, one, everything that was said

49:35 ↗ earlier.

49:36 ↗ Um, oh, and the last thing is I did go

49:40 ↗ and read all the comments at the end.

49:42 ↗ They're always the best part of any

49:44 ↗ survey. Uh, is people are uh, don't

49:48 ↗ mince words, do they?

49:51 ↗ So, uh, so I would commend anybody to

49:54 ↗ that. It's the last piece of the of the

49:58 ↗ data that we received, but it was well

50:00 ↗ worth sitting and reading through all of

50:02 ↗ those. And, uh, yeah, this is a, like

50:04 ↗ you said, it's going to take some time

50:06 ↗ for us to absorb all this information.

50:08 ↗ Thank you, Council Member Jen. Yeah, I

50:12 ↗ wanted to second what um, everyone said

50:14 ↗ so far. And, um, like Deputy Council

50:17 ↗ President D. Michelle, I did have a

50:18 ↗ great time reading through all the

50:20 ↗ comments. Um, which also, you know,

50:22 ↗ provides some color on specific, you

50:24 ↗ know, traffic issues that folks had. Um,

50:27 ↗ one comment that really stuck with me,

50:30 ↗ um, about the traffic thing specifically

50:32 ↗ was this perception that we think this

50:36 ↗ person had the perception that, you

50:37 ↗ know, we have no plan to solve traffic

50:39 ↗ other than hoping that widening Highway

50:41 ↗ 18 is going to solve all of our

50:42 ↗ problems. And I think I mean, you know,

50:45 ↗ maybe that's not what we're actually

50:46 ↗ saying, but that's the message that

50:48 ↗ they've gotten through the messaging.

50:49 ↗ And so I think I we need to emphasize,

50:51 ↗ you know, actually maybe part of how we

50:53 ↗ solve traffic is making it so that

50:54 ↗ people don't have to drive to the store

50:55 ↗ and they can walk in their neighborhoods

50:57 ↗ and like those types of things like, you

50:58 ↗ know, kind of expanding what the

51:00 ↗ solution space looks like and what we're

51:02 ↗ talking about because I think especially

51:04 ↗ given what we're seeing at the state

51:05 ↗ level, that's not something we can be

51:06 ↗ relying on. Um, and I think one thing

51:09 ↗ interesting in the um, comments as well

51:12 ↗ was that, you know, there's obviously

51:14 ↗ people that like basically fundamentally

51:16 ↗ degree disagree on some issues. Like

51:17 ↗ some people are like, "Oh, we should do

51:18 ↗ this." And some people say, "No, we

51:20 ↗ should do the exact opposite of that."

51:22 ↗ Um, so it's interesting to see both. Um,

51:25 ↗ and you know, there's a diversity of

51:26 ↗ opinions within our community and

51:28 ↗ ultimately, you know, it's our job to

51:30 ↗ kind of parse through all that and

51:32 ↗ figure out, you know, what's what's the

51:35 ↗ direction that makes sense for our

51:36 ↗ community and we aren't necessarily

51:38 ↗ always going to make everyone happy. Um,

51:40 ↗ on also to um go to what council member

51:43 ↗ Ray was saying earlier, you know, things

51:45 ↗ that people think are going well get,

51:47 ↗ you know, discounted in importance.

51:49 ↗ Things that people think aren't doing

51:50 ↗ well get boosted up in importance. like

51:52 ↗ everyone's like, "Oh, traffic's the

51:53 ↗ biggest issue because it's not going

51:54 ↗ well." But if the emergency services

51:57 ↗ were not arriving on time, that would

51:58 ↗ immediately become the biggest issue.

52:00 ↗ So, I think it's, you know, I think it's

52:03 ↗ it's interesting just to see how that

52:05 ↗ kind of affects people's perception of

52:08 ↗ importance. Um, and yeah, I think it's

52:11 ↗ great that, you know, so many folks

52:12 ↗ responded to the survey. I definitely

52:14 ↗ got a lot of um social media ads telling

52:16 ↗ me to participate, so the outreach

52:18 ↗ worked. Um, but yeah, definitely a lot

52:21 ↗ to digest.

52:25 ↗ Okay. Um, I think you're going to hear

52:27 ↗ much of the same from me that this is a

52:29 ↗ lot of good information and I do agree

52:33 ↗ with my fellow council members that

52:34 ↗ there's a lot to digest, but you know,

52:37 ↗ there are some things that people pay

52:39 ↗ attention to because it's one piece.

52:42 ↗ Whereas I think it is really important

52:45 ↗ to continue to go back to that 96% of

52:47 ↗ people think this is a great place to

52:49 ↗ live. And in fact I think that is quite

52:53 ↗ surprising to see on a survey. You you

52:55 ↗ think people respond to something

52:57 ↗ usually because they're upset because

53:00 ↗ they're frustrated at something. And in

53:02 ↗ this case what we are seeing is people

53:05 ↗ are giving their opinions on the place

53:08 ↗ that they live and the fact that they

53:10 ↗ love it here. Um, so I will be very

53:14 ↗ interested to hear from council members,

53:16 ↗ you know, as you absorb this

53:18 ↗ information, how you want us to talk

53:20 ↗ about it at the July retreat. Um, your

53:23 ↗ council leadership always has, you know,

53:25 ↗ the push and pull of, hey, we want to be

53:28 ↗ responsive to a lot of things, but we

53:30 ↗ also recognize we're in the first

53:32 ↗ portion of a two-year budget. And so how

53:35 ↗ how we look at those types of things and

53:39 ↗ um take in this

53:42 ↗ information. Um I think I will in some

53:46 ↗ ways disagree with something that you

53:48 ↗ said, Council Member Hall, in that I

53:51 ↗ still don't know what land use and

53:53 ↗ zoning means to most people. I think

53:55 ↗ through the comments you could

53:57 ↗ absolutely see that there was a lot of

53:59 ↗ concern about cost of living and

54:00 ↗ affordable housing, but I'm still not

54:02 ↗ sure that is what most people mean or

54:06 ↗ even that most people agree with each

54:09 ↗ other on land use and zoning. And so I

54:13 ↗ would be really interested in future

54:14 ↗ years if we just separated that out. I

54:17 ↗ think we really need clarity over

54:20 ↗ whether the more important issue to

54:23 ↗ people is affordable housing or housing

54:27 ↗ affordability, the built environment,

54:30 ↗ you know,

54:32 ↗ infrastructure, you know, other things

54:34 ↗ like that. I think

54:36 ↗ people's concerns

54:39 ↗ about

54:41 ↗ traffic can become concerns about

54:44 ↗ housing when we could disagregate them

54:47 ↗ again with that idea of having things

54:50 ↗ that people didn't have to get in their

54:51 ↗ car for and other things. And so when we

54:55 ↗ look at land use and zoning and see that

54:57 ↗ people are concerned about it but don't

54:58 ↗ know whether they're concerned

55:01 ↗ that there are many houses and thus they

55:05 ↗ think traffic or there aren't enough

55:08 ↗ houses and my kids can't move here. I I

55:12 ↗ think we just need to get a better

55:13 ↗ clearer answer on that.

55:17 ↗ Um I was really interested in the number

55:20 ↗ of people that were um said yes to a

55:23 ↗ printed newsletter. And so I think we

55:25 ↗ definitely should think through that.

55:28 ↗ Um, and then the other thing that I

55:30 ↗ thought was really interesting in

55:31 ↗ looking through the comments from folks

55:34 ↗ was how many

55:36 ↗ people, you would think with the high

55:38 ↗ school and the middle school and all of

55:40 ↗ the traffic in the area that a lot of

55:42 ↗ people would just be upset that there's

55:44 ↗ a lot of traffic, but I saw quite a

55:45 ↗ shift in perception on this one that

55:48 ↗ people recognized that it was because

55:50 ↗ the high school, Isqua High School, is

55:52 ↗ overcrowded and that they really wanted

55:54 ↗ us to work with the school district to

55:57 ↗ get that fourth high school built in

55:59 ↗ order to reduce that traffic. So, I

56:01 ↗ thought that was a very interesting

56:03 ↗ shift in people's perspectives that it

56:05 ↗ wasn't just those darn high schoolers

56:07 ↗ that are cutting through traffic, but

56:10 ↗ rather this is a problem because we have

56:13 ↗ too many students because we haven't

56:14 ↗ been able to build the fourth high

56:15 ↗ school. Um, so those were some of the

56:18 ↗ things that I heard off of that. Again,

56:20 ↗ I will be very interested as anything

56:22 ↗ comes up how you would like to discuss

56:25 ↗ this at the retreat. Um Dale, anything

56:29 ↗ else that you need off of this? Not on

56:32 ↗ this topic. Okay. Well, Derek, thank you

56:36 ↗ for joining us um for this and uh giving

56:39 ↗ us the information on this. Um our next

56:43 ↗ item is COM

56:45 ↗ 0146formational update 2024 citywide

56:48 ↗ performance measures. Wow. Dale, you're

56:50 ↗ up here again. This is the Dale Marky

56:53 ↗ crimp evening. Um, so item number two of

56:57 ↗ three for you coming

57:03 ↗ through. Give me one second to pull it

57:06 ↗ up.

57:27 ↗ Great. Thank you, council president,

57:30 ↗ members of the city council. Dale Marquy

57:31 ↗ Crimp, assistant to the city

57:32 ↗ administrator. Um, and I'm looking

57:34 ↗ forward to talking to you a bit about um

57:37 ↗ the next item on the agenda, the 2024

57:39 ↗ citywide performance measures.

57:42 ↗ The purpose of tonight's presentation is

57:45 ↗ to provide the city council with an

57:46 ↗ annual update on the citywide

57:48 ↗ performance

57:49 ↗ measures. Specifically to provide the

57:52 ↗ data and performance from 2024, this

57:54 ↗ most recent year, to present some trends

57:57 ↗ and analysis of the performance, and to

58:00 ↗ share a few planned changes and updates

58:03 ↗ for

58:05 ↗ 2025. In terms of direction needed this

58:07 ↗ evening, this is anformational update,

58:09 ↗ so there is no specific direction needed

58:11 ↗ from the city council on this item at

58:14 ↗ this time. However, I'm looking forward

58:15 ↗ to taking questions and hearing your

58:17 ↗ thoughts.

58:20 ↗ By way of a bit of background for the

58:22 ↗ council, um, for the the two people

58:26 ↗ listening on cable at home, um, the

58:29 ↗ citywide strategic plan, what the city's

58:32 ↗ first citywide strategic plan, the our

58:34 ↗ isqua strategic plan was adopted in

58:36 ↗ 2019. It seems to be the origin of many

58:39 ↗ things that I come to talk to you about.

58:41 ↗ Um, and following that adoption, the

58:43 ↗ citywide performance measurement plan

58:46 ↗ was developed in 2020 to make concrete a

58:50 ↗ plan for tracking progress towards the

58:52 ↗ strategic plans, goals, and objectives.

58:56 ↗ And this plan was adopted by the council

58:58 ↗ in late 2021 along or excuse me, in late

59:02 ↗ 2020 alongside the 2021 budget.

59:06 ↗ Since 2021, the focus of this plan has

59:10 ↗ been on collecting and understanding

59:12 ↗ understanding data and performance

59:14 ↗ related to the measures in the plan,

59:17 ↗ using it to where appropriate modify and

59:20 ↗ adjust programs and projects and lines

59:23 ↗ of service here at the city. In 2024,

59:27 ↗ the administration led an effort to

59:28 ↗ update the strategic plan, which

59:31 ↗ included suggested updates to the plan

59:33 ↗ success measures to align with each plan

59:39 ↗ objective. The performance measurement

59:41 ↗ plan that was adopted by council in 2020

59:44 ↗ is organized by our six strategic plan

59:47 ↗ goal areas. It provides specific

59:50 ↗ measures that make more observable and

59:54 ↗ measurable progress towards the

59:57 ↗ strategic plan success measures. It's a

1:00:00 ↗ mix of measures. So, it's a mix of

1:00:02 ↗ output measures, program outcome

1:00:04 ↗ measures, community perception measures,

1:00:07 ↗ a bunch of which we just heard about

1:00:09 ↗ from our uh vendor at ETC. and what I

1:00:13 ↗ have colloquially called vital signs.

1:00:15 ↗ These sort of community level health

1:00:17 ↗ indicators that aren't necessarily you

1:00:20 ↗ can't draw a straight line from them to

1:00:22 ↗ any one program, project, series of

1:00:25 ↗ projects um and are often very hard to

1:00:28 ↗ um are very hard to shift over short

1:00:30 ↗ periods of time because they're the

1:00:32 ↗ confluence of many um many different

1:00:36 ↗ actors. You can see here um not only a

1:00:40 ↗ definition of each of these types of

1:00:42 ↗ measures but also some examples of those

1:00:44 ↗ measures from our performance

1:00:46 ↗ measurement

1:00:48 ↗ plan. On this slide you can also see um

1:00:51 ↗ that there's the the the idea here is

1:00:53 ↗ that they're intended to give an idea of

1:00:55 ↗ how we're doing in pursuit of our

1:00:57 ↗ strategic plan. These measures didn't

1:00:59 ↗ just come out of thin air. They were

1:01:01 ↗ very much intended to help us understand

1:01:03 ↗ if we're making progress towards the

1:01:06 ↗ vision and goals outlined in the

1:01:09 ↗ plan. The purpose of the plan is to help

1:01:13 ↗ city departments set service levels and

1:01:16 ↗ modify and adjust service delivery. It's

1:01:18 ↗ to help the city council um and inform

1:01:21 ↗ budgetary and policy decisions based on

1:01:23 ↗ performance. And it's also helpful to

1:01:26 ↗ provide our residents and our business

1:01:28 ↗ owners, our visitors, our broader

1:01:30 ↗ community with increased transparency

1:01:32 ↗ into how we are performing as an

1:01:37 ↗ organization. Another important facet of

1:01:40 ↗ the performance measurement plan is our

1:01:42 ↗ citywide performance dashboard. This

1:01:44 ↗ dashboard is interactive. Um it was

1:01:47 ↗ launched in 2022 and it provides any

1:01:50 ↗ interested party. It's available

1:01:51 ↗ publicly on the web with a way of

1:01:53 ↗ looking at the data the performance data

1:01:56 ↗ over time. So being able to see from the

1:01:58 ↗ earliest data we have on some of these

1:02:00 ↗ measures which for many measures

1:02:02 ↗ actually predates the performance

1:02:03 ↗ measurement plan all the way up to the

1:02:06 ↗ most recent year to see how our

1:02:08 ↗ performance has improved or vacasillated

1:02:10 ↗ or in some cases not improved over time.

1:02:14 ↗ This uh dashboard is updated annually.

1:02:16 ↗ It is currently updated with 2024 uh

1:02:19 ↗ data. It actually also has some 2025 uh

1:02:23 ↗ survey data in it as well. Um but it is

1:02:25 ↗ set for 2024. Um and improvements were

1:02:28 ↗ made in 2023 to ensure the com that some

1:02:33 ↗ improvements were made to to ensure the

1:02:36 ↗ clarity of information um in the

1:02:38 ↗ dashboard uh was improved. I think

1:02:42 ↗ specifically some feedback we received

1:02:43 ↗ from the community was that it was hard

1:02:45 ↗ to understand exactly how year-over-year

1:02:49 ↗ performance had changed and so we made

1:02:51 ↗ some changes into how we reported to

1:02:53 ↗ make that percentage change uh more

1:02:56 ↗ available to the

1:02:58 ↗ public for the update today. Um and you

1:03:02 ↗ have a lot more information than what I

1:03:04 ↗ am going to necessarily walk through

1:03:05 ↗ this evening. Um but for

1:03:07 ↗ tonight'sformational update, I wanted to

1:03:09 ↗ provide some overarching trends, uh

1:03:12 ↗ performance by goal area, and some

1:03:15 ↗ thoughts specifically on measures where

1:03:16 ↗ the city has not seen um improvement

1:03:20 ↗ over the course of the last four to five

1:03:23 ↗ years. We'll start with the with the

1:03:25 ↗ good, which you can see here on the

1:03:27 ↗ screen.

1:03:28 ↗ Um 75% of measures that have targets

1:03:32 ↗ were approaching meeting or exceeding

1:03:33 ↗ those targets in 2024.

1:03:36 ↗ We're still waiting on data for two

1:03:38 ↗ measures um in social and economic

1:03:40 ↗ vitality and we'll get to those in a

1:03:41 ↗ moment. Um which is why the aggregate

1:03:44 ↗ count is lower than it was in 2023, but

1:03:46 ↗ we'll see that aggregate count um come

1:03:48 ↗ up when we have that data in early June.

1:03:51 ↗ Also, in 2024, we only had 14 um 14

1:03:56 ↗ targets that were not met. While this is

1:03:59 ↗ not the lowest percentage um of targets

1:04:02 ↗ not met, it is the strongest overall

1:04:04 ↗ performance that we've seen since the

1:04:06 ↗ inception of the program in 2021 and the

1:04:09 ↗ establishment of targets for all

1:04:11 ↗ measures were appropriate. I think one

1:04:13 ↗ of the most notable trends in this uh

1:04:16 ↗ graph is seeing over time that TBD

1:04:18 ↗ targets TBD has gone down from prior to

1:04:22 ↗ the program existing you know having far

1:04:25 ↗ almost all uh didn't have targets to now

1:04:27 ↗ being at a place where we only really

1:04:29 ↗ have two measures for which targets are

1:04:31 ↗ appropriate and are still to be

1:04:33 ↗ determined. So that's encouraging to see

1:04:35 ↗ here over

1:04:38 ↗ time all goal areas um in 2024 or perfor

1:04:43 ↗ were somewhere between 60 and 80%

1:04:46 ↗ approaching meeting or exceeding their

1:04:48 ↗ targets and you can see in the chart a

1:04:50 ↗ significant improvement in each goal

1:04:52 ↗ area from 2014 to 2024. I know that

1:04:56 ↗ color scheme is not always the most

1:04:57 ↗ visually inclusive way to share data,

1:05:00 ↗ but I do think there's something pretty

1:05:02 ↗ powerful about this visual. And seeing

1:05:04 ↗ lots of red to the left and seeing it

1:05:06 ↗ turn progressively greener to the right

1:05:09 ↗ here. This indicates to me um that

1:05:13 ↗ there's a pretty significant impact of

1:05:16 ↗ just putting a focus and attention on

1:05:19 ↗ data collection and reporting in the

1:05:21 ↗ first place.

1:05:22 ↗ um you know, you can't improve what

1:05:23 ↗ you're not looking at and what you're

1:05:24 ↗ not attending to. And I think given that

1:05:26 ↗ the focus of our program over the last

1:05:28 ↗ four to five years has really been

1:05:31 ↗ reporting and talking about the data

1:05:33 ↗ itself, we're already seeing improvement

1:05:35 ↗ just from knowing that this is something

1:05:36 ↗ we should be looking at that we're going

1:05:38 ↗ to be talking about and sharing

1:05:40 ↗ about. Also I think notable here is

1:05:42 ↗ there sort of and this actually came up

1:05:44 ↗ also in Derek's presentation about the

1:05:46 ↗ community survey is there sort of

1:05:48 ↗ vacasillation or leveling out in recent

1:05:51 ↗ years. Um we're seeing that

1:05:53 ↗ stabilization in our community survey

1:05:56 ↗ respon responses. We're also seeing a

1:05:58 ↗ little bit of stabilization here in

1:06:00 ↗ performance and that suggests that some

1:06:02 ↗ targets um are likely spot-on and are in

1:06:05 ↗ the right place and places where we're

1:06:07 ↗ not continuing to see improvement. It

1:06:09 ↗ bears asking whether or not those

1:06:12 ↗ targets are appropriate or there's

1:06:13 ↗ additional resources and investment

1:06:15 ↗ needed in some particular areas and

1:06:17 ↗ we'll talk about that a little bit later

1:06:18 ↗ in this

1:06:21 ↗ presentation. Now I'd like to share just

1:06:24 ↗ high level each from each goal area just

1:06:26 ↗ a few trends provide a little bit of um

1:06:29 ↗ a little bit of commentary on each of

1:06:31 ↗ these. It should be noted that in the

1:06:33 ↗ interactive dashboard, you can see a

1:06:36 ↗ narrative explanation of current year

1:06:39 ↗ performance for any of these um any of

1:06:43 ↗ these measures. So, you'll you might

1:06:44 ↗ notice, oh, Dale didn't talk about that

1:06:46 ↗ specific measure and its performance.

1:06:49 ↗ I'm going to focus more on where we're

1:06:51 ↗ not meeting our targets, but I do also

1:06:52 ↗ want to note where we've seen

1:06:54 ↗ improvement um because we have seen some

1:06:56 ↗ things change in the past year that is

1:06:58 ↗ really that that's pretty encouraging.

1:07:00 ↗ So starting with mobility performance

1:07:03 ↗ was approaching um met or exceeded for

1:07:06 ↗ 67% of measures where targets were

1:07:09 ↗ appropriate in mobility in terms of

1:07:12 ↗ things of of the four where we met

1:07:14 ↗ targets. Um we're meeting the level of

1:07:16 ↗ service commitments to fill potholes.

1:07:18 ↗ That's not new. Um but we did also see

1:07:20 ↗ year-over-year increases although small

1:07:23 ↗ in public transit and vanpool use. So

1:07:26 ↗ following for the CO 19 pandemic, we

1:07:29 ↗ really set an annual goal for some of

1:07:30 ↗ these services on just seeing increases

1:07:32 ↗ year-over-year. And it was encouraging

1:07:34 ↗ to continue to see those increases um in

1:07:37 ↗ 2024. In terms of targets where where we

1:07:40 ↗ were approaching our targets for each of

1:07:42 ↗ these measures, performance was just

1:07:44 ↗ below the target um or even in the case

1:07:47 ↗ of traffic related to collisions um

1:07:49 ↗ traffic um collisions on Isiqua

1:07:53 ↗ streets, it was within the margin of

1:07:55 ↗ error. So potentially I I had a nice

1:07:58 ↗ long argument with our with um our

1:08:00 ↗ public works engineering team about

1:08:02 ↗ whether or not this qualified as meeting

1:08:03 ↗ or approaching and I decided to go with

1:08:05 ↗ approaching. They argued it was

1:08:06 ↗ technically meeting the target. um but

1:08:08 ↗ within the margin of error there given

1:08:10 ↗ um the number of drivers on the street.

1:08:12 ↗ In terms of not met, there are three um

1:08:15 ↗ performance measures where we did not

1:08:16 ↗ meet our targets. I'm here to assuage

1:08:18 ↗ some of your fears. Um in terms of

1:08:21 ↗ linear feet of bicycle facility

1:08:22 ↗ constructed and walkways constructed, we

1:08:25 ↗ didn't meet our general annual target.

1:08:28 ↗ However, uh the focus in 2024 was not to

1:08:31 ↗ construct new bikeway or walkway. it was

1:08:33 ↗ to maintain our current bikeway and

1:08:35 ↗ walkway um infrastructure. And so this

1:08:39 ↗ involved a lot of work on high edges. It

1:08:41 ↗ involved a lot of work on curb uh ramp

1:08:43 ↗ replacement and also a lot of work on

1:08:46 ↗ cleaning and maintaining bike lanes. Um

1:08:48 ↗ also if you look at the historical data,

1:08:50 ↗ we're still exceeding far exceeding our

1:08:52 ↗ construction goals, our general

1:08:54 ↗ construction target. Last year I think

1:08:56 ↗ it was over double. Um and so I've been

1:08:59 ↗ assured that we shouldn't worry too much

1:09:00 ↗ about not meeting that this year.

1:09:03 ↗ One to to keep an eye on though and

1:09:04 ↗ we'll come back to is resident

1:09:06 ↗ perception of mobility. We have not met

1:09:09 ↗ our goal for our overall resident

1:09:11 ↗ perception of different mobility modes

1:09:13 ↗ since

1:09:14 ↗ 2014. Um satisfaction with public

1:09:17 ↗ transit actually was up slightly. Uh

1:09:19 ↗ this might be due to Metrolex. Um but

1:09:22 ↗ car satisfaction has dropped 9% um since

1:09:25 ↗ 2023. And so that's important to notice

1:09:28 ↗ as well. And then targets to be

1:09:30 ↗ determined. um car travel time. I think

1:09:32 ↗ this for for those of you old hat at

1:09:35 ↗ this, we had a very brief, very

1:09:37 ↗ wonderful um contract with Enrich where

1:09:40 ↗ we were able to get a bunch of car

1:09:42 ↗ travel time data on specific segments

1:09:45 ↗ throughout the city. That contract did

1:09:49 ↗ not extend past 2022. Um, and so while

1:09:52 ↗ we mined out as much data as we could,

1:09:55 ↗ our public works engineering team is

1:09:56 ↗ currently in the process of um,

1:10:00 ↗ identifying a new vendor contractor who

1:10:01 ↗ will be able to provide us car travel

1:10:03 ↗ time data. Um, and so they're they're in

1:10:06 ↗ the final stages of that, but hopefully

1:10:07 ↗ we'll be able to update this and then

1:10:09 ↗ establish some goals um, in the coming

1:10:13 ↗ year. Growth and development performance

1:10:17 ↗ approached met or exceeded targets for

1:10:19 ↗ 60% of measures in growth and

1:10:21 ↗ development where targets were

1:10:22 ↗ appropriate in 2024. I think encouraging

1:10:26 ↗ to see here was meeting some of our

1:10:28 ↗ first permit review times for the first

1:10:30 ↗ time in as long as I have put this data

1:10:33 ↗ together for you all. Um so in small

1:10:35 ↗ tenant improvement, large tenant

1:10:37 ↗ improvement, commercial and multif

1:10:38 ↗ family and preliminary plat um actually

1:10:41 ↗ meeting those targets and that's not

1:10:42 ↗ something that's been the case in

1:10:43 ↗ previous years.

1:10:45 ↗ Um in terms of approaching targets,

1:10:47 ↗ we've stayed relatively constant in the

1:10:49 ↗ number of permits issued by type. The

1:10:51 ↗ goal is the target there is to keep a

1:10:54 ↗ relatively constant number. It did dip

1:10:56 ↗ slightly in 2024 and so that moved from

1:10:59 ↗ meeting to approaching. And then in

1:11:01 ↗ terms of targets not met, first permit

1:11:03 ↗ review time, we're still not meeting our

1:11:05 ↗ target for single family or for short

1:11:07 ↗ plat affordable housing units created.

1:11:10 ↗ The target is a year-over-year increase,

1:11:12 ↗ but as we know well, development comes

1:11:14 ↗ in spurts. Um, we've had 54 new

1:11:17 ↗ affordable units created in the past six

1:11:19 ↗ years, but we have not seen any new

1:11:21 ↗ affordable units created in the last

1:11:22 ↗ two. And then permit center customer

1:11:25 ↗ experience. Um, this is actually the

1:11:26 ↗ first year that we've missed our

1:11:28 ↗ satisfaction target for this one. Um, we

1:11:30 ↗ have a target of 70% satisfied. um based

1:11:34 ↗ on those that fill out the survey. Uh

1:11:36 ↗ the conversation actually about our

1:11:38 ↗ survey methodology came up um and

1:11:41 ↗ whether or not we're actually providing

1:11:43 ↗ the survey at the right time to folks.

1:11:45 ↗ Uh the current approach is to provide it

1:11:47 ↗ twice a year to anyone that's had

1:11:49 ↗ certain that's engaged in services in

1:11:50 ↗ the past six months. um rather than

1:11:53 ↗ getting it at point of interaction. And

1:11:55 ↗ so looking into seeing if we can get

1:11:57 ↗ some potentially some different or more

1:11:59 ↗ accurate data versus the folks I think

1:12:01 ↗ as council president Walsh brought up,

1:12:03 ↗ people are really likely to fill out a

1:12:04 ↗ survey when they had a bad experience.

1:12:06 ↗ Um and the longer you get away from a

1:12:08 ↗ good experience, the less likely you

1:12:10 ↗ think that maybe you need to fill out

1:12:11 ↗ that survey or not. So we're going to

1:12:13 ↗ look into whether or not methodology

1:12:15 ↗ gives us different data and continue to

1:12:18 ↗ continue to toy with this one a little

1:12:19 ↗ bit.

1:12:21 ↗ environmental stewardship. This

1:12:23 ↗ continues to be unsurprisingly a place

1:12:25 ↗ where the city really shines.

1:12:28 ↗ Performance approached met or exceeded

1:12:29 ↗ targets for 80% of measures um in 2024

1:12:33 ↗ in this category. Um we have continued

1:12:35 ↗ strong performance across these measures

1:12:38 ↗ where we're meeting our targets. Uh

1:12:40 ↗ notable is that energy use for the first

1:12:43 ↗ time um is on a is on the correct trend

1:12:46 ↗ line. Um it is only one year of data. So

1:12:49 ↗ we we clearly need to see if this

1:12:51 ↗ continues. Um but it has been headed in

1:12:53 ↗ the opposite direction over the course

1:12:55 ↗ of the last 5 years. And so seeing a

1:12:58 ↗ decrease in overall you electricity use

1:13:00 ↗ per capita driven by a decrease in

1:13:03 ↗ commercial electricity use in

1:13:05 ↗ particular. Um so that was an

1:13:07 ↗ interesting and new trend not something

1:13:09 ↗ that we've seen in the past 5 years in

1:13:12 ↗ terms of not met materials diverted from

1:13:14 ↗ landfill. I think important to note

1:13:17 ↗ about this one, unlike some of our other

1:13:19 ↗ measures, this doesn't have an annual

1:13:20 ↗ target. So unlike electricity use, which

1:13:22 ↗ says year-over-year, uh, we want to see

1:13:25 ↗ a decline. This doesn't necessarily say

1:13:27 ↗ year-over-year we want to see an

1:13:28 ↗ increase in diversion. Instead, this is

1:13:31 ↗ benchmarked against our 70% diversion

1:13:34 ↗ goal. Um, and we did see improvement

1:13:38 ↗ actually in diversion this past year.

1:13:40 ↗ Um, but we're still far below our 70%

1:13:43 ↗ diversion goal. Um so specifically we

1:13:46 ↗ saw a 4% increase in residential

1:13:48 ↗ diversion, a 3% increase in commercial

1:13:50 ↗ diversion and a 1% increase in multif

1:13:52 ↗ family diversion. So challenges remain

1:13:55 ↗ there. Um and I've spoken this week with

1:13:58 ↗ our solid waste team about some of the

1:13:59 ↗ strategies they're employing. So that's

1:14:01 ↗ in a not met, but it's in a not met, but

1:14:04 ↗ we'll talk about it a little bit later

1:14:06 ↗ in terms of places where we haven't

1:14:07 ↗ historically met our goals and maybe

1:14:10 ↗ some potential next steps that we may

1:14:12 ↗ want to take. And then to be determined,

1:14:15 ↗ um we have one measure here in

1:14:18 ↗ environmental stewardship that we've

1:14:19 ↗ only started gathering data on in the

1:14:21 ↗ last two years. Um because we've only

1:14:24 ↗ gathered it for two years and because

1:14:25 ↗ this isn't something that is um has a

1:14:28 ↗ standard level of service at the state

1:14:30 ↗ or federal level, we're still trying to

1:14:31 ↗ determine exactly what our target should

1:14:33 ↗ be in terms of percentage of city-owned

1:14:36 ↗ streets receiving storm water

1:14:40 ↗ treatment, social and economic vitality.

1:14:43 ↗ um performance met, exceeded or

1:14:45 ↗ approached targets for 78% of the

1:14:47 ↗ measures where targets exist and data

1:14:49 ↗ has been collected. As I mentioned at

1:14:51 ↗ the top, this is the one category that

1:14:53 ↗ we're still waiting on data for two

1:14:55 ↗ measures specifically um total jobs in

1:14:58 ↗ Isiqua and percentage of people who work

1:15:00 ↗ and live in Isiqua. That's data that we

1:15:02 ↗ get externally. Um and we should have it

1:15:04 ↗ in early June and so we'll be able to

1:15:06 ↗ update um the we'll be able to update

1:15:08 ↗ the data and the dashboard at that

1:15:10 ↗ point. In terms of meeting targets, we

1:15:12 ↗ continue to meet many targets in this

1:15:15 ↗ particular goal area. Uh there's been a

1:15:17 ↗ positive trend notably in gross taxable

1:15:20 ↗ income for Isiqua businesses in 2024,

1:15:22 ↗ which is different than a downward trend

1:15:24 ↗ that we saw in

1:15:26 ↗ 2023. In terms of approaching um

1:15:29 ↗ percentage of human services partners

1:15:31 ↗ achieving one or more goals, we continue

1:15:33 ↗ we have an aspirational goal there of

1:15:35 ↗ 100% that a 100% of our partners are

1:15:37 ↗ achieving one or more of their goals.

1:15:40 ↗ um they get support from our human

1:15:42 ↗ services staff. However, we often have

1:15:44 ↗ new partners every year. So, some of

1:15:46 ↗ those that support ongoing support

1:15:48 ↗ doesn't necessarily translate when

1:15:50 ↗ you've got a brand new organization

1:15:52 ↗ you're supporting. And as I think our

1:15:54 ↗ own data has demonstrated over time that

1:15:57 ↗ maybe looking at a goal for the first

1:15:58 ↗ time or trying to pursue something for

1:16:00 ↗ the first time, uh you may not hit that

1:16:02 ↗ goal the first time around. So, we're

1:16:04 ↗ pretty close there and we remain in

1:16:05 ↗ approaching, but we have not yet we have

1:16:07 ↗ not yet hit that aspirational

1:16:09 ↗ 100%. Um, and I think that should bring

1:16:13 ↗ us to city leadership and services where

1:16:15 ↗ I'll share that performance has met,

1:16:18 ↗ exceeded or was approaching targets for

1:16:20 ↗ 67% of measures where applicable this

1:16:22 ↗ past year. Um, some key places where we

1:16:24 ↗ met um our goals. Volunteerism is up um

1:16:28 ↗ at least in terms of number of hours.

1:16:31 ↗ So, we've seen a number of hours

1:16:33 ↗ increase year-over-year as we've begun

1:16:35 ↗ to recover from the CO 19 pandemic. The

1:16:38 ↗ number of unique volunteers though did

1:16:40 ↗ drop slightly in 2024 compared to 2023.

1:16:43 ↗ Um, so more hours from slightly fewer

1:16:46 ↗ people. Uh, which is just an interesting

1:16:48 ↗ thing to think about, especially in some

1:16:49 ↗ of the bigger conversations we're having

1:16:51 ↗ about social cohesion, connection, and

1:16:54 ↗ engagement. Continuing to keep police

1:16:57 ↗ response times in a direction of

1:16:59 ↗ improvement. This came up in the

1:17:00 ↗ community survey. Um it's a place that

1:17:02 ↗ our community feels fairly satisfied. Um

1:17:06 ↗ we were not at any point with the

1:17:08 ↗ exception of one year really missing our

1:17:10 ↗ mark on any of our response times, but

1:17:11 ↗ we've continued to see uh decreasing

1:17:14 ↗ response times which is a good thing. um

1:17:16 ↗ especially over the past couple of years

1:17:19 ↗ in terms of approaching targets language

1:17:21 ↗ access another place where we have a

1:17:23 ↗ very we have an aspirational goal of

1:17:24 ↗ 100% of hard copy materials being

1:17:27 ↗ translated into at least Spanish and

1:17:29 ↗ Mandarin in addition to English um we

1:17:32 ↗ saw a drop actually in 2024 from 90% to

1:17:36 ↗ 85% in talking with our communications

1:17:38 ↗ team this was due to some materials

1:17:40 ↗ getting distributed before they could be

1:17:42 ↗ translated um so comms is working on

1:17:46 ↗ shoring up those processes with

1:17:47 ↗ departments to make sure that does not

1:17:49 ↗ happen moving

1:17:50 ↗ forward. Resident perception on uh

1:17:53 ↗ public safety is another place where

1:17:55 ↗ we're still approaching our target. That

1:17:57 ↗ 85% target is a holdover from our

1:18:00 ↗ previous surveys. I'll bring this back

1:18:02 ↗ up here in a moment, but one thing that

1:18:04 ↗ we saw is that our performance in that

1:18:06 ↗ out is far outperforming

1:18:09 ↗ um regional and national averages, which

1:18:11 ↗ begs the question, is that current

1:18:13 ↗ target still an appropriate target to

1:18:15 ↗ keep? And then not met, and you'll see

1:18:18 ↗ all these show up again in just a

1:18:19 ↗ moment, but racial equity training um

1:18:22 ↗ and antib-bias training hours, we

1:18:24 ↗ continue to fall short of the target set

1:18:26 ↗ for this in 2020. the demographics of

1:18:29 ↗ city applicant, staff, board, and

1:18:31 ↗ commission members being representative

1:18:33 ↗ of our community. We've actually

1:18:34 ↗ vacasillated um we we met that target a

1:18:38 ↗ couple of years ago and have seen since

1:18:40 ↗ seen um a reversion. Um and so that is

1:18:44 ↗ something to to think about as well. And

1:18:46 ↗ then customer um resident perception of

1:18:49 ↗ customer service and services. This is a

1:18:51 ↗ place where we continue to fall short of

1:18:52 ↗ our internal goal, but a place where at

1:18:55 ↗ least over the last two surveys, we've

1:18:57 ↗ been really lauded by ETC for

1:18:58 ↗ outperforming our regional and national

1:19:01 ↗ partners. And so, just another begs the

1:19:03 ↗ question of is it the right target? Um,

1:19:06 ↗ or should we be doing something

1:19:08 ↗ different? And then last, but certainly

1:19:10 ↗ not least, if my my infrastructure crew

1:19:13 ↗ from the strategic plan update were

1:19:15 ↗ here, they'd be very sad that we did

1:19:16 ↗ this one last. um as infrastructure is

1:19:18 ↗ the foundation of all that we do.

1:19:21 ↗ But encouragingly um performance met

1:19:25 ↗ exceeded or approached 79% of the

1:19:28 ↗ measures where a target has been set in

1:19:30 ↗ the infrastructure goal area. We're

1:19:32 ↗ continuing to meet service standards for

1:19:34 ↗ most infrastructure systems. Um we had

1:19:37 ↗ no water main breaks in 2024. I feel

1:19:39 ↗ like I should knock wood on that one. Um

1:19:41 ↗ but an exciting trend to see. In terms

1:19:44 ↗ of approaching, we did see a improvement

1:19:47 ↗ in sewer overflows, but we still had two

1:19:49 ↗ this past year. And we fell short of our

1:19:51 ↗ annual goal of cleaning 20% of the sewer

1:19:53 ↗ system, 19.2%, which is, you know, it's

1:19:57 ↗ within within scooping distance, but

1:19:59 ↗ just just short. Um, and we also

1:20:02 ↗ continue to fall short of our 80% goal

1:20:04 ↗ on resident perception of water

1:20:06 ↗ services. We had two targets that were

1:20:09 ↗ were decidedly not met. Um, one is on

1:20:11 ↗ the number of elicit discharge reports

1:20:13 ↗ that are filed by residents. We have a

1:20:15 ↗ goal to see this decrease

1:20:17 ↗ year-over-year. I think this is a very

1:20:20 ↗ odd um, measure to have a target for

1:20:23 ↗ given how little control the city has

1:20:25 ↗ over what's reported. Um, but I

1:20:28 ↗ understand it as a vital sign that if

1:20:32 ↗ community health generally we'd want to

1:20:33 ↗ see that target go down. Um, it's just

1:20:36 ↗ very hard to impact. And so if you look

1:20:37 ↗ in the dashboard, you'll see we have

1:20:39 ↗ years where we have many and then few

1:20:41 ↗ and then many and then few and then many

1:20:42 ↗ and then few. Um and then storm water

1:20:45 ↗ services. Um and this came up in the the

1:20:47 ↗ community survey results as well. We saw

1:20:50 ↗ a decrease um overall in resident

1:20:53 ↗ satisfaction with storm water services

1:20:55 ↗ when we switched survey vendors. Um but

1:20:58 ↗ it has remained steady over the past

1:20:59 ↗ three surveys and it is alone. It is

1:21:03 ↗ above our regional and national

1:21:04 ↗ benchmarks but it remains low compared

1:21:06 ↗ to um water and sewer which is just I

1:21:10 ↗ think a notable thing to think about

1:21:12 ↗ when we think about goals we think about

1:21:15 ↗ investments. So with that in mind I do

1:21:19 ↗ want to talk about um a handful of

1:21:22 ↗ measures where we have routinely missed

1:21:25 ↗ targets since this program's inception

1:21:27 ↗ and you can see them here on the screen.

1:21:29 ↗ resident perception of mobility, permit

1:21:32 ↗ review times for first review, even

1:21:34 ↗ though, as I noted, we've seen some

1:21:35 ↗ improvement in the in the most recent

1:21:37 ↗ year, percentage of materials diverted

1:21:39 ↗ from landfill. Again, although we've

1:21:41 ↗ seen a positive direction in 2024, total

1:21:44 ↗ hours of racial equity and antibbias

1:21:46 ↗ training, the demographic representation

1:21:49 ↗ of our um applicants, staff, and board

1:21:52 ↗ commission members, resident perception

1:21:54 ↗ of city services, and resident

1:21:57 ↗ perception of storm water

1:22:00 ↗ infrastructure. Our targets as a piece

1:22:03 ↗ of history when they were determined

1:22:05 ↗ originally were determined in a few

1:22:06 ↗ different ways. They were some were

1:22:09 ↗ determined by state and federal

1:22:11 ↗ requirements. Some were determined by

1:22:13 ↗ previous

1:22:15 ↗ performance. Some were determined by

1:22:17 ↗ industry

1:22:19 ↗ standards. Some were determined by

1:22:21 ↗ performance in other communities that

1:22:24 ↗ were already tracking this data, whether

1:22:25 ↗ that was regionally or nationally. And

1:22:28 ↗ some were aspirational goals. So, we

1:22:30 ↗ said, "Yeah, we want to hit 100% on

1:22:32 ↗ this."

1:22:34 ↗ When a measure um over time continuously

1:22:37 ↗ fails to meet a target or make progress

1:22:40 ↗ towards a target, that may lead to

1:22:43 ↗ consideration of a couple of different

1:22:45 ↗ options moving forward. It may mean that

1:22:47 ↗ that target or excuse me, that measure

1:22:50 ↗ just needs additional emphasis and that

1:22:52 ↗ could look like staff time and capacity.

1:22:54 ↗ Um that could look like letting

1:22:56 ↗ something letting a program run longer.

1:22:58 ↗ Um, you know, a few of these things

1:23:00 ↗ we've recently made investments in and

1:23:02 ↗ now we're starting to see maybe a little

1:23:04 ↗ bit of shift. Um, we just need to let

1:23:06 ↗ that run a little bit longer to see if

1:23:08 ↗ it's going to stick. Financial

1:23:10 ↗ investment. Um, or it could be a new

1:23:13 ↗ approach um to raise a level of service

1:23:15 ↗ or to um build a better understanding of

1:23:20 ↗ the community perception or to do some

1:23:22 ↗ community education on some topics.

1:23:24 ↗ Alternatively, it could also mean that a

1:23:26 ↗ target needs to be reconsidered, that we

1:23:28 ↗ have enough data at this point to say

1:23:30 ↗ like, I'm not sure this is the right

1:23:32 ↗ target that we should be aiming at. And

1:23:34 ↗ this could be the case when we have data

1:23:37 ↗ to indicate the city target might be too

1:23:39 ↗ high. um when there's no regional

1:23:42 ↗ benchmark that exceeds our current

1:23:44 ↗ performance or we simply do not have the

1:23:47 ↗ ability to commit more staff time,

1:23:50 ↗ capaci capacity, financial resources um

1:23:53 ↗ to the corresponding projects um related

1:23:56 ↗ to that measure and target.

1:23:59 ↗ So in looking at the places where we've

1:24:01 ↗ routinely fallen short of our

1:24:02 ↗ expectations over the last few years, um

1:24:06 ↗ I think it's it's currently the thinking

1:24:09 ↗ that this is sort of the the best way

1:24:10 ↗ potentially to move forward with each of

1:24:13 ↗ these measures that mobility, first

1:24:16 ↗ review times, and percentage of

1:24:18 ↗ materials diverted from landfill fall

1:24:21 ↗ into the category of continued emphasis

1:24:23 ↗ that there's some need to see through

1:24:25 ↗ the investments we've already made. um

1:24:27 ↗ you are well familiar with the the

1:24:29 ↗ permit work that's being done. You're

1:24:30 ↗ well familiar with um the solid waste,

1:24:33 ↗ the new solid waste program, the new

1:24:34 ↗ solid waste contract that's a few years

1:24:36 ↗ old now. Um we're suggesting at this

1:24:39 ↗ point stay the course. In terms of some

1:24:41 ↗ of these other measures on the right

1:24:43 ↗ hand side, you can see there's a little

1:24:44 ↗ bit of a combo. Um, in city leadership

1:24:46 ↗ and services, there's a thinking that

1:24:48 ↗ potentially our total hours of of

1:24:51 ↗ training for racial equity and anti and

1:24:53 ↗ um, implicit bias, which is at 5 hours a

1:24:56 ↗ year, might be a little bit high. Um,

1:24:59 ↗ it's un where we want to do a little bit

1:25:01 ↗ of learning as to how many hours are

1:25:03 ↗ other jurisdictions having their uh,

1:25:06 ↗ staff do. Um, that five especially,

1:25:09 ↗ we're not suggesting lowering it to one

1:25:11 ↗ hour or less, but five might be too many

1:25:14 ↗ hours. um given current staff

1:25:16 ↗ capacity, demographic representation of

1:25:19 ↗ applicant staff and board and commission

1:25:20 ↗ members. We think the reversion from

1:25:23 ↗ meeting that target earlier in in 2022

1:25:26 ↗ and 2023, we think it's worth

1:25:29 ↗ re-emphasizing and better understanding

1:25:31 ↗ why we saw that reversion. Um some of

1:25:34 ↗ this makes sense what with our staff

1:25:35 ↗ reductions in the past year. Um but

1:25:37 ↗ really getting a better understanding of

1:25:39 ↗ when folks if they're leaving of their

1:25:42 ↗ own choice why they might be doing that

1:25:43 ↗ and so HR is aware of this trend um and

1:25:45 ↗ wants to look a bit more closely at why

1:25:47 ↗ we might be trending in that

1:25:49 ↗ direction. Resident perception of

1:25:51 ↗ overall quality of city service and

1:25:53 ↗ services. This is a tough one because

1:25:55 ↗ it's one where I think we want to

1:25:57 ↗ continue to hold a really high bar but

1:25:59 ↗ we are continually told by external

1:26:01 ↗ external f external actors like etc

1:26:04 ↗ you're kicking it out of the park. 67

1:26:07 ↗ 66% that's far above the national

1:26:11 ↗ average. Should we be reconsidering our

1:26:13 ↗ 80% goal? Not lowering it dramatically.

1:26:16 ↗ It should still be aspirational, but

1:26:17 ↗ should it be 70%. Based on what we're

1:26:19 ↗ seeing nationwide and then

1:26:21 ↗ infrastructure, the storm water um the

1:26:24 ↗ resident perception of storm water

1:26:25 ↗ infrastructure has already been talked

1:26:27 ↗ about. Um you know, we've seen some

1:26:29 ↗ reductions in in pavement um investment.

1:26:32 ↗ you know, what what are things looking

1:26:33 ↗ like in terms of storm water

1:26:34 ↗ infrastructure, in terms of the

1:26:35 ↗ investment that we're making in our

1:26:37 ↗ storm water infrastructure? Is it

1:26:38 ↗ keeping pace with water and sewer in a

1:26:41 ↗ way that we um would expect it to

1:26:44 ↗ perform as highly in residents

1:26:45 ↗ perception in terms of how they feel

1:26:48 ↗ about those uh

1:26:50 ↗ services. So, with that in mind, I want

1:26:52 ↗ to give a brief update about what's

1:26:54 ↗ going to look new and different in 2025,

1:26:56 ↗ and then I'll pause for questions and

1:26:58 ↗ feedback. Um, as you well know, in 2024,

1:27:02 ↗ the mayor established a community task

1:27:04 ↗ force to provide recommendations on the

1:27:06 ↗ RS Isiqua strategic plan. And those

1:27:09 ↗ updates, which were focused on the

1:27:11 ↗ objectives and actions within the plan,

1:27:13 ↗ also had recommendations on revising and

1:27:15 ↗ updating the success measures within the

1:27:17 ↗ plan as they corresponded with the

1:27:19 ↗ actions and objectives. Data on these

1:27:22 ↗ new or revised measures in the plan is

1:27:25 ↗ beginning this year in 2025. Um and

1:27:28 ↗ starting in 2026, these measures will be

1:27:30 ↗ incorporated into the annual performance

1:27:32 ↗ measurement reporting. And so you should

1:27:34 ↗ expect to see the data um on the

1:27:36 ↗ measures for which we will have data

1:27:38 ↗ available when I'm back here presenting

1:27:41 ↗ um in a year's

1:27:43 ↗ time. In terms of timing and next steps,

1:27:46 ↗ um we're going to continue to analyze

1:27:47 ↗ and use the data from 2024 to modify and

1:27:51 ↗ adjust our programs and projects in the

1:27:53 ↗ current year. We'll continue to collect

1:27:55 ↗ that legacy the data on our legacy

1:27:57 ↗ measures, the ones that are in the

1:27:58 ↗ original plan and start collection on

1:28:00 ↗ new measures here from the strategic

1:28:02 ↗ plan update this year. And for all of

1:28:04 ↗ you um continue to look at this data,

1:28:07 ↗ please take a look at the performance

1:28:09 ↗ dashboard and know that you should um

1:28:12 ↗ feel free to use it alongside your

1:28:13 ↗ community survey data at your retreat in

1:28:16 ↗ July. And now I'll take questions.

1:28:20 ↗ Okay, Council Member Jen. Um, are we

1:28:23 ↗ allowed to like give suggestions on

1:28:26 ↗ specific metrics or things that we'd

1:28:28 ↗ like to see or is that not part of this

1:28:30 ↗ discussion? You can share them. Um, in

1:28:32 ↗ terms of ch it won't be incorporated

1:28:34 ↗ into changes in the plan, but I'm always

1:28:36 ↗ eager to hear things that you'd like to

1:28:38 ↗ see data on. Okay, cool. Um, yeah, I

1:28:43 ↗ mean, so this is great. Thank you so

1:28:45 ↗ much for tracking all this data. And you

1:28:47 ↗ know, I I think one of my friends who's

1:28:49 ↗ a data scientist was like, "Wow,

1:28:50 ↗ Isaakqua has this like dashboard that's

1:28:52 ↗ available to the public. I can see how

1:28:54 ↗ you're doing on everything. That's

1:28:54 ↗ really cool for a city of 40,000

1:28:56 ↗ people." So, um, I wanted to pass that

1:28:58 ↗ feedback along. Um, so on growth and

1:29:01 ↗ development, you know, when we were

1:29:03 ↗ talking about the community survey

1:29:04 ↗ earlier, it seems like affordability is

1:29:05 ↗ a big concern to people and there's

1:29:08 ↗ really nothing in our growth and

1:29:09 ↗ development metrics that's related to

1:29:11 ↗ affordability other than the number of

1:29:14 ↗ subsidized affordable housing units

1:29:15 ↗ created. I would love to see something

1:29:17 ↗ that's like what percentage of units are

1:29:19 ↗ affordable to, you know, 30 60 80 100%

1:29:22 ↗ of AMI and have that be something that

1:29:24 ↗ we track every year, every other year.

1:29:26 ↗ Um, and that really does need to include

1:29:27 ↗ naturally occurring affordable housing

1:29:29 ↗ as well, not just uh subsidized units.

1:29:32 ↗ Um, on the environmental sustainability

1:29:34 ↗ piece, I was very surprised that there's

1:29:36 ↗ no explicit climate related target here.

1:29:38 ↗ There's nothing here that's like

1:29:39 ↗ emissions per person needs to be going

1:29:41 ↗ down. Instead, we have electricity use

1:29:43 ↗ per person, which actually when you're

1:29:45 ↗ like, oh, commercial electricity use

1:29:46 ↗ went down. Is that actually a good

1:29:49 ↗ thing? Like is that might be due to, you

1:29:51 ↗ know, declining commercial activity,

1:29:54 ↗ which I don't know if that's good. Um,

1:29:55 ↗ and you know, as we're trying to get

1:29:57 ↗ folks to move to EVs, heat pumps,

1:29:58 ↗ electricity use is going to go up, and

1:30:00 ↗ that's good. We should expect to see

1:30:02 ↗ electricity growth. And so, I think

1:30:04 ↗ having that as our metric is kind of

1:30:05 ↗ problematic, especially if we're not

1:30:07 ↗ including things like how much gas are

1:30:09 ↗ people putting in their cars to drive

1:30:10 ↗ around, how much gas are people, you

1:30:12 ↗ know, natural gas are people using to

1:30:13 ↗ heat their homes. Um,

1:30:17 ↗ um, okay. on social and economic

1:30:19 ↗ vitality. I think um this could be an

1:30:22 ↗ area where you know some of the work

1:30:23 ↗ that you've been doing on uh you know

1:30:25 ↗ social connectedness could fit in here

1:30:27 ↗ as well like some metric on the

1:30:28 ↗ community survey of how do how connected

1:30:30 ↗ do people feel with their communities

1:30:33 ↗ um and also on the economic vitality

1:30:35 ↗ piece I think you know stuff related

1:30:37 ↗ we've talked in previous meetings about

1:30:40 ↗ how commercial space is a big concern

1:30:42 ↗ for businesses in Isiqua having data on

1:30:44 ↗ like how much commercial space is there

1:30:46 ↗ how what what are the vacancy rates um

1:30:48 ↗ so we can you know have data on that.

1:30:51 ↗ Um, and then on the city leadership and

1:30:54 ↗ services, I totally agree that um, the

1:30:56 ↗ number of hours spent on equity training

1:30:58 ↗ is maybe not the best metric cuz that's

1:30:59 ↗ not really something it's like, you

1:31:01 ↗ know, if you're an average citizen of

1:31:03 ↗ Isqua and you're like, I want our city

1:31:04 ↗ to support equity. I don't care if city

1:31:08 ↗ staff are, you know, doing implicit bias

1:31:10 ↗ training, the data on how well that

1:31:12 ↗ works is honestly kind of mixed. And I

1:31:14 ↗ think focusing more on, you know, the

1:31:16 ↗ actual results of demographic of city

1:31:17 ↗ staff and board and commission members

1:31:19 ↗ is more of like, you know, a material

1:31:21 ↗ outcome that we should be focusing on.

1:31:22 ↗ So I think that's one that um I agree

1:31:25 ↗ that we should focus on.

1:31:29 ↗ Excellent. Um Council Member Joe,

1:31:31 ↗ questions.

1:31:33 ↗ Thank you. Thank you. I wanted to

1:31:34 ↗ continue the conversation on city

1:31:36 ↗ leadership and services related to total

1:31:38 ↗ hours of racial equity and implicit bias

1:31:41 ↗ training and the demographic

1:31:42 ↗ representation of city

1:31:45 ↗ applicants. How do you view those two as

1:31:48 ↗ being interconnected in the sense that

1:31:50 ↗ if we have HR just to pick on HR because

1:31:54 ↗ it does hire people if they had more

1:31:57 ↗ experience or more total hours of

1:31:59 ↗ exposure to racial equity and implicit

1:32:01 ↗ bias. Does that change how we recruit

1:32:04 ↗ and how we interview and how we perceive

1:32:07 ↗ the candidates and accept candidates

1:32:10 ↗ that might not fit the ideal profile for

1:32:13 ↗ a proquarterback or a human resources

1:32:16 ↗ manager, whatever the case may be,

1:32:18 ↗ right? And have you seen in your

1:32:20 ↗ experience

1:32:22 ↗ um more hours equal better demographic

1:32:26 ↗ representation or the opposite? And I'm

1:32:29 ↗ wondering if you could take a look and

1:32:31 ↗ see how they might be related and if

1:32:32 ↗ there's any literature out there that

1:32:34 ↗ could help inform our decisions a little

1:32:36 ↗ bit better. Yeah, absolutely. The theor

1:32:39 ↗ the theory would be that they do there

1:32:41 ↗ is maybe not a onetoone but there's some

1:32:44 ↗ correlation as council member Jang

1:32:46 ↗ brings up the data on that is mixed on

1:32:48 ↗ the efficacy of that there the theory

1:32:51 ↗ and the actuality is not necessarily

1:32:53 ↗ always true um because simply sitting in

1:32:56 ↗ training does not necessarily mean that

1:32:57 ↗ it's effective training doesn't mean

1:32:58 ↗ that your perspectives or your lens has

1:33:01 ↗ really grown or changed um over time too

1:33:04 ↗ so yeah no I appreciate that and it's

1:33:07 ↗ kind of a new wildfront frontier for us

1:33:10 ↗ in this area. It's something that we

1:33:12 ↗ don't have a great deal of experience

1:33:13 ↗ with. We have experiences that we might

1:33:16 ↗ have in our heart and things that we

1:33:18 ↗ might have perceived and seen, but is

1:33:21 ↗ that real actual data and data that you

1:33:24 ↗ can you can tie to and study and learn

1:33:27 ↗ from? So, I would just be interested to

1:33:29 ↗ see how that is coming along. Thank you.

1:33:34 ↗ Any other questions? Deputy Council

1:33:37 ↗ President D. Michelle.

1:33:39 ↗ Um, so, and this may very well be

1:33:43 ↗ explained when you look at the

1:33:44 ↗ dashboard, but um, under social economic

1:33:48 ↗ vitality, the number of human services

1:33:50 ↗ program beneficiaries supported through

1:33:52 ↗ city funding actually, you know, that's

1:33:54 ↗ one where we don't want the numbers to

1:33:56 ↗ go up, I

1:33:57 ↗ presume, because that means uh, things

1:34:01 ↗ are falling apart somewhere. So um uh it

1:34:05 ↗ says targets met. So tell me just a

1:34:07 ↗ little bit about that. What is what is

1:34:10 ↗ how how is that measurement showing

1:34:12 ↗ whether we're actually doing a good job

1:34:15 ↗ or whether it is the environment that is

1:34:18 ↗ in trouble? Yeah. The real one that I

1:34:20 ↗ look at when it comes to is the

1:34:22 ↗ environment in trouble and the reason we

1:34:23 ↗ don't have a target is on the food bank

1:34:26 ↗ measure in particular. Um, so we know

1:34:28 ↗ that we we don't want to set a target on

1:34:31 ↗ how many members of the community are

1:34:33 ↗ using the food bank. It's more of the

1:34:35 ↗ the vital sign. It's more of having an

1:34:37 ↗ awareness of what's going on. In terms

1:34:39 ↗ of our human services program

1:34:40 ↗ beneficiaries supported through city

1:34:42 ↗ funding really for for in terms of that

1:34:46 ↗ measure in particular, we're just

1:34:47 ↗ keeping track of how many people are

1:34:49 ↗ being reached. Um, so it's not

1:34:52 ↗ necessarily that we'd want to see it go

1:34:54 ↗ up. Um, but we're keeping an eye on just

1:34:57 ↗ how effective is are our dollars, our

1:35:00 ↗ sort of dollar investment per

1:35:02 ↗ capita.

1:35:05 ↗ Yeah. Okay. Any other

1:35:08 ↗ questions? Okay. Looking to the public.

1:35:12 ↗ Um, anybody online or in person that um

1:35:16 ↗ wants to make a comment? If you are on

1:35:18 ↗ the phone, press star three. If you are

1:35:20 ↗ on a smartphone or computer, raise the

1:35:23 ↗ hand icon or send the host a chat

1:35:25 ↗ message and I will look around and see

1:35:29 ↗ if there are is any interest in making

1:35:32 ↗ public comment. Not seeing any. Okay,

1:35:34 ↗ going back to council members for any

1:35:41 ↗ feedback. Who wants to start us off? or

1:35:45 ↗ we just so impressed with all of the

1:35:47 ↗ data and at this point just getting a

1:35:49 ↗ little glazed over from everything that

1:35:52 ↗ we are looking at. I guess my question

1:35:56 ↗ um kind of for Dale is you've

1:35:59 ↗ represented a few areas where we you

1:36:03 ↗ know have not consistently met the um

1:36:08 ↗ the goals and the criteria. And so you

1:36:10 ↗ indicated a few where maybe we want to

1:36:12 ↗ make adjustments, a few where um we

1:36:16 ↗ still feel like emphasis is needed. Is

1:36:19 ↗ there any feedback from council members

1:36:21 ↗ on that approach? Are we comfortable

1:36:24 ↗ with the administration making those

1:36:26 ↗ changes that have been highlighted here?

1:36:29 ↗ Is there any I'm just going to try and

1:36:31 ↗ pull feedback out from you, Council

1:36:33 ↗ Member Hall.

1:36:35 ↗ Um yeah, and I have some feedback there

1:36:38 ↗ and some kind of general um takeaways. I

1:36:41 ↗ didn't raise my mic right at first cuz

1:36:43 ↗ I'm This storm water thing is bugging

1:36:45 ↗ me. Like I just it puzzles me to no end,

1:36:48 ↗ too. Cuz also I don't This also seems

1:36:51 ↗ like another thing that might not be

1:36:53 ↗ like super well understood when someone

1:36:55 ↗ says storm water. Like what a storm

1:36:56 ↗ water facility is in the first place is

1:36:58 ↗ not generally understood because it can

1:37:00 ↗ be so many different kinds of

1:37:02 ↗ infrastructure.

1:37:04 ↗ Um, anyways, that's there's really no

1:37:07 ↗ way to Anyways, I'll just throw that out

1:37:09 ↗ there. Um, the racial equity and

1:37:11 ↗ implicit bias training, um, I noticed in

1:37:14 ↗ the packet or in the memo there was a

1:37:17 ↗ reference to council. Is the,

1:37:20 ↗ um, metric inclusive of council

1:37:23 ↗ receiving training as well? You know, it

1:37:26 ↗ it's not currently. It's board. It's

1:37:27 ↗ boards and commissions. Um, not council.

1:37:31 ↗ Okay. Thank you. Um, all right. So,

1:37:34 ↗ well, anyways, general feedback. It did

1:37:36 ↗ seem like things in general were

1:37:37 ↗ trending in the right direction. Um,

1:37:39 ↗ some notable exceptions in like growth

1:37:41 ↗ and development, social and economic

1:37:43 ↗ vitality, which like you mentioned goes

1:37:45 ↗ really handinhand with kind of what we

1:37:46 ↗ heard from the community and the survey.

1:37:48 ↗ Um, especially around emphasizing

1:37:50 ↗ housing and cost of living.

1:37:53 ↗ Um, definitely a takeaway to uh continue

1:37:56 ↗ all of our good work and permit review

1:37:57 ↗ improvements and and the landfill

1:37:59 ↗ diversion programming which you

1:38:00 ↗ mentioned. Um again the storm water bit

1:38:03 ↗ is puzzling and there's no answer in my

1:38:04 ↗ brain there. I don't um I I wonder if

1:38:07 ↗ even that's a useful measure because we

1:38:10 ↗ have some other storm water measures

1:38:12 ↗ around discharge. I mean things that are

1:38:14 ↗ more actually infrastructury that we can

1:38:17 ↗ use something with resident perception

1:38:19 ↗ of storm water facilities. I don't

1:38:21 ↗ necessarily know what I would what I

1:38:24 ↗ would do with that. So maybe that's

1:38:25 ↗ something to turn on a little bit. Um, I

1:38:28 ↗ do agree with you that the 80% positive

1:38:31 ↗ target for perception of overall city

1:38:33 ↗ services seems high. Um, I think you

1:38:36 ↗ made a good case there, especially

1:38:38 ↗ because really anyone can project

1:38:40 ↗ anything onto that metric depending on

1:38:42 ↗ what their last experience with the city

1:38:44 ↗ was. Um, so I would be in favor of kind

1:38:47 ↗ of working on that measure and then the

1:38:49 ↗ other measures as you've identified

1:38:51 ↗ here. I think you've got a good plan of

1:38:53 ↗ attack. Those are general thoughts.

1:38:59 ↗ Okay. Uh, Council Member Ray,

1:39:04 ↗ this may just be because you just did

1:39:06 ↗ the community survey, but I think it

1:39:08 ↗ would be really interesting to

1:39:09 ↗ superimpose related items from the

1:39:11 ↗ community survey over your performance

1:39:13 ↗ measures and see what what how those

1:39:17 ↗ match up. So if we've got something

1:39:19 ↗ where uh we're we're crushing the

1:39:21 ↗ measure and yet satisfaction is low, you

1:39:24 ↗ know, maybe we need to figure out what's

1:39:26 ↗ wrong with the measure. And conversely,

1:39:29 ↗ if there's a target that uh we're

1:39:31 ↗ missing um but and satisfaction is high,

1:39:35 ↗ that's one where I think you say, "Oh,

1:39:37 ↗ maybe we're not measuring the right

1:39:39 ↗ thing or we don't have the right

1:39:40 ↗ target." And then you know and then for

1:39:43 ↗ to help focus decision- making and

1:39:45 ↗ policy building where we're missing the

1:39:47 ↗ target and the satisfaction is low. I

1:39:50 ↗ think that intersection point um is

1:39:52 ↗ where it might be interesting for us to

1:39:54 ↗ have a a really um hard discussion about

1:39:58 ↗ priorities and how do we address those

1:40:01 ↗ two things. But um you know I I know

1:40:04 ↗ there's not a even one to one certainly

1:40:06 ↗ but I think you can correlate these

1:40:08 ↗ things kind of relate to those things

1:40:10 ↗ and um see if there's any trends that

1:40:12 ↗ pop out and I think to the ones where

1:40:14 ↗ you say I think that this performance

1:40:17 ↗ measure we need to adjust um I think

1:40:21 ↗ pointing to something in the survey to

1:40:23 ↗ say huh you know this they don't they

1:40:27 ↗ don't align. So just a thought

1:40:32 ↗ I will also just throw out there I will

1:40:37 ↗ be interested to see the data points and

1:40:40 ↗ the performance measures um that the new

1:40:43 ↗ update to the plan has asked for

1:40:47 ↗ partially because I think that was a

1:40:49 ↗ really great update um and I'm

1:40:52 ↗ interested to see how we are measuring

1:40:54 ↗ those but also because I don't want us

1:40:57 ↗ to try and measure all of the things. I

1:41:01 ↗ want to make sure that what we are doing

1:41:02 ↗ is useful. And so if we are adding some,

1:41:07 ↗ I would like to use that as an

1:41:08 ↗ opportunity to just evaluate whether or

1:41:10 ↗ not everything we are currently

1:41:12 ↗ measuring is both useful and easy enough

1:41:16 ↗ to get and you know something that is

1:41:18 ↗ easy to maintain so that we are not

1:41:21 ↗ overburdening the system by adding and

1:41:24 ↗ not removing.

1:41:26 ↗ Um, Council Member Joe,

1:41:30 ↗ thank you. Um, I hope you can tell by

1:41:33 ↗ the questions that are up here that we

1:41:35 ↗ really appreciate what you do. It gives

1:41:37 ↗ us valuable insights and appreciate the

1:41:39 ↗ the hard work that you give day after

1:41:42 ↗ day to put this information together. I

1:41:44 ↗ was wondering if it would be possible to

1:41:46 ↗ get the social and economic vitality

1:41:49 ↗ information that comes out in June.

1:41:50 ↗ Looks like we're awaiting measures, but

1:41:52 ↗ they'll be out soon. And if you would

1:41:54 ↗ just give us a quick email on those

1:41:58 ↗ measures and what they kind of tell us

1:42:00 ↗ or indicate for us, I would really

1:42:02 ↗ appreciate that. Thank you. Absolutely.

1:42:09 ↗ Okay. Is there anything else you're

1:42:13 ↗ going to need from us? Not currently.

1:42:16 ↗ Okay. Looking

1:42:19 ↗ good. Okay. And now we will take a

1:42:21 ↗ breather because we are going into topic

1:42:24 ↗ number three of tonight's meeting. Do we

1:42:28 ↗ want to take a five minute break? Are we

1:42:30 ↗ ready to go straight

1:42:32 ↗ in? Okay, we're ready to go straight in.

1:42:35 ↗ Uh column 0096, jail operations

1:42:39 ↗ financial analysis. Again, Dale Marky

1:42:42 ↗ Crimp, assistant to the city

1:42:44 ↗ administrator, bringing us the good data

1:42:47 ↗ and analysis.

1:42:50 ↗ Item three of three. Three of three. I

1:42:53 ↗ don't want to jinx it yet, but we made

1:42:55 ↗ it to the third one. Uh, thank you,

1:42:57 ↗ Council President. Uh, I'm looking

1:42:59 ↗ forward to presenting on this last topic

1:43:01 ↗ of this evening, uh, COM 0096, jail

1:43:05 ↗ operations financial analysis. Uh, Dale

1:43:08 ↗ Marky Crimp, assistant to the city

1:43:09 ↗ administrator.

1:43:11 ↗ The purpose of uh tonight's presentation

1:43:14 ↗ is to provide the city council with an

1:43:15 ↗ analysis of the financial viability of

1:43:18 ↗ different jail options and to obtain

1:43:21 ↗ city council feedback on the

1:43:23 ↗ administration's recommendation to

1:43:25 ↗ continue operating the Isiqua Municipal

1:43:28 ↗ Jail. In terms of direction needed

1:43:30 ↗ tonight, the administration is seeking

1:43:32 ↗ direction from the city council on the

1:43:34 ↗ following question and options. Should

1:43:37 ↗ the city of Isiqua continue to operate a

1:43:40 ↗ municipal jail? Specifically, should the

1:43:42 ↗ city continue to operate a jail at

1:43:44 ↗ status quo, which will be known as

1:43:46 ↗ option one. Should the city continue to

1:43:48 ↗ operate the jail with key operational

1:43:50 ↗ and safety improvements and investments,

1:43:52 ↗ or option two, should the city close the

1:43:55 ↗ jail and contract with other jails in

1:43:57 ↗ the region to house city of Isiqua

1:43:59 ↗ inmates? option three or option four

1:44:03 ↗ should the city become a score member

1:44:05 ↗ and exclusively use score for jail

1:44:11 ↗ services. Before we proceed to the

1:44:13 ↗ analysis and a little bit of the

1:44:15 ↗ methodology ahead of the analysis, I'd

1:44:17 ↗ like to provide a bit of background on

1:44:19 ↗ the Isiqua

1:44:20 ↗ Jail. Our jail right across the street

1:44:23 ↗ from where we're sitting and standing

1:44:24 ↗ this evening opened in the year 2000.

1:44:27 ↗ It's a 72 bed facility. mostly dormatory

1:44:30 ↗ style housing with some individual

1:44:33 ↗ holding cells. It's staffed currently by

1:44:36 ↗ a jail commander who's on the call this

1:44:38 ↗ evening, four corrections sergeants or

1:44:41 ↗ one sergeant per shift and 12

1:44:44 ↗ corrections officers or three per shift

1:44:46 ↗ and one transport officer.

1:44:49 ↗ The jail houses city of Isiqua inmates,

1:44:52 ↗ individuals arrested by and/or serving

1:44:55 ↗ sentences for crimes committed in in

1:44:57 ↗ Isiqua, as well as inmates from up to 16

1:45:00 ↗ other jurisdictions, and court

1:45:02 ↗ commitment inmates, inmates that are

1:45:06 ↗ um sentenced for misdemeanors in other

1:45:10 ↗ jurisdictions, but who elect to pay a

1:45:12 ↗ premium to serve their sentence here in

1:45:14 ↗ the Isiqua jail.

1:45:18 ↗ This is not the first financial analysis

1:45:20 ↗ of the jail in recent years. In 2020, uh

1:45:25 ↗ staff completed a one-year financial

1:45:28 ↗ forecast as part of the budget process

1:45:30 ↗ for 2021, which included recommendations

1:45:33 ↗ to increase the guaranteed bed rate. So,

1:45:37 ↗ as you read in your materials, there are

1:45:38 ↗ different types of bed rates. Uh, a

1:45:41 ↗ guaranteed bed is a bed that a contract

1:45:43 ↗ city pays for for the entire month

1:45:46 ↗ regardless of whether or not an inmate

1:45:48 ↗ is taking up that bed. There are

1:45:50 ↗ guaranteed beds. There are non-G

1:45:52 ↗ guaranteed beds. Uh, a guaranteed bed is

1:45:55 ↗ usually has a lower rate because you are

1:45:58 ↗ paying for it whether someone is in it

1:45:59 ↗ or not. And a non-g guaranteed bed rate

1:46:02 ↗ is usually a higher rate because you're

1:46:04 ↗ paying for it as you need

1:46:06 ↗ it. As a result, in 2021, the

1:46:10 ↗ administration implemented a rate

1:46:11 ↗ increase for guaranteed beds. This

1:46:14 ↗ unfortunately had little revenue impact

1:46:17 ↗ at the time as the jail census remained

1:46:19 ↗ low due to COVID precautions which you

1:46:21 ↗ saw in the um attachment B which showed

1:46:26 ↗ a deep uh dip in our jail population in

1:46:28 ↗ 2020

1:46:30 ↗ 2021. In 2024,

1:46:33 ↗ um the administration implemented uh or

1:46:36 ↗ considered the implementation of another

1:46:37 ↗ rate increase, this time for all bed

1:46:40 ↗ rates and for additional services um

1:46:44 ↗ including transportation um support in

1:46:47 ↗ virtual court um and also a booking fee.

1:46:51 ↗ These were considered and implemented um

1:46:53 ↗ as part of the 2025 2026 budget process

1:46:57 ↗ and the administration is continuing to

1:46:59 ↗ closely monitor the impacts of these

1:47:01 ↗ increases both on our jail census and on

1:47:04 ↗ our jail

1:47:05 ↗ revenues. In 2025, as part of a

1:47:08 ↗ commitment to delivering services

1:47:10 ↗ cost-effectively, Mayor Polly set

1:47:12 ↗ forward an operational financial

1:47:14 ↗ analysis of the jail is a top priority

1:47:17 ↗ for 2025.

1:47:21 ↗ In 2024, the city of Isiqua spent $3.8

1:47:24 ↗ million to operate the jail and earned

1:47:28 ↗ about $1.65 million in revenue for a net

1:47:31 ↗ cost of $2.6 million to operate the

1:47:34 ↗ jail. Throughout this presentation, I

1:47:38 ↗ will discuss future options in terms of

1:47:40 ↗ not a single year um and not even a

1:47:42 ↗ single bienium, but two biania. So, four

1:47:46 ↗ years. It has um cost the city

1:47:49 ↗ approximately

1:47:51 ↗ 7.47.5 million to operate the jail over

1:47:54 ↗ the past two biania. So the past four

1:47:58 ↗ years a little more background bear with

1:48:01 ↗ me. Um even with the aforementioned

1:48:04 ↗ guaranteed bed rate increases in 2021

1:48:07 ↗ the city has found that it we're

1:48:09 ↗ continuing to subsidize contract cities

1:48:11 ↗ and court commitment inmate costs um

1:48:14 ↗ under our current model. This is why the

1:48:17 ↗ administration raised rates for all bed

1:48:19 ↗ types and added billing for virtual

1:48:21 ↗ court transportation of inmates and

1:48:23 ↗ added a booking fee for contract city

1:48:25 ↗ and court commitment inmates in

1:48:29 ↗ 2025. However, even with these, it

1:48:31 ↗ should be noted even with these rate

1:48:33 ↗ increases, if we were to retroactively

1:48:35 ↗ apply them to previous years, we'd

1:48:37 ↗ likely we would reduce that subsidy. But

1:48:40 ↗ the market the there's a real tension

1:48:42 ↗ with uh a cost that the market will bear

1:48:45 ↗ and a cost that will fully cover those

1:48:49 ↗ costs. The most significant direct cost.

1:48:51 ↗ Dale, before you go on, I have a we've

1:48:54 ↗ got a question on that slide. Deputy

1:48:55 ↗ Council President. Right. So 2023 we had

1:48:59 ↗ a loss of

1:49:00 ↗ $910,000 and then in 2024

1:49:03 ↗ $447 which is quite a dip. Now could you

1:49:07 ↗ just explain what happened? Why did we

1:49:09 ↗ see that reduction after years of

1:49:12 ↗ climbing numbers?

1:49:14 ↗ Yes, it had I it had to do with the

1:49:17 ↗ amount um the amount of revenues we

1:49:19 ↗ brought in in 2024. We so we saw that

1:49:22 ↗ revenue amount increase um which meant

1:49:25 ↗ that this the amount that we subsidized

1:49:27 ↗ decreased and this likely had to do with

1:49:29 ↗ different fees for service that were

1:49:31 ↗ charged to inmates. So it could be an

1:49:34 ↗ increase in court commitment inmates.

1:49:36 ↗ could be um that we were doing more

1:49:38 ↗ transport which we were actually billing

1:49:40 ↗ for more accurately or court support

1:49:43 ↗ that we were billing for more

1:49:44 ↗ accurately. There was some process

1:49:46 ↗ improvement the finance team supporting

1:49:48 ↗ the jail in 2024 to be able to more

1:49:51 ↗ accurately bill to increase our

1:50:00 ↗ revenues. Okay. The most significant

1:50:03 ↗ direct costs that have led to increased

1:50:06 ↗ jail costs have been in professional and

1:50:08 ↗ intergovernmental services. You can see

1:50:10 ↗ in this table that focuses really on

1:50:13 ↗ professional services and and

1:50:14 ↗ specifically on some of our largest

1:50:16 ↗ service providers. Um an increase from

1:50:19 ↗ about

1:50:20 ↗ $580,000 to $830,000 to nearly

1:50:24 ↗ $950,000 in just three years in

1:50:26 ↗ professional services. This is driven

1:50:29 ↗ prim been driven primarily by attorney's

1:50:31 ↗ fees, inmate health care costs and the

1:50:34 ↗ booking of Isiqua inmates at SCORE or

1:50:37 ↗ the South Correctional

1:50:40 ↗ Entity. So with that background in mind,

1:50:43 ↗ I want to provide a little bit of

1:50:44 ↗ information about the methodology that

1:50:46 ↗ was used in this analysis because it's a

1:50:49 ↗ bit different than the analysis that um

1:50:52 ↗ was brought to council in 2020.

1:50:56 ↗ First of all, actuals um were used to

1:50:59 ↗ determine um the sort of baseline and

1:51:02 ↗ status quo uh for this analysis rather

1:51:05 ↗ than the budget. Um this was done

1:51:08 ↗ because actuals often differ from what

1:51:11 ↗ is budgeted and provide our best

1:51:13 ↗ understanding of the true cost of

1:51:15 ↗ operating the jail.

1:51:17 ↗ Also what's notable is that the forecast

1:51:19 ↗ here is for the upcoming two

1:51:22 ↗ biania starting in 2027. Um and as

1:51:26 ↗ addressed in some qu in a question from

1:51:27 ↗ council president Walsh earlier today

1:51:29 ↗ that I'll reiterate here. Um in some

1:51:32 ↗ ways we wanted to sort of bridge out u

1:51:35 ↗ because the actuals um if you use the

1:51:37 ↗ actuals as a forecast in 25 and 26 it's

1:51:41 ↗ it looks very different than our budget.

1:51:43 ↗ And this is largely due to the fact that

1:51:44 ↗ we said in 25 and 26 we wanted to reduce

1:51:48 ↗ our costs and increase our revenues and

1:51:49 ↗ we're committed to that in this current

1:51:51 ↗ bienium. But that doesn't necessarily

1:51:53 ↗ accurately reflect what performance um

1:51:56 ↗ and financials have looked like over the

1:51:58 ↗ past five six years. And so the multiply

1:52:02 ↗ I used some multipliers to get us to the

1:52:04 ↗ next bianium but didn't want to

1:52:05 ↗ necessarily say oh I'm already expecting

1:52:07 ↗ in 26 that we're not going to meet what

1:52:10 ↗ we said we've budgeted so let's start in

1:52:12 ↗ 27. Also I wanted to provide two bian so

1:52:16 ↗ four years. Um I think a potential

1:52:18 ↗ shortcoming of the previous analysis was

1:52:20 ↗ that it was too short term. It looked at

1:52:22 ↗ one year. Um and any sort of significant

1:52:25 ↗ policy change or operational change here

1:52:27 ↗ is going to take more than one year to

1:52:29 ↗ enact. And we'll talk through some of

1:52:30 ↗ those proposed changes as we walk

1:52:33 ↗ through. And then third um and this is

1:52:36 ↗ maybe the

1:52:37 ↗ most different uh part of this analysis

1:52:40 ↗ was that this analysis attempt to

1:52:42 ↗ understand the true cost of um insurance

1:52:45 ↗ for operating a jail. So not just what

1:52:47 ↗ we budget annually towards the jail's

1:52:50 ↗ insurance costs, but what does what is

1:52:52 ↗ the insurance burden for an organization

1:52:55 ↗ operating a jail? And I'll share a bit

1:52:57 ↗ about how we approach that. We how I

1:53:01 ↗ approached that in this

1:53:03 ↗ analysis. Um so you can see on the left

1:53:06 ↗ the way that we budget we we allocate

1:53:10 ↗ insurance costs in our budget. We take

1:53:12 ↗ our total insurance bill from WCIA and

1:53:15 ↗ we multiply that by an individual

1:53:17 ↗ division's percentage of total worker

1:53:19 ↗ hours. So, an example could be if your

1:53:22 ↗ total insurance bill is $2 million and a

1:53:26 ↗ specific division, say the police um

1:53:30 ↗ patrol, uh makes up 10% of the total

1:53:33 ↗ worker hours for your entire

1:53:35 ↗ organization, that you would allocate

1:53:40 ↗ $200,000 in insurance costs for that

1:53:42 ↗ division. So, a more realistic example

1:53:44 ↗ would look something like if your total

1:53:46 ↗ insurance bill is $3.9 million and your

1:53:50 ↗ jail um workers constitute 4% of your

1:53:55 ↗ total worker hours in your

1:53:57 ↗ organization. They're allocated about a

1:54:01 ↗ 158 $159,000 worth of insurance costs

1:54:04 ↗ and that comes out in the transfers

1:54:06 ↗ outline of the budget.

1:54:09 ↗ But this doesn't necessarily take into

1:54:11 ↗ account, it's a very common way, and I I

1:54:13 ↗ would say it's like kind of the standard

1:54:14 ↗ operating procedure for budgets. Um,

1:54:17 ↗ it's it doesn't take into account that

1:54:18 ↗ some lines of service are inherently

1:54:22 ↗ riskier and lead to more losses, more

1:54:24 ↗ litigation, and more liabilities than

1:54:26 ↗ others. Um, operating a jail is

1:54:30 ↗ inherently riskier than operating a

1:54:33 ↗ finance

1:54:34 ↗ department, one would hope.

1:54:37 ↗ In discussing with some

1:54:39 ↗ actuaries, something I never thought I

1:54:41 ↗ would do in my life, um, at WCIA, it was

1:54:44 ↗ recommended that in order to get a more

1:54:46 ↗ accurate accounting of a division's true

1:54:50 ↗ cost of insurance, an organization might

1:54:53 ↗ be better served by the approach on the

1:54:56 ↗ right hand side of your screen. Um,

1:54:59 ↗ which the following calculation is 70%

1:55:02 ↗ of that division's uh percentage of

1:55:04 ↗ total worker hours multiplied by your

1:55:07 ↗ total bill plus 30% of that division's

1:55:10 ↗ percentage of your total

1:55:11 ↗ losses multiplied by that total

1:55:13 ↗ insurance bill is going to give you

1:55:15 ↗ maybe a more accurate accounting of how

1:55:18 ↗ much co how much insurance cost that

1:55:22 ↗ particular line of service is um bearing

1:55:25 ↗ on your finances. So to use the example

1:55:29 ↗ on the on the bottom left again, 70%

1:55:33 ↗ times the 4% of worker hours times that

1:55:35 ↗ 3.9 million plus 30% times the

1:55:39 ↗ percentage of losses the jail has over

1:55:42 ↗ recent years made up 607% of our losses

1:55:45 ↗ times 3.9% is going to give you

1:55:49 ↗ $99,000. A difference of about 750,000 a

1:55:52 ↗ little over

1:55:53 ↗ $750,000. So this shows up as an add in

1:55:56 ↗ in the tables that you saw in your

1:55:57 ↗ report tonight and you'll see in the

1:55:59 ↗ coming slides that shows up that

1:56:01 ↗ difference shows up as additional

1:56:04 ↗ indirect liabilities. So this is an

1:56:06 ↗ attempt to account for the the full

1:56:10 ↗ impact of operating a jail um on our

1:56:14 ↗ city budget.

1:56:17 ↗ Absolutely. Yep. Go for it. Council

1:56:19 ↗ member Joe. Thank you. On slide 8 of 34,

1:56:25 ↗ um, you referenced the attorney's fees

1:56:27 ↗ there,

1:56:28 ↗ 57, and 23 and

1:56:32 ↗ 62,024. Were those I'm assuming those

1:56:35 ↗ aren't public defender fees or

1:56:36 ↗ prosecutor fees because that's a that's

1:56:38 ↗ a court function. Yep. Were these

1:56:40 ↗ insurance defense fees for us? These

1:56:43 ↗ should these are not. Okay. And so were

1:56:47 ↗ insurance defense

1:56:48 ↗ fees part of this calculation for the

1:56:51 ↗ true cost of insurance? Yes. Okay.

1:56:55 ↗ And could you kind of walk through how

1:56:57 ↗ that

1:56:58 ↗ was kind of sused out? I don't if you

1:57:02 ↗ can if you can't don't it's a it's a

1:57:05 ↗ little bit of a as as uh nuanced as this

1:57:08 ↗ seems this approach seems it's a little

1:57:10 ↗ bit of a blunt tool because I what I did

1:57:12 ↗ not do was I did not take our WCIA bill

1:57:16 ↗ and look at each

1:57:18 ↗ individual charge or line within it.

1:57:20 ↗ Instead I took the full bill. Um, so I

1:57:24 ↗ can't tell you for certain of that

1:57:28 ↗ 99,000 in that estimate. This is how

1:57:30 ↗ much would be

1:57:32 ↗ um pay out for a loss. This is how much

1:57:36 ↗ would be um around litigation. So I

1:57:38 ↗ don't have that specific um level of

1:57:41 ↗ information. Okay. But a citizen looking

1:57:44 ↗ at this presentation and analyzing your

1:57:46 ↗ numbers would be able to feel re

1:57:49 ↗ reasonably certain that the accounting

1:57:51 ↗ that the accounting you've done does

1:57:54 ↗ take into consideration the cost of

1:57:57 ↗ attorney's fees we're defending our

1:57:58 ↗ cases and the um advisory opinions we

1:58:01 ↗ get or the the phone calls we're making

1:58:03 ↗ to kind of get that information.

1:58:06 ↗ It doesn't exactly work that way. So

1:58:08 ↗ what you are seeing is what we are build

1:58:10 ↗ from WCIA each year and so they build

1:58:13 ↗ their rates in a completely different

1:58:15 ↗ structure. So it's not like there are

1:58:18 ↗ specific bills for specific calls for

1:58:20 ↗ specific lawsuits. It is all aggregated

1:58:23 ↗ together. It is weighed over a period of

1:58:26 ↗ time. Uh the monies that you saw for

1:58:28 ↗ attorneys fees on the other slide was in

1:58:32 ↗ part our city attorney's office working

1:58:34 ↗ with either WCIA on some of those cases

1:58:38 ↗ or other subsidiary issues with that.

1:58:40 ↗ But the cost you see in the other the

1:58:43 ↗ next slide uh from WCIA is their bill

1:58:48 ↗ their their allocation of cost to us

1:58:52 ↗ which has many factors built into that.

1:58:54 ↗ So it's you you will you will not see

1:58:56 ↗ anything that has lawyer bills for

1:58:58 ↗ particular cases. That is all assumed

1:59:01 ↗ within the uh rates that we pay WCIA.

1:59:05 ↗ Okay. I'm always concerned about the

1:59:06 ↗ billing rate for attorneys as a standing

1:59:09 ↗ member of the bar. Um but so just to

1:59:14 ↗ summarize, we can reasonably say that

1:59:16 ↗ we've accounted for the attorney's cost

1:59:19 ↗ of the insurance in this calculation if

1:59:22 ↗ we were to be asked by a citizen on the

1:59:24 ↗ street. We can reasonably say that this

1:59:26 ↗ additional true cost analysis has

1:59:29 ↗ factored in all of the bill that we get

1:59:32 ↗ from WCIA that it could be I mean you

1:59:36 ↗ could fool around with the 70 to30. You

1:59:38 ↗ could say, "Oh, actually, I think we

1:59:39 ↗ should do 60% worker hours and 40%

1:59:43 ↗ claims." Um, but what I think is

1:59:46 ↗ important here is it's a better

1:59:47 ↗ accounting of the insurance costs of

1:59:51 ↗ operating this particular line of

1:59:53 ↗ service.

1:59:55 ↗ Okay. Thank you for that careful

1:59:57 ↗ analysis. I appreciate it. Of

2:00:01 ↗ course.

2:00:02 ↗ Okay. Um, so this brings us to the

2:00:05 ↗ options. Um there are four overarching

2:00:08 ↗ options that were considered as part of

2:00:10 ↗ this analysis. There were more options

2:00:12 ↗ considered originally, but uh many were

2:00:15 ↗ uh tossed to the side because they

2:00:17 ↗ simply were too expensive or they

2:00:19 ↗ weren't feasible in any sort of way. And

2:00:21 ↗ so what you're going to see tonight are

2:00:23 ↗ four main options with a couple of sub

2:00:25 ↗ options and three and four um that we

2:00:28 ↗ think are the the the best possible um

2:00:30 ↗ options to present moving forward. The

2:00:32 ↗ first is the status quo. It's always

2:00:34 ↗ important to cost out if we do nothing

2:00:37 ↗ different um how much will that cost us?

2:00:40 ↗ Um option number two is to continue to

2:00:42 ↗ operate the jail but with some key

2:00:44 ↗ operational and safety improvements um

2:00:46 ↗ specifically implementing the new rate

2:00:48 ↗ structures but also um invest making

2:00:51 ↗ some investments um as well as making

2:00:54 ↗ some process improvements which we'll

2:00:56 ↗ walk through a few of those in

2:00:58 ↗ particular. Options three and four both

2:01:00 ↗ in include closing the jail. Option

2:01:03 ↗ three is closing the jail and

2:01:04 ↗ contracting with regional jails um to

2:01:07 ↗ house Isqua inmates. Um this would look

2:01:11 ↗ simply like expanding some of the

2:01:13 ↗ contracting out that we do currently

2:01:14 ↗ with score in King County um and would

2:01:17 ↗ not provide too much difference in our

2:01:20 ↗ relationship with either of those

2:01:21 ↗ entities. Option number four would be a

2:01:23 ↗ significant departure closing the jail

2:01:25 ↗ and becoming a SCORE member and

2:01:27 ↗ exclusively booking inmates with SCORE.

2:01:29 ↗ and we'll walk through exactly what that

2:01:30 ↗ could a couple iterations of what that

2:01:32 ↗ could look like.

2:01:34 ↗ We've got a two questions here starting

2:01:37 ↗ with Deputy Council President D.

2:01:38 ↗ Michelle and then Council Member Jane.

2:01:41 ↗ Uh so Dale um uh Coun uh option number

2:01:44 ↗ four, can you tell me um uh for inmates

2:01:48 ↗ are those people who are 18 and older or

2:01:51 ↗ do we have teenagers? Well, 18 year olds

2:01:54 ↗ are teenagers, sorry, but do we have

2:01:56 ↗ like 16 or 15 year olds? uh there or are

2:01:59 ↗ they headed handled separately? You

2:02:01 ↗ know, Chief and Commander Allred are on

2:02:03 ↗ the line. I would think that I would

2:02:05 ↗ defer to them to answer that question.

2:02:07 ↗ Thank you.

2:02:10 ↗ Score is this is the chiefs. Thank you.

2:02:13 ↗ Um not sure if my video is working, but

2:02:15 ↗ the

2:02:16 ↗ um score is only for adults. They do not

2:02:20 ↗ house juveniles.

2:02:24 ↗ So a followup to that, how would we

2:02:25 ↗ handle juveniles in a case where we were

2:02:29 ↗ a SCORE member? It's no different than

2:02:32 ↗ we do now. They would county regional

2:02:34 ↗ facility for juveniles. They do not go

2:02:36 ↗ anywhere other than that in our whole

2:02:39 ↗ county. Okay. Just making sure that's

2:02:41 ↗ still a viable option. Uh Council Member

2:02:43 ↗ Jen,

2:02:45 ↗ um you mentioned there were other

2:02:47 ↗ options that were considered but were

2:02:48 ↗ tossed because they were completely

2:02:49 ↗ infeasible. Could you give some examples

2:02:51 ↗ of what those were? Sure. So, we looked

2:02:53 ↗ at um booking and we'll get into this

2:02:55 ↗ with option number three in terms of

2:02:56 ↗ like regional jail options. We looked at

2:02:59 ↗ booking at some of the more affordable

2:03:01 ↗ places that are further away that would

2:03:03 ↗ actually require a transport team that's

2:03:05 ↗ larger than our current jail um staffing

2:03:08 ↗ team. So, the the cost would actually be

2:03:10 ↗ even larger um than the status quo. So,

2:03:13 ↗ anything where it exceeded the status

2:03:14 ↗ quo uh we sort of said h let's that that

2:03:17 ↗ doesn't feel like something we want to

2:03:18 ↗ look at. And then one other thing, and I

2:03:20 ↗ wouldn't call this unfeasible, but

2:03:21 ↗ something that we looked at also early

2:03:23 ↗ in this um early in this analysis was

2:03:26 ↗ something that we were calling um the

2:03:28 ↗ expansion of jail services. Um so

2:03:31 ↗ looking to do even more potentially and

2:03:33 ↗ we decided that was not necessarily

2:03:35 ↗ something we wanted to pursue as part of

2:03:36 ↗ this current analysis. So looking at for

2:03:39 ↗ instance creating a a transport bus or

2:03:42 ↗ something like that um where we would

2:03:44 ↗ provide that service to other

2:03:45 ↗ communities. um sort of expanding our

2:03:47 ↗ contract cities work. Um we decided that

2:03:50 ↗ was outside of the scope of what we were

2:03:52 ↗ asking and so we didn't pursue that for

2:03:54 ↗ this particular

2:03:59 ↗ analysis.

2:04:02 ↗ Okay, I promise we're going to get to

2:04:04 ↗ the options. Um so as a reminder uh

2:04:07 ↗ before we jump in uh these forecasts are

2:04:10 ↗ for the next two bienia or for the next

2:04:13 ↗ or for four whole years. So 2027 to 2030

2:04:17 ↗ and they include what the analysis

2:04:19 ↗ determined through the methodology I

2:04:20 ↗ just shared to be a more accurate um

2:04:23 ↗ insurance cost accounting to operate the

2:04:25 ↗ jail. So if you wondered why did jail

2:04:29 ↗ costs cost around 7.5 million over the

2:04:32 ↗ last four years um or the last two

2:04:35 ↗ biania and now we're predicting

2:04:37 ↗ somewhere between 13 to 23 for the

2:04:41 ↗ upcoming two biania. Um, note that this

2:04:44 ↗ is because we've factored in those

2:04:45 ↗ indirect liability costs that have never

2:04:48 ↗ before been factored into our actuals.

2:04:50 ↗ We've not done that accounting in the

2:04:52 ↗ past. Um, based on the analysis, the

2:04:56 ↗ most costive cost-effective near-term

2:04:58 ↗ option for the city is to continue to

2:05:00 ↗ operate our jail and implement the

2:05:02 ↗ operational improvements and safety

2:05:04 ↗ enhancements to decrease the likelihood

2:05:06 ↗ of future jail losses and

2:05:08 ↗ litigation. But don't take me at my

2:05:10 ↗ word. I want to walk you through each of

2:05:12 ↗ these options and what we

2:05:13 ↗ considered. So, I'm going to start with

2:05:15 ↗ options one and two, which both um are

2:05:19 ↗ about continuing to operate the Isiqua

2:05:22 ↗ jail. Option number one, which is this

2:05:25 ↗ sort of status quo option, um expects

2:05:28 ↗ that we that the city would spend $27

2:05:31 ↗ million over the four years of the

2:05:32 ↗ bienium to operate the jail. This would

2:05:36 ↗ be due largely to continued high

2:05:37 ↗ professional services spending building

2:05:40 ↗ off the trend that we've seen in the

2:05:41 ↗ most recent three years especially with

2:05:44 ↗ health care costs which have continued

2:05:45 ↗ to rise

2:05:47 ↗ exponentially. It would also be like

2:05:49 ↗ this. It is also due to expected high

2:05:52 ↗ intergovernmental professional services

2:05:53 ↗ spending including SCORE and King County

2:05:56 ↗ beds. And it would it expects additional

2:06:00 ↗ jail losses and litigation leading to

2:06:02 ↗ increasing true insurance costs if we

2:06:04 ↗ were to change nothing about the way

2:06:06 ↗ we're conducting our service. Over the

2:06:09 ↗ same period of time, we expect to see

2:06:11 ↗ about 8.4 4 million in revenues due to

2:06:14 ↗ the increased bed rates and other fees

2:06:16 ↗ for contract cities and court commitment

2:06:18 ↗ inmates that were discussed a bit

2:06:20 ↗ earlier in the background. So the net

2:06:22 ↗ cost that we would expect if we were to

2:06:24 ↗ continue to operate the jail as we have

2:06:27 ↗ in previous years without any changes

2:06:29 ↗ except for the increased bed rates would

2:06:31 ↗ be of a cost of about 18.6 million over

2:06:34 ↗ four years.

2:06:36 ↗ seen um in a different way. Uh for those

2:06:39 ↗ of you that like a table, um the most

2:06:41 ↗ significant increases are those

2:06:43 ↗ additional liability costs. Um they

2:06:47 ↗ continue to rise exponentially if we

2:06:48 ↗ don't do something to interrupt um what

2:06:51 ↗ we've seen in the most recent few

2:06:54 ↗ years. Option number two is uh we're

2:06:58 ↗ calling safety and operational

2:06:59 ↗ improvements. Under this option, we

2:07:02 ↗ would expect to see um expenditures of

2:07:04 ↗ about $22 million over four years. This

2:07:09 ↗ um there are sort of four I would say

2:07:11 ↗ four main drivers that are expect that

2:07:14 ↗ are leading to this reduction from the

2:07:15 ↗ 27 million to the $22 million in costs

2:07:19 ↗ over this 4-year period. The first is an

2:07:22 ↗ improve a process improvement around

2:07:23 ↗ health insurance for inmates. Um we

2:07:27 ↗ expect that this health insurance upon

2:07:29 ↗ intake process improvement could save

2:07:32 ↗ the city up to about $20,000 annually in

2:07:34 ↗ healthcare costs. We've not one of the

2:07:37 ↗ big underlining drivers actually here is

2:07:39 ↗ around staffing that in previous years

2:07:41 ↗ we simply haven't had the staffing

2:07:42 ↗ structure or numbers to be able to

2:07:45 ↗ implement some of the best practices or

2:07:46 ↗ process improvements that we think can

2:07:48 ↗ lead to some of the improvements you're

2:07:50 ↗ going to see here. So that that

2:07:51 ↗ underpins some of this. The second is

2:07:54 ↗ staffing for monitor and monitoring and

2:07:57 ↗ performing what I'm calling ad hoc

2:07:59 ↗ transport when inmates are boarded at

2:08:01 ↗ other facilities. One of the discoveries

2:08:03 ↗ that um the jail commander shared with

2:08:05 ↗ me in our meeting was how frequently we

2:08:07 ↗ were getting charged for ad hoc trans

2:08:10 ↗ transport by other um jail facilities

2:08:14 ↗ because we simply didn't have the staff

2:08:16 ↗ to be able to go and do that transport

2:08:18 ↗ ourselves. Um, and so we were being

2:08:20 ↗ charged a premium when our when someone

2:08:22 ↗ needed to be transported. And now we're

2:08:24 ↗ able to do that ourselves. Um, which

2:08:26 ↗ significantly reduces the costs, those

2:08:29 ↗ additional fees that get charged by

2:08:31 ↗ other uh courts that we or excuse me,

2:08:33 ↗ other jails we contract with like SCORE

2:08:34 ↗ or King

2:08:35 ↗ County. Meal plan efficiencies. And I

2:08:38 ↗ know I got a question about meal plan

2:08:40 ↗ efficiencies and how how does that

2:08:42 ↗ reduce health care costs. So, meal plan

2:08:44 ↗ efficiencies that will decrease the

2:08:46 ↗ direct food costs. Um, which makes a

2:08:48 ↗ good amount of sense that if we're not

2:08:49 ↗ if we're buying um a meal plan that is

2:08:52 ↗ inclusive and safe for the majority of

2:08:54 ↗ inmates and we're not needing to buy

2:08:56 ↗ additional extra meals and food on top

2:08:59 ↗ of that meal plan. So, if we have a meal

2:09:00 ↗ plan that say is gluten-free um and thus

2:09:04 ↗ we're not needing to go and buy extra

2:09:06 ↗ gluten-free meals or it's good for folks

2:09:08 ↗ that are uh have diabetes and thus we're

2:09:11 ↗ not needing to go and buy additional um

2:09:14 ↗ heart friendly diabetes friendly meals.

2:09:16 ↗ Um that's going to reduce costs over

2:09:19 ↗ time. And then the way that will also

2:09:20 ↗ impact our health care costs is that

2:09:23 ↗ unfortunately when someone is fed a meal

2:09:24 ↗ that does not correspond with their

2:09:27 ↗ dietary restrictions, oftentimes those

2:09:29 ↗ folks then need health care to address

2:09:31 ↗ the fact that they've consumed something

2:09:33 ↗ that's incompatible with their um

2:09:36 ↗ digestive system. And so we expect that

2:09:38 ↗ we could save conservatively about

2:09:40 ↗ $50,000 in food and medical costs a year

2:09:44 ↗ simply by changing this meal plan and

2:09:46 ↗ making sure that we have more inclusive

2:09:48 ↗ and um better options for our inmates.

2:09:51 ↗ And then last but certainly not least um

2:09:54 ↗ is grant funded or state funded safety

2:09:57 ↗ enhancements

2:09:58 ↗ including fingers crossed we we're still

2:10:01 ↗ waiting on these budgets to be signed

2:10:02 ↗ but including a two-year uh pilot for

2:10:05 ↗ wearable safety devices um for our

2:10:08 ↗ inmates. Now I think it's important to

2:10:10 ↗ note

2:10:11 ↗ that the adoption of something like the

2:10:14 ↗ wearable safety device or a body scanner

2:10:17 ↗ that doesn't have a direct reduction in

2:10:20 ↗ insurance costs. The only thing that can

2:10:22 ↗ reduce our insurance costs are a

2:10:24 ↗ reduction in claims losses and

2:10:26 ↗ litigation. Uh but the expectation is

2:10:28 ↗ that that the the devices themselves

2:10:32 ↗ will reduce the incidents that lead to

2:10:34 ↗ lame claims losses and litigation. And

2:10:36 ↗ so we would expect to see over time um a

2:10:39 ↗ reduction in those additional li

2:10:41 ↗ indirect liabilities. And you see that

2:10:43 ↗ reflected here in a moment on the second

2:10:45 ↗ screen. Over the same period um we

2:10:48 ↗ expect to see that same 8.4 million um

2:10:52 ↗ in revenues for uh court commitment

2:10:55 ↗ inmates and contract city inmates coming

2:10:57 ↗ in. And so the net cost expected in

2:10:59 ↗ option number two is 13.7 million over

2:11:02 ↗ the four years.

2:11:06 ↗ So showing you again with the table um

2:11:09 ↗ you see the biggest uh drivers here

2:11:13 ↗ around these lower professional services

2:11:15 ↗ mainly in healthcare costs um and then

2:11:18 ↗ also additional indirect liabilities

2:11:20 ↗ will come down over time. They'll still

2:11:22 ↗ remain high in the near term and I'll

2:11:24 ↗ talk a bit about why that is in a coming

2:11:26 ↗ slide. Um but they'll come down over

2:11:29 ↗ time as claims and losses um come down

2:11:32 ↗ over time as well.

2:11:35 ↗ Now I want to turn to options three and

2:11:37 ↗ four. Um both option three and four

2:11:40 ↗ involve closing the jail and pursuing

2:11:43 ↗ housing inmates in a different

2:11:45 ↗ setting. Before we look at the options,

2:11:48 ↗ I want to share a couple of um a couple

2:11:52 ↗ of variations that you're going to see

2:11:54 ↗ within these options. Um one around

2:11:57 ↗ staffing and one around booking.

2:12:02 ↗ There were three staffing models that we

2:12:04 ↗ considered.

2:12:05 ↗ Um, and you might be thinking, staffing

2:12:08 ↗ models, you're closing the jail. Why are

2:12:09 ↗ you thinking about staffing models? Um,

2:12:11 ↗ and it could be easy to assume that when

2:12:13 ↗ you shut down a line of service that the

2:12:16 ↗ personnel costs for that service

2:12:18 ↗ evaporate. And I that is true. Um, that

2:12:22 ↗ is true. If you if you cease a line of

2:12:24 ↗ service, the personnel lines for that

2:12:26 ↗ line of service do go away. But you also

2:12:28 ↗ potentially create a new line of

2:12:30 ↗ service, which would be the case in this

2:12:32 ↗ situation. So if we were to close the

2:12:35 ↗ jail, we would yes be uh eliminating

2:12:38 ↗ corrections officers from our line of

2:12:40 ↗ service, but we would need to expand our

2:12:42 ↗ transport service to be able to get

2:12:45 ↗ arrested individuals to whichever jails

2:12:48 ↗ we would contract with.

2:12:50 ↗ We currently have only one transport

2:12:52 ↗ officer because inmates are mostly

2:12:55 ↗ housed in our jail and transport to

2:12:58 ↗ other jails. Score King County can

2:13:01 ↗ happen mostly during that transport

2:13:03 ↗ officer's primary shift. If we were to

2:13:06 ↗ close the jail, we would need to develop

2:13:08 ↗ a line of service for transporting

2:13:10 ↗ individuals who are arrested to be

2:13:11 ↗ booked, who are in jail to be

2:13:13 ↗ transferred to their trials and then

2:13:16 ↗ back into custody. So, we would actually

2:13:17 ↗ be doing a lot more trans transportation

2:13:21 ↗ um than we're doing currently or that we

2:13:23 ↗ could even imagine doing. In talking

2:13:26 ↗ with um our police department

2:13:28 ↗ leadership, we considered a few

2:13:30 ↗ different staffing models as part of

2:13:31 ↗ this analysis. Staffing model one, which

2:13:34 ↗ is very clearly the most robust staffing

2:13:36 ↗ model, um for a total of 12 FTE, which

2:13:40 ↗ is not much smaller than our current

2:13:42 ↗ corrections um staff. Staffing model

2:13:45 ↗ number two, which is sort of a hybrid

2:13:47 ↗ transportation holding cell coverage

2:13:49 ↗ model, and is considered to be the sort

2:13:51 ↗ of middle of the road where we'd have a

2:13:53 ↗ eight um officers or two per shift,

2:13:56 ↗ which would allow for both someone to be

2:13:58 ↗ overseeing

2:14:00 ↗ um holding cells and also someone to be

2:14:02 ↗ transporting on every shift. And then

2:14:04 ↗ staffing model three um which I'll

2:14:06 ↗ explore with option number four which is

2:14:09 ↗ a really significant reduction um and

2:14:12 ↗ potentially has its own implications on

2:14:15 ↗ our on other lines of service within the

2:14:17 ↗ police department at four transportation

2:14:20 ↗ holding cell um officers or one per

2:14:23 ↗ shift. So these three models were

2:14:25 ↗ considered for option number three. Uh

2:14:28 ↗ we really look honed in on staffing

2:14:30 ↗ model number two and I'll walk through

2:14:32 ↗ that in just a moment. Um but for option

2:14:34 ↗ number four, we also looked into the

2:14:36 ↗ potential of of staffing model number

2:14:39 ↗ three. The other consideration in

2:14:42 ↗ options three and four were around

2:14:45 ↗ housing, whether or not um we we choose

2:14:48 ↗ to to sign contracts or enter agreements

2:14:51 ↗ with other jails with two different

2:14:53 ↗ expectations in mind. one around housing

2:14:56 ↗ all Isiqua inmates, which is a

2:14:59 ↗ calculation based off of our average

2:15:02 ↗ monthly bookings. We have about 50

2:15:04 ↗ bookings per month of Isiqua inmates in

2:15:06 ↗ our jail that stay for around an average

2:15:08 ↗ of 7 days. Contract costs are estimated

2:15:13 ↗ um in in uh all Isiqua inmate bookings

2:15:18 ↗ uh based on our current practices within

2:15:20 ↗ the police department which includes

2:15:22 ↗ mandatory bookings. So domestic

2:15:24 ↗ violence, DUI and court orders and and

2:15:26 ↗ some but not all non-mandatory bookings

2:15:30 ↗ um property crimes, lararseny, theft um

2:15:33 ↗ and drug

2:15:34 ↗ offenses. Another option, and this was

2:15:36 ↗ explored in the 2020 analysis, and so we

2:15:39 ↗ we brought it back to explore here as

2:15:41 ↗ well, would be housing only mandatory

2:15:43 ↗ bookings. This is based on this

2:15:45 ↗ calculation is based on our sort of

2:15:46 ↗ average daily population of Isiqua

2:15:49 ↗ inmates. It's a it's a lower number um

2:15:51 ↗ of about 30 beds per day rather than 50

2:15:54 ↗ beds per day. Um this is lower. Um,

2:15:59 ↗ however, it is important to note that if

2:16:03 ↗ we were to enter a contract for only 30

2:16:06 ↗ beds per day, um, and then we were to

2:16:09 ↗ see a increase, we would be paying a

2:16:12 ↗ premium because we would be then paying

2:16:13 ↗ for non-g guaranteed beds with any, um,

2:16:16 ↗ organization we might be booking with.

2:16:18 ↗ Again, mandatory bookings, this would be

2:16:20 ↗ domestic violence, DUI, court orders.

2:16:22 ↗ And as um as I'll go into, there's a

2:16:25 ↗ risk if we pursue only mandatory

2:16:28 ↗ bookings of individuals continuing to

2:16:30 ↗ commit crimes um after they've been

2:16:33 ↗ ticketed or cited um but not necessarily

2:16:36 ↗ booked into a

2:16:39 ↗ facility. So I want to walk through

2:16:41 ↗ option three and 3B. And the difference

2:16:44 ↗ you're going to see between 3 and 3B is

2:16:47 ↗ really to do with this 50 guaranteed

2:16:50 ↗ beds um or 30 guaranteed beds. So option

2:16:54 ↗ three is to close the jail and contract

2:16:56 ↗ with other jails. We expect in this

2:16:59 ↗ option that it will cost about $23.2

2:17:01 ↗ million over four years. It's the one of

2:17:04 ↗ the highest costs that we would expect

2:17:06 ↗ and that's driven largely by contra by

2:17:09 ↗ the cost of housing inmates under

2:17:11 ↗ current contracts that we have. um score

2:17:14 ↗ was used for this analysis for a couple

2:17:16 ↗ of reasons. One that it's sort of the

2:17:19 ↗ middle of the road when it comes to

2:17:20 ↗ costs um and in cases where um we know

2:17:24 ↗ and have worked with SCORE uh they have

2:17:26 ↗ the ability to house uh the number of

2:17:28 ↗ inmates that we would need to house.

2:17:31 ↗ There are other municipal jails that

2:17:32 ↗ have lower rates. Um jails like ours

2:17:35 ↗ that are between, you know, 50 and 70 or

2:17:37 ↗ 50 and 85 beds. um they have

2:17:40 ↗ traditionally been pretty choosy about

2:17:42 ↗ who they sign contracts with. So, while

2:17:45 ↗ we do have some neighbors that have um

2:17:48 ↗ jails and potentially we could enter a

2:17:50 ↗ contract for some certain number, um we

2:17:52 ↗ didn't want to assume a lower rate

2:17:54 ↗ there. Also, as mentioned with council

2:17:57 ↗ member Jen's question, um there are some

2:17:59 ↗ jails that are further away that have

2:18:01 ↗ significantly lower rates, uh but the

2:18:03 ↗ cost to get um an inmate there would be

2:18:06 ↗ exorbitant. Um, so I think Sunnyside I

2:18:09 ↗ think is referenced in the analysis. Um,

2:18:12 ↗ and definitely came up during our budget

2:18:14 ↗ conversations. I think their rate is

2:18:15 ↗ something like $63 to $65 a day, but it

2:18:19 ↗ would require transporting people beyond

2:18:21 ↗ Yaka um, potentially constantly um, and

2:18:24 ↗ so it becomes prohibitive

2:18:27 ↗ operationally. Also um, factored into

2:18:29 ↗ these expenditures are the Isiqua

2:18:31 ↗ transport and holding cell personnel.

2:18:33 ↗ So, we need to retain staff to complete

2:18:35 ↗ intake, monitor holding cells, transport

2:18:37 ↗ inmates to other jails. And as you see

2:18:39 ↗ in the table in just a moment, we

2:18:41 ↗ continue to be subject to insurance

2:18:43 ↗ costs for 5 years after claims. I think

2:18:46 ↗ this is outlined pretty deeply in the um

2:18:50 ↗ in the materials for tonight, but I want

2:18:51 ↗ to give a high level here, which is

2:18:53 ↗ that again, I never thought I'd spend so

2:18:56 ↗ much time talking to an actuary, but I

2:18:57 ↗ did learn a lot about insurance in this

2:18:59 ↗ project. Insurance claims against

2:19:02 ↗ holding cells and transport are very low

2:19:05 ↗ if practically

2:19:07 ↗ non-existent. However, insurance is

2:19:10 ↗ determined based on pre the previous 5

2:19:13 ↗ years of claims and two years of

2:19:17 ↗ staffing. So, you continue to carry

2:19:20 ↗ those costs. So, when you look at it and

2:19:22 ↗ you say, "But if we close the jail, why

2:19:24 ↗ doesn't that additional liability cost

2:19:26 ↗ go away? Why doesn't that transfers out

2:19:28 ↗ decrease immediately?" It's because

2:19:30 ↗ we're continuing to carry that for

2:19:32 ↗ another for staffing two years and for

2:19:34 ↗ um losses 5 years. However, what does go

2:19:38 ↗ to zero immediately is revenue. So you

2:19:40 ↗ see here um revenue drops immediately to

2:19:44 ↗ zero. We think the net cost of option

2:19:46 ↗ three would be this 23.2 million over

2:19:49 ↗ the two

2:19:51 ↗ biania. However, um and I'll there we

2:19:54 ↗ go. So you see the main the main

2:19:56 ↗ reductions here. Unsurprisingly, as just

2:19:58 ↗ mentioned, personnel based on model

2:20:01 ↗ staffing model number two is lower than

2:20:04 ↗ it is continuing to operate the jail. Um

2:20:07 ↗ and jail contract costs um in this

2:20:09 ↗ particular instance is based on the 50

2:20:12 ↗ guaranteed beds at SCORE under um a

2:20:16 ↗ multiplier on our current contract costs

2:20:18 ↗ with SCORE.

2:20:21 ↗ Option 3B is a modification on this

2:20:23 ↗ option. Still using staffing model

2:20:26 ↗ number two, which is that eight staff

2:20:27 ↗ members, two per shift, but this is

2:20:30 ↗ booking only mandatory offenses. We'd

2:20:32 ↗ expect the cost to be lower naturally

2:20:35 ↗ with fewer guaranteed beds at $18.3

2:20:39 ↗ million over four years. This reduced

2:20:42 ↗ booking cost is based on that average

2:20:44 ↗ daily population estimate, not on the

2:20:47 ↗ the monthly average booking estimate.

2:20:50 ↗ Isqua transport and holding cell team

2:20:53 ↗ personnel would still be a cost year and

2:20:54 ↗ we would still be continue to be subject

2:20:56 ↗ to those insurance costs for five years

2:20:58 ↗ after those financial or those final

2:21:00 ↗ claims. We would again see revenues drop

2:21:02 ↗ to zero um with contract cities and

2:21:05 ↗ court commitment inmates. Question go

2:21:08 ↗ ahead. You know I just think it's

2:21:10 ↗ important to be really clear about this.

2:21:12 ↗ if someone uh were shot caught

2:21:15 ↗ shoplifting at Target in front of a

2:21:17 ↗ hundred people um and taken out of

2:21:20 ↗ Target and we would under this model we

2:21:23 ↗ would not book them in. We would give

2:21:24 ↗ them a ticket. Is that correct? That's

2:21:26 ↗ my understanding. Chief, I don't know if

2:21:28 ↗ you want to um add anything there. Okay,

2:21:32 ↗ that's correct. any misdemeanor crime

2:21:35 ↗ that would happen in our city that

2:21:36 ↗ wasn't those mandatory that was not um

2:21:39 ↗ for example theft, trespass,

2:21:43 ↗ um anything along those lines would be

2:21:46 ↗ cited and released back to the community

2:21:48 ↗ um given a piece of paper and asked to

2:21:50 ↗ come to court at another date.

2:21:56 ↗ So again, the big driver in cost

2:21:58 ↗ reduction here is really around jail

2:22:01 ↗ contract costs due to that mandatory

2:22:03 ↗ bookings only um rather than um booking

2:22:06 ↗ what we believe to would having the

2:22:08 ↗ number of beds that we believe would

2:22:09 ↗ cover all our

2:22:11 ↗ inmates. Option number four, this one is

2:22:14 ↗ is I think the most unique um which is

2:22:17 ↗ to close the jail and become a score

2:22:18 ↗ member. Under both of these options,

2:22:20 ↗ you'll notice we're looking at the 50

2:22:23 ↗ guaranteed beds, and I'll explain why in

2:22:25 ↗ a moment. Um, but we're looking at two

2:22:27 ↗ different staffing models here. Staffing

2:22:29 ↗ model number two, which is the same as

2:22:31 ↗ explored in option three, and staffing

2:22:33 ↗ number staffing model number three,

2:22:35 ↗ which is a significant reduction in

2:22:37 ↗ staff. Here we expect in option four a

2:22:41 ↗ or four normal that expenditures would

2:22:43 ↗ be about 18.5 million over four years.

2:22:48 ↗ This would this would look as though we

2:22:50 ↗ are exclusively booking with SCORE. So,

2:22:53 ↗ Isiqua would be a SCORE member. If you

2:22:56 ↗ are a member of SCORE, you are only

2:22:58 ↗ booking with SCORE. Um, with the

2:23:00 ↗ exception of juveniles who do not book

2:23:02 ↗ in SCORE. Um, inmates cannot be booked

2:23:05 ↗ at other facilities. They cannot be

2:23:07 ↗ booked. We cannot book some here and

2:23:09 ↗ some at SCORE and be a member. That's

2:23:11 ↗ just being a contract city with SCORE.

2:23:13 ↗ Um the the benefits of this there are

2:23:16 ↗ some um that are worth exploring which

2:23:18 ↗ is that if you become a member you do

2:23:21 ↗ lock in a rate um and you do ensure

2:23:24 ↗ services with them. Um so currently uh

2:23:27 ↗ we might score might fill up and we

2:23:29 ↗ might not be able to book inmates with

2:23:31 ↗ SCORE. If you become a member, you are

2:23:34 ↗ at the top of that list for being able

2:23:35 ↗ to book your inmates and there's a

2:23:38 ↗ potential um to become uh an equity

2:23:41 ↗ partner in SCORE in future

2:23:43 ↗ years. Is aqua transport and holding

2:23:46 ↗ cell team personnel would still be

2:23:48 ↗ needed in this model. Score does not

2:23:50 ↗ come to your jurisdiction and pick up

2:23:52 ↗ your the folks that you arrest. You

2:23:53 ↗ still need to transport them. Um again

2:23:56 ↗ here revenues would be zero. Um but we

2:23:59 ↗ estimate option four to cost 18.5

2:24:01 ↗ million over four

2:24:04 ↗ years. Again you can see in the table

2:24:07 ↗ here the um main drivers in reduction

2:24:10 ↗ here are around that score contract

2:24:12 ↗ cost. It is lower. Um and also what

2:24:15 ↗ we've seen in both option three and four

2:24:17 ↗ is this reduced additional indirect

2:24:21 ↗ liabilities. We did want to look at

2:24:23 ↗ option 4 B. We did want to explore what

2:24:25 ↗ what what could it mean? Because if we

2:24:27 ↗ really did become a SCORE member, while

2:24:29 ↗ we would still need to transport our um

2:24:32 ↗ our inmates to SCORE to be booked, we

2:24:35 ↗ wouldn't necessarily need to transport

2:24:37 ↗ them during, you know, we wouldn't need

2:24:40 ↗ to take them to on medical trips. That

2:24:42 ↗ would be included in our membership.

2:24:44 ↗ Those additional fees are actually

2:24:45 ↗ included and locked into that membership

2:24:47 ↗ contract. And so could we get could we

2:24:50 ↗ look into the idea of a smaller

2:24:51 ↗ transport

2:24:52 ↗ team in 4B? Um we estimate that it that

2:24:56 ↗ it will cost about 16.2 million over

2:24:58 ↗ four years. So a lower amount driven

2:25:00 ↗ largely by a reduction in personnel. Um

2:25:03 ↗ the same applies in terms of the

2:25:05 ↗ benefits and challenges with being a

2:25:07 ↗ score member. Um, however, I think

2:25:11 ↗ important to note that by decreasing

2:25:14 ↗ transport officers available, so if you

2:25:16 ↗ only have one per shift instead of um

2:25:20 ↗ two per shift, there's a a strong

2:25:23 ↗ potential that patrol would be

2:25:25 ↗ interrupted. Um, patrol officers would

2:25:28 ↗ potentially be pulled from the streets

2:25:30 ↗ to support transport or to support

2:25:32 ↗ holding cells. um or over time would

2:25:34 ↗ need to be used to backfill um where

2:25:38 ↗ where needed transportation needs. Um,

2:25:41 ↗ so I think it's it's not it's as you'll

2:25:43 ↗ see here, um, yes, it does reduce the

2:25:46 ↗ personnel costs within the jail division

2:25:49 ↗ significantly. Um, it potentially also

2:25:52 ↗ has a ripple effect on the rest of the

2:25:54 ↗ department. Um, and on the quality of

2:25:56 ↗ service out in the community, response

2:25:59 ↗ times, presence of police on our

2:26:01 ↗ streets, etc. Things that the community

2:26:03 ↗ has shared in the survey that they

2:26:06 ↗ value. So that was a lot of

2:26:08 ↗ considerations. I provided you with many

2:26:10 ↗ things that were thought about um and

2:26:12 ↗ many of the assumptions that went into

2:26:14 ↗ this analysis. However, those are not

2:26:16 ↗ the only assumptions or considerations I

2:26:18 ↗ think um should be factored in. So these

2:26:21 ↗ while these are not things that

2:26:22 ↗ necessarily made it into the monetary

2:26:24 ↗ bottom lines, the financial analysis of

2:26:26 ↗ the operations of the jail, they are

2:26:29 ↗ important considerations that the

2:26:30 ↗ administration thought about um and

2:26:32 ↗ would like to be open and transparent

2:26:35 ↗ about with the city council as well.

2:26:38 ↗ First is the capital needs of the jail.

2:26:41 ↗ Um our jail facility um as is part of

2:26:45 ↗ our CIP process as is part of the

2:26:47 ↗ current conversations around public

2:26:49 ↗ safety and civic facilities. Um there

2:26:53 ↗ there are updates and upgrades needed.

2:26:55 ↗ Uh there is already a plan underway for

2:26:57 ↗ a number of small renovations and

2:27:00 ↗ improvements um in that space. However,

2:27:04 ↗ um while this analysis looks at two

2:27:06 ↗ bienia, it does not forecast out 10 to

2:27:10 ↗ 15 years because in 10 to 15 years, we

2:27:13 ↗ would need to be having a significantly

2:27:14 ↗ different conversation about the capital

2:27:16 ↗ needs of our jail um about a potential

2:27:19 ↗ new jail facility. uh the DLR group

2:27:22 ↗ who's working with our facilities and

2:27:23 ↗ administrative services team on the

2:27:26 ↗ current

2:27:27 ↗ um civic civic facilities and public

2:27:31 ↗ safety facilities project. Um they're

2:27:34 ↗ working on some recommendations for us

2:27:36 ↗ and some estimates um on what costs

2:27:38 ↗ would be. We I did talk with one of the

2:27:40 ↗ consultants on just hey you've built

2:27:42 ↗ some new jails recently. How much have

2:27:44 ↗ those cost? Um and the number that she

2:27:47 ↗ quoted me was $50 million. So, if you're

2:27:49 ↗ going to build a new jail, that is the

2:27:51 ↗ cost of the the current cost of a new

2:27:54 ↗ jail. Also, some considerations is just

2:27:57 ↗ the unpredictability of state federal

2:27:59 ↗ money. Um, we have tentatively, I feel

2:28:03 ↗ like every time I say it, am I jinxing

2:28:04 ↗ it, but we have tentatively secured some

2:28:06 ↗ funding for this wearables pilot. Um,

2:28:09 ↗ there is additional state funding that

2:28:10 ↗ is available for public safety services

2:28:12 ↗ potentially in the upcoming years. Um,

2:28:15 ↗ some of that money is already set aside.

2:28:17 ↗ Some of it would require council action

2:28:19 ↗ to unlock. And then also really

2:28:22 ↗ unfortunately, the federal government

2:28:24 ↗ recently canled their JARK grant funding

2:28:26 ↗ program um which really stymies um a

2:28:29 ↗ good amount of federal funding coming to

2:28:31 ↗ local um public safety

2:28:33 ↗ entities. And then is just this last

2:28:36 ↗ consideration are the decisions of our

2:28:38 ↗ regional partners.

2:28:40 ↗ Um, you learned tonight and probably

2:28:42 ↗ already knew how expensive insurance

2:28:45 ↗ costs for operating a jail are. Uh, both

2:28:48 ↗ the way we budget them, but also the

2:28:49 ↗ true underlying costs. Uh, that is not

2:28:52 ↗ different for any other jail. Uh, it's

2:28:54 ↗ not different for SCORE. They're also

2:28:56 ↗ having conversations about what does

2:28:58 ↗ their insurance what do their insurance

2:28:59 ↗ premiums mean for their rates? What do

2:29:01 ↗ their insurance premiums mean for their

2:29:03 ↗ operating style? Do they move to only

2:29:06 ↗ booking member cities? Um what does that

2:29:09 ↗ mean for cities like us, current

2:29:10 ↗ contract cities? Um that's something to

2:29:13 ↗ think about as well um in weighing maybe

2:29:15 ↗ not our near-term immediate decision,

2:29:18 ↗ but definitely our medium-term

2:29:22 ↗ decision impacts. Um so there are a few

2:29:25 ↗ different types of impacts I want to

2:29:26 ↗ talk about um that are tied to this

2:29:29 ↗ recommendation. The first is financial.

2:29:32 ↗ As you saw, each one of these options

2:29:34 ↗ has a financial impact. Uh jail is a

2:29:38 ↗ service. It is not purely a business. Um

2:29:41 ↗ it is something that we're not expecting

2:29:42 ↗ to make money on. Um and so there are

2:29:45 ↗ costs. We believe at the at this moment

2:29:48 ↗ that option two has the lowest overall

2:29:50 ↗ costs, but options 1, three, and four

2:29:53 ↗ all have costs and have values assigned

2:29:56 ↗ to them. In terms of the policy

2:29:59 ↗ decision, um the current recommendation

2:30:01 ↗ doesn't constitute a policy change. It's

2:30:04 ↗ continuing to operate um but operate

2:30:06 ↗ more efficiently, effectively,

2:30:08 ↗ specifically when it comes to cost,

2:30:10 ↗ specifically when it comes to reducing

2:30:12 ↗ costs. Options three, 3B, 4, and 4B

2:30:16 ↗ would all require significant policy

2:30:18 ↗ change around our approach to police

2:30:20 ↗ services. And then impacts on the

2:30:22 ↗ community. The current recommendation we

2:30:24 ↗ believe would only present enhancements

2:30:26 ↗ to the safety and operations of the jail

2:30:29 ↗ and improvements actually for the

2:30:32 ↗ inmates that we house. Um we think it's

2:30:35 ↗ a it's a service in the right direction.

2:30:38 ↗ The other options uh would potentially

2:30:41 ↗ impact the level of service that the

2:30:43 ↗ Isqua community receives. So, as

2:30:45 ↗ outlined,

2:30:46 ↗ 3B would could potentially lead to fewer

2:30:49 ↗ um offenders being taken into custody

2:30:52 ↗ and 4B we think could lead to

2:30:54 ↗ interruptions in patrol service or the

2:30:56 ↗ presence of our um patrol officers in

2:31:00 ↗ our streets.

2:31:02 ↗ So again, the recommendation from the

2:31:04 ↗ administration this evening um is to

2:31:06 ↗ continue to operate the jail over the

2:31:08 ↗ near term with investments in

2:31:10 ↗ cost-saving operational improvements and

2:31:12 ↗ safety enhancements that would decrease

2:31:14 ↗ the likelihood of future jail losses and

2:31:17 ↗ litigation. But I think it's important

2:31:19 ↗ to note that that recommendation

2:31:22 ↗ uh comes with important next steps and

2:31:24 ↗ stipulations.

2:31:26 ↗ First of all, um it is incredibly

2:31:28 ↗ important that the administration

2:31:30 ↗ continues in the coming months to

2:31:32 ↗ monitor jail operating performance

2:31:34 ↗ implementation,

2:31:35 ↗ um excuse me, operating performance, the

2:31:38 ↗ implementation of some of the safety and

2:31:40 ↗ operational enhancements that were

2:31:41 ↗ discussed this evening, many of which

2:31:44 ↗ were already part of the proposed budget

2:31:47 ↗ reductions for this current bienium. And

2:31:50 ↗ also to monitor finances. Um we've

2:31:53 ↗ talked a bit about but haven't gone into

2:31:55 ↗ really into depth about the rate

2:31:57 ↗ increases that have been implemented for

2:31:59 ↗ this year. Um but that was part of the

2:32:01 ↗ budget discussion when they were when

2:32:03 ↗ they were considered for the bianual

2:32:05 ↗ budget. We need to see that those are

2:32:08 ↗ playing out the way we expected that

2:32:10 ↗ although we've increased rates, we're

2:32:12 ↗ seeing increased revenues, not decreased

2:32:14 ↗ um city uh contract cities and court

2:32:17 ↗ commitment inmates as a result of those

2:32:18 ↗ increased rates.

2:32:20 ↗ jail staff believes um that they can

2:32:22 ↗ implement these cost-saving measures uh

2:32:24 ↗ without lowering the level of service.

2:32:27 ↗ Uh but we do need to make sure that this

2:32:29 ↗ is working the way expected.

2:32:32 ↗ Um and the same with those increases in

2:32:35 ↗ rates. Secondly, um we'll soon hear from

2:32:38 ↗ the DLR group and hopefully the task

2:32:40 ↗ force about what the future of our um

2:32:43 ↗ facilities will could look like. that

2:32:46 ↗ will certainly impact um conversations

2:32:48 ↗ about capital needs in the future um

2:32:51 ↗ which will not exclude the jail. Also,

2:32:55 ↗ the as discussed, the current jail

2:32:57 ↗ facility is is in the process of getting

2:32:59 ↗ some very much needed improvements, but

2:33:02 ↗ this analysis highlighted the potential

2:33:04 ↗ benefits of a regional approach, whether

2:33:06 ↗ score or a different regional approach,

2:33:08 ↗ something here on the east side. And so

2:33:11 ↗ part of the recommendations and next

2:33:12 ↗ steps is having a really serious

2:33:14 ↗ exploration with our neighbors um here

2:33:17 ↗ on the east side about an east side

2:33:19 ↗ entity and whether that would make

2:33:21 ↗ sense, whether there is appetite for

2:33:22 ↗ that in the future. And then lastly is

2:33:26 ↗ is considering swore membership. You

2:33:27 ↗ know, we we explored this idea a little

2:33:29 ↗ bit to understand the potential costs

2:33:31 ↗ but haven't pursued that conversation

2:33:33 ↗ any further. Um and so a potential next

2:33:36 ↗ step also is to really um engage in

2:33:40 ↗ conversation about what that could look

2:33:41 ↗ like um and over what timeline something

2:33:44 ↗ like that would make

2:33:45 ↗ sense. So again the direction needed

2:33:48 ↗ tonight um is a council input on the

2:33:51 ↗ following question. Should the city of

2:33:52 ↗ Isiqua continue to operate a municipal

2:33:54 ↗ jail? Specifically of the options

2:33:57 ↗ outlined tonight um which is the best to

2:34:00 ↗ pursue in the near term? And as a

2:34:03 ↗ reminder, the administration is

2:34:05 ↗ currently recommending option number

2:34:07 ↗ two, which is to continue to operate at

2:34:09 ↗ our jail, but with operational and

2:34:11 ↗ safety improvements as outlined in the

2:34:13 ↗ presentation this evening.

2:34:17 ↗ Big set of topics. So, we are going to

2:34:20 ↗ start with questions. Council member

2:34:23 ↗ Joe, followed by Deputy Council

2:34:25 ↗ President D. Michelle.

2:34:27 ↗ Thank you for this excellent analysis. I

2:34:30 ↗ appreciate the deep dive that you have

2:34:33 ↗ made on this subject and uh I feel sorry

2:34:37 ↗ for you that you had to talk to

2:34:38 ↗ actuaries but I guess you got to learn a

2:34:40 ↗ little bit something different in this

2:34:43 ↗ job every day. Um under community

2:34:46 ↗ impacts on your slide 30 of 34. You seem

2:34:49 ↗ to like the number 34 for slides and

2:34:51 ↗ presentations, but under 34 uh uh excuse

2:34:54 ↗ me, slide 30 under community, you talk

2:34:57 ↗ about fewer offenders taken into

2:34:58 ↗ custody. Um if we have those other

2:35:01 ↗ options and their interruptions to

2:35:03 ↗ patrol service, I was wondering if

2:35:06 ↗ another impact that had been considered

2:35:08 ↗ is what does the court want to see? And

2:35:11 ↗ so I'll just comment that as many of you

2:35:14 ↗ know I've been on the bench as a prom

2:35:17 ↗ judge and after their first arraignment

2:35:19 ↗ we give them conditions of release.

2:35:21 ↗ Commit no criminal law violations. Stay

2:35:23 ↗ away from the victim that's involved

2:35:25 ↗ with the case. For instance, if they had

2:35:26 ↗ robbed a store, shoplifted a store, they

2:35:29 ↗ have to stay away from Target. Those

2:35:31 ↗ conditions of release uh will often lead

2:35:34 ↗ to either a very low bail or no bail for

2:35:37 ↗ an offender.

2:35:39 ↗ But if they do violate those conditions

2:35:41 ↗ of release, they come back here and

2:35:43 ↗ there's a potential act that I or the

2:35:45 ↗ judge, in this case, Judge Stewart, can

2:35:47 ↗ put them back into jail. And I'm

2:35:49 ↗ wondering if the conversation with the

2:35:51 ↗ jail could also talk about the ability

2:35:53 ↗ to have that sort of damocles hanging

2:35:56 ↗ over them, so to speak, that if they

2:35:59 ↗ don't do law-abiding behavior or engage

2:36:01 ↗ in law abiding behavior, that they could

2:36:03 ↗ be back in jail. We have a jail that's

2:36:05 ↗ right

2:36:06 ↗ here. From my experience on the bench,

2:36:08 ↗ I've seen that uh it puts the fear of

2:36:12 ↗ the higher power in them when I talk to

2:36:14 ↗ them about, hey, you violated a

2:36:16 ↗ condition of release. I could put you in

2:36:18 ↗ jail

2:36:19 ↗ today. And then we have a conversation

2:36:22 ↗ about what they need to do from that

2:36:23 ↗ point

2:36:24 ↗ forward. That can be a very effective

2:36:26 ↗ tool to keep crime low in the city and

2:36:29 ↗ to keep our citizens safe. So, I was

2:36:32 ↗ wondering if you would um take it upon

2:36:35 ↗ yourself to have a conversation with

2:36:36 ↗ jail staff and the jail and excuse me,

2:36:39 ↗ Judge Stewart about those kind of extra

2:36:42 ↗ community benefits that we get from

2:36:44 ↗ having a jail facility so close to us.

2:36:47 ↗ We we definitely not to not that level

2:36:49 ↗ of specific, but we did have a

2:36:51 ↗ discussion about the deterrent power.

2:36:55 ↗ Um, it it didn't end up in quantified in

2:36:58 ↗ any way in here, but well made and

2:37:00 ↗ definitely was part of the conversation.

2:37:05 ↗ Deputy Council President D. Michelle,

2:37:07 ↗ I've I've got a couple of questions and

2:37:09 ↗ uh one of them really uh is uh following

2:37:12 ↗ up with Council Member Joe. So, I had

2:37:15 ↗ the same concern. Um you in the human

2:37:18 ↗ services arena, we know um it's been

2:37:21 ↗ very well documented that taking uh

2:37:23 ↗ people out of their communities can

2:37:25 ↗ often exacerbate the crisis that they're

2:37:29 ↗ in. Um and so there, you know, it's very

2:37:34 ↗ important to try to keep people in their

2:37:36 ↗ community if you can. Um difficult in

2:37:39 ↗ rural areas, but not so much here. Um uh

2:37:43 ↗ we have people coming into jails who uh

2:37:46 ↗ they've committed a crime but they also

2:37:47 ↗ might be u mentally ill or they also

2:37:50 ↗ might be suffering from drug addiction.

2:37:53 ↗ Um and again so do we have any uh

2:37:56 ↗ thoughts or data about um the importance

2:38:00 ↗ of keeping inmates in their community as

2:38:03 ↗ they are processed through the jail

2:38:04 ↗ experience?

2:38:06 ↗ You know I did not explore that as part

2:38:08 ↗ of this analysis. I I see the chief is

2:38:10 ↗ up has her hand raised probably for the

2:38:13 ↗ previous question, but uh she might also

2:38:15 ↗ be able to weigh in a bit on that as

2:38:16 ↗ well. I bet she knows about this one

2:38:17 ↗ too. Yeah.

2:38:20 ↗ Hi, thank you for the questions. Um one

2:38:23 ↗ thing is, um Council Member Joe, you are

2:38:25 ↗ correct as far as it being a deterrent.

2:38:28 ↗ I can also tell you that when we talk

2:38:29 ↗ about impacts on community, um that you

2:38:32 ↗ brought up, there's a couple others

2:38:34 ↗ which kind of um tie into both these

2:38:36 ↗ questions. Number one is just because

2:38:38 ↗ someone um chosen if they're housed in a

2:38:40 ↗ different court, if they did video

2:38:42 ↗ court, for example, that would be um an

2:38:44 ↗ expense that would be added into our

2:38:46 ↗ court that they would need to be able to

2:38:48 ↗ do video court more often and probably

2:38:50 ↗ for a longer term as well um on the

2:38:53 ↗ hours and schedule for what um SCORE

2:38:56 ↗ would be wanting it for. as well as then

2:38:58 ↗ if let's say someone didn't show up or

2:39:00 ↗ we give them a citation and they're not

2:39:02 ↗ arrested into our court and they're said

2:39:04 ↗ to come back and come to the court on

2:39:06 ↗ the court date and then they don't that

2:39:07 ↗ incurs more warrants which means we

2:39:10 ↗ can't always um even arrest on the

2:39:12 ↗ warrants because based on the bound of

2:39:15 ↗ bail it doesn't justify us being able or

2:39:17 ↗ taking someone off the street for

2:39:19 ↗ basically two to four hours one hour

2:39:21 ↗ each direction to take them to score if

2:39:24 ↗ there happens to be someone um that we

2:39:26 ↗ didn't have a transport report, for

2:39:28 ↗ example, 24 hours a day. And the other

2:39:30 ↗ piece to that is that means it's an

2:39:32 ↗ officer off the street and there are

2:39:34 ↗ laws. It was presented that there are

2:39:36 ↗ some holding cells that we could have,

2:39:38 ↗ but there are certain laws on how long

2:39:39 ↗ you can keep someone in a holding cell.

2:39:41 ↗ So happen if they're having to be

2:39:43 ↗ arrested at 6:30 at night. Um it may not

2:39:46 ↗ even be that we're allowed to hold them

2:39:47 ↗ in a holding cell uh for up to that 12

2:39:50 ↗ hours or 14 to where someone comes up on

2:39:53 ↗ dayshift to be able to transport them

2:39:55 ↗ the next day. So we just advise on the

2:39:58 ↗ warrant and then they're not arrested.

2:40:00 ↗ So your question about deterrent um even

2:40:03 ↗ for the courts but even for patrol is a

2:40:05 ↗ is another great one. Um to Barbara de

2:40:08 ↗ Michelle's question regarding the people

2:40:10 ↗ and impacts in our community. Right now

2:40:12 ↗ we have that behavioral health division

2:40:14 ↗ that really does a ton of outreach with

2:40:16 ↗ between the officers and they come to

2:40:18 ↗ our facility quite often for our

2:40:19 ↗ specific um community members that are

2:40:23 ↗ from our area that um say that they

2:40:26 ↗ don't have a primary resident and are

2:40:28 ↗ basically from our area. We and they the

2:40:31 ↗ behavior health division come and talk

2:40:33 ↗ to them and give them resources and help

2:40:35 ↗ them out and help so many different

2:40:36 ↗ people that that would not be as much an

2:40:38 ↗ option anymore. they would have to catch

2:40:40 ↗ them out in the community, not actually

2:40:42 ↗ at the facilities anymore. So again,

2:40:44 ↗ either costing incurring more costs for

2:40:46 ↗ our behavioral health to go down to

2:40:47 ↗ score or for them not even to be able to

2:40:50 ↗ reach them because they're not in our

2:40:51 ↗ establishment. So those are other pieces

2:40:53 ↗ and a couple of the other impacts or is

2:40:56 ↗ officer retention because right now

2:40:58 ↗ patrol would be greatly affected if

2:41:00 ↗ right now they're not having to drive

2:41:01 ↗ and be transport officers for a lot of

2:41:03 ↗ their profession or job. They enjoy

2:41:05 ↗ being able also when they go instead of

2:41:07 ↗ giving someone a piece of paper and it's

2:41:09 ↗ a deterrent for pe you know criminals to

2:41:11 ↗ be out of our city because they know we

2:41:13 ↗ have a jail word spreads quickly that I

2:41:15 ↗ don't want to go to jail even if I

2:41:17 ↗ commit a minor crime whereas in Isiqua

2:41:19 ↗ they know that that is something that

2:41:21 ↗ will happen if they're made contact with

2:41:23 ↗ officers. So all of those are factors

2:41:25 ↗ that are community um that are really do

2:41:28 ↗ impact that um option for the not only

2:41:32 ↗ the resources but the ability and

2:41:34 ↗ retention of officers that are just even

2:41:36 ↗ patrol for not having that ability to

2:41:39 ↗ enforce the laws um and binding them

2:41:42 ↗ which a lot of other cities who don't

2:41:43 ↗ have their own jail already are dealing

2:41:45 ↗ with and that retention can be

2:41:48 ↗ problematic.

2:41:51 ↗ Uh, thank you Chief Swan and Anwan and I

2:41:54 ↗ think in that answer she answered my

2:41:56 ↗ second question as well. Thank you.

2:42:01 ↗ Any other questions?

2:42:07 ↗ Yeah, I was waiting. I had a whole list,

2:42:09 ↗ but I knew Council Member Hall.

2:42:14 ↗ Council member Hall. Um, thanks a

2:42:17 ↗ couple. Um, Chief Schwan, you had

2:42:19 ↗ mentioned um um a video court. Just to

2:42:24 ↗ confirm, do other is that common for

2:42:26 ↗ other jails to offer remote court

2:42:28 ↗ options? So, that's something that could

2:42:30 ↗ still still happen.

2:42:33 ↗ Yes, we have remote or video court now,

2:42:36 ↗ right? It is that we do charge for and

2:42:38 ↗ so do the other entities. Okay. So, for

2:42:40 ↗ example, when you went to score, that

2:42:42 ↗ would be part of your contract. Um and

2:42:44 ↗ it also should be noted that there are

2:42:45 ↗ some agencies who did used to contract

2:42:47 ↗ with SCORE and was a member and have

2:42:50 ↗ gone away from that and actually Federal

2:42:53 ↗ Way who actually books with us happens

2:42:55 ↗ to be one of them that decided and made

2:42:57 ↗ a decision to not work with SCORE and be

2:43:00 ↗ a member anymore and it was more

2:43:01 ↗ cost-effective by the tune of almost $5

2:43:03 ↗ million um by having some other options.

2:43:06 ↗ So those are some other factors that do

2:43:09 ↗ come into play in in some of these

2:43:11 ↗ decisions that are being made. for sure.

2:43:16 ↗ Um, okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.

2:43:18 ↗ Um, it looks like someone's hands up.

2:43:21 ↗ Commander, are all red?

2:43:23 ↗ Yeah. Can you hear me? Okay. It's the

2:43:25 ↗ first time I'm using this speaker. Yeah,

2:43:26 ↗ we can. Thanks. Perfect. I just wanted

2:43:29 ↗ to uh as well as add to that um what

2:43:32 ↗ Chief is saying. Occasionally, SCORE

2:43:35 ↗ does offer the video court. Um, however,

2:43:38 ↗ it's a premium price that we pay on top

2:43:41 ↗ of what we're already paying. The other

2:43:43 ↗ thing is is that sometimes we have to

2:43:45 ↗ book into other facilities like King

2:43:47 ↗ County. King County doesn't, which then

2:43:49 ↗ would go back to what council member Joe

2:43:52 ↗ was saying about being able to see these

2:43:54 ↗ these inmates that now what would happen

2:43:57 ↗ is we'd have to be transport. We'd have

2:43:58 ↗ to go pick that inmate up at King

2:44:00 ↗ County. we'd have to bring him back to

2:44:01 ↗ to the city is be seen on maybe it's a

2:44:06 ↗ first first time um being seen in front

2:44:10 ↗ of the judge. We take them back and then

2:44:11 ↗ we'd have to at a later date go get them

2:44:13 ↗ again, bring them back for court. So,

2:44:16 ↗ it's this back and forth uh process uh

2:44:19 ↗ you know that could potentially be a

2:44:22 ↗ heavy load and impact on the department

2:44:25 ↗ itself.

2:44:28 ↗ Okay. Thank you. I appreciate uh the

2:44:30 ↗ response to that and and Chief Schwan

2:44:32 ↗ had also mentioned about a jurisdiction

2:44:33 ↗ too that was with SCORE and moved away.

2:44:36 ↗ I would I would like to learn more about

2:44:38 ↗ kind of case studies of maybe

2:44:40 ↗ jurisdictions that have moved away from

2:44:41 ↗ SCORE and why. I think that could be

2:44:42 ↗ helpful information for us. Um I guess

2:44:46 ↗ my last thought, right? Last thought.

2:44:50 ↗ Um oh no, I have two more thoughts. um

2:44:53 ↗ have we thought more about

2:44:56 ↗ um what would what would so let's say we

2:45:00 ↗ we move forward with option two with the

2:45:01 ↗ administration recommendation we're

2:45:03 ↗ waiting to see kind of what happens with

2:45:05 ↗ the new rate structure we're doing new

2:45:06 ↗ safety enhancements um some new

2:45:08 ↗ improvements um what have we thought

2:45:12 ↗ about what would happen if more

2:45:14 ↗ jurisdictions move to the non-g

2:45:16 ↗ guaranteed bed rate and how that might

2:45:19 ↗ impact our long-term thinking yeah that

2:45:22 ↗ that went into our original an actually

2:45:24 ↗ analysis when we thought about the um

2:45:27 ↗ the rate change and I'm I'll I'm sure

2:45:30 ↗ Commander Alred will have some thoughts

2:45:31 ↗ as well but when we made the rate change

2:45:34 ↗ um you know we first and foremost looked

2:45:37 ↗ at how much does it cost for an inmate

2:45:40 ↗ to be booked in our jail for a day. Um

2:45:44 ↗ and that was a very high number um and

2:45:47 ↗ one that the market could not sustain.

2:45:50 ↗ So, it was above

2:45:53 ↗ $250 um per night for just the average

2:45:57 ↗ inmate. Um that was up from what we we

2:45:59 ↗ were we had been previously charging I

2:46:01 ↗ think about 115. Um, looking at the

2:46:04 ↗ market, we determined we could probably

2:46:06 ↗ raise our guaranteed bed rate to 150,

2:46:10 ↗ our non-G guaranteed bed rate a bit

2:46:12 ↗ higher than that, and then our court

2:46:14 ↗ commitment uh bed rate specifically, you

2:46:17 ↗ know, that these are these are folks who

2:46:18 ↗ are choosing to come here. Um, that that

2:46:21 ↗ could probably be even higher. And that

2:46:22 ↗ one hadn't been considered previously to

2:46:25 ↗ change, which it was just a curiosity of

2:46:27 ↗ mine. Um, and we're we we kind of costed

2:46:31 ↗ out an assumption that we bet you that a

2:46:34 ↗ few jurisdictions will reduce their

2:46:36 ↗ guaranteed bed rate because they'll see

2:46:38 ↗ this cost

2:46:39 ↗ increase and then we'll need to see like

2:46:42 ↗ does that actually also lead to

2:46:43 ↗ decreased bookings from that particular

2:46:46 ↗ jurisdiction. So an example might be a

2:46:49 ↗ city that has has previously had three

2:46:52 ↗ guaranteed beds with us. Maybe they

2:46:54 ↗ lower that to to two beds. Do we see a

2:46:59 ↗ corresponding change in actually how

2:47:01 ↗ many bookings they do and how many

2:47:02 ↗ nights on average um they've got an

2:47:05 ↗ they've got inmates in our jail. Um, and

2:47:08 ↗ Commander Alred can speak a little bit

2:47:09 ↗ more, but the last time that he and I

2:47:11 ↗ checked in. Um, this partic I'm talking

2:47:14 ↗ about a particular jurisdiction. They

2:47:16 ↗ had lowered their guaranteed beds from 3

2:47:18 ↗ to two, but they were still booking with

2:47:20 ↗ us just as frequently and unfortunately

2:47:22 ↗ for them now paying a slightly higher

2:47:24 ↗ rate because they were now paying for

2:47:26 ↗ non-G guaranteed beds. Um, so I think we

2:47:28 ↗ we just won't it's it's four, five

2:47:31 ↗ months into the year. My instinct is

2:47:34 ↗ we're just not going to know until the

2:47:35 ↗ end of the year if what we've forecasted

2:47:38 ↗ for this year is actually playing out

2:47:40 ↗ the way we expected. But know that we're

2:47:42 ↗ keeping a really close eye on that to

2:47:44 ↗ make sure that we have an understanding

2:47:46 ↗ if it does. No, Commander, if you would

2:47:48 ↗ add anything to that.

2:47:51 ↗ I mean, you did you basically uh said it

2:47:53 ↗ there, Dale. I appreciate it. But I I

2:47:56 ↗ will add that uh yes, there was there

2:47:59 ↗ are some cities that um went to zero

2:48:03 ↗ guaranteed beds. However, um watching it

2:48:06 ↗ the last couple months, that number of

2:48:10 ↗ bookings has stayed the same. So, just

2:48:12 ↗ like Dale said, unfortunately, they're

2:48:13 ↗ paying a higher price because uh they're

2:48:18 ↗ still booking into our facility and they

2:48:19 ↗ just chose to thinking that maybe they

2:48:21 ↗ wouldn't. I don't I don't know the

2:48:23 ↗ reason behind it. Um but uh they are

2:48:26 ↗ paying a higher price now because of

2:48:28 ↗ that. Um even we we gained a city you

2:48:31 ↗ know we we lost some like uh the city of

2:48:34 ↗ both city of both hadn't booked maybe

2:48:36 ↗ one one booking in the last couple

2:48:38 ↗ years. We lost them. However, we gained

2:48:40 ↗ one like uh the city of Buckley and

2:48:43 ↗ Buckley when they uh came to us just

2:48:47 ↗ wanted no guaranteed beds. And however,

2:48:49 ↗ the last couple months they've been

2:48:50 ↗ booking one or two uh to three inmates

2:48:53 ↗ and we've been housing them for them and

2:48:54 ↗ they're paying that premium price again.

2:48:56 ↗ So, um like Dale said, it's really

2:49:00 ↗ hasn't impacted the amount of bookings

2:49:01 ↗ and they're just paying a higher premium

2:49:03 ↗ for it than we than we have in the past.

2:49:06 ↗ Yeah, I in fact went and looked at our

2:49:08 ↗ MUN actuals prior to this meeting

2:49:10 ↗ because I was curious to see where we

2:49:11 ↗ were at through April compared to where

2:49:14 ↗ in the budget we had forecast we were

2:49:16 ↗ going to be with revenues. Um, and we're

2:49:18 ↗ tracking right on target. So, I think

2:49:21 ↗ that's encouraging that we've made a

2:49:23 ↗ change that might I think seemed a

2:49:26 ↗ little scary honestly to us. It felt a

2:49:28 ↗ little bit like we were taking a risk,

2:49:29 ↗ but the market's bearing it. And then

2:49:30 ↗ the question becomes in the future if

2:49:32 ↗ the market would bear more.

2:49:35 ↗ Okay. Thank you. That is um super

2:49:37 ↗ interesting how this is playing out

2:49:38 ↗ already just in a few months. And I will

2:49:41 ↗ message receive, wait and see. We're

2:49:43 ↗ still we still have a lot more to learn

2:49:44 ↗ this year. So, um, the is it okay if I

2:49:47 ↗ ask my final question? My final question

2:49:50 ↗ is

2:49:51 ↗ around I don't even know how to ask

2:49:53 ↗ this. The capital needs like this is a a

2:49:56 ↗ big concern to me. Like this seems to be

2:49:58 ↗ like kind of a keystone decision in

2:50:00 ↗ terms of like what really is going to be

2:50:02 ↗ the long-term path that we choose. it

2:50:04 ↗ um it's it's something the task force is

2:50:08 ↗ being told kind of not to consider at

2:50:10 ↗ the moment and that there's kind of

2:50:12 ↗ other work around what are the jail

2:50:14 ↗ capital needs going on in the background

2:50:16 ↗ is our sense that I mean I guess I'm

2:50:19 ↗ seeing kind of two paths here if it's

2:50:21 ↗ like capital improvements that can

2:50:23 ↗ happen over a long period of time

2:50:26 ↗ perhaps that's something we can budget

2:50:28 ↗ for but if it's like upfront major

2:50:31 ↗ improvements to me that seems like that

2:50:34 ↗ would almost like make our decision for

2:50:36 ↗ us in terms of can we even afford to

2:50:38 ↗ continue to operate a jail. Is the am I

2:50:40 ↗ thinking about that right or or can you

2:50:42 ↗ share any more about how we're thinking

2:50:44 ↗ about capital needs? I think there are

2:50:46 ↗ there are sort of near-term capital

2:50:48 ↗ needs in terms of some of these

2:50:49 ↗ renovations and improvements that have

2:50:51 ↗ been identified as sort of primary needs

2:50:54 ↗ within the jail right now. Um I think

2:50:56 ↗ the task force I think did a a tour of

2:51:00 ↗ the jail. Um, and you can see walking in

2:51:03 ↗ there, there are some real there's some

2:51:04 ↗ real needs especially for our staff and

2:51:06 ↗ this the sport both the their security

2:51:09 ↗ and safety and also just like the

2:51:11 ↗ ergonomic experience I would say in that

2:51:14 ↗ space is not super um and leaves a lot

2:51:18 ↗ to be desired and those those sorts of

2:51:21 ↗ improvements and renovations those are

2:51:22 ↗ already sort of on the facilities team's

2:51:26 ↗ purview they are thinking about them

2:51:27 ↗ they are showing up in the CIP um those

2:51:29 ↗ are sort of the small near-term if we're

2:51:32 ↗ thinking about operating a jail over the

2:51:33 ↗ next seven years like that that is those

2:51:37 ↗ are the doable renovations that feel

2:51:39 ↗ very much within what we've already

2:51:42 ↗ budgeted for taking bites of as we go. I

2:51:44 ↗ think there's a bigger question and I've

2:51:46 ↗ asked DLR to weigh in on this is sort of

2:51:49 ↗ what is the long-term safety and

2:51:52 ↗ viability of our jail. This is a jail

2:51:55 ↗ that's now 25 years old. um you know at

2:51:59 ↗ some point it will need to be

2:52:01 ↗ modernized. We can't continue to operate

2:52:03 ↗ that same jail for the next 25 years. We

2:52:06 ↗ can safely operate it for sure for the

2:52:08 ↗ next 7 to 10, but after that that would

2:52:10 ↗ be a bigger conversation about a new

2:52:13 ↗ facility potentially.

2:52:16 ↗ Okay, thank you very much. Oh, looks

2:52:19 ↗ like another hand.

2:52:22 ↗ Chief Schwan, do you have a comment

2:52:24 ↗ there?

2:52:27 ↗ Well, I was just going to ask Dale,

2:52:29 ↗ correct me if I'm wrong. Also, one of

2:52:31 ↗ the CIPs that they were talking about

2:52:33 ↗ happens to be the HVAC, which also

2:52:35 ↗ happens to be what's needed for the

2:52:37 ↗ whole building. So, some of that is also

2:52:40 ↗ incurred or um already thought about in

2:52:44 ↗ one of the big pieces of the CIP that

2:52:46 ↗ were are needed right away. Correct.

2:52:49 ↗ Chief is absolutely correct. Yeah.

2:52:54 ↗ Okay. Okay, looking around. Any other

2:52:57 ↗ questions? Okay, I'll go through my

2:53:00 ↗ slew.

2:53:02 ↗ Um, so I'm having trouble evaluating

2:53:06 ↗ option two because it seems like it

2:53:08 ↗ relies pretty heavily on cost savings

2:53:13 ↗ based on safety improvements and

2:53:17 ↗ wearable

2:53:19 ↗ technology. But in other areas, we've

2:53:22 ↗ kind of highlighted the fact that the

2:53:24 ↗ inmates were

2:53:26 ↗ receiving lately have had higher medical

2:53:29 ↗ needs and risks. So, how can we be

2:53:34 ↗ saying that the inmates

2:53:36 ↗ are more difficult and also believing

2:53:41 ↗ that we can make

2:53:44 ↗ those changes that will reduce our risks

2:53:49 ↗ and our insurance costs.

2:53:52 ↗ the if I'm understanding your question

2:53:54 ↗ correctly the the big difference between

2:53:58 ↗ one and two it doesn't assume and

2:54:00 ↗ actually three and four doesn't assume

2:54:01 ↗ anything different about our population

2:54:04 ↗ it assume it assumes differences in our

2:54:06 ↗ our operating costs I think the biggest

2:54:09 ↗ drivers of reductions in option two are

2:54:11 ↗ not actually purely the um the sort of

2:54:15 ↗ wearables and safety interventions it's

2:54:18 ↗ actually the operating improvements it's

2:54:20 ↗ the the health insurance at intake. It

2:54:24 ↗ is the um trans reducing our current

2:54:27 ↗ additional fees incurred from our

2:54:29 ↗ professional services by actually going

2:54:32 ↗ and as uh commander was saying was like

2:54:35 ↗ intercepting these tra ad hoc transports

2:54:38 ↗ that it were then being charged a

2:54:39 ↗ premium for. And it's that third piece

2:54:42 ↗ around um our our food food costs and

2:54:47 ↗ then the med the resultant medical needs

2:54:50 ↗ by serving someone food that they then

2:54:53 ↗ need to go to the hospital to receive

2:54:55 ↗ treatment for. So those are I think

2:54:57 ↗ actually the biggest drivers of

2:54:58 ↗ immediate cost reduction. the wearables

2:55:01 ↗ and the sort of safety interventions,

2:55:03 ↗ those we don't start to see those

2:55:05 ↗ reductions until I think the second or

2:55:08 ↗ third year of the projection because

2:55:11 ↗ we'd expect to get those wearables in

2:55:13 ↗ the second half of this year. Um, and

2:55:16 ↗ hopefully then start to see those

2:55:17 ↗ reductions, but we're still going to

2:55:19 ↗ carry those high insurance costs from

2:55:21 ↗ the last few years into the beginning of

2:55:24 ↗ this. So, it's unfortunately those are

2:55:27 ↗ not as immediate of a reducer in cost.

2:55:29 ↗ at some of the operational improvements

2:55:31 ↗ that we've talked about that are going

2:55:33 ↗ to be the more immediate driver of cost

2:55:34 ↗ reduction.

2:55:36 ↗ Okay, I may need to go over that one or

2:55:38 ↗ two more times.

2:55:41 ↗ um for staffing models of options three

2:55:46 ↗ and four. Did we consider a version

2:55:51 ↗ where patrol is the additional transport

2:55:54 ↗ but we're adding patrol officers which

2:55:57 ↗ would increase our capacity of patrol

2:56:00 ↗ officers and thus not reduce the number

2:56:02 ↗ of staff we patrol officers we have on

2:56:06 ↗ hand.

2:56:08 ↗ you know it no the answer the kind of

2:56:11 ↗ the short answer is not really uh no I

2:56:14 ↗ think the back of the napkin

2:56:17 ↗ um is that the pat a patrol officer is

2:56:20 ↗ actually more expensive than a transport

2:56:21 ↗ officer yes and I think more valuable

2:56:24 ↗ more valuable but then I also think

2:56:26 ↗ anecdotally and I think chief could

2:56:28 ↗ probably weigh on on this as well um a

2:56:31 ↗ patrol officer probably wants to be

2:56:33 ↗ doing something different than a

2:56:34 ↗ transport officer um and so I think

2:56:36 ↗ recruiting for that kind of hybrid

2:56:39 ↗ position might be kind of difficult. Um,

2:56:41 ↗ and of course then negotiating and

2:56:43 ↗ bargaining for a different type of role

2:56:45 ↗ might be a challenge as well. So I think

2:56:47 ↗ those are some of the things that led us

2:56:49 ↗ to instead really pursue modeling out a

2:56:52 ↗ transportation team rather than beefing

2:56:55 ↗ up patrol and then having potentially

2:56:58 ↗ retention challenges with people doing

2:57:00 ↗ work they don't necessarily they haven't

2:57:01 ↗ they didn't necessarily want to do.

2:57:03 ↗ Okay. Um, another thing I'm trying to

2:57:06 ↗ evaluate and understand is, you know, if

2:57:08 ↗ we look at the long-term history of our

2:57:10 ↗ jail operations, we didn't have any

2:57:12 ↗ losses prior to 2023. Yeah. And so I'm

2:57:16 ↗ just trying to determine, you've noted

2:57:19 ↗ that the insurance costs will reset 5

2:57:21 ↗ years after a loss. it. Are we doing an

2:57:26 ↗ analysis in a period of time where our

2:57:28 ↗ costs are abnormally

2:57:30 ↗ high or are we is there a way to

2:57:33 ↗ evaluate this as if that those

2:57:37 ↗ experiences didn't happen? Would we be

2:57:39 ↗ looking at this differently and are we

2:57:41 ↗ making a long-term decision based on

2:57:45 ↗ shortterm cost increases? It's almost

2:57:48 ↗ like you joined me on my many dog walks

2:57:50 ↗ over the last four months as I thought

2:57:52 ↗ about this. Um, and part of what because

2:57:57 ↗ absolutely the uh loss that those two

2:58:01 ↗ losses in 2023 significantly inflated

2:58:05 ↗ um insurance costs. And so rather than

2:58:08 ↗ um assuming another two losses every

2:58:12 ↗ couple of years, what instead for this

2:58:14 ↗ analysis for the status quo option

2:58:17 ↗ assumed one loss at some point in the

2:58:19 ↗ next two bianium or biania and so tried

2:58:22 ↗ to sort of split the difference there by

2:58:24 ↗ saying yeah we might be looking at a

2:58:27 ↗ sliver that's not very accurate.

2:58:29 ↗ Certainly if we were to look over 25

2:58:31 ↗ years and say 2 over 25 then we're

2:58:34 ↗ talking about a very small fraction. But

2:58:36 ↗ this goes back to your to your earlier

2:58:38 ↗ question around like just when we look

2:58:41 ↗ um we look at the state at losses

2:58:44 ↗ happening in other jails like around the

2:58:46 ↗ state when we look nationally

2:58:49 ↗ um we can't assume we can't go back we

2:58:53 ↗ can't do the two and 25 we have to say

2:58:55 ↗ something is really changing about uh

2:58:57 ↗ the state of the world uh and so making

2:59:00 ↗ that decision to say okay let's assume

2:59:02 ↗ one loss in the next two biania felt

2:59:05 ↗ like a a reasonable way to split that

2:59:07 ↗ difference. Okay, thanks for that. Um,

2:59:10 ↗ and then did we consider eliminating our

2:59:13 ↗ contracts and keeping the jail running

2:59:16 ↗ by only housing is residents as inmates?

2:59:19 ↗ We did. Um, and was that one of those

2:59:22 ↗ nonviable it would be more expensive? It

2:59:25 ↗ was very expensive. Yes, it was very

2:59:27 ↗ expensive. um because unfortunately we

2:59:30 ↗ wouldn't necessarily see a significant

2:59:32 ↗ enough reduction in beds um filled to

2:59:37 ↗ then lead to lower personnel costs um

2:59:40 ↗ and we would retain the risk um still of

2:59:44 ↗ the losses. And so it

2:59:47 ↗ it's actually really interesting. Some

2:59:48 ↗ of our neighbor neighboring cities that

2:59:50 ↗ operate municipal jails have

2:59:52 ↗ historically not um had contract city um

2:59:55 ↗ inmates. they've only housed their own

2:59:57 ↗ inmates. And that's actually really

2:59:59 ↗ changed in the last 3 or four years. I

3:00:01 ↗ was looking for an example of a city

3:00:02 ↗ that just did that. And every city that

3:00:04 ↗ I called that someone had said, "Oh, I

3:00:06 ↗ think so and so only books their own

3:00:08 ↗ inmates." I would email them and they

3:00:10 ↗ said, "No, actually, we just took on

3:00:11 ↗ four contract cities for the first

3:00:13 ↗ time." Um, and so it it's not penciling

3:00:16 ↗ out for anyone to do that.

3:00:18 ↗ Okay. Okay. Those are my questions.

3:00:22 ↗ Anybody else? Council member Ray and and

3:00:25 ↗ I I really wasn't going to have a

3:00:27 ↗ question until what you just said, which

3:00:30 ↗ is how do our rates compare to these

3:00:32 ↗ other surrounding cities that are now

3:00:34 ↗ getting into the contracting business?

3:00:37 ↗ The the one main um comparison I would

3:00:41 ↗ say in in terms of our neighbors, um we

3:00:44 ↗ currently charge a little bit more. Um

3:00:47 ↗ so Kirkland is the city that I think of.

3:00:48 ↗ I think their guaranteed bed rate is

3:00:50 ↗ 134. Um I have to pull up the document

3:00:54 ↗ from the budget discussion this past

3:00:56 ↗ fall. Oh 131. Okay. Council Council

3:00:58 ↗ President Walsh has the number on it,

3:01:00 ↗ but it's around 130 lower than ours.

3:01:03 ↗ Um I am not if you're follow I'm

3:01:06 ↗ assuming a follow-up question of like

3:01:08 ↗ are we worried that other cities are

3:01:09 ↗ going to leave us and go to them? Um I I

3:01:12 ↗ don't foresee that as a a thing that

3:01:15 ↗ we're going to see happen. Um and I

3:01:17 ↗ would be surprised if their rates don't

3:01:18 ↗ come up here shortly.

3:01:24 ↗ Okay. Uh, Commander All Red looks like

3:01:28 ↗ comment. Yeah, I would just add to that

3:01:30 ↗ too that um we are offering services

3:01:33 ↗ that I don't think any other if Dale's

3:01:37 ↗ made other phone calls but uh are

3:01:40 ↗ offering like the video court in our own

3:01:42 ↗ jail. So, we've we're offering an

3:01:45 ↗ additional fee for to kind of host those

3:01:48 ↗ courts for those surrounding agencies

3:01:51 ↗ and um we're looking at seeing those.

3:01:54 ↗ You know, Dale's touched on a little bit

3:01:55 ↗ of some of that revenue coming in, but

3:01:58 ↗ it's slowly increasing and and it's

3:02:02 ↗ become uh a very

3:02:05 ↗ convenient um option, viable option for

3:02:08 ↗ these agencies where they don't have to

3:02:10 ↗ have a transport officer come out or a

3:02:12 ↗ patrol officer come out to the to isqua

3:02:15 ↗ and then pick up their inmate and take

3:02:16 ↗ them to court where we just house it for

3:02:18 ↗ them on video court. And so it's uh we

3:02:20 ↗ just haven't had the the time frame to

3:02:23 ↗ kind of collect a bunch of data for

3:02:24 ↗ that, but it is increasing uh you know

3:02:28 ↗ weekly. So and that's you know our

3:02:31 ↗ transport officer kind of tracks that

3:02:32 ↗ now. And so um it is something that we

3:02:35 ↗ offer that others don't and and so I

3:02:37 ↗ think that's why a lot of them will

3:02:39 ↗ still continue to kind of book with us.

3:02:43 ↗ Okay, great feedback. Um, I am going to

3:02:47 ↗ turn it over and check in on any public

3:02:50 ↗ comments at this time. So, if anybody is

3:02:53 ↗ online on the phone, star three. If

3:02:56 ↗ you're on a computer or smartphone, use

3:02:58 ↗ the raise hand icon or send the host a

3:03:01 ↗ chat message. And I will look at our one

3:03:04 ↗ soul member here. See if anybody wants

3:03:07 ↗ to make public comments. Not seeing any

3:03:09 ↗ online. Okay, fantastic. So, we've asked

3:03:14 ↗ questions. We've seen a lovely

3:03:16 ↗ presentation. Who wants to start us out

3:03:18 ↗ with

3:03:19 ↗ feedback? Oh, it's a race. So, Coun

3:03:22 ↗ Deputy Council President DM Michelle,

3:03:25 ↗ we'll just go down the line at this

3:03:28 ↗ point. Uh, well, first of all, Dale, uh,

3:03:31 ↗ it's wonderful the way you show your

3:03:33 ↗ work.

3:03:35 ↗ you take us through it step by step and

3:03:38 ↗ and make it really understandable and

3:03:40 ↗ I'd so much appreciate the work you did

3:03:43 ↗ on this very complex project and uh the

3:03:47 ↗ the amount of data that you've uh

3:03:49 ↗ provided to us and the relevance of the

3:03:52 ↗ data to our decision is really

3:03:54 ↗ outstanding. So thank you so much. Um I

3:03:57 ↗ am in support of option number two as

3:04:00 ↗ recommended by the administration. Um,

3:04:02 ↗ and just uh looking through um I I think

3:04:06 ↗ one of the things that um that we need

3:04:09 ↗ to think about is if we do decide to

3:04:11 ↗ close the jail, maybe not now, but later

3:04:14 ↗ or whenever, it's going to be an

3:04:16 ↗ irrevocable decision, we will close it

3:04:18 ↗ and we will never open up another jail

3:04:21 ↗ uh exactly like that. Um because it's so

3:04:25 ↗ expensive to to get into this business.

3:04:27 ↗ So, so I think we need to be really

3:04:30 ↗ thoughtful and careful about this

3:04:32 ↗ decision. Um, uh, right now financially

3:04:36 ↗ it makes the most sense to continue to

3:04:38 ↗ operate the jail. Um, and, uh, look for

3:04:41 ↗ those efficiencies as you've outlined.

3:04:44 ↗ Um, but this is a financial decision to

3:04:47 ↗ me. It's also a matter

3:04:49 ↗ of as a community to uh make sure that

3:04:54 ↗ our values are reflected in our jail and

3:04:57 ↗ court system. Um, and in that regard,

3:05:02 ↗ uh, we are well aware that Isiqua offers

3:05:05 ↗ a quality I I hate to say this, a

3:05:08 ↗ quality jail experience, but but we do,

3:05:12 ↗ uh, we offer a lot of supports to the

3:05:14 ↗ inmates that are there, and that's

3:05:15 ↗ reflected in the number of people who

3:05:17 ↗ are willing to pay to come and serve

3:05:19 ↗ their time here, um, and through a lot

3:05:23 ↗ of other, uh, anecdotes that we hear

3:05:26 ↗ about all the time. So, um, as a, uh,

3:05:30 ↗ resident of Isiqua, I would like I I

3:05:34 ↗ like the fact that our tax dollars that

3:05:37 ↗ have to go to a criminal and justice

3:05:40 ↗ system are being used wisely and

3:05:43 ↗ humanely. Uh, and that's really

3:05:45 ↗ important to me. And so, it might be a

3:05:48 ↗ little bit hard to explain to people in

3:05:50 ↗ the community the amount of money we're

3:05:53 ↗ spending on our jail system. Um and uh

3:05:57 ↗ but I think at this point at this point

3:05:59 ↗ in time it could change uh if uh if

3:06:04 ↗ costs become exceedingly higher but

3:06:07 ↗ right now at this moment I I will

3:06:10 ↗ support um option number two. I do think

3:06:15 ↗ um and other people have commented on

3:06:17 ↗ this that uh the fentanyl crisis has

3:06:20 ↗ changed the nature of what we're facing

3:06:22 ↗ in the jails and uh whatever we can do

3:06:26 ↗ and I don't have any uh options to offer

3:06:29 ↗ tonight but whatever we can do to

3:06:32 ↗ address that and I'm sure Chief Schwan

3:06:35 ↗ and others are doing that uh it really

3:06:37 ↗ has changed the character of uh the

3:06:40 ↗ threats that are um there in operating

3:06:43 ↗ creating a jail. So, thank you again for

3:06:46 ↗ everything you've you've done. Thanks.

3:06:51 ↗ One down the line. Yeah. Um, this is

3:06:53 ↗ really easy quite honestly. I mean,

3:06:55 ↗ option two, not only is it the lowcost

3:06:57 ↗ option, but it also maintains the same

3:06:59 ↗ level of service. So, nothing else

3:07:01 ↗ really compared. So, that that part's

3:07:03 ↗ easy. I have two caveats. Um, one is I

3:07:06 ↗ don't I still think we need to do a lot

3:07:08 ↗ more work around uh what we charge for a

3:07:12 ↗ bed. I don't think we're at the right

3:07:13 ↗ number. The subsidy is still way too

3:07:15 ↗ high in my estimation. Um I think that

3:07:17 ↗ the demand for our services is very

3:07:20 ↗ inelastic where a small increase in

3:07:22 ↗ price or an increase in price will have

3:07:25 ↗ a very small impact on demand and that

3:07:27 ↗ was why I asked the question about

3:07:29 ↗ Kirkland because I I don't think that's

3:07:31 ↗ the case. And then Commander Alred gave

3:07:34 ↗ me the talking point that I was looking

3:07:35 ↗ for, which was it's we're going through

3:07:39 ↗ this machinations of looking at other

3:07:41 ↗ options and we keep coming back to the

3:07:43 ↗ fact that there's a service here that is

3:07:46 ↗ of high value and the our partner cities

3:07:49 ↗ are looking at this and saying we sure

3:07:52 ↗ don't want to pay that, but it's better

3:07:54 ↗ than the options. So I think we are

3:07:57 ↗ being timid about rate increases quite

3:07:58 ↗ honestly and you know maybe we uh need

3:08:02 ↗ to be a little more aggressive so that

3:08:04 ↗ we can get a fair

3:08:07 ↗ u recovery metric in place because when

3:08:10 ↗ I look at those numbers where over half

3:08:12 ↗ the population in the jail is a contract

3:08:14 ↗ population um it just doesn't make sense

3:08:17 ↗ to me that that

3:08:19 ↗ um that we're subsidizing these other

3:08:22 ↗ communities. and I think it's a great

3:08:23 ↗ service we have and I think it it's

3:08:24 ↗ great for our community to have it, but

3:08:26 ↗ I don't want to pay for our contract

3:08:28 ↗ cities. So, that's point number one.

3:08:30 ↗ Point number two is around uh capital

3:08:32 ↗ recovery and the long term. I think when

3:08:35 ↗ we're going to hit a a point uh maybe

3:08:37 ↗ it's 15 years from now, maybe it's 20

3:08:39 ↗ years from now when the jail is going to

3:08:41 ↗ need to be rebuilt. But that's a I think

3:08:43 ↗ a decision for 20 years from now. And

3:08:46 ↗ right now we need to make sure that we

3:08:47 ↗ are doing the we are factoring in the

3:08:50 ↗ cost of maintenance and enhancements to

3:08:52 ↗ the jail and that we factor those into

3:08:55 ↗ the cost and also into the rates. So

3:08:58 ↗ thanks and fun presentation really

3:09:01 ↗ interesting.

3:09:06 ↗ Um, well, I agree with a lot that a lot

3:09:09 ↗ of what's been said, so I won't um share

3:09:12 ↗ everything I was going to say also

3:09:13 ↗ because the hour is late, but I do just

3:09:15 ↗ want to say like I don't know how you

3:09:17 ↗ did all of this and all the work you did

3:09:20 ↗ on the community survey and the

3:09:21 ↗ performance measures and the meaningful

3:09:23 ↗ progress you've made in the loneliness

3:09:25 ↗ and social social isolation epidemic and

3:09:29 ↗ everything that you do behind the scenes

3:09:30 ↗ that we don't see. like you truly are

3:09:33 ↗ like one of the most remarkable local

3:09:35 ↗ government professionals I've ever

3:09:36 ↗ known. Like crazy. Like anyways, um I'll

3:09:39 ↗ stop gushing, but um also like the best

3:09:43 ↗ like crash course on jail operations

3:09:45 ↗ I've ever received on the council too.

3:09:47 ↗ Like super helpful um and the most

3:09:49 ↗ detailed characterization of um how

3:09:52 ↗ we're subsidizing jail costs to others

3:09:54 ↗ um that I have or at least I certainly

3:09:56 ↗ hadn't appreciated how large that gap

3:09:58 ↗ was until I read your memo. So anyways,

3:10:01 ↗ thank you for that. I agree also with

3:10:04 ↗ the recommendation to follow option two.

3:10:06 ↗ Um monitor, see if rates help or hurt,

3:10:08 ↗ right? Um add improvements and then kind

3:10:10 ↗ of re-evaluate start of 2026 or sometime

3:10:13 ↗ early 2026. Is the idea there? Um I also

3:10:15 ↗ agree with council member Ray that we

3:10:17 ↗ should push and find out where that

3:10:19 ↗ desired rate should sit. Um I mean we'll

3:10:22 ↗ learn more this year like you said in

3:10:24 ↗ terms of kind of how our rate um

3:10:26 ↗ increase um impacts contract cities and

3:10:29 ↗ others. Um but yeah, I would support

3:10:32 ↗ finding out where that sits and also I'm

3:10:34 ↗ very interested in this idea um in terms

3:10:37 ↗ of next steps of like working with our

3:10:39 ↗ neighboring cities and in the region

3:10:41 ↗ like is there some sort of regional

3:10:43 ↗ approach whether it's a facility or

3:10:45 ↗ whether it's just additional supports

3:10:46 ↗ and kind of the mental and behavioral

3:10:48 ↗ health space and healthcare and

3:10:50 ↗ um cheaper than the kind of professional

3:10:54 ↗ and intergovernmental supports that we

3:10:55 ↗ get right now. like that sounds really

3:10:57 ↗ exciting and we should be leading and

3:10:59 ↗ pushing in that space for sure.

3:11:02 ↗ Um I think I agree with what you said

3:11:05 ↗ too about that like the capital needs

3:11:07 ↗ like that is a future decision. It's

3:11:08 ↗ just something that kind of haunts me.

3:11:10 ↗ It seems like a large dollar item and if

3:11:12 ↗ it's going to make our decision in the

3:11:15 ↗ future inevitable like there's always a

3:11:17 ↗ question in the back of my head of like

3:11:19 ↗ well what are we doing? Why aren't we

3:11:20 ↗ just making the jump if we know that's

3:11:22 ↗ where we're headed? But I think you've

3:11:24 ↗ got the right analysis for right now in

3:11:26 ↗ terms of let's stick with with with the

3:11:28 ↗ value we know um that we provide for the

3:11:30 ↗ community and then have that

3:11:31 ↗ conversation when we get there. Um uh

3:11:34 ↗ and the only other thing I wanted to add

3:11:35 ↗ to there's a policy question around

3:11:37 ↗ whether or not to um uh book only

3:11:40 ↗ mandatory. Um I think you're hearing at

3:11:43 ↗ least so far some consensus around

3:11:45 ↗ continuing to book both u mandatory and

3:11:48 ↗ non-mandatory offenses.

3:11:50 ↗ Um, I don't think that moving away from

3:11:54 ↗ booking non-mandatory offenses would be

3:11:56 ↗ an acceptable solution in our community.

3:11:58 ↗ I mean, we hear this kind of thing all

3:12:00 ↗ the time. Other communities let people

3:12:02 ↗ go. How could they? Like, it's something

3:12:04 ↗ I hear all the time from people, right?

3:12:06 ↗ So, and you know, that's a real policy

3:12:08 ↗ tool to discourage the organized retail

3:12:10 ↗ theft, which was such a huge problem a

3:12:12 ↗ few years ago. Um, and then also a good

3:12:13 ↗ point, um, Chief Swan, that you brought

3:12:15 ↗ up about like officer retention, too.

3:12:18 ↗ like they don't want to be driving all

3:12:19 ↗ the way over there and back. So, um,

3:12:22 ↗ ruling out options 3B and and 4B make

3:12:24 ↗ makes sense to me.

3:12:29 ↗ Thanks. Thank you again for this great

3:12:33 ↗ presentation.

3:12:34 ↗ Um, I would be supportive of continuing

3:12:37 ↗ to explore option number two. I would

3:12:39 ↗ ask uh and um that we continue to talk

3:12:42 ↗ to the court about their value um to the

3:12:45 ↗ system that they see for the jail being

3:12:48 ↗ here. Um also uh explore the regional

3:12:53 ↗ partnership for a jail. Um, back in the

3:12:56 ↗ old days, uh, 20 years ago in 2004 when

3:13:00 ↗ I was on the regional law, safety and

3:13:01 ↗ justice committee, we were talking about

3:13:04 ↗ sharing regional assets and we talked

3:13:06 ↗ and talked and talked and after about 2

3:13:09 ↗ years, we decided the one asset that we

3:13:11 ↗ would share would be the King County

3:13:13 ↗ helicopter and people could call on them

3:13:16 ↗ and, you know, get some help. We

3:13:17 ↗ couldn't agree on anything else. A jail

3:13:19 ↗ is part of the conversation, etc., etc.

3:13:22 ↗ So I think we should explore it but be

3:13:24 ↗ reasonable and grounded in the fact that

3:13:27 ↗ that it will be a hard conversation to

3:13:29 ↗ have um going forward. Um just one

3:13:32 ↗ suggestion for a rate increase perhaps

3:13:34 ↗ we um explore doing a rate increase

3:13:37 ↗ based on the CPI um you know so that it

3:13:42 ↗ is a rate that's not ours that we're

3:13:44 ↗ setting but cities will see it as

3:13:47 ↗ something that's fair and something

3:13:48 ↗ that's uh transparent along the way. So,

3:13:51 ↗ I'll just throw that out there as a

3:13:52 ↗ consideration for the future. We're

3:13:55 ↗ going to run into capital challenges in

3:13:57 ↗ all different areas and the jail is no

3:13:59 ↗ different. Um, I know that the

3:14:02 ↗ administration and and all the staff are

3:14:04 ↗ thinking about that. Um, we we do need

3:14:07 ↗ to continue to devote attention to that

3:14:09 ↗ and see if there are opportunities for

3:14:11 ↗ us to um capitalize on an opportunity

3:14:14 ↗ that might be out there uh in the

3:14:16 ↗ future. So, um, good work tonight.

3:14:18 ↗ Continue to explore option two. Thank

3:14:20 ↗ you.

3:14:23 ↗ Yeah, I just want to echo everything

3:14:24 ↗ that everyone else said. You know, it's

3:14:26 ↗ pretty easy decision when the lowest

3:14:28 ↗ cost option is also one that keeps the

3:14:30 ↗ level of service that we're used to. Um

3:14:34 ↗ I definitely echo Council Member Ray in

3:14:36 ↗ saying, you know, I support increasing

3:14:37 ↗ the rates. I'd be interested to see like

3:14:40 ↗ what the rates, you know, is there a

3:14:42 ↗ model of a rate that would actually

3:14:44 ↗ reduce the subsidy to zero and what that

3:14:46 ↗ would be. Um and then you know maybe we

3:14:49 ↗ don't jump to that level next year but

3:14:51 ↗ we can know what that number would

3:14:53 ↗ actually be so that we can see you know

3:14:54 ↗ how how big the gap is. Um I also you

3:14:58 ↗ know really appreciate the that in isqua

3:15:02 ↗ you know we have these human services

3:15:03 ↗ supports um in our facilities. Um, and

3:15:07 ↗ I'd actually be curious to see if we

3:15:08 ↗ have any data on how if that affects,

3:15:10 ↗ you know, recidivism rates um and how

3:15:13 ↗ that compares to other uh jails in our

3:15:16 ↗ region to see if there's, you know, some

3:15:17 ↗ data um on how those, you know, human

3:15:20 ↗ services supports um helper community.

3:15:23 ↗ But other than that, you know, want to

3:15:25 ↗ echo what council member Hall said. I'm

3:15:27 ↗ extremely impressed that like I mean,

3:15:29 ↗ it's been like three and a half hours of

3:15:31 ↗ you presenting all the amazing work

3:15:33 ↗ you've done. So, thank you for all your

3:15:34 ↗ work.

3:15:38 ↗ Okay, I will end it off. Um, you know,

3:15:42 ↗ when I was evaluating this, as much as

3:15:45 ↗ it's a budget decision, I think it also

3:15:47 ↗ comes back to our community values. And

3:15:49 ↗ so, I was starting to think, uh, you

3:15:51 ↗ know, especially in a night when we're

3:15:53 ↗ seeing community survey results, um, the

3:15:56 ↗ community values that I was reflecting

3:15:58 ↗ as I was evaluating this was first, keep

3:16:00 ↗ our police officers on the streets. So,

3:16:03 ↗ we don't want an option that would

3:16:04 ↗ require officers to have to be

3:16:07 ↗ transporting or going long distances to

3:16:10 ↗ jails. Um, the second is we want to make

3:16:13 ↗ sure we have control of our ability to

3:16:15 ↗ enforce our laws and arrest as needed,

3:16:18 ↗ not just

3:16:19 ↗ mandatory. All that being said, I don't

3:16:22 ↗ think most Isiqua residents know we have

3:16:25 ↗ a jail, nor have all that much care

3:16:27 ↗ about it. And so, one of their biggest

3:16:29 ↗ things is going to be keep our costs

3:16:31 ↗ low.

3:16:32 ↗ And part of that is not subsidizing

3:16:36 ↗ other cities or court commitments and

3:16:39 ↗ reducing our risk of cost increases. So

3:16:43 ↗ as we go through all of that, I think

3:16:45 ↗ I'm leaning toward option two, the only

3:16:49 ↗ thing that I'm a little bit, you know,

3:16:52 ↗ presents a potential concern or

3:16:55 ↗ opportunity

3:16:57 ↗ is both the future capital facility

3:17:00 ↗ needs. And yes, I agree that is probably

3:17:02 ↗ mid to long-term, but we are evaluating

3:17:06 ↗ what we do with our current city hall

3:17:07 ↗ space. And we are considering going out

3:17:11 ↗ to residents and saying, "Look, we have

3:17:13 ↗ this

3:17:14 ↗ need. Would it make sense for us to

3:17:17 ↗ evaluate a potential cost savings of

3:17:21 ↗ eliminating the jail and being able to

3:17:24 ↗ utilize that space for police and keep

3:17:29 ↗ the top level for city

3:17:31 ↗ hall? I think that is enough of a

3:17:34 ↗ relationship to the con the current

3:17:37 ↗ conversations we're having about our

3:17:39 ↗ city hall facility needs and

3:17:42 ↗ administrative and public safety needs

3:17:44 ↗ that we need to strongly consider. You

3:17:48 ↗ know, I if say city hall northwest was

3:17:51 ↗ right next to the other building, I

3:17:54 ↗ would have had a very difficult time

3:17:56 ↗ letting that go considering we have

3:17:58 ↗ these space needs. And so I I just bring

3:18:02 ↗ that up

3:18:04 ↗ because we strongly need to

3:18:07 ↗ understand what our needs are before

3:18:10 ↗ going out to the public.

3:18:14 ↗ Um and if we could do so at the same

3:18:17 ↗ time as doing this other um adjustments

3:18:20 ↗ that we're going to make on the city

3:18:22 ↗ hall building for the um safety

3:18:26 ↗ improvements there for earthquakes and

3:18:28 ↗ such. I think that would be um

3:18:30 ↗ important. And then I will agree with

3:18:32 ↗ several of the other council members. I

3:18:34 ↗ don't think we've gone far enough to

3:18:36 ↗ increase our jail rates um to both our

3:18:39 ↗ contract cities and especially our court

3:18:40 ↗ commitments. If somebody's choosing to

3:18:42 ↗ be here, they need to pay the full fair.

3:18:44 ↗ Um and I think you've given the good

3:18:47 ↗ example of federal way. if they

3:18:49 ↗ experience $5 million of cost savings

3:18:52 ↗ from contracting with us rather than

3:18:55 ↗ SCORE, that's potentially costs that we

3:18:59 ↗ are incurring on their behalf. Um and if

3:19:02 ↗ we are able to understand what the needs

3:19:06 ↗ are of these jurisdictions, especially

3:19:08 ↗ if you indicate, you know, virtual court

3:19:11 ↗ gives them cost savings and quality

3:19:14 ↗ improvements where they don't have to

3:19:16 ↗ transport someone back and forth. That

3:19:19 ↗ could be a significant reason why

3:19:21 ↗ somebody chooses to work with us on

3:19:25 ↗ that. And so I just make sure that we're

3:19:28 ↗ looking at

3:19:31 ↗ including their cost savings as

3:19:33 ↗ potential costs that we charge in order

3:19:36 ↗ to make up the difference in some of

3:19:39 ↗ those

3:19:40 ↗ rates. Okay, I'm going to reflect back

3:19:43 ↗ to council members any other feedback we

3:19:46 ↗ want to provide at this time.

3:19:49 ↗ Okay, Dale, the end of a very long

3:19:53 ↗ meeting here on this. And might I

3:19:56 ↗ add the end of your time here for a

3:20:00 ↗ little while? For a little bit. Yeah.

3:20:02 ↗ No, just a little while. You just all of

3:20:04 ↗ that. Uh, do you have what you need,

3:20:05 ↗ city administrator Bob Quitz? Anything

3:20:08 ↗ else? Yes. Uh thank you for u all of the

3:20:12 ↗ the considerations tonight, not only for

3:20:14 ↗ the jail item, but also the survey and

3:20:16 ↗ the the performance measures. As the

3:20:18 ↗ council president indicated, uh this is

3:20:21 ↗ the last you're going to see of Dale for

3:20:23 ↗ a little while. uh she's going on

3:20:24 ↗ maternity leave uh tomorrow and uh we

3:20:28 ↗ had hoped and planned for six months

3:20:31 ↗ that this was a red circle day on the

3:20:34 ↗ calendar to uh give her the maximum

3:20:37 ↗ amount of time to work on these projects

3:20:40 ↗ um but also to make sure that we got

3:20:41 ↗ this done before her departure. So Dale,

3:20:44 ↗ thank you uh for your excellent work uh

3:20:48 ↗ es especially the jail. I mean the the

3:20:50 ↗ analysis uh is really going to be a

3:20:52 ↗ lynch pin I think for the council's

3:20:54 ↗ discussions in July u as we look at uh

3:20:57 ↗ any changes midbenium uh and also then

3:21:01 ↗ lays groundwork for future budgets. So

3:21:03 ↗ Dale thank you and best wishes we'll see

3:21:06 ↗ you in October.

3:21:10 ↗ Okay looking at that um we have good of

3:21:14 ↗ the order. Anyone have anything to bring

3:21:18 ↗ up? Okay, then I'm going to mark us

3:21:21 ↗ adjourned at 9:56 p.m. Thank you

3:21:24 ↗ everyone.

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 (6)

Barbara de Michele

Zach Hall

Kelly Jiang

Russell Joe

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh

Excused

Tola Marts